[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, Aug. 6, 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: 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 Amanda Seitz. 

Amanda Seitz: Hi, great to be here. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have excerpts of my “How Would You Fix It?” interview with New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim, who’s proposing universal coverage starting with all American children. But first, the freight train of health news continues. 

We’re going to start this week in Michigan with that very closely watched Senate primary to fill the seat being vacated by the retiring Democrat Gary Peters. We’ve known for months the Republican candidate will be former congressman Mike Rogers, who narrowly lost to Sen. Elissa Slotkin two years ago. And now we know he will face Abdul El-Sayed, an MD epidemiologist and former public health director of Detroit. El-Sayed, who ran on a platform emphasizing “Medicare for All” and has even written a book about it, narrowly defeated four-term Democratic congresswoman Haley Stevens, who had a gigantic cash advantage, mostly provided by supporters of Israel. Now, the fight over Israel in Gaza is for some other podcast to get into, but I do think that this underscores the increasing popularity of Medicare for All in the base of the Democratic Party. What does El-Sayed’s primary win tell us? And can someone from the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party win in a very purple state like Michigan? 

Ollstein: Well, I also want to point out, like, this isn’t an outlier. It was really notable to me that during the Maine rushed, redo primary they just had for the Democratic Senate candidate to take on Susan Collins, everyone in that race was endorsing Medicare for All and calling for it. And Maine is also a very purple state with an older electorate, and, you know, not raging progressive. And so I think it is notable that this isn’t just in the big blue cities anymore. This is a growing drumbeat within the party, and, you know, of course it comes as we’re seeing a lot of people lose their health insurance, which we’re going to talk about. We’re seeing costs go way up, and so there’s just this wellspring of frustration that I think is fueling some of this. 

Seitz: Oh, I was just going to say I would caution, though, how big of a win this is for progressive Democrats. You know, they’ve won the battle, and I’ll say it has built quite a strong coalition. But this was a really narrow primary win, and that is not the situation you want to be in when you have two diametrically opposed candidates from the same party running in a primary in a very purple state headed into the midterm elections. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, let us talk a little bit more about Medicare for All because it’s a trendy moniker for something that’s not really all that specific. Some people think it’s just shorthand for “everyone gets government-provided health insurance.” Some think it’s actually socialized medicine. And some think it’s literally just an extension of today’s Medicare program, which is itself a very public-private hybrid. My friend Jonathan Cohn over at The Bulwark, who happens to live in Michigan, has a  that I will link to about how consideration of Medicare for All looks different in 2026 than it did in 2016 or even in 2009, when they were doing the Affordable Care Act. Where do you guys think we are on Medicare for All? I would remind that what was in the 2020 campaign, every candidate, every Democratic running except for Joe Biden said they were for Medicare for All, and yet Joe Biden is the one that came out of the primaries. 

Kenen: I think Kamala Harris was for “Medicare for All Who Wanted It.” She had some strange hybrid of it, but that is part of our past. I mean, Medicare for All is something you hear about from the Democratic Party, a segment of the Democratic Party, in pretty much every election with more or less intensity. And more so [with] Bernie Sanders running against Hillary [Clinton], it was a much more pronounced debate. In Michigan, I don’t think this is the defining issue. I mean, I think that global politics in the Middle East, and given the demographics of Michigan, and what the race is focused on, and points of contention are, it’s pretty easy to talk about wanting everybody to be covered, and it’s a lot harder to get there, as we all know, because we’ve been talking about it for decades. So I think you’ll hear about it from Democrats â€” I’m not sure in Michigan and elsewhere, but I’m not sure how specific a plan or a definition it is, sort of this holy grail that nobody knows quite what it looks like. 

Ollstein: But that also makes sense. I mean, it’s not really in their interest to put out detailed policy plans that people can pick apart at this phase of things. And so it makes sense that we’re in the grand, sweeping, dreams phase of things, and not in the â€¦ 

Rovner: We’re in the slogan phase. 

Ollstein: Exactly, exactly right. Because, you know, as soon as Democrats put out an actual bill, a draft bill, then the vultures will descend and point out all the downsides, and that doesn’t help them heading into, you know, a major midterm election. So we imagine that work is going on behind the scenes, because they want to have something ready to go if and when they have control in Congress. But what exactly that is, we don’t know. 

Kenen: But I also think there’s pressure for the Democrats to be â€” in the best-case scenario, if you had a united Democratic Party where they all wanted Medicare for All and they all agreed on what that meant, you don’t press a button and get there. It would be some kind of incremental phase, and it’s not going to be, like, OK, today we have this and tomorrow we have Medicare for All. So I think, in the short term, less controversial and maybe more urgent is affordability and access right this minute. We are going to talk about the coverage decline and affordability and just access on a day-to-day … even if you are able to afford your care and even if you have pretty good insurance, getting into a doctor when you need to has become really frustrating. Even if you’re sick and already know that doctor. So even if you’re a pretty health-savvy consumer, the way all of us are, we see this in our friends and family, and we understand the system â€” sort of, like “the system” in quotes. So I mean, I think there’s the Medicare for All, you know, Democratic dream, and it â€” I don’t mean it’s not sincere; I mean, that’s what many people want â€” but I also think you’re going to see a lot more nuts and bolts: What has happened in the last two years, and how do we fix it? 

Rovner: I’m interested in the fact that Republicans who are already sort of ginning up their talking points against the, you know, wave of progressive candidates like El-Sayed, although he’s not as progressive as, you know, the [Zohran] Mamdanis and, you know, some of the other avowed socialists. They’re talking about socialism and communism, and they’re talking about all kinds of things. They don’t seem to be talking about healthcare, which suggests to me that Republicans are kind of aware that things are not going well, and that, Joanne, as you point out, I mean, you know, it used to be let’s see if we can fix the health system without messing up the people who are happy. There are fewer and fewer people who are happy right now with how the health system is falling apart. 

Kenen: Including the doctors, right?  

Rovner: Right. Oh, absolutely. 

Kenen: Nobody’s happy. 

Rovner: Well, well, let us move on to all of the ways in which the healthcare system is falling apart. Item one is a new Gallup-West Health poll that found nearly a quarter of workers surveyed said they were staying in a current job that they otherwise wanted to leave only to retain their health insurance. That was up 8 percentage points since the last time they’d asked in 2021. Now “job lock,” as this is called, is something that HIPAA was supposed to address back in 1996. The “P” in HIPAA stands for Portability. It was the Health Insurance Portability [and Accountability] Act. How is this still a thing 30 years later, that people feel stuck because they can’t change health insurance? 

Ollstein: This was also a big driving force behind the argument for Obamacare. The argument was: We’re going to free up all these people by creating this individual market, we’re going to unleash American ingenuity, and we’re going to have entrepreneurs and people starting their own businesses and experimenting and trying things that they wouldn’t feel able to do because they’re so afraid of â€¦  

Rovner: Shark Tank for All! 

Ollstein: â€¦ losing their health insurance. And so I think the way the Trump administration has targeted some key pieces of Obamacare, you know, they obviously, as we know, failed to get rid of the whole thing, but they are chipping away at the subsidies, which has caused a lot of people to drop their coverage; they’re going after the Medicaid expansion piece of Obamacare, and so I think that’s driving some of this return to, you know, clinging to the job you have in order to maintain your health insurance. Although, going back to the point that nobody’s happy, employer health insurance, while it may be better than a lot of the other options, is, you know, people aren’t thrilled either. The costs are still quite high for both employers and employees. 

Rovner: And employers are looking for ways to cut back. Go ahead, Joanne. 

Kenen: I was also wondering, as I read those numbers about job lock â€” and we should also remember, even though it wasn’t in that particular story, there’s also something called “marriage lock,” where people stay in marriages they don’t really want to be in because they wouldn’t have, they fear they wouldn’t have coverage. But one thing I just sort of wondered about is I wonder how many people realize that they might, in fact, qualify for the Affordable Care Act. I think people are still confused about the ACA, as well as they’re confused about a whole laundry list of things that we could spend a year talking about. People aren’t always paying attention, so some of the people who are afraid that if they change jobs or think they have to stay in their job think that Obamacare is for somebody else. So I don’t know. 

Rovner: They wrongly think they’re in job lock. 

Kenen: Right, right. So, but it still affects the behavior. If you feel that way â€” you’re anxious and insecure and unhappy â€” then you’re anxious, insecure, and unhappy. Whether you are aware of there’s an alternative or not, it doesn’t affect how you feel now, which is, you know, grumpy. That’s not the right word, but you know what I mean. 

Rovner: I know what you mean. 

Seitz: Yeah, well, and I think that that’s what I found fascinating, too, is like when we look back at 2022, there was a lot of head-scratching as to how Democrats performed so well in the midterm elections. But you look back at that time, and people â€”it was the peak of the Great Resignation â€” people were leaving their jobs. They were able to get big raises for the first time in a while. Unemployment was extremely low, so you had, like, an electorate that was pretty happy and didn’t have that anxiety. And now you’re staring down a situation where people are afraid to leave their jobs. They’re afraid to lose their health insurance, and the social safety net is deteriorating at the behest of the Trump administration. And I think that’s not a very good situation to have a lot of Americans in, as you head to a midterm election. 

Rovner: Well, item two: Several outlets, , reported last week that hospital systems are seeing what the Times’ Reed Abelson described as, quote, an “unexpectedly sharp rise in uninsured patients and the costs associated with treating them.” We are starting to hear this in earnings reports from for-profit chains and anecdotally from nonprofits. Now, this was something that we saw coming. People can no longer afford their ACA plans and drop them, or as they can no longer afford the premiums without the expanded subsidies and had to buy down to less-generous plans with larger deductibles, which they then can’t cover when they end up in the hospital. This would suggest the Trump administration’s claim that the drop in ACA coverage is all due to fraudulently enrolled people with zero claims might not actually be the case. 

Seitz: I question how much, like, the Trump administration realizes they’re playing with fire here. And I think in part because during the first Trump administration, you saw a few hundred thousand people disenroll from the ACA. They kind of let it to languish, but there was also a lot of question about the ACA marketplaces’ ability to survive. This time around is so much different. You’re talking about millions of people losing coverage within the first year. The Trump administration came in; they had record enrollment in the program. So these are real losses. These are real hospitals, and these are going to be real headlines of real people experiencing these real misfortunes. And you’re going to have either taxpayers eating the cost of the care through emergency Medicaid, or you’re going to have people winding up with really big medical bills that they can’t pay. And again, those are going to be real stories. And the Trump administration is going to find that they can’t just continue to yell fraud to cover all that up. 

Ollstein: Yeah, to Amanda’s point, I think this message could definitely backfire politically. Nobody likes to be told that they are a fraudster or don’t exist when they are losing their health insurance. And this is hitting red-state hospitals just as much as blue states, if not more. And so, I think going into the midterm election, sticking by this line and not admitting who is being harmed is definitely risky. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s worth pointing out that, I mean, it does hit red states harder because the red states that didn’t expand Medicaid ended up with bigger enrollment in the ACA when they expanded the subsidies â€¦ 

Seitz: Florida’s the biggest. 

Rovner: â€¦ and so those people are now losing coverage. Yeah, Florida, Georgia, Texas. Those are the places where the hospitals are going to see it first when people are showing up who can’t pay their bills. 

Kenen: And those are the states that already have a lot of rural hospital closures. There are rural hospital closures and hospital closures across the country, but the rate of closures is much more acute in the states that did not expand Medicaid. So now you’re going to have more hospitals in jeopardy. It is not a healthy situation. 

Rovner: Well, related to this, we have the impending cuts to Medicaid. A federal judge appointed by Bill Clinton declined to block the Medicaid work rules from taking effect as scheduled Jan. 1. This was in a lawsuit filed by Democrat-led states. But there could still be some delay, right? I know doctor groups are completely freaked out by having to potentially write notes for tens of thousands of patients who may or may not be too medically frail to work. There’s still a lot of sort of panic, if you will, in the states about what’s going to happen to people if they can’t meet these work requirements. 

Ollstein: Yeah, and I want to make sure people know that the judge [who] ruled in this case, he said you shouldn’t take this ruling to mean that I think the states are wrong in challenging this policy. They could very well prevail eventually and strike it down. He just said, basically, this isn’t ripe. You don’t have enough evidence right now of harm to the states because the policy hasn’t officially started yet. Although it has in a couple states that weren’t part of the lawsuit, which we can get into. But this particular piece of the story is not over. Also, people should know that what was being challenged in court was not the entirety of the work requirements; it was just the piece requiring sick people on Medicaid to prove that they are too sick to work, prove beyond just having a diagnosis of cancer or an autoimmune disease or something. Just the diagnosis is not enough; they have to have some kind of proof. It’s not totally clear what kind of proof will count. And, to your point, they’re worried that it’s going to end up being individual doctors’ notes, which will completely overwhelm the system. Doctors don’t have the capacity to see all these people to document this and provide care. 

Rovner: And doctors don’t have the training to determine, you know, who’s disabled and who isn’t. That’s why we have these, you know, special masters for disability programs. Your average doctor is not really in a position to say, “Well, so-and-so can work this month but not next month.” Really, I mean, doctor groups really are legitimately worried about that this is going to fall to them. 

Kenen: And also, like, an awful lot of the people on Medicaid who would be affected â€¦ this is the Medicaid expansion population. It’s not all of Medicaid. But a lot of this population has chronic disease. And chronic disease is often sort of on and off, right? You’re doing OK for a while. You can work, and then kaboom, you have an exacerbation. You have a setback. You have an episode. Whatever your disease is, there are different things that happen, and then you can’t work. And doctors don’t know â€” I mean, mental illness is clearly one of the things where people could be stable for a long time and then crash and then recover and stabilize again. Cancer, you can be doing fine, on chemo for a certain amount of time, and then your body just says, you know, I’ve had enough chemicals pumped into it. Or you have â€¦ every chronic disease is pretty much â€¦ every one I can think of is an up-and-down, on-and-off â€¦ like how bad do you feel or how good you feel at any given time. And they certainly don’t have â€” then you’re out of compliance. You know, well, you’re healthy enough to work. Why aren’t you working? You know, bye-bye healthcare. So it’s really a complicated mess. The only little thing that may buy the states some time, in addition to whatever happens in the court, is for the first year and only the first year, people will be allowed to self-attest, meaning I’m just going up and saying I’m, you know, here’s my diagnosis, and I’m too sick to work. That is not likely to be extended. It’s unclear how that will play. I’ve written about it in somewhat detail about one state. I’m not exactly sure how it’ll run out in all 50, but it is part of the current rule that, this controversial rule that was dropped on June 1, that made this all sort of more complicated and more difficult. That self-attestation would be available on Jan. 1 for a limited period of time. 

Ollstein: But not in every state. So CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services], the federal government, said states can accept self-attestation. Several states are saying no thanks. We’re going to start requiring proof right away. No self-attestation allowed. So this is yet another sort of natural experiment where we’re going to see, you know, the differences between these states with these different policies, and how many people lose coverage as a result. 

Kenen: But it’s going to be way more than we thought at the beginning. I mean, the difference in this medical frailty rule versus what CMS was telling states until a few weeks ago versus, kaboom, on June 1, it is a much more cumbersome process. I mean, nobody thinks the old estimates of coverage loss are accurate anymore. I mean, there’s always a lot of guesswork in that, right? None of us know exactly how many people will lose coverage, but it looks like a lot more than we thought. 

Rovner: So we already have one of these natural experiments going on in Nebraska, which volunteered to implement its work rules first. The state is now getting ready to disenroll the first Medicaid patients who have failed to meet the requirements. Clearly, some of those people are still eligible, including a pregnant woman reported on by Nebraska Public Media who showed up for an appointment and was denied coverage because apparently the state missed the fact that she was pregnant and therefore eligible. I imagine we’re expecting more of this, right, Alice? We’ve seen this movie before? 

Ollstein: Yes, so we’re getting a sneak preview in Nebraska of what could happen in the rest of the states that expanded Medicaid come Jan. 1. A couple other states are also starting early, although they have different rules about when the penalties kick in and when the enforcement kicks in. But yes, you know we’re seeing a lot of confusion, people losing coverage who are technically eligible for coverage, and basically everything that providers and community groups and patient advocates predicted would happen. 

Kenen: And we know from Georgia, which does have work requirements already, they’re not a full-expansion state. They have their own version of a partial expansion, but it’s still, the law still applies to them. And they’ve had a lot of people losing coverage who probably are still eligible. We know from Arkansas’ experiment in, I believe was 2018, tons of people â€” I think it was 17,000 or 18,000 â€” who lost coverage, and most of them actually qualify. In fairness, the technology since 2018 and 2027 â€¦ and learning from Arkansas’ mistakes. â€¦ I think it’s important to be aware of how flawed and problematic Arkansas was. I don’t think it necessarily means that everything will be exactly that bad because, you know, there’s more broadband access in rural America, etc. We don’t have to go into all that. But it’s not a great precedent in terms of smooth rollouts. 

Seitz: And we also know it from the Medicaid unwind during the pandemic, too. We saw these errors and the initial estimates of how many people would be removed from coverage after the federal government said, OK, you can’t allow continuous enrollment anymore. They blew past those initial estimates. So, to your point, Joanne, earlier about how we are going to see much greater disenrollment than was initially predicted.  

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

We are back, turning to abortion. Alice, you were part of a  about U.S. Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche and something he promised to anti-abortion groups. Tell us what he said. 

Ollstein: Yes, so this was on a private call that the White House Faith Office did with what they said were thousands of faith leaders around the country. And they, you know, said over and over on this call, this is private, this is off the record, this is not for the news, and then they posted it on YouTube for some reason and on some other places online. Explain that. Anyways, it’s been taken down since our story published, but we have the audio saved. So Blanche was basically promising that not only would he take action to restrict mail delivery of abortion pills and curbing abortion access in other ways, if confirmed, he sort of went beyond that and said that policies are already in the works. There’s already discussions going on between the White House, DOJ [Department of Justice], FDA, all of these different agencies sort of pledged to stop the ability of patients in red states to order abortion pills online and get them delivered by mail, which is, you know, a key line of access that patients have turned to in this post-Roe era of bans. It was not clear from the audio that we obtained how he plans to go about doing that. I also imagine if, you know, the FDA does come out and change its policy, that his remarks could be used to challenge that and say, you know, this was not based on science. This was based on ideology and religious opposition to abortion, which is not what the FDA is supposed to base its drug access policies on. So this was really fascinating, particularly because it did not really jive with what he said publicly in his confirmation hearing, where he sort of hemmed and hawed and said, “Oh, I can’t speak to that because there’s ongoing litigation,” and sort of made â€” yes, this was more specific promise of action than we’ve heard from him publicly. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, I think I have this right: Even if the FDA doesn’t change its policy, the DOJ could decide We’re going to enforce the Comstock Act â€” that 1873 law that bans the mailing of abortion drugs. And that would sort of leave FDA out of the entire equation, right? I mean, in theory, he could do that. 

Ollstein: Yes, and a lot of anti-abortion activists are very frustrated that the administration has not done that yet. They could have done that a year ago, theoretically put out a new OLC memo. Of course … 

Rovner: OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel. 

Ollstein: Yeah, which the Biden administration used to say that the Comstock Act cannot be used for cracking down on mail delivery of abortion pills. Of course, even if that happened â€” and there’s no sign that that’s necessarily imminent or something the administration would want to do ahead of the midterms potentially â€” but, you know, I think it’s notable to ask: How would they enforce that? This is private mail going to people’s private homes â€” short of mass surveillance and looking at everyone’s mail. I mean, logistically and constitutionally, it raises a lot of questions. 

Rovner: It does. Well, and now Sen. Susan Collins has cited it as one of the reasons that she’s going to vote against Blanche’s confirmation. Although I will quickly add that once Susan Collins announces she’s voting against something controversial, that usually means Republicans already have the votes they need and can let her go. â€¦ I see nodding. Do we think that’s the case here? 

Kenen: She’s always in tight races. For the past 30 years, she’s won. But you know, Maine is really obviously in play this year. None of us have a good enough crystal ball to know how this plays out. But the issue for her, in many ways, is just her [Supreme Court Justice Brett] Kavanaugh confirmation vote. So anything she does seen as further eroding abortion could really tip the election for her. So I’m not positive that this goes through. I think it’s likely, but [Sen. Bill] Cassidy, I don’t believe, has said what he’s going to do. [Sen. Lisa] Murkowski hasn’t said â€¦ if someone has more recent information, please update me. But my understanding …  

Rovner: As of this morning, Cassidy and Murkowski are still holdouts. 

Kenen: Right. And I’m not 100%, even though [Sen. John] Cornyn and [Sen. Thom] Tillis got him out of committee, they’re watching. They’re seeing, you know, what’s going on. Abortion is not the issue for them, but the weaponization, you know, what did he really mean by, you know, does his memo really stop it? What else are they going to do? I don’t think this is a done deal, as opposed to getting closer to being a done deal. But there’s no question that Collins had to vote against this. 

Rovner: We will see. All right. Well, over at the Department of Health and Human Services, things continue to be messy, which is also the description of an interview that Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. gave to CNN’s Dana Bash on Sunday. Here’s how my colleague . I don’t think I can improve on this. “This morning, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sat down with Dana Bash on CNN’s State of the Union, and for 20 minutes it went about the way you’d expect. Both of them raised their voices, each accused the other of attacking them. He told her she’d committed press malpractice and that scaring people was the job of CNN. She told him he was causing inaccurate information to circulate. By 9:20 a.m. they were calling each other parrots.” By the way, this week saw publication of yet another large-scale study, 2.5 million children large, that found no association between autism and the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. But it raises the broader question: Does giving the secretary a mainstream platform like this actually make the media complicit in spreading the misinformation that he likes to spew? 

Ollstein: Things like this are such a Rorschach test because you had everyone on the left describing it as a crash out and, you know, a meltdown and something that made the secretary look really terrible, and you had people on the right who support him sharing it widely and saying, “Oh, he really gave it to the evil mainstream media.” And so, in terms of, you know, value to the public, I’m not sure. 

Seitz: I think you’re totally right, Alice. But what was really revealing is we have a health secretary who could not articulate what his plan is for any sort of outbreak, as there are multiple infectious disease outbreaks exploding throughout the country. And the one thing that he said he would do repeatedly was he would listen to doctors. Well, doctors on the front line of emergency rooms are saying, We are overwhelmed with measles. We are overwhelmed with infectious disease. Please, promote vaccines more. Please get your children vaccinated. So I think that was really just revealing. And again, it’s really troubling to see because everyone’s going to walk away from that conversation viewing it one way or the other, and not agreeing on anything, it seems. 

Rovner: Yeah, I will say, I mean, I watched it live. It was hard to watch. I don’t think it covered anybody with any kind of glory. Well, earlier this morning, speaking of breaking news, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to hold former NIH [National Institutes of Health] institute director and White House science adviser Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress for pleading the Fifth, rather than answering their questions at a hearing last week. As former Trump surgeon general Jerome Adams quipped on X: “Your healthcare costs are exploding and the entire U.S. financing system is collapsing in real time… Meanwhile Congress is spending more energy debating whether to lock up an 85-year-old over his private journal entries about Barbra Streisand. Priorities.” At the same time, Politico is reporting that a top candidate for Fauci’s old job, running the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, is a pharma executive who co-authored a book arguing that covid came from a lab leak and that fact was covered up by U.S. scientists. Steven Quay, who’s the nominee, has no training in infectious disease and was not selected for an interview by NIH staff for the NIAID job, but was instead handpicked by RFK Jr. Institute directors, I would hasten to add, are not usually political positions, unlike the director of NIH as a whole. So, what does this all suggest? 

Kenen: More of the same and worse. The Fauci situation is mind-boggling, even to people whose minds are now frequently boggles. Right? It’s â€¦ I think it’s safe to guess that he regrets writing certain things down on a government computer. And now they’ve got his phone. Sen. Johnson has his phone â€¦ or a copy of what his phone is. So I don’t know what’s going to come out about that, and how it will be interpreted. Remember that the measures that people are so angry about, several years later, were actually done during the Trump administration. They were not implemented by Biden. The national rules set at the, you know, the “six weeks to stop the spread” — that was Trump. Later regulations about opening restaurants and so forth, and other businesses and schools, and schools being the most contentious â€” churches are also contentious â€” that was done at the state level. Anthony Fauci did not go around the country locking churches. So public health made mistakes. But what people are forgetting about is that public health made mistakes dealing with a completely unprecedented and extremely complicated disease, which we still don’t understand all the sequel, all the stuff that people are still dealing with post-covid, right? And under emergency circumstances, in a politically volatile environment. And what we’re also forgetting is mistakes were made on the other side too. People were spreading quote-unquote “facts” that harmed people, that killed people. … I don’t mean they went out and murdered people, but things that led to unnecessary and avoidable deaths. So the whole debate, I mean, you can tell I’m â€” I’ll stop. Tony Fauci was not single-handedly making every decision, and the people trying to make public health decisions in a difficult environment were doing their best to save lives. And â€¦ it doesn’t matter what he said about Barbra Streisand. 

Rovner: And I would just add that it is Congress’ job to do things like examine the mistakes that were made and how things could have been done better, how communication could have been better. And I feel like, you know, Congress is just is so busy finding a scapegoat that it is not doing what could be a really useful exercise in an after-action report. Because there will be another pandemic, and, you know as we’ve said, we are having smaller-scale public health emergencies even as we speak, and nobody is dealing with it well. 

All right, moving on. Finally, this week, the House has decamped for its August recess, but the Senate is still here on Capitol Hill, trying to get a pretty ambitious list of things passed before it leaves at the end of the week, starting with a continuing resolution to keep the government open when the new fiscal year begins Oct. 1. The House passed a CR to run until after the midterms before it left in July. The Senate’s CR is similar with one big change that we have actually discussed lately. It would block, at least temporarily, a controversial rule from the Office of Management and Budget that would further politicize the grant-making process by allowing political appointees to decide whether individual grants conform to the president’s agenda. Can this get back through the House, assuming the Senate passes it when the House comes back in September? Or is this going to come down to the wire and we’re going to have a fight over it as we approach Oct. 1? 

Kenen: Well, the other question that some researchers, you know, when I when I talk to some people about, well, they â€” and remember they’re not killing this rule; they’re halting its implementation. 

Rovner: They’re delaying it, right? 

Kenen: Right. You know, one of the scientists’ first response was, “Yeah, well, just because Congress passes a law doesn’t mean the administration will respect it.” There are other ways to politicize, and I mean, they’ve been cutting funding and stopping grants and virtually shutting down agencies. Science has already been hurt. So whatever happens in the House, which, and I think Julie is right, I don’t think they just come back and say, “OK, we’re going to just agree.” I think there’ll be some kind of fight â€” how it fits into other trade-offs between the House and the Senate. And there are things other than health that we don’t pay as much attention to that are also out there, including a couple of wars. So yes, there’ll be some fighting about it. No, we don’t know how it turns out. But at the end of the day, if the administration really wants to further politicize an already politicized grant-making process, they will probably find a way of doing so. 

Rovner: Well, speaking of which, the administration has figured out other ways to effectively gut programs. Case in point: Head Start, which is a bipartisanly popular preschool education, nutrition, and healthcare program for low-income kids, just this morning, HHS is dropping new rules that would basically eliminate many of the required standards for Head Start programs, including things like teacher-to-student ratios. This administration is nothing if not creative, because this is not â€” you know, last year they were delaying the money going out for Head Start. Now they’re just going to say, Well, we’re just going to take away the rules, and you can sort of take this money and do whatever you want. Amanda, you’re nodding. 

Seitz: Yeah. Well, I found this really striking because I was with Secretary Kennedy a few months ago at a Head Start in Toledo, [Ohio], where he talked about the importance of the program, that it was inspired by his uncle, and he he said he really stood up against the White House to make sure â€¦ it was still funded last year, and he demanded that. And the other thing that really struck me about that visit is the Head Start’s owner had flown in from New York in this tailored suit to take photos with Kennedy and greet him personally. And I was a little confused why this person from New York is owning this Head Start. And it turns out a lot of private equity firms have been buying up daycares across the country, and this was the case for this Head Start. So, you know, pulling back the regulations of Head Start around class sizes â€” that seems like it would benefit more the private equity firms than the teachers and the children in the classrooms. 

Rovner: Fancy that! All right. Well, finally, finally, one of the things the Senate has managed to do this week is confirm Erica Schwartz as the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That agency has been operating without a Senate-confirmed head since the departure of Susan Monarez last August, just weeks after she had been confirmed over differences with Secretary RFK Jr. over vaccine policy. How confident are we that Dr. Schwartz, who is a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and a self-proclaimed vaccine supporter, will last longer than her predecessor? 

Seitz: I think that is a huge question. I mean, we’re now on our third CDC nominee of this administration, second confirmed candidate, and we know that Secretary Kennedy and Susan Monarez never really got along. It was not, she was not his first choice. That has been made very clear with Schwartz as well, when he said that he was not even consulted really about the pick. So I think the big question is: Can these two work together, and how quickly will that potentially deteriorate? 

Rovner: Yeah, well, the clock is about to start. I guess as soon as she is sworn in. â€¦ She was just confirmed on Wednesday, so I don’t think she’s been sworn in yet. Alice, you want to add something? 

