Public Health Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /topics/public-health/ Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of KFF. Fri, 25 Sep 2026 15:40:15 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.10 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Public Health Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /topics/public-health/ 32 32 257378068 Healthcare a Vague but Potent Issue for Election 2026 /podcast/what-the-health-464-midterm-election-obamacare-fraud-september-24-2026/ Thu, 24 Sep 2026 19:05:21 +0000 /?p=2289154&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2289154 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Healthcare, in particular its rising costs, is a key issue for voters in both parties this fall. But lawmakers are offering a variety of remedies on the campaign trail, suggesting that neither party has an agreed-upon approach.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has apparently backed off a plan — for now — to create a political board to review scientific grant awards from the National Institutes of Health. The pause came after public complaints from Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins of Maine, who is fighting to retain her seat and, possibly, maintain the GOP majority in the upper chamber.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Tami Luhby of CNN, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Sarah Jane Tribble of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Panelists

Tami Luhby photo
Tami Luhby CNN
Joanne Kenen photo
Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico
Sarah Jane Tribble photo
Sarah Jane Tribble Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Read Sarah's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • A new KFF-AP rural-voter polling project found that affordability issues are central concerns in rural America. Overall, 48% of rural voters say the economy is worse off than it was at the start of President Donald Trump’s term, and healthcare is one of the key pain points. Findings also indicate that among rural voters — historically a strong Trump constituency — about half still approve of the president’s job performance. Some of these voters, though, said they may sit this election out. That’s notable because the midterms are often determined by who shows up.
  • The Trump administration is pushing its anti-fraud agenda as an election issue, using it as a counternarrative to Democrats’ complaints that Republicans’ refusal to extend covid-era Affordable Care Act subsidies led to a large drop in ACA enrollment this year. This week, Vice President JD Vance announced that the administration was cutting 750,000 more enrollees from Obamacare, alleging they are fraudulently enrolled.
  • Despite early suggestions that the administration would back away from the anti-vaccine views pushed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., both he and Trump this past week continued to push anti-vaccine efforts. Kennedy was the keynote speaker at the conference of the anti-vaccine organization he helped found, while Trump in an Oval Office event suggested that currently administered childhood vaccines be divided into five separate doses.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “The Drugs and Devices Have Been on the Market for Years. But FDA-Ordered Studies Still Aren’t Done,” by David Hilzenrath.

Tami Luhby: The Wall Street Journal’s “,” by Liz Essley Whyte.

Joanne Kenen: Slate’s “,” by Molly Olmstead.

Sarah Jane Tribble: Stat’s “,” by John Wilkerson.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and The Associated Press’ “Economic Frustration Tests Trump’s Standing With Rural Voters, New KFF-AP Poll Finds,” by Sarah Jane Tribble, Ali Swenson, and Linley Sanders.
  • Axios’ “,” by Caitlin Owens and Adriel Bettelheim.
  • The Washington Post’s “,” by Dan Diamond and Riley Beggin.
  • The Washington Post’s “,” by Dan Diamond and Riley Beggin.
  • KFF’s “,” by Matt McGough, Lynne Cotter, Justin Lo, Imani Telesford, Ashley Ferguson, Avni Gupta, and Juliette Cubanski.
Click to open the transcript Transcript: Healthcare a Vague but Potent Issue for Election 2026

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using transcription software. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Sept. 24, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Tami Luhby of CNN. 

Tami Luhby: Hello. 

Rovner: Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Sarah Jane Tribble. 

Sarah Jane Tribble: Good to be here. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but plenty of news. So let’s dive right in. We’re less than six weeks away from the midterm elections, and healthcare, particularly its rising cost, is shaping up as a top issue for voters. Sarah, I want to start with you this week because you’re part of a new polling project that KFF is doing with the AP, looking at rural voters. What did our new poll find about rural voters and their views on healthcare? 

Tribble: Yeah. Well, the big headline is that 48% of rural voters believe the economy is worse off now, and that leads into healthcare because their key pain points are, not surprisingly, gas, groceries, and healthcare. Those all rank right up above 60% of those who are polled. They polled about 2,200 roughly rural Americans across the U.S. in August, mid-August. So this is a very fresh poll, only focused on rural Americans, which, as we know, is a key voting bloc for [President Donald] Trump and the Republican Party. 

Rovner: So … the rural voters tend to be more heavily Republican, right? 

Tribble: Yeah, they tend to skew Republican. Yep. 

Rovner: But there are fewer of them. So, but they’re a key voting bloc. … What did they find in terms of, you know, their continued support for President Trump and Republicans in general? 

Tribble: Yeah. So, you know, it was an interesting survey in the nuance. And what I love about this, and I’ve been covering rural America for four or five years now, exclusively, and there is a lot of nuance in rural America. It’s not a monolith, right? There’s lots of different people. So, while 48% of rural voters believe the economy is worse off now, about half also still approve of Trump’s job performance. And so what we’re finding is the Republicans — I talked to one expert, Tim Slack at the Louisiana State University. He’s a sociology professor. He’s written some books. What he said was he expects Republicans to sit this one out. And we talked to an array of Republicans, and that’s sort of what we heard. And you’ll have to read our story, but that’s pretty much what’s in there. 

Rovner: I will link to the story. But that’s really important because I mean one of the things we know about midterms, it’s not just who supports who and who opposes who, but who actually shows up to vote, right? 

Tribble: Right. Yeah. And what was really interesting for me, personally — and it’s, like, one of my colleagues and I were talking, and he was like, “You have a front-row seat to the elections,” because, you know, rural Americans, they too tend to come out to vote. They skew older, and they tend to be voters, right? But when I talked to the Democrats, they were certainly going to the polls. They definitely knew who they were voting for. But the Republicans I talked to, for the most part, were very sort of like, Well, I’ll definitely vote for this Republican, but maybe not my Senate seat, because I’m not happy with them. So it was a really interesting sort of pause that they would give. 

Rovner: So yeah, it’s an early indication, as we say. Well, healthcare is also playing a role in several high-profile Senate races. Michigan, of course, is a top one, pitting Democrat Abdul El-Sayed, a longtime backer of “Medicare for All,” against Republican Mike Rogers, a former House member who is touting price transparency as his health platform. But health is also showing up in Iowa, where Republican Rep. Ashley Hinson says she’ll fight Big Insurance, while Democrat Josh Turek says he’ll fight Big Pharma. And in Ohio, where Democratic former senator and Affordable Care Act sponsor Sherrod Brown is pushing to rein in insurance company denials, while Republican opponent Jon Husted is both vowing to overhaul the Affordable Care Act and restore the expanded subsidies that expired last year, at least temporarily. So it looks like , but in many different pieces. Am I sort of reading this right? 

Kenen: I think, rather than being a healthcare election in great big capital letters — which we’ve all lived through a number of those, both in the primaries and in the generals — I think it’s falling under this larger affordability issue. Like, I think that it now has a whole bunch of dollar signs instead of vowels. And I think healthcare is a big concern for people. We hear about it every day, but it’s part of this longer, Oh my God, life is just too, too, too expensive. And then there’s also this big … distrust of big things, including Big Pharma, Big Insurance, big everything. Right? At the same time, this is a really fast-moving political environment. Well, we all know that since, you know, by the end of the day, it feels like 20 years. And the issue, which started out as the data center issues; it’s now a larger existential fear of AI, and what is going to be done about it, and who is afraid. So this is a really shifting election. Like, what is going to motivate people? And what happens is even more un- … I mean, elections are unpredictable by definition, and this is going to be … like, if it was right today, the Democrats would be extremely happy. But who knows how many news cycles we go through between today and tomorrow? So yes, it’s a healthcare election, but we’re not calling it a healthcare election. 

Rovner: I was more thinking that it’s … 

Kenen: I mean, existential, getting wiped out is a health issue! 

Rovner: I was more thinking, though, that neither party actually has a health platform. I’m sort of struck by how Democrats and Republicans are all talking about health, but they’re all talking about different pieces of it, because we know that within each party there are differences in what they want to do about healthcare. 

Luhby: Right, and I think that’s one of the main issues. I mean, the Democrats are talking about how they want to extend the expired Affordable Care Act premium subsidies, which caused a lot of premiums to go up for many millions of people, but they also want to reverse the Medicaid cuts and the [One] Big Beautiful Bill. But then you also have the other side, where they’re talking about Medicare for All among the progressives, so they’re sort of split within themselves, and they don’t have exactly a unified message. And the Republicans are on the ropes this year on healthcare, as they have been in other elections. And this year, you know, they don’t want to highlight all of the cuts that they’ve made. So they’re highlighting, you know, their efforts to fight fraud. We saw [Vice President JD] Vance’s announcement earlier this week, and they’re touting, many of them are touting the Rural Health Transformation Fund, the $50 billion fund that was in the Big Beautiful Bill, without saying that the Medicaid cuts are going to affect rural America far more than the transformation fund will help them. 

Tribble: Yeah, one of the interesting findings in the research study — so, this Rural Health Transformation Program is something I’ve been following pretty closely — and one of the interesting findings in it for rural America is they pretty much hadn’t heard of it. 

Rovner: So for all of that effort! 

Luhby: Yeah, that’s surprising because so many of the candidates in that, you know, area are touting it on the trail. 

Tribble: Yeah, well, and at the same time, though, they also pretty much hadn’t heard of Medicaid changes either. Even people I talked to who had kids enrolled in Medicaid said they were pretty much unaware — maybe some cuts were coming. I did talk to a former hospital worker who said, “Yeah, it’s going to hurt a lot of people.” But she was a Democrat. Most of the people I talked to were unaware of Medicaid, and they also were unaware of the Rural Health Transformation Program and its impact. So I don’t know where that leaves the Republicans, but their messaging just isn’t getting out there on at least the RHT. 

Rovner: Well, to pick up on what Tami … oh, Joanne, go ahead. 

Kenen: I think people are just very overwhelmed, like, I don’t think — it’s really hard to know, like, people have these gut feelings and these sort of ideological identities, but everybody’s so overwhelmed by everything right now. I even wonder with the polls, like, who even answers their cellphone for it? We already made the shift from landline to cellphones, right? I mean, everybody is just swamped, and some people have just tuned out, and some people just can’t absorb everything that’s out there. So I don’t think voters are that well informed about the facts. I think a lot of people vote on guts and, you know, sort of gut feelings, and I think that’s always been true to a certain extent. But … you can’t poll on whether people are paying attention to polls. 

Luhby: One thing that an expert told me a couple of years ago that I thought was really, you know, insightful was the fact that people see their gas prices every time they fill up or every time they pass the gas station. They see the increase in grocery prices every time they go to, you know, buy food or go to a restaurant or so. But they only see their healthcare increases when they need care, or maybe once a month for the premium. So, you know, I think you were right, Joanne, when you said that the healthcare is now sort of lumped into a larger issue of affordability. But the affordability crisis that people are really seeing daily or weekly are gas and groceries, not necessarily healthcare. 

Tribble: In my interviews, what I noticed was people — I would like call people, and they were … one guy was at the gas station who was filling up his truck, right? A grandmother talked about how much her groceries were and how her gas and grocery bill every week was $200, which was just a lot for just her, right, in Iowa. And so it’s very salient to them and very tangible, like you said, Tami, that those costs are right in front of them. And, frankly, it should not be overlooked that for a lot of people, they don’t pay attention to diesel prices, but diesel prices have a huge impact on people in rural America, especially, not only because they’re using it for their trucks and the farming equipment, but they just use it more. So these affordability issues, these pocketbook issues and concerns, the messaging on that is not positive for either party right now. 

Kenen: And you don’t have to message. You just have to pull out your wallet, right? I mean, all of us can afford our groceries, but I’m aware. I mean, when you go into the store, you see. I mean, I think even people who are not pressed are shopping differently, and thinking differently. So, I mean, I think people aren’t necessarily paying attention to the messaging, but they are paying attention to the lived experience, which, as Tami said, you see on every gas station every time you drive by. Even if you’re in an EV [electric vehicle], you’re aware of it. 

Rovner: So, also, as Tami said, the administration seems to be pushing its fraud agenda as its big health issue. As you mentioned, Vice President JD Vance had a press conference Tuesday to announce that the administration is canceling the ACA [Affordable Care Act] policies of more than three-quarters of a million people, who the administration suspects are fraudulently enrolled in the program. Now, one of their indications is that these enrollees haven’t filed a claim. But I did a little digging, and, according to our Peterson-Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health [System] Tracker, it’s not at all unusual for people not to file a claim. First of all, most people are healthy most of the time. The bottom half of the population only accounts for 3% of healthcare spending. By comparison, the top 5% account for 50% of healthcare spending. Also, those with the cheapest plans tend to have the biggest deductibles, and now the average Affordable Care Act deductible is nearly $4,000. So even if you do have a medical expense, you’re likely not to bother to file a claim that you know isn’t going to be covered. So I know fraud is one of the really big Republican answers to rising healthcare costs this year, but is it really good politics to announce you’re taking away people’s health insurance, like, the month before people go to the polls? 

Luhby: Well, I mean, again, they’re saying that they’re actually not taking away health insurance. If you listen to the press conference, both Vice President Vance and CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] Administrator Mehmet Oz said that a lot of these people are phantom enrollees. That this is all just fraud. That brokers and agents, you know, seeking higher commissions, signed up people who don’t necessarily exist. And they argued that other people may not have known that they had ACA insurance, or they may not be eligible, so therefore they don’t qualify. Now, I’m not necessarily justifying that, but that’s what they’re arguing. They’re not saying they’re ripping it away from, you know, people who, you know, should be on the plans. And then, you know, they are taking some measures against fraud. They’re suspending brokers and agents who are suspected of fraud. They’re going to be more strict with the guidelines. But interestingly, they’re also putting a moratorium on new brokers and agents, which could make it harder for people to sign up in coming months. You know, as you said, Julie, open enrollment. Well, you had said it’s right before the election. It’s also right before open enrollment starts on Nov. 1. So, you know, I think there are probably a lot of brokers and agents, and, of course, the government navigators out there to help people. But, you know, it’s possible that some people may not be able to be helped as quickly because there is now this moratorium. But the discussion of the nonmedical claims, which Dr. Oz also really focused on, is coming from Paragon [Health Institute], which is run by Brian Blase, who was, you know, is a conservative health policy leader and was involved in the first Trump administration, and he’s definitely very involved in this administration as well. 

Rovner: And I actually saw some pushback about that, you know, how they are counting people who don’t file a claim. I saw some pushback from the insurance industry that said, you know, they’re double-counting some of these. If you’ve changed plans, if you, you know, even if you were only in a plan for a month and you didn’t file a claim, they’re looking at that as you having been enrolled in that plan all year. So yes, there definitely is some fraud. We’ve known this since my colleague Julie Appleby helped uncover what was going on back in, I think, 2023, definitely in 2024. The Biden administration addressed this; the Trump administration has also already addressed this. But it seems unlikely that they’re going to revoke, you know, 750,000 policies and all of those are going to be phantom enrollees, or people who didn’t know they had coverage. There’s going to be some number of those people who have insurance and assume they have insurance, or who assumed they had insurance and may go to use their insurance and find they no longer have it. 

Luhby: Right, and that is, I mean, people have definitely been concerned that some, you know, legitimate enrollees will be caught up on this. And you know that was a question that actually came up in the press conference, and they said, “Well, you know, we worked really hard. We sent FedEx letters. We tried to contact them. We knocked on doors. We went to their houses.” You know, I don’t know if they or the insurers actually did that, but yeah, there are people who are concerned that just giving people 30 days to respond and prove they’re real may not be enough. 

Kenen: On the politics level, there’s the two fighting messages, which is, you know, We’re getting rid of the crooks and the fraudsters, right? And then there’s the, more on the Democratic side, They’re taking, they’re ripping health insurance out of people’s hands. And the truth is, there’s, you know, Julie, you all just said, you know, there is fraud out there, and we all know that, and none of us are, I mean, we don’t want to be endorsing fraud. But there’s a policy reason, too. Some of these people who are supposedly not making claims are healthy. You know, like, they just didn’t get sick this year. Doesn’t mean they won’t get sick next year or be in a car accident, or what else? But right now, it’s good for insurance risk pools, it’s good for the ACA, to have healthy people in it. So the idea that we’re going to look for people who don’t have health claims and kick out the healthiest ones is just going to raise costs for the sick ones. It’s what they call the death spiral, right, or the insurance death spiral. So …  

Rovner: And it already is raising costs. We know that. 

Kenen: Right. Right. So, I mean, there’s something like, on a policy basis, yes, go for the fraud. Make sure it’s really fraud. Stop talking about the individual — although the CMS press release was balanced, it was really, it did not talk about crooked recipients. It really did talk … I went back and read it, because politicians talk about it differently. But the CMS press release was about brokers and fraud on the business side. It wasn’t blaming the individuals. But people hear “fraud,” and, you know, get away from that. Figure out where the fraud is and where the need is and what the smart economic policy — knowing what we know about insurance — is, and don’t do things that are going to raise costs as you scream “fraud.” 

Tribble: I guess the question I had actually was, you know, I did not cover this announcement, and, Tami, it sounds like maybe you did, but did they say they were cutting subsidies, or are they canceling the arrangements with the individuals? Like, are they working with the insurance companies, or are they just canceling? I don’t quite understand the actual practical implication of it, basically, what’s happening. 

Luhby: That’s also one thing that’s not 100% clear. 

Rovner: Yeah, I went back and watched, and yeah, it was all a little bit vague. So, we will see how this plays out. But I guarantee there are going to be people who are not fraudulent who are going to get caught up in this, because there always are. All right. 

Kenen: And there’s some people who don’t exist. I mean, there probably really are some phantoms. 

Rovner: And absolutely, I mean, I’m sure there are a lot of phantoms. I don’t doubt that. 

Tribble: And before you leave the topic, Julie, I think it bears pointing out that all of this is happening, this announcement comes just as people are looking at that open enrollment and looking at their premiums and deductibles and copays going up on the marketplace as well. So it’s just an onslaught against these ACA plans at this point. 

Rovner: That’s right. And one of the things we know is that it’s not the greedy insurance companies, as some politicians are saying. Healthcare costs are going up, and therefore premiums across the board in the ACA, in Medicare, in employer health insurance, premiums are going up everywhere. We’re seeing that this year.  

All right, moving on. Over the summer, we talked about a regulation from the White House Office of Management and Budget that would impose a layer of political oversight over the grant process, pretty much across the government. Congress has blocked that regulation, at least until December. But late last week, The Washington Post reported that the administration was preparing an executive order to create a political oversight committee just for grants from the National Institutes of Health, basically trying to ensure that all biomedical research funding advances the president’s priorities. It appears, as of Wednesday, the administration is backing off on that, after Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins of Maine, who’s battling to keep her seat and with it the possible Republican majority in the entire Senate, she complained publicly about this. But what would it mean if the administration actually follows through with such an overt politicization of the scientific grant process? 

Tribble: I mean the power to veto the awards that the National Institutes of Health gives, the huge research portfolio that they have, and use politics to veto that, I mean, it’s just a really interesting battle going on because [NIH Director Jay] Bhattacharya, he, you know, he has long been an advocate of some of these policies that, or these research programs, that are focused on minority populations. So it’s interesting to watch play out. It’ll be interesting to see what the next step is for the administration. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, according to several news sources, I think this was , there was a big fight in the Oval Office last week with Jay Bhattacharya, the head of NIH, a former researcher who’s received NIH grants, and Russell Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget, who’s behind this effort to put a political layer of approval on top of the grant-making process. And, according to the stories, Vought won. Although now … after Susan Collins wrote a strongly worded letter, that I actually snidely said, “Well, this isn’t going to have much impact.” Clearly, it did. So I was wrong. And again, as I point out, Collins is also is embattled right now and needs to keep her seat. And it would behoove the administration for Collins to keep her seat and keep the Republican majority. But, you know, there seems to be a lot of pushing and pulling in this administration about, you know, how much they want to try and basically take away Congress’ ability to determine how this money gets spent. It’s $47 billion for NIH every year, and Congress has long, you know, bipartisanly, maintained that they get to determine how that money is spent, not the administration. They say, You’re going to spend it this way. The administration’s job is to do that. 

Kenen: The other thing is this fight, you know, which Collins has won for now, this panel overseeing your final review of grants, is not the politicization of science. The politicization of science started on Jan. 20 of 2025. NIH grants have been cut. We’ve all seen the wars. You know, like, “wars” is not too strong a word between the administration and leading research universities. The funding that’s been cut. Those are very NIH-funded institutions — Harvard being the one that’s sort of most in the headlines consistently, but it’s not just Harvard. There’s a list of banned words that if, you know, “diversity” and things like that, that you can’t get funded for. So there’s all sorts of politicization of science that has already occurred, that has been, is occurring every single day. This would have taken it to another level. Collins, for now, has won, and she has some — there’s a few other voices speaking up. I noticed that Sen. [Dave] McCormick, from — I believe … I’m saying his name right, Julie, correct me. I’m going to say that again. If it’s wrong, tell me later. I believe Sen. McCormick of Pennsylvania, a Republican of Pennsylvania, has and some statements saying, you know, science is important. Science cures. Science also is great for our economy. Science is a driver of … the ROI [return of investment] on NIH is high. So the politicization isn’t starting. … This was an attempt to escalate it, and we’ll see where it goes. I mean, Collins has been pretty consistent on this. She did get the temporary blockage of related proposals … 

Rovner: The regulation, yeah. 

Kenen: Yeah. So this has been a consistent issue for her, and, you know, I think she’s been successful so far. 

Rovner: Well, I think, and I’m so glad that you said that. You know, this all, the politicization of science started when this administration, you know, took office because I think that’s been one of the undercovered stories, really, of last year and this year, about how the nation’s entire biomedical research establishment is struggling under not just the cuts and the delays imposed by the administration, but the uncertainty and their inability to plan. The Harvard Crimson has two interesting stories this week related to this. In one, the Harvard School of Public Health is considering approaching some major health corporations, including UnitedHealthcare and CVS/Aetna, to help make up for the federal funding cuts that they’ve seen. Just two days later, the Crimson reported that three current and former Harvard researchers, one each from the medical school, the School of Public Health, and the Kennedy School of Government, are all leaving Harvard to go to Canadian universities. We’ve talked about a potential brain drain before, as European universities kind of upped their recruiting of American scientists. Are we actually seeing this exodus start? I mean, biomedical research, as you pointed out, Joanne, you know, the return on investment for biomedical research in this country has been huge. This is an enormous and bipartisan engine of economic development in this country, and people are sort of not paying attention as it’s kind of crumbling. 

