[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 I’m joined by some of the best and smartest reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, March 26, 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, everybody. 

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: And Lizzy Lawrence of Stat News. 

Lizzy Lawrence: Hello. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Katie Keith of Georgetown University about the state of the Affordable Care Act as it turns 16 â€” old enough to drive in most states. But first, this week’s news. 

So, it has been another busy week at the Department of Health and Human Services. Last week, a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the department’s vaccine policy, ruling it had violated federal administrative procedures regarding advisory committees. This week, a federal judge in Portland, Oregon, ruled the department also didn’t follow the required process to block federal reimbursement for transgender-related medical treatment. The case was brought by 21 Democratic-led states. Where does this leave the hot-button issue of care for transgender teens? Shefali, you’ve been following this. 

Luthra: I mean, I think it’s still really up in the air. A lot of this depends on how hospitals now respond â€” whether they feel confident in the court’s decision, having staying power enough to actually resume offering services. Because a lot of them stopped. And so that’s something we’re still waiting to actually see how this plays out in practice. Obviously, it’s very symbolic, very legally meaningful, but whether this will translate into changes in practical health care access, I think, is an open question still. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will definitely have to see how this one plays out â€” and, obviously, if and when the administration appeals it. Well, speaking of that vaccine ruling from last week â€” which, apparently, the administration has not yet appealed, but is going to â€” one of the most contentious members of that very contentious Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has resigned. Dr. Robert Malone, a physician and biochemist, said he didn’t want to be part of the “drama,” air quotes. But he caused a lot of the drama, didn’t he? 

Cohrs Zhang: He has been pretty outspoken, and I think he isn’t like a Washington person necessarily â€” isn’t somebody who’s used to, like, being on a public stage and having your social media posts appear in large publications. So I think it’s questionable, like, whether he had a position to resign from. I think his nomination was stayed, too. But I think it is â€¦ the back-and-forth, I think, there is a good point that this limbo can be frustrating for people when meetings are canceled at the last minute, and people have travel plans, and it does â€¦ just changes the calculus for kind of making it worth it to serve on one of these advisory committees. 

Rovner: And I’m not sure whether we mentioned it last week, but the judge’s ruling not only said that the people were incorrectly appointed to ACIP, but it also stayed any meetings of the advisory committee until there is further court action, until basically, the case is done or it’s overruled by a higher court. So â€¦ vaccine policy definitely is in limbo.  

Well, meanwhile, yesterday was the deadline for the administration to nominate someone to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since Susan Monarez was abruptly dismissed, let go, resigned, whatever, late last summer. Now that that deadline has passed, it means that acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, who had added that title to his day job as head of the National Institutes of Health, can no longer remain acting director of CDC. Apparently, though he’s going to sort of remain in charge, according to HHS spokespeople, with some authorities reverting to [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.]. What’s taking so long to find a CDC director?  

To quote D.C. cardiologist and frequent cable TV health policy commentator , “The problem here is that there’s no candidate who’s qualified, MAHA acceptable, and Senate confirmable. Those job requirements are mutually exclusive.” That feels kind of accurate to me. Is that actually the problem? Rachel, I see you smiling. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah. I think it is tough to find somebody who checks all of those boxes. And though it has been 210 days since the clock has started, I would just point out that there has been a significant leadership shake-up at HHS, like among the people who are kind of running this search, and they came in, you know, not that long ago. It’s only been, you know, a month and a half or so. So I think there certainly have been some new faces in the room who might have different opinions. But I think it isn’t a good look for them to miss this deadline when they have this much notice. But I think there’s also, like, legal experts that I’ve spoken with don’t think that there’s going to be a huge day-to-day impact on the operations of the CDC. It kind of reminds me of that office where there’s, like, an “assistant to the regional manager vibe” going on, where, like, Dr. Bhattacharya is now acting in the capacity of CDC director, even though he isn’t acting CDC director anymore. So, I think I don’t know that it’ll have a huge day-to-day impact, but it is kind of hanging over HHS at this point, as they are already struggling with the surgeon general nomination, to get that through the Senate. So it just creates this backlog of nominations. 