Ollstein: Yeah, I did think it was interesting, though. On Capitol Hill, you heard from some senators that, you know, they did have concerns about her ability to stand up to RFK and advocate for evidence-based medicine science, you know, particularly on the vaccine front. But because there hasn’t been a leader at this crucial agency for a year now, they wanted to vote to confirm her just for some stability and some leadership. I mean, look, we’ve got diarrhea lettuce, we’ve got salmonella eggs, we’ve got measles. We’ve got a lot of problems, and it’s never a great time to not have a leader of the CDC, but right now is really not a good time to not have a leader of the CDC. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s what Tim Kaine of Virginia, a Democrat, said. I think he was the only Democrat that voted for her. More important to have somebody at the CDC leading it. 

All right, that is this week’s news, or as much of this week’s news as we could get to. Now we’ll play my “How Would You Fix It?” interview with New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim. Then we’ll come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome New Jersey Democratic Sen. Andy Kim to “How Would You Fix It?” Sen. Kim’s a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and just introduced legislation to guarantee health coverage to every child up to age 26. Sen. Kim, welcome. 

Andy Kim: Yeah, thanks for having me. It’s a pleasure. 

Rovner: As I hope this series is highlighting, it appears the country is moving, albeit kind of slowly, towards another major debate over healthcare coverage and cost. What made you decide to step into these very choppy political waters? 

Kim: Well, first of all, I’ll say it is because of healthcare that I ran for Congress to start with. So, you know, eight years ago or so, when I first started running, it was because I had a little baby boy who had some real health issues right there as he was born, and I was one of those very scared, anxious parents trying to figure out what kind of care could my kid get. Meanwhile, we saw a debate in Congress where the Republican-led Congress in 2017 was trying to gut the Affordable Care Act. So that was why I actually got engaged in politics, [because] my congressman was leading that charge on trying to cut preexisting condition protections.  

The other aspect of this is right now things are just moving in the wrong direction. We have upwards of, you know, 1.75 million to 2 million more kids losing Medicaid over the last year and a half. We see the numbers already atrocious. You know, 4.4 million children in this country without health insurance, 23 million kids that are underinsured, which means they have coverage that doesn’t cover their full needs. I’m appalled by that. I’ll be honest with you. Like, you know, we’re the richest, most powerful country in the world. I’m here at the Capitol, where we’re right now having these debates about, you know, a $1.5 trillion defense budget and other things that, you know, just are pushing forward. Yet we are just for some reason just OK with, or at least just allowing this type of void when it comes to our healthcare. I just find it to be â€” I mean, just appalling and a real dereliction of our duty that we have not found a way to be able to ensure that every child is able to go see a doctor when they need to without breaking the bank. So I think, for me, this has just been years in the making, and right now I wanted to introduce this because I can’t just be talking about what I’m against. I have to be talking about what I’m for. What is the vision for this country? Not just to reverse things that I think are wrong from what this administration has done, but I owe it to my constituents and to the American people to lay out a vision forward for us to try to think through where we go from here. 

Rovner: So, how would this bill work? 

Kim: First of all, the bill is called MediKids. So, as you said, it would be a guarantee of healthcare from birth to 26. I think one of the more novel parts of this that is different from what we see right now is that there’s an automatic enrollment upon birth into MediKids, which is a foundation built upon Medicaid. So the idea right now is we’re seeing so many kids and families losing Medicaid or potentially losing Medicaid in part because of just the onerous paperwork, the bureaucracy, the different types of things that are meant right now, just the twice-annual requirements to be able to recertify. That’s what’s standing in the way here and preventing so much of the progress that we need. So I wanted to really tackle that and be able to make sure that people can be able to get the care that they need.  

And another part of it is that I chose to put the platform upon Medicaid because Medicaid, in many ways, was designed for kids. You know, when it comes to the early and periodic screenings and diagnostics and treatment, that whole system is, as I’ve looked at it, really the most comprehensive system for kids. What healthcare experts have really shared with me over the years, as I taught talk them, is we can’t just think of kids as little adults. But instead, like, having a system that is designed for kids, that is designed to be able to have the screenings at the appropriate times and age intervals, to be able to have that requirement, to be able to treat any and all problems that are determined, and to think about this as comprehensively â€” not just like healthcare here, dental and vision, but to think about it across all of it. All of that is necessary for kids because their bodies are developing, their brains are developing well into their 20s, which is why, again, I pushed meta kids out into the 20s. It’s like you want to make sure that all of these kids are able to get the care that they need, and that you don’t see the kind of withdrawal of or restriction of care that could have real consequences down the road. So that’s really what we were trying to do. 

Rovner: So, as you well know, Democrats have been fighting for decades now over whether to try for a really comprehensive overhaul of the nation’s healthcare system or something more incremental. Obviously, the Affordable Care Act was something more incremental, but also fairly comprehensive. Is that how you envision this? Where do you fall on the “Let’s pull it up and start over from scratch,” and the “Let’s try to fix it one step at a time” debate? 

Kim: Well, yeah. Well, look, I want to be bold, and I want something that can really push forward. Because look, I’ll be honest: The American people want something bold. Like, the problems that we are facing are enormous. No one is happy with the status quo, so we need to have that change. But I was also thinking through how to design something that I think will have enormous impact upon healthcare, but doing it in a way that is implementable. You know, so with MediKids, I’m not creating some new bureaucracy. I’m not creating some new agency or new department. I am taking something that is already, frankly, covering a large percentage of children in this country already, and I’m trying to make it available for everybody through that automatic enrollment, and taking something that is proven to be able to have that comprehensive approach and use that as a foundation. I really tried to design this in a way that is implementable. As I’ve been in Congress now for eight years, I see the types of bills that can get through parliamentarians and get through into passage, and I’ve really tried to design something that hits that sweet spot while still fundamentally reshaping how healthcare in this country will be attained by people. And I really do think that it will have a sizable impact tremendously. Not just in terms of providing that care for kids, but everyone knows healthier kids means healthier adults, which means a healthier workforce, which means a stronger economy, which means lower healthcare costs. The knock-on effects are so strong. So many of the challenges that we see amongst adults when it comes to chronic illnesses and other challenges are often things that have been exacerbated because of the lateness of diagnosis or the lack of treatment early on. So those are the things that we’re really trying to think through when it comes to this approach. 

Rovner: Back in 1994, when the Bill Clinton plan went down, the first big health reform that I covered, there was an effort, mostly spearheaded by Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, that they called “Kids First.” They said, well, let’s just cover kids. It still took three years, a lot of fighting, and sort of they luckily found a tobacco tax to help pay for it. But it was bipartisan. Do you have any thoughts that Republicans are going to maybe have some renewed interest in increasing healthcare coverage? 

Kim: Well, what I will say is, first of all, if ever there was an issue that should be bipartisan or, frankly, nonpartisan, it should be about our kids, right? And that’s why I wanted to focus on this too. I think it’s the strongest argument that we have in our country when it comes to guaranteed healthcare. I get it, eyes wide open, I was on the Senate floor last year when I saw my colleagues vote to cut Medicaid at such a dangerous level, so I have my eyes wide open. But what I will say is, I’ve gone around the Senate over the last period of time, like the last two weeks since I’ve introduced, is that it is sparking that conversation. And whether or not my colleagues on the other side of the aisle or both sides of the aisle agree with all the different principles and proposals that I have in MediKids, it is creating this dialogue and this debate about healthcare for our kids. And that’s what I want. Yeah, that’s what I want us to be able to do. And you’re right. Like, we’ve seen bipartisan support in the past for CHIP [the Children’s Health Insurance Program], for healthcare for kids in different ways, and I just saw that going in the wrong direction last year, which is why I wanted to release this now to try to move it back into the fold. I saw a real deprioritization of concerns raised by parents of kids with disabilities that were worried about how these Medicaid cuts would affect them. It’s not good enough for them to just get, like, a wink and a “trust us” type of message. We really need to make sure that we just never have parents with that type of anxiety about whether or not they’re going to lose care for their child. So, well, we’ll see going forward. But at least my early conversations with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle, certainly around the overarching principles of care for kids, is promising. And I’m hopeful to be able to make some gains as we move forward in both the Senate, as well as in the House, as we start to push forward on that debate there too. 

Rovner: Well, we’re all about keeping the conversation going forward. Sen. Andy Kim, thank you so much. 

Kim: Yeah, thanks so much 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. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week? 

Kenen: OK. This is a story that’s up online in The New York Times, and I believe it’ll be in the Sunday Magazine this weekend. It’s by Dr. Helen Ouyang, whose name I don’t know how to pronounce, so I’m just going to apologize for not knowing how to pronounce it. The story is “.” For me, it’s not great because I was working on the same story, talking to some of the same people, and you know that’s not going to happen now. But something like she used the number 4 million, and it’s probably closer to 6 million, kids, between roughly the ages of like 10 and 18 or 19, are in fact the major caregiver for a sick parent or grandparent, and they are trying to juggle some kind of attendance at school and then doing medically complicated things, plus the psychological burden and not being able to be a normal teen. And these are largely poor kids. They are disproportionately Black and Hispanic kids. We do not have a system for helping them. The answer is not let them be caregivers because no one would be a caregiver. The person would have no care. The question is, really, how do we support them? Make it easier. Make sure they’re connected to whatever community resources or state resources or health resources that are available. Make sure they’re maxing out on that. But it’s a really disturbing and very moving story what these kids go through, because even those of us who are adults who’ve taken care of grandparents or parents, it’s really hard. And if you’re 15 or 10, it’s even harder. 

Rovner: Yeah, and taking care of siblings too in a lot of cases. Amanda. 

Seitz: My pick this week is “,” by Katherine Long of The Wall Street Journal. This is a story about a surrogate who agreed to carry what ended up being triplets for a father overseas in China. What I just found really remarkable about the reporting is that it takes this really horrible case â€” these children have essentially been left in the U.S. with the surrogate mother because the father from China hadn’t been able to come over due to visa issues. And, but it takes this really complicated story and looks at just the overall perils of the surrogacy industry that has exploded while being completely unregulated, and how all of these cases are largely playing out in courts and being complicated by the immigration policies of the Trump administration. So it was just a really fascinating read. 

Rovner: Other things that policymakers could be doing with their time. Alice. 

Ollstein: My pick is from NOTUS. It is called “.” So we talked about the vote to hold Fauci in contempt, but this is a look at what inadvertently, I guess, happened as a result of Rand Paul, who, let’s remember, is a doctor himself as well as a senator, releasing a huge tranche of private documents from Fauci and not redacting people’s personal medical information about their diagnoses. And this article talks about how that happened and how little recourse the people involved have about their information being exposed, and how this is a pattern with the administration of failing to redact people’s sensitive information when they do these big document dumps. 

Rovner: Oops. Yeah. Well, my extra credit this week is also about the Fauci affair. It’s from our podcast pal Sheryl Gay Stolberg at The New York Times, and it’s called “.” And wouldn’t you just know it, but it turns out that HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and one of his sons, and Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, have all published books accusing Tony Fauci of various crimes and misdeeds, and that after last week’s hearing, sales of those books jumped. Wrote Sheryl, “Ethics experts say that Mr. Kennedy, his son and Mr. Paul did not cross any legal or ethical lines, but several said the secretary and the senator did cross a threshold for hypocrisy by using their platforms to sell books about Dr. Fauci while accusing the scientist of profiting from his own public service.” I will let you all draw your own conclusions. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had production help this week from 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 , or on Bluesky . Where are you folks hanging these days. Alice? 

Ollstein: On Bluesky , and on X . 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly on  and on  . 

Rovner: Amanda. 

Seitz: And I am still tweeting from X on . 

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

[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, July 30, 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 Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal. 

Liz Essley Whyte: Hello. 

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19^th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news, so we’ll get right to it. I want to start with a story that I feel like is getting a little bit buried because it broke last Friday.  on a federal court filing in which the Trump administration admitted that it canceled $7.5 billion in clean-energy grants solely because they were located in states represented by Democrats that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. In other words, the actions were purely political. Now, this is before the administration finalizes proposed rules that would give political appointees still more power over how grant funding is distributed. I heard one pundit say on cable news that in any other administration, this sort of information would lead to an immediate impeachment inquiry. But these days, it’s just another day that ends in “y.” Is the lack of public outcry about this because everyone already assumes that everything this administration does is political? Or is this considered just too inside baseball for most voters?  

Whyte: Well, I was gonna say I think this has long been people’s suspicions about why certain grants are cut in the way that they are, or some of these Medicare/Medicaid investigations are the way that they are. And so I think maybe the lack of outcry was just people shrugging their shoulders and saying, I mean, yeah, we guessed that, you know. I don’t know. 

Cohrs Zhang: It was really chaotic too, and hard to keep track of all these different things for people whose job it is to do so. So I feel like the fact that this is protracted for so long, we’re like, which DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts were those? And I think it is important, certainly, and I’m glad there’s been coverage of it, just for the record, and just kind of for history purposes and just understanding the limits of that kind of change to government at that speed. But yeah, I think it is just hard to break through in this news cycle, and it was very chaotic and confusing for everyone.  

Luthra: One thing I have been thinking about, though, is when you think about these states where grants were canceled, there are a lot of people who live there who did, in fact, vote for Donald Trump. And depending on the size of the state, you probably have members of Congress who are actually in Republican districts. And that, I think, is really interesting. And I just wonder if eventually there is some sort of conversation. Those are probably in some cases members who might be a little bit more on the defensive in other ways, just given the political environment we are in. And is this an issue that Democrats can talk about and highlight and sort of bring to voters and say, you know, your representative is not here defending your interests because of these broader sort of punitive measures being taken by the White House. I think that’s an interesting thing that we don’t know the answer to yet. 

Rovner: I know I keep saying this, but I can’t believe that Republicans on the [Senate] Appropriations Committee aren’t being louder about this. This is the one power that they have. It’s why you get on the Appropriations Committee, is you get to steer money to your state or your district. That is the great perquisite of being in Congress, and the administration is basically taking it away. And they’re just letting them. I mean, Susan Collins told Politico, quote, “I obviously think that’s wrong.” But she doesn’t seem willing to do anything about this. I mean, she’s the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee! 

Cohrs Zhang: I think we’re, like, testing the checks-and-balances system to its fullest extent. This administration. They can only pick so many fights, you know. 

Whyte: Yeah, Susan Collins, especially, this whole administration has had to choose about when to say something and when to push behind closed doors, push publicly. I mean, there’s been lots of stuff that she hasn’t liked. 

Rovner: Yeah, for sure. Well, this is not the only case where the government has admitted to canceling grants for political reasons. In a case brought by researchers from the University of California, the administration confirmed it canceled some grants because  like “diversity,” “gender,” and “vaccine hesitancy” to cut off funding. The plaintiffs in that case argue that it’s a First Amendment violation. Again, we’ve known for some time that this has been happening. Are the courts just too slow to be able to deal with it, Rachel? That’s kind of what you were intimating. This has been dragging out, sort of bit by bit by bit. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think it’s hard. And I â€” just like with these grants dragging out too, it has impact for the people who are supposed to be receiving this funding and how their cycles work and hiring and just all the â€¦ that grant process. But I think it’s hard to make that connection, back to the individual voter. And I think that’s just a tough hill to climb in terms of public communications. So I think, yeah, we’re seeing these similar themes play out. 

Luthra: And one thing that I think is really relevant that I keep coming back to is we did see a test run of this with the USAID [United States Agency for International Development] cuts at the beginning of the administration. Those happened very quickly. The courts took a very, very long time, and by the time there was any kind of real momentum in any direction, it was too late. People did not have money, firms had downsized, people had left their jobs, left the industry altogether. And, at the time, that seemed to me like a really striking test. If this is able to happen here, and it shows that things just continue, why not happen in other areas as well, where you have these grants being put out there that have maybe ideological tension with where the administration wants to be going? 

Rovner: So I wanted to talk about some specific impacts on health policy, notably AHRQ, the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research, which, like USAID, the administration has all but eliminated, despite the fact that it was appropriated nearly $350 million for this year in a bill signed by President Trump. AHRQ, which is down to a fraction of its original staff and hasn’t funded any grants in more than a year, is actually a completely bipartisan creation from the 1990s. It was established to study healthcare quality and access issues, many of which go neatly hand in hand with the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Earlier this month, the administration stopped funding more than 100 grants, and an HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] spokeswoman told my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Arthur Allen only that the agency plans to establish a new, quote, “framework,” which I thought was the job of Congress. Again, too small to attract much notice? 

Luthra: Probably. I mean, voters don’t know what AHRQ is. Like, we know about it because of our jobs, but this is not something people wake up and think about or talk to their neighbors about. It just feels very divorced from a lot of people’s realities. Even though, to your point, the consequences are far-reaching. They are long-term, and, also, the significance in terms of, as Rachel pointed out, separation of powers, checks and balances are also very striking.  

Rovner: I mean, AHRQ studies things like patient safety. I’m old enough to remember when the, you know, the big Institute of Medicine [now National Academy of Science] report came out that said how many people were injured by medical errors. It was a huge, huge issue. I mean, for years. And that’s basically what AHRQ does, and that’s what this administration says that they care about. They care about gold-standard science. They care about fraud. They care about making the health system safer. And yet, you know, AHRQ is just, well, we don’t know what it is, so we’re going to make it go away, basically. 

Whyte: Obviously, the HHS has not been as clear on this as you might hope and expect for the “most transparent administration in history.” But it is clear that, like, Kennedy is looking for pots of money to do the things that he wants to do. And it seems like this is one of the pots they’ve landed on as something that can be shifted around. 

Rovner: Yeah, so it does. Well, one cut that is likely to be noticed is the administration’s decision to end the temporary subsidy for Medicare Part D that prevented the addition of an out-of-pocket cap on how much enrollees have to spend each year on prescription drugs from spiking those monthly premiums. This will almost certainly raise premiums for many, if not most, of the 25 million seniors who have stand-alone Part D drug plans. And they will see those increases right before Election Day, because Medicare open enrollment starts Oct. 15. And, by the way, seniors vote in disproportionate numbers in midterm elections. If I was a political adviser for this administration, I don’t think I would have advised doing this. Am I missing something here? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think you are seeing there’s an interesting shift happening in terms of the power of the fiscal conservative wing of the administration. And I think we’ll continue to see that play out. I will say it’s unclear, like, how much premiums would have increased anyway without this subsidy program ending, given that the premium increases are capped by statute, in the Inflation Reduction Act through 2029. So, I mean, there is a chance that they might have gone up 6% anyway. We’re maxing out that increase. But the messaging certainly was not stellar for them. And I think we saw some cleanup efforts on that, for them trying to say that, you know, most seniors will see, you know, no increase or an increase of less than $10 a month. 

Rovner: Or they’ll have, I think Dr. [Mehmet] Oz said, they’ll still have an option for a cheaper plan. Of course, that cheaper plan might not cover all their drugs, but â€¦ 

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. So I think that’s just like a â€¦ this is one, I think, data point in this larger theme I’m thinking about. And how do we see â€” as we move past the midterm elections and affordability may not be top of mind if there’s no electoral accountability for it â€” how does that change what we’re seeing out of these agencies? 

Rovner: I’m just old enough to remember when, you know, you don’t raise costs for Medicare beneficiaries right before a midterm election, which is what this will do. Well, it isn’t all cuts. The administration this week finally released the $600 million that Congress had appropriated for the global Vaccine Initiative, Gavi. That was money for last year and this year. The funding had been blocked by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. even though it goes through the State Department, not the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy had been concerned that Gavi was paying for vaccines containing the preservative thimerosal, which has been accused, and cleared, of causing autism. Do we know what finally sprung this money loose? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think there was a deadline of Sept. 30, and the funding would have expired. And we did see kind of an exchange with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Susan Collins, where he said, “You know, I’m going to take ownership of this, and we’re going to get it done.” And so I think there was a push by administration officials to get this funding pried loose. And I think there are questions about whether Gavi was kind of heading this way already with some of these vaccines. I think they were starting the transition, but I think there â€¦ we’ll see how the implementation works on it. But I think there might be an argument that maybe this transition might have happened maybe faster â€¦ or to a broader degree. 

Rovner: The transition away from using thimerosal. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yes, the states â€¦ there’s one hexavalent vaccine where countries could already apply to transition to a different formulation without thimerosal starting in 2023. So, but maybe an option would be broader. Just there’s kind of a lot up in the air as to actually how this gets operationalized in the timeline. 

Rovner: Yeah, I was thinking, though, this might have been one of the cases where Congress complaining, both publicly and privately, did actually have some impact. But also, I know a lot of it was Marco Rubio stepping in and saying, “Hey, this is a State Department thing.” And finally, you know, I say a year and eight months later, the money gets distributed. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back.  

Well, speaking of things that may or may not be good politics, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky called former NIH [National Institutes of Health] and White House science official Tony Fauci before his Homeland Security Committee Wednesday to rake him over the coals again over his handling of the covid pandemic. Fauci, who received a preemptive pardon from President Joe Biden as Biden was walking out of the Oval Office door in 2025, did not take the bait. He pleaded the Fifth, lest anything he said be used for a new prosecution for lying to Congress. Meanwhile, Paul says he’ll try to find Fauci in contempt of Congress, which, by the way, would take 60 votes, which feels a little unlikely. Separately, several red-state attorneys general say they now want to investigate Fauci since his pardon doesn’t cover state prosecutions. First, prosecute him for what? And is relitigating covid origins and lockdowns really good politics for Republicans? I’m sure it riles up the base, but it’s hard to see them running on this as their health agenda. 

Whyte: So Rand Paul actually said on TV last night that he just thinks his committee needs to do the contempt of Congress vote, and then they can refer it to the DOJ [Department of Justice]. So they may not need 60 votes. So that will be interesting. Meanwhile, [Sen.] Ron Johnson [R-Wis.] has also threatened to subpoena Fauci. And the Florida attorney general is opening an investigation. And Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville says if he becomes governor, he’s going to try to figure out a way to prosecute Fauci in Alabama. So there’s definitely a lot of focus on Dr. Fauci. 

Rovner: I repeat, though, prosecute him for what? 

Whyte: Well, you know, before the hearing, Rand Paul was saying, Yeah, his preemptive pardon covers stuff in the past, but if he lies again at this hearing, then we will, you know, go after him or whatever. 

Rovner: Right, and that’s why he didn’t, that’s why he pleaded the Fifth.  

Whyte: Right, which is why it was viewed as an â€¦ entrapment situation that he should probably steer clear of, and why he would not even answer, like, what is the color of the carpet. 

Rovner: And what color his tie was, or was it Sen. [Josh] Hawley’s tie? 

Whyte: Yeah, and what day of the week it was, yeah. Whether it’s good politics for Republicans, I think we’ll have to see. There’s an Ohio candidate that they’ve tried to get for being, you know, covid czar or whatever, and that really hasn’t gone anywhere in Ohio. She’s polling OK. So I think that’s a good question on whether voters still care about this or not. I think obviously a lot of them do, but, like, the suburban women who are, you know, the famous swing voters, what do they think about Dr. Fauci? Will be interesting to see. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I guess just for watching the questioning, it seemed that they’re trying to, you know, that we know that Democrats have more enthusiasm going into this midterm than Republicans. And it looked like the Republicans were trying to, you know, reactivate the angry covid base, if you will, to get them to come out and vote. It’s just hard to know how many people are angry enough to come out, you know, six years later.  

All right. Well, speaking of buzzy stories, Liz, you  about how Trump might be pushing RFK Jr. on childhood vaccine policy rather than what we all assumed was the other way around. So tell us about it. 

Whyte: Yeah, this is a bit of a counterintuitive news development for two reasons. One, because everybody thinks RFK Jr. is the big vaccine skeptic in the administration. And two, because the White House had, you know, is widely reported that they were telling HHS to “ix-nay on the accines-vay” ahead of the midterms â€” like, just dial it down a little bit because of polling they had from the winter that showed while food and ag [agricultural] stuff was really popular, the other MAHA stuff, vaccine skepticism, was not, and they kind of wanted to tone it down. But the president does what he wants. He does not always listen to the polling. And he has been telling Kennedy since at least May, why aren’t you doing more to probe the connection, in his mind, between vaccines and autism? And this took Kennedy aback, actually, at a golf course lunch in May. He was surprised because he was still under the impression they were supposed to be dialing back. And President Trump told him, “You have the yips,” which I just think is such a funny word. 

Rovner: It’s a golf term. 

Whyte: Yes, it’s a golf term. And that has continued to be, actually, a point of tension between the two men, with the president venting his frustration to Kennedy at a mid-June Oval Office meeting. And part of the reason we’re seeing some of this increased action, even if it’s not, you know, really talked about much, but appeals to the federal appeals court to speed up the decision for the key vaccine advisory panel of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], and then also there was that EO [executive order] in May that Trump put out on the childhood vaccine schedule, and just kind of general scrambling behind the scenes to figure out, like, what they can deliver for the president, who is, I’m told, a results guy and wants to see results and thinks, you know, it’s been a year and a half, and why aren’t there results? So, we’ll see where that leads. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, if this puts Kennedy in hot water with the president,  what the newest, who the newest likely candidate is should RFK Jr. leave his post, either voluntarily or not so voluntarily. Tell us about your story. 

Cohrs Zhang: So I have been working on this story for a very long time. But I think we’ve seen kind of this surprise in Washington that Dr. Oz, who’s leading Medicare and Medicaid, has actually like navigated the Trump administration with great skill, and I think we were finally able to capture the scope of that, him translating that skill into personal relationships with the president, with the secretary, and getting himself a seat at the table on far more policy issues than a CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] administrator would normally get. And I think we saw, those of us who remember the first Trump administration, how ugly things got between HHS and CMS â€” was like very adversarial, like a really bad time in there, very toxic. But I think we’ve seen him take a more, like, cooperative approach. He wields his influence, is more explaining things. He is a medical doctor, his training, unlike the secretary. And I think there is just, like, a general trust and, like, personal friendship between the two of them that has translated into this interesting dynamic, where Dr. Oz kind of serves as a go-between on some of these issues between the White House and the secretary and gets everybody kind of to the place where they need to go. And he’s just a good communicator and has built a lot of trust and parlayed that into getting himself a seat at the table. 

Rovner: Yeah, and Liz â€¦ your story about Kennedy and Trump also suggested that Oz’s favor is rising, shall we say? 

Whyte: Yeah, the White House staff love Oz because they know they can send him to the Hill. They can put him on TV. Like, he’s going to do a great job. Rachel had this too. You know, the president calling and texting Oz and saying, you know, what about this issue? and it has nothing to do with CMS. He’s, you know, being called upon to do other stuff that is not in his portfolio. So yeah, every lobbyist is just, like, watching their clock and seeing when Oz takes over. I don’t know that it’s that straightforward. I think the president and secretary have a very warm friendship, and it took a lot for Kristi Noem to get let go, and I don’t think we’re anywhere near that. So we’ll have to see if the mood changes after the midterms. But it doesn’t seem to me that anything would be imminent. 

Rovner: I would add that I know Oz is the one person practically in the entire administration, not just at HHS, who actually does well when he goes to the Hill. Who, you know, is respectful and sort of understands how administration officials are supposed to conduct themselves when they are in front of the people who theoretically are responsible for them having their jobs.  

Whyte: Yeah, you’ll find the Democrat staffers are like, Oh, we actually like Oz, which is funny, I think.  

Rovner: He’s a good politician! What can I say? Rachel, do you want to add something? 

Cohrs Zhang: I will say, though, he did play a role in selling all these Medicaid cuts that are going to be coming down the pike. 

Rovner: He did. 

Cohrs Zhang: And so I think he is going to be the face of this when they actually go to implement it.  

Rovner: He will. 

Cohrs Zhang: So yeah, we’ll see how that goes.  

Rovner: We’ll see how that goes.  

Cohrs Zhang: What time frame they’ll be doing that in. But yeah, certainly. Yeah, it’s interesting. 

Whyte: They’ve kind of given up selling that, too. You know, it’s not something they’re being like, Oh, look at all the great stuff we did with Medicaid in the One Big Beautiful Bill. It’s very much pivoted to fraud.  

Rovner: Yeah, but when it starts, when it takes effect next year, I think there’s going to be, there will be lots of questions to answer. Shefali, do you want to add something before we move on? 

Luthra: The only thing that really just I keep thinking about is the long history of this relationship between Dr. Oz and the president, and, in particular, when during the 2016 campaign he was the one to talk about the president’s testosterone levels on TV and how they were excellent. And I just think it’s really special that we’ve come full circle in this way. 

Rovner: Yes, yes, it is, and we have. All right, moving on. One thing that Secretary RFK Jr. said this week that’s pretty clearly not true is that the department has the cyclospora parasite outbreak, quote, “under control.” A former deputy commissioner of food at the FDA under both the first Trump administration and President Biden told Politico this week that, quote, “it is starting to approach a catastrophic level in terms of how mismanaged it’s been on multiple fronts.” Rachel, you’re keeping an eye on this. What is the latest? What do we know about cyclospora and where it’s coming from? And are the recalls that are in existence enough to stop it? 