Kenen: It’s not just scientists either. I mean, first of all, it’s not just Harvard. There are academics from across the country. I do not have the numbers. I can’t cite you an … accurate number. But scientists, researchers, and the social sciences and humanities too. I mean, there are academics, not just the international ones, who have to go home for some of the students, but the American academics in science and non-science have left the country in numbers that are worth paying attention to. Although it’s not like they’ve all gotten into, like, you know Noah’s Ark. … But the other thing is it’s not just future science. They have cut large numbers of clinical trials that were already underway, which means that we’ve lost the investment we already made, and that people, you know, who’ve been given their time and volunteered for these trials also don’t get, they got cut off from them. So, I mean, I just — it’s not a left-right thing. I just don’t understand the common sense of stopping a cancer trial midway or stopping an Alzheimer’s trial or anything else midway and throwing out the money and the knowledge, because these are not partisan. Republicans and Democrats agree that cancer is bad, you know, like Republicans and Democrats, and I dare say independents, don’t want to get Alzheimer’s or see their loved ones get Alzheimer’s. I’ve just never totally understood why this has been seen by top officials in the Trump administration as a good thing. 

 

Tribble: I mean, I think we need to go back to what you said, Joanne, which is January 2025. There were two executive orders on “woke” things, right? Diversity, inclusion, and all that. And I have not been focused on these particular grants, but I’ve been writing about the Digital Equity Act from a broadband standpoint that affects, you know, tons of rural Americans and their ability to do telehealth, for example, and things like that. And that act has been under fire from President Trump, and they have been using those executive orders as a way to sort of attack not only science and research and the things that we watch here with the federal agencies, but across the board in the administration. If it’s considered a “woke” mandate, they’ve gone after it. So I think we do have to go back to that and look at those executive orders and say that’s the game plan. Right? And so I just wanted to note that. I do think these grants have been undercovered. I think this research has been undercovered. But I also think across the board with this administration, those executive orders have had a large impact. 

Rovner: Yeah, you know, we talk about how executive orders don’t have the power of law. Although, I will say, in this administration, executive orders have had a lot of power to actually do things, as we’ve pointed out, sometimes maybe not legally. You know, sometimes we’ve had courts step in to stop them. But this administration has always been: Do it first and ask permission later. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We’ll be right back. 

So I am old enough to remember when we were told that Republican pollsters told the White House to stop talking about — and stop HHS [Health and Human Services] Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from talking about — vaccines, because anti-vax sentiment wasn’t popular with voters. Well, that advice didn’t seem to age well. Last week, we had RFK Jr. giving the keynote at a conference of the group Children’s Health Defense. That’s the anti-vax organization he helped found. In his hourlong-plus speech, Kennedy told the group that it has a “strong and steadfast friend” in Donald Trump, among other things, and promised new studies into the effects of electromagnetic fields and contrails, the water vapor clouds emitted by jets. Meanwhile, Trump himself doubled down on his earlier vaccine comments — this time, urging the drugmakers divide regular doses of vaccines into five separate doses. It’s not clear which vaccines he was talking about. In an effort to reduce autism, this, despite the fact that vaccine doses are carefully tested already, and there is no evidence that any vaccine or combination of vaccines has anything to do with causing autism. Do they care more about the anti-vaccine base and maybe getting them out to vote, or do they just not care that much about the majority of voters who believe that vaccines are, on balance, you know, a good thing? 

Tribble: I mean, I think that they are out campaigning, right? Like they are worried about the midterms, and they have sent Kennedy out to rural areas, in particular, which is why I know about this, to campaign on this. He’s been in Iowa trying to draw that MAHA crowd. So the anti-vax movement is part of the Make America Healthy Again movement, and it’s true that more people tend to believe that they can favor Make America Healthy Again — they tend to be folks who are also in the Make America Great Again camp, too, and have that identity. So if they can gin up the base, then I think they’re going to try to do that before November. 

Rovner: Yeah, back to what we were talking about at the beginning. It’s all a matter of who turns out. 

Kenen: The health part of, not MAGA, but MAHA is not all anti-vax, right? And some surveys have shown that many of them do vaccinate their children. And they’re concerned about pesticides. They’re concerned about ultraprocessed foods. They’re concerned about other things that, you know, many people would actually agree on, although they may identify more with the MAHA movement. So even within MAHA … they don’t all agree with Kennedy on vaccines. But I mean, I agree with Sarah. The timing of this and the intensity of this, as people are dying from measles, which Kennedy says they’re not — I think they see that in certain counties or areas of the country, the rejuvenation of the anti-vax conversation and orders and so forth is probably a voter intensity issue for them. Trump has never called for no vaccines. Trump has never said polio vaccine was a fake. I mean, he hasn’t gone anywhere near. He’s really in that, sort of, we have to change how we vaccinate, rather than we don’t want any vaccinations. He’s the changing the dose, smaller, you know. And of course, he exaggerates it. You know, those of us who have kids, they’ve never had a syringe the size of a vat. We don’t put vats of chemicals into our children. … I mean, how would they fit? I mean, very small babies. You know, you can put the baby in a vat, but you can’t put a vat in a baby. I mean, I agree that the timing is very political, and, you know, there were rumors a few months ago — not even a few months ago — there were rumors a few weeks ago that Kennedy would be out after the elections, and that, you know, Oz might go in. Now, interestingly, Oz has gone on TV and said the measles vaccine is good. Your child, you know, there’s measles out there. Get your kid vaccinated. But he’s not as loud as Kennedy. 

Rovner: Or as visible. Well, meanwhile, as we are taping today, the president’s nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration, White House health policy aide Heidi Overton, is appearing before the Senate HELP [Health, Education, Pensions, and Labor] Committee for her confirmation hearing. It’s only just starting, so we will pick up on what happened there next week.  

Next up are drug prices. President Trump last Friday held yet another event at which he bragged about lowering drug prices. But I keep wondering: Has he really? Yes, drug prices are down a bit — not the 80% or 90% that Trump likes to say. It’s more like 3%. And analysts say at least some of that is due to the Medicare negotiations that were put in place under President [Joe] Biden, but are just now taking effect. So it’s not at all clear how much is due to the deals the president says he’s striking with these drug companies. Public Citizen actually got hold of some of the documents, and the agreements are pretty vague. I guess the big question is whether the public will believe the president when he says he’s lowered drug prices or whether they’ll believe what they see when they go to the pharmacy counter. Back to, again, back to what we were saying earlier. You know, it’s hard to talk about gas prices going down when every time you get in your car and drive, you see them on a big sign. I mean, I guess drug prices might be a little bit easier because not everybody takes drugs. But I’m wondering whether the people who do are believing him when he says this. 

Luhby: Right, and this has been, you know, one of his mantras in the first administration as well as now. And I fact-checked both his comments on that drug prices have been down this year and that we have the lowest prices in the world now, which is another thing that he loves to say. He loves to say that he’s strong-armed Germany and France and other European countries to lower their drug prices, which …  

Rovner: No, to raise their drug prices. 

Luhby: I’m sorry, to raise their drug prices, right? That we’re benefiting because now other countries are paying more and, you know, shouldering more of the burden. And, you know, the international experts that I’ve spoken to say there’s no evidence of that. So no, generally … you mentioned that the drug prices are down a little bit, 3% That’s from the CPI [Consumer Price Index], from the inflation index. But, you know, most experts don’t use that. People I spoke to said that that’s a very faulty measure. It shows the total cost at the pharmacy, but that’s also what insurers pay. So, you know, whether people are paying less, it’s hard to say. And as we know … what people pay at the pharmacy counter depends on their insurance. I mean, yes, there’s deductible issues and all of that, and copay issues, but, you know, that’s a yearlong contract typically, and it depends. And even today, in fact, showing that on TrumpRx — they looked at, I think, 32 drugs, and only about half of them actually did have lower prices than, you know, another comparable country. So it’s very murky. We did get some details from the Pfizer and Eli Lilly disclosures that Public Citizen got, but it’s also very heavily redacted. And [The] Washington Post, that , said that they omit key financial terms, the negotiated prices for drugs, and other provisions, making it difficult to independently assess the agreement’s values to taxpayers or the companies. You know, and I’m sure also to patients. So, you know, it’s unclear. 

Rovner: And another thing we know is that people who follow the stock prices of these companies have suggested that it’s not going to hurt the companies very much, which suggests that it’s not going to lower the prices very much. I mean, you can’t — again, we don’t know a lot of specifics, but that’s certainly an indicator that the companies don’t think that they’re going to have to lower their prices enough to hurt their profitability. Let’s put it that way. 

Luhby: Right. Some companies have mentioned some headwinds from U.S. pricing and MFN [most-favored-nation], but it’s not been a huge issue for them. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Luhby: And from the beginning, I mean, you would think that when Pfizer started this out in September, oh, you know, if this was really a huge issue for Pfizer, their stock price would have plummeted, and, you know, that’s not the case. 

Rovner: It has not. Finally, this week, an update on that very sad and strange surrogacy case in California and Alaska and Texas. That’s where a surrogate, who was carrying a baby for a couple, wanted to keep the baby who was born with severe cardiac birth defects. That was after she, the surrogate, refused a request from the couple to terminate the pregnancy after the heart defect was detected in utero. This week, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan refused to overturn a lower-court decision allowing the baby to remain in the custody of his biological parents. This may or may not be the last word in this particular case, but I’m sure this is an issue that eventually will get heard by the high court. And good luck to the justices sorting it all out. You know, one of the difficulties that we have seen with some of these cases, with, you know, who really are parents? Is it the people who provide the genetic material or the people who carry the fetus determine what are we going to do when we have artificial wombs? And I think we’re going to go on. And Joanne, did you want to add something? 

Kenen: Yeah, most of these are state laws. Most of these surrogate cases are basically a state law, and maybe we’ll see that change. But I also think it’s important to point out that this child, the baby, was born. It does, in fact, have a heart defect, and the biological parents who got the custody, according to the court, are taking care of the baby — I forgot whether it’s a he or she — in the hospital.  

Rovner: It’s a he. 

Kenen: It’s a he, in the hospital getting the heart care. I don’t think the prognosis is great, but they are doing everything you can to make the baby as healthy and comfortable — from the press reports, I’m not in that hospital room. But this is a family that did not want to have a child with this really serious heart defect born. That is a fact. They wanted the abortion. They didn’t succeed. The courts prevented them from getting the abortion. The woman, the carrier, the gestational carrier, won that. But it is important to note that this couple is doing what I think all of us would, you know, agree: The child is getting medical care. 

Rovner: Yes. They have a baby, and they’re doing everything they can to keep him alive and get him well. 

Kenen: Other decisions get made down the road, and it’ll be their decision, you know. Hopefully, it’ll have as good an outcome as possible. It’s obviously not easy for anyone who has — I have never had a seriously ill child, but I have had friends who have. It’s unfortunate that the extra legal battle gets imposed on top of what’s, obviously, this is a family that, this is a couple who really wanted kids. You know, surrogacy is not cheap or easy or emotionally, you know, it’s difficult. And this is not a happy story for anybody. 

Rovner: It is not. All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now it is time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Tami, why don’t you go first this week? 

Luhby: OK. Well, my extra credit is an exclusive Wall Street Journal story titled “,” by Liz Essley Whyte. And, you know, we were talking about where the grant money goes. Well, some of it apparently is going for RFK security. So she noted in the story that the cost of the health secretary’s security jumped from about $10 million in the last fiscal year to $17 million this year. And what she said was striking was that HHS told Congress earlier this year that it was moving about $12 million from its Office of Minority Health to help cover the increased security costs. Now, Liz spoke to some internal unnamed sources, who told her that the secretary’s office had discretionary funds that it could have used instead, but it took the $12 million from the minority health fund to deal with across-the-board budget cuts. Now, I didn’t actually realize that this Office of Minority Health was created by President Ronald Reagan after a landmark report found that Black infants in the U.S. were more likely to die than white babies, and you know, among other disparities. And this, the office actually funds grants and efforts to close these gaps. Its budget, its annual budget, is about $74 million. So the other thing that the story noted, as we were discussing, a little different than NIH, but it said that HHS notified 16 nonprofits and universities in August that grants from the Office of Minority Health had been canceled. They were telling the nonprofits that the cancellations were due to limited funding and new priorities, and those new priorities include the root causes of infertility and reproductive health conditions, including low sperm count and erectile dysfunction. So that’s the story. I will say that an HHS spokeswoman told The Wall Street Journal: Secretary Kennedy faces much more serious, a different security environment, and that his protection reflects the threats he faces, his extensive travel, and the security required for him to safely carry out his duties nationwide. 

Rovner: OK. Joanne. 

Kenen: My friend, colleague, and co-author, Josh Sharfstein at [Johns] Hopkins, flagged this story for me, and he might have used as many exclamation points as I usually use in my email to him. It’s a Slate story. It’s quite a story. A Slate story by Molly Olmstead, and the headline is just called “” This is a long, involved story where each paragraph gets darker and more mind-boggling than the prior paragraph. The medbeds, in case any of you don’t know, are these fictitious things that Trump tweeted about — or maybe it was, I think, it was Truth Social — about a year ago, and then deleted it the next day. There’s never been an explanation. Medbeds do not exist, but they are believed, by people who think they exist, to cure all illnesses and make us all whole, healthy, probably happy … 

Rovner: And long lives!  

Kenen: … etc. Right. It’s — as the author, she calls it — a dark fantasy that we will be pain-free, that we will have forbidden knowledge, etc., etc. … Molly Olmstead decided to trace where did this come from. And her first thought was like QAnon, and then, so there’s a section about QAnon, and then .. she goes back. It wasn’t QAnon. Then she goes through New Age. She went to a yurt in Sedona, and she learned about subatomic tachyon, I’m not pronouncing it, particles, and it turns out it wasn’t even New Age. Without being a spoiler, it actually goes back to some people with rather ahead-of-their-time crazy beliefs in the 1960s! So just go read it. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s quite the read. Sarah. 

Tribble: First, I just want to say, you know, reporters like the ones you’re mentioning are just amazing. Like, the work they’re doing and that digging into the agency spending and following those trails, and that’s why I picked this other one, John Wilkerson at Stat. My extra credit is “.” Now, the reason I really like this story is John knows Medicare. He knows MedPAC [the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission]. If you’ve ever sat in that room watching MedPAC discuss things, and then you talk to the experts … find out that Medicare Advantage was supposed to save Medicare money, but never has. Right? I say go read this story. It’s a very interesting analysis, basically, of how it could help insurers, but may not actually decrease Medicare Advantage payments at all anyway. So it’s just another ball down that road, but it’s definitely worth following. And kudos to John for writing it in a way that’s a fun read. 

Rovner: My story is also from a colleague who likes to dig for things. It’s from my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague and cubicle mate, David Hilzenrath. It’s called “The Drugs and Devices Have Been on the Market for Years. But FDA-Ordered Studies Still Aren’t Done.” It’s one of those stories that has been done before but needs to be repeated every so often: that when the FDA approves something with the requirement for postmarket follow-up, that follow-up often does not happen. The FDA has, for generations, tried to walk the fine line between getting promising treatments into the hands of patients as fast as possible while still ensuring that they are safe and effective. An analysis of FDA data found that nearly 600 postmarket studies that were supposed to have [been] done have been delayed, often by years. Which means not just that some products on the market may be causing problems, but even if they’re not, they might not actually be working, which wastes money and keeps patients sick. So, hats off to my colleagues who did this analysis, too. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. You can still find me on X , or on Bluesky . Where do you folks hang around these days on the socials? Sarah? 

Tribble: I’m mostly on LinkedIn, actually. So look for me on LinkedIn: . 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m more on LinkedIn than anywhere else, too: JoanneKenen on . I’m a little bit on , and I still haven’t fixed my Twitter authenticator. 

Rovner: Tami. 

Luhby: You can find me at . 

Rovner: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Stephanie Stapleton Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2289154
Black Lung Disease Remains a Threat, but Federal Officials Delay Effort To Address It /rural-health/coal-miners-black-lung-disease-silicosis-silica-dust-pneumoconiosis-trump-west-virginia/ Thu, 24 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2284976 OAK HILL, W.Va. — Each day at New River Health in Oak Hill, Lisa Emery finds disheartening signs of what she describes as a slow-motion repeat of the Hawks Nest Tunnel disaster.

Emery is director of New River’s Breathing Center and chair of the .

The disaster she’s reminded of started in 1930, when on a 3-mile tunnel through Gauley Mountain in West Virginia. Over the course of 18 months, some 3,000 miners, most of them Black, spent long hours drilling through sandstone, engulfed in a cloud of its toxic byproduct, silica dust. More than 750 men died from that exposure.

The risk still exists, and advocates for workers say the government should do more to rein it in.

In April of last year, the Trump administration paused the enforcement of a rule designed to help protect coal miners from an aggressive form of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung disease, the primary cause of which is exposure to silica dust.

(Other occupations at high risk of include construction, countertop fabrication, and oil and gas work. The new rule would reduce the permissible limit of exposure in coal mining to the existing level in other industries.)

This April, the Labor Department’s Mine Safety and Health Administration announced an indefinite delay in enforcement of the rule.

Gary Hairston sits on New River Health’s board. For decades, Hairston, a retired coal miner and president of the national , has been an advocate for miners struggling with the debilitating effects of black lung, including extreme fatigue, an incessant cough, and a sensation of drowning. He regularly lobbies legislators for improved working conditions and black lung benefits. His entreaties, he said, seem to fall on deaf ears. He rarely gets an audience with the legislators themselves.

“I’d just like them to look me in the face,” Hairston said.

A photo of a Black man seated and facing the camera.
Gary Hairston, president of the Black Lung Association, says his lobbying of legislators for improved working conditions and black lung benefits for coal miners seems to fall on deaf ears. (Taylor Sisk for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Evidence from just-released research underscores the urgency of his appeals for a safer work environment.

In August, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an agency within the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, on the results of testing conducted over the past five years on miners in central Appalachia — eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and West Virginia — with 25 or more years underground. Almost 1 in 3 tested positive for black lung disease, the highest rate in nearly 50 years.

The rate in 2018, the last time the agency reported results, was 1 in 5. The lowest reported rate, in 1999, was less than 1 in 10.

“We knew this would happen,” said Sam Petsonk, a West Virginia attorney who has represented thousands of miners in the region. “It’s surprising to me that they only found one in three.”

Silica Dangers

Exposure to silica has increased as more-accessible coal seams are depleted, requiring mining operations to probe deeper, often through sandstone. The stone breaks into sharp particles that are than a grain of sand and, according to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health research, are than coal dust. Trapped in lung tissue, those particles can cause a debilitating, sometimes fatal condition.

Kenny Thompson, a retired West Virginia miner who now lives in Richmond, Kentucky, was employed in the mines for 22 years. He would sometimes cut into four feet of sandstone to reach a coal seam.

“You ate a lot of dust,” Thompson recalled. It induced nausea. It took a toll.

In October 2025, he had his left lung removed. Post-surgery, he was in a coma for three months; he flatlined three times, he said. “They were about to really give up on me.”

He had to relearn to walk and to talk. Trekking to the mailbox still leaves him winded, lightheaded, and blurry-eyed.

The new silica rule would cut the allowable level of silica dust in half, thereby meeting the standard of other industries. Miner advocates laud the fact that it would require operators to deploy engineering controls, such as improved ventilation systems and water sprays.

But the National Mining Association and other industry trade groups argue that reaching and maintaining compliance would also require supplementing those controls with workforce measures, such as requiring personal protection equipment and rotating miners from particularly dusty areas. Many miners, and their advocates, say such measures are impractical — because respirators can impede breathing, can limit vision, and often malfunction, and because smaller mines don’t have enough workers to support rotating schedules.

In April 2025, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay of the rule to give operators more time to comply.

In May of this year, the Labor Department sent the White House Office of Management and Budget a on the proposed rule. And in July, the department’s regulatory agenda included a new , indicating its intent to amend the rule.

The department’s Mine Safety and Health Administration “recognizes it has a clear duty under the law to impose stricter silica standards,” said Petsonk, the attorney representing coal miners. “They’re failing to provide that measure of protection to American coal miners, so they’re going through bureaucratic motions to make it seem like they’re doing something, when, in fact, they’re just perpetuating an illegal and lethal status quo.”

The Labor Department declined to comment on ongoing rulemaking or litigation.

A photo of Sam Petsonk seated at a table indoors. A laptop sits on the table in front of him.
“We knew this would happen,” West Virginia attorney Sam Petsonk says of a recently released report showing that the black lung rate for coal miners in central Appalachia is at a nearly 50-year high. (Taylor Sisk for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

‘It’s On the Books’

The rule is, in fact, in effect, said Chris Williamson, head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration in the Biden administration — it’s just not being enforced. He and his team filed a legal brief in the closing days of the administration defending the rule.

“It’s on the books,” Williamson said, adding that the prohibits weakening existing protections for miners. “I’m just genuinely curious,” he said. “I want to know how they can address the issues that the industry’s raised without weakening protections for miners.”

Meanwhile, younger miners, with a decade or less in the mines, are being diagnosed with advanced stages of black lung. New River Health’s Emery said the youngest person her clinic had diagnosed with was 30. He’d worked underground for 10 years.

This is no longer just your “papaw’s disease,” she said. “It’s your husband’s disease. It’s your son’s disease.” (More than 90% of coal miners are men.)

With families to support, Emery said, “what do these guys do when they’re disabled in their 30s?”

A photo of Lisa Emery seated indoors at a health clinic.
Lisa Emery is director of the New River Health Breathing Center in West Virginia and chair of the National Coalition of Black Lung and Respiratory Disease Clinics. She says the youngest person her clinic has diagnosed with complicated black lung was 30. (Taylor Sisk for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

She told of a man who sat in her office with his wife, describing his symptoms. As he spoke, he began to cry. His wife was taken aback. “‘I didn’t know it was that bad,’” Emery recalled her saying. “And he said: ‘That’s why I haven’t fixed the deck. I haven’t fixed the deck because I can’t breathe, and I’m just so tired.’”

Thompson can relate. “For 22 years, you’re used to getting up, putting your boots on every day, and going to work,” he said. “I’d been in great health shape and 160 pounds. And here I am now, I don’t work at all and I’m 115 pounds.”

Still, he recognizes what the job afforded.

“You know, it put my girls through college,” he said. “And to me, as a dad, that was the best reward that I can give them, to move forward in life, to be successful at what they chose to be and not work like a dog like I had to.”

President Donald Trump said in an : “Our Nation’s beautiful clean coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers.”

Six months later, the Energy Department announced a to “expand and reinvigorate America’s coal industry.”

Should the administration announce a weaker rule, it would be “an unconscionable crime against American coal miners,” Petsonk said. “But I fear that’s going to happen.”

In June, Hairston spoke at a reception for a photo exhibit titled “.”

“It seems like coal miners, we’re just a number,” he said. “Just a number.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2284976
The Drugs and Devices Have Been on the Market for Years. But FDA-Ordered Studies Still Aren’t Done. /health-industry/fda-approval-drugs-medical-devices-postmarket-studies-safety-delays-amgen-tavneos/ Fri, 18 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2275664 When the FDA was deciding whether to approve the drug Tavneos several years ago to treat a set of , agency experts argued that would be a mistake, according to .