Rovner: I’ve assumed they’ve floated some names, let us say, one of which is Ernie Fletcher, the former governor of Kentucky, also a former member of the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, with some certainly medical chops, if not public health chops. I think the head of the health department in Mississippi. There was one other who I’ve forgotten, who it is among the names that have been floated â€¦ 

Cohrs Zhang: Joseph Marine. He’s a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins, who has â€” is kind of like in the kind of Vinay Prasad world of critics of the FDA and, like, CDC’s covid booster strategy. 

Rovner: And yet, apparently, none of them could pass, I guess, all three tests. Do we think it might still be one of them? Or do we think there are other names that are yet to come? 

Cohrs Zhang: Our understanding is that there are other candidates whose names have not become public, and I think there’s also a possibility they don’t choose any of these candidates and just drag it on for a while because, at this point, like, I don’t know what the rush is, now that the deadline is passed. 

Lawrence: Yeah, is there another deadline to miss? 

Cohrs Zhang: I don’t think so. 

Lawrence: I think this was the only one. 

Cohrs Zhang: This was the big one that they now have. It’s vacant, but it was vacant before as well. Like, I think, earlier in the administration, when Susan Monarez was nominated. 

Rovner: But she, well â€¦ that’s right, she was the “acting,” and then once she was nominated, she couldn’t be the acting anymore. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah. 

Rovner: So I guess it was vacant while she was being considered. 

Cohrs Zhang: It was. So it’s not an unprecedented situation, even in this administration. It’s just not a good look, I guess. And I think there is value in having a leader that can interface with the White House and with different leaders, and just having a direction for the agency, especially because it’s in Atlanta, it’s a little bit more removed from the everyday goings-on at HHS in general. So I think there’s definitely a desire for some stability over there. 

Rovner: And we have measles spreading in lots more states. I mean, every time I â€¦ open up my news feeds, it’s like, oh, now we have measles, you know, in Utah, I think, in Montana. Washtenaw County, Michigan, had its first measles case recently. So this is something that the CDC should be on top of, and yet there is no one on top of the CDC. Well, Rachel, you already alluded to this, but it is also apparently hard to find a surgeon general who’s both acceptable to MAHA and Senate confirmable, which is my way of saying that the Casey Means nomination still appears to lack the votes to move out of the Senate, Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. Do we have any latest update on that? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think the latest update, I mean, my colleagues at Bloomberg Government just kind of had an update this week that they’re still not to “yes” — like, there are some key senators that still haven’t announced their positions publicly. So I think a lot of the same things that we’ve been hearing â€¦ like Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and Bill Cassidy obviously have not stated their positions publicly on the nomination. Sen. Thom Tillis, who you know is kind of in a lame-duck scenario and doesn’t really have anything to lose, has, you know, said he’s not really made a decision. So I think they’re kind of in this weird limbo where they, like, don’t have the votes to advance her, but they also have not made a decision to pull the nomination at this time. So either, I think, they have to push harder on some of these senators, and I think senators see this as a leverage point that I don’t know that a lot of â€” that all of the complaints are about Dr. Means specifically, but anytime that there is frustration with the wider department, then this is an opportunity for senators to have their voice heard, to â€¦ potentially extract some concessions. And so there’s a question right now, are they going to change course again for this position, or are they going to, you know, sit down at the bargaining table and really cut some deals to advance her nomination? I just don’t think we know the answer to that yet. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s worth reminding that, frequently, nominations get held up for reasons that are totally disconnected from the person involved. We went â€” I should go back and look this up â€” we went, like, four years in two different administrations without a confirmed head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services because members of Congress were angry about other things, not because of any of the people who had actually been nominated to fill that position. But in this case, it does seem to be, I think, both Casey Means and, you know, her connection to MAHA, and the fact that among those who haven’t declared their positions yet, it’s the chairman of the committee, Bill Cassidy, who’s in this very tight primary to keep his seat. So we will keep on that one.  