Cohrs Zhang: I don’t think they’re stopping it, by any means, especially with an incubation period of two weeks. I think we are continuing to see more cases reported, and I think, like you mentioned, there’s, I think, fingers pointing in all directions. Our team and others have done reporting on just how Taylor Farms has handled themselves behind the scenes. The public spat between Taylor Farms and the FDA was not something you usually see in an outbreak of this kind. It’s just worth probably pointing out that the FDA did DOGE much of its communications staff that has experience with this sort of outbreak. We have, you know, officials shifting around, and there’s some key vacancies at the FDA as well in a lot of these leadership positions. So I think there’s been complaints, certainly, at, like, the report you mentioned about the federal response, but also about the company and their speed and their clarity and communication, and whether that’s truly serving the public interest or not. And I think there are, if I’m not mistaken, some ongoing investigations into other potential causes. But we are seeing a lot of these cases tied back to lettuce from a specific part of Mexico. So I think they have gotten the word out now, but just the confusion and the back-and-forth. And I think former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb got on CNBC and said he would have expected more communication from the FDA on this issue. But it’s kind of a tough one when it’s a voluntary recall, and there’s a company, and they’ve used some restrictions, you know, and what they’re supposed to be talking about publicly. But I think there has just been so much consumer confusion, and that’s not in anyone’s interest. 

Rovner: And as we said, this is not a simple thing to track. It’s not like E. coli; you can’t really find it. Liz, you and your colleagues reported, though, on, you know, Taylor Farms going straight to the White House to try and sort of go over the heads of the FDA on this. 

Whyte: Yeah, Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal had stories with different pieces of this, and it was, you know, in our story, you could see that they were trying to distance themselves from the outbreak before they got named publicly, which is kind of this new wild West of lobbying that we’re in, where it makes a lot of sense for companies to go straight to the White House and skip over dealing with career officials. And what was interesting was that the way all that played out with the communications is Taylor was able to say, FDA apologized to us, made this like really confusing statement. And the FDA, maybe because it didn’t have the comms folks with experience, like Rachel was talking about, at the FDA with, you know, various layers of people who have done this before, you know, it took them till the next day to say: By the way, our epidemiology on this is really good. It’s definitely still Taylor Farms. We just, like, had that one false positive. It was crazy to me how, like, twisted and turned that got. 

Rovner: It was not well handled from a public communications standpoint, shall we say? All right. Well, one thing that we know that RFK Jr. thinks highly of are peptides; those are the amino acids that wellness influencers say can build muscle, heal injuries, and burn fat, among other things. Last week, an FDA advisory committee voted, over the objections of FDA’s own scientists â€” who say evidence on the benefits of peptides is either skimpy or nonexistent — to nonetheless make it easier for compounding pharmacies to make and sell products containing several different specific peptides. Now, this is not just a scientific disagreement. Several members of this advisory panel are actual sellers of this product, right? 

Whyte: Yeah, the panel was a bunch of members who either worked for companies that sell peptides or had a clinic that offers them. And the HHS said these people went through a conflict process. It doesn’t seem like it could have been as rigorous as the previous conflict processes that were in place. I haven’t seen a ton of reporting on that. But, you know, predictably they greenlighted most of the peptides that they looked at over and against the strong recommendations from FDA staff scientists who said we don’t have evidence that these are safe. Like, this is kind of unprecedented. The argument in favor was, well, you know, we do something similar with supplements. You know, Secretary Kennedy has said people should be free to try these out, and you know he wants to end the war on peptides. And meanwhile, scientists with a traditional background in looking at risk and benefits are saying the risks are there, the benefits are not proven, and this almost creates a different paradigm for how we’re looking at medical interventions now. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I think we’ve seen this across the FDA and across HHS. I mean, this is basically what they’re, you know, calling gold-standard science. That there’s a lot of people â€¦ go ahead, Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: I was just gonna say, and I’m â€¦ I think, looking forward, this creates a split decision, right, between the FDA scientists and the ag comm, and that’s gonna put the FDA in a tough position as to who what they’re going to choose because former commissioner Marty Makary loved to say he was siding with the career scientists, and now we have this forum to hear what they actually think, like, presented to the public. So I think that’s going to be a tough decision ahead, and that’ll tell us how things are working inside. 

Rovner: And of course, we only have an acting commissioner of FDA right now, so â€¦  

Cohrs Zhang: Yes, with instructions to not make news. 

Rovner: Finally, this week, news on reproductive health â€” because there is always news on reproductive health. Shefali, we had a decision in one of the court cases challenging how the FDA regulates the abortion pill mifepristone, but it’s not the case that we’ve all been watching, right? 

Luthra: No, this was the Virginia case. And what it reminds us is that there’s actually a million different mifepristone cases because you have people looking for more restrictions on mifepristone, and you also have people looking for fewer restrictions on mifepristone. And a lot of the folks who provide the drug, the doctors and manufacturers, have argued that, in fact, there are more restrictions than are actually appropriate. That this is actually much safer, and it does not need to be so hard to get because, for all of the concerns from conservatives and abortion opponents, it actually is very difficult to prescribe and make mifepristone available without going through a lot of hoops of certification. And so we see, right, in some cases, like here, an effort to try and loosen those restrictions a bit and say this could be more available, especially, I mean, people when they have miscarriages, it is actually very hard to get mifepristone, even though it actually would be very beneficial for management. But I think what this does, practically, is again not much changes for now because we have so much going through so many courts in different ways. Realistically, I mean, access to the drug stays as what it is: available in some places, not available in others. And the big case that we’re all waiting for, the Louisiana one, that could possibly bring restrictions in, that very briefly did bring restrictions in mifepristone earlier this year â€” we’ll probably see more on that closer to the election. And that could be very interesting because, as we’ve talked about so many times, this is not really an issue the White House or a lot of Republicans, frankly, would like to be in the news, because they know that restrictions on abortion just remain so unpopular and continue to be for a long time. 

Rovner: And this is almost certainly heading for the Supreme Court, right? We now have a court, you know, a lower court saying that the Biden administration’s restrictions were too tight, and one assumes that coming out of Louisiana, we will have a decision that says that they’re not tight enough. 

Luthra: I would be stunned if the Supreme Court did not hear a mifepristone case in the coming few years. It just seems like we’ve been building in this direction for a very long time. You’re totally right. The split circuit looming makes that more likely. And I mean, realistically, if I supported abortion rights, if I wanted to make this pill more available, as the folks arguing against the Biden restrictions are, I don’t know that I would be thrilled about this being something before the Supreme Court because this is known to be a more conservative court. A lot of members who think abortion should be far less available than it is â€” this is the same court that overturned Roe v. Wade. And so I think there’s a real possibility that as we see more and more abortion decisions make their way to the Supreme Court, the restrictions we have become even more so, and where we are now becomes a baseline for making this even more difficult for people to obtain. 

Rovner: We will have to see. Meanwhile, our podcast pal Alice [Miranda] Ollstein has a co-bylined story at Politico this week about how anti-abortion groups are pulling out all the stops to try to show that the increased use of . Now they have a study, commissioned by the group Students for Life, claiming that mifepristone is showing up in, quote, “significant levels” in waterways in Austin, Texas; Blacksburg, Virginia; and Carbondale, Illinois â€” all major college towns, not coincidentally. And while the science behind this remains questionable, the politics don’t, right? 

Luthra: Right. And this is a strategy they’ve been working on for quite some time, putting bills in state legislatures, talking to anyone who will listen about this, and saying, If we care about the environment, the left cares about the environment,why don’t we care about what they say is this mifepristone pollution in the water that they say is caused by medication abortions? And they want to use this argument as a different prong on the way to stop people from having mifepristone made available, of making medication abortions harder to obtain. We haven’t really seen this really yield fruit yet. However, this is part of, again, a longer-term strategy to lay groundwork. And studies like this, they create an intellectual groundwork as well. We saw that with the telehealth studies, the mifepristone safety and efficacy studies â€” and I perhaps should do “studies” in air quotes because a lot of mainstream researchers call these not very good science. But if you create a large-enough body to point to, then ultimately you can have people in positions of power say, “Well, we’ve looked at the evidence from all sides, and we see these real concerns, and we’re going to use them to inform policy.” I don’t know that that will happen anytime soon, but it’s certainly a goal that they’re building toward. 

Rovner: They’re talking points, basically. 

Luthra: Absolutely. 

Rovner: All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now 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. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week? 

Cohrs Zhang: Mine is from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. The headline is “Trump Administration Demands Hospitals Share Emergency Room Records,” by Amanda Seitz, Maia Rosenfeld, and Darius Tahir. I think this is one installment, and that this broader arc of coverage that they have really owned â€” it’s so diffuse. There’s like states, and there’s providers, and there’s government officials involved, but I think it really illuminates kind of like where is the Trump administration looking for data? I think this is something that started during the DOGE era, where you had DOGE employees trying to get data from different government agencies. But you’re seeing it as, I think, we’ve talked about previously, like, there’s a desire for studies and, you know, things to move faster. Like, where are we looking for data? I think this whole arc of coverage has been really valuable in illuminating: Where are they looking. Is this precedented? Kind of how could these datasets be used? What are the patient potential issues? Are there privacy issues? Can this data be protected? That I think are going to be really important as we kind of look into the rest of this administration, because we’re only a year and a half in. Like, we got a ways to go. 

Rovner: And, oh I mean we say over many, many, many years it’s always been Republicans who have been, you know, very much into the federal government shouldn’t have its hands in people’s personal data, and yet here we have an administration that’s trying to get personal data from every single possible place. 

Cohrs Zhang: Right, it’s fascinating. And this just makes it so concrete. And I think it’s great accountability work, and they’ve clearly developed great sourcing on this. 

Rovner: Yeah. Liz. 

Whyte: Mine is a  by two doctors who are concerned about the burgeoning pediatric public health emergency, as they call it, about e-bikes and e-scooters. And I’ve been wondering about this for a long time because I see kids doing two, three kids on these scooters going so fast with no helmets. It’s always boggling my mind, but it’s apparently gotten really bad. They looked at data from 2020 to 2021 and saw an increase in injuries, up 71% in just one year â€” kid injuries with e-scooters and e-bikes. So that was 8,545 of those injuries in 2021. And the doctors discuss how, you know, these injury patterns that these kids get â€” I mean, they’re going up to like 28 mph â€” look very similar to when a child gets hit by a car. And that’s, it’s just real sad. So TBD on whether anybody does any kind of age-appropriate access standards or something like that that can help dial back these injuries. And then I guess I’m cheating Julie, but a shoutout to  recently, about how peptide med spa clinics have less regulation at the state level than your local restaurant or hair salon. She contacted all 50 states, and I thought it was just a really good supplement to the peptide news that we saw recently. 

Rovner: It was, and â€¦ forgive me for not mentioning it, and we will link to that one too. But I’m so glad you did the e-bike thing because if you hadn’t done that, I was going to, because the number of kids just in my neighborhood, little kids on motorized vehicles, it’s like: Shouldn’t they have to have driver’s licenses to do this? Anyway. Shefali. 

Luthra: My piece is by Aaron Carroll. It is an op-ed in The Washington Post. The headline is: “.” And what he talks about, I think, is just so smart. It’s about how it actually would be great if we had better and more research on SSRIs. However, the point he makes is that the government is actually not really approaching this from that kind of vantage. And instead the idea is to try and just cut back access to SSRIs, rather than learn more about them, learn how to make them work better, if they are as effective as they want them to be. And the point that he gets at the end as well is that while it is really good and worthwhile to investigate and study how well SSRIs work, one thing that we are actually getting into, which is really problematic, is stigmatizing use of them. And he talks about why that’s actually not good, and that is not actually helpful when it comes to thinking about how to make treatment for depression better and better and better. And I love this framing because we should try and make medications better for people. We should always be looking at treatments we have and saying, yes, they work. But what if we made them work better and better? What if we had fewer side effects? What if we made them more effective? That would be awesome. And I really love that he is putting those questions out there in a way that is smart and productive and forward-looking. 

Rovner: And not partisan. This has never been partisan. This is just so â€¦  it’s all so unprecedented. All right. My extra credit this week is from The Arkansas Times. It’s called “,” by Byron Tate. And it’s about exactly what the headline says. Since Congress gave states the option to extend Medicaid coverage to postpartum women for a full year after they give birth, 49 states have exercised that option â€” all but Arkansas, where that coverage still ends after 60 days. And Arkansas has one of the nation’s highest maternal mortality rates. So who’s against it? Apparently, the governor, Republican Sarah Huckabee Sanders, herself a mom. She says these women should be transitioning to other coverage, except apparently most of them are not. According to one study, 94% of those losing postpartum Medicaid are becoming uninsured instead. 

OK, 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 still find me on X , and on Bluesky . Where are you folks hanging on socials these days? Rachel? 

Cohrs Zhang: I’m on X  and also on . 

Rovner: Shefali. 

Luthra: On Bluesky . 

Rovner: Liz. 

Whyte: I am on X  â€” with a “Y,” W-H-Y-T-E â€” and . You can Google me. 

Rovner: I’m sure people can find you. All right, we’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

[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, July 23, at 10:30 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 Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times. 

Margot Sanger-Katz: Hello. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi, Julie. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have our “How Would You Fix It?” interview with Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. But first, this week’s news. I want to start this week with what I’m calling the “Shrinking Safety Net.” The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is reporting that overall participation in SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], the nation’s food stamp program, is down by more than 4½ million people. That’s about 11% between last year’s enactment of the Republican budget bill and this past April. In Arizona, nearly half the recipients have left the rolls, and in Louisiana, Florida, and Oklahoma, it’s closer to 20%. Nearly half of those losing benefits are children, according to the analysis, and this is before some of the biggest cuts to the program even take effect. What does this mean, and what does it portend for Medicaid cuts that the SNAP declines are so much larger than were anticipated when this bill was passed in 2025? 

Sanger-Katz: The Republican bill put a lot of new burdens on states that to administer SNAP, and it created these penalties that if they had a lot of errors, then they were going to end up having to pay a much larger percentage of that total bill. And I think what’s happened is that that sort of spooked a bunch of states, and I think Arizona in particular, is facing some complicated politics around the program. And so I think in their effort to reduce the error rate, they’ve created a lot more paperwork for beneficiaries to prove that they’re eligible, because the state doesn’t want to take a chance that if they go back and check later, that there will be some mismatch and they will get dinged for making an error. So I think there are real lessons for what’s going to happen in Medicaid. The SNAP changes are happening a little faster than the changes to Medicaid. But I think there are a lot of the same incentives. There also are going to be increased penalties for states that have a high error rate in Medicaid, and there are going to be additional paperwork requirements added to Medicaid for people to prove that they’re complying with the work requirement and certain other things that didn’t exist before. 

Rovner: And as we’ve said a bunch of times before, states who are anticipating these cuts are already making cuts because they have to do budgets before some of these cuts take effect. Joanne, you wanted to say something? 

Kenen: No, I think that Medicaid changed suddenly on June 1, right? I mean, the coverage losses were expected under the legislation. That’s how the money was saved. CBO says people will lose coverage, and that’s where the savings were, by and large. The interim final rule that dropped â€” but we didn’t know how bad it would be. We didn’t know how many people, partly because states had a fair, they had certain things they had to do, but they had a lot of flexibility in how to do them. So that the coverage losses were an unknown, right? They might have been as bad as the liberal critics said, and they might not have been as bad as some of the defenders of the law said. It was a wait-and-see. On June 1, as we’ve talked about before on the podcast, CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] dropped an interim final rule, and it changed things a lot. And it basically took away a lot of the state flexibility. And instead of letting states say, “OK, you have such-and-such a disease. We know you have such a disease. We have your medical records. We have the coding from the bills from Medicaid. This is, clearly, you can’t work.” That’s no longer good enough. You can’t use their medical history. Every single person who’s sick on Medicaid, who can’t work, who contends they can’t work, has to go for a workup by a physician. Right now we’re not sure if it’s other health providers, who really isn’t trained in disability medicine. Manatt just came out with a study just a day or two ago saying that the coverage losses are going to be much higher than anticipated. And there’s a lot of hurdles for individuals, and there’s a lot of costs for the states. So, like, the SNAP is now, like, OK, that was SNAP, and this is Medicaid. Now it’s just much more alarming to watch what happened in SNAP. 

Sanger-Katz: I think another lesson from SNAP is that we’re going to see a lot of state variability in the outcomes. You know, these are both programs, they’re federally funded, but they’re administered by states, and states have different capacities. They have different bureaucracies. They have different tolerances for spending money on these programs. And we’re seeing, even in SNAP, there’s kind of like people are losing coverage everywhere. But like in Arizona, it’s like half of the people. And I think that what we’re likely to see something similar play out in Medicaid, where some states either are just not willing to spend the money, or they’re very scared of penalties, and so they’re like really have very strict criteria. And other ones just, like, won’t be good at it, and they’ll make a lot of mistakes, and that will cause people to lose coverage too. I think every state is different. Every state is building this from the ground up, and there are going to be different levels of policy planning, risk tolerances, and just like general glitchiness as they roll it out. And I think we’re seeing that in SNAP. It’s a lesson of what we’re seeing now that will carry over almost certainly. 

Ollstein: And to that point, I think, in some places, like Joanne said, you are going to have to, you know, basically get a doctor’s note in order to keep your Medicaid coverage. But other states are trying right now to come up with some kind of formula to make that not have to happen. So saying, you know, if you have X many inpatient visits per year and Y many outpatient visits per year, or you have this many drugs that you’re on, then that is enough proof that you are too medically frail to work part-time. And so they’re trying to come up with ways to just pull it from data and not have to rely on patients and providers and give them this extra burden. But we’ll see if that’s approved by CMS. We’ll see if that’s successful. I mean, CMS’ guidance left states a little bit in the dark about how to operationalize this. 

Rovner: Well, that is the perfect setup, I would say, for my next question, which is we have a couple of stories from my colleagues here at Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News about complications to come from the Medicaid cuts, particularly the work requirements that states need to have in place by next Jan. 1. One of the stories, by Sam Whitehead, is about doctors who are worried about being swamped by patients who need medical documentation that they’re too frail to be subject to the work rules. Said one doctor in the story. “We’re trained to learn about someone’s symptoms, make diagnoses, treat them. We are not trained to make these kinds of work determinations.” The other story, by Rachana Pradhan, Samantha Liss, and Kate Wells, is about how an automated eligibility system from IT giant Deloitte is rejecting eligible people with disabilities in several states, including Michigan, Tennessee, and Texas. Deloitte works on Medicaid eligibility systems in more than half the states. It’s heavily involved in creating these IT systems for their work rules. Fair to say, both of these things, as you guys were all leading up to, do not bode well for what’s about to happen to Medicaid. 

Kenen: No, and an additional factor, it’s not just Deloitte. I mean, states had contracted with the vendors. They didn’t have a lot of time. This bill was signed into law just about a year, almost exactly a year, ago, and they had 18 months to get ready. It’s Jan. 1, 2027. This June change to the rules means they have to really rework a lot of the tech they were doing, and they were given seven months. So is this as big as healthcare.gov? No, but it’s complicated, and the sort of blueprint and tech plans they were doing now have to be modified. And they’re still waiting on more guidance. There are still unknowns. 

Rovner: For those who don’t remember healthcare.gov â€¦  

Kenen: How can anybody not remember healthcare.gov? 

Rovner: There were people who were not around in 2013, Joanne, when healthcare.gov rather dramatically failed to launch. Sorry, Alice, I interrupted you. 

Ollstein: Yeah, no, we did some reporting about this weeks ago, and basically experts told us, Look, it’s problematic if these determinations are left up to individual physicians. There can be biases. Physicians aren’t trained to make these kind of determinations, like you said. People might not even be able to reach a doctor and make an appointment to get that outcome. But they’re saying if it’s not up to physicians, that could be even worse. If it’s up to some sort of algorithm or some sort of state bureaucratic office that never even meets the person and just makes a determination, and they may not know how to appeal it. And so states are worried about it being a lose-lose situation. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, in the Deloitte story, that’s exactly what it was. It was, you know, it was basically an automated system that was bouncing eligible people, either bouncing them out or putting them in inappropriate programs for which they weren’t eligible. They were having trouble finding a real person to fix what was obviously a mistake. 

Sanger-Katz: And I think one thing that both of these stories really emphasized to me is that whatever you think about the merits of this policy change, you know, like I think there are lots of Americans who think that it is reasonable to have a work requirement for Medicaid. And I also think there are lots of people who think that you shouldn’t just get out of that because you have a medical diagnosis. That there should be some reason why you can’t work. If we’re requiring people to work, maybe we want to require people to demonstrate that they can’t work, to get an exception. But whatever you think about the merits of those arguments, this is a monumentally difficult task for states to implement. This is not an easy policy. There is no all-knowing eye that can sort of look over the Medicaid population and decide who is eligible or not eligible according to these criteria. States have to create rules. They have to create what kinds of proof they’ll allow. They have to build computer systems that can sort people and that can make these determinations. And all of that is new and is very difficult. And is very slow. States, in most cases, don’t even build their own computer systems. They work with these contractors that do it for them, and the contractors have a mixed track record in really executing in a really clean way. So, I just think, you know, when you talk to people about this, I feel like we always talk about this in healthcare. There’s like the legislation. There’s like the idea, and Congress is trying to get the idea. These are the people that we want to get Medicaid, and these are the people that we want to encourage to work in order to maintain Medicaid. I think on the theoretical level, there’s that. But then there’s like the nitty-gritty implementation, and that’s like the regulatory process, that’s the state government, that’s the procurement, that’s the contracting. And I just think there’s a lot of sand in the gears of that. This is actually not easy for states to do, and even the states that are devoting a lot of resources to it and want to get it right, and even the states that really believe in the goals of the policy are probably like just bumping into a lot of the difficulties now. 

Kenen: And many of the people affected have chronic diseases; they’re up and down. You can have good periods when you’re working. You can have bad periods when you can’t, and that’s the nature of chronic diseases for many, many, many individuals. It’s inconsistent. So if you go to the doctor on Jan. 1, that doctor really doesn’t know. I mean, this is true of mental health as well. You know, how long can you work? How consistently you work? There’s just going to be all sorts of problems, and I promise to stop there. 

Rovner: OK. Well, also this week there are two immigration-related safety net stories. First, the Trump administration has officially rescinded the Biden administration’s rewrite of the so-called public charge rules, which are designed to ensure that legal immigrants are financially self-sufficient. The new rules, or the lack thereof, give immigration agents far more leeway to decide on their own who might or might not become dependent on government benefits. Alice, you covered this back in Trump I. It ended up with lots of people who were actually eligible for benefits not using them because they feared becoming or being deemed a public charge when applying for a green card or more permanent immigration status. Any reason to think the same thing isn’t about to happen again? 

Ollstein: No, there is no reason to think that history will not repeat itself. Although I will say that the policy now is not exactly the same as it was during the first Trump administration. The new policy just gives a lot of discretion to individual immigration officers to make a determination, looking at, like, the totality of someone’s circumstances. And so, you know, Medicaid and some of these other safety net programs that people are legally eligible for didn’t used to count against someone when they were applying for a green card, and now they could. Again, it’s not mandatory that, Oh, if you’re enrolled in Medicaid, automatically you’re barred. But it is something that an immigration officer would be allowed to consider. And so, yeah, a lot of concern not only from the immigrant ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] community, but from states. I mean, this could affect state budget if people are going to need to turn for uncompensated care to other providers. There’s concern from the public health community about if people don’t have coverage to get vaccinated and to get checkups. It’s not like there are islands of immigrants. This is folks [who] are incorporated into our society. We live in a society, as we discovered during covid, and what impacts some people impacts everybody. 

Rovner: Yeah, and, I think as Margot said, it’s one of these things where the concept sounds great, and the carrying it out is a lot harder. Well, also a couple of weeks ago, we talked about how nursing homes and assisted living facilities are freaking out about the repeal of temporary protected status for immigrants from Haiti and Syria because so many of them work in the long-term care space. This week,  about how this immigration crackdown is reaching even further, to seniors who don’t yet need medical services but still require help with routine activities, who live in these, you know, senior buildings. There’s already a labor shortage for home health aides and others in eldercare, which is generally very hard work for very low pay. This could spiral into a real crisis. We’re going to end up with Gen X and millennials having to take care of their own baby boomer parents. 

Sanger-Katz: There was a really interesting study that was published a few months ago from Jonathan Gruber, the economist at MIT, and some of his colleagues that basically found that increases in the population of immigrants in a given place actually reduced mortality among Medicare beneficiaries. It seems really clear that immigrants are a really important part of the caregiving workforce in America right now. And, as you said, Julie, it’s home health workers, it’s nursing home employees, it’s people who work in hospitals, and it’s also people who are doing some of this kind of, like, informal elder care, helping out in assisted livings, helping people at home. You know, they may not be providing healthcare services, but they are helping elderly people who have healthcare needs. 

Rovner: It’s the people who work in the dining rooms. It’s the custodians in these senior buildings. I mean, it’s the people who, you know, who help people get around and drive them to doctor’s appointments. 

Sanger-Katz: I felt like that study â€” I was really struck by, because you get the sense that it’s not just that we see these people in these jobs, but that having more of them around actually seems to have a health protective effect for the people that live there. Because I think it does make it easier to staff all of these jobs and to staff them with people who are competent and who want to do that kind of work. 

Kenen: And who have language skills. There’s actually been studies showing that it helps to have more Spanish-speaking staff in nursing homes and rehab facilities. 

Rovner: All right. Well, meanwhile, Margot, since you are here, let us talk about surprise medical bills. A few weeks ago, we talked about the blockbuster story you wrote with Sarah Kliff about how some doctors were getting gigantic multiples of what Medicare or private insurance would have paid through the negotiation system that was set up to settle claims between insurers and providers. Now the administration says they may need to fix it? Catch us up. 

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, I mean this was a bit of a surprise to me, I will say.  that sort of gave us a sense of the scope of the system. Wasn’t hugely surprising, but the top-line numbers are. It looks like the amount of money that this system has awarded to doctors and other healthcare providers increased from around $4 billion in 2024 to $14 billion in 2025. So you can just like really see there’s been a huge growth in the number of cases, but it also seems like doctors are winning higher awards per case. And so, what’s happening is that the overall cost of the system has really ballooned. The Trump administration has said very little about this. They did finalize one regulation that had been proposed in the Biden administration that was kind of technical fixes. And yesterday they said that people are gaming the system and that they need to, quote, “clean it up.” So I do think this is the first indication we’ve seen that there is concern by Trump officials that there may be a problem with this arbitration system that doctors are using to resolve these disputes. But they provided no specifics at all about what they will do, what policy avenues they will pursue, and, you know, in a lot of my conversations with the players in this system, people have not identified, like, really obvious, easy places where the regulators can make big changes. I think there are some small changes that the regulators can make, but almost everyone that I talk to about this problem seems to think that Congress probably has to make changes to address some of the excessive spending that we’re seeing. And there seems to be very little appetite for that. So I’m really looking forward to seeing what it is the Trump administration has in mind, what kinds of policies they will pursue here. But, based on what they’ve said so far, I don’t know what they’re going for. And I would say, based on what I know about this topic, it is not obvious to me what the easy levers are for them to pull. 

Rovner: And I will add that I â€¦ in my interview with Sen. Cassidy, I asked him about this, and he kind of demurred, suggesting that, as you will hear, that, Well, if we can fix problems with price transparency in general, that could fix this problem. Because then people won’t end up going to the doctors who are going to go to arbitration and win, you know, multi-$100,000 awards from these arbitrators. But I think you’re right, Margot. I think we’ll see. 

Sanger-Katz: I will just say, to push back on what Sen. Cassidy apparently told you, is one thing that really has worked about this law is patients are completely protected. In these situations where these large arbitration awards are being generated, patients are never asked to pay more than they’re in network cost sharing. And so I don’t know how realistic it is to ask patients to change their shopping behavior in order to resolve these high payouts. I think that the incentives probably really have to be focused much more on the insurance companies and the healthcare providers themselves. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, we will see how that goes. All right, next: testosterone testing at the Department of Defense/War. Really. Secretary Pete Hegseth has ordered that male service members over age 30 will be required to be screened for, quote, “testosterone deficiency” annually, although testosterone replacement therapy, if a deficiency is found, will be voluntary. Hegseth said this is necessary for troops to operate, quote, “at their absolute best.” But doctors warn that rather than maintain military readiness, inappropriate hormone therapy can cause infertility or increase the chance of heart rhythm changes and bone fractures, and that screening at age 30 is inappropriate anyway. And in addition to everything else, isn’t this basically gender-affirming care? I thought this administration was against that. 

Ollstein: So basically, everything that is getting restricted for trans people is much more widely used by cisgendered people. So most young people who are put on puberty blockers are not trans. Most people who get top surgery are not trans. And most people who, you know, use these hormone treatments are not trans. And so, yes, this is an example of that double standard that, you know, is seen in other areas of medicine coming into play for sure. Not to mention the medical risks that you point out. It’s just sort of a cartoonish idea of what masculinity entails and what contributes to it that doesn’t really align with science. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve seen just an enormous amount of head-scratching about this whole thing, I mean, I’m just wondering, is he trying to deflect attention from other things going on at his department? 