One problem cited: The manufacturer had provided only

As it often does, the FDA in 2021 approved the drug with a proviso: It required the manufacturer to conduct an additional years-long safety study once the drug was on the market.

Today, like many similar “postmarket” studies mandated by the FDA, that additional study is delayed, according to a . As of last fall, only 21 of the planned 300 patients had been enrolled, the FDA said in an and .

Meanwhile, the FDA has dozens of cases of “possibly” or “probably causally associated” with the drug. That was one of the potential side effects the postmarket study was meant to evaluate.

Tavneos illustrates the perils of the FDA’s approach to many drugs and medical devices — and the frequent lapses in follow-through.

A Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News analysis of Food and Drug Administration data found hundreds of postmarket studies listed as delayed. In some cases, the work was delayed by more than a decade or the manufacturer was still developing a plan for the study.

As a result of delays, patients, doctors, and others could be left in a fog about the risks and benefits of the drugs or devices, even as they stake their money, their health, or their lives on the products.

Postmarket study requirements “have often proven toothless,” said cardiologist , an associate professor of medicine at the University of California-San Francisco who has published .

The FDA’s reliance on postmarket studies reflects a balancing act.

Making new treatments available faster can save or improve lives, especially when patients with grim prognoses and no good options have little to lose. The full risks and benefits may be revealed only over the long term, and when therapies are used by far more people than even large clinical trials enroll.

But relying on post-approval studies to resolve questions risks exposing patients to products that do more harm than good. Whoever is paying the bills — patients, insurance companies, employers, or government health programs such as Medicare and Medicaid — can end up wasting money and rewarding manufacturers for useless or risky products.

“Doctors rely on this evidence, patients rely on this evidence, and if that evidence is not there, it’s going to lead to a lot of uncertainty,” Dhruva said.

Trump administration policy changes designed to hasten drugs through FDA review could leave more riding on postmarket studies, medical researchers say.

For example, in February, that “the default requirement” for agency approvals will be one clinical trial instead of two.

Reducing pre-approval testing “will inevitably put a lot of pressure on the post-approval system,” said , a professor at Harvard Medical School who postmarket studies.

FDA officials said the new policy would “substantially reduce costs” for manufacturers and “speed drugs to market.” Writing in The New England Journal of Medicine, they denied the change would compromise safety or efficacy, saying that “erroneous conclusions may be reached even with two, three, or four studies.”

In response to questions for this article, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the FDA, said postmarket studies can experience delays for legitimate reasons. “Assessing the significance of any delay requires a case-specific review,” said the spokesperson, Emily Hilliard.

The fact that a study is delayed “should not be treated as evidence that a product has an unresolved safety or effectiveness issue,” Hilliard said.

Amgen, the company that makes Tavneos, is still working on the postmarket research the FDA mandated, company spokesperson Alison Chartan said, adding, “We remain committed to completing this important study.”

An aerial photo shows a large company headquarters with various buildings.
Amgen’s headquarters in Thousand Oaks, California, in May 2023. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Behind Schedule

An FDA database downloaded by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News in August tracks the progress of postmarket studies that makers of — such as vaccines and gene therapies — were required to perform or promised to perform.

The database showed almost 600 were running behind schedule.

Of those, more than 250 originally had final reports due before July 31, 2026 — the date that, according to an FDA webpage, the database last had been updated.

About a third of ongoing studies were listed as delayed.

In some cases, the FDA has granted extensions. In others, it has denied them. And in rare instances, the products were discontinued before the studies ran their course.

Postmarket studies can involve clinical trials or other analyses of patient data. They can look at safety or efficacy. A product can be the subject of more than one postmarket study.

The nearly 600 delayed studies involved almost 350 products, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News found.

The FDA has defined delayed as . That can mean off track or overdue.

As of August, other FDA databases tracking listed dozens of postmarket studies as behind schedule.

Products included:

The CustomFlex Artificial Iris, a prosthesis implanted in the eye in place of damaged, defective, or congenitally missing irises. The protocol for a study in children was accepted in 2019, the database said. The study was meant to follow patients for five years. According to an FDA page downloaded in August, zero patients were enrolled.

Barbara Fant of Clinical Research Consultants, to whom the FDA’s 2018 letter approving the product was addressed, said the rarity of an eye disease called aniridia poses challenges for post-approval studies. The German manufacturer, the U.S. distributor, and Clinical Research Consultants are working with the FDA to identify alternative ways to fulfill the postmarket requirements, Fant said.

“Confirming the long-term safety of the device remains a top priority for both the study team and FDA,” Fant said.

Paxlovid, a treatment for covid. A study to assess its safety in pregnant women was originally to be completed by the end of 2024, the FDA database said. “The trial completion and final report milestones were missed,” the database said.

Pfizer, the manufacturer, is working with the FDA and remains committed to “submitting results as soon as practicable,” Pfizer spokesperson Jerica Pitts said.

The Scandinavian Total Ankle Replacement system. The device and the original protocol for the clinical trial were approved in 2009. The study was meant to include a minimum of 500 subjects, the database said, but the actual number enrolled was 142. Almost half those patients had one or more adverse events, with dozens of “reoperations,” “revisions,” or “removals,” the database said.

Rachel Colloff and Cristina Pasquino — spokespeople for Enovis, which markets STAR Ankle — did not respond to multiple inquiries. Jenny Braga, a spokesperson for Stryker, which previously sold the product, did not answer questions about the postmarket study.

Oxaydo (originally named Oxecta), a form of the potentially addictive opioid painkiller oxycodone . When the FDA approved it in 2011, it required the manufacturer, , to conduct a postmarket study to assess whether it reduces “misuse and abuse, and their consequences: overdose, death and addiction.” The final report was originally scheduled to be submitted in 2016.

The FDA database listing the study as delayed said the agency “issued a failure to respond letter” in 2022.

Today the issue may be all but moot.  

Control of the product passed from company to company over the years until 2023, when Acura Pharmaceuticals said in a that patents on Oxaydo would begin expiring that year and it didn’t intend to continue marketing the drug.

According to another FDA database, Oxaydo .

The FDA has enforcement powers and uses them “where appropriate,” HHS’ Hilliard said. She did not provide requested details, and she did not answer questions about the studies listed above.

Delay Can Pay

For manufacturers, delay can pay, Harvard’s Kesselheim said. While postmarket studies are ongoing, companies can continue to sell the products.

“Medicare and Medicaid spent more than $18 billion from 2018 to 2021 for accelerated approval drugs with incomplete confirmatory trials past their original planned completion dates,” the HHS Office of Inspector General .

The FDA can demand postmarket studies for a variety of reasons, including to address concerns that arise after a product has been approved. Some look at uses not covered by the original approval, and some are meant to shed light on that are already known.

In April, when it approved Foundayo, a weight loss drug made by Eli Lilly, the FDA required the company to conduct additional research to assess a variety of concerns, including “retained gastric contents,” “major adverse cardiovascular events,” and “drug-induced liver injury,” as well as effects of exposure during pregnancy, such as “major congenital malformations,” “spontaneous abortions,” and “stillbirths.”

The FDA said it approved the drug under the new Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher program, intended for products that “.” The program strives for an “” review, the FDA has said — one to two months, instead of six months or more with other expedited pathways.

“Postmarketing requirements and enhanced safety monitoring are a routine part of the FDA’s approach to evaluating newly approved medicines,” Eli Lilly spokesperson Kristiane Silva Bello said, “including ongoing monitoring in areas identified during clinical development.”

‘False Hope’

The FDA waded into a world of uncertainty in 2016 when it granted accelerated approval to a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a degenerative disease that primarily affects boys, disabling them at a young age and ultimately killing them.

Agency scientists had found that the drug, Exondys 51, was unproven and argued against greenlighting it.

Ellis Unger, then a senior drug evaluation official at the FDA, that “thousands of patients and their families would be given false hope in exchange for hardship and risk.”

The manufacturer, Sarepta Therapeutics, . “A clinical benefit of EXONDYS 51 has not been established,” it said when the drug, also known by the generic name eteplirsen, was approved.

The drug, the first FDA-approved treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, targeted a subset of patients with the disease.

The FDA required Sarepta to conduct further studies and it could withdraw approval if postmarket trials failed to verify a clinical benefit or were “not conducted with due diligence.”

Unger issued a warning of his own: “FDA has not succeeded in withdrawing the marketing of a single drug for lack of verification of clinical benefit following accelerated approval. The reality is that if eteplirsen is given accelerated approval, it is highly likely to remain on the market indefinitely, irrespective of whether or not efficacy is verified.”

Sarepta was originally required to submit a final report on a postmarket study by a May 2021 deadline, according to an FDA database and a 2016 FDA letter to the company.

Almost a decade after the drug was approved, and more than five years after that deadline, the study was listed in an FDA database as delayed.

“The final report milestone was missed, because the sponsor requested milestone extensions due to study delays,”  the database said.

Meanwhile, in 2022 the website ranked Exondys 51 as the second-most expensive drug in the U.S., at an annual cost of $750,000 to $1.5 million.

Last year, the drug generated for Sarepta, according to a company presentation to investors.

Sarepta found it difficult to recruit patients for the postmarket clinical trial, company spokesperson Tracy Sorrentino said. The target population is small, patients were hesitant to enroll, and Sarepta was competing with other clinical trials for participants, Sorrentino said.

The study has been fully enrolled since 2023, Sorrentino said, and the company plans to provide an initial look at the data late this year.

‘M²¹²Ô¾±±è³Ü±ô²¹³Ù±ð»å’

A pair of hands holds a bottle of Amgen's drug Tavneos.
Amgen is the maker of the drug Tavneos. (Hannah Yoon/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Amgen has cited similar challenges, even as Tavneos generated $459 million in global sales last year.

When an approved treatment is available, patients may be reluctant to enroll in a study in which they could be given a placebo, Amgen’s Chartan said.

The clinical trial supposed to be done . As of July 24, just 49 patients had been enrolled, Chartan said.

The FDA has said the study was to include , and each patient enrolled must be followed for five years, said Hilliard, the HHS spokesperson.

Tavneos was approved to treat severe cases of a group of diseases — known by the shorthand ANCA-associated vasculitis — in which, as the explains, the immune system inflicts potentially fatal damage on blood vessels and organs. 

“As of January 2026, estimated real-world exposure” to Tavneos “exceeds 25,000 patient-years globally, consisting of over 6,500 in the United States and 19,000 abroad,” Amgen has said. (For context, one patient taking a drug for five years would amount to five “patient-years.”)

A clinical trial sponsored by ChemoCentryx to secure approval of Tavneos failed to prove it was effective, the FDA now alleges. Instead of disclosing that outcome to the FDA, company personnel “” the , the FDA alleged in an to Amgen.

Amgen, the parent company of ChemoCentryx, has denied the results were manipulated and has said the data “.”

Nonetheless, the recently of Tavneos.

The FDA is trying to , and Amgen is fighting that effort.

The company has a lot riding on the outcome. Tavneos can cost more than $220,000 per year, according to the , and when Amgen in 2022 for $3.7 billion, Tavneos was the only drug ChemoCentryx had brought to market.

In a June , Amgen said the benefits of Tavneos outweigh the risks.

The FDA disagrees.

The FDA “can no longer conclude that there is, or has ever been, a valid demonstration of substantial evidence of effectiveness for TAVNEOS,” .

Citing 76 cases of DILI — — the agency said it was “increasingly concerned about the safety profile of TAVNEOS.” Without proof of effectiveness, at least for its approved use, “the drug’s benefits its known risks,” the FDA wrote.

Data reporter Maia Rosenfeld contributed to this report.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2275664
The Health Risks of AI /podcast/what-the-health-463-ai-dangers-trump-obamacare-aca-refunds-september-17-2026/ Thu, 17 Sep 2026 18:45:00 +0000 /?p=2284843&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2284843 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Reports from a top artificial intelligence company that it stopped several attempted uses of its product that could assist in manufacturing a bioweapon caught the attention of lawmakers in Washington this week. But it is still unclear whether or when Congress will act to regulate the fast-moving industry — and the House has left town until after Election Day.

Meanwhile, with many voters expressing anger over the rising cost of healthcare, President Donald Trump is proposing to send $500 checks to some people enrolled in Affordable Care Act insurance plans before the election. But even if those checks materialize, in most cases they will be smaller than the increases many policyholders have already seen.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Anna Edney photo
Anna Edney Bloomberg News
Tami Luhby photo
Tami Luhby CNN
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Anxieties about AI reached a fever pitch this week, with a few leading developers calling to slow the pace of innovation amid troubling reports about AI’s progress and use, including reported attempts to misuse AI for biological warfare. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is pressing to incorporate AI into healthcare.
  • Federal lawmakers are exploring changes to the independent arbitration system created by the No Surprises Act, which took effect in 2022. While the law has cut down on patient exposure to surprise out-of-network medical bills in emergencies, the system has resulted in far larger paydays than anticipated for many doctors — which, in turn, has prompted a sizable increase in coverage costs, including for employers.
  • Some cities and states are suing to block implementation of the latest public charge rules from the Trump administration, arguing they could have a chilling effect for some who are entitled to public benefits, such as the eligible children of immigrants. They allege that could leave cities and states on the hook and harm local economies.
  • Abortion opponents are claiming victory as the Environmental Protection Agency moves to test water for remnants of abortion pills, among other chemicals and drugs. California’s attorney general is wrapping up a lawsuit against two nonprofits offering what they describe as abortion pill reversals, despite a lack of evidence the method works or is safe. And the family of a Texas woman who died after being denied an abortion is suing her doctors and the state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Sabrina Corlette of the Georgetown University Center for Health Insurance Reforms, discussing some potential short-term fixes to the nation’s health system.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too: 

Julie Rovner: KJZZ Phoenix’s “,” by Camryn Sanchez.

Tami Luhby: The Washington Post’s “,” by Erica Sloan.  

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “,” by John Tozzi, Tanaz Meghjani, and Ike Swetlitz.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Indigenous Groups Are Exempt From Medicaid Work Rules, but Native Hawaiians Aren’t,” by Ashley Mizuo.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • Science’s “,” by Jocelyn Kaiser.
  • The New York Times’ “,” by Christina Jewett.
  • Roll Call’s “,” by Ariel Cohen.
  • Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “A Generation of Kids Suffer as Trump Destabilizes Immigrant Families,” by Claudia Boyd-Barrett.
  • Politico’s “,” by Miranda Willson, Alice Miranda Ollstein, Ariel Wittenberg.
  • Politico’s “,” by Rachel Bluth and Alice Miranda Ollstein.
Click to open the transcript Transcript: The Health Risks of AI

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using transcription software. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Sept. 17, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And Tami Luhby of CNN. 

Tami Luhby: Howdy. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Sabrina Corlette, one of the authors of a new paper from the Georgetown University Center on Health Insurance Reforms, about some possible shorter-term fixes for what ails our dysfunctional healthcare system. But first, this week’s news. 

So I try not to talk too much here about artificial intelligence, partly because we at KFF already have a separate podcast devoted to AI and its implications for the business of health, and partly because I am one of the many, many Americans who doesn’t really understand it. But I feel like we really can’t avoid it this week, with AI leaders all but pleading with Congress for regulation, lest they accidentally, or not, create something that could literally kill all us humans. And while I don’t think any of us has the expertise to comment on whether some future AI might actually be justified in trying to rid the planet of humanity, given what we humans have done to the planet, I’m more interested in reports about humans currently using AI to do things like manipulate viruses to create, you know, a pandemic — but maybe even a more deadly one than the one that we just had. Anthropic, which touts itself as the most ethical and responsible of the big AI companies, said it has already . I feel like maybe this is something members of Congress might want to address in the near-term future? 

Edney: Definitely, I think that, like, the timing for this, given what’s going on in the larger AI world with these warnings that we’re seeing, was certainly very ominous for creating that potential worst pandemic that you’re talking about. And it does seem like it could be part of that discussion and what Congress may want to do; it could be sort of its own thing. It’s unclear how that’s going to be handled, especially, I think, we all are aware of the timing as well, with the midterms coming up and Congress not getting a lot done. And this is a really complicated subject, I think — the kind of issues with this report coming out was these could be just regular research queries. You know, it’s really unclear if this was nefarious. If it is, that’s really bad, and if it wasn’t, let’s not get worked up about something that isn’t there yet. But it does show that there’s the potential for that to happen. So …it’s good to think about it early. 

Rovner: And of course, the House, we should mention, has up and left until after the election. So they couldn’t do anything even if they wanted to. Alice, you wanted to add something? 

Ollstein: Yeah. So I was up on Capitol Hill yesterday, and there did not seem to be a groundswell of interest in rapid action and keeping the members in session to deal with this. I mean, when it comes, you know, to technology, especially, often federal policy is decades behind, you know, where the technology is going and moves so much slower. And I don’t know, even if there was the political will to stay in session and do something, if they would even know what to do or be able to come up with something quickly. This is something that could take years. Meanwhile, the technology itself is just leaping ahead in leaps and bounds, and so I am not optimistic about a robust response from Congress, given their record recently, and given what I witnessed on the Hill. Even though there is bipartisan interest in doing something, but what that something is, there is no agreement. 

Luhby: There’s a legitimate concern of how/what China is doing with AI, and even if we control what’s happening within our borders, we can’t control what’s happening with the development in the world. So that is an overarching problem that Congress can’t solve. 

Rovner: Right. 

Ollstein: I also often hear, you know, Oh, we should really pare back AI on everything except healthcare because it has so much promise in the healthcare space. But there’s also a lot of risk in the healthcare space. I mean, you were mentioning the development of potential viruses and bioweapons, but even beyond that, there’s already reports of AI being used to deny people’s claims, to entrench human biases in decision-making. You know, there’s a lot of risk in the healthcare space, too. It’s not all sunshine and rainbows and the risk is only in other areas. 

Rovner: Well, you are actually anticipating my next question, which is: Meanwhile, from the “AI might not actually kill us, but it’s going to make a lot of people rich” file, my former colleague Christina Jewett, now at The New York Times, has a about how medical AI entrepreneurs are exercising perhaps undue influence at the Department of Health and Human Services, and, according to the story, worrying some officials that AI adoption in medicine is coming faster than the evidence that it’s safe and effective — never mind money-saving. Again, as you were saying, Alice, I can’t imagine technology in medicine running ahead of attempts to regulate it. That’s only happened basically every time for the last 50 years. 

Edney: I think the attempts to regulate it are — the issue is who’s going to do the regulating. The FDA seems sort of split right now, where you have the traditional medical devices director, and this is Christina’s reporting, as you mentioned, Julie, someone … more in the commissioner’s office who is a tech-connected person wanting to wrest the AI part of regulation from the medical device center, where it normally sits. So I think that that question, too, is still being figured out. 

Rovner: And there’s even the, you know, what is AI? Is it a medical device? What kind of evidence would one need to approve it? Who would approve it? I mean, there’s definitely a lot more to come here. All right. Well … 

Luhby: Looking at healthcare’s role in the economy, it’s a major source of jobs right now and in the future, but it may not be, depending on what happens with AI. I was just actually at a doctor’s appointment at a major New York City medical center, and the doctor was speaking to, you know, a human assistant in the room, which I was — and I said to her, “Thank you so much for actually, you know, using humans.” And she sort of said, “Well, we’ll see how long that lasts,” indicating that her medical center may be really pushing doctors to use more AI scribes. And I was thinking, Wow, that’s going to cost a lot of people their jobs. 

Rovner: Although I just went to the doctor, and he was starting to use an AI scribe. He said he was just trying it out. So we will see how this all moves on. All right. 

Well, back to the pocketbook issues that seem to be driving voter anger this fall, even more than AI and data centers, President [Donald] Trump, the day after he floated the idea of sending all U.S. adults a $5,000 check if they return Republicans to power after the midterms, separately is proposing to send a $500 check before the elections to about a million unsubsidized enrollees in the Affordable Care Act plans. Unlike the $5,000, which would pretty clearly have to be approved by Congress — spoiler: probably won’t happen; it would be really expensive — the $500 ACA checks at least seem plausible. They represent unspent user fees the federal government has already collected. Two questions about this: One, is it really legal? And, if it is, and the administration does it, will it make up for the huge increases that most unsubsidized ACA enrollees saw in 2026 after the Biden-era extra subsidies expired? A lot of people saw increases that were a lot more than $500 just this year. 

Luhby: I mean, I think it’s questionable as to whether it’s legal and also whether it’s fair, because you’re also talking about giving this money only to be unsubsidized. And you can argue that, yes, the people who got subsidies already got, you know, a federal gift. But there are a lot of questions about these checks. But as far as whether they will make up for the massive increase in premium payments that a lot of folks have paid — especially for the people who didn’t receive subsidies, which, who are generally the people who make more than, you know, 400% of poverty, or … even a higher percentage, because the changes in the subsidy structure — those people are probably among the most … the ones who had the highest increases in premiums between ’25 and ’26. And there’s another round of double-digit premium increases on the way in 2027, or for 2027. So Cynthia Cox, one of our favorite experts at KFF, questioned whether $500 would even cover one month of a premium increase, much less one year. But, you know, as we know, healthcare costs are on the top of voters’ minds, and the Trump administration feels like it has to do something to say that it is helping to lower them ahead of the midterm elections. 

Rovner: Yeah, and this would be, I guess, something that they, in theory, could do. Well, moving on, it may be time to revisit one of the few bipartisan pieces of consumer health legislation of the past decade: the No Surprises Act. That law has successfully spared millions of patients from ending up in the middle of payment disputes between health insurers and medical providers. What it hasn’t done such a good job at, though, is settling those disputes in a cost-effective way. Instead, to quote from the Georgetown study that’s the subject of this week’s podcast interview with Sabrina Corlette, “the dispute resolution process created by the law has cost the health system an estimated $22 billion in just four years.” As a result of that, groups from across the ideological spectrum, from the liberal Families USA to the conservative Paragon Institute, as well as Republicans and Democrats on some key committees in Congress, are that something needs to change. Now this arbitration process that’s gotten so out of whack was the very last thing settled and almost scuttled this law on the launchpad. Is there a suitable alternative available, or will the magnitude of how badly this arbitration process is skewing in favor of providers who are getting enormous payouts going to force some sort of compromise? 

Edney: It seems like there needs to be a compromise. I was a little surprised that that’s being acknowledged. I think when this was first being talked about and coming to light, it seemed like the lawmakers were like, “Well, the law is working for patients,” and, like, “Well, you know, it’ll be OK.” But as you know, those numbers are coming in, that’s … billions of dollars. That’s a huge amount. And, you know, there are options. I think a lot of it was talked about and not agreed upon. But maybe benchmarking these to what Medicare pays or something along those lines when there’s a dispute could be more palatable, given, you know, what’s going on now that they’ve seen the results of what ended up being put into law. 