Also, meanwhile, HHS continues to push its Make America Healthy Again priority. Secretary Kennedy hinted on the Joe Rogan podcast last month that the FDA will soon take unspecified action to make customized peptides easier to obtain from compounding pharmacies. These mini-proteins are part of a biohacking trend that many MAHA adherents say can benefit health, despite their not having been shown to be safe and effective in the normal FDA approval process. The FDA has also formally pulled a proposed rule that would have banned teens from using tanning beds. We know that the secretary is a fan of tanning salons, even though that has been shown to cause potential health problems, like skin cancer. Lizzy, is Kennedy just going to push as much MAHA as he can until the courts or the White House stops him? 

Lawrence: I guess so. I mean, we do have this new structure at HHS now that’s trying to â€” clearly â€¦ there are warring factions with the MAHA agenda and the White House really trying to focus more on affordability and less on â€¦ vaccine scrutiny and the medical freedom movement that is really popular among Kennedy’s supporters. â€¦ I’m very curious about what’s going to happen with peptides, because it’s a sign of Kennedy’s regulatory philosophy, where there’s some products that are good and some that are bad. It’s very atypical, of course, for â€¦ 

Rovner: And that he gets to decide rather than the scientists, because he doesn’t trust the scientists. 

Lawrence: Right. Right. But there has been, I mean, the FDA has kind of been pretty severe on GLP-1 compounders Hims & Hers, so it’ll be interesting to see, you know, how much Kennedy is able to exert his will here, and how much FDA regulators will be able to push back and make their voices heard. 

Rovner: My favorite piece of FDA trivia this week is that FDA is posting the jobs that are about to be vacant at the vaccine center, and one of the things that it actually says in the job description is that you don’t have to be immunized. I don’t know if that’s a signal or what. 

Lawrence: Yeah, I think it said no telework, which Vinay Prasad famously was teleworking from San Francisco. So, yeah, I don’t know. But this was, I think it was for his deputy, although I’m sure, I mean, they do need a CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] director as well. 

Rovner: Yeah, there’s a lot of openings right now at HHS. All right, we’re gonna take a quick break. We will be right back. 

So Monday was the 16th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act, which we will hear more about in my interview with Katie Keith. But I wanted to highlight a story by my KFF Health News colleague Sam Whitehead about older Americans nearing Medicare eligibility putting off preventive and other care until they qualify for federal coverage that will let them afford it. For those who listened to my interview last week with Drew Altman, this hearkens back to one of the big problems with our health system. There are so many quote-unquote “savings” that are actually just cost-shifting, and often that cost-shifting raises costs overall. In this case, because those older people can no longer afford their insurance or their deductibles, they put off care until it becomes more expensive to treat. At that point, because they’re on Medicare, the federal taxpayer will foot a bill that’s even bigger than the bill that would have been paid by the insurance company. So the savings taxpayers gained by Congress cutting back the Affordable Care Act subsidies are lost on the Medicare end. Is this cost-shifting the inevitable outcome of addressing everything in our health care system except the actual prices of medical care? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think it’s just another example of how people’s behavior responds to these weird incentives. And I think we’re seeing this problem, certainly among early retirees, exacerbated by the expiration of the Affordable Care Act subsidies that we’ve talked about very often on this podcast, because it affects these higher earners, and it can dramatically increase costs for coverage. And I think people just hope that they can hold on. But again, these statutory deadlines that lawmakers make up sometimes, not with a lot of forethought or rational reasoning, they have consequences. And obviously, the Medicare program continues to pay beyond age 65 as well. And I think it’s just another symptom of what the administration talks about when they talk about emphasizing, you know, preventative care and addressing chronic conditions â€” like, that is a real problem. And, yeah, I think we’re going to see these problems in this population continue to get worse as more people forgo care, as it becomes more expensive on the individual markets. 

Luthra: I think you also make a good point, though, Julie, because the increase in costs and cost sharing is not limited to people with marketplace plans, right? Also, people with employer-sponsored health care are seeing their out-of-pocket costs go up. Employers are seeing what they pay for insurance go up as well. And there absolutely is something to be said about it’s been 16 years since the Affordable Care Act passed, we haven’t really had meaningful intervention on the key source of health care prices, right? Hospitals, providers, physicians. And it does seem, just thinking about where the public is and the politics are, that there is possibly appetite around this. You see a lot of talk about affordability, but a lot of this feels, at least as an observer, very focused on insurance, which makes sense. Insurance is a very easy villain to cast. But I think you’ve raised a really good point: that addressing these really potent burdens on individuals and eventually on the public just requires something more systemic and more serious if we actually want to yield better outcomes. 