Kenen: No, there’s a whole subculture that’s all about more testosterone. We should be clear that there’s some people who do, medically, have low testosterone, just like there’s some people who medically have low thyroid or other endocrine problems. I mean, you â€¦ and there’s medication for that, and it’s appropriate if you are clinically, you know, in that category. 

Rovner: Right. And having low testosterone can cause medical problems that can be addressed. 

Kenen: Right. So if you are really low â€” like not, sort of, what the “Bro World” says is low â€” but if you’re what, you know, a medical lab says is low, yes, that’s an appropriate, it’s an appropriate treatment. But there’s this whole sort of cultural thing that more testosterone is better. And it’s just one of these things â€” like with many other supplements, but this is a little bit more complex â€” it has taken off and sort of taken a cultural thing of its own. I mean, I saw a quote and I wrote it down, and I forgot to write down where I saw it, so I apologize for that. It might have been The Times, but I don’t know. And it’s a great quote from a physician who said, “If you just dole out the testosterone, the testes will shrink, and you can’t reliably count on them coming back.” That’s just sort of, like, that’s not penetrating the cultural idea to start T-maxing. 

Rovner: Right, more testosterone is better. 

Sanger-Katz: Although I think our Health and Human Services secretary has also said that he himself takes testosterone, so I think it’s not just the defense secretary. I think there are a number of high-level Trump officials who seem to be enthusiasts for this particular kind of treatment. 

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

So the public health panic of the week concerns cyclospora, a parasite that’s hard to detect, hard to get rid of, and causes a very nasty gastrointestinal illness. Cyclosporiasis, which is the ailment the parasite causes, is more common in the summer because it tends to infect fresh produce, mostly lettuce and herbs, and thin-skinned fruit like berries. But this summer, we’ve seen an explosion of cases (pun intended): more than 11,000 in 41 states. It’s maybe up by the time I’m even saying this. Normally, the FDA and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] would be all over this, trying to trace back where the infected food came from. But we know that both agencies have lost a lot of scientific staff in the past year. Over the weekend, the FDA announced that it had detected the parasite in lettuce from Mexico that wasn’t part of an initial lettuce recall that was linked to Taco Bell and many large grocery chains. Then the FDA backtracked, saying, “Yeah, it was a false positive.” But apparently, that doesn’t mean that the Mexican lettuce from produce giant Taylor Farms is not implicated. Now everybody is confused about what’s safe to eat. Joanne, you wrote an entire book about public health communication. How are we still so bad at communicating this kind of thing?  

Kenen: This is a really difficult thing, right? It’s very hard to track because it takes about two weeks for you to get symptoms. And then now, if people are sick, they’re going to sort of think that might be what they have. But you know, a few weeks ago, before there was publicity, you know, we all get tummy aches, right? And you don’t necessarily seek medical care. In this case â€¦ it can really go on and be very severe and can last, and people will seek medical care. But for some people, it’s not as â€” we don’t really know how many people are affected, and we also don’t know how many people are currently infected and â€¦ not yet showing symptoms. It’s big; it’s thousands. But the confusion here, I mean, first of all, you know, as you noted, CDC and FDA have both had cutbacks. There’s fewer staff. There’s fewer resources. This is really confusing, and it’s been made more confusing by absolutely everybody. There have been people who â€¦ there’s been political contacts. Taylor Farms has contacted the White House. … When the FDA found that false sample, they really did not communicate it that well. They didn’t say, This is one sample that might have led us to find yet another source, but what we’ve told you is already true. And follow our advice. They just â€¦ made it sound like it really wasn’t Taylor Farms. Then there was another thing where Taylor Farms said the FDA apologized. The FDA said they didn’t apologize, and then the Taylor Farms got a lot of attention because it deleted its social media posts. But I went onto their website last night, and it’s still there. They’re still saying that the FDA apologized. It’s confusing, too, because it’s primarily iceberg lettuce, but every summer there’s some of this, and it’s from cilantro, it’s from basil, it’s from raspberries is a biggie. So the CDC isn’t saying, OK, a lot of this is coming from Taylor Farms, but really be careful about these other things because we’re still investigating. I actually saw, I won’t identify the reporter or the publication, but in a major national report, major national paper, once the lettuce was identified at Taco Bell, this person said, “Oh, I’ve had these raspberries in my refrigerator. I’m glad I can eat them now.” Well, we don’t know that they can eat them now, you know. And then there’s the usual rumors that â€¦ everywhere there’s rumors, right? I mean, you can’t stop them. They just proliferate. So I think everybody has made a communication mistake every single step of the way. And then you have you know conspiracy theories about absolutely everything that, you know, it’s not really the lettuce. And then people think â€¦ Oh, we’re hearing it was Taco Bell in five states. Well, if I didn’t eat Taco Bell, I’m OK. No, because you could have bought the lettuce, and not all the lettuce is called Taylor Farms. And then people think, Well, if I go to a fancy organic store, it’s OK. No, you know, just don’t eat raw lettuce. The other thing I learned is it’s, like, the contamination. It’s really, really difficult. â€¦ If farmworkers are not able to, like, wash their hands well, and they were using hand sanitizer. That’s not good enough to get rid of this stuff. Chlorine isn’t good enough to get â€” this is really a hard parasite to deal with. 

Rovner: Yeah, basically, I think I’ve heard them say, If you want to eat lettuce, buy a head of lettuce and throw away the outside three layers, and then eat the rest. 

Kenen: Right, and then wash the rest of it. You’re also seeing all these recipes now online for how to stir-fry your lettuce. 

Rovner: That’s true, yes. Cooking does kill the parasite. 

Kenen: I’m growing my own. That’s my solution. 

Rovner: I’ve been picking my own. 

Kenen: Right, right. But I ran out, so I just had to plant more, but …  

Rovner: All right. Finally, this week at the Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy announced the latest in the department’s fraud crackdown: the withholding of more than a billion dollars in Medicaid funds from Minnesota and California. HHS is accusing those Democratic-governed states of failing to properly document shared Medicaid spending, mostly for home care services. Minnesota officials told Stateline that the feds have yet to explain exactly what deferrals are for or how they calculated the amount. Similarly, California officials said HHS is targeting the state for political reasons, and that home care actually saves the federal government money by keeping people out of more expensive nursing homes. Now, states and the federal government have been fighting over fraud since the beginning of the Medicaid program, but this is really the first time HHS has withheld this level of funds. I feel like this story is kind of flying under the radar. It’s a big deal. We spent the whole first part of this podcast talking about how states are having to spend time and effort and money to get these work requirements ready. I mean, this could really cripple some states’ Medicaid programs, couldn’t it? 

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, this is real money, and this is a kind of rescinding of money that Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services really have almost never done before. I think it’s somewhat unpredictable to state. At least with, like, the work requirement, there’s some policy planning. There’s some awareness of what the rules of the road are and things that they can do. I think there’s a couple things going on here at once. One is that there is a lot of fraud in Medicaid. The administration is pointing to a problem that is real. I feel like the comments of the California officials that home-based care for elder people saves money by keeping people out of nursing homes â€” that is true, but only if those services are actually being provided to people. If there are fraudulent services in that sector, which we know that there are, that’s not really benefiting anyone’s health. That’s just wasting money and giving it to criminals. So, I think the administration feels like this fraud message is really powerful for them. There’s obviously a lot of political discussion about healthcare affordability, how healthcare has gotten so expensive, and I think neither party has a really great policy answer for that. I think the Trump administration is focusing on this one. They’re saying, “Well, this is just pure waste. If we can get this pure waste out of the system, that will lower the cost of healthcare.” And so I think they’re kind of banging this drum over and over again. But I don’t know that this particular mechanism is helping states actually reduce fraud. I think it’s more punishing states that are seen as political enemies, and I do think that the loss of those dollars is really going to affect the functioning of those programs. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, a new poll from my colleagues here at KFF suggests that the administration’s focus on health fraud rather than healthcare cost writ large might be politically misplaced. According to the poll, nearly two-thirds of voters think the administration’s anti-fraud efforts towards Medicaid are motivated mostly by politics, and fewer than half think the effort is likely to save taxpayers money. The poll also found that more than two-thirds of respondents, including half of Republicans, say that ensuring Medicaid beneficiaries can get the care they need is a higher priority than preventing fraud. That doesn’t feel like a really winning political issue, does it? 

Kenen: No. And another thing that was interesting in that poll, I mean, the way Dr. [Mehmet] Oz speaks about it is that there’s a lot of people cheating, and it’s sort of the welfare-ization of Medicaid. You know, these are all lazy bums. I mean, it’s not that there’s nobody dishonest on the rolls in any federal program. None of us would say that, but most of the fraud is from providers, and that’s clear. These, you know, huge rings of nursing home fraud in Brooklyn, and â€¦ every few years there’s this enormous one. And I thought it was interesting on the KFF poll that the majority across both parties actually think it is the providers. It wasn’t a huge majority, I think it was 55%, thought it was the providers, not the individuals. And but also, as you mentioned, Julie, they’re retaliating against blue states. 

Rovner: Yeah, yeah. I mean, this is their, sort of, This is how we’re going to address healthcare affordability, says this administration, and the poll suggests that maybe that’s not a really good way to go about it. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with Sen. Bill Cassidy, and then we will come back with our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy to “How Would You Fix It?” Sen. Cassidy is a physician and the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, which has been churning out health legislation of late. Sen. Cassidy, thanks for taking the time to join us. 

Bill Cassidy: Julie, thank you for having me. 

Rovner: I mostly want to talk about your “MVP” health agenda, but first, just a little bit of current events. President Trump has announced a 100% tariff on imported generic drugs starting in two years, and a 200% tariff after that, all in an effort to move that drugmaking back to the U.S. Do you think that’s a good idea, and will it work? 

Cassidy: Is it a good idea? It depends on whether or not it increases our national security and whether or not it actually ultimately ends up giving patients the price of generic drugs at an equal price, and thirdly, whether or not we avoid any contamination or other products like that. The national security might be something worth paying for. We know, God forbid, [if] we ever get in a hot war with China, the question is, can we bring generic drugs, which are principally made across the Pacific, across the Pacific to help us. So there is that national security aspect of it. That’s No. 1. No. 2, though, I’ve gone to a Dr. Reddy’s, which is owned out of India, used to have a generic site in Shreveport, and the cost basis of producing drugs in the United States was just significantly more than in India. And so it may be that consumers pay a little bit more. I’m hoping there’s an economic analysis showing if the cost-benefit ratio is adequate. I will finally say that I do think it’s important that we have some of our drugs produced here. I’m told that drugs like penicillin and cephalosporins are now almost all made in China. Again, going back to: Do we want China to have that sort of leverage for these drugs to be produced principally, maybe 99%, over there, and we don’t have access to them if tension rises between the two countries? I do think that is something worth investing in. 

Rovner: So also this week, U.S. measles cases have now topped last year’s total and are at the highest level in 35 years. You made it clear, even during HHS Secretary RFK Jr.’s confirmation hearing, that you see the risks of weakening federal policy and public confidence in vaccines. Do you think that Kennedy ever intended to keep the promises that he made to you around ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] and the vaccine schedule? And what would you say to doctors who now place some blame on you for creating an environment where anti-vaccine sentiment is echoed by the nation’s health department? 

Cassidy: Well, first, I can’t get inside somebody’s mind. If they agree to guardrails and disregard those guardrails, you can judge me. But you may decide my judgment wasn’t very good, but I don’t think you can say I acted in bad faith. Why? Because I’m pretty sure that RFK was going to have the president’s ear whether he was in office or not. In office, we had guardrails that I had the expectation would be kept. Out of office, but with influence, there’d be no guardrails. So sometimes in politics and in life, it’s not a black-or-white choice. It’s not like, oh my gosh, this is the pure driven way, and this is, you know, darkness and whatever. No, it is something trying to decide what is the best with countervailing influences. I think doctors particularly know that, because it’s often the cases we care for patients that you have to come to something that you don’t quite yet know what the next step is, and you’re working towards it. Perhaps they’ll have more sympathy if they put it in light of their own medical practice. 

Rovner: So, are you going to try to have him back and keep pushing him to keep the promises that he made? 

Cassidy: I have made a request that he come back before the committee. 

Rovner: But we haven’t heard back yet? 

Cassidy: Not had a confirmation that he will yet. 

Rovner: Well, onto our bigger topic. You’ve proposed something you’re calling the Money and Value for Patients Agenda, or MVP, as a replacement, I guess, for the Affordable Care Act. How would that work? 

Cassidy: It’s not a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. It is only restricted to that which is in the employer-sponsored insurance market. And if we can look at where people are getting subsidies for their health insurance â€” you have a sophisticated audience, so I’ll speak this way— we can see that if you’re on Medicaid, you basically get 100% of your healthcare costs paid for. If you’re on the exchanges and less than 250% of federal poverty, it’s like 85%-plus. And then after that, it’s your marginal tax rate. If you’re at the 15% marginal tax rate, you pay your premium on a pretax basis, which means you get a 15% break. If you’re at the 37% marginal tax rate, much wealthier, you get a 37% pretax break on the money you paid for your premium. So the people who are middle-income on employer-sponsored insurance are the ones who are getting the least assistance from the tax code or the federal government to purchase their health insurance. What?! The people who are trying to do it the best â€” they’re working; they’re not on Medicaid. Some people on Medicaid work, but many don’t. The people who are working are the ones who get the least assistance. So, what can you do about that? What I would do in my MVP plan is give an advanceable tax credit to those on employer-sponsored insurance below a certain marginal tax rate, and if you’re below some percent, you would get it. 

Rovner: So very rich people wouldn’t get this. 

Cassidy: No, it’d be like less than 22% marginal tax rate. And so those are the people who need the help. Let’s focus where people need help. And that’s negotiable, but that’s just an example. Under my calculations, a family of four could get up to $2,000. Now, why is that important? Many families, maybe most, will not have more than $2,000 of out-of-pocket expense in a given year. Now, one year they may â€” the wife’s pregnant, or the son, you know, gets in a car wreck â€” but most years they’ll have less than $2,000. So that would potentially cover all of their out-of-pocket, particularly if you couple it with the price transparency legislation we’ll discuss in a second. And because the family now has $2,000 to cover their out-of-pocket, they can choose a policy with a higher deductible, which means a lower premium. OK, so if currently the average deductible for a small-business plan is about $3,000, you give them $2,000, they’re going to choose a $5,000 deductible, and that will lower their premium substantially. I like to speak, Julie, of the cost of being insured, which is not just your premiums, but your copays and your deductible. We’re given $2,000 for that copay and that deductible, which allows you to take a lower-cost premium, and you put it all together. And my favorite economist, ChatGPT, says that you could potentially save $5,000-$6,000 per year, per family, and that makes a significant, meaningful difference in their ability to afford life. 

Rovner: So, is this in addition to employer coverage, or would this be instead of employer coverage? 

Cassidy: No, this would be in addition to employer coverage. Right now, we see that small businesses are dropping coverage, and so this would, obviously, if the employee is choosing a cheaper plan because the plan they choose is a higher deductible, then it becomes less expensive for the employer. And so they can better afford to continue to offer. So this is a way to help that small business as well. I’ve talked to a small-business owner back home, several small-business owners. It’s becoming very difficult for them to give salary increases and/or hire more people if they continue to provide health insurance. So, if we’re able to take a little bit of that burden off of the employer to give an adequate insurance policy, then hopefully they can increase wages and/or hire more people and expand their business. So it’s a benefit not just for the family, but also for their employer. And frankly, the federal government ends up earning more tax dollars because, not getting too complicated, but the less money you’re spending on a pretax basis, the more money going into your post-tax paycheck, the more taxes you pay for payroll tax, etc. 

Rovner: I’m thinking of private equity and some of the gaming of one of the laws that you were instrumental in getting passed to prevent surprise medical bills. How do you try to protect consumers from people in healthcare who are literally just in it for the profits? 

Cassidy: Why not price transparency? If you don’t know the price of something, you can’t get a better deal. And that’s whether you’re the patient or whether you’re the business. And so the initial step to make sure that people are getting their best deal is price transparency. And, by the way, the wonderful thing in the last year or so, I’ve been exposed to people doing wonderful work, and people are developing apps on the phone, and you could say, “Hey Siri, where’s the urgent care center near me? What is their price schedule for a routine earache?” OK, I’m going to go to this one near me because it’s $50, not $150. So I go there, and then I come out with a prescription. “Hey Siri, where’s the cheapest place to get this prescription for amoxicillin, 500 milligrams BID?” Siri tells you, or the app tells you, not Siri, but the app. And these are, like, being developed now. I mean, this is not â€” no, this is now. And so if you couple money in the pocket with price transparency, giving the individual the ability to determine where to go to get the best price â€” and we have some other provisions in there that protect the patient, a lot of provisions â€” then you are going to bring value to the patient. That’s part of the solution in the employer-sponsored insurance market. 

Rovner: Sen. Bill Cassidy, thank you very much. 

Cassidy: Thank you, Julie. 

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. Alice, why don’t you go first this week? 

Ollstein: Yeah, I have a story from our friends over at Roll Call. This is “,” by Ariel Cohen. And this is about a recent decision that, like so many things these days, flies under the radar because there’s so much going on at once. And just in the category of grant cuts, there’s so much going on. So this is about the sudden slashing of a bunch of HIV prevention grants to community organizations. They’re now saying they’re going to redirect the same funding to state and local health departments, and those state and local health departments can, if they want, then pass it on to the community organizations. But 1) that’s, you know, more bureaucracy, more headaches. But also, what this article smartly points out is that that then makes the community organizations no longer eligible for 340B, which was helping them buy all of this medication much more cheaply. And so losing that designation, losing those grants, is a really big deal for these groups that are trying to afford doses of expensive medication like PrEP to distribute to communities. 

Rovner: Yeah, again, some of these things that sort of look small end up with far-reaching consequences. Joanne. 

Kenen: This was the first extra credit that actually made me invent a word, which was “yikes-maxing”! You know, like, it was so wild. It’s from Stat by Adam Feuerstein. I probably have that wrong. 

Rovner: Feuerstein. 

Kenen: OK, and the headline is “.” So, for 20 years, this guy â€” he was a doctor. He was convicted of one assault. He was pending trial on another sexual assault allegation, and he disappeared right before his trial. He left notes that he was going overseas, transferred property to his kids, etc. Well, he did not go overseas to live as a fugitive. He was right here posing as a cancer expert, and he worked for two biotech companies. And he purported to have expertise in all this very advanced, cutting-edge drug development for cancer, which was not his actual background. So, like, how did he get these jobs? Why wasn’t he vetted better? He was finally tracked down on a yacht called the Silver Lining, and, in fact, the alleged assault, because one of them wasn’t ever went to trial, was on yacht. Yachts were his, apparently, his favorite locale for his alleged assaults. So he has been arrested, but it’s not just like this guy needs to go to trial, but, like, how did these companies â€¦ did they even look at his LinkedIn? I mean, he was using a fake name. How did this happen? It’s a huge scandal, and it’s also a great yarn. 

Rovner: I can’t wait to see the movie that somebody’s going to make out of this. Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to recommend an article from Andrea Hsu on All Things Considered and NPR. “.” And this is a story about a growing number of men who are entering the nursing profession, and, in particular, a look at the University of Alabama in Birmingham that is really trying to recruit men into the profession. And you know, I feel like caregiving professions have traditionally been kind of a female domain, but I think there’s a new openness by men to enter these careers, which I think can be very fulfilling. They’re very secure. They’re relatively high-paying. My colleague Claire Cain Miller did a story in the Pacific Northwest almost 10 years ago, I think, where she interviewed a number of male nurses about their work and had these beautiful portraits shot of them, and it just is a piece that has stayed with me for a long time. Just thinking about these men in these caregiving roles and why some of our, like, more conventional ideas of masculinity prevent men from entering these professions that I think can be really great careers and really fulfilling for them. So I just thought this new story was really good. I was interested in what this university is doing to recruit men, and I think the idea of male nurses and a nursing profession that is more gender-diverse is really interesting. 

Rovner: And in 2026, unlikely to be taken over by AI. It’s one of those rare career paths. It’s probably still going to be around for a while. All right, my extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “.” It’s by Arijeta Lajka, Isabelle Niu, Mark Boyer, James Surdam, and Dan T. Peters. It’s a video, and it shows how AI-generated doctors, Eastern medicine health practitioners, and wellness influencers are all over social media, making often dangerous health claims to sell all manner of questionable supplements. The money line from the piece, quote: “Ads like this would be illegal on U.S. television, but on the internet they face little enforcement.” Apparently, some of the big social media companies are trying to find and extinguish ads that make misleading claims or are not noted to be AI. But for now, it is still very much buyer and watcher beware.  

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had production help this week from 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 , and on Bluesky . Where do you guys hang these days? Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I’m on social media , and you can reach me on Signal at sangerkatz.01. 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly on  and  @JoanneKenen. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein:  on X, and  on Bluesky. 

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

[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, July 16, 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, everyone. 

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law. 

Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have the latest in our “How Would You Fix It?” series, this week with Elizabeth Mitchell of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, which represents employers and institutional buyers of health insurance and health services. But first, this week’s news. 

So, Congress is back from its July Fourth break with lots of changes, but still not a ton of forward progress on its legislative agenda. Sen. Mitch McConnell, who was hospitalized in June for what his office now says was a fall followed by a case of pneumonia, is still out. And close [President Donald] Trump ally South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham died suddenly over the weekend. He’s already been replaced temporarily by his sister, Darline Graham Nordone, who presumably will be a reliable vote for Trump priorities, but probably not the dealmaker and mover-and-shaker her brother had been. In the House, members approved a surprisingly divisive bill to make daylight saving time permanent. But there doesn’t look to be a very clear legislative path for things like, oh, the annual spending bills that need to be done by Sept. 30? And yet another party-line Republican budget bill that might or might not be partly paid for by another push on healthcare fraud. What are you folks hearing about the major things that Congress has to do before the end of the fiscal year?  

Ollstein: Well, the thing that amused me the most that I saw was that leadership in the House, who are facing the same struggles over and over, herding the cats and getting enough Republicans to stay in line to pass even these party-line, you know, slim-majority bills, they’re trying the same tactic they tried with the last reconciliation bill, which is Hey, I know you’re disappointed that all of the things you wanted in this bill are not included, but don’t worry; there’ll be another one after it, so just vote for this one. And so they said that when they were working on “Reconciliation 2.0,” they said, Don’t worry; all the things you want, including Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding, that’ll be in 3.0. And now that we have 3.0, and it’s not included, and a bunch of other things they want are not included, they’re saying, Don’t worry; we’ll put it in 4.0. Now, there’s a lot of skepticism that even 3.0 can get done, so 4.0 seems like a wild fantasy at this point. 

Rovner: Yeah, I saw the reference to “Reconciliation 4.0,” and it’s important to remember that there’s only a limited number of budget reconciliation bills you can do. Each budget resolution gives you two or three, I guess, if you include â€¦ you can do a separate one to increase the debt ceiling. But generally, each budget resolution gives you a chance to do a tax reconciliation bill and a spending reconciliation bill. And when they neglect to do the budget resolutions, sometimes they can have a year where they’ll do two budget resolutions for two different fiscal years. But really, that just leaves them four. And I think, I’m not sure there’s a budget resolution that can come for a Reconciliation 4.0. But I guess we’re gonna see. I mean, basically, this really is all about: There’s a segment of the Republicans, particularly in the House, but I think also in the Senate, that want to permanently defund Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, which the Senate parliamentarian has said they can’t do on a permanent basis, and that just sort of continues to string this out, right? 

Ollstein: Right, and there are Republicans in the House that don’t want to take a vote on that in an election year. They worry it could hurt them politically, and then you have the more conservative wing of the party that is very upset that Planned Parenthood recently got its Medicaid funding back, because that law from last year was allowed to expire. So you just have a lot of angst and finger-pointing and upset Republican-on-Republican arguments going on this week, you know. Not to mention, there’s only, I think, seven weeks that they’re in session before the midterms. After the midterms, you could start to have attendance problems, and so people are very, very skeptical that 3.0, but especially some sort of 4.0, could happen. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, so the legislative agenda is kind of stalled. But there were confirmation hearings this week for the administration’s nominees for a couple of top Health and Human Services posts: head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and assistant secretary for preparedness and response. Anything newsworthy from the nominees, Erica Schwartz or Sean Kaufman? Sandhya, you were at this hearing, yes? 

Raman: Yeah. I think this was really interesting to me because, up until yesterday, we had a lot of people kind of pleased with the nomination of Erica Schwartz as, you know, a more kind of mainstream, like, career type health official to be the head of the CDC, and you know even Democrats were pretty pleased with this. And, you know, we even had people that were more MAHA [Make America Healthy Again]-aligned, you know, being more skeptical that she would speak to some of their concerns that they’ve had. And what we had at the hearing was her kind of shifting gears, you know, deflecting on a lot of questions, being asked about various things, being asked about cuts to mRNA research, and saying, Oh, you know, I’m not familiar with that. Saying that she wasn’t familiar with some of the changes related to food safety, while we’re in the cyclosporiasis situation that we are right now. And even issues like the CDC Office [on] Smoking and Health, which she said, you know, smoking prevention was like one of her top priorities when she was working pre-government, and, you know, saying she wasn’t familiar with that office being eliminated. So that was interesting. And even you had the [Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee] chairman, Sen. Bill Cassidy, saying, you know, it seems like you’re a little overprepared for this and not answering. But I think the main takeaway was just vaccines. We had so many questions about vaccines from Cassidy, but just throughout the members of the [HELP] committee, trying to kind of garner where they were on it. And again, it was kind of, you know, walking that line to kind of appeal to the widest selection of people as possible. And I don’t think that that was what necessarily everyone was expecting there. For the ASPR [assistant secretary for preparedness and response] nominee, Sean Kaufman, there had been reporting earlier in the week about some of his old LinkedIn posts suggesting some of his comments about, you know, pediatric vaccination and things, and him being a little bit more skeptical. But he came out pretty strongly in favor, saying, I think, vaccines are safe and effective. But I think that there’s still some questions there when you talk to both of the nominees about, you know, whether or not they’d be willing to buck the secretary or the president if push comes to shove on some of these issues. And I think that was what really raised some eyebrows by some of the members on the committee. 

Rovner: I would say Cassidy got pretty exercised about some of the vaccine stuff. Do we know whether that’s going to make him not want to vote for some of these nominees? I mean, that’s pretty much up to him whether these things move forward. And you know, he has since said, after voting for Kennedy, that he was he was … I don’t think he said that it was a mistake, but he said that Kennedy has not kept the commitments that he made to Cassidy and the committee. So, you know, Cassidy â€¦ who’s a lame duck, has at least another chance to exercise some power here. Is he gonna? 

Raman: He did do some fiery exchanges with both of them on some of the vaccine-related issues, but at no point, I mean, did he come down as strong as that. I mean, at some point, he was saying to Schwartz, the CDC nominee, that, you know, I came in here ready to support you. Like, I want assurances on some of these things. But he didn’t, you know, indicate that he was gonna draw the line there. I mean, I guess we’ll see. I think one thing that did stand out was that he said that his conversations with her, you know, one-on-one, physician-to-physician, before the hearing were a bit different from what he was hearing in the hearing. So it depends, you know, are there more conversations? Does something sway? But it seems like it’s still, you know, heading towards, you know, getting across the finish line. 

Rovner: And to be clear, Erica Schwartz is, you know, she’s a doctor and an epidemiologist, and, you know, ran healthcare, I think, for the Coast Guard. I mean, she’s got a lot of government experience as well. 

Raman: She’s a former deputy surgeon general. She’s, yes, absolutely. 

Rovner: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, she clearly, clearly, on paper, she is more than qualified for this job. It’s just whether Cassidy is angry enough to actually, you know, put his power where his mouth has been. 

Well, there was some health-related news out of the hearing for Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general nominated to take the job permanently. Under questioning from several anti-abortion Republican senators, Blanche rather specifically promised to examine something called the Comstock Act, an anti-vice law from the late 1800s, to potentially outlaw the mailing of abortion pills, regardless of what the FDA says. Alice, what would that mean? 

Ollstein: So, I think it’s important to emphasize that Blanche only promised to review this. He didn’t promise to make any specific changes. I saw a lot of anti-abortion activists getting, I think, a little overly excited about what he said. You know, they could review it and take no action. I think it’s also important to remember that Trump specifically promised on the campaign trail not to use the Comstock Act to go after abortion pill providers. You already have activists on the other side, pro-abortion rights activists, characterizing that as the kind of national ban, federal ban that Trump also promised not to enact. You know he specifically has this, you know, “leave it to the states” stance, and you could argue he’s already broken that in some ways. But this would be a much bigger way. So, a lot of different ways the government could cut off access to abortion pills by mail came up in the hearing. The Comstock Act is one of them. I think what abortion rights activists find troubling about the Comstock Act, in particular, is that it could be used to cut off access to both mifepristone and misoprostol, whereas the strategies that the anti-abortion movement is using that are focused on the FDA are pretty much only focused on just one of those two drugs that have to be used together for abortions. So, if the FDA were to act to restrict mifepristone, people could still have abortions just using misoprostol. But if they tried to use the Comstock Act, they could cut off access to both, which could also impede people’s access to those drugs for nonabortion purposes, which they are used for. 