Rovner: Of course, that was, I mean, that was the hope when they were doing this is that they would set some sort of upward bound of, you know, yes … 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: And sure, if you’re trying to lowball the provider, we’re going to make sure the provider gets at least something, you know, that’s reasonable if they’re not in-network. Except what’s happening is, with these arbitrations, these providers are getting things that are way more than anticipated, and that’s turning back into these premium increases that we were just talking about. I mean, it’s all sort of one big circle here. 

Luhby: Right, and that’s one thing that, you know, as Politico reported this morning, that’s one thing that employers and insurers want to make sure that people know, and that congresspeople know, is that these increases, these, you know, these payouts that they have to provide for the doctors are going to increase premiums. And you know, as we just discussed, healthcare is on the top of voters’ minds. Already, you know, various consulting groups have said that employer coverage, which is the most prevalent type of coverage, the premiums again are going to increase by a lot for 2027. And, you know, again the employers and insurers are pointing fingers at this arbitration, you know, provision and what doctors are doing and how they’re manipulating it as one of the drivers of these increased healthcare costs and premiums. 

Rovner: All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

Moving to immigration, this week nearly half the states filed suit in federal court to block the Trump administration’s new, quote, “public charge rule.” That’s what gives immigration officials more leeway to block people from entering the country who they think could eventually qualify for government aid. Tami, you wrote about this. What are the states arguing, and what are they asking for? 

Luhby: Well, the main concern here — they want the rule to be blocked, but it looks like it’s supposed to go into effect tomorrow. And at this point, we know that the judge — there are two lawsuits: there’s states and cities — and the judge — it shouldn’t be probably the same judge, but we don’t know for sure yet. And the judge who has been assigned to the state lawsuit is not holding an initial hearing until, I think, it’s Oct. 9, or it’s early October, so it does look like the new rules will go into effect on Friday. But basically, what the concern is is that this is going to end up causing a lot of immigrants, particularly their families, particularly their U.S. citizen children, who may be eligible for benefits like Medicaid, like CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance Program], like housing vouchers, food stamps, school meals, WIC [Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children]. There’s, you know, a huge number of safety net programs that these immigrants and their families may choose to drop out of or not enroll in, and this is going to cause, obviously, you know, major concerns for hunger, for health, and housing. And the cities and states are arguing that they’re going to be harmed because they’re going to have to pick up the tabs. And, you know, these people will still need to, you know, obviously have healthcare and housing and food when it comes to it, so they’re concerned about their public costs as well as their local economies. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I mean that’s a really important point, which is that this is not just about people coming into the country. This is about people who are already here. Alice, I know you’ve done some reporting on the whole public charge issue, and we’ve got a really good Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News story that I will link to this week that’s called “A Generation of Kids Suffer as Trump Destabilizes Immigrant Families.” This is really reaching much beyond — you know, they originally, he said we’re just going to deport the worst of the worst — but this is reaching much, much further into immigrant communities here legally in the United States, right? 

Ollstein: Yeah, and I think there are just a lot of downstream consequences of this that we saw the first time they did this in the first Trump administration, and that, you know, folks are predicting will happen again that impacts everyone in the community. So for one, immigrants tend to be younger than the general population, and so removing them from these, you know, insurance systems could raise other people’s premiums — you know, the people who remain, because the costs will be higher. It’ll be an older, sicker population sharing those costs. Also, you are seeing that when these rules go into effect, people who remain eligible for the insurance programs, just out of confusion or fear, don’t enroll, and so it impacts even the people it doesn’t officially apply to, through a chilling effect, which, again, you know, leads to those same higher premiums and worse risk pool. But also, you have, you know, you mentioned risks of infectious diseases; if you deter people from getting preventive care, from getting vaccines, from getting checkups, that puts the whole community at risk. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Luhby: And even DHS [Department of Homeland Security] itself acknowledges that there’s going to be a chilling effect. They estimated that 950,000 people may opt to leave or not enroll in — they examined six public benefit programs: Medicaid, food stamps, CHIP, federal assistance — and I think nearly a million people who, you know, are eligible for these safety net programs who may not participate. 

Rovner: Well, I guess that is one way to cut the budget. 

Turning to reproductive health, Alice, there’s movement on that story you’ve been following about testing wastewater [drinking water] for remnants of abortion pills. Now, what’s the latest? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so this was a story my colleagues and I broke recently that the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] itself is now going to do some testing on this front. Of course, they’re not testing just for abortion pills; they’re testing for a bunch of different pharmaceutical medications. But putting abortion pills on that bigger list is, you know, something that anti-abortion groups have been clamoring for years and are . Of course, they’re still pushing for a separate process where EPA would require utilities around the country to monitor for certain drugs, including abortion pills. And so they’re still pushing on that front. But they consider this a step towards, you know, potential restrictions. Now, it’s important to know that the test the EPA is using only will show if any amount is detectable in the water; it will not determine the concentration. And so even if they say, “OK, we found traces of this,” it doesn’t mean it has any impact on plants, animals, humans. It does not mean that. So whatever they come up with, it’s important for people to keep that in mind. Environmental experts we talked to stress that this is sort of a bad-faith push. There is no evidence that there’s any actual environmental harm here. Pharmaceutical contamination of water is a real thing, but there are medications that are way more of a threat in their minds than this one. 

Rovner: Yeah, but this is what they’ve been pushing as yet another way to try to go after abortion pills. Well, meanwhile, while the FDA continues to restudy the safety of mifepristone, at the urging of anti-abortion groups, in California, the attorney general is wrapping up a lawsuit against two anti-abortion nonprofits for their proffering of that purport to stop a medical abortion partway through. Unlike mifepristone, which has been studied in many clinical trials in the U.S. and internationally, there is no evidence that giving the hormone progesterone can save a pregnancy partway through a medical abortion. Alice, how big an impact could this case have, and when do we expect to hear from the judge? 

Ollstein: So this could really set a precedent. There are a lot of legal battles around the country. There’s another one the New York attorney general is in the middle of that is similar to this one. But it’s getting into this interesting space between protecting patients versus free speech and what clinics, even, you know, less-regulated crisis pregnancy centers, like the ones that are at issue in this case, what they can tell people and whether states are able to regulate that in the name of protecting patients from potential harm. Like you said, this hormone regimen, where after you take mifepristone, which is an anti-progesterone, you know, they’re saying, Oh, if you change your mind and you don’t want to have an abortion after all, you can take a high dose of progesterone to counteract the effects and save the pregnancy. Again, this has been very little studied, and the studies that have happened are methodologically weak. They don’t have control groups. They don’t have random sampling. They’re very, very small numbers. Whereas, like you said, the medical studies of mifepristone itself have been covered millions over the years, and so there’s just a lot more evidence of the safety record. And so, this could be really interesting coming out of California, in terms of these clinics, which have really become a major front in the anti-abortion movement’s larger battle. These centers are very prevalent around the country and have only grown in number since Roe v. Wade was overturned, and so they’re really seen as sort of the forefront of spreading the anti-abortion movement’s message. 

Rovner: Well, speaking of lawsuits that might set a precedent, the family of Tierra Walker, a 37-year-old pregnant woman who died in Texas of multiple complications after being repeatedly denied an abortion, has filed a malpractice suit against her doctors and is also suing Texas Attorney General and Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton. Paxton, you may remember, personally threatened individual legal action against doctors who performed abortions, even on women whose medical conditions apparently qualified for exceptions to the state’s ban. What does it mean that they’re actually going after Paxton personally — or, I guess, in his role as attorney general in this case? 

Ollstein: Yeah, they’re going after state officials, and they’re going after the hospital, the doctors. There’s a lot of different charges in this one case. There’s medical malpractice charges. There’s [Americans with Disabilities Act] ADA-like discrimination, refusing-of-care charges. There’s the constitutional charges about the law itself. And so this is really sort of getting into new territory. It’s something I covered in my book, that doctors largely have reported that when they’re operating under abortion bans, they’re more afraid of providing what, even what they consider a medically necessary abortion. They’re more afraid of the legal consequences of providing it than the legal consequences of not providing it. And this is an attempt, and there have been some others to try to change that calculus. So I know there’s an ongoing case in Georgia as well, a medical malpractice case. But it’s sort of attempting to make doctors also afraid of the legal consequences of not providing what could be a lifesaving abortion, and we’ll see what the outcome is in this instance. 

Rovner: And we’ll talk more about this, and we’ll talk more about your book in the coming weeks as we get ready for its launch. Well, finally, this week the House may be gone, but the Senate is still here, and two Senate committees held confirmation hearings this week for Chris Klomp, the Medicare official who’s been nominated to be deputy HHS secretary, as well as a hearing for Nicole Saphier, the radiologist and former Fox News contributor, who is the latest nominee for U.S. surgeon general. At both the Finance Committee, which will vote on Clomp, and the health committee, which will vote on Saphier, there were lots of questions about the administration’s position on vaccines. This comes as Pennsylvania announces its third and fourth measles-related death this summer, and as HHS Secretary RFK Jr. [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] gives a keynote address here in Washington today at his former nonprofit, the anti-vax group Children’s Health Defense. Interestingly, both Klomp, who is not a doctor, and Saphier, who is a doctor, sort of, kind of endorsed the measles vaccine, but neither appeared enthusiastic enough to satisfy HELP [Health, Education, Labor & Pensions] Committee Chair Bill Cassidy, who’s also on the Finance Committee, of their sincerity. Cassidy delivered some of his strongest critiques yet of the damage the administration is doing by promoting vaccine hesitance. Yet I wonder if Cassidy would plan to vote against either of these nominees, or if any Republicans plan to vote against either of these nominees. 

Edney: I think that’s a great question. And Cassidy clearly has not done that in situations where the stakes — you know, it seemed like, you know, he had more reason almost, I mean, there was more, at least, like, outwardly publicly, you know, conflicting with his stance, and he didn’t do it. So he is leaving Congress, so that could change things for him. But I’m not sure that I would expect some sort of vote that really spoke out against Trump at this point. 

Rovner: He voted to confirm the new CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] director, about whom he had basically the same questions. 

Edney: Yeah, “Boy Who Cried Wolf,” I think is what that was. 

Rovner: All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with Sabrina Corlette, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Sabrina Corlette. Sabrina is a research professor, founder, and co-director of Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms. She’s also the co-author of a brand-new paper called “A Three-Part Strategy for Better Health Insurance” that includes a series of policy changes Congress could make in the short term that could help patients better navigate our messed-up healthcare system. Sabrina Corlette, thanks for joining us. 

Sabrina Corlette: Oh, it is such a delight, Julie. Thank you for having me. 

Rovner: So, I think a lot of us have been predicting that rising costs, lowering access, and increasing confusion is frustrating patients to the point that the nation is likely headed for another major healthcare debate, probably after the next presidential election. But this paper focuses on smaller changes that could be made in the nearer future. What made you decide to look at that? 

Corlette: Well, I’ll be honest, Julie, one inspiration was the KFF [Health News] “Bill of the Month” series. You know, I follow that series, and I just saw story after story about patients encountering just the craziest billing situations, coverage challenges, and it just struck me — particularly in this last year, where we had this big debate over Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act marketplaces, and a number of groups and lawmakers were defending a status quo that, quite frankly, nobody was happy with — and so I got together with some of my colleagues, you know, what are some concrete things that would have a tangible impact on people’s experience with their health insurance that can be done quickly, would not require a lot of money — because as you know, Julie, all too well, anytime you want to improve coverage, immediately employers and others say, “Well, this is just going to raise premiums.” So we wanted to come up with something that could immediately improve coverage without raising costs, and learn from some state actions that, you know, are quite frankly happening on a bipartisan basis. So, things that felt achievable. 

Rovner: Right. So, your first part is looking at immediate ways to reduce healthcare costs. What are some of those proposals? 

Corlette: Yeah. Sort of a marquee proposal in here is to bring down deductibles. Deductibles have risen 43% over the last decade or so, and they’re just [an] insurmountable cost barrier for so many American families. So that’s No. 1. But as you know, Julie, if you were to try to lower deductibles across the board, it’s like pushing on a balloon, right? Immediately, premiums are going to go up. So the second part of that proposal is to reduce spending on excessive hospital prices that are, you know, many, many multiples of the Medicare rates. And we’ve seen real progress on that at the state level, with states as diverse as Indiana and Vermont starting to rein in most hospital prices. 

Rovner: And we’ve seen both Democrats and Republicans pointing their fingers at hospitals. We’ve talked about that a lot on the podcast — that hospitals are clearly one of the big drivers right now. That seems to be getting through to policymakers, if not to patients. 

Corlette: That’s right. Yep. 

Rovner: That’s the cost part. Next is reducing unnecessary complexity, which I know is something that everybody would appreciate. What are a couple of the things that we could do there? 

Corlette: Yeah, I mean the main thing that we looked at there was the prolific use of what’s called prior authorization, which is, like, before you can get a healthcare good or service, you have to run it by your health plan and get their advance approval. And that’s just, you know, it used to be that that was really used for certain experimental or very, very high-cost types of services, and now it’s just endemic. And so we propose a number of reforms to — not eliminate that practice because, you know, you do need some checks on the system — but to really try to streamline it and reduce the burden for not only patients but physicians as well. 

Rovner: So last is protecting patients from corporate abuses — again, something that seems to have some bipartisan backing and that people get really furious about? 

Corlette: Yeah, and here the list is pretty long, but I’ll just [home] in on one element, which is reining in some of the more egregious financial practices of private equity, which has really entered the healthcare space in a big way in the last decade or so. And so trying to limit some of the transactions that they engage in that sort of strip assets from a healthcare provider to line the pockets of the investors and really drain away the infrastructure of the, say, the hospital or health system, so that it’s not able to provide as high-quality care. 

Rovner: Things like buying the hospital and then selling the real estate out from underneath, so the hospital now has to pay rent. 

Corlette: Exactly. 

Rovner: And you want to fix the dispute resolution system from something that Congress already tried to fix on a bipartisan basis, which is stopping surprise bills, right? 

Corlette: Oh my gosh, yeah. I mean, you know, that’s one of those issues, again, I think could be very bipartisan. And it’s not every provider in the system, but largely private equity-backed physician group practices really taking advantage of the dispute resolution process under the No Surprises Act to the tune of $22 billion in costs. All that is being passed on in the form of higher premiums for employers and policyholders. So, yeah, we propose some significant reforms to that process. 

Rovner: So, all of these things together are what we health policy types like to refer to as low-hanging fruit, in that it would be less controversial, say, than “Medicare for All.” But we’ve seen that even incremental changes like these that have bipartisan support can be really hard to push through. How optimistic are you that this Congress and this administration, both of which have said they want to do stuff about healthcare and healthcare costs, might be able to actually get any of this stuff done? 

Corlette: Well, I think you and I both, Julie, have been doing this work for long enough. It’s true, nothing is easy. But I will also say that if you look at the polling, Americans now rank healthcare costs higher than groceries and housing as their No. 1 cost concern. I, quite frankly, think that if you’re a politician and you’re not listening to that data and thinking about ways you can reduce costs for people, then you’re committing political malpractice. 

Rovner: We will see if any of this gets picked up. But thank you for doing the paper, Sabrina Corlette, and thank you for joining us. 

Corlette: Thank you for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Anna, why don’t you go first this week? 

Edney: Sure. This is a story from a few of my colleagues: “.” And they took a look at some recently released data about prior authorizations and denials, and, essentially, you know, seeing how often people are able to overturn those when they try. Not a lot of people know that they can try to appeal that. And so I really encourage everybody to take a look at it. Check out where your insurer is. I think that that was interesting for me because, you know, they did it by insurer, so you can see what their stance is and how often they’re denying things. 

Rovner: Yeah, and that reminder that we always have with the “Bill of the Month.” It’s, like, don’t pay the first bill, and if you get a bill, don’t be afraid to appeal it. Tami. 

Luhby: My extra credit is a Washington Post story titled “,” by Erica Sloan. The story stood out to me, personally, because I was actually diagnosed with low ferritin 14 years ago, but it took time for the doctor to figure out why I was feeling so tired. So I, actually, I had blood tests, and then I actually went to a sleep doctor because I was figuring, Well, I must not be, you know, sleeping well at night. Maybe I have sleep apnea. But he actually asked to see the blood tests, and he was the one who pointed out my low ferritin levels. So, for those who don’t know, ferritin is a protein that stores iron in the body. And the story cautioned people — the ferritin face, I think, is what got, you know, is trying to get people into the story because apparently this is a thing, although I had not heard of it before this. 

Rovner: A thing on social media. 

Luhby: Yeah, a thing on social media, and I don’t think I actually ever had ferritin face. I asked my husband. But the story cautioned people from trying to diagnose themselves with iron deficiency based on social media and influencers. But the attention, they said, is raising awareness about iron deficiency, which is really important and which is the, you know, the step before anemia. So I thought the story was important because it highlights how common iron deficiency is — nearly one-third of U.S. adults are affected — but how, I was surprised, it’s not part of regular screenings. And the article goes on to explain how to test for iron deficiency, which is to check your ferritin level, and how to treat it, which is to eat more iron-rich food, like spinach, beans, red meat, fortified cereals — or, if your iron levels are very low, to take iron supplements, which I also personally know are not the most fun because they can cause GI [gastrointestinal] issues. So, and if you’re curious about what ferritin face is, which I was, is apparently it falls under the, you know, “looking tired” umbrella: a dull complexion, dry skin, cracked lips, under-eye circles. But, you know, I think those are symptoms of many things other than iron deficiencies. 

Rovner: And yet still news you can use. Alice. 

Luhby: Yes. 

Ollstein: I have a story from KFF [Health News]. It is by Ashley Mizuo, and it’s called “Indigenous Groups Are Exempt From Medicaid Work Rules, but Native Hawaiians Aren’t.” And it examines how, you know, lacking official federal recognition of your tribal status is making Indigenous Hawaiians, who are facing a lot of the same challenges as other Native groups in the mainland U.S., are not exempt from these new Medicaid work requirements that are starting on Jan. 1. And that could be a big barrier to care, and they already have a lot of barriers to care, including sometimes needing to travel from one island to another in order to access services. And so this could really prevent a lot of people who have a lot of health challenges from getting care they need. And so it, you know, looking at a sort of niche overlooked consequence of these new rules. 

Rovner: My extra credit is also about an overlooked consequence. It’s a local story from KJZZ Phoenix public radio called “,” by Camryn Sanchez. And in a situation reminiscent of people in Arkansas losing their Medicaid back in 2018 because the state couldn’t stand up a system allowing them to report their work hours, it seems Arizona can’t figure out how to keep eligible SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] beneficiaries on that program. Turns out that the state agency that runs the program reported that nearly 9 in 10 interviews with applicants were abandoned, dropped, or otherwise incomplete. The agency itself said it dropped more than 3 million calls due to call-center error or lack of call-center capacity. As a result of that, 53.7% of Arizonans attempting to recertify their food benefits were denied for failing to complete the interview. It is just a really wow story, and, you know, the point that, really, it is incumbent on the states to make these things available. That’s part of why they are supposed to be there. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging out on social media these days? Anna? 

Edney: on X or . Also on . 

Rovner: Alice? 

Ollstein: on Bluesky and on X. 

Rovner: Tami. 

Luhby: I’m just at these days. 

Rovner: That’s fine. We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2284843
California Eyes Prison Heat Protections That Fall Short of Workplace Standards /public-health/heat-workplace-standards-california-prisons-lack-safeguards-climate-change/ Thu, 17 Sep 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2285184 As Californians have weathered relentless heat waves, state workplace safety regulators have employers to protect employees from heat illness by providing water, shade, cooldown areas, and additional rest breaks when temperatures climb.

But there’s a notable exception in the state’s heat safety rules: Not covered are the nurses, guards, staff, and tens of thousands of incarcerated people who work in California’s aging correctional facilities, which are .

In 2024, California adopted landmark rules intended to protect more than 1 million workers who toil in sweltering warehouses, kitchens, factories, and other indoor workplaces. But the state Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board exempted prisons and local government detention and juvenile facilities after Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration warned the rules could cost the state billions.

Two years later, the Newsom administration has put forward weaker indoor heat standards for California’s correctional facilities, alarming worker advocates and public health experts who argue they would provide inadequate protections from extreme heat as the risks worsen due to climate change. Regulators with the state’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, or Cal/OSHA, have proposed protections that wouldn’t kick in until temperatures reach 87 degrees — 5 degrees higher than for other indoor workplaces, according to released in May.

“It’s basically a second-class standard, and we don’t accept that correction workers get weaker protections than everybody else, with no scientific or medical basis,” said Stephen Knight, co-executive director of Worksafe, a California nonprofit that pushes for workplace health and safety protections. “The human body doesn’t handle heat differently in a prison than, you know, an Amazon warehouse.”

Extreme heat is the in the U.S., with spiking during heat waves as elevated temperatures exacerbate other health problems, including cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Even among people without preexisting conditions, prolonged exposure to heat without the opportunity to cool off can cause , which can lead to death.

State agencies have estimated the price tag to cool California’s prisons could run from to in upfront costs, although the Newsom administration has refused to provide detailed information and declined interview requests.

“These facilities were exempted from the indoor heat standard due to the unique challenges in the correctional institutions with complying,” Eric Berg, Cal/OSHA’s deputy chief of health, research, and standards, told stakeholders at a recent meeting. He added that “we’re creating a separate standard to kind of address their unique conditions they have in those facilities.”

Heat Health Risks

California’s average temperature across an entire year is about than it was in 1895. At least nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2014, and scientists project 2026 could be .

That warming, driven by the burning of fossil fuels, has accelerated in the decades since many of California’s 31 adult state prisons were built. Many of those facilities are located in some of the state’s hottest areas, including the Central Valley and inland areas of Southern California, where temperatures can soar into the triple digits. Fewer than a quarter of the prison system’s 791 housing units have any type of mechanical cooling such as air conditioning, according to a January released by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Instead, institutions rely on fans and swamp coolers, but the uninsulated concrete walls mean these ad hoc solutions often face a losing battle.

“The best way to describe it is like someone turned on the microwave, and then they put you in it,” said Leonard Brown, a community organizer with Worksafe who spent over 30 years incarcerated in 10 state prisons, including in Lancaster and at the now-closed Chuckawalla Valley State Prison in Blythe, communities where triple-digit outdoor temperatures are common.

The lack of insulation in buildings makes it difficult to keep temperatures below 89 degrees even in facilities with air conditioning, according to California’s corrections department. The aging institutions, which average 52 years old, were mostly built when “comfort level of the incarcerated population and staff was not a consideration or a priority,” according to a . In 2024, the department tallied 86 days when indoor temperatures reached 90 degrees or above in at least one institution, and 46 days when indoor temperatures reached 95 degrees or more.