Rovner: Yeah, there’s just, there’s so much passing the hat that, you know, I don’t want to do this, so you have to do this. You know, inevitably, people need health care. Somebody has to pay for it. And I think that’s sort of the bottom line that nobody really seems to want to address. 

Well, the other theme of 2026 that I feel like I keep repeating is what funding cutbacks and other changes are doing to the future of the nation’s biomedical and medical workforces. Last week was Match Day. That’s when graduating medical school seniors find out if and where they will do their residency training. One big headline from this year’s match is that the percentage of non-U.S. citizen graduates of foreign medical schools matching to a U.S. residency position fell to a five-year low of 56.4%. That compares to a 93.5% matching rate for U.S. citizen graduates of U.S. medical schools. Why does that matter? Well, a quarter of the U.S. physician workforce are immigrants, and they are disproportionately represented, both in lower-paid primary care specialties, particularly in rural areas, both of which U.S. doctors tend to find less desirable. This would seem to be the result of a combination of new fees for visas for foreign professionals that we’ve talked about, a general reduction in visa approvals, and some people likely not wanting to even come to the U.S. to practice. But that rural health fund that Republicans say will revitalize rural health care doesn’t seem like it’s really going to work without an adequate number of doctors and nurses, I would humbly suggest. 

Lawrence: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it’s patients that suffer, right? I mean, you need the people doing the work. And so I think that the impacts will start being felt sooner rather than later. That is something that hopefully people will start to feel the pain from. 

Rovner: I feel like when people think about the immigrant workforce, they think about lower-skilled, lower-paid jobs that immigrants do, and they don’t think about the fact that some of the most highly skilled, highly paid jobs that we have, like being doctors, are actually filled by immigrants, and that if we cut that back, we’re just going to exacerbate shortages that we already know we have. 

Luthra: And training doctors takes, famously, a very long time. And so if you are disincentivizing people from coming here to practice, cutting off this key source of supply, it’s not as if you can immediately go out and say, Here, let’s find some new people and make them doctors. It will take years to make that tenable, make that attractive, and make that a reality. And it just seems, to Lizzy’s point, that even in the scenario where that was possible â€” which I would be somewhat doubtful; medicine is a hard and difficult career; it’s not like you can make someone want to do that overnight â€” patients will absolutely see the consequences. I don’t know if it’s enough to change how people think about immigration policy and ways in which we recruit and engage with immigrant workers, but it’s absolutely something that should be part of our discussion. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I think it’s been left out. Well, meanwhile, over at the National Institutes of Health, a , Lizzy, found that more than a quarter have laid off laboratory workers. More than 2 in 5 have canceled research, and two-thirds have counseled students to consider careers outside of academic research. A separate study published this week found that women and early-career scientists have been disproportionately affected by the NIH cuts, even though most of the money goes to men and to later-career scientists. As I keep saying, this isn’t just about the future of science. Biomedical research is a huge piece of the U.S. economy. Earlier this month, the group United for Medical Research , finding that every dollar invested produced $2.57 for the economy. Concerned members of Congress from both parties last week at an appropriations hearing got NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya to again promise to push all the money that they appropriated out the door. But it’s not clear whether it’s going to continue to compromise the future workforce. I feel like, you know, we talk about all these missing people and nomination stuff, but we’re not really talking a lot about what’s going on at the National Institutes of Health, which is a, you know, almost $50 billion-a-year enterprise. 

Lawrence: Right. In some labs, the damage has already been done. You know, even if Dr. Bhattacharya [follows through], try spending all the money that has been appropriated. There are young researchers that have been shut out and people that have had to choose alternative career paths. And I think this is one of those things that’s difficult politically or, you know, in the public consciousness, because it is hard to see the immediate impacts it’s measured. And I think my colleague Jonathan wrote [that] breakthroughs are not discovered things, you know. So it’s hard to know what is being missed. But the immediate impact of the workforce and not missing this whole generation of scientists that has decided to go to another country or go to do something else, those impacts will be felt for years to come. 