Rovner: Misoprostol has a lot of other uses. I mean, mifepristone is primarily an abortion drug that’s also used for miscarriage. But misoprostol is an anti-ulcer drug that’s used for a whole lot of different indications that have nothing to do with reproductive health. 

Ollstein: And that’s a big part of why the Biden administration put out this memo from the DOJ [Department of Justice] saying that they don’t think the Comstock Act should be used to prosecute doctors who prescribe abortion pills and mail them because you can’t know if the person is ordering them for a legal or illegal purpose. And, you know, obviously people quibble with that in various ways, but that is the sort of underlying rationale, and that precedent is still in place, and that’s what these senators were trying to push Blanche to change, if confirmed. 

Rovner: And yeah, I say, and clearly all of this depends on whether or not Blanche gets confirmed as attorney general, which is still up in the air, mostly for other reasons. But â€¦ 

Ollstein: Yeah, absolutely, people are upset with him for the handling of the [Jeffrey] Epstein files and all kinds of stuff. And just one GOP senator on the committee could block him from going forward. So it’s not all about this, but this is definitely in the mix. 

Rovner: Yes, I think so. Well, moving on, as we’ve noted, the big cuts to Medicaid from the 2025 Republican budget bill mostly don’t start until next January. But states whose fiscal years started this July 1 are already making changes in order to be ready. Several states are already trimming back Medicaid benefits that are optional for states, including many community-based long-term care services. This is despite Republican assurances last year that traditional populations of moms and kids, seniors, and those with disabilities wouldn’t be impacted by the cuts. Stat has a  out of Maryland about cuts to a family caregiver program that may leave a family with the choice of either going bankrupt or putting their disabled child into an institution. It’s hard to see how this isn’t going to be a big campaign issue, right? I mean, this, you know, there were all of these claims that, you know, we’re really only going after the able-bodied Medicaid recipients. That’s not what states are doing.  

Raman: I mean, we’ve already seen it becoming a campaign issue. I mean, even before this was passed into law, we saw Democrats really, like, going in on this far before the midterms, you know, emphasizing this over and over and over again. And I see, you know, they’re going to continue doing that, especially when costs are such a big issue for voters this year. And if you lose Medicaid, then that is another added cost for you if you have a health issue of any kind. But I think what’s even more interesting is how this has been really played back on the Republican side. They’re not talking about this as much as they did a few months ago. Even, you know, we passed the anniversary of the law earlier this month, and there wasn’t a big push on this like there has been on other issues. They’ve really shifted into talking more about â€¦ as for in the healthcare bubble, we’re talking about fraud, fraud, fraud, not any of the things that were in the “Big Beautiful Bill.” 

Rovner: Yeah, things that they hoped people would see as an advantage are not so much right now. Well, another tack that states seem to be taking is not to cut Medicaid for recipients, but rather to get someone else to help pay the bill. And they’re targeting large employers of low-wage workers who have Medicaid. New Jersey is planning to charge those larger employers a fee. Other states are looking at ways to do something similar. But there’s not just pushback from business groups, who obviously don’t want to pay a fee for their workers who are eligible for and get Medicaid. Some advocates for low-income people say that it will make it harder for workers who get Medicaid to stay employed if their employers will be penalized. I know this was, you know, this came up many years ago â€” I think just after the beginning of the Affordable Care Act, when there was concern that a lot of big employers were actually going to dump their workers onto Medicaid. Many of them in the end did not. But it’s hard to see how this is really going to catch on. I grant states creativity for, like, OK, we’re not allowed to ask healthcare providers to help pay our Medicaid bills anymore. So now we’re going to ask big employers to help pay our Medicaid bills. 

Edney: Well, I think it’s an interesting â€¦ it’s probably a tough calculation for the people, you know, that are actually making this decision. The person who’s deciding, you know, do I take this employer insurance or Medicaid? And then you do want to push employers to offer plans that are affordable and that are comprehensive. That’s what they’re supposed to do, especially these big employers. But there can be kind of a lot of calculation that goes into this: maybe the size of the household, who else in the household might be working. So you know, I can see why it might feel like it’s not just on the company, but maybe some of the employees who are making these decisions could end up suffering. 

Rovner: Yeah, as I say, kind of points for creativity, but not clear that this is actually going to catch on because there are clearly going to be problems with it. States are going to have to keep looking to figure out how to continue to pay their â€¦ share of the Medicaid bills. As Sandhya already mentioned, some of you may have noticed the U.S. is having an outbreak of something called cyclosporiosis, which is an infection caused by a parasite that causes, let’s just say, major gastrointestinal upset. Screening for the parasite, which, by the way cannot easily be washed off of infected produce or other food products, used to be part of a list of parasites whose reporting was mandatory to the CDC’s Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network, known as FoodNet. But it was made optional last year, and, as of now, we still don’t know what foodstuff is spreading this parasite â€” although suspicion’s being cast on lettuce or some other leafy green vegetable. Is this yet another “I told you so” about cuts to public health? And is anybody really gonna care, other than the thousands of people who are really sick right now? 

Edney: Yeah, I think that, absolutely, this is another “I told you so” in the sense that, like, you can’t just decide what bacteria you’re going to track if, you know, it pops up and you can’t really control that. And I think that a lot of people already care, you know â€” I think you’ve seen a lot of decisions being made, at least that’s what social media has indicated. I have not seen, like, shopping numbers, but people seem to be concerned. â€¦ They don’t want to buy lettuce, raspberries, cilantro, things that have been implicated in these outbreaks before. And so, with states not reporting to FoodNet, it’s harder to track in real time. So it’s taking longer to narrow down what food is responsible for this, what, who the producer is. So people are left wondering and left just cutting, you know, entire fresh fruits and vegetables out of their diet at this point. They’re really worried. 

Rovner: It kind of cuts against the whole “eat healthier.” 

Edney: Exactly. 

Rovner: Like when the healthiest things might cause all kinds of problems. 

Edney: Yeah, I mean, you know, if all you feel comfortable eating is packaged goods and microwaving all your food to make sure it’s safe, I think it is a problem. And there are people I think who do feel that way, especially in states, you know, in the Midwest that have a lot higher numbers of these cases. 

Rovner: I would say the federal government keeps saying, “Oh, we get cyclospora outbreaks every year,” and we do. But this is much, much higher than it has been in many years. Sorry, Alice, you wanted to say something. 

Ollstein: Well, I mean, it’s the classic situation of, you know, when public health is working well, it’s completely invisible, and so it’s easy to take it for granted. And you can say, well, there hasn’t been a serious outbreak in this many years. What’s the point of this expensive monitoring and prevention program? And turns out, this is why. It’s a very thankless sector because when it’s working well, you don’t get any kudos. You don’t get any awards for not having an outbreak of diarrhea parasite. But everybody gets upset when there is an outbreak of diarrhea parasite. 

Rovner: And screwworm, which we also have after we canceled some of the watchouts for it. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back.  

OK, we are back. So in news from what I’m calling the “Department of Updates,” a couple of weeks ago we talked about Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. calling up libertarian candidates in Iowa in an effort to get them to drop out of House races in order to prevent them from siphoning votes from Republicans. Well, now Oregon Democratic Sen. Ron Wyden is officially asking the U.S. Office of Special Counsel for an investigation into whether that violated the Hatch Act, which generally prohibits federal employees from participating in political activities. Of all the, quote, “scandals” attributed to RFK Jr. since he’s been in office, where does this one rank? 

Edney: That’s a really good question. I’m not sure a lot of people might understand the gravity of it, but a person in appointed position is not really supposed to be weighing in and putting their thumb on elections and influencing those outcomes. I mean, that’s the law. And so it is a Democrat asking for this investigation, which the consequences might be less heavy, I guess, you never really know. I mean, I think it does, kind of the whole situation. Secretary Kennedy’s trying to influence these does kind of show you how worried they are, how worried he is, that he might have to go up before Congress should Democrats win the House and answer a lot of questions under subpoena. 

Rovner: Yeah, and of course that’s exactly what he said to the libertarian candidates when he was trying to get them drop out is, like, if the Democrats take over the House, I’m going to spend all of my time, you know, on Capitol Hill rather than working to, you know, make America healthy again. That was his argument.  

All right. Well, another topic we have spoken about before is the proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget to give political appointees far more power over which scientific and medical grants get funded. The comment period for the rule closed this week with nearly half a million comments filed. That’s a whole lot, by the way. And our friends at Stat, with help from researchers at the University of North Carolina,  that have been posted so far, and found them overwhelmingly in opposition to the rules, with concern about politicization of science dominating the reasons. I still feel like this is an under-covered story. We’re talking about the fate of more than a trillion dollars in federal funding each year, and a huge change in the way this money is allocated and spent. I mean, you know, already we’ve seen the administration trying to hold back some of this money and getting pushback from Congress, but this would basically codify, if you will, the ability of political appointees to say, We’re not going to give you money unless we agree with it. Essentially. 

Raman: I mean, I think even from the get-go of this comment period, there has been that groundswell of people submitting comments. You know, even a few days in, we were hitting numbers that we would usually maybe not see even throughout the whole comment period for other proposed rules. And so much of that in, like you said, the scientific community has been this. But grants extend to so many departments in the federal government and cover so many different things, and I think it’s kind of hard to quantify just how sweeping something like this would be. Even, you know, looking at a few different pieces, just because the types of grants are so different. â€¦ So many grants are multiyear, and might go from one administration to another, and then be implemented. And if politicization of approving or rubber-stamping continuing grants is there, that would create a lot of up and down in terms of Will these things continue? So I will not be surprised if as we get a little further along there is more litigation filed with people trying to stop this. It’s just we’re at this stage now where proposed rule time is not really where you would you would get that. There needs to be a little further in the process. But yeah, I think this is something that a lot of people are really keeping an eye on. But it is something that’s harder, I think, to communicate out to folks that maybe don’t realize that they are using grant money for something that is available in their community.  

Rovner: We need a Schoolhouse Rock! for peer review and grant-making. Maybe I’ll have to do a video with the dog. Yes, my next video with the dog. 

Ollstein: Just quickly, I will say that the abortion rights community is very anxious about this. They worry that it will lead to any sort of research remotely tied to reproductive health will be cut unless it’s, you know, explicitly pro-abstinence, pro-fertility. But again, like we talk about with so many things, when you implement these changes, it cuts both ways, and a Democratic administration in the future could wield this in ways that conservatives don’t like. And so â€¦ 

Rovner: I think what freaks out the science and medical community is just the lack of continuity. It’s that if it’s going to change back and forth, I mean, one of the things that research really depends on is that research takes as long as it takes, and that often stretches way across Democratic and Republican administrations. That’s kind of the idea of not having this be in charge of political appointees. So I think that’s a lot of â€” I mean, I have obviously have not read half a million comments, but many of the comments I’ve seen have suggested that there’s concern about the going back and forth that would be as damaging as anything else. 

All right. Well, speaking of updates,  that the Department of Health and Human Services is backing away from a new regulation proposed with much fanfare last December that threatened to withhold Medicare and Medicaid funding from hospitals that offered transgender care to minors. Some 30,000 comments on that rule were filed, including those from major medical groups urging that the rule be rejected as an unwarranted interference in medical care. The administration actually pushed back against the NPR story, saying the rule hasn’t been officially pulled, which does appear to be the case. But it seems that officials are kind of trying to have it both ways by leaving the possibility that it could be revived hanging over hospitals’ heads. Is this kind of a clever way to put pressure on hospitals to do what the administration wants without actually having it litigated about whether the administration has the legal authority to do this in the first place? 

Edney: Yeah, I think that’s a good point, that are they sort of leaving it in place without ever fully implementing it? Because states are supposed to be able to regulate this, not have the federal government tell them what to do. And certainly, you know, the hospitals could have their say in it. So they could have been facing a lot of litigation, and I think not pulling it doesn’t mean that it’s not gone. It’s just, you know, according to the story, they clearly decided not to go forward with it. But leaving it in place does kind of, for the hospitals that already moved on this, and we did see some that got nervous. Then, you know, they might be the ones who kind of keep everything in place, just because they’re not sure. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean they’re making the point that they’re not moving forward on it now. But that doesn’t mean that they’re never moving forward on it, which seems to be a theme from this administration on a whole lot of things. It’s like: We’re not going to do this now, but we still could do it later.  

Well, finally this week, there’s always plenty of news on reproductive health. Alice, I feel like I’m being transported back to, like, 2014 or even 2018, but it looks like the Trump administration is going to try again to  as required by the Affordable Care Act. Why are we debating this again now? 

Ollstein: So this is the case that won’t die ever. Apparently. This is about a workaround in the Affordable Care Act that was created so that religious employers who really object to contraception for, you know, deeply held faith reasons, there’s a workaround so they don’t have to pay for the insurance that covers contraception for their employees. But their employees can still access that contraception coverage if they want it. But certain groups have kept suing over this again and again over the years. It went all the way up to the Supreme Court, and then it came back, and now it’s bouncing around in the lower courts because they say that even participating in that workaround is a violation of their beliefs. Now, on a sort of parallel track … 

Rovner: They are facilitating â€¦ right, obviously, they are facilitating. They’re “complicit.” That’s the word they’re using; they are complicit in allowing people to get contraception, which they don’t believe in. 

Ollstein: Correct, and â€¦  

Rovner: “They” not the people who are getting it, “they” the people who are complicit in getting it. 

Ollstein: The bosses, yes. 

Rovner: Right. The bosses. 

Ollstein: So, sort of on a parallel track, the Trump administration tried to vastly expand the number of companies, the kind of companies that could say we don’t want to provide contraception for our employees, so that now it doesn’t have to be because of a religious belief. It could just be because of an ideological belief. And also now this could be, you know, a big for-profit, publicly traded company, not just a small religious group. Folks have been fighting this, and so here we are back in court again. This is, you know, an ongoing struggle. Of course, you know it’s important to remember that the question of whether or not working folks can access contraception has much higher stakes now that abortion is illegal in much of the country. 

Rovner: We will see. Well, and while abortion doesn’t seem to be as big a political issue in 2026 as it was in 2022, we are seeing ballot measures in several key states, as well as abortion being centered in places like the Maine Senate race, where ostensibly pro-choice Republican Sen. Susan Collins’ vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is being hung around her neck, even though she doesn’t have an actual Democratic opponent yet, after Graham Platner dropped out. How is abortion shaping up as a political issue this year? Alice, you’re, I assume, following this. Sandhya, so are you, right? 

Ollstein: It’s interesting. I have a story coming on this in the next day or so. The Democrats who are jockeying for the chance to take on Collins and all of the outside groups supporting them and rushing through this process, they’re very anxious about the ability to make the case that Susan Collins has, as they say, betrayed, you know, her promises to protect abortion rights by confirming not only the Supreme Court justices who helped overturn Roe v. Wade, but a lot of lower court judges who have voted for abortion restrictions in a lot of states. And so they want to be able to put that front and center in their campaign against him. And so they’re really anxious about the records of the Democrats running, because they don’t want to muddy that message at all, and to have Susan Collins have the opportunity to say, Actually, these people have a worse record than me on this issue. And so there’s a lot of hand-wringing on that front. And it’s just tough because some of the Democrats running have a mixed record on this. They used to oppose abortion, and then in more recent years have, you know, passed very strong legislation supporting it. And then you have a lot of candidates who have no record at all on this. They have no voting record. Some of them have never held office before, or this issue just has not been something they’ve had a chance to work on. And so, it is tough for voters to compare someone who has a mixed record but made real accomplishments for abortion rights versus people with no record at all. 

Rovner: So, abortion is going to be an issue, but maybe not sort of â€¦ like with the attorney general, “in the mix” — is that a fair way to put it? 

Ollstein: Oh, absolutely! And no matter what, it’s going to be a huge part of the campaign against Susan Collins. You’re already seeing groups start to air ads about it. 

Rovner: All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play excerpts from my “How Would You Fix It?” interview with Elizabeth Mitchell. You can . And then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome Elizabeth Mitchell, President and CEO of the Purchaser Business Group on Health, to “How Would You Fix It?” PBGH represents large employers and other institutional buyers of healthcare from both the public and private sectors. Elizabeth Mitchell, thanks for joining us. 

Elizabeth Mitchell: So glad to be here. A lot to fix. 

Rovner: Yeah, a lot to fix. So I want to start by having you talk a little bit about employers’ role in the U.S. healthcare system â€” how it started, and why it persists. 

Mitchell: Yeah, well, I think we know it was an accident of history, right? They weren’t looking to get into the healthcare business, but when, you know, they were looking for alternatives to wages, when there were limits on what they could offer, and they started with what was a pretty inexpensive offering, helping pay for hospital care. And that has now grown to be the second-largest line item in their budgets after payroll. So it has taken on a life of its own. Employers cover over 160 million Americans, so they are a major player in healthcare in the U.S., for better or worse. But they are committed to achieving just a better system because they’re paying for it and because their employees need it. 

Rovner: What’s unique about large employers, particularly the large employers that you represent â€” the ones that not only pay for their workers’ health benefits but also design and manage them in most cases? 

Mitchell: Yeah, it’s a great question. I work with large and jumbo self-insured employers and public purchasers like CalPERS. 

Rovner: CalPERS, for those who don’t know, is the California pension system. 

Mitchell: Yeah, they are the second-largest purchaser after Medicare, I believe. So not small. And honestly, the major difference for large employers is the leverage, right? They have the ability to negotiate arrangements that small employers just don’t have. You know, there is somewhat of a myth that the health plans are responsive to large employers. That is sadly not often the case. As large employers have sought to exercise that leverage, the system has consolidated in response, so the health insurers have consolidated, the health systems have consolidated. So there’s been this arms race of consolidation, meaning that even the largest employers in the world are smaller and don’t have the leverage many times. So they’re looking at how can they align or aggregate even across large employers to really drive the changes they’re looking for? 

Rovner: Well, the premise of this entire project is that we’re heading towards another major national debate over health because just about every stakeholder is unhappy with the status quo. I assume that’s at least as true for large employers now as it was in the early 2000s, when the ground was being laid for the Affordable Care Act. Do you agree with that? And just how dissatisfied are your members with the current functioning of the healthcare system? 

Mitchell: I do not know any employers that are happy with the current system. I will say that that dissatisfaction is growing exponentially every year of double-digit price increases and lack of access and just administrative complexity. We are seeing readiness for wholesale changes that I’ve never seen before. So there is very high frustration, but I also see that as a big opportunity. 

Rovner: So how would your members fix the system? What are some of those policy changes that they would like to see? 

Mitchell: So there is no simple answer. I know that goes without saying, but there’s a collection of changes that we are prioritizing based on evidence. So one of them is primary care, really robust primary care â€” and not the kind that is just set up as a feeder into the health system â€” is a top priority for our members. Another really is more on the purchasing side, right? There is so much administrative waste in the system. And some of our members now are turning to AI just to look at their contracts and realize that they are paying these absurd fees they never agreed to. And then finally, transparency. It is absolutely essential. There are immediate savings opportunities just by looking at the data and realizing you can get the exact same quality or better-quality service across the street for a fraction of the price. And that has immediate savings for out-of-pocket costs as well. So, using transparent information to find the best partners, banning anticompetitive practices, and investing in primary care and high-quality specialty care. Those are my top few. 

Rovner: There are voices both on the left and now on the right who would like to get rid of the basically employer-based system that we have â€” you know, “Medicare for All” â€” and would anticipate, would take that away, you know, basically would have the government, if not providing them, at least paying for all healthcare services. Now we’re seeing Republicans talking about, you know, big bad insurance companies, and we should just give people money, and they should buy their own care. Where are large employers on that, sort of? I assume they would like to keep some semblance of the system that we have now in a reformed system, or am I wrong? Are they ready to give it up and let everybody fight it out for who provides healthcare? 

Mitchell: Well, I represent a subset of jumbo employers who are very progressive, very innovative, and very invested in fixing the system. That said, I don’t think anybody would say it’s working right now. We have a very real affordability crisis. And I would say jumbo self-insured employers are some of the best-positioned actors to do something about that. They have the opposite incentives. They want lower cost and better quality. So if they are empowered and enabled, in some cases through policy change, to be more effective purchasers, I do think that that is a viable strategy still. Because even if you just gave everyone cash, you still have a price problem. It just becomes the problem of the patient instead of the purchaser, because prices are the issue here, and consolidated, unresponsive providers and plans. There is a tendency, and it’s not totally unjustified, of blaming the customer. But there are some aspects of our system that need to change. Whether the government’s paying for it, individuals are paying for it, or employers are paying for it. So it’s a matter of how do we get at that? If it was Medicare for All, they set prices. Maybe that will work. I think the opponents of that historically have been hospitals and health insurers, not employers. But employers are committed to playing a very active role in achieving affordable, high-value care. 

Rovner: Well, that was sort of my question: Are employers ready to say: We just, we would like to wash our hands of this and let somebody else do it? Or would they prefer to stay involved? Or I guess I’m sure it depends on the details.  

Mitchell: It depends. I mean, again, we don’t work very much with small and midsized employers, but â€¦ 

Rovner: I’ll talk to them separately. 

Mitchell: Yeah, it wouldn’t surprise me if they wanted to wash their hands of it, because they have so little leverage. I think that there are large employers who remain committed to this. But depending on the policy environment that we are in in the next three to five years, who knows? I do think that if employer-sponsored insurance doesn’t demonstrate real affordability in the next few years, you know, I think it’s an open question. 

Rovner: So we seem as a society to be growing further apart rather than closer together on a lot of policy issues â€” not just healthcare, but education, climate, immigration. How do we get back to a place where people who disagree can work together to address something that everybody agrees is a problem, like the state of our healthcare system? I realize that’s sort of beyond your pay grade, but unless people think about it, we’re not going to get there. 

Mitchell: No, I think it’s a really, really important question. I don’t necessarily have the answer. But, I mean, I think it’s also finding where we have agreement, right? Everyone, well, all the people I work with, think we are paying too much for healthcare, so we’ve got to have a clear goal of affordability. And employers alone can’t fix that, right? So how do they partner with clinicians and providers and communities and governments to actually achieve that? I think if you focus on those sort of pragmatic shared goals, I mean, it may lower the temperature a bit. Healthcare is also so complex. Everybody sees different sides of the elephant, and they, so they have very strong views. They’re not wrong. It’s just not the whole system. So really, taking a systems approach, understanding the existing practices and incentives and behaviors. I think level-setting on why we are where we are is also really important. And I do not believe it is well understood. I talk to Congress a lot, and staff, and agencies, and administration, and, you know, there is a pretty deep understanding of Medicaid and Medicare, but not the commercial market. So really understanding the actual barriers, I think, would go a long way to sort of, you know, at least some initial consensus. 

Rovner: So more education, basically. 

Mitchell: Education and alignment on large goals, even if we have some differences on, you know, how we get there, and respecting that there are going to be different strategies, you know. I’m in Maine right now, and rural Maine may need a whole different approach to paying for rural behavioral health than you would have needed in San Francisco. So let’s be open to multiple approaches to the same problems. 

Rovner: Looking forward to the debate. Elizabeth Mitchell, thank you so much. 

Mitchell: Thank you. 

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 that I wrote. It’s “.” During covid, obviously, a lot of personal protective equipment we had issues getting it. There were shortages, and so the government decided to spend almost a billion dollars on these handful of companies that they were going to try to boost medical glove-making here. And those are like the nitrile exam gloves you see in every hospital, every doctor’s office. And we were not fully making them here. The main ingredient, particularly the most important piece, we weren’t making here. Well, fast-forward six years, we are still not making it here. So none of those companies that the government funded are making medical gloves. And so, essentially, we’re at the point where there are full entire factories built with huge reactors and things to try to make this main ingredient because it’s a petroleum product. But they aren’t able to finish the project; they aren’t plugged in and ready to go. And the U.S. government has decided they’re not going to fund that anymore. These went from Trump 1 to Biden to Trump 2, and Trump 2 has said we’re letting this go. We’re not going to do it, and this factory will probably end up being sold for parts. Others have shut down, and we’re getting our medical gloves still mostly from Malaysia. Kind of the reason I wanted to write this now is because it’s just when the government decided to abandon this project, but also because of the war with Iran has raised the cost of petroleum products, which is the main, you know, nitrile butadiene rubber. And so the cost of that has gone way up, and so we’re kind of in this cycle where we still can’t get it, but it’s still being affected by outside forces. 

Rovner: Well, thank you for doing the accountability journalism on this. It was. I really, really liked this story.  

Ollstein: Thank you. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: So my extra credit this week is from my colleagues Nyah [Phengsitthy] and Skye [Witley] at Bloomberg Law, and it’s called “.” So they spent a few months looking at the, you know, hundreds of different supplements and different packaged foods that have been, like, trying to gain momentum in this space because of the popularity of GLP-1 medications and just, you know, there has been really limited federal oversight of claims of these, you know, the supplements and the foods. It’s causing â€¦ 

Rovner: I would say, and to be clear, these aren’t people trying to make GLP-1s. These are people making supplements that are to appeal to people who are on GLP-1s, saying, you know, if you want it because you’re not eating as much, here’s a way you could get the nutrition that you need. 

Raman: Yes, absolutely. So you know, it might say like GLP-1-friendly, or, you know, it might be on, you know, a snack food you buy, or, you know, just a supplement that’s unregulated at a drugstore. And just a lot of the confusion there. There’s not a lot of research on some of these things. There’s, you know, a lot of litigation brewing in different places related to this, and there’s not, you know, a standard federal definition of what something like “GLP-1-friendly” even means. So they have a great deep dive into this. So you should take a read.  

Rovner: Yeah, at some point, Congress is going to have to take another look at the whole supplement regulation thing. But I thought this was really fascinating because it’s just a whole new sort of category of supplements that has popped up in the wake of the GLP-1 popularity. Alice. 

Ollstein: I have a story from my co-workers Amanda Chu and Robert King [“”], and it’s about how the federal government’s attempt to crack down on what they claim as widespread Medicaid fraud in Minnesota, in particular, is having all of these damaging spillover effects and has cut off Medicaid payments to a bunch of providers: mental health, eldercare, all kinds of things â€” folks that are not suspected of committing fraud at all. The state is pausing payments to a wide range of providers while they try to implement these new anti-fraud measures, and so it just is a good look at the danger of using kind of a sledgehammer to go after a more narrow problem. 

Rovner: Yep â€¦ I think we’re going to see that more and more as sort of these Medicaid sort of crackdowns and the fraud crackdowns continue. My extra credit this week is from Mississippi Today. It’s called “.” It’s by Sophia Paffenroth and our own podcast pal Joanne Kenen. And it’s about something I’ve been talking about a lot this entire very hot summer, which is the impact that heat and the lack of air conditioning has on health. We know excessive heat takes a special toll on the elderly and those with respiratory issues, but it’s also super dangerous for pregnant people and the very youngest among us. And while Mississippi has been taking some novel steps to address that, a lack of attention by medical professionals and a lack of research, along with budget cuts, have been making that task much harder. It’s a topic I’m sure we will all continue to watch. 

Okay, that is this week’s show. OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had production help this week from 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 , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging about these days? Sandhya? 

Raman: On  and on  @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney:  and  @annaedney. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: On Bluesky  and on X . 

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

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. 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, July 9, 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 Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

Rachel Roubein: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Bloomberg News. 

Victoria Knight: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News “Bill of the Month” interview with Samantha Liss, about a woman who fought back against a series of insurance company prior authorization denials and won, but it wasn’t easy. But first, this week’s news. 

So we’re just a little more than halfway through the year; I thought this would be a good time to take measure of where we are in terms of healthcare politics. First, Affordable Care Act premiums. As we’ve been reporting, as data has come in, enrollment in ACA plans has dropped pretty precipitously in the wake of Congress letting the expanded covid-era subsidies lapse, with millions of people finding themselves unable to pay unsubsidized or less subsidized premiums. Now we’re starting to get a look at proposed premiums for next year, and we’re looking at more eye-popping increases. Insurers are saying they have no choice. Among other reasons for the increases, the healthiest people are the ones who are most likely to decide they don’t need or can afford to live without insurance, while the sicker people will hang on to it as long as they can, even if they have to go without other necessities. Is this the beginning of the insurance death spiral that everyone’s always been so worried about? 

Knight: Enhanced subsidies expired at the end of December 2025, and we knew we wouldn’t really start seeing the data till the summer. So we’re just now starting to see the effects, and we’re seeing, yeah … the data varies state by state, but we’re seeing a lot of people drop off, and we’re seeing premiums rise. And then that’s in addition to all of the Medicaid overhaul changes that Republicans also included in their big tax-and-spending bill last year. And so we’re starting to see those.The work requirements will go into effect in January, but some states are starting now, and they have to be in effect by next January. And so Medicaid is also a huge one, where people are starting to lose coverage as well. So I think Medicaid and then Affordable Care Act combined, we are going to see a lot more uninsured people, and I think that conversation is going to start entering the election conversation, potentially more than we’ve seen it as of now — which is really surprising, given that Democrats shut down the government last year over the ACA tax credits, and then really haven’t been talking about it as much. But I think we’re starting to see it trickle back in. 