Health experts say people are particularly vulnerable to heat while at work because they’re not in control of their surrounding environment. They can’t always leave work for a cooling center, crank up the air conditioning, or jump in the shower, and their ability to protect themselves from heat depends on their type of job, income, and an array of other factors.

“Say you’re working in a warehouse or an agricultural field. It can be really hard to walk away because you need the money for yourself or for your family. But you can, right? It’s an option,” said Bharat Venkat, director of the UCLA Heat Lab, which studies the unequal effects of extreme heat. “If you’re incarcerated, you can’t really say no.”

And because incarcerated workers often make less than 50 cents an hour, it could take weeks to make enough to purchase a personal fan or a cooling towel, a from Venkat’s lab found.

Separate Standards

Newsom, who has been exploring a presidential run, has sought to position himself as a climate leader and in August released an , which touted the state’s 2024 indoor worker heat protections and noted that rules for correctional workers were in development.

“Californians are feeling the impacts of extreme heat earlier, longer, and more intensely than ever before,” Newsom said in a statement when he released the plan. He added: “We’re setting the path for the next chapter of our hotter, drier future.”

California is among a handful of states that have sought to protect indoor and outdoor workers from extreme heat over the past two decades. After multiple farmworkers died of heat-related causes in 2005, California adopted emergency standards for outdoor workers and made them permanent the following year. In 2024, the Biden administration for indoor and outdoor workers, but the Trump administration .

Still, Newsom has faced criticism from worker advocates and public health experts for his administration’s slow embrace of indoor heat protections, which took roughly and approve. And protections for prison workers are still years away, with the timeline “still being determined,” Cal/OSHA spokesperson MariCarmen Estudillo said in an email.

The 2024 rules require employers to provide cooldown areas and take other protective steps once indoor temperatures reach 82 degrees. They also require employers to keep both the indoor temperature and heat index, which factors in humidity, below 87 degrees, or below 82 degrees when employees are wearing heat-restrictive clothing or working near a heat source like an oven.

Under the proposed rules for prisons, safety standards wouldn’t kick in until temperatures reach 87 degrees. And employers would not be required to factor in the heat index, radiant heat, and humidity — all of which can make the temperature feel even hotter.

“Temperature alone does not accurately measure how dangerous working conditions are in these facilities,” said Janice O’Malley, a legislative advocate with the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, which represents many of the medical and mental health staff within CDCR, as well as employees at local detention centers and juvenile facilities across the state.

“The heat index accounts for humidity and reflects how hot conditions actually feel to the human body, and it’s incredibly difficult to cool down through sweating in the correctional facilities where our folks work,” O’Malley said, adding that CDCR employees work in buildings with poor ventilation, often while wearing protective clothing that traps heat.

CDCR declined requests for an interview, but at a meeting in May, Alex Norring, assistant secretary for legislative affairs, said the unique staffing needs of state prisons would make it difficult to comply. For example, guards would need to be relieved by additional personnel to get their cooldown breaks.

“The biggest challenge is the direct fiscal impact because staff provide guarding for the incarcerated population, and we need to ensure that there is appropriate staffing in order to cover that and comply with providing the relief,” Norring said.

The also warned that establishing cooldown areas at some juvenile halls “may require system redesign, supplemental cooling equipment, and portable AC units which come with security risks.”

Unclear Costs

The state’s cost estimates to cool state prisons have varied widely since the worker safety board received its first assessment in 2023 and the price tag hovered at about $900,000 in the first year and less than $500,000 each year after. A year later, the sticker price skyrocketed to “billions of dollars” after the state Department of Finance said it had received revised estimates from the corrections department.

The state has provided few details and little clarity since. The Department of Finance and CDCR have denied Capital & Main’s requests for the details of the cost estimate under the California Public Records Act.

Labor unions and safety advocates, meanwhile, say workers in California prisons have waited too long for protections — while the state further defers the costs. 

“You’re leaving a very important population uncovered. That’s very unjust. There’s no argument for that,” said Laura Stock, from the Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board after she publicly criticized his administration for delaying protections to prison workers.

This article was produced in collaboration with Capital & Main, ​​an independent, California-based nonprofit investigative news publication that reports on inequality, climate change, and other issues.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2285184
Anger Over Health Costs Clouds Midterms /podcast/what-the-health-462-affordability-high-costs-midterms-abortion-pill-september-10-2026/ Thu, 10 Sep 2026 19:05:00 +0000 /?p=2282675&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2282675 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Affordability is top of mind for most voters this fall, and the high cost of healthcare is near the top of affordability complaints. And the news keeps getting worse: All indications are that insurance premiums will go up and benefits will go down in 2027.

Meanwhile, a U.S. appeals court this week heard arguments in a case that could severely limit the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone, not just in states with abortion bans but also in those where abortion is still legal.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law, and Amanda Seitz of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen photo
Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico
Sandhya Raman photo
Sandhya Raman Bloomberg Law
Amanda Seitz photo
Amanda Seitz Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News aseitz@kff.org Read Amanda's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Inflation, rising rates of uninsured Americans, as well as industry consolidation are contributing to some of the steepest increases in healthcare costs since the early 2000s. Frustrations back then built momentum for passage of the Affordable Care Act. Today, they’re the backdrop for the midterm elections, though the GOP is focusing on fraud and most Democrats are campaigning on adjustments to existing programs such as the ACA and Medicaid.
  • Several recent news stories have shed light on controversies at the intersection of health and politics. Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), a physician who could lead the Senate’s health committee next year, is facing scrutiny for suing hundreds of patients over unpaid medical debts, some of whom were arrested for missing court dates. Other stories document allegedly disparaging remarks by Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) to staff about meeting with representatives of a children’s hospital and, separately, a call by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to be criminally investigated for allegedly lying to Congress.
  • Meanwhile, a federal appeals court in Louisiana continues to consider a case challenging regulations on the abortion pill mifepristone as President Donald Trump’s latest nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration awaits confirmation.
  • And the fallout continues from two measles-related deaths in Pennsylvania, leaving Americans with further mixed signals about how to protect themselves and their children.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” about when a preventive service isn’t preventive enough to qualify for zero-cost coverage. If you have a bill that’s baffling, infuriating, or indecipherable, you can share it with us here.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too: 

Julie Rovner: NBC News’ “,” by Mike Hixenbaugh.  

Sandhya Raman: Bloomberg Government’s “,” by Erin Durkin and Claire Hebert.  

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “,” by Audrey Dutton.  

Amanda Seitz: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “A NY Hospital Tried To Close Its Birthing Center. This City United To Fight Back,” by Noam N. Levey and Hannah Norman, and Stat’s “,” by Daniel Payne.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • The Wall Street Journal’s “,” by Peter Loftus.
  • The New York Times’ “,” by Sarah Kliff.
  • The Wall Street Journal’s “,” by Will Hobson and Siobhan Hughes.
  • The Guardian’s “,” by Michelle R Smith.
  • Nature’s “,” by Max Kozlov.
  • ProPublica’s “,” by Andrea Suozzo and Agnel Philip.
Click to open the transcript Transcript: Anger Over Health Costs Clouds Midterms

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using transcription software. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Sept. 10, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law. 

Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And my colleague Amanda Seitz of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. 

Amanda Seitz: Hi, great to be here. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News “Bill of the Month.” It’s about a breast cancer screening that’s not necessarily considered covered preventive care. But first, this week’s news. 

So, welcome to the sprint to the midterms. As we have talked about all year, affordability — or, to be more specific, unaffordability — is the topic that seems to be most on voters’ minds this fall. And healthcare is at or near the top of that list of things that voters are finding increasingly unaffordable. So the news from the past few weeks that healthcare costs are likely to go up even more next year, not only pushing up premiums but in many cases prompting employers to cut back on coverage, is probably not going to make consumers any happier. These are some of the steepest increases in healthcare costs that we’ve seen since the early 2000s —that’s when frustration prompted the debate that became the Affordable Care Act. What’s driving these increases, and what is it likely to lead to? 

Kenen: There’s multiple causes, right? We’re in an era — we’ve had high inflation overall. We … have had the number of insured people drop, which means there’s more uninsured, uncompensated care, which means the rest of us who do have insurance end up paying for it. Some people would argue that the consolidation — in fact, many people would argue — that the consolidation in the healthcare sector has added to costs. Private equity has been part of that consolidation, and their business model is, you know, there’s still research …  

Rovner: Their business model is to take money out of healthcare, basically. 

Kenen: And you know, I mean, some people would say that, you know, it’s not just profit; it’s also greed. That’s not true across the healthcare system. That’s not true about everybody. But I think you could see it. 

Rovner: It’s certainly a good place to make money these days. 

Seitz: I think, as far as what’s to come, too, Julie, we got a very significant signal this morning of how nervous the White House is about all of this. Axios is reporting that [President Donald] Trump wants to send $500 checks to a million enrollees across 30 states just ahead of the Nov. 3 midterm elections. So it just shows the timing here could not be worse. And that is kind of always the case when it comes to the election and open enrollment. But with those big increases we’re expecting, it’s only going to get worse in the coming weeks because people haven’t actually begun to preview those health insurance costs, what they’ll look like for next year. It’s not … it’s typically available around October for most employers and for the Medicare and ACA marketplace. So those prices are going to be landing in people’s inboxes and mailboxes right as they’re making choices about who they’re going to vote for, and it’s just not very good timing for this administration. 

Rovner: Darn that fall! Well, one of the things we’ve seen is it’s not just prices; employers are also dropping popular but expensive benefits like GLP-1 coverage or coverage for infertility treatment. Could that eventually drive prices down because providers of those benefits will have no choice if nobody has insurance for their products or services? Or are they just going to become unaffordable for all but the very rich in our K-shaped economy? 

Seitz: I think that’s certainly a concern, and again, going back to … this is just such a visible example of the affordability issue that people are talking about. People are paying more, and they’re getting less. And that is a frustration across our economy, but healthcare is such a blatant example of that happening. And there are questions: Will care be out of reach for people? I mean, we’re seeing that happen, obviously, in certain markets. In rural marketplaces, for example, it’s now, you know, in some places a luxury to have a doctor nearby that you can go to. So I certainly think that’s a concern. 

Kenen: I mean, it’s partly the way we’ve always measured prevention. It’s not that prevention doesn’t save money over the long haul. You know, there’s a lot of …. there’s dispute among the economists. There’s a lot of data that prevention in the long haul is a good investment, but that prevention isn’t, like, if I’m a health plan, I have no necessarily, you know, economic interest in making sure that you’re healthy in 20 years. You’re my client. You’re my customer now. Maybe next year. Maybe the year after that. So what’s good for the overall health system and the public’s health, and arguably the economy in the long term … it’s bad short term when, you know, an insurer, a company that decides not to cover GLP-1s. Although I sort of wonder if we’re going to get to the point where it’s just put in the water supply as more and more things are discovered about it. I’m being a little facetious, but only a little. … It’s a smart short-term sticker-price move. It’s not necessarily a wise move in the long run, and it’s going to get people mad because people who are, you know, who have struggled with weight, who’ve done the right things, and who still have trouble losing weight, or who have diabetes. I mean, I’m not sure if they’re dropping it for diabetes or they’re dropping it for obesity. I don’t know enough about it. 

Rovner: I think they’re mostly dropping it — yeah, I don’t think they can get away with dropping it for diabetes — I think they’re dropping it for weight loss. 

Kenen: Right. But I mean, as it becomes more restricted, but it’s turning out not to just be weight loss. I mean, it’s like people who get on it for weight loss are finding out that their livers get healthier. You know, there’s increasing research and causative signs about addiction. There’s, you know, it’s a really interesting drug, which we don’t totally understand. But it’s expensive, and that’s what, you know, people … the American healthcare system, or even the American business sector, isn’t always really thinking about the long term, particularly when the sticker shock is so big right now. 

Rovner: So another level of frustration — and something that we didn’t see the last time rising health costs were a top-tier political issue — is this whole trend of , or sometimes not-so-elective procedures, because so many patients now have multi-thousand-dollar deductibles, which we didn’t see the last time healthcare costs were spiking. That means many more patients could be blocked from getting needed care in the first place or, best-case scenario, fighting for months after that prepayment turned out to be too much. Ask me how I know about that latter part. I can’t help but think this is just going to increase the anger for voters. 

Raman: I mean, I really think so. We even, you know, last year I feel like there was so much outcry from folks when we were trying to see if Congress was going to extend the enhanced tax subsidies for the ACA. And, you know, all this talk about people maybe picking lower-tier plans because that is what they could afford. And I think we could see similar things now, where even if someone is still getting employer-sponsored insurance, maybe picking lower coverage than they want, not getting covered for as many things as they want. And, you know, feeding in with the prepayments, just so much more top of mind how much cost is going to be an issue in healthcare for folks. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s one thing to have skin in the game. I say it’s another thing to have, you know, a limb in the game. Sorry, go ahead, Amanda. 

Seitz: Yeah, and I also think it will bring, that approach could backfire a little because it will bring a little bit more scrutiny to what providers are charging. A lot of times people get the bill after insurance has picked up a lot of the costs. Now you’re inviting them to look at it, you know, in advance and ask some questions that they might not have before afterwards. 

Rovner: Yeah. So what, if anything, are lawmakers proposing to do? Republicans seem to have retreated into the “let’s root out fraud” mode. President Trump is promising to send checks. Democrats seem to be proposing a lot of what I call “more of the same,” including rolling back the Republican cuts to the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid, and expanding Medicare benefits to things it doesn’t now cover, like dental and vision care. I feel like none of these things are really kind of meeting the moment of the intensity of the frustration. 

Seitz: I think it’s difficult to meet the moment in some ways because everyone knows that they won’t agree on anything. So, you know, it’s this sort of piecemealed approach of maybe what will stick, like trying to throw things at the wall and see what will stick. 

Kenen: There could be, like, a real bipartisan accord if, like, Trump agreed to put the $500 check into the mail-in ballot. [Hearty laughter] 

Rovner: Maybe you’re on to something, Joanne. 

Kenen: Probably not. Hypothetical. I think the one thing that, I mean, there’s a little bit of confounding is that people are upset about all prices, not just healthcare. There’s sort of an outrage, and not everybody is sick, and not everybody is, you know, facing a $10,000 prepayment. So it’s, I mean, I think people are aware and angry and angrier about healthcare, but it’s just sort of an affordability crisis, which healthcare is a component. And in some ways, it makes it easier for Congress to just sort of shout about it right now, before the elections. They’re really good at that, right? I mean, they’re all experts in shouting. 

Rovner: They’ve had lots of practice. 

Kenen: Yes, and, you know, I don’t really see … there’s going to be a fight on the left about single-payer, “Medicare for All,” but … I don’t think we yet know, outside of a couple of states, how … I haven’t really seen a unifying Democratic narrative on healthcare. You know, I see a fight about single-payer, but I don’t really see where they’re going. And … are they going to agree that the fight should be against the Republicans or against each other? That’s always a Democratic problem. Whereas the Republicans, I also don’t, you know, they tend to be, you know, more market-based, and they’re talking fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud, fraud. And, you know, there was just recently a big fraud bust on a Medicaid provider, not Medicaid beneficiaries. The way they talk about it, that can get confused. We all know there’s fraud. … Fraud is not the major driver of the healthcare costs in this country. But none of us would ever say there’s no fraud. There is. And we would all rather see less money spent on fraudsters and more money spent on making people healthy. But I think the Republicans right now are just going to keep shouting fraud. 

Rovner: Moving on, another trend we didn’t see as much in the early 2000s, when health prices were last spiking, was healthcare providers suing their patients over their unpaid bills. Our former podcast pal Sarah Kliff over at The New York Times has a really eye-popping story this week about how Kansas Republican Sen. Roger Marshall, who was an OB-GYN before being elected to Congress, and the headline tells you most of what you need to know: “ — a senator, I would add, who has voted to repeal both the Affordable Care Act and to cut Medicaid. I want to call this a scandal, but is it really? He’s not accused of doing anything illegal. His lawyers went after people who owed him money. Why has this story raised so very many eyebrows? 

Kenen: It’s an amazing story. You know, not only was he, and his response to these people … he wasn’t just, like, chasing them. They were arrested, and he was charging them 18% interest, and these people were, you know, most of them that we read about in that story were poor. So …  

Rovner: And some of them owed, like, $100! 

Kenen: Right. And it’s unclear whether they even knew they had court dates. And his response was just like, you know, a political one for the ages, which is … I think it was his spokesman, not him, saying, you know, he didn’t jail them, he didn’t issue the subpoenas and the warrants or whatever it was; the court did. But he brought the case, so it just doesn’t … is it going to, like, affect his eventual reelection? No, but is it just sort of, say, something’s really broken here? Yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I mean, these weren’t people having tummy tucks. These were people who were delivering babies, in some cases, really difficult deliveries. 

Kenen: In one case, they had lost the babies. 

Rovner: That’s right. 

Kenen: Twins, I think it was twins. Yeah. 

Rovner: I think it was. Sandhya, sorry. 

Raman: There were two things that kind of, you know, caught my eye with this. A) is that, you know, doctors do have discretion in how they go after this issue. I mean, even if one is allowed to go after folks for this, they don’t have to. There are other options. But two, you know, I think one of the reasons this really resonates is that right now with Sen. Bill Cassidy, you know, losing his primary, not going to be in the Senate next year, Sen. Roger Marshall is probably one of the top contenders to lead the HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee, if Republicans maintain control of the Senate. So he’s going to have a lot of power over health policy and setting the agenda for what that committee does. And, you know, when so much of the conversation has been, like we talked about before, you know, affordability and things like that, I think that that has, you know, really struck a chord with some folks as well. 

Seitz: I also think that, you know, I did see some people saying, Listen, he is entitled. He did this work. He is entitled to get paid for it. And certainly, people might sympathize with that. But in this particular case, Sen. Marshall has leaned in to this idea that he was this upstanding community doctor who helped deliver babies of poor women on Medicaid. So when you’re a U.S. senator and you’re using that sort of imagery, but people have a completely opposite experience, it is fair game for them to speak out about that. 

Kenen: No, I mean it’s also, it’s true. Not all OBs take Medicaid. It’s a good thing that he took Medicaid. But in that bio, he left out that he was also, what, the co-owner of a hospital making millions of dollars. So, like, going after some — putting somebody in jail for two days over, you know, an obstetrics bill is probably something he’s going to have to discuss at home. 

Rovner: Well, while we are on the “Eyebrow-Raising Story” beat, The Wall Street Journal last week had a — he of the hoodies and shorts — apparently not being all that interested in “senatoring” these days. Among the anecdotes in the story, all of which were provided by former staffers, is one where he declined to meet with the folks from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which is not just one of the top children’s hospitals in the country, it’s one of the top hospitals in the country. They wanted to talk about Medicaid cuts. He reportedly said he wasn’t worried about Medicaid cuts, and they were just looking for an excuse to visit Washington. In more than 40 years of covering healthcare in Congress, I cannot remember an elected official dissing a major hospital in their own district. Have any of you ever seen …?  

Kenen: Particularly a children’s hospital! 

Rovner: And yes, particularly a children’s hospital. I mean, this is just so out of the ordinary. It’s hard for me to express. 

Kenen: Yeah, but that’s his middle name now: “out of the ordinary.” 

Seitz: It also just shows, like, you know, there’s so much when you talk to voters, they talk about how their elected officials don’t really care about them. And that was so on display in this article. 

Rovner: And, I mean, is there something different about hospitals these days? I guess that’s sort of what, the other thing that made it jump out to me. I mean, hospitals are sort of increasingly the bad guys in raising … costs. It used to be … the Republicans are all going after the big, greedy insurance companies. We’ve seen studies recently that said it’s not the insurance companies who are making more money these days; it’s the hospitals that are making more money these days, and premiums are going up because hospitals are charging so much. I’m just wondering if hospitals are kind of losing their luster a little bit on Capitol Hill. 

Seitz: I think so, and I think part of that is the consolidation, right? You have, no longer do you have, in all cases, community hospitals that really run … where you have, like, this great relationship with your local doctor and everyone knows who’s providing their healthcare. it’s become more corporate, and I think that makes it an easier target for sure. 

Rovner: Well, finally, on the “Scandalous Story” beat this week, while we were gone, The Guardian and The Associated Press that contradict testimony that HHS [Health and Human Services] Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave to Congress when he denied that his 2019 trip to Samoa was related to vaccines. A letter he wrote to the Samoan prime minister before he went specifically said he wanted to study what happened with the MMR vaccine in the island nation, where two children died after receiving an improperly mixed version of the vaccine, and later a measles outbreak, after vaccinations declined, sickened thousands and killed 83 more people. In response to this story, Sen. Ron Wyden, who’s the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, has called for a criminal investigation into whether Kennedy lied to Congress. Of course, it seems unlikely that the current Justice Department would take up such a case. But if Democrats do take back the Senate, could they use this to try to oust the secretary? 

Raman: I think they could use it to bring him in. I mean, he wasn’t under oath when making these remarks about this during the hearing. But I think, I mean, that’s the main pull for Democrats in this presidency is if they do gain control of one or more chambers to be able to do more oversight on the things that they’re not getting answers to through other means. So I mean, we could see that … 

Rovner: I believe it is still a crime to lie to Congress, even if you’re not under oath. Just throwing that out there. 

Raman: I mean, I don’t know what they can do with this other than hold oversight, because I don’t see the DOJ or other enforcement kind of going after this. 

Rovner: Yeah. I guess I’m just wondering, I mean, of all the things that we know that Secretary Kennedy has not been completely truthful about, is this the one that they’re going to sort of want to run into the ground? 

Seitz: I totally agree. It might not. You know, there’s a lot of maybe half-truths that have been given at this point, and it’ll be interesting to see which ones the Democrats do go after, even if they do get power, which is very up in the air right now. 

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: And there are rumors that Kennedy is — I mean, these rumors always happen at this time of year before an election — there’s, you know, rumors that he’ll be out anyway, but, you know, who knows? Because right now, you know, Trump seems to be embracing him again. There was some distance. Now there’s, you know, these things go up and down, and it’s not unique to Republicans. There are always rumors about Cabinet secretaries changing after the midterm, but this is sort of one of the ones that is circulating in D.C. that there could be a change. 

Rovner: No, we will see. All right. Speaking of HHS, Politico did a deep dive into what’s happened with personnel and has found that the number of political appointees in the agency has reached the highest level since the Clinton administration — even while career staffing has dropped by more than 20% — and that HHS actually now has the most non-Senate-confirmed political appointees in the federal government. That includes several departments that are far larger, like Defense. In some parts of HHS, even though hiring has resumed, those quitting still outnumber those coming in. And at the same time, agencies are failing to carry out policies and spend money appropriated by Congress. At some point, is Congress going to notice this and try to do something about it? I feel like I ask this question every single week. 