Rovner: Yeah, this is another one where you can’t just turn the spigot back on and have it immediately refill.  

Finally, this week, there is always reproductive health news. This week, we got the Alan Guttmacher Institute’s  for the year 2025, which both sides of the debate consider the most accurate, and it found that for the second year in a row, the number of abortions in the U.S. remained relatively stable, despite the fact that it’s outlawed or seriously restricted in nearly half the states. Of course, that’s because of the use of telehealth, which abortion opponents are furiously trying to get stopped, either by the FDA itself or by Congress. Last week, anti-abortion Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri introduced legislation that would basically rescind approval for the abortion pill mifepristone. But that legislation is apparently giving some Republicans in the Senate heartburn, as they really don’t want to engage this issue before the midterms. And, apparently, the Trump administration doesn’t either, given what we know about the FDA saying that they’re still studying this. On the other hand, Republicans can’t afford to lose the backing of the anti-abortion activists either. They put lots of time, effort, and money into turning out votes, particularly in times like midterms. How big a controversy is this becoming, Shefali? 

Luthra: This is a huge controversy, and it’s so interesting to watch this play out. When I saw Sen. Hawley’s bill, I mean, that stood out to me as positioning for 2028. He clearly wants to be a favorite among the anti-abortion movement heading into a future presidential primary. But at the same time, this is teasing out really potent and powerful dynamics among the anti-abortion movement and Republican lawmakers, exactly what you said. Republican lawmakers know this is not popular. They do not want to talk about abortion, an issue at which they are at a huge disadvantage with the public. Susan B Anthony List and other such organizations are trying to make the argument that if they are taken for granted, as they feel as if they are, that will result in an enthusiasm gap. Right? People will not turn out. They will not go door-knocking, they won’t deploy their tremendous resources to get victories in a lot of these contested, particularly Senate and House, races. And obviously, the president cares a lot about the midterms. He’s very concerned about what happens when Democrats take control of Congress. But I think what Republicans are wagering, and it’s a fair thought, is that where would anti-abortion activists go? Are they going to go to Democrats, who largely support abortion rights? And a lot of them seem confident that they would rather risk some people staying home and, overall, not alienating a very large sector of the American public that does not support restrictions on abortion nationwide, especially those that many are concerned are not in keeping with the actual science. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think the White House, as you said, would like to make this not front and center, let’s put it that way, for the midterms. But yeah, and just to be clear, I mean, Sen. Hawley introduced this bill. It can’t pass. There’s no way it gets 60 votes in the Senate. I’d be surprised if it could get 50 votes in the Senate. So he’s obviously doing this just to turn up the heat on his colleagues, many of whom are not very happy about that. 

Luthra: And anti-abortion activists are already thinking about 2028. They are, in fact, talking to people like Sen. Hawley, like the vice president, like Marco Rubio, trying to figure out who will actually be their champion in a post-Trump landscape. And so far, what I’m hearing, is that they are very optimistic that anyone else could be better for them than the president is because they are just so dissatisfied with how little they’ve gotten. 

Rovner: Although they did get the overturn of Roe v. Wade. 

Luthra: That’s true. 

Rovner: But you know, it goes back to sort of my original thought for this week, which is that the number of abortions isn’t going down because of the relatively easy availability of abortion pills by mail. Well, speaking of which, in a somewhat related story, a woman in Georgia has been charged with murder for taking abortion pills later in pregnancy than it’s been approved for, and delivering a live fetus who subsequently died. But the judge in the case has already suggested the prosecutors have a giant hill to climb to convict her and set her bail at $1. Are we going to see our first murder trial of a woman for inducing her own abortion? We’ve been sort of flirting with this possibility for a while. 

Luthra: It seems possible. I think it’s a really good question, and this moment certainly feels like a possible Rubicon, because going after people who get abortions is just so toxic for the anti-abortion movement. They have promised they would not go after people who are pregnant, who get abortions. And this is exactly what they are doing. And I think what really stands out to me about this case is so much of it depends on individual prosecutors and individual judges. You have the law enforcement officials who decided to make this a case, and they’re actually using, not the abortion law, even though the language in the case, right, really resonates, reflects with the law in Georgia’s six-week ban. Excuse me, with the language in Georgia’s six-week ban. But then you have a judge who says this is very suspect. And what feels so significant is that your rights and your protection under abortion laws depend not only on what state you live in, but who happens to be the local prosecutor, the local cop, the local judge, and that’s just a level of micro-precision that I think a lot of Americans would be very surprised to realize they live under. 