Rovner: Yeah, and you know, Republicans say — and I don’t want to let this sort of go unsaid — that well, you know, one of the big reasons for the drop in enrollment is because there were all these phantom enrollees, people that insurance companies had enrolled, who didn’t even know they were covered, and the insurance companies were just collecting the premiums from the federal government. I’ve read too many stories about real people who said, Yeah, my insurance used to be $300 a month, and now it’s $1,100 a month, and I can’t afford it anymore. I mean, not to say there weren’t some phantom enrollees; there obviously were. We knew … that fraud is an issue, but this does feel bigger than just, Oh, we’ve gone after fraud, and so this should be the right size for the Affordable Care Act marketplace. 

Luthra: It’s very obvious that people have, in fact, lost insurance, like, people have said, “I have lost insurance, I have stopped paying for it because it is too expensive.” Voters have said this is a very big concern for them, because they are going without health insurance, and I mean, to your point, Julie. Yes, there is some level of fraud, of course, but also one of the data points for these phantom enrollees was people who enrolled and then didn’t use health insurance, and that’s actually very normal to not use your health insurance. I have gone many years, you know, you don’t use it some years, then you use it others, and that is what keeps the market healthy, that is why we have risk pools that work. So it seems like this is just an argument that doesn’t really stand scrutiny, and also just doesn’t really make much sense. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, the whole point of health insurance is, or insurance in general, is that you only use it when you need it, and that if you’re young and healthy, the people that we want to be insured, and a lot of the people who got insured when it got really cheap to get insurance with those enhanced subsidies, it’s like, Oh, I can afford, you know, $25 a month in case something happens. And then nothing happens, and so they don’t use it. Which is, again, not to say that there weren’t some phantom enrollees, we know this, but there were also, I suspect, a lot of people who had insurance and just didn’t need it during the course of the year. And that was, as you say, it was those premiums that helped pay for the sick people who actually did need to use their insurance over the course of the year. 

Roubein: Then, in talking about, as you mentioned, is insurance sort of in a spiral, , I believe it was this week, about the employer-based health insurance system. And they talked to some small-business owners who said just how expensive it is, and one of them was sort of making the decision between do I lay off employees or do I get rid of health insurance? So, like, these are just very, very real decisions that people are making, as business owners, are making: Can I cover these kind of rising prices or not? 

Rovner: And you literally anticipated my next question, which was to bring up the Stat story, which is a whole series looking at the impact of rising health insurance costs on small businesses. But it raises the broader question of: Is the era of employer-provided insurance nearing its breaking point? And what happens if employers really do start dropping insurance en masse? I mean, this, you know, obviously the first tension point comes with small business, for whom this is a bigger outlay of money compared to, you know, how much they bring in and how much they pay their workers than it is for larger companies. But this has always been the concern that at some point businesses are just going to say we can’t do this anymore. This can’t be what Republicans want, because one presumes the next step after that is, oh, you know, things like “Medicare for All” that presumably they hate a lot more. 

Luthra: Well, that’s what’s so interesting, right, is there’s so much chatter right now about this insurgent DSA [Democratic Socialists of America], yet again seems like something we have, in fact, seen happen in the past. And part of that message is Medicare for All, and what that means is maybe a little bit squishy. We don’t fully know, we never quite fully know, but it does seem like there’s a lot of interest in broadly making health insurance and healthcare more affordable. And there’s a lot of energy on the left and on this growing more progressive movement to use government as a vehicle for health insurance, and I mean, if you have fewer employers providing health insurance, then that does strengthen the case that someone should step in. 

I think I’m still not fully sure if we can say when or what a breaking point looks like, because employers have been talking about this for so long. I mean, as long as a lot of us have been covering healthcare, there’s been talk about employer healthcare expenditures getting unsustainable, and yet here we are still in this system. The inertia continues. And the other thing that I keep thinking about is what about public sector workers, right, unions who have negotiated for these benefits that they are not going to give up, and those are often very good health insurance plans. It’s just so complicated because our system is so fragmented to get us toward having health insurance for people. 

Rovner: Yeah, this is like my fourth time going around with: Are employers going to stop providing health insurance? Well, meanwhile, to continue the theme of this week, which is everything old is new again, we have the return of death panels and Medicare catastrophic health insurance. First, death panels. Back in 2009, during the debate over the Affordable Care Act, there was a bipartisan provision that would have paid doctors to have end-of-life conversations with Medicare patients — things like: Do you want to be kept alive on a ventilator? Republicans called them “death panels,” and the ensuing controversy nearly sank the entire bill. In the end, the provision was jettisoned as more trouble than it was worth. Fast-forward to last month, and lo and behold, the Trump administration is proposing to regularize end-of-life conversations, including by possibly penalizing hospitals that don’t record a patient’s end-of-life wishes in their electronic medical records. Now, dare I say, this was considered by most bioethicists and other experts to be a good idea back in 2009 and a good idea now in terms of good patient care. But what happened to make Republicans do such an about-face, other than it’s no longer part of a bigger bill that they hate. As my fellow health reporter friend Jonathan Cohn put it: Some of us would like our summer of 2009 back, please. 

Luthra: I mean, part of it is like political convenience, right? This is something that most people know is, in fact, a good thing. I mean, I think when you explain it to a consumer, also in the correct and not misleading terms, yes, people would like the doctors to know what they would want if they had a medical emergency or catastrophe. That is good policy. But the death panel discourse was somewhat cynical — I think that’s noncontroversial to say — that this was a targeted political attack to try and bring down the Affordable Care Act. And so, of course, when you are divorced from those politics, this is just something that is practical when you think about the actual implementation of health insurance and provision of care. 

Rovner: I just didn’t want to let it go unnoticed that this was something that the Republicans used for great political gain back in 2009 reappearing 16 years later as “noncontroversial.” We’ll see if it stays that way. And going back even further in time, a group of Senate Democrats, led by Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden, have introduced a bill to cap annual out-of-pocket costs to patients on Medicare at $5,000 per year. What, you say? How can Medicare be basically the only insurance policy in America with no cap on what patients can be required to pay for long hospital stays or expensive outpatient care? Well, let me tell you a story of the first big bill I covered back in the late 1980s. It was called the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act. It did create an out-of-pocket cap for Medicare, but it was financed by a surtax on wealthier Medicare beneficiaries themselves, and after a not-always-truthful campaign, not unlike the one over death panels, Congress actually repealed the law about 18 months after it passed, in 1989. So, after almost 40 years, will Congress finally put Medicare in line with just about every other health insurance policy on the planet? Or will they stumble, as usual, about how to pay for it? Because it would be expensive to put a cap on what patients could be asked to pay for Medicare. 

Knight: We’re starting to see Democrats really trying to release a lot of proposals now, particularly around healthcare, trying to contrast themselves with Republicans, and being like, look what they did, they let enhanced ACA subsidies expire, they did this Medicaid overhaul, everyone is dropping coverage. Here’s our solution: Republicans took your coverage away, we want to give you coverage, we want to help you reduce costs for your healthcare. And so I think we’re seeing that Sen. Ron Wyden, ranking member of the Finance Committee — if the Senate somehow becomes a Democratic majority, then he would be Finance chair, most likely. He has been putting out a lot of proposals around healthcare, trying to show what he would do if he does gain a gavel in the next Congress. I think the Senate is less likely that it’s going to turn Democratic. I think we’ll probably have a split Congress, if I have to guess, and perhaps the House goes Democratic. So, I think the long and short of it is, I think this proposal is unlikely to go much of anywhere for a while, but it is something that I think we could see have some more traction potentially in a few years if there is another Democratic trifecta or something like that. I think Democrats want to build more on a lot of proposals they put together in the Inflation Reduction Act, capping cost in Medicare, capping cost of drugs, things like that. This would build on that. 

Rovner: Yeah, and keeping with our themes, this is sort of a Let’s make a case for this year’s midterms that we’re the party of health. Rachel, you wanted to add something. 

Roubein: I agree with what Victoria was saying. It’s messaging [indecipherable] ahead of the midterms. It’s, I mean, it’s definitely an interesting, long-standing, as you noted, issue, Julie, but I mean, generally both parties view seniors, older adults as really important voting blocs, and we tend to see various proposals around Medicare around these times, or even accusations from both parties. I think it was in 2023 Republicans and Democrats were accusing each other of cutting Medicare. It’s kind of a tradition of, like, “Mediscare,” as you will. 

Rovner: Yes, actually, and after the Affordable Care Act passed, the Republicans regained control of Congress, talking about not so much the rest of the Affordable Care Act, but the Medicare cuts in the Affordable Care Act, which, of course, were made to pay for a lot of the other things in the Affordable Care Act. 

Well, next up, hospitals in the crosshairs. Now, this is one of those occasional moments in health policy when policymakers in Washington in both parties dare to criticize hospitals, which are powerful political voices, because not only is there one in every congressional district, they are also usually major employers, as well as taking care of sick people. But for decades now, Democrats and Republicans have asked whether nonprofit hospitals, in particular, are providing enough community benefit to earn their right not to pay taxes. Before leaving for the July 4 recess, the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill that requires a lot more transparency from hospitals about how they justify their tax-exempt status. A related issue has to do with a program that’s nerdily referred to as 340B. It requires drugmakers to sell to nonprofit hospitals and community health clinics at deep discounts. Then those hospitals can turn around and bill insurers, and sometimes patients, full prices for those drugs and keep the difference to help pay for otherwise uncompensated care. Drugmakers hate it, of course, saying it’s being abused. Hospitals say it’s critical to their ability to provide care, and now the administration and Congress are both trying to reform it. So, this House Ways and Means bill addresses both issues. Victoria, you covered it. What would the bill do? 

Knight: Yeah, it’s really interesting. I think Congress is kind of a hamster wheel always, with which healthcare entity they want to go after. And so, last Congress, it was pharmacy benefit managers, which is the third-party group that moves between drugmakers and pharmacies and helps with dispensing drugs. They went after them. They hit PBMs really hard in the government appropriations bill that was passed earlier this year, and so now PBMs are kind of off the target, and I think hospitals may be next. But hospitals are really, really hard to go after. But we’re starting to see a lot more movement in this Congress on hospitals, and so this bill, it’s basically a new reporting requirement. It would require nonprofit hospitals to, yeah, justify their tax-exempt status by giving a lot of data to the government, and so that would be how much charity care they’re providing compared to their financial assistance policy. So, how much did they say they’re going to help people? How much are they actually helping people? Also, their community benefit, and a lot, just a lot more financial data as well. And there’s kind of like a tiered system within the bill, so bigger hospitals that make more money, they would have additional reporting requirements, and that includes on the 340B drug discount program. And so, what are they paying for the drugs? What are they giving them to patients for? That kind of information. Hospitals were very not happy with this. It was advanced out of Ways and Means, but on a partisan basis. So we’ll see if it has any more movement. I’m doubtful I would make it to a further place on the House floor or something, but you never know. We’ll see. 

Rovner: I know there’s efforts in Senate and the Finance Committee, and in the HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee to looking at 340B. Sen. [Bill] Cassidy’s been looking at it too, although you know it’s the fight between two behemoths, the drug industry and the hospital industry, and as long as Congress has been grappling with this, they have not been able to come up with a useful compromise that works for everybody, which is why I think they keep grappling with it. 

Knight: Yeah, Energy and Commerce members just released a new bill this week on it. It’s really seeing a lot more action, and the program really has, the 340B drug discount program has really increased the usage over time if you look at the stats. So it makes sense that maybe Congress will step in, but it’s really difficult to find a solution. Drugmakers and hospitals are both OK with it, and so yeah, it will continue. 

Rovner: As we like to say, the status quo likes to status quo. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back.  

So, July 4 marked the one-year anniversary of the signing of that big Republican budget bill, and with that, the one-year ban on Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood expired. You may or may not recall that in order to get the provision into the budget bill in the first place, past the Senate parliamentarian, the ban had to be only for a single year. That means Planned Parenthood clinics around most of the country can once again bill Medicaid for non-abortion services like birth control and cancer screenings and STI testing. And anti-abortion activists are big mad. Shefali, did Congress not extend the ban because it didn’t want to, or because it couldn’t? And what might this mean for the impending midterms? We haven’t seen a lot of reproductive health in this sort of go-round either. 

Luthra: I mean, I think when we look back to a year ago, there’s a reason that originally abortion opponents wanted this to be a 10-year defunding. That was not possible due to the parliamentarian’s interpretation of what could be kept in the reconciliation bill. So we had this one-year program instead. And even at the time, I talked to abortion opponents, whom I reconnected with again just now, and there was never really a very strong belief that this would be politically viable to renew months before a midterm election, because Republicans have a very slim majority, as we’ve discussed many times on this podcast, and defunding Planned Parenthood is unpopular. KFF has done great polling that shows that this is very unpopular, and so it’s just a very, very big ask to get Republicans, especially those in vulnerable seats, those that went blue in the presidential election, to vote to defund Planned Parenthood once more. I think what is really interesting is you are continuing to see Republicans get a lot of pressure from abortion opponents to take this up again, and so far there hasn’t really been much movement. I think it highlights how difficult it has been for the anti-abortion movement to get really concrete victories in the first two years of a Republican trifecta. This was their biggest win, and it’s over. And they have something to show for it, right? Maybe around two dozen Planned Parenthood clinics shut down between last July and this July. But if that’s the biggest thing you get in the first Republican administration and congressional majorities since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, that’s probably not what they had hoped for, or what they would have expected coming into this. 

Rovner: Yeah, and as we have discussed, anti-abortion activists are also big mad that the Trump administration has not reversed the FDA’s loosening of regulations on the abortion pill mifepristone that allows it to be sold via telehealth over state lines. A new law taking effect in Iowa this week bars Iowa residents from getting medication abortion from Iowa providers via telehealth. But, like other states with even stricter abortion bans, that law doesn’t really touch telehealth providers in other states with shield laws from prescribing and sending those same medications to Iowa residents. That’s what the anti-abortion forces really, really, really want, right? 

Luthra: Yeah, and it’s just, it’s legally very difficult for them to come up with a framework that will prevent that interstate telehealth, unless the federal government intervenes, and since they aren’t getting much movement from the administration, that is why they are putting so much emphasis on federal courts. And we have so many legal challenges to mifepristone in the works. We had one that very briefly interrupted telehealth earlier this year. That case is still ongoing. It’s possible that it yields some sort of policy implications before the midterm elections, though we’ll see. But this is just a very difficult situation to stop interstate telehealth, unless you have someone with authority beyond state governments — and really that is federal courts, and that’s the federal government. 

Roubein: You can imagine this is going to come up when there’s a new Food and Drug Administration commissioner named. This is something that Sen. Josh Hawley, Sen. Bill Cassidy, they will be asking about this and pushing on this because they were very upset with how former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary handled this. 

Rovner: By basically continuing to put it off, although to some extent we don’t know whether that was Makary’s doing or it came from higher up at HHS [Department of Health and Human Services]. I’m interested, apparently there’s going to be a confirmation hearing for attorney general nominee Todd Blanche next week, and I think some are going to ask him, because one outlet that the anti-abortion movement sees is getting the Justice Department to settle the lawsuit filed in Louisiana, challenging the FDA’s sort of down-regulating, if you will, of mifepristone. So they’re saying that the Justice Department should simply settle that lawsuit. Would that actually overrule FDA? I’m still a little bit vague on how that might work. 

Luthra: That feels legally tricky, because there are other parties in the suit as well. The manufacturers have stepped in, and so there’s a real possibility that even if the Justice Department moved to settle, I mean, I don’t think we can say that this doesn’t necessarily end the case or end mifepristone’s availability through telehealth. And realistically it just seems that you need something stronger and perhaps through a different avenue. And, again, I think it’s really important for us to underscore that this is all pretty unpopular policy, and the Trump administration knows it is unpopular, and they probably would not want abortion and abortion restrictions to be in the national spotlight heading into a midterm election where they are already looking vulnerable. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, I’ll be interested to watch the attorney general confirmation hearings, which is not something I would normally say. While we’re on the subject of reproductive health, in general, in the fallout from last week’s narrower-than-expected Supreme Court decision upholding birthright citizenship, some Trump officials are now floating the idea of banning noncitizens from visiting the U.S. while pregnant to prevent them from giving birth to U.S. citizens. How would that work? 

Luthra: Just seems kind of difficult to implement, maybe more the kind of thing that you talk about on Fox News than the thing that you actually have a firm policy plan to put in place already. People are not given visas to come here solely for giving birth. Already people largely do not travel very late in pregnancy, because it is not a good idea. I think there’s something to be said for the fact that people will be looking in conservative spaces at ways to try and restrict immigrants from being here, find new pathways to prevent people from giving birth here, especially when they are immigrants. We had a hearing in Texas earlier this week where they were looking at surrogacy, and part of the argument there that conservatives are making is they believe that surrogates in the U.S. are being hired by people abroad to give birth to babies that will have U.S. citizenship. Again, this is all, like, very complicated, but I think what it shows is that the birthright citizenship issue is not going away, and that conservatives are looking for some kind of new strategy to weaken that protection that is very clearly spelled out in the Constitution. And we will see where that takes us. 

Rovner: Yeah, and to be clear, I mean, just like with fraud, there is birth tourism. There are, you know, particularly, I think there’s a lot of people from China going to the Northern Marianas, which is kind of halfway across the Pacific and a U.S. territory, to give birth. I think someone said there were more Chinese residents giving birth in Northern Marianas than there were residents of the Northern Marianas. So, I mean, there are problems, but that’s, as you point out, that’s already illegal. That’s not something that Congress would need to act to make illegal. Birth tourism is not a thing, but if you are born in the United States, then, said the Supreme Court, at least a small majority of the Supreme Court, you are a citizen, at least for now. 

All right. Finally, this week, two interesting stories about artificial intelligence in healthcare. First, Utah is in the midst of a pilot project allowing an AI chatbot to approve some prescription refills. Doctors, including the state’s medical board, are not thrilled with this. They’re worried about liability if something goes wrong, among other things. They’re also worried about a slippery slope. It’s just some relatively safe prescription drugs for now, but soon it will be all prescriptions, then lab tests, then who knows what? On the other hand, the makers of these tools say they’re exactly what’s needed to overcome the shortage of doctors and other health professionals. Let technology take over the routine stuff. Now, call me old-fashioned, but until customer service AI works a lot better than it does now, I’m not sure I’m ready for AI to be making my medical decisions, even my routine ones. 

Roubein: I mean, it’s definitely a controversial practice, as we’ve been seeing. I think doctors are sort of grappling with what is going to be the future here. 

Rovner: I mean, some of it can be helpful. We have sort of AI scribes now who can take notes, so that when you’re talking to your doctor, your doctor isn’t staring at a screen the entire time. I think everybody thinks that’s a good thing. But you know, then how accurate are the AI scribes? I know that just in voice transcription, it’s still not 100%. If you get a symptom or a drug wrong, that could be a bigger deal than when you’re doing a podcast transcript. 

Knight: There’s a great plot on The Pitt about this. 

Rovner: That’s right. I forgot. 

Knight: I know it’s super important, though. It was super important for the patient that the transcription was wrong. It was wrong. It said that they had a condition they did not have, so that could be really problematic. 

Luthra: I mean, one thing that I’ve sort of mulled over in other areas, as we see this push toward AI in certain areas, if it continues, is whether eventually we see some kind of divergence. I think there’s an open question, right? Do people actually want more things automated, or do they want more things done by a human? Do we see a world in which people pay a premium for things that are done by people, as opposed to AI, or vice versa? I mean, I think this is all just so early, but there’s a real possibility, at least it seems to me, that we see sort of different tiered offerings based on what’s perceived as better. And that raises questions also of who gets things that are maybe better versus who doesn’t, and what is better? I think there’s just so much that we don’t know, but there’s just a lot for us to sort of observe and interrogate as reporters. 

Rovner: I heard a story yesterday about robots climbing Mount Everest, and my only thought was: Why? It’s one thing if robots are doing things that are helpful, but it’s like, why would you need a robot to climb Mount Everest? Well, speaking of cautionary tales, a story from my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Darius Tahir details how the launch of a pilot in six states to test an AI-powered prior authorization system for Medicare also hasn’t been smooth. Quoting from the story: “Patients, doctors, and other healthcare professionals who spoke with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News say the effort has created confusion, errors, long wait times, and stress.” The opening anecdote of the story is about a patient who was asked to drive an extra 2½ hours literally just to fill out a piece of paper. Again, the goal here is a valid one. Medicare wants to make sure that frequently abused medical services are really necessary. That protects both patients and the taxpayers who pay the bills for Medicare. But the concern is that maybe these systems aren’t quite ready for prime time. I mean, I feel like that’s sort of the bigger thing here is that we’re launching this stuff before it’s ready, not that we’re wanting to use it. 

Roubein: I thought this was a really interesting story, because this is a program out of the CMS innovation center [Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation], which was created by the Affordable Care Act, and the CMS innovation center is wonky; it’s there to test Medicare experiments. You don’t really always hear a lot, just it doesn’t always make like a huge splash about what’s happening. But this one has. You’ve heard talk about this in Congress, and concerns about this, particularly within Washington state. And I thought this was a really good story, saying this happened so quickly, these are actually what’s happening, sort of on the ground, because the theory with these models is, if they work well, they can be expanded, they can become a permanent part of the Medicare program. In theory, these are tests. 

Rovner: Yeah, whenever we talk about the innovation center, I point out it’s just as valid to have tests that don’t work, because then you can see what doesn’t work and try something else. Yeah, and it’s possible that this will straighten itself out at some point. It is off to — as many of these AI tests are — it’s off to a bit of a rocky start. All right, that is this week’s news. Now, we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Samantha Liss, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.  

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

Samantha Liss: Hi. 

Rovner: So, this month’s patient had the nerve to change Medicare Advantage plans. Those are the private plans that often cover more out-of-pocket costs than regular Medicare, but also limit choices, and as she found out the hard way, sometimes limit needed care. Tell us who she is, the ailment she’d had for two decades that needed treating. 

Liss: Yeah, thanks for having me. So I wrote this month about Margaret Hvatum. She lives outside St. Louis, and she is a part-time computer science professor. And she has a weakened immune system due to a rare condition known as primary immunodeficiency, and essentially it makes it difficult for her body to fight off infections. 

Rovner: So she’d been treating it successfully for a while, right? 

Liss: Yeah, she had. She relied on a drug known as Hizentra. 

Rovner: And Hizentra is what I would call a moderately expensive drug, not one of those that costs hundreds of thousands of dollars a month, which there are some that do, but this one was closer to $8,000 a month. And she had gotten prior authorization to take this drug from her previous Medicare Advantage plan, right? 

Liss: She did. That’s correct. 

Rovner: And it had been serving her well for some time? 

Liss: Yeah, she really liked it. It worked well for her. 

Rovner: And she was running marathons, as I noted. 

Liss: Yes, she … I think running, it’s safe to say running is an obsession for her. She … there’s not many races she hasn’t participated in. In fact, when she was vacationing over the summer, she sent me pictures from a marathon she completed in Norway. So it’s definitely what she loves to do in her spare time. 

Rovner: So a patient with a serious condition being successfully treated, she changes Medicare Advantage plans, and lo and behold, her new plan says, yeah, nope, we’re not going to approve your taking this drug anymore. Now, I thought Medicare Advantage plans had promised last year to stop using so much prior authorization and making patients and their doctors jump through bureaucratic hoops to get needed care. Why did she need to get prior authorization for this drug again? 

Liss: Yeah, that’s a really good question. I thought the same thing. Humana and many other Medicare Advantage plan insurers had made commitments that they were going to ease this burden of requiring prior authorization. And when I asked about Margaret’s case, they said … Humana told me that these commitments are for medical services only and do not apply to prescription medications, which surprised me, actually. 

Rovner: Yeah, it surprised me too. So, Humana, her new plan, denies her the drug, she misses her medication, promptly ends up in the hospital with an infection, which her new insurer declined to pay for, too, right? 

Liss: Right. 

Rovner: So, what ultimately happened with the bills, both for the drug and the resulting hospital stay? 

Liss: Yeah, so Humana reversed their initial denials, and I think, you know, one takeaway for us, for the readers and listeners here, is that patients should appeal prior authorizations because they often get their denials reversed. And, in fact, according to our colleagues at KFF, 81% of Medicare Advantage appeals were partially or fully overturned in 2024. 

Rovner: So is there a takeaway here, besides just making a fuss? I mean, according to your story, Margaret and her husband are considering moving to Norway because he’s a citizen and they can qualify for that country’s national health insurance. That feels a little bit extreme and not possible for many people. 

Liss: It does, doesn’t it? Yeah, you know, it can be an exhausting process, is what experts told me, because prior authorization too often puts the onus on patients and doctors, who also get frustrated, too. But you know, I think the real takeaway is: Appeal. 

Rovner: Don’t take no for a final answer. 

Liss: That’s right. 

Rovner: Samantha Liss, thank you very much. 

Liss: Thank you. 

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. Shefali, you chose first this week. Why don’t you go first? 

Luthra: Sure. My story is from Stat. It is by Katie Palmer. The headline is “.” And Katie wrote about a secret-shopper study that was published in JAMA, looking at how easy it is to now get GLP-1 drugs and how little oversight there is from doctors. I think this kind of research is so interesting, because anyone who talks to anyone who has gotten GLP-1, or anyone who opens their social media, or sees ads on the internet, has probably figured out that it is very, very easy now to get a GLP-1 drug, even if you don’t medically qualify for them, typically. And that is really complicated, because these drugs have a lot of benefits, including many we don’t know about. However, they are also relatively new. There are a lot of things we don’t know about them still. They probably are not a good fit for everyone, but … 

Rovner: They have a lot of side effects. 

Luthra: Yes, and there’s a lot of societal pressure on people potentially to be a lot thinner in a world where GLP-1s are more ubiquitous. And I think all of that just really deserves interrogation, deserves scrutiny. It is completely changing our culture and our health as a society, and I really appreciate that this story just put some numbers and put some heft toward what people have probably observed. But now we can say, yeah, this is actually a thing and it deserves scrutiny. 

Rovner: Yeah, it definitely does. It was really good study. Victoria. 

Knight: I also have a Stat story for my extra credit. It is called “.” And I’m always interested in lobbying and just the dynamics of power in Washington, and I thought this is a really good look at the alcohol industry, and how they wield power in Washington, kind of a peek behind the curtain. And it shows, it kind of begins the story with an anecdote about how a former staffer of the American Cancer Society felt bad for telling a reporter or kind of downplaying the risk of alcohol to cancer to a reporter back in the day, and then had to apologize to the reporter. And so it’s showing how lobbyists in the alcohol industry have influenced things like the American Cancer Society or other entities to not fully talk about the risk of alcohol related to cancer, or just generally the health risk of alcohol. So, this did a really good job of connecting the dots of who is connected to who in D.C. in the alcohol industry, and what lobbyist is married to this person, and just really interesting to show how the alcohol lobby is still trying to wield influence at a time when really a lot of Americans are not drinking as much as well. And so they’re trying to hold on to their power. Will that still be successful? I guess we’ll see. But yeah, it was great. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s part of a series on the dangers of alcohol. It’s really, really interesting. Really well done. Rachel. 

Roubein: My extra credit this week is “” by Christina Jewett of The New York Times. I thought it was an interesting broad, sweeping look at tobacco policy under Trump, particularly looking at some of the cuts last year. And so Christina starts out the story by describing ads that we’ve all seen, I think, are all kind of part of the cultural moment of trying to stamp out tobacco use, such as one with, like, a man with a hole in his throat using a voice box to speak, that were powerful. Christina reports that the CDC’s 14-year ad campaign went dark last year, and that was several moves by the Trump administration. That change unraveled parts of the government’s anti-smoking initiative. She also writes about how the CDC’s Office on Smoking and Health, which managed that campaign and worked with states on smoking cessation measures, has been shut down for more than a year. She said in recent weeks CDC has given states small funding to air ads from the campaign’s archive, but there has been an impact where, in interviews with people who ran quit lines in several states, calls have plummeted, along with enrollment in programs that offered counseling, nicotine, gum, and patches. And some of this comes — as you know, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. talks about chronic disease a lot, but public health experts that I’ve spoken to in the past have pointed to kind of a contradiction here, where there is not much talk about trying to reduce the rates of smoking, which is a major cause of chronic disease. From the HHS’ response to Christina, they said that the CDC “remains committed to tobacco prevention control and continues to support this priority through outreach, education, and surveillance.” 

Rovner: Yeah, it was a really, really good piece. Well, my extra credit this week is from Tina Reed at Axios, and it’s called “.” It seems that the combination of peptide popularity and cryptocurrency payments are helping Chinese fentanyl manufacturers make more money at less risk from selling those loosely regulated peptides instead. Said one expert quoted in Tina’s story: “They departed from a trade in which they could be sanctioned or indicted by the U.S., and reappeared in a very lucrative scene that has widespread buy-in.” Um, yay, capitalism. Really, really interesting story. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had production help this week from 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 , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging these days? Victoria. 

Knight: I’m on X. 

Rovner: Shefali. 

Luthra: I’m @shefali on . 

Rovner: Rachel. 

Roubein: on X; at Bluesky. 

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

[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 early this week in advance of the holiday on Wednesday, July 1, 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 videoconference by Alice Miranda Olstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello there. 

Rovner: Lizzy Lawrence of Stat News. 

Lizzy Lawrence: Hi. 