Seitz: I mean, this was such smart reporting because I think all of us have, at some point, been, like, you know, where’s this anti-vaccine ally of Kennedy’s? Why is he in this agency? So we’ve all noticed, like, this just influx of advisers — usually is how they label them. But in many ways, this wasn’t surprising. I mean, the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], FDA, NIH [National Institutes of Health], the career staffers have really been cut out of the decision-making on so many things, whether it be autism research, tobacco, vaccines, the MAHA Report that relied more on AI than any actual in-house expertise. So, you know, RFK has been very vocal on how much he does not trust the people working in these agencies. So, like I said, in many ways it’s not surprising, but it is certainly … shocking to see those sort of numbers. 

Rovner: Yeah, I found the numbers really — I mean, anecdotally, and we’ve been talking about this for months. I mean, you know, this agency or that agency where everybody has left, or — I forgot, there’s still, you know, thousands of people who are being paid and are on administrative leave and not working. I mean, particularly at the CDC, there’s entire offices of people, of career people, that are simply out in limbo while these, you know, political appointees are doing all the policymaking.  

Well, one thing that Congress has appeared to notice is an interagency agreement in which HHS would let the Department of Defense tap into billions of dollars appropriated to the NIH for the DOD to use to study military biodefense programs. The agreement was . It’s quite an eye-popping story. I will link to it. Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations committees, are both furious. But it remains unclear what they can or will do. Is there anything they can do about this? I mean, it appears to be something that, you know, HHS has done with DOD, and it seems to be kind of a fait accompli. 

Raman: I mean, this whole situation has been kind of unusual. You know, we had the Democrats last week, you know, speaking out about how they’re very worried about this. We had the White House and the Republican leader of the House Appropriations Committee, you know, pushing back and saying that no money is changing hands and that it’s a partnership. And I think there’s still a lot of missing pieces that we’re still trying to figure out. I think a lot of groups have been trying to say, you know, are certain programs going to be cut to fund this, or there other things that are, you know, going to get de-emphasized, or is this just like a regular partnership? Because they do, you know, these two do work a lot on various biodefense issues over the years. That’s not unusual. I think one clue we might be able to look at is next week the Appropriations Committee is looking at the law that governs these interagency agreements, and so while it doesn’t explicitly say this agreement, I think that could come up a lot, and maybe, you know, pull out some leads in terms of what maybe is happening more here, and, you know, is money changing hands? Is it not? But that’s what I would kind of look to next. 

Rovner: Yeah, I do feel like Congress has sort of thrown up its hands about, Hey, we have the power of the purse, not you, administration. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We’ll be right back. 

So, abortion is kind of receding as a leading issue for voters this fall, obviously in favor of affordability. But there’s some still pretty epic fights raging, particularly over the abortion pill mifepristone and whether it should remain available via telehealth. That’s a change made by the Food and Drug Administration during the Biden administration during the pandemic that was later made permanent. On Wednesday, a federal appeals court in New Orleans heard oral arguments in a case brought by Louisiana, charging that the FDA policy undermines its state’s ban and should be rolled back. Meanwhile, states where abortion remains legal argue that banning telehealth prescribing would violate their ability to make abortion available, which is what the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision said they should be able to do. Sandhya, you listened to the arguments; they were pretty arcane. What is this case going to turn on? 

Raman: So it was interesting, but I will agree with you that there was a lot of arcane legalese here. So, Louisiana, during their arguments, was asking the court to, you know, pause what the FDA has done, but also to pause that their own decision because the Supreme Court right now has put a pause on letting any of the regulation change while the litigation plays out. So a pause of a pause. And so there was a little bit of talk of, you know, what can we do here as a court and, you know, the authorities there. I thought what was, you know, pretty interesting was that, you know, the FDA didn’t really say a lot in responses to the judges. They basically just said that Louisiana didn’t have standing. They didn’t answer a lot of the questions asked of them. You could tell the judges were kind of frustrated about that. And, you know, I think a little bit is understandable. You know, we’re in this position where the FDA is defending an abortion policy put in place by the former Democratic administration. They’re in an unusual spot. We still have the, you know, review of mifepristone happening at FDA that could, you know, decide something on the safety. We don’t know yet, depending on what it is that they’re going to look for. But I think it’ll be interesting to see what they say, just because it seemed like the judges were frustrated with many responses from different people. But whatever outcome we get here will definitely be appealed by whoever to the Supreme Court. I mean, we’ve seen that with other cases; it’s almost, you know, guaranteed here. 

Rovner: And of course, we’re still waiting for that FDA study that they’ve been promising that we expect, I guess, after the midterms, conveniently, because the administration didn’t want to further inflame both sides before the midterms. 

Well, along these same lines, while we were on break, Senate HELP Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, who’s a strong abortion opponent from Louisiana, released the result of an investigation by Republicans on his committee that criticized the FDA’s handling of mifepristone regulation. Will this investigation and report have any ongoing impact — given that this is also being played out in the courts, maybe in confirmation hearings for Heidi Overton, the current White House health aide who’s been nominated to head the FDA? 

Raman: I think it’ll definitely come up in her confirmation hearings. I’m not sure how much this specific report is going to play a huge difference, because, I mean, we’ve had over the last several months a lot of different Republicans going and asking FDA for specific things to speed up this review, to do it in the first place, to do specific things, and it doesn’t seem like that has moved the needle and changed much. You know, they’ve kind of stuck to whatever it is that they had in mind on that. So, I mean, it could be something that they cite, but I don’t know that it’s going to have a drastic effect when they already have that underway. 

Rovner: I’m interested. We’re seeing a whole bunch of hearings for Senate confirmations for HHS officials, but not yet for Heidi Overton, who’s been working in the White House as a health official. Amanda, do you expect that we’re going to see anything about her before the election, or maybe they’re going to try to hold it over? 

Seitz: Yeah, I heard some chatter that there might be a possibility, but then of course we got the notice for the deputy secretary and for the surgeon general, and not her yet. So we will see. I, you know, I think obviously the hearings next week will be far less controversial people, and I think that’s, you know, key right now. 

Rovner: Yeah, I should say that Chris Klomp, who’s … at CMS now, but who’s basically been acting as deputy secretary and has been nominated to be deputy secretary. I don’t think anybody expects there to be a whole lot of controversy associated with that one. 

Seitz: Though I will say it’ll be interesting to see. I mean, certainly he’s going to get questions about vaccines, and I’m very curious to see how he responds to that, as well as the surgeon general. You know, those are not normally questions that these folks are fielding, but they’re going to have to answer them, and it’s going to be really, like, telling how they walk that line. 

Kenen: Klomp is one of the probably least controversial people at HHS. People think, people in both parties and in the private sector and the health sector think he’s very competent, and that, you know, apparently he’s a — I don’t know him personally — but he’s apparently, you know, someone one can talk to. So I don’t think this is a fireworks-y thing, other than the mandatory, you know, both parties always want to score some points, and they will be point-scoring. But you know, he’s — I think there are a lot of Democrats who are actually pretty glad he’s there. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve met him. He’s very smooth, and I mean that in a good way. I don’t mean that in a slick way. I mean he’s just, he’s one of these people who clearly is good at his job. 

Well, meanwhile, still on reproductive health, our friends at ProPublica are reporting, using federal health statistics, that the , those that implant outside the uterus, has doubled since 2020 compared with the six years before. Some of that was likely due to the pandemic, when healthcare was harder to access. But the rate has continued to grow, and it’s grown much faster in states that have implemented abortion bans. Other ProPublica reporting has shown how women with pregnancy complications, like ectopic pregnancies, have had trouble getting care in states with bans. I guess at some level this shouldn’t be that surprising, but it still kind of jumped out at me. 

Seitz: It’s such important work because it’s been so hard to measure the impact of these bans. You know, we heard anecdotally over and over again from doctors how difficult it was to treat patients in these states. We obviously heard the horrific stories of women being turned away or dying in some cases. But a lot of people have sort of dismissed that and said, “Oh, you know, this was a bad doctor, or someone who wasn’t following the law or wasn’t reading it close enough, or a bad hospital attorney.” This gives us such a clear picture of how drastically the overturning of Roe v. Wade has been in raw numbers that you really can’t refute, and I thought that was very important. 

Kenen: This is the one, not the one thing, but this is one thing that there’s no debate about: An embryo cannot develop outside the womb. It cannot. It cannot. It can’t. I mean, it’s … it got lost, basically. I mean, I think I’ve mentioned before. … I have had an ectopic pregnancy. I’ve had a heterotopic pregnancy. And it’s nothing … you know, in my case, it was very much a planned, wanted baby, and it was very upsetting for me. But I was, I got treatment. But, you know, for people to mess around with this who don’t understand it, I mean, there was one lawmaker, and I forgot who it was, and I also forgot whether it was state or federal, who said, “Why can’t they just move it where it belongs?” You know, you can’t. I mean, trust me, I would have chosen that. … This is, like, it’s not abortion. This is just a medical problem that no baby is going to come out of an ectopic pregnancy, and a woman can die. So the fact that this is, like, still being — that women are dying is, like, if you’re pro-life, you’re supposed to care about life. And, you know, partly because of some misunderstandings, and partly because there’s some politics, and partly just because of some — you don’t know you have one. I mean, I didn’t know I had an ectopic pregnancy. And it just shouldn’t — women should not die in 2026 in the United States of America or anywhere else. This is not an abortion. 

Rovner: Even the anti-abortion movement makes the semantic case that treating ectopic pregnancies is — they don’t consider treating ectopic pregnancies an abortion. 

All right. Well, finally, this week, an update on the political fight over the measles outbreak in Pennsylvania, which has pitted HHS Secretary RFK Jr. against the state’s Democratic governor and possible presidential candidate, Josh Shapiro. The Lancaster County coroner has now reported to the CDC that the two measles-related deaths in the state in August were both infants, both from Amish families, but only one died “from” measles. (She puts in air quotes.) The other died “with” measles. I feel like we’re already back to covid. Does this actually make a difference? 

Kenen: It depends. Like, I thought, one of the best summaries of this case, and it was actually some of the facts that have come out in the public … Paul Offit had a very — from Children’s Hospital, speaking of Children’s Hospital … 

Rovner: Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, yes. 

Kenen: … and one of the leading vaccine researchers in the country, and someone who’s very good at explaining things. He had, like, a 10-paragraph … I think it was in MedPage, the other day … it was a little bit. … We’ve learned more about these cases since then, so I don’t know that he’s updated that. But the, you know, the basic idea was that in this “with measles,” in this particular case, might actually have been, like, without the measles, the baby might not have died, or the child might not have died. 

Rovner: This was a baby who died from a ruptured spleen. 

Kenen: And that the spleen could have been damaged because of the measles. And he didn’t say it’s definite. He said a number of tests needed to be performed to be sure one way or the other, and to the best of what had come out publicly before that, those tests had not … we didn’t know if those tests had been performed. So yes, it is possible that this was, the baby died because of the spleen damage, but that the spleen could have been because of the measles, and apparently we’re not really sure of it. But yeah, it matters because it’s part of the mix. You know, a baby died, a child died, a baby died, and getting in a fight about “with” doesn’t … it’s a risk factor. Period. 

Rovner: Well, one small silver lining: The Pennsylvania Department of Health says it has seen a surge in measles vaccines being given, nearly twice as many this August as is typical. Is that how this is going to go? People won’t get vaccinated until they see cases of the things they could have already been vaccinated to prevent? 

Seitz: It depends on who they trust, right? I mean, I think that is the unfortunate thing about this entire — I mean, there are so many unfortunate things about this entire case, and the first being that two babies are dead. But the other unfortunate thing is that people are now thoroughly confused, and it’s hard to discern, really, what happened. Even as a reporter who’s following this. Imagine being just, you know, a parent trying to decide what to do with your kid. So I think you’ll see some people that do go: OK, I don’t want to take this risk. I think you’ll see some that double down and go: You know, I’m not sure that the government’s being honest with me. And the nation’s health secretary also suggested that the Pennsylvania state government’s not being honest with me. So, unfortunately, I think we’re going to see all kinds of reactions to all of this. 

Rovner: And which government is not being honest with me — the federal government, or the state government, or the local government? Because now we’ve got the local coroner involved in this. So it’s, yeah, it is truly — I feel like this is a real microcosm of what’s going on with vaccines around the country. 

Kenen: In some ways it’s, what some people in public health would say, the best possible scenario is that people do wake up to the fact. Now we haven’t had a lot of measles for many years. We have now had more measles, and people are learning about the danger of measles, and maybe that will change behavior and reverse some of the anti-vaccination movement. On the other hand, you also have people saying that, not just in this case, but that it wasn’t measles that killed so-and-so. You know that there have been cases where someone died, but no, it wasn’t measles. You know, it was bad care. It was lack of vitamin A. It was, you know, malpractice. It was bad luck. It was something else, right? So you have sort of … you hear in public health is, like, Oh the tragedy is it’s going to take measles deaths for people to rediscover the importance of vaccine, and we may be seeing a little of that. But the other, the simultaneous narrative is, you know, it’s not measles that’s killing you; you don’t need the vaccine, that’s worse. So there’s … two narratives. Right now we see the, you know, the pro-vaccine may be inching up, but I don’t think we know yet where we’re going to be in a few more months. The, you know, there’s a lot of measles out there. 

Rovner: Yeah, clearly more of this to come. All right, that’s this week’s news, or at least as much as we have time for. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser. Then we will come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my colleague Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News “Bill of the Month.” Hi, Lauren. 

Lauren Sausser: Hi. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient was doing what just about every medical expert recommends: getting preventive screenings for breast cancer. Tell us who she is, what kind of medical care she got, and why she needed something extra. 

Sausser: OK. So, the patient this month, her name is Stephanie Halver. She lives in Washington state, and her primary care physician recommended that she get a breast MRI in addition to her annual mammogram because of her age, partly. Stephanie is over 40. She has dense breast tissue, and she also has a family history of breast cancer. Her mother and her aunt were both diagnosed in the past. 

Rovner: So she was at high risk, and her doctor recommended this MRI in addition to the regular mammogram, and her insurance company preapproved it. So, how was there a fight over the bill, and how big was the bill? 

Sausser: So, this actually took me a minute to figure this out. So, Stephanie had gotten a preapproval letter from her insurer before she went to schedule the MRI. But then, several months later, she got a bill, a significant bill for over $1,000, and she didn’t understand why this was not covered in the same way that her annual mammogram was covered. And to figure that out, we have to go back to the Affordable Care Act, which says that insurers have to cover some screenings, some cancer screenings, at zero cost to patients. Mammograms are in that list. Colonoscopies are in that list. Breast MRIs are not in that list. So the question is, who comes up with this list? It’s a group that you probably have heard of before, called the U.S. Preventive [Services] Task Force, which looks at all the available scientific evidence and uses a really rigorous process to figure out which screenings are best suited for the entire population. So, anyway, at this point in time, the U.S. Preventive [Services] Task Force — which, I should say, is not an active group of scientists since Kennedy disbanded the group essentially last year. 

Rovner: Yes, and we talk about this on the podcast all the time. 

Sausser: OK, so you all are up to speed about that. But as the current guidelines are written, breast MRIs — the group does not, has not found enough evidence that they’re necessary for a large group of people. Now, interestingly, I recently spoke to the former head of the task force, and he concedes that that does not mean that breast MRIs are not the right choice for some people. There’s this tension between, you know, what’s good for a population and what’s good for individual patients. In this case, Stephanie Halver’s primary care doctor appropriately recommended a breast MRI, but because breast MRIs are not included in the task force recommendations, her insurer does not have to cover that at zero cost. Now, as you mentioned, she had that preapproval letter, so why did she get the bill? Well, in this case, Stephanie had a really high deductible. It was over $5,000. That’s not super high anymore, but it was high. So in this case, the cost of the MRI was just applied toward her deductible. So she got a bill for it. If it had happened later in the calendar year and she’d met her deductible at that point, she might not have gotten a bill, or maybe wouldn’t have gotten a bill that was for essentially the full amount of the MRI. 

Rovner: So it was covered. It just wasn’t covered as a no-out-of-pocket-cost preventive service? 

Sausser: Exactly, exactly. 

Rovner: Now … we’ll add one more level of complication to this. I know in your research you discovered that some states are actually requiring breast MRIs to be covered in certain situations, and Washington is one of those states. So why wasn’t it covered for her? 

Sausser: So yeah, this added another level of complexity because when Stephanie was researching, you know, why, how did this bill happen? I live in Washington state. There’s a state law in Washington state that requires insurers to cover this procedure — or this test, I should say. Those state laws don’t regulate the type of insurance that she has. So a lot of people, like Stephanie, like you and me, get their health insurance through their employer. Those employer-sponsored plans are regulated federally through the Department of Labor, and so state laws generally don’t touch that type of insurance. Now, if Stephanie had had a federal marketplace plan or some other type of insurance, it’s possible that that state law would have applied. But in her case, because she had insurance through her job, that state law didn’t benefit her. 

Rovner: This is why we needed the Affordable Care Act in the first place because state laws don’t cover many — all of those employer plans that are federally regulated, which is most employer plans, although it’s not all. 

Sausser: Right, and it’s really, it’s confusing for people. … Insurance regulation is so piecemeal, and these self- —they’re also called these self-insured plans. If you work for a very large employer, chances are the plan is self-insured, and that means, at a very basic level, that the employer, not the insurance company, is actually the one that decides which benefits will be paid for and how they will be paid for, and, in this case, Stephanie did check with her HR [human resources] department, which confirmed that breast MRIs are not covered in the same way that mammograms are covered. 

Rovner: So, what’s the takeaway here? If you’re a patient and you find yourself in a similar situation, and your doctor recommends this care, I mean, is there a way to, like, save some money? 

Sausser: There is. One thing that you can do is shop around for the best price. So you’re going to pay more for a breast MRI probably through a hospital than you are through sort of a freestanding imaging center. The other thing that you might consider doing is, if you have a very high deductible — let’s say, you know, $10,000 or $20,000 — you might consider paying cash because you’re probably going to be quoted a lower cash price than if the provider bills the MRI through your insurance. The other thing is that you could consider scheduling this after you’ve met your deductible. So let’s say that Stephanie had decided to wait till the end of her plan’s calendar year, and she had met her deductible at that point. She probably wouldn’t have had to pay very much for this MRI. There are also advocacy groups that can help patients who are struggling to pay the bill, find a lower-cost alternative. There are programs through Medicaid that help patients get screened. The takeaway, to answer your question, is don’t ignore your doctor’s recommendation. If you need a breast MRI, there are probably ways to lower your cost if you know going into it that you may be on the hook for all or part of the bill. 

Rovner: Well, as always, it’s buyer beware in the healthcare marketplace. Lauren Sausser, thank you very much. 

Sausser: Of course. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sandhya, why don’t you go first this week? 

Raman: So my extra credit this week is called “.” It’s from my colleagues at Bloomberg Government, Erin Durkin and Claire Hebert. So something some folks might not know is that Medicaid is a significant funding source for special-needs services in K through 12 public schools. And so they took a look at Indiana, which has, you know, been aggressively cutting Medicaid enrollment, seeing some of the biggest drops in child health insurance compared to other states, and just looking at some of the effects there, you know, in part by the tax law that Republicans passed last year, and just Indiana laws that also made similar changes. So it’s a good deep dive into this. 

Rovner: It is. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is a story from ProPublica in collaboration with the Oregon paper, The Oregonian, I believe it was: “.” It’s by Audrey Dutton. It’s about Idaho, which is, there’s a community that’s been there for, like, 100 years that did not believe in medical intervention. They believe that if a baby is dying, then that’s, you know, what God wanted. It is not … there’s an astonishing, a disturbing number of cases. They are under Iowa state, excuse me, Idaho state law. They are not prosecuted. They are under state law. They are allowed to let their children die. And there are some voices in that story about the police who have to go and how disturbing it is for them, and that ProPublic also had a retired pediatrician review the medical records. Many, many of these are avoidable deaths — something that would have responded to antibiotics. Something that would have, you know, simple, not terribly invasive surgery. There was a quote from a midwife that really stuck with me, talking about watching a child die, and she said, “It’s not pretty. They don’t just close their eyes.” It’s a very, very powerful story. 

Rovner: Amanda. 

Seitz: Yeah, I have two extra credits this week, but they both touch on the same topic. The first is “,” by Daniel Payne at Stat News. This story looks at how, ahead of all these Medicaid cuts, rural hospitals are sort of clinging on for dear life by getting the backing of a larger hospital system. They’re often out of town, and, actually, one of the hospitals my own mom works at, so that was kind of cool. But the article does a great job of raising the balance here — that while this approach is saving hospitals from closing, it changes the care that people are getting, and it could make it more expensive. And then my second article is by our Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleagues Noam [N.] Levy and Hannah Norman. They published an article: A NY Hospital Tried To Close Its Birthing Center. This City United To Fight Back.” That looks at how this hospital in a small town of Troy, New York, was instructed to close its birthing center by the multibillion-dollar health system that’s out of town that it’s owned by. And there was this sort of herculean, bipartisan pushback over the proposed closure that stretched from, like, the local city to the state. Both of these articles just do a really great job, I thought, of showing the local impact of hospital consolidation and corporatization of those systems. 

Rovner: Well, my extra credit this week is from NBC News. It’s part of its “Disabled and Denied” series called “,” by Mike Hixenbaugh. And it’s about a new AI program being used in Nebraska. I guess we’re all looking at different states this week. And this program is being used in other states, too, to help determine how much Medicaid funding should be allocated to those living with disabilities — which sounds fine until he discovered that the algorithm basically penalizes families who’ve managed to care for their disabled loved ones at home. Because they’ve never been institutionalized, they’re suddenly deemed more able than they actually are, and funding that’s been allowing them to live is being cut dramatically. In one case, parents in their 70s caring for a pair of severely disabled sons in their 40s are facing a loss of more than $200,000 in Medicaid funding. That’s jeopardizing their ability to continue to keep their sons at home. The entire story is pretty wrenching. I really can’t recommend it strongly enough. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer this week, Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X these days , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging on the socials, as they say? Amanda. 

Seitz: I am also on X . 

Rovner: Joanne? 

Kenen: I’m mostly on and . 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: I’m on and on @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Taylor Cook Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2282675
Trump and Kennedy’s Health Industry Deals Haven’t Been Enforced and Are at Risk of Vanishing /health-industry/trump-kennedy-food-dyes-price-deals-unenforced-vanishing/ Fri, 28 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2278186 In the thick of his competitive reelection race in Michigan, Republican Rep. joined Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at a sprawling 400-acre . They touted Trump administration efforts to improve the American diet, including the removal of some artificial dyes from processed foods.

“We had a great discussion about healthy options for all Americans and taking back control of our healthcare,” Barrett said in a June , after sampling the farm’s apple cider.

Like the focus on artificial dyes, however, many of the administration’s highest-profile health initiatives rely on voluntary agreements. The goals, such as lower drug prices and nutrition classes for doctors, have widespread appeal, cutting across party lines and economic divisions.