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. We should point out that the woman has been charged but not yet indicted, because many, many people are watching this case very, very carefully. And we will too. 

All right, that is this week’s news. Now I’ll play my interview with Katie Keith of Georgetown University Law Center, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Katie Keith. Katie is the founding director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and a contributing editor at Health Affairs, where she keeps all of us up to date on the latest health policy, legal happenings. Katie, thanks for joining us again. It’s been a minute. 

Katie Keith: Yeah. Thanks for having me, Julie, and happy ACA anniversary. 

Rovner: So you are my go-to for all things Affordable Care Act, which is why I wanted you this week in particular, when the health law turned 16. How would you describe the state of the ACA today? 

Keith: Yeah, it’s a great question. So, the ACA remains a hugely important source of coverage for millions of people who do not have access to job-based coverage. I am thinking of farmers, and self-employed people, and small-business owners. And you know, in 2025, more than 24 million people relied on the marketplaces all across the country for this coverage. So it remains a hugely important place where people get their health insurance. And we are already starting to see real erosion in the gains made under the Biden administration as a result of, I think, three primary changes that were made in 2025. So the first would be Congress’ failure to extend the enhanced premium tax credits, which you have covered a ton, Julie and the team, as having a huge impact there. The second is the changes from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. And then the third is some of the administrative changes made by the Trump administration that we’re already seeing. So we don’t yet have full data to understand the impact of all three of those things yet. We’re still waiting. But the preliminary data shows that already enrollments down by more than a million people. I’m expecting that to drop further. There was some KFF survey data out last week that about 1 in 10 people are going uninsured from the marketplace already, and that’s not even, doesn’t even account for all the people who are paying more but getting less, which their survey data shows is about, you know, 3 in 10 folks. So you know what makes all of this really, really tough, as you and I have discussed before, is, I think, 2025, was really a peak year. We saw peak enrollment at the ACA. We saw peak popularity of the law, which has been more popular than not ever since 2017, when Republicans in Congress tried to repeal it the first time. And â€¦ but now it feels like we’re sort of on this precipice for 2026, watching what’s going to happen with the data into this really important source of coverage for so many people. 

Rovner: And â€¦ there’s been so much news that I think it’s been hard for people to absorb. You know, in 2017, when Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they said that, We’re trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Well, the 2025 you know, “Big, Beautiful Bill,” they didn’t call it a repeal, but it had pretty much the same impact, right? 

Keith: It had a quite significant impact. And I think a lot, like, you know, there was so much coverage about how Democrats in Congress and the White House learned, in doing the Affordable Care Act, learned from the failed effort of the Clinton health reform in the ’90s. I think similarly here you saw Republicans in Congress, in the White House, learn from the failed effort in 2017 to be successful here. And so you’re exactly right. You did not hear any talk of “repeal and replace,” by any stretch of the imagination. I think in 2017 Republicans were judged harshly â€” and appropriately so, in my opinion â€” by the “replace” portion of what, you know, what they were going to do, and it just wasn’t there. And so you did not see that kind of framing this time around. Instead, it really is an attempt to do death by a thousand paper cuts and impose administrative burdens and a real focus on kind of who â€” you can’t see me, but air quotes, you know â€” who “deserves” coverage and a focus on immigrant populations. So â€¦ those changes, when you layer all of them on â€” changes to Medicaid coverage, Medicaid financing, paperwork burdens, all across all these different programs â€” you know, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, it really does erect new barriers that fundamentally change how Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act will work for people. And so it’s not repealed. I think those programs will still be there, but they will look very different than how they have and, you know, the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] at the time, the coverage losses almost â€¦ they look quite close to, you know, the skinny repeal that we all remember in the middle of the morning â€” early, like, late night, Sen. John McCain with his thumbs down. The coverage losses were almost the same, and you’ve got the CBO now saying, estimating about 35 million uninsured people by 2028, which, you know, is not â€¦ it’s just erasing, I think, not all, but a lot of the gains we’ve made over the past 15, now 16, years under the Affordable Care Act. 