Rovner: And making her What the Health? debut, my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Amanda Seitz. Welcome. 

Amanda Seitz: Hello, Julie. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: Tons of health news again this week. So, we will jump right in. We’re going to start at the Supreme Court, where the justices wrapped up the 2025-26 session by deciding that, yes, the 14th Amendment does mean what it says regarding birthright citizenship, which would have been a very big health story if it had gone the other way. Still, in this last crush of cases, there were some that will have more of an impact on health policy than might appear at first blush, and even some impact on health politics. So, policy first: In a decision handed down Monday, the justices said that presidents may fire members of nearly all independent agencies for any reason, not just malfeasance in office. Previously, Congress had written into laws establishing many of these bodies, like the Federal Trade Commission and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that presidents could not dismiss members just because they disagreed with their policy positions. In overturning a case that has stood since 1935, the majority of justices said, nope, the president can fire just about anybody considered part of the executive branch, except maybe not members of the Federal Reserve Board. That one is still TBD. Still, this is likely to have a major impact on agencies that do a lot of health policy, like the Federal Trade Commission, yes? 

Lawrence: Yeah, already we’ve seen a lot of the politicization of agencies across government, so this is just even further embolden the administration to enforce political loyalty, fealty, among civil servants. 

Rovner: This decision is making my head spin, because I’m so used to seeing a lot of these commissions that have a certain number of members who are appointed by a president of one party and a certain number appointed by a president another party to create, at least in theory, balance, and this basically says: Balance schmalance. It’s what the president wants. 

Ollstein: I think it’s especially impactful given how little lawmaking Congress has been able to do recently and how much policy is decided at the agency rulemaking and enforcement level, which is what a lot of these previously independent agencies took on, And so I think delegating even more power to the executive branch in a moment where Congress has already sort of let a lot of that go could be huge down the road. Of course, while this is being cast accurately as a big win for the Trump administration, we should, of course, remind listeners that this cuts both ways and a future Democratic president could do a lot more that conservatives may really hate. 

Rovner: Yeah. I â€” what goes around comes around. I’m just thinking: Wow, what happens when a Democrat gets back in office? Are they going to just completely remake all of these agencies? And maybe Congress will, at some point, say maybe that wasn’t such a great idea. We will see how this one plays out. I imagine it will be over a much longer term. 

Well, in a decision that was more about immediate politics than policy, the court last week said that people who claim they got cancer from the pesticide glyphosate cannot sue under state laws, because the federal Environmental Protection Agency, not states, decides whether to label the chemicals, sold under the trade name Roundup, as a carcinogen. Needless to say, members of the Make America Healthy Again movement, for whom pesticides are top concern, are not happy. This is the second loss for MAHA adherence on glyphosate this year. HHS [Health and Human Services] Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. back in February endorsed an executive order from President [Donald] Trump to declare glyphosate important to national security in order to protect the nation’s food supply. How mad are the MAHA folks at this point? Amanda, I know you’ve written about this. Alice, you have, too. 

Seitz: Yeah, I think the tension has really been building between this movement and the White House for months, and now it’s, now they’re really mad. And meanwhile, we’re not seeing a lot of action from HHS to appease the MAHA moms. They started the year with this new food pyramid and the Eat Real Food campaign and some rallies that were really promising, but since then things have been a lot quieter. And I think they’re kind of at the point now where a lot of these women who support this movement, they lean conservative, they’re white women, but they’re probably not going to flip their vote, necessarily, but they might sit these midterms out at this point. 

Rovner: And that’s really the biggest concern. It’s not so much the people who are part of your base are going to vote for the opponents. It’s that they’re not going to vote, right? 

Ollstein: Yeah, and they were already feeling demoralized about some of the other, what they view as setbacks under this administration. They came in with such high hopes that this administration, especially with RFK at HHS, would really be aggressive on both pharmaceuticals and the food industry and, like I said, are very disappointed in what we’ve ended up with. And this administration’s decision to back this corporate shield on the pesticides is really what some people are viewing as a final straw. And we know the White House is worried about the political fallout of this, because they invited a bunch of these activists to the White House to sort of reassure them, make nice. That was several months ago, but the decision, I think, really undermines those charm-offensive efforts. 

Seitz: I wanted to add that, to Alice’s point, this is a group that was told that they would see a wholesale shake-up of the food industry from the ground up, literally, starting with pesticides. So they’re just really disappointed at this point. They have not seen a lot of bold action, really, since the food dyes, since the food pyramid, and those policies are months old at this point. 

Ollstein: And a lot of those are voluntary. They’re not even binding. They’re just agreements with companies that can be reversed in the future. 

Rovner: Well we will get back to RFK Jr. in a few minutes, but first, one more Supreme Court decision, an immigration case that does have huge health implications. As part of the theme of giving the president still more power, a majority of justices said that President Trump could end so-called Temporary Protected Status for certain classes of immigrants who come from countries that are deemed unsafe to return to because of natural disaster or civil unrest. In this current case, the countries in question are Haiti and Syria. This will have an almost immediate impact on healthcare, because there are more than a quarter of a million Haitian immigrants living in the U.S. under TPS, and many of them work in healthcare, often as caregivers and workers in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. The industry group LeadingAge estimates that long-term care facilities could lose up to 8% of their workforce as a result of this ruling. What happens if 8% of the long-term care workforce gets deported in the next few months? 

Seitz: Well, the governor of my home state of Ohio, who’s a Republican through and through, said it would be a job killer for his state, so that tells you how concerned he is. 

Ollstein: And the long-term care and elder care sector is so heavily dependent on these workers. Staffing is already a huge concern. The pay is not good. The work is extremely hard. It’s very hard to find people willing to do this work, and in some places foreign workers make up a majority of the workforce. They don’t all come from these specific countries, but a lot of them do. This is already a big blow to all of these assisted living and other kinds of facilities that have already struggled to recruit and retain staff. And as the baby boomer generation gets older, there’s only going to be way more demand, and so it’s increasing demand and decreasing supply at a kind of dangerous time. And we’ve seen all these reports about what happens with understaffing. Injuries go up in these facilities, health problems go unaddressed, and these are people’s grandmas and grandpas. This is real. 

Rovner: And people are going to end up taking care of their own grandmas and grandpas, because these facilities aren’t going to have the beds available, because they don’t have the staff there to take care of them. I’ll be interested to follow this, because I think of all the things that we talk about that are going to have sort of long tails, this one’s going to have pretty immediate impact if they really start deporting a lot or even detaining a lot of these people. And even some of them who may not be immediately deported simply can no longer go to work, because if they take away their immigration status, they’ll no longer be here, they’ll no longer be working legally. So this will have probably some impact that we will see fairly quickly. 

Well, also impacted by a federal court injunction are students pursuing healthcare careers. Late last week, a federal district court judge here in Washington, D.C., blocked part of a new regulation from the Department of Education that was supposed to take effect today. The regulation limits how much certain graduate students can borrow from the federal student loan program. Under the new rules, those pursuing certain professional degree programs, including doctors, dentists, and veterinarians, can borrow up to $50,000 a year, up to a total of $200,000, while those in what’s deemed nonprofessional programs will be limited to $20,500 a year and $100,000 in total. In both cases, those limits are often lower than what those degrees actually cost. The administration says that’s an effort to get schools to lower tuition. But groups representing nurse practitioners and physician assistants, whose professions didn’t make the, quote, “professional” degree list, sued, and now at least that part of the regulation is on hold. But the overall caps do take effect today. What’s the potential impact here? This is one that, as I said, has probably a longer tail, right? That we won’t see the impact right away? 

Seitz: I think on its face this sounds like a very well-intentioned regulation, right? You don’t want people taking out more money than they realistically can make, but $20,000 barely covers preschool tuition in major cities these days, so that’s going to be extremely limiting. And again, we’re talking about professions that are already facing huge shortages. The nursing shortages have gone on for years. They’ve festered. There’s been no real meaningful policy to fix that issue. So these industries need workers, and this is not going to improve this outlook. It’s going to make it much worse. 

Rovner: Yeah, I talked to the head of one of the nursing groups, and one of the big concerns here, when you’re talking about shortages, it’s not so much not being able to train nurses but not being able to train the people who are going to train the nurses. It’s nurse educators. The limit is, you can make more as a nurse than you can make teaching people to be nurses, and so it’s really hard to get those nurse educators. And so they have to limit â€” there’s a lot of people who would like to become nurses. It’s a pretty good career. Pays pretty well. It’s pretty solid. But because they literally don’t have enough teachers, and limiting who can go pursue these careers is not really going to help this. I think that’s part of what got this, at least this part of the regulation, stayed. But it seems implausible that schools are going to say, Well, we’ll just lower our tuition so you guys can afford to come. It’s going to be more that people aren’t going to be able to afford to pursue these careers unless they can afford private loans, or they come from families that are wealthy enough to underwrite their education. 

Seitz: Yeah, and high-qualified applicants are already turned away every year from nursing school. So now you’re making your pool even smaller, with an industry that is already struggling to fill roles, paying lots and lots of money to get people into these roles. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think this is part of a broader effort that we will see the impact from, but not immediately. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

Turning to activity at HHS, Secretary Kennedy has been busy the past few weeks. As predicted, the department reissued the charter for the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices so that it no longer requires members to have vaccine research expertise. The idea here is to get around a court decision that said the anti-vax members that he had installed earlier weren’t qualified. At least that’s the assumption. Right, Lizzy? 

Lawrence: Right, I think this is the â€” ACIP has been on hold for so long now, and they’re trying to find a way to convene this committee without recruiting the traditional types of people that are typically advising on immunization. So, yeah. 

Rovner: People with expertise in immunization policy? 

Lawrence: Right, so yeah, we’ll see who they come up with. I think this has just been such a mess from the beginning, and I’m curious how they will interpret the courts saying you need to have people with expertise here. 

Rovner: I’d say, along those same lines, Lizzy,  on a different advisory committee, this one at FDA on compounding pharmacies. Tell us about that one. 

Lawrence: Yeah, so it seems that the peptides committee is the new ACIP. So, in July, FDA will discuss whether to allow, I think, five to seven peptides, allow compounders to manufacture them. And HHS has been very involved. This, Secretary Kennedy went on Joe Rogan and said he would really like to see these peptides added back to the list. The FDA does not agree with this. I’ve been told that HHS was very involved in the planning of this committee, the selection of the members. Most of these members who they added are longevity wellness physicians whose financial interests in making peptides more available to the public, and so they are not impartial. And I know that career staff have raised concerns, but those concerns were ignored. However, interestingly, the FDA has kind of gotten ahead of what could happen at this meeting, because in the meeting materials, the career staff said the agency does not want to add these peptides to the list. We do not think that compounders should be allowed to make them. And so they’re entering the discussion, saying the agency actually doesn’t want to do this. So now we’re going to have to see what HHS does, what some of these advisers do, who clearly would like the FDA to ease restrictions. I think it’ll be very tense. It’s a very bizarre situation. 

Rovner: And just to backtrack, peptides are supplements, basically, right? They’re amino acids, and there’s not a lot of good research that suggests whether they are good for you or not. But they’re super popular, right? 

Lawrence: Right, right. They are super popular, very much hawked by influencers who make claims that they do anything from reverse aging to boosting energy to helping with chronic pain. And there’s very little clinical data, in humans, at least, about the actual safety and efficacy of a lot of these products. 

Rovner: Yet another advisory committee for us to watch. Meanwhile, in one of his first full-length national interviews since losing his primary, Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy went on CBS’ Face the Nation last week and let RFK Jr. have it â€” rhetorically, at least â€” saying the secretary violated the agreements that he made with Cassidy in order to win his vote for confirmation. Now, Kennedy, in a separate interview with News Nation, said that’s not true, that he has kept all the promises he made to Cassidy. Amanda, just looking at the vaccine issue alone would suggest that Cassidy kind of has a stronger case here, right? 

Seitz: Yes, I’ve had this conversation myself multiple times with HHS. Kennedy has clearly flouted the promises that Cassidy says he extracted from him around ACIP, around vaccinations. They’ve overhauled the nation’s childhood vaccine schedule. They’ve raised repeated doubts about vaccine safety. Period. End of story. You can’t just throw an asterisk right on a webpage that raises doubts about vaccine safety and say that you’ve met the promise. They have not met the promises that Cassidy says that he extracted from him. But at the end of the day, Kennedy gave numerous signs throughout his confirmation hearings that he was never really serious about keeping those promises. He and Cassidy even got in disagreements. Everyone saw these disagreements during the hearings over the safety and efficacy of vaccines, of the research that Kennedy was citing, so I think the only person at the end of the day who thought that Kennedy was going to keep his promises was maybe Cassidy himself. 

Rovner: And Cassidy himself said in the interview, I thought this was kind of interesting, that his choice was to vote for Kennedy and have at least some, he would call them, guardrails, or if Kennedy didn’t get confirmed that Trump was going to appoint him as a White House health czar, and then he, Cassidy, would have no impact over what Kennedy would be able to do. So it was better to have some power than no power â€” that was his justification. Although in neither case does it seem that Cassidy has had any power over what Kennedy has done. 

Seitz: Yes, and then even if Kennedy were a White House czar, sure, he would have the ear of Trump, presumably, but he wouldn’t have a microphone over public health as the health secretary, where he gets to broadcast all of his doubts about vaccine safety. So I think that’s a little bit of a disingenuous argument. 

Rovner: And not to mention the chance to remake all of these committees that we’ve just been talking about. Well, apparently Kennedy is freelancing in politics, even while he’s trying to run HHS. The Washington Post had a  last week about RFK Jr. trying to convince a Libertarian candidate in Iowa to drop out of a contested U.S. House race to prevent him from siphoning off votes from the Republican candidate, because, argued Kennedy, if Democrats take over the majority in the House after this next election â€” and this was on tape â€” quote, “I don’t want to be fighting subpoenas for the next two years instead of improving America’s health.” Apparently, Kennedy was careful not to spell out that he could make it worth the candidate’s while to drop out, because that would be illegal. But some ethics experts suggest that what he did might have been illegal anyway and was certainly unethical. Are we at the point where nobody even cares about stuff like this? I remember when this would have been a gigantic story. Here’s a Cabinet member basically getting involved in an election and kind of sort of promising a candidate that if he drops out, they could do something to help him. 

Ollstein: There was another recent allegation of something like this happening in the race that ousted Cassidy. John Fleming, who was another candidate in the race that was not successful, said that he was getting pressure from the Trump administration to drop out and was being promised various jobs and things, and so I think that we are seeing at least an uptick in allegations of meddling, if not an uptick in meddling itself. And yeah, just a lot of attempts to exert control over the outcome of these races that some conservatives are worried may backfire because it’s resulting in some maybe less palatable people winning primaries and facing tougher races in the general election, not in the ones we just mentioned but in some other places. 

Rovner: Yeah, and that’s happening on the left, too, although we will leave that for another day. Well, moving on, and still kind of on the RFK beat, we’re still waiting for the administration to name a new director for the Food and Drug Administration, but we did get a nominee for deputy [HHS] secretary, Chris Klomp. Now, this shouldn’t be much of a surprise. Even though he’s officially at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Klomp has been kind of running a lot of day-to-day stuff at HHS already, right Amanda? 

Seitz: Yes, he is really well liked, both at HHS and then within the White House, too. He’s seen kind of as this bridge between the two agencies. And I think, too, he’s a really smooth operator in an administration that is not particularly well known for its diplomacy. So if the Trump administration has any chance of getting someone through right now, especially with the clock ticking on how much longer Republicans might be in power, Klomp is going to be you guy. So, he kind of makes friends and allies wherever he goes, and I would imagine that he is going to be maybe making an argument, even to Democrats, saying that he can be the adult in the room right now that HHS really needs, that he’s proven to be that. 

Rovner: Yeah, I was at a breakfast with him, and he was very impressive. I will say that. And yes, unlike a lot of the other members of this administration, just in the way he deals with people. He’s very conciliatory and searching for common ground and knows his stuff, clearly. So there’s â€” I’ll be interested to see what goes on with that. Lizzy, before we leave this, where are we with naming a new FDA commissioner? I’ve seen like a dozen names floated. 

Lawrence: I know. They’re all over the place. And some of the names I had actually heard back in 2024. I remember hearing about Heidi Overton and Jeff Vacirca, a cancer doctor, before. Yeah, like Amanda said, time is ticking. There are still, the surgeon general has not, there’s not been a hearing scheduled. Or maybe there has been hearings scheduled, but— 

Rovner: I think Cassidy said he wants to go ahead in July with hearings for the surgeon general and the new head of the CDC. We at least have nominees. 

Lawrence: Yes, there are at least nominees, but, yeah, no hearings on the calendar. And then, and obviously, a finite number of days that Congress is in session. And I’ve heard that they want to name someone soon, and there are certain other, there’s kind of career FDA officials in the mix. Rick Pazdur’s name has been floated around. I don’t know how real that is, but— 

Rovner: Longtime FDA official. 

Lawrence: Longtime FDA official. Yeah, so we’ll see. I know that they want to get this done soon, but time is not on their side. 

Rovner: We will see. All right, next topic. In his interview with Face the Nation, Sen. Cassidy said one of the things he’s most proud of is passing the No Surprises Act, which spares patients in most cases from those nasty surprise bills when they inadvertently get care outside of their health plan’s network. And while that part of the law does seem to be working pretty well, the part where insurers and healthcare providers battle out how much should be paid is not, and we have two great blockbuster stories this week detailing that in pretty vivid detail. First from our podcast pals Margo Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff at The New York Times, a  how surgical assistants are using the No Surprises Act to win fees from insurance companies that are multiples higher than the surgeons they are assisting, 25 times higher in some cases. Second, from Lizzy’s colleague at Stat, Tara Bannow, the  who are getting around the surprise-bill law by declining to take Medicare, which is the federal trigger to get them covered under the rules. Instead, the hospitals are using the same arbitration process that the surgical assistants are using, and, to quote from Tara’s story, “It’s been a gold mine, quadrupling its revenue.” So clearly, the arbitration part of this law is not working as intended. Why aren’t we seeing efforts in Congress to fix this? This would normally be something that Congress would say: OK, this didn’t work. Let’s go back and see what might. 

Seitz: Because Congress isn’t doing anything right now? I think it’s really fascinating. These stories are coming out at a really bad time for the hospitals and health systems especially, because they’re always trying to point fingers at insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies for high healthcare prices. But Congress has really been pushing back on the hospitals and scrutinizing them much closer, their role in driving up healthcare costs, and this is just such damning evidence of how these physician groups are outright gaming the system. So while you don’t see Congress maybe taking action, it’s really coming at a bad time for these healthcare systems who are arguing that they’re going to be facing these deep cuts and potential closures because of the actions that Congress has taken with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It kind of starts to feel a little like the boy who cried wolf, because at the beginning when the surprise-billing act passed, you did see a lot of hospitals come out and say: This is really horrible for us. We’re not getting the fair deal out of these arbitrations. There were some hospitals that were even suggesting that they could close over this. So you’re kind of, to see how much they’re making off of all of these arbitrations is really just bad timing for these healthcare systems that are saying: We’re not driving up costs. We’re losing money hand over fist because of all these cuts that Congress has made. 

Rovner: Yeah, basically it looks like the providers are winning the arbitration way more often than not and getting much higher payments than they would have gotten otherwise, certainly much higher payments than they would have gotten from trying to bill patients who didn’t have the money. Put it this way: It is not saving money, as I believe the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] estimated when the bill was first passed. 

Lawrence: It’s a really bad look, and just to shout out Tara’s story, which was fantastic, I think she gets at, too, how this can also affect patient care. She zeroed in on a hospital that is making so much money in this arbitration process and is also still trying to deny people who are entering an emergency, what they think is an emergency room, where under EMTALA [the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] they’re not supposed to make you pay before treating you, and that’s not happening. And so there’s some very damning details in that. 

Rovner: Yeah, because if you don’t take Medicare you don’t have to obey EMTALA either. Kind of handy for them. Well, finally this week, drug prices. And speaking of things that aren’t working as expected, Medicare this week begins temporary coverage of those expensive weight loss drugs, GLP-1s. Originally this coverage was going to be offered through Medicare Part D prescription plans, but insurers balked. They were worried that it would drive up premiums for everybody else, which it probably would have. So CMS officials cut a deal directly with the makers of the main drugs, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, to sell their blockbusters Wegovy and Zepbound at $50 a month each, along with another Lilly drug, Foundayo, but only until the end of 2027. Then what happens? This feels like either the biggest bait and switch of all time or a change to dig Medicare’s financing hole even deeper. Or am I missing something? 

Seitz: Or let the next administration pick up the issue, right? That’s kind of what the Biden administration did on this issue— 

Rovner: Sure. 

Seitz: â€”before it walked out the door. I think maybe it gives them a chance to sort of see how much, because we are entering into the unknown, how much it will cost. And I’ve talked to people inside of the administration about their approach to coverage, and although Kennedy has historically opposed GLP-1s, I think there’s also this recognition that Medicare is so expensive at this point that the GLP-1s do offer potential to trim down some of those expenses if people, older people, do become healthier from using them. So I would imagine that this is a little bit of a test of that. 

Rovner: Yeah, and there’s all this tantalizing evidence that GLP-1s don’t just let people lose weight but they actually do make them healthier. They make it less likely to have heart attacks and strokes and things, or get, Type 2 diabetes, things that do cost Medicare a lot more money. But there is still in law, speaking of Congress, a ban on Medicare paying for drugs simply for weight loss, because, as we’ve said before, back in 2003 when Congress passed this law, there weren’t effective weight loss drugs, and the weight loss drugs that were out there were, in some cases, dangerous. So at the time, it made sense to have this ban. It doesn’t necessarily make sense anymore now that we have the GLP-1s. But another place where Congress could change it and hasn’t yet. So we will have to see how this one plays out. 

Well, finally, the Trump administration is still hoping to bring down drug prices in the U.S. by getting other countries to raise theirs. Germany is under a U.S. trade investigation for threatening to pay less for U.S.-made drugs in order to address a budget shortfall of its own, although it appears to be pushing ahead with those plans, despite U.S. threats to impose more tariffs. Can the U.S. really force countries to pay more for their drugs? This seems like a bit of a tilting-at-windmills thing. 

Ollstein: They’ve been scrambling for years to do anything other than directly regulate the companies that are here and are charging a lot, because that is more politically challenging. And so they’re twisting themselves into pretzels to do this bank shot via other countries, which have completely different healthcare systems that are much more centralized, much more heavily regulated by the government. And instead of thinking, Well, what can we imitate from some of these countries that have successfully kept prices low?, instead, Let’s try to make them raise them, so ours are less in comparison. So it’s just very interesting to see where the effort is going in this space. 

Rovner: Yeah, because we do, it’s the one affordability issue that the president has been all over since his first term. He wants to bring down drug prices. He finds it, as most people do, unfair that the U.S. is basically footing the bill for most pharmaceutical research, because other countries have price controls. But yeah, there does seem to be a lot of trying workarounds, every workaround they possibly can except imposing price controls of our own. 

Ollstein: Right, because there are things they could do. They could expand the number of drugs that Medicare negotiates, for instance, now that we have a sort of a toehold in that space established under the Biden administration. But like you said, instead we’re seeing some of these more elaborate workarounds, including importation attempts and all kinds of things. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, gives us plenty more to talk about. All right, that is this week’s news. Now 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. Alice, why don’t you go first this week? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so I have a piece on an important issue that has flown kind of under the radar. This is from Stateline by Kelcie Moseley-Morris, and it is called “.” And she documents that the agency is canceling 53 out of 67 grants worth a total of about $68 million to different organizations around the country â€” universities, community groups, city and state health departments, freestanding clinics that have been using this funding for programs to help increase access to contraception for teens, sex education. And these have been very, very successful over the past several decades. The teen pregnancy rates have gone way, way down, in large part thanks to improved sex education and contraception access. And now there is worry about backsliding from experts who spoke for this piece. And it’s worth knowing that the Trump administration tried to do something pretty similar, during the first Trump administration, and there was a lawsuit, and it got successfully blocked, a successful lawsuit that blocked this attempt to defund these programs. So that very well could happen again. At least the lawsuit is very likely. The outcome is unknown. 

Rovner: Yeah, again, so much going on, it’s easier to miss some of these things. Lizzy. 

Lawrence: Yeah, so my extra credit is from The Wall Street Journal: “,” by Dave Michaels, Sadie Gurman, and Liz Essley Whyte. This piece really caught my eye because, similar to what we were talking about with pesticides, it’s another area where MAHA HHS is saying one thing and then the other areas of government are doing the complete opposite, where there has been this media blitz initiative, Operation Stork Speed, to improve the baby formula supply, make it safer, look at contaminants. Meanwhile, you have the DOJ [Department of Justice], and the Journal reported that prosecutors really thought they had a good case. They were investigating Abbott, an Abbott facility where potentially deadly bacteria was discovered and caused infant deaths, and so they wanted to criminally charge Abbott. But then, but there is this effort under the Trump administration to not pursue criminal cases against corporations. And so I just thought this was a really telling piece about the differing, conflicting policies and narratives coming out of the administration. 

Rovner: Yeah, it raised a lot of questions. Good story. Amanda. 

Seitz: My extra credit is “,” by Sharon Lerner and Anna Maria Barry-Jester in ProPublica. And this article looked at how the State Department would not release billions of dollars in monetary aid to African countries for lifesaving treatment to address HIV, malaria, tuberculosis, until the countries agreed to share the personal health data of their citizens with the U.S. So, in Uganda, for example, they got a contract, the reporters got a contract that says the U.S. will get, quote, “direct, real-time access to nine of the nation’s health data systems for seven years.” And the privacy and health experts consulted in the story raised concerns about how exposed this could leave a lot of the citizens that are inadvertently sharing their data with the U.S. I thought this was a really interesting article because the Trump administration, we’ve been reporting on how the Trump administration has been very interested in obtaining wide swaths of personal health data of U.S. citizens. But this shows that their interest apparently goes very global, and it raises a lot of questions about why the U.S. is so interested in this data and what exactly they’re doing with it. 

Rovner: Yeah, it does. Wow. All right. Well, before I do my extra credit, an update on my  about Tennessee effectively cutting off a program that provides medical aid to undocumented families with children with disabilities. Last Friday, a federal judge ordered the state Department of Health not to share with federal immigration authorities the names and addresses of the families of the 400 children in the program, at least for now. We’ll keep following this story, though. 

OK, my extra credit this week is a wonky but really important story from Modern Healthcare called “.” It’s by Michael McAuliff, and it answers a question I’ve been asking for years about the acquisition of doctors’ practices by private equity and other firms, which is: What happened to all those state “corporate practice of medicine” laws? Just about every state bans what’s known as the corporate practice of medicine, which basically says that medical decisions must be made by licensed medical professionals, not by laypeople with profit as their main motive. Well, it appears that states are beefing up some of those old laws, and California has now penalized the first company under its new statute. So, we’ll see if other states follow suit. We will also watch that space. 

OK, that’s 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 still find me on X, , and on Bluesky, . Where are you guys hanging about these days? Alice. 

Ollstein: On Bluesky, , and on X, . 

Rovner: Lizzy. 

Lawrence: On Bluesky, , and on X, . 

Rovner: Amanda. 

Seitz: And I’m on X, . 

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

[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, June 25, 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 videoconference by Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Hello. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hey, everybody. 

Rovner: And my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health news colleague Rachana Pradhan. 

Rachana Pradhan: Hey, Julie. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but way too much news, so let’s see how much we can squeeze in. We’re going to start this week at the Department of Health and Human Services, where we have a pair of stories about grant funding passed by Congress and signed into law by President [Donald] Trump still not getting where it’s supposed to go. , our podcast pal Paige Winfield Cunningham reports that states and health organizations are waiting for nearly half a billion dollars for a variety of programs, including suicide hotlines and opioid addiction treatment centers, because of a convoluted clearance process that involves artificial intelligence and political appointee sign-offs to, quote, “ensure alignment with Agency priorities.” Quoting from Paige’s story: “One former career staffer at the CDC who served under four administrations said fewer than five or six grant notices in a year would typically get reviewed at the HHS level. Now it’s all of them.” , except this one is about delays in grant funding from the National Institutes of Health, where with just three months left in the fiscal year, 90% of the $37 million in grant funding from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation [Research] has yet to be released. I know I sound like a broken record, but that’s not how any of this is supposed to work, right? 

Goldman: Right. 

Pradhan: No, I think this is, more or less, some version of this has been going on since January, February of 2025, but I think now it’s being more institutionalized in federal policy. That’s what they’re attempting to do. Whereas in the first few months of the current Trump administration, it was instituted at â€” “haphazard” probably doesn’t really do it justice â€” but it was sort of this very chaotic process of instituting these new layers of political appointee review on what federal money was funding, ultimately, right? And whether political appointees decided that it was something that they thought the federal government should be doing. 

Rovner: At the beginning, they just froze everything. 

Pradhan: Right. 

Kenen: They cut everything. 

Pradhan: And then they— 

Rovner: Then they cut everything 

Pradhan: â€”started cutting things. Right. Things like which we’ve all talked about and done plenty of reporting on, right? Things that aren’t supported by political appointees, regardless of their scientific merit, right? And so now this has sort of taken on an even broader evolution, so that it is formal federal government policy regulation that political appointees can review every dollar that goes out for anything, almost, right? All grantmaking, which is just an extraordinary sum of money. 