But the administration-industry deals lack the enforcement teeth of more traditional federal regulation. Their details are vague, and minimal oversight makes it hard to monitor progress. In some cases, the administration has claimed victories that have yet to materialize.

Republicans consider the dealmaking a winning strategy. It fits with the party’s anti-regulatory stance, they say, and enables the administration to quickly forge agreements President Donald Trump and his allies can tout as accomplishments. In the run-up to the midterm elections, some, like Barrett, hope to woo voters by trumpeting the Trump administration’s efforts to shape health policy.

The practice also raises questions. Though the deals are announced with great fanfare — often during televised events on stages, with live audiences — there’s little documentation or follow-through, creating doubts about whether the administration’s health agenda will lead to lasting change or unravel once the political attention fades.

The distinction could prove important to voters as Republicans defend their health records in November’s midterm elections.

“These deals are often not transparent, so there’s no way for the public to judge how meaningful they are,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Dealing With Dyes

The push to remove certain artificial dyes from food and drugs, for example, was a headline grabber. In April 2025, Kennedy to announce deals with food makers. He was flanked by young children and mothers holding placards reading “Make America Healthy Again.”

He and former FDA commissioner drew a standing ovation from an audience selected by Kennedy’s staff as they said companies had pledged to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation’s food supply and medicines. They targeted nine synthetic dyes for removal.

Voters love the idea of stopping the use of such dyes. In a nationally representative March survey by Consumer Reports, said they were at least somewhat concerned about synthetic dyes, and two-thirds said companies should be required to phase them out.

A year after making the first announcement at HHS, during a discussion at the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual political event.

“We’ve gotten rid of the nine synthetic-based food dyes,” he said.

Not quite. At the initial HHS event, federal officials said companies would voluntarily stop using six specific synthetic dyes . (The administration has also revoked or proposed revoking authorization for two other synthetic food dyes.)

Later, the FDA on its website quietly to the end of 2027. So, most are still in use.

In fact, the FDA posted a list of 27 companies it said had made voluntary pledges as of December 2025 to remove six synthetic dyes from products such as Doritos and Kellogg’s Froot Loops. More than a year and a half later, — fewer than 30% of those who bought in — had met their promised goals.

Many major food makers, such as the Coca-Cola Co. and Unilever, have made “” to remove the synthetic dyes, according to Consumer Reports. In addition, no pharmaceutical companies have publicly said they have plans to remove dyes from drugs.

“It’s just all talk,” said Leslie Dach, who chairs , a healthcare advocacy group that supports the Affordable Care Act. “They just govern for a day of publicity, and then it’s over. None of it happens. Yet the people don’t know because they have busy lives, so they think, ‘Just look at all these initiatives.’”

In fact, the administration , allowing companies to say their products contain no artificial colors — as long as they don’t use petroleum-based dyes. Previously, food makers could not make that claim unless their products contained no added colors. Some food dyes made from natural ingredients can contain contaminants and may pose their own health risks, .

“The federal government hasn’t taken any regulatory action on food dyes, for the most part, since the beginning of this administration,” said , vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group.

HHS said the voluntary approach has yielded significant action, including commitments to remove synthetic dyes from products sold in schools for the 2026–27 school year.

“HHS and the FDA are moving forward with clear timelines and concrete industry commitments, with major changes expected in foods served in schools during the coming school year and across full product portfolios by the end of 2027,” HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email.

At the same CPAC convention event, Kennedy said “the MCAT testing companies are going to put nutrition on the MCAT for the first time, so the students will actually want to do it.” MCAT refers to the Medical College Admission Test, an exam required for admission to medical schools.

Again, not quite.

The Association of American Medical Colleges administers the MCAT. Spokesperson said Kennedy misspoke and may have meant to refer to a test taken by students to be licensed as doctors.

An Insurance Deal Falls Short of Promises

Kennedy again took to the HHS stage in June 2025, this time with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, to make what was billed as a game-changing announcement. to reduce the volume of healthcare services subject to prior authorization, a practice widely used by the insurance industry that often requires patients or their medical teams to seek preapproval before undergoing treatment.

The administration said 80% of insurers pledged changes to preauthorization requirements for 80% of diseases and injuries . The administration also promised “” to track progress.

“It will happen very quickly,” Oz said at the event. “Necessary care will be delivered when it’s needed, in the right way.”

As of July, months past that January target date, health plans had reduced prior authorization for medical services by about 11%, according to AHIP, the insurer trade group. But no public dashboards have debuted to track the deal, and some insurers that signed the pledge last summer told Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News this year that they will not implement all the promised reforms as outlined by AHIP.

Hilliard did not respond to questions about the pace of progress.

The American Medical Association, in a 2025 web-based survey, asked 1,000 practicing doctors whether they believed the voluntary pledges would make a meaningful difference. said they believed they would.

Insurers made a , during the previous Trump administration. The next year, more than 80% of doctors said the number of prior authorization requests for drugs and medical services had been increasing, based on .

Meanwhile, the administration is testing an artificial intelligence-powered for Medicare, the federal health program for people 65 and older or with disabilities. In six states, Medicare beneficiaries must get preapproval for a few treatments that CMS considers to have little clinical benefit and to be susceptible to fraud or waste, including skin substitutes and knee arthroscopy for arthritis. The program began in January, the same deadline insurers had set for curtailing preauthorization delays.

Deals and Deregulation

The healthcare industry’s voluntary agreements appeal to voters who feel government regulation drives up costs and places unnecessary burdens on businesses, some supporters say.

“Secretary Kennedy is the antithesis of a public health industry that uses coercion over communication — and has demonstrated this by taking the time and effort to push voluntary initiatives over the typical approach of governmental mandates,” said , a political consultant who was a political appointee at HHS in Trump’s first term.

But voluntary agreements with the health industry can prove ineffective. Former President Jimmy Carter in 1977 proposed a legislative plan to curb rising hospital costs. Hospitals fought back, and Congress rejected the proposal, instead favoring a desired by the industry. It ultimately failed once public attention faded.

One upside: Deals are fast. can take two to three years. And some health analysts say the tempo of the agreements advanced by Kennedy and Trump may help take voters’ attention off the Trump administration’s inability so far to produce a long-promised health plan.

Instead, Republicans can point to the array of accords reached with industry, including the with drugmakers so they’re in line with lower amounts charged in peer countries. The White House calls it the “most-favored-nation” prescription drug pricing policy.

Seventeen companies, including Pfizer and AstraZeneca, with the administration to lower prices for Medicaid enrollees and cash-paying consumers using , a narrow, government-run consumer platform.

Many details remain unknown, but the lower prices apply only to new drugs and existing drugs available through Medicaid. And prices at TrumpRx aren’t as low as out-of-pocket prices for most consumers with insurance. But the voluntary deals appeal to an industry that has railed against mandatory approaches drugmakers deride as harmful price controls.

“Each company makes its own decisions about how it prices medicines, and our industry is committed to working with the Trump administration to ensure Americans have access to affordable medicines,” said Chanse Jones, a spokesperson for PhRMA, a pharmaceutical industry trade group.

Policies that lead to reductions in drug prices typically worry investors because profits also can drop. But rather than seeing their stock prices fall after the agreements were announced, the drugmakers saw largely .

Analysts say that’s partly because the deals are narrow in scope, largely exist only in principle, and don’t apply to existing drugs used by the more than 200 million Americans with commercial or private health insurance.

The Trump administration, however, is .

“The most-favored-nation agreements on drug prices that we just did are delivering the largest drug price cuts in history,” Trump said in June at a in Pennsylvania. “That alone should win us the midterms.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2278186
A State Gave Sheriffs 20% of Its Opioid Settlement Cash. We Followed the Money. /public-health/louisiana-sheriffs-opioid-settlement-spending-addiction-law-enforcement/ Thu, 27 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2277190

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News worked with three Louisiana news outlets — , , and — to ask all 64 sheriffs in the state how they’ve spent their opioid settlement funds. The responses were shared and presented in a data table for all four newsrooms to use. Reporters then conducted individual reporting for separate articles.

Every state is from companies accused of flooding the nation with prescription painkillers and fueling overdose deaths. But only one state is directing 20% of those payouts to sheriffs — the largest carve-out for law enforcement nationwide.

In Louisiana, sheriffs are elected, do not serve at the pleasure of another local official, and have independent budgets. They’re also not required to proactively report to the public or another authority how they spend billions in opioid settlement cash.

Short of filing public records requests or waiting for official audits, that has made it difficult for the average person to track the windfall. Many consider the dollars to be “blood money” and believe the spirit of the settlements is to spend it all on abating the addiction crisis.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News worked with three Louisiana news outlets — , , and — to track those dollars. The newsrooms contacted all 64 Louisiana sheriffs over five months, often filing public records requests, to produce the first detailed accounting of millions spent.

The findings include:

  • Thirty-eight sheriffs reported spending more than $8.1 million total. Much of it went to crime-fighting equipment, such as surveillance cameras and drug detection products, though smaller amounts funded mobile apps, addiction treatment in jails, and educational programs for youth.
  • $5.4 million, about 66% of reported spending, was deemed inappropriate by a three-person review panel. The panel, assembled by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and its partners, included a Louisiana resident in recovery who lost his son to a fentanyl overdose, an addiction medicine doctor, and a public health policy analyst who has been tracking settlement dollars since 2022. They judged the expenditures using their professional and personal expertise. Expenditures the panel disapproved of included salaries and overtime pay for homicide detectives and officers conducting jail shakedowns to find contraband.
  • $4.7 million, nearly 60% of reported spending, went to items or services that other states say should not be purchased with opioid cash. Six states have , such as technology to extract data from cellphones and automated external defibrillators, which are . Although Louisiana does not have its own “unallowable” list, the state’s — a five-member body that advises sheriffs and parishes but does not control the money — said it has shared the guidance from other states.
  • Nine sheriffs stood out for promising uses: All of their expenditures, totaling nearly $1.8 million, were deemed appropriate by the review panel and allowable in other states. These included providing addiction treatment in jail, training officers to respond to overdoses, and increasing public awareness of addiction resources.
  • Twenty sheriffs did not provide their expenditures, leaving roughly $10.7 million that hidden from public view. The Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, which covers an area just outside New Orleans and was allotted the highest amount — nearly $4 million through 2025 — did not respond to more than a dozen calls and emails.

Nationwide, debates over law enforcement’s role with opioid settlement money have been underway since the funds began flowing significantly in 2022 and have continued as the pool of money has grown. Purdue Pharma, , finalized its this year, and various settlements are set to pay out for an additional decade-plus.

Since the earliest days, these dollars have been viewed across government agencies and the private sector as a pot of gold for which many are vying.

Law enforcement agencies are part of this scrum. They say seizing drugs and arresting dealers save lives, but that costs money and the addiction crisis has burdened their budgets. However, many recovery advocates staunchly oppose any opioid cash flowing to what they see as the .

Since there are few guardrails on how the money is spent, decisions often come down to how local politicians and residents see addiction and what type of approach they believe will be effective in combating it.

Louisiana provides a natural experiment to see which priorities prevail when money is handed directly to sheriffs.

First Public Look at How Louisiana Sheriffs Have Spent Over $8M in Opioid Settlement Cash

In Louisiana, sheriffs receive 20% of the state's opioid settlement cash — the largest carve-out for law enforcement nationwide. But since sheriffs are not required to proactively report how they spend the money, it's hard to track. Reporters from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News contacted all 64 sheriffs to uncover spending details. <br><br> Click column headings to sort the table.

Note: In some cases, the amount of money spent exceeds the amount allocated because sheriffs may have reported spending that included their 2026 allocations or because sheriffs combined their opioid settlement dollars with the share received by parish governments or other funding sources. Descriptions of spending are based on emails or phone calls with the sheriffs' offices and have been lightly edited. <br> Source: The money allocated to sheriffs was obtained by summing values for years 1-5, representing 2021-2025, from the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Task Force’s <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">public spreadsheet</a>. Data on money spent was collected by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News. • <a href="/download-the-data-louisiana-sheriffs-opioid-settlement-expenditures/&quot; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Download the data.</a> <br> Credit: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News' Lydia Zuraw and Aneri Pattani, The Current’s Alena Maschke, Gulf States Newsroom’s Drew Hawkins, and Verite News’ Katie Jane Fernelius

The state’s agreement with parishes and sheriffs receiving settlement cash contains broad categories for , including “law enforcement expenditures relating to the opioid epidemic.”

But even if the sheriffs’ spending is legal, that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate or effective, addiction and public health experts say.

“What’s happening here is they have a lot of money and they want to distribute it to all the wrong places,” said Danny Bolner Jr., a Jefferson Parish resident who has been in recovery from addiction for more than two decades and lost his 28-year-old son to a fentanyl overdose in 2016. On the panel that reviewed expenditures, Bolner represented the view of families who have lost loved ones to the crisis.

The purchase of drones and vehicles struck a nerve for him. He’d prefer for opioid cash to support programs that educate youth about healthy ways to process emotions, provide job training to people in recovery, and distribute overdose reversal medications.

“This money is what we have to save lives,” he said. If sheriffs use it in other ways, the finite pot “is going to be gone and then they won’t have nothing to help.”

A man in a beige brimmed hat and patterned blue short-sleeve shirt stands in a park near a lake and looks at the camera.
Danny Bolner Jr. is a Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, resident who has been in recovery from addiction for more than two decades. Bolner lost his 28-year-old son to a fentanyl overdose in 2016. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

A Safe, a Scanner, and Surveillance Cameras

For , a public health policy analyst and national opioid settlement expert who was a member of the review panel, determining if expenditures fit the spirit of the settlements often centered on whether they facilitated arrests or prevented overdoses.

“The impetus of this opioid settlement money is to spend on innovative ways to not let this happen again,” she said, referring to the overdose crisis that has claimed since 2000. She said sheriffs should be asking, “How could we use this to reinvest in the community, not just build up our office?”

Many of the sheriffs’ equipment purchases didn’t meet her bar.

For example, the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office bought a safe to store evidence from opioid investigations and a scanner for their traffic division to identify narcotics in hidden compartments. The Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office spent $465,000 on , which are automated license plate readers that capture data about passing vehicles and share them with law enforcement agencies nationwide. The Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office purchased 130 body cameras and 50 dash cameras.

Sheriffs already receive taxpayer dollars and federal grants to buy law enforcement tools, Christensen said. Opioid cash, which is finite and has a specific purpose, should not be used for that, she and the other reviewers said. In fact, some states don’t allow it.

13 Louisiana Sheriffs Spent 100% of Opioid Settlement Money Inappropriately, per an Expert Panel

The expenditures were reviewed by Tricia Christensen, a public health policy analyst who has been tracking opioid settlement spending since 2022; Stephen Loyd, an addiction medicine doctor and a person in recovery who serves as West Virginia's drug czar; and Danny Bolner Jr., a person in recovery who lost his son to a fentanyl overdose and is raising his son’s daughter in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. A majority vote determined which expenditures were appropriate. <br><br> The map depicts the percentage of money each sheriff spent on expenditures disapproved by the reviewers.

Note: The reviewers voted on the propriety of each expenditure based on their own views of the purpose of opioid settlement money. The rates of opioid-involved deaths are age-adjusted. Rates based on counts <5 were suppressed by the Louisiana Department of Health to protect privacy. "Opioid-involved deaths" include deaths in which opioids were present in the body and/or contributed to death, even if they were not the sole cause of death. <br> Sources: Settlement spending and reviewer opinions collected by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News; opioid-involved death rates from the Louisiana Department of Health <br> Credit: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News' Lydia Zuraw and Aneri Pattani, The Current’s Alena Maschke, Gulf States Newsroom’s Drew Hawkins, and Verite News’ Katie Jane Fernelius

But taxpayer money may not cover everything sheriffs need, said , executive director of the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association. “Our budgets are overloaded,” he said.

Complex investigations to dismantle drug trafficking syndicates can require advanced equipment, , a spokesperson for the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, wrote in a statement.

“While treatment and recovery services are indispensable components of addressing opioid addiction, they address the consequences of addiction after these drugs have already reached our community,” she wrote. “Law enforcement has a different, but equally essential, responsibility: preventing those deadly drugs from reaching potential victims in the first place.”

First Lt. Blake Tabor, a spokesperson for the Terrebonne sheriff’s office, similarly wrote, “Our role as a law enforcement agency is primarily focused on disrupting the criminal activity that fuels addiction in our community.” That effort complements other entities’ work in prevention, treatment, and recovery, he added.

The Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office declined to comment.

Where Public Health Meets Public Safety

Not all sheriffs spent the money on enforcement.

Acadia Parish Sheriff directed all his settlement cash to provide treatment in jail. He said he hopes to break cycles of addiction and crime.

“I want people back into society, being productive,” he said.

Research shows for opioid use disorder behind bars and .

In St. Martin Parish, settlement funds helped launch a of officers that connects people with substance use disorders or related mental illness to treatment, said Chester Cedars, chief legal counsel for its sheriff’s office. Officers also try to coordinate support services for family members and assist with questions around paying for care.

“We’re not clinicians,” Cedars said, but we “serve as a broker” between people who need services and those who provide them.

, an addiction medicine doctor and the West Virginia drug czar, who was the third member of the review panel, said he loved the comprehensive nature of the program. Addiction “is a family issue,” he said. “Every time that phone rings, it’s a potential family crisis.”

A view from above of a plaque in the ground just in front of a bench that reads "Spread your wings and look down upon us, Daniel. Maw maw & Papa Dan," with images of two praying angles, a tractor, and a pig. Two people sit on the bench to either side of the plaque and their feet are in the frame.
Bolner and his granddaughter sit on a bench dedicated to his son and her father, Daniel, at Lafreniere Park in Metairie, Louisiana. Daniel died of a fentanyl overdose in 2016 on his 28th birthday. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

It’s not a coincidence that these parishes earned top marks from the reviewers. Cedars is the former chair of the , and Gibson is the current chair. That’s the body meant to guide others on priority uses of settlement cash.

Cedars was clear that the St. Martin sheriff’s office was not using “one penny for any enforcement activity,” because that’s not what the settlement “intended to accomplish.”

Gibson was more hesitant, saying the legal guidelines are broad and “I’m not here to criticize anybody.”

He has advised about a dozen sheriffs who have reached out with questions, but he knows they’re not required to heed his guidance.

A from the Louisiana Legislative Auditor found that the task force has no teeth to enforce its recommendations.

If people want stronger guardrails on the opioid cash, state lawmakers need to enact new rules, Gibson said.

Stepping Up Oversight

The Louisiana state legislature in May calling for the legislative auditor to review how all parishes and sheriffs are handling their opioid settlement money and report to lawmakers prior to the 2027 legislative session.

State Sen. , a Republican who co-authored the resolution, said the goal is to shed light on where dollars are flowing, if jurisdictions are spending them at all, and which funded programs are effective.

With that information, Myers said, he and others could “absolutely” introduce bills “to tighten up how funding is spent.”

Louisiana Sheriffs Spent $4.7M in Opioid Settlement Cash on Items, Activities Deemed Unallowable in Other States

Six states — <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">California</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Indiana</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Kansas</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Michigan</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">South Carolina</a>, and <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Virginia</a> — have created lists of items and services that they say opioid settlement funds should not be spent on, including surveillance cameras and vehicles. Although Louisiana does not have its own "unallowable" list, the state's Opioid Abatement Task Force said it has shared other states' guidance with some sheriffs. Yet nearly 60% of the sheriffs' spending involves items found on such lists.

Note: Unallowable lists may not be legally binding in each state but are considered strong guidance. <br> Source: Data collection by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News <br> Credit: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News' Lydia Zuraw and Aneri Pattani

Meanwhile, the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Task Force is trying to strengthen its oversight.

Curtis Nelson is executive counsel for the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Administration Corporation, a nonprofit that supports the task force. He said the body is seeking quotes from accountants to conduct ongoing forensic audits of parishes and sheriffs. The goal is to audit 10 to 15 entities annually, starting with those receiving the most money. If the audits turn up misuse, the task force could withhold future payments from those parishes or sheriffs, Nelson said.

The task force is also exploring creating its own unallowable list, like those in other states, Nelson said.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill did not respond to questions about whether they’d support an unallowable list or take other actions to address opioid settlement spending.

But many advocates are hopeful that an unallowable list could curb spending they found concerning.

“You’re keeping them on the track when you tell them what they can’t use it for,” said Bolner, the Jefferson Parish resident who lost his son to overdose and is raising his son’s daughter.

While he awaits greater oversight for sheriffs, Bolner plans to continue the work he’s been doing for years: distributing overdose reversal medications at schools, hospitals, and bars; participating in grief support groups with other families; and showing up at community events to raise awareness about addiction. He said he’ll keep speaking with sheriffs and parishes about what he considers the best use of settlement money.

“If I save one life, it’s accomplished,” he said.

Methodology

Reporters from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News worked together to contact all 64 sheriffs’ offices in Louisiana and ask how they’d spent opioid settlement funds. The outreach involved dozens of emails and phone calls from March to July.

If a sheriff’s office did not respond or did not provide specific dollar amounts spent on programs or services, it was labeled “Did not provide expenditures.” All other responses were summarized in a data table.

The amount of settlement money each sheriff’s office received through 2025 was obtained from the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Task Force’s . Allocations for years 1 through 5 were summed, representing 2021 through 2025.

In the few cases in which a sheriff’s office reported spending more money than the task force said it had been allocated, it was often because the sheriff’s office had combined its share of opioid settlement dollars with the share received by the parish government or another funding source. Some sheriffs may have also reported money spent from their 2026 allocation.

Once all the data was collected, the reporters used two methods to analyze the results.

For the first, the reporters created an unduplicated list of expenditures and de-identified them by removing the sheriffs’ offices names. That list was shared with three reviewers: , a public health policy expert who has been tracking opioid settlement spending since 2022; , an addiction medicine doctor and a person in recovery who previously served as chair of Tennessee’s Opioid Abatement Council and is currently West Virginia’s drug czar; and Danny Bolner Jr., a person in recovery from addiction who lost his son to a fentanyl overdose and is raising his son’s daughter in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

Each reviewer voted on each expenditure description as an appropriate or inappropriate use of opioid settlement money. The majority vote determined the final designation.

Reporters calculated how much of the money spent by each sheriff’s office went to expenditures the review panel deemed inappropriate. This value was divided by the total spent to determine the percentage of expenditures deemed inappropriate by the panel. The second approach to analyzing the sheriffs’ spending was as follows: Six states (, , , , , and ) have created lists of items and services that they say opioid settlement funds should not be spent on, often known as “unallowable lists.” Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News calculated how much money spent by each Louisiana sheriff’s office went to expenditures on one of these lists. This value was divided by the total spent to determine the percentage of expenditures that would have been unallowable or not recommended in one or more of these states.