Rovner: And now the Trump administration is proposing still more changes to the law, right? 

Keith: Yep, that’s right. They’re continuing, I think, a lot of the same. There’s several changes that, you know, go back to the first Trump administration that they’re trying to reimpose. Others are sort of new ideas. I’m thinking some of the same ideas are some of the paperwork burdens. So really, in some cases, building off of what has been pushed in Congress. What’s maybe new this time around for 2027 that they’re pushing is a significant expansion of catastrophic plans. So huge, huge, high-deductible plans that, you know, really don’t cover much until you hit tens of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. You get your preventive services and three primary care visits, but that’s it. You’re on the hook for anything else you might need until you hit these really catastrophic costs. They’re punting to the states on core things like network adequacy. You know, again, some of it’s sort of new. Some of it’s a throwback to the first Trump administration, so not as surprising. And then on the legislative front, I don’t know what the prospects are, but you do continue to see President [Donald] Trump call for, you know, health savings account expansions. We think, I think, you know, the idea is to send people money to buy coverage, rather than send the money to the insurers, which I think folks have interpreted as health savings accounts. There’s a continued focus on funding cost-sharing reductions, but that issue continues to be snarled by abortion restrictions across the country. So that’s something that continues to be discussed, but I don’t know if it will ever happen. And you know anything else that’s kind of under the so-called Great Healthcare Plan that the White House has put out. 

Rovner: You mentioned that 2025 was the peak not just of enrollment but of popularity. And we have seen in poll after poll that the changes that the Trump administration and Congress is making are not popular with the public, including the vast majority of independents and many, many Republicans as well. Is there any chance that Congress and President Trump might relent on some of these changes between now and the midterms? We did see a bunch of Republicans, you know, break with the rest of the party to try to extend the, you know, the enhanced premiums. Do you see any signs that they’re weakening or are we off onto other things entirely right now? 

Keith: It’s a great question. I think you probably need a different analyst to ask that question to. I don’t think my crystal ball covers those types of predictions. But to your point, Julie, I thought that if there would have been time for a compromise and sort of a path forward, it would have been around the enhanced premium tax credits. And it was remarkable, you know, given what the history of this law has been and the politics surrounding it, to see 17 Republicans join all Democrats in the House to vote for a clean three-year extension of the premium tax credits. But no, I think especially thinking about where those enhanced tax credits have had the most benefit, it is states like Georgia, Florida, Texas, and I thought that maybe would, could have moved the needle if there was a needle to be moved. So I, it seems like there’s much more focus on prescription drugs and other issues, but anything can happen. So I guess we’ll all stay tuned. 

Rovner: Well, we’ll do this again for the 17th anniversary. Katie Keith, thank you so much. 

Keith: Thanks, 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. Lizzy, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Lawrence: Sure. So my extra credit is by Nick [Nicholas] Florko, former Stat-ian, in The Atlantic, “” I immediately read this piece, because this is something that’s been driving me kind of crazy. Just seeing â€” if you’ve missed it â€” there have been â€¦ HHS has been posting AI-generated videos of Secretary Kennedy wrestling a Twinkie, wearing waterproof jeans, all of these things. And this has been, this is not unique to HHS â€” [the] White House in general has really embraced AI slop as a genre, and I can’t look away. And so I thought Nick did a good job just acknowledging how crazy this is, and then also what goes unsaid in these videos. I think I personally am just very curious if this resonates with people, or if it’s kind of disconcerting for the average American seeing these videos like, Oh, my government is making AI slop. Like I, you know, social media strategy is so important, so maybe for some people are really liking this. But yeah, I’m just kind of curious about public sentiment. 

Rovner: I know I would say, you know, the National Park Service and the Consumer Product Safety Commission have been sort of famous for their very cutesy social media posts, but not quite to this extent. I mean, it’s one thing to be cheeky and funny. This is sort of beyond cheeky and funny. I agree with you. I have no idea how this is going over the public, but they keep doing it