Goldman: Yeah. 

Rovner: And Congress, remember Congress, which owns this spending power, said in last year’s appropriations, You will spend this money the way we are telling you to. And the president signed those bills, promising to do that, and now is not. Maya, you wanted to say something. 

Goldman: I was just going to say, I think there was so much focus â€” like Rachana said, when in the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] era â€” on federal funding in healthcare and getting trapped in this purgatory space, and I think there’s maybe a misconception that that has kind of stopped. But it’s still, like you said, it’s becoming institutionalized. It’s the opposite of stopped. And like you said, Congress, this was not Congress’ intention. So it’ll be very interesting to see what happens, especially as these OMB [Office of Management and Budget], this OMB guidance for— 

Rovner: Which we’ll get to in a second. But before we get there, this is not just happening at HHS. It’s happening in other parts of the Trump administration. Former KFF Health Newser Anna Maria Barry-Jester  that over at the State Department, the administration is defying congressional orders to continue to spend money on food, medicine, and other humanitarian foreign aid that used to go out under the auspices of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development], which the administration dissolved last year without congressional permission. As at HHS, State Department officials are not only not spending the money as Congress directed, but when members of Congress have asked, officials have simply not responded to their request. Not surprisingly, for those who have been paying attention, a lot of this circles back to Russell Vought at the Office of Management and Budget, who has said many times he believes that the president, rather than Congress, should exercise the majority of federal spending power, regardless of what the Constitution said. Is there a point where Congress, which is increasingly unhappy with the president over a lot of things right now, including a lot of Republicans, does take its spending power back? 

Kenen: But they can’t cut the check. Congress has made its displeasure on the spending, they voiced it before. Congress is getting a little friskier right now, but they yielded a lot of their power to the executive branch, and there’s a lot more tension going on right now on other things. They can yell and scream and pass bills, but if the executive branch of OMB, which has explicitly basically said: Congress, you give advice. You don’t decide. Even though that’s pretty much what they’ve said since 2025. So Congress can’t run over to the OMB and get into the federal treasury and take out a bunch of cash and go give it to some rural hospital somewhere, or NIH, or some scientists. They can pass the law, but they can’t â€” it’ll probably, this too, will end up with the Supreme Court at some point. But they’ve been reluctant to, certain battles they have, everybody’s sort of constitutional crises, they’ve tried to avoid to date, although not entirely. 

Pradhan: Well, like Joanne said: What can they really do? I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know. What beyond sort of kicking and screaming can they do? 

Kenen: Well, they can, I think they could probably take it to court on a separation of powers or constitutional powers, but I think that that’s the ultimate constitutional crisis that people have been afraid to hit that button. 

Rovner: There was a Supreme Court decision in the Nixon administration that said the administration can’t impound money appropriated by Congress, and that’s what Russell Vought would like to have go back to the Supreme Court, because he thinks this Supreme Court might overturn it, but they haven’t yet. I guess everybody’s afraid to kind of call the bluff. 

Kenen: Because it gets us into an even messier territory than we are already in, and we are in a very messy territory. 

Rovner: We are definitely in a very messy territory. Algae filled. 

Kenen: Algae-filled, yes. 

Rovner: We’ll get to that. Moving on, as Maya already hinted, there are these proposed new rules from the aforementioned Office of Management and Budget that would give political appointees even more power over how federal grant funding is distributed. It turns out that buried in that proposal is language that would effectively disqualify from funding most research into diversity, equity, and inclusion, what this administration defines as, quote, “woke.” I would add, this comes as the journal Science reports that  of scientists who are women or from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups found that those who participated in a special undergraduate program sponsored by the National Institutes of Health were twice as likely to earn their PhD than peers who didn’t participate in those programs. In other words, at least in this case, DEI works if your goal is to achieve more representation in science. But I guess that’s no longer the goal, right? 

Goldman: I think there’s also so many research questions that have real impact on people’s health that just must by nature incorporate words that would be flagged as DEI, and so we could miss out on real scientific breakthroughs if this goes through. 

Rovner: Yeah, they’ve apparently got these AI programs that are just grabbing off words like “gender” or things that might in scientific contexts have nothing to do with DEI. 

Pradhan: And I think one of the things about DEI, too, that probably gets lost in the current era is that it definitely has, of course, a racial and ethnic component, but also it has a big gender component. In science and across fields, DEI programs have benefited women, wholesale. So I think, and if that’s the goal, to undo these things, it won’t necessarily just have consequences for racial and ethnic minorities but women scientists in other fields also. 

Rovner: One of the big stories I covered in the early ’90s was the fact that women weren’t allowed to participate in most clinical trials, because scientists were afraid that they would, the fact that: Oh my God. They have hormones. They would mess up the results. And as a result, so many medical breakthroughs, we had no idea if they worked on women or not, because women were never tested. That only changed when women members of Congress insisted that the NIH start including women in their clinical trials. And again, a lot of these programs to bring more women into science have helped. There have been blind spots about gender, so it really has been, if not for quote-unquote “affirmative action” for women, there would be an awful lot of stuff that we simply would not know about women’s health. I only add that up as: These things in the 1990s were really bipartisan.  

So Wednesday was the fourth anniversary of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision that overturned the five-decade-old right to abortion under Roe v. Wade. And in a twist I don’t think any of us could have predicted, even though nearly half the states have banned or severely restricted abortion during that time, there were nearly twice as many abortions in 2025 as in 2021, the last full year before Roe was overturned. Rachana, how did this happen and how much does it have to do with mail order abortion drugs? 

Pradhan: Quite a lot. Yes, I don’t think this is something that anti-abortion groups at all expected or wanted to see. Certainly not what they wanted to see. After Roe v. Wade was overturned, pills being sent via telemedicine or telehealth is a big part of this. Even women in states that have enacted almost total bans on abortion are still able to get pills in the mail, and that is responsible for this, in large part. 

Rovner: And of course, anti-abortion groups are furious that the Trump administration’s FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has not rolled back the policy yet that the Biden administration put in during covid allowing the mailing of these pills. Now they’re agitating for acting attorney general Todd Blanche to drop the government’s defense of a case that was filed by Louisiana challenging that mail delivery of mifepristone. But even if that were to happen, medication abortions can continue just by using the second pill in the two-pill combination that’s used for abortion, which is misoprostol. And states can’t really ban misoprostol, because it’s used for so many other things, right? 

Pradhan: Right, they would be â€” I don’t know. Never say “never,” I guess. But it would be, it’s hard to see a path for that. Yeah, so our colleague Kate Wells, who’s based in Michigan, wrote this great story this week stating this exact thing, right? Because even though the research shows that the combination of two drugs for medication abortion, so mifepristone and misoprostol, taken together is the most effective, but that doesn’t mean the misoprostol alone does not work. And so it does work â€” it’s just not as effective. And there might be some greater potential for side effects â€” right? â€” if you only take the latter medication. So yeah, it’s not, so it’s not so easy â€” right? â€” to cut off access. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, let’s talk about the politics of this. Democrats who had been hoping to ride support for abortion rights to electoral ascendance may either be over- or underconfident. That’s according to  by our podcast panelist Alice Ollstein of Politico. Since Dobbs was overturned, voters, even in some pretty red states â€” I’m looking at you, Missouri â€” have approved ballot initiatives to ensure abortion rights in those states. But that hasn’t translated into votes for Democrats in many of those states. Voters approved the abortion rights referendums and voted back in Republicans who are anti-abortion. What’s up with this? 

Goldman: I think one interesting point that Alice made in that article is that a lot of voters think, OK, I voted for abortion rights, so now I can vote for other candidates based on other issues. Which is a super interesting trend to watch, especially to see if that trickles into other policy areas, too. 

Rovner: Yeah, I had not thought about that until I read Alice’s piece, and it’s like, yeah, that makes good sense. In the past, I think anti-abortion voters have very much been single-issue voters, but abortion rights voters have not. They want abortion rights, but they also want other things, and I think a lot of them in some of these states think, Well, we’re protecting abortion rights here in our state, so it’s OK to vote for this anti-abortion politician, even though they didn’t think all the way through that that anti-abortion politician in a federal office might vote for a federal ban that would override what you just voted for in your state. Joanne, you wanted to say something. 

Kenen: I think a lot of people don’t connect dots or don’t think things through. We know that in these very, very, very red, some of the most conservative states in the country, have voted big for Medicaid expansion when it became a ballot initiative, and then they went ahead and voted the same people who had fought it for years back into the governor’s mansion and back into the legislature. So I think, whether people don’t connect dots or that all of us can hold contradictory, more than â€” all human beings have some contradictory thoughts and impulses. I can’t explain exactly why this is happening . But it’s not only abortion. It’s particularly acute. Americans are for more gun control than our lawmakers, or gun regulation, than our lawmakers enact, and yet they keep voting in people who limit gun ownership or gun rights more stringently than the public in polls says they want. So this is one of several hot-button political issues â€” abortion and gun control, arguably the most domestically hot-button there are â€” that there is this inconsistency, and I don’t know that anyone’s really successfully explained it. It’s not just low information. It’s more than that. It’s, Yes, I want this, but I also want that. 

Rovner: Right. It’s holding two thoughts at the same time. You’re right. It’s a human thing. 

Pradhan: Well, and Julie, you mentioned this, right? Which is that a single-issue voting on abortion on the left is not â€” yeah. And Alice says this in the lead of her story â€” right? â€” which is the main issues of the day right now are affordability concerns across gas, food, housing. That does seem to still be the driving concern, and understandably so, right? Everything is more expensive, much more expensive than it was two years ago. So people are hurting, and so I don’t know that abortion rights would surpass, or people who are more likely to support an abortion rights ballot initiative are ones that are also not going to be inclined to vote for Republicans on the ballot during the midterm elections, because they’re not happy with some of those other, broader affordability issues. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think affordability is clearly going to be the issue of the moment, probably still when we get to the midterms. But who knows. We’ve got a whole summer to get through. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We’ll be right back. 

Moving on to vaccine policy, you might remember back in April when we talked about a study by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found last year’s covid vaccine reduced hospital visits and hospitalizations by more than half. It was supposed to appear in the CDC’s journal, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, but it was spiked by NIH director and acting CDC director Jay Bhattacharya, who said the study had methodological issues. Well, apparently that wasn’t a problem for the peer reviewers at the Journal of the American Medical Association, because the study is in this week’s . But even though it’s out there now, how is the public to have any idea who to trust when it comes to science policy? We’re now here, we have peer-reviewed journals that are publishing one thing and the government saying, No, this is not good enough. Did the doubters win simply by sowing doubt? 

Goldman: It’s a great question, and I think that’s a very interesting dynamic with this administration, is that the health officials in this administration have rose to prominence on a platform of bringing trust back into federal health policy. And I think for many people you could argue that there is less trust than there was at the beginning of the administration. And certainly not for everybody, but it’s just there are a lot of wires being crossed in different directions, and it’s hard to know where to go. 

Pradhan: I think one of the things I think about when it comes to trust in the government, like Maya said, right? We have, OK, so there are definitely certain voters that now do not trust the CDC and the government nearly as much, if it all, because of who is in charge. So distrust has arisen among those people. But when I talk to people who are supporters of the “medical freedom” movement and who are very skeptical of vaccines for themselves, for their children, I’ve asked them sometimes, Look, you’re seeing these changes, even going back to last year. This year, the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, they made a bunch of changes to the U.S.’ vaccine schedule. And I asked, I remember one time I did an interview and I said, “Well, do you trust the CDC now?” And it’s not a slam dunk. People who are so distrustful of institutions and government agencies and even the medical system or our healthcare system, it’s not like they’re like, “Oh, yes, please, like everything the government says now, you know, I’m just going to take it at face value and just believe it.” It’s almost like it’s like a misunderstanding. I kind of wonder this for the people who are in charge, like leaving government now. It’s like: Do you understand this? Because they’re not just automatically going to take what you say. It’s sort of antithetical to years of thinking, potentially, that they’ve had, right? So— 

Goldman: That’s such a good point. 

Pradhan: I don’t know that now, all of a sudden, are they going to become just a mouthpiece for what RFK Jr. [HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] and his political appointees are saying. I don’t think so. 

Rovner: I think they’re just making everybody mistrust everything. Joanne, you wanted to add something. 

Kenen: I think, I do a lot of work on trust in healthcare, and I’ve been all over the country the last couple of months since our book came out, talking about it and being on panels. And it’s really, I mean, it’s a cliche to say distrust in healthcare or the health system or public health is an existential crisis. It’s a cliche we’ve heard all the time. But just because it’s a cliche doesn’t mean it’s not a crisis. The divisions in our country spill over from the politics into things that determine whether or not we and our families and our friends and our kids are healthy or not healthy, and I think this sort of whiplash of deep distrust of the other side is probably going to continue for some years as political officeholders and appointees change. But this, the CDC, I’m not â€” the last poll I saw, I’m not sure if it’s a record low of trust, but it’s definitely plummeted. But it’s the Democrats who used to trust the CDC, now don’t. Now, maybe that’ll rise again when the new CDC director, she’s confirmed, which is likely. Maybe she’ll be able to rebuild, and maybe things will get a little bit better. But right now, there’s so â€” a combination of deep distrust and a whole lot of mixed messaging. It can be very confusing to understand medical advice, and it can be very hard to access our medical system. So it’s just this really toxic brew of risk factors mixed in with the distrust. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, we had a real-world example of distrust and re-trust in public health this week. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has quietly reinstated requirements for new military recruits to be vaccinated against the flu after a flu outbreak at Lackland Air Force Base sickened more than 200 recruits, with four people hospitalized. Hegseth had removed the mandate, which had been in effect since the end of World War II, with much fanfare back in April. Didn’t take long to kind of see why that mandate made sense, right? 

Kenen: Yes, because this is actually a force readiness issue. It’s not just, Oh, people got sick. Most young, healthy people, and most people in military service â€” most, not all â€” are young and healthy. These were recruits. These were young. Most of them are going to be OK. But first of all, not all of them are going to necessarily be OK. There’s one possible death. The last I heard that somebody had died, but it wasn’t necessarily from flu, and that was under investigation. And one of you may have more recent information than what I read a few days ago. So, we have four people hospitalized. We do not have a confirmed death. But it was 160 people, which is a whole lot of people. And if it happened here, it’s a big red flag, because your soldiers are supposed to be ready to fight, not in the bed with the flu. So, it happened in one particular location, but it really should have showed this national security interest. You really don’t want your fighting force with a 104 fever and feeling crappy. 

Rovner: I would say it’s also completely predictable that when you bring— 

Kenen: Yes. 

Rovner: â€”a whole bunch of people in and have them sleep together in close quarters and stress them physically and mentally, which is what basic training does, and then somebody gets sick, it’s going to spread. 

Kenen: It’s also one, that’s really one of the big causes of the spread of the 2018-2019 â€” I mean, excuse me, the 1918-1919 so-called Spanish flu, which it wasn’t. It was actually, a lot of it was spread â€” it was just as we were getting into World War I. There was a lot of young recruits. A lot of it’s â€” there’s argument about exactly what happened where, but certainly a base in Kansas was one of the big spreaders of that, of what became a global pandemic. 

Rovner: In other words, we’ve seen this TV program before. 

Kenen: We didn’t have —right. We didn’t have vaccines yet. It wasn’t— 

Rovner: We didn’t have TV either, but, yeah. 

Kenen: We had imagination, right? 

Rovner: Point taken. 

Kenen: We had carrier pigeons. 

Rovner: All right. 

Pradhan: I feel like anyone with school-age children or kids who are in college could’ve. It’s like, Oh, who could have predicted?&²Ô²ú²õ±è;³Û´Ç³Ü&²Ô²ú²õ±è;³ó²¹±¹±ð&²Ô²ú²õ±è;—&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Rovner: Yeah, yeah. 

Pradhan: â€”massive numbers— 

Rovner: Any parent. 

Pradhan: â€”of people in a small place, and Oh, look, a flu outbreak. It’s as inevitable as things can be these days, right? I think that this probably is pretty high up there, right? 

Rovner: Yeah. All right. Well, so, moving on. In things I definitely did not have on my bingo card for 2026, Indiana is imposing price controls on hospitals. Under the new law, as reported by my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleagues Phil Galewitz and Samantha Liss, hospitals in the state will have to charge employer health insurance plans no more than a multiple of what they pay Medicare, or else run the risk of losing their tax-exempt status. Now, Vermont also does this, but Indiana is politically very much not like Vermont. Is this the leading edge of a Republican backlash to high healthcare prices? 

Kenen: Maybe. We just don’t know. You know — Indiana’s Indiana. But we have, and we’ve talked about it— 

Rovner: Indiana’s really red, though, and they have a really red governor who used to be a really red senator. 

Kenen: Yes, but we don’t know what’s going to spread, right? But what we’ve talked in the podcast frequently over the last couple of months, hospitals are in the spotlight about pricing in a way that they haven’t. We’ve been really focused on drug prices. And we’ve sort of, we have a different relationship with hospitals. And we also all don’t get hit by hospitals every year, where most of us do buy drugs, so â€” but hospitals are really getting a lot of attention, bipartisan, I mean, in red and blue states, in Congress. There have been hearings. It’s not like the tobacco executive hearings, but it is sort of a lot more skeptical of why do hospitals, are they â€” to use the buzzword of the day â€” why are they so unaffordable? Why are your bills so inexplicable? Why can’t you understand? So, the whole system is based on cost shift, and one reason hospitals have been pressed to charge a lot more than Medicare is they say that Medicare payments don’t cover their costs, and they â€” it’s the great big, the shell game of American healthcare. But I don’t know that we know what the next step is state-wise. But you know what? It may be a domino. We don’t know yet. 

Rovner: I know I’m interested watching the backlash of Republicans against high healthcare spending. They’re coming out against managed care. They’re coming out against hospital prices. I will point out that for my entire career, the person who’s been loudest about nonprofit hospitals overcharging has been [Sen.] Chuck Grassley. 

Kenen: Right. 

Rovner: Very Republican senator from Iowa. 

Kenen: It’s not just that they — right. He’s been consistent on this for decades, and he’s said that it’s not just that they charge a lot. It’s that: What are they really doing to deserve that? They’re supposed to get a tax break in exchange for community benefits. But show me the benefit. How are you defining and measuring? And is it truly a benefit to the community, as a layperson would think of, Oh, benefiting the community? Or is it some little niche thing that they say is their public service. 

Pradhan: And one thing about Indiana in particular, I think Samantha Liss, who’s one of the reporters on the story you mentioned. Right, Julie? Actually two years ago, what’s really interesting is she had written also about, I think, and this is sort of a case study, I think, somewhat â€” right? â€” in how consolidated your healthcare markets are. Right? I think that that’s a big driver as to whether a state or a governor or anyone wants to take action on these things. I remember she wrote about these two rival hospitals that were in Terre Haute, Indiana. They were seeking to merge, and then they pulled back their merger application because there were so much opposition, because it would have left â€” Terre Haute is like a city of maybe close to 60,000 people, and for that city and the surrounding area, they would have had only one hospital operator. So, and that was a big deal at the time. So I think Terre Haute, Indiana, is far from the only place where that is sort of a living reality, right? And that’ll be a big motivator, I think, sometimes, too. 

Rovner: But, yes, I will say that both Indiana and Vermont have a lot of these small, sort of midsize consolidated areas where hospitals can basically charge at will. Maya, did you want to say something? 

Goldman: Yeah, I was going to add, I think Indiana has been on the cutting edge of a lot of health policy, especially among red states. They’ve done a lot with price transparency and employer advocacy, and so it’s not surprising to see Indiana do this as much as it would be a different red state. I think it does really indicate to me that people in the state, state governments, and citizens are really frustrated that Congress isn’t acting fast enough for them. They’re, like Joanne said, there’s a lot of discussion happening in Congress around hospitals and needing to lower prices, but there’s not a lot of action happening. And people have power to do that at the state level, and they’re exercising it. So I think we will see more happen there. 

Rovner: Here’s another issue where states sort of have power. While we were talking about strange bedfellows, Colorado has become the second state, after Florida, to get FDA approval for a plan to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada. Except Florida hasn’t been able to get its program up and running, because it can’t find a Canadian wholesaler that’s willing to sell the drugs to them. What makes Colorado think that they’re going to have any better luck? And mightn’t both of these states just take a page from Indiana and think about their own price controls, if that’s what they want, rather than importing Canada’s price controls? 

Kenen: I can’t imagine if Colorado decided to do price controls that it wouldn’t be stuck in court. We’ve joked over the years that if you want your child to have full employment for life, become a healthcare lawyer? I think that if Colorado were to do that, which it really just suggested, it would not be immediately reality for consumers. There’s so much cost shifting in healthcare, because our system is just insane, that everybody can say, honestly, I’m not the only culprit. The whole system is too expensive with all this indirect shifts of costs and confusing charges, and it’s hard for experts to understand. 

Rovner: I feel like a lot of federal members of Congress have also sort of looked at these. Let’s import cheaper drugs from somewhere else.  

Kenen: Because it sounds good. 

Rovner: This has been going on since the ’90s. 

Kenen: Yeah. 

Rovner: And nobody’s been able to make it work. And Canada has said very clearly, it’s like: We can’t sell you all of our drugs or we won’t have enough drugs for the people here, which is who we buy drugs for. 

Kenen: But it sounds good. 

Rovner: It does sound good. 

Kenen: And that’s why it’s gone on for 30 years now, closer to 40. 

Rovner: Yeah it is 30 years now. 

Kenen: Yeah, and if you live in New England, you can go to Canada and get them, but there’s been sort of on-paper authorizations to do it for quite a â€” I don’t remember when the first one was, Julie. It was a long time ago. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, they’re â€” yes, they allowed the FDA to allow states. The first one that actually sort of in theory became legal was the Florida one. And again, that was a couple of years ago, and it’s not off the ground. All right. Well, finally this week, in a drug price adjacent story, props to our podcast pal Lizzy Lawrence at Stat for the  of the week. Lizzy revealed that drugmaker Eli Lilly granted compassionate use to an unnamed 79-year-old individual to use its still-investigational obesity drug retatrutide, which trials have so far shown to be even more potent than Lilly’s other blockbuster obesity drug, tirzepatide. Now, compassionate use is supposed to allow people with terminal conditions to get early access to promising drugs that are not yet approved. Apparently, this patient is not only obese but has obstructive sleep apnea and pulmonary hypertension. Yet both of those conditions, while very serious, are not considered terminal. So the obvious question here is: Who is this 79-year-old patient, and is he named Donald Trump? So far, nobody’s been able to find out, though the White House has been very adamant, at least after Lizzy’s story came out, that it is not the president. So, why is everybody so excited about this story? 

Kenen: Because it’s weird. 

Rovner: Fair. 

Kenen: Lizzie’s story is great, but it’s just a strange saga, right? And in her first story, she said someone who was 79 at the time, which was a couple of months ago, because President Trump just turned— 

Rovner: Turned 80. 

Kenen: Right. The idea that one person and only one person would get this drug. And we all remember he did get â€” and that was life-threatening. I’m not saying he shouldn’t have gotten it, but he did get it, a monoclonal antibody, when he was hospitalized with covid in his first term. And it may have saved his life. But that was a life-threatening situation. 

Rovner: Yes, that’s what compassionate use is supposed to be used for. 

Goldman: Right. And I think it obviously does matter who, if this person is President Trump. But I think Lizzy does a really good job in the story of explaining that, regardless of who this person is, this is not typically how this program is used, and so it should raise eyebrows that the administration and Eli Lilly are allowing this to happen, regardless of who the person that’s getting this is. 

Kenen: And it could be somebody who has a connection to Lilly. It could be anything, right? It’s a tantalizing question, but we don’t know. 

Pradhan: Yeah, and I do think it sort of begs the question. The White House, after the story published, only firmly said it was not the president. Probably would have been very helpful for them to have said that prior to the story publishing. Why they— 

Rovner: And they were asked. 

Pradhan: Of course, they were asked, right? They were asked, and they did not directly answer. I don’t pretend to know why that decision was made, but I think it probably would have been a good public service to definitively say whether it was the president or not before the story first ran, before it sort of caused this big hullabaloo on social media and elsewhere, right? 

Rovner: And perhaps predictably, Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire has now written a stern letter to the administration, demanding — and I believe also to Lily â€” demanding to know if not who this is, at least how this happened, because it is an unusual use of the compassionate use exception. 

Pradhan: Can I ask a question also? This is one thing that I was wondering when reading Lizzy’s story is, so clearly certain people in the NIH and the FDA are HIPAA-protected individuals. So if they were to release or leak identifying information about this patient, that’s not allowed. But not everyone is, surely. Do we really think â€” someone must have seen the details of who this person is. And they would not be subject to HIPAA [the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] if they were to cough up the name, right? 

Rovner: Well, I’m sure that people will continue to see, including those of us here at Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. All right, that is this week’s news. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognized 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. Joanne, your extra credit involves the second-buzziest story of the week, the saga of the green Reflecting Pool. Please tell us about it. 

Kenen: OK, one story that’s my extra credit, and one story I’m also going to, related story, that I’m going to just give a shout out to. Sarah Kaplan at The [Washington] Post wrote “.” And basically she talks about climate change and health, and that the reason that there’s this algae â€” and actually there’s many kinds of algae. I’m not an expert on all the kinds of algae. But there is one called cyanobacteria, which is highly toxic. It is present â€” my understanding is it’s among several kinds of algae in the Reflecting Pool. But it is becoming more dominant because of climate change. And that’s toxic. That’s not a good thing to have. What I didn’t know â€” I don’t want to go on too long â€” but it’s sort of fascinating that they fill the Reflecting Pool with water from the Tidal Basin, which is the surrounding, the water that, for the people who aren’t in Washington, is the water around the Jefferson Monument and the cherry trees and all that, which in turn comes from the Potomac River, which is polluted. And painting a reflecting pool and then pouring in polluted water might not have been the smartest thing to do. And also apparently the American flag blue is darker than the old gray and it retains more heat and makes the problem worse. So sort of the big public health message is that â€” here the big joke is Making Algae Great Again â€” but that there is saying something about the state of our planet and the state of our water, and that even things that we think of as harmless are not necessarily harmless. And then, just relatedly, for anyone who’s really interested in good reporting on this and great writing on this is the cultural critic of The Washington Post, Philip Kennicott, has been writing a lot about the changes to Washington, and  the Reflecting Pool and called, he said it looked like a kale smoothie. 

Pradhan: Oh. 

Rovner: Vivid. OK, Maya. 

Goldman: My extra credit this week is from Stat. It is an article by O. Rose Broderick called “.” And I think this is a potentially very consequential move from the Trump administration that isn’t getting enough coverage. The SparkNotes version is that the Supreme Court held in 1999 a decision known as Olmstead that said you can’t have unjustified institutional isolation of people with disabilities â€” that’s a form of discrimination. The Trump administration put out a memo sort of reinterpreting what unjustified institutional isolation means. This notably doesn’t change existing laws around integration requirements for people with disabilities, but it signals where the Trump administration’s head is at with regards to disability rights. And the article also notes that the motivation for this change isn’t really clear, especially since community care is usually cheaper than institutional care. But it does mention that one possible factor could be to give the government more flexibility to tackle homelessness, perhaps by forced institutionalization. So, certainly one to watch. 

Rovner: Yeah, definitely. Rachana. 

Pradhan: So my extra credit is a story [“Arrests of Immigrant Parents Create Mental Health Crisis for Children”] written by our [Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News] colleague Claudia Boyd-Barrett. It is just devastating. If I, so â€” grab a tissue box if you’re going to read it. She wrote about how, the consequences for children who have parents that are either detained by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] or deported out of the United States, and she has these incredible, really just heartbreaking stories of these children who have been separated from their parents and sort of the emotional toll that it is taking on them. So it’s, the way I think about it is it’s, during the first Trump administration there was a big thing about families being separated at the border, and it was the family separation crisis. But now it’s happening again, just not at the border necessarily. 

Rovner: Yeah. It is quite a story. Well, my story affects both immigration and disability. It’s from The Washington Post. It’s by Sylvia Foster-Frau, and it’s called “.” Now, this is a state program that’s separate from Medicaid, called Children’s Special Services, that helps low-income families with children with disabilities pay for critical things like wheelchairs and feeding tubes and ventilators. Until now, it has served families with no other way to get care, including those who are undocumented and therefore ineligible for Medicaid. But now, the 400 families on the program have been notified by the state that if they want to keep their benefits, their immigration status will be reported to federal authorities. The story profiles one family, asylum seekers from Honduras who have a 10-year-old with spina bifida and autism and whose care, including wheelchairs and catheters, has so far been paid for by the program. Now the mom says she’s going to have to drop out of the program rather than risk being deported, but she has no idea how she will pay for the care that her son needs. It is also pretty wrenching. 

OK, 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 still on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you guys these days? Joanne. 

Kenen: I am mostly on  and Bluesky, . 

Rovner: Maya. 

Goldman: I am also on  and still on X, . 

Rovner: Rachana. 

Pradhan: You can find me , , and , @rachanadpradhan. 

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