The Current’s Alena Maschke, Gulf States Newsroom’s Drew Hawkins, and Verite News’ Katie Jane Fernelius contributed to the database featured in this article.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2277190
Where Florida’s Gun Violence Exacts Its Biggest Toll on Black and Latino Children /public-health/florida-gun-violence-kids-data-analysis-jacksonville-black-latino-disparities/ Tue, 25 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2278230 JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Just west of the St. Johns River, which divides this sprawling city racially and economically, 2-year-old A’mahri Robinson was murdered in his mother’s arms.

Ladonna Johnson was rocking A’mahri to sleep in March when he was shot in the head with a gun she kept for protection.

A’mahri loved going outdoors and taking rides in his pull-along wagon. His mother called the toddler “sweet” and “affectionate.” When he was around, she said, “you just felt love.”

The child was close with Steven Dodson Jr., his mother’s boyfriend, who had reached for the gun during an argument. Dodson, 21, in June to murder and aggravated child abuse and was sentenced to life in prison.

A’mahri died in one of Florida’s most violent places for children: Jacksonville. This city has three ZIP codes that rank among the 10 worst in the state for firearm injuries involving children.

A photo of a two-year-old standing outside.
Two-year-old A’mahri Robinson was murdered while in his mother’s arms in March. (Ladonna Johnson)

Every year, hundreds of children are hospitalized in Florida with gunshot wounds, and overwhelmingly, they come from a tiny number of ZIP codes, an exclusive analysis of hospital data by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and The Trace found.

Hospital billing data obtained from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration shows that from 2018 to 2024 more than 4,000 children 17 or younger were hospitalized for firearm injuries — a rate of about 1.5 a day.

The newsrooms gathered data that the state’s hospitals use to collect payments from insurance companies or the government. The information does not identify patients but includes details about where they lived and their age, race, and other demographics.

The number of children killed in Jacksonville has grown so large that , Families of Slain Children, built a “Wall of Compassion” memorial listing hundreds of people killed by gunfire in the city. Memorial organizers have stood up a second wall nearby that is filling with names.

A photo shows a length of white wall on a square of grass. Crosses line the top of the wall. Names are written on the wall.
The Jacksonville nonprofit Families of Slain Children has built a memorial called the “Wall of Compassion” that lists the names of hundreds of people who have been killed by gun violence in the city. (Daniel Chang/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

The numbers reflect how Florida’s long history of racial discrimination and permissive gun laws undermine public health, said researchers, public officials, community activists, and grieving parents.

Jacksonville kids were shot most often in racially segregated neighborhoods — a legacy from the early 20th century of state-sanctioned discrimination in housing, banking, and investment. These areas today are plagued by pollution from defunct city-run trash incinerators, garbage-strewn lots, dilapidated housing, poverty, and other problems that local leaders have been promising to fix for more than 50 years.

Nearly all the Florida ZIP codes with the highest rates of firearm injuries for children have large Black or Latino populations.

Perhaps nowhere is the toll of gun violence more evident than at UF Health Jacksonville, a safety net hospital and the only Level I trauma center in northeastern Florida.

As chief of acute care surgery, sees firsthand the toll exacted by guns.

“You see it day in and day out,” Madbak said. “I’m working tonight, and I suspect I’ll see a couple victims.”

A table of Florida zip codes with city and county columns, ranked by the number of under-18 gunshot wound patients from 2018 through 2024. A column of the rate of U18 GSW patients per 100k children per year is shaded blue, darker for higher rates, lighter for lower ones.

Florida ZIP Codes With Highest Youth Gunshot Wound Hospitalizations

A table of Florida zip codes with city and county columns, ranked by the number of under-18 gunshot wound patients from 2018 through 2024. A column of the rate of U18 GSW patients per 100k children per year is shaded blue, darker for higher rates, lighter for lower ones.

ZIP codes with 1-10 youth GSW hospitalizations over the 2018-2024 period are omitted due to privacy laws.<br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

, a UF Health pediatrician and former health director for Duval County, which includes Jacksonville, said state and local leaders have failed to address what he called the “root causes” of preventable firearm injuries and deaths, such as poverty, lack of opportunity, and neglect.

“The bottom line is nobody gives a flying f— about these young men,” Goldhagen said.

Gun violence victims and their families of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other mental health problems.

Throughout U.S. history, local governments have pushed industrial plants, , and highways through Black neighborhoods even as to increased risks of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, cancer, preterm births, and gun violence.

But the Florida Department of Health does not focus on gun violence as a public health threat, Goldhagen said, despite its being the nation’s for children and teens.

The , a set of goals developed by the health department and an advisory committee, does not mention guns, the toll they take on children, or efforts to reduce firearm deaths and injuries to young people.

Instead, its goals include preventing or reducing sudden unexpected infant deaths and youth drownings, emergency room visits for motor vehicle crashes, and hospitalizations for traumatic brain injuries.

And yet, no one with the authority to address this public health crisis would agree to talk to Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News about gun violence and its toll on Jacksonville’s children — not the Florida health department, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Mayor Donna Deegan, or 18 of 19 members of the Jacksonville City Council.

()

Only Council member Jimmy Peluso responded. Peluso said the city has long ignored the needs of neighborhoods with high rates of firearm injuries among children.

“A lot of these neighborhoods have just felt like the wealth has left them,” he said, “and the city didn’t come in to put in the amount of work they needed to.”

DeSantis, a Republican, in public comments has called for few limits on how people purchase or carry firearms. He to allow Floridians to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

When then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared firearm violence a public health crisis in 2024, DeSantis called the advisory an “.”

DeSantis said Florida would not follow the advisory, which recommended policies including universal background checks for gun purchases and requirements for secure storage.

DeSantis spokesperson Molly Best declined an interview request and to answer questions about the governor’s gun policies.

“There isn’t an agenda to end gun violence in the state of Florida,” said Jean Francis, a former pediatric nurse who leads the Jacksonville chapter of Moms Demand Action, part of a nonprofit that advocates for stronger firearm laws.

Research has linked increases in pediatric gun deaths from 2011 to 2023 to state-level gun policies.

States with permissive gun policies, such as “stand your ground” and open carry laws, reported higher rates of firearm deaths among children than states with strict regulations, such as weapon and age restrictions, according to a .

The study ranked Florida among a group of 30 states with the most permissive gun policies. Four states with comparatively strict gun laws — California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island — saw a decrease in pediatric gun deaths over the same time period.

prevents cities and counties from enacting stricter gun safety measures.

kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods are up to 20 times more likely to suffer firearm injuries than their peers in the most advantaged areas.

“It’s disheartening,” Madbak said. UF Health Jacksonville treated 255 patients for gunshot wounds in 2024, including 32 who were 17 or younger, he said.

A zip code choropleth map of Florida shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21,21-44,44-79,79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

In Some Florida Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of Florida shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21,21-44,44-79,79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Broward County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Fort Lauderdale area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Duval County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Jacksonville area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21,21-44,44-79,79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Miami-Dade County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A ZIP code choropleth map of the Miami area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21,21-44,44-79,79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Orange County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Orlando area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21,21-44,44-79,79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Palm Beach County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Palm Beach area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with fewer than 10 hospitalizations are suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Escambia County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Pensacola area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Manatee and Sarasota County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Sarasota area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Pinellas County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Saint Petersburg area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Leon County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Tallahassee area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Hillsborough County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Tampa area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In 2025, the hospital treated 269 patients for firearm injuries, including 22 who were under 18, according to Dan Leveton, a hospital spokesperson. As of Aug. 19, the hospital has treated 137 patients for gunshot wounds this year, including 18 who were 17 or younger.

Preventing gun violence “shouldn’t be a political issue, even though it is,” Madbak said, adding that there is a lot of room for more effective advocacy for violence prevention.

“It’s really an American issue,” Madbak said, “and our state has been impacted tremendously by this kind of violence.”

The Pain of Mothers, Grandmothers, and Aunts

A white woman stands outside by a tree surrounded with flowers.
Kim Crow, grandmother of Bryce Williams, who died at age 17 from being shot in a neighborhood park in an Orlando suburb in 2018. Crow says her grandson’s death has left a void in her life. “I’m not me anymore,” she says. (WFTV)

In Orlando, one ZIP code — 32805 — had the state’s highest rate of children under 18 hospitalized for a gunshot wound from 2018 through 2024, with a total of 25 children, or 125.8 per 100,000.

On New Year’s Day 2018, Bryce Williams, 17, was in Casselberry, an Orlando suburb. He was found dead after crashing his blue Kia into a home near the park.

Williams’ death devastated his family, his grandmother Kim Crow told WFTV in Orlando.

“First off, you can’t believe that someone is taken from you so violently,” Crow said. “It’s heartbreaking.”

In April, Daesean Moctezuma Orland, 18, was while attending a house party outside Orlando. Two others wounded in the shooting were taken to the hospital. Police arrested a 16-year-old boy about a month after the shooting and charged him with Moctezuma Orland’s death.

Moctezuma Orland’s grandmother Iveliz Moctezuma told WFTV that a friend of her grandson’s called her and daughter Noemi Moctezuma to tell them that he had been shot. The women drove to four hospitals, including one in Tampa, searching for him.

A Latina woman sits for a television interview in her home. She is tearing up.
Iveliz Moctezuma, grandmother of Daesean Moctezuma Orland, who was shot and killed at age 18 at a house party in Davenport, Florida, in April. “It was the hardest night of my life,” she says. “They ripped him away from us.” (Keary Croskrey/WFTV)

“My every day is crumbled,” Iveliz Moctezuma said. “It’s hard to work. You sit there and you watch the news. You’re like, oh my God, there goes another kid getting killed by gun violence.”

“It’s a hole in my chest, a hole in my mind,” Noemi Moctezuma said. “It’s like the biggest void that you could ever possibly imagine, that not even the happiest moments can fill a void like that.”

Jacksonville, a city of about 1 million, is particularly treacherous for children living in areas north and west of downtown.

The victims include a gunned down while playing in front of a house, a fatally wounded coming home from a football tryout, and a killed by a stray bullet as she sat in a parked car.

Advocates for victims said that gun violence has ripped any sense of normalcy from families and entire neighborhoods. Grieving mothers fear fireworks and other loud noises that sound like gunshots. Grappling with their own emotions, they said, they sometimes struggle to help their surviving children cope with the loss.

“When you hear their stories, you think, ‘This is the worst thing I have ever heard,’” Francis said, “until you hear the next one.”

Hours after graduating from Jacksonville’s Raines High School in May 2022, , 18, was shot and killed while arriving at a friend’s celebration. Fields was walking into the party when a car pulled up and opened fire, his mother, Yvonne Fields, told Action News Jax in an interview.

A defensive lineman on his high school football team, Fields had been offered a full scholarship to play for Keiser University in West Palm Beach. His parents were planning a party for the following day to celebrate his graduation.

“Everybody loved him,” Yvonne Fields said of her youngest son, calling him “the life of the party.”

A Black woman sits for a TV interview indoors.
Yvonne Fields of Jacksonville talks about the death of her son, Rashaud Fields, 18, who was shot and killed in May 2022 at a high school graduation party. (Kevin Jordan/Action News Jax)

“Rashaud loved to dance. He was a joke teller. He was funny,” Fields said.

At the time, Rashaud Fields was at least the ninth 17- to 19-year-old homicide victim in the city that year, according to the , the local newspaper. Yvonne Fields said she has kept her son’s room exactly as he left it the day he was killed. She smells his shirt every day.

“I know he’s not coming back,” she said, “but I can feel the spirit.”

Two days after celebrating his 18th birthday, Maurice Hobbs was fatally shot in January 2017 as he waited for his mother to pick him up.

“I was not even a block away,” Latasha Hobbs said to Action News Jax.

A photo shows a white woman being hugged outside in the evening at a gathering.
Latasha Hobbs receives a hug at a gathering to end gun violence in Jacksonville on Aug. 27, 2018. Her son, Maurice Hobbs, was shot and killed two days after celebrating his 18th birthday in January 2017. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A singer, rapper, and poet, Maurice Hobbs wanted to perform and launch a clothing line. He dreamt of making enough money to give homes to everyone in his family so they could all live on the same street.

His mom recalled celebrating his birthday with cake and dancing in the kitchen and his reaction to turning 18.

“He was like, ‘Oh my God, Mom, I made it to 18,’” Latasha Hobbs said. “So it’s hard to swallow knowing that my baby didn’t make it to 19. It’s not fair. My baby deserves to be here.”

Pamela Howard has struggled for nearly two decades with the pain of the killing of her son Derrell Baker at age 17.

Howard, a mother of five, called her son energetic and an anchor for his younger siblings. Baker excelled at football, she said, and was on track to graduate high school despite having severe attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Someone shot Baker in September 2008 as he walked to school. A passerby found him by the road.

A Black woman sits outside as she holds two framed photos of her son.
Pamela Howard has spent nearly two decades trying to help police find the person who killed her son Derrell Baker, 17, as he walked to school in 2008. (Malcolm Jackson for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Howard said she thought Baker was at school and later football practice. The family learned something might be wrong only when a sibling heard that Baker had been shot.

Howard called area hospitals in search of her son. By the time she found him at UF Health Jacksonville, it was too late, she said: He had died hours earlier.

“I don’t remember anything after they told me” he was dead, Howard said. “My friends say they just heard me scream.”

For the mothers Fields, Hobbs, and Howard, the sudden, unexpected death of their children cut deep. The lack of closure is painful. Police have not made an arrest in any of the cases.

“When I get justice,” Yvonne Fields said, “maybe I’ll be a little at peace.”

()

Leading Cause of Death

, chief of pediatric surgery and trauma at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said there has to be an appetite in state capitals to regulate firearms and protect children from gun violence.

Nance co-authored a in JAMA Pediatrics finding that the number of states where guns were the leading cause of death for children and teens increased from zero over the period 2004 to 2008 to 24 from 2019 to 2023.

Motor vehicle deaths among children, once the leading cause of death in that group, have declined primarily because of safety interventions undertaken by governments and car manufacturers, he said, from seat belt laws and speed limits to air bags and antilock brakes.

“That progress has been pretty universal across the U.S.,” he said, “but firearm stuff is just all over the map.”

Guns don’t have federal safety standards, Nance noted. They aren’t regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a federal agency that protects the public from dangerous products, and they can’t be recalled the way unsafe toys or cars can be.

“We’ve really done almost nothing to change the trajectory of firearm injuries in kids,” Nance said.

Goldhagen, the UF Health pediatrician, said Jacksonville leaders tried to address gun violence through the Jacksonville Journey, an initiative launched in 2008 — when Duval County was the murder capital of Florida — under former Mayor John Peyton.

The program for children at risk of violence provided mentorship, summer camps, job training, and nonpolice strategies such as neighborhood beautification projects and community center programs. The Journey also partnered with the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office on gang intervention focused on young people.

Officials credited the effort with a nearly 40% reduction in homicides in Duval County in its first four years.

After Peyton left office in 2011, program spending of about $15 million was slashed to $8.6 million in 2012 and about $2.3 million in 2014. The scaled-back program was eventually combined with another children’s initiative to form the , which uses city, state, and federal grants to fund youth services and intervention programs.

Duval County is the only large county in Florida that does not have a child services tax dedicated to programs for children, including efforts to reduce youth crime.

City leaders believe “public safety is about fire and police, but not social services,” said Vicki Waytowich, executive director of the , a nonprofit funded through grants and contracts that provides health and juvenile justice services for children and families in Jacksonville.

“There is absolutely zero political will to do anything that remotely resembles a child services tax,” she said.

In 2024, on a gun violence prevention program called Cure Violence, which tried to squash beefs between youths before they escalated to shootings. A city Office of Inspector General report and sound financial practices.

“We have a public health system that doesn’t focus on this as a public health or population health issue,” Goldhagen said.

Waytowich said crime is a symptom of much deeper problems on the north side of Jacksonville, from neighborhood decay to generational trauma and lack of job opportunities.

“We don’t really have the funds to address the root causes,” she said. “What we’re doing is slapping a band-aid on things.”

Unlike in Mandarin, a predominantly white neighborhood on the south side of Jacksonville with easy access to about seven grocery stores, children of the city’s north side have poor nutrition, Waytowich said, and many walk more than a mile to get to school.

“We can see that kids don’t have hope,” Waytowich said. “When kids believe they’re going to die at 21, then what’s the use of goal-setting and résumé-building workshops?”

In 2025, Jacksonville Mayor Deegan launched a program to address gun violence called .

But like its predecessor, Journey Forward does not have a dedicated, ongoing source of funding.

Hard Memory

On March 22, Ladonna Johnson said, she broke up with Dodson because she saw that he was sharing location information with other women on his cellphone.

She said she went into a bedroom where A’mahri and his sister were watching television and put her son on her lap. Dodson followed Johnson into the room, she said, then went into a closet and retrieved the gun.

“He just kept asking me, ‘What are we doing?’” Johnson said.

Moments later, Johnson said, she heard a loud bang. Her daughter started to cry.

They will both need therapy, she said. She is dedicated to preserving A’mahri’s memory: “I want people to know how adorable and sweet my son was.”

Still, she said, “I feel like I will never be OK.”

Methodology

To find that more than 4,000 children under 18 had been treated in Florida hospitals for gunshot wounds from 2018 to 2024, The Trace and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News analyzed two datasets obtained from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration via a data request:

  • In the emergency department file, which contained records of 67,565,314 ER visits that did not result in an inpatient admission, we identified 37,415 gunshot wound cases using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s .
  • In the inpatient file, which contained records of 21,857,664 hospital visits in which patients were admitted, we identified 28,149 gunshot wound cases using the CDC definition.

We defined children as 17 and under and filtered the patient age column to find that 2,340 children had been treated in ERs and 1,684 admitted to hospitals with gunshot wounds. To avoid double-counting, we excluded patients from the emergency department file whose records indicated that they were transferred to a different inpatient facility.

Demographic breakdowns were generated using the race and ethnicity columns in the datasets.

To examine the geographic distribution of the burden of gun violence, we grouped child gunshot wound victims by the ZIP code provided. Importantly, this ZIP code is the location not of the shooting but of the child’s residence. A small number of children in the data had out-of-state ZIP codes, or placeholder ZIP codes indicating they were homeless or from a foreign country. These children are included in statewide totals as children treated in Florida hospitals but not in ZIP-level results.

This data does not include children who were shot but died at the scene or before reaching the hospital or who never received medical treatment.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.

This report was produced by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, The Trace, Action News Jax in Jacksonville, and WFTV in Orlando.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2278230
Ebola Is Still Killing in Central Africa. These Groups Are Working To Save Lives. /public-health/ebola-response-organizations-central-africa-democratic-republic-congo/ Mon, 24 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2270820 Misinformation and distrust are among the challenges facing public health workers in the Democratic Republic of Congo as they confront the on record. Even though the virus has faded from U.S. headlines, key organizations are still at work providing medical care and training to counter the spread of the disease.

Since the World Health Organization’s of a public health emergency, over 5,200 cases of the Bundibugyo strain of the Ebola virus have been confirmed and more than in Congo, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

More than 550 people were in isolation with Ebola in Congo as of Aug. 7, the country’s National Public Health Institute said. Twenty cases and two deaths were reported in neighboring Uganda as well, but no new cases have been reported there since June 21, the World Health Organization said.

The in history, which hit several countries in West Africa from 2014 to 2016, claimed over 11,300 lives.

The current outbreak is only the third of the Bundibugyo strain in central Africa. Congo officials are reporting a for the rare strain, which have a vaccine. Military conflict in eastern Congo, where the outbreak is centered, has made the medical response more difficult.

“When everybody became aware of what was happening, we were already months behind where we should have been as a global community in stopping the spread of this disease,” said Erica Tavares, a senior director of the International Medical Corps.

The U.S. has pledged in response to the outbreak and enacted a , temporarily preventing non-U.S. citizens traveling from the affected region from entering the country.

Meanwhile, public health workers in Congo continue to toil against Ebola.

Below, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News profiles five organizations involved in the ongoing public health work there. A fraction of the groups working in Congo, they’re a mix of smaller, local organizations and larger, internationally known groups.

1. Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention

Africa CDC is the , in charge of helping health institutions in its member states with disease threat detection and response. With the WHO, Africa CDC announced a on June 5. The organizations said they would need more than $500 million over the following six months for the effort.

Their primary goal is to strengthen cross-border communication and collaboration under a unified “One Response” plan. Africa CDC has for travel and public gatherings, urging people to implement prevention methods including avoiding contact with bodily fluids instead of issuing blanket travel restrictions to affected areas.

2.

This subagency within the Congolese Ministry of Public Health is tasked with monitoring and documenting the virus. Institute officials are conducting on-the-ground testing and have set up laboratories in Ituri province, the area hardest hit by the virus.

In July, the agency said it had also stepped up detection and monitoring of the virus’s evolution. Genomic surveillance, or analyzing the virus’s genetic code, is an “essential tool” for containing the virus, officials said in a news release. It also helps with vaccine development, which is underway of potential vaccines.

3. Doctors Without Borders

has worked in Ituri for over two decades responding to humanitarian and medical crises. The well-known international organization provides emergency medical aid, as well as disease surveillance.

Kate White, an emergency medical coordinator for the organization, is working in Bunia, the capital of Ituri. In a phone interview, she said the financial stability and size of MSF, the abbreviation for the group’s French name, enable it to work with partner organizations in the region to distribute resources and care. More than 1,400 MSF workers are responding to the current Ebola outbreak.

Looking forward, she said, MSF will reinforce some of its existing programs, including providing general healthcare, to prepare for any additional spread of the Ebola virus.

4. International Medical Corps

Since mid-May, members have provided case management and community education specific to Ebola and the current outbreak.

IMC operates rapid response teams in the region and has established treatment centers where patients can receive medicine and other care, as well as centers where people await test results.

“We’re also supporting the continuity of primary healthcare in the most at-risk regions,” Tavares said in an interview. “We want people to continue to come to facilities.”

The training of local health professionals is a focus of IMC’s work in Congo. It is also one way the organization partners with other entities, such as .

“Historically, we’ve always had training as part of our response program,” Tavares said. “It means that [other organizations] will just have that much more capacity in the future and looking forward.”

Eventually, IMC-run facilities will be turned over to local healthcare leaders, Tavares said, and her hope is that the communities will then be better equipped to respond to future outbreaks. IMC also focuses on improving hygiene and water sanitation, she said.

5. SOFEPADI

is a Congolese nonprofit that primarily serves women and girls. The women-led organization works to prevent gender-based violence, reduce inequality, and help women take charge of their own healthcare.

In the Ebola outbreak, SOFEPADI officials say, they are working to protect women. During past outbreaks, women have been due to their increased exposure as caregivers in their communities. The functioning of communities, in turn, is dependent on the health of women. “If the women fall, the whole community falls with them,” SOFEPADI officials wrote in French in a June 1 post on their website.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2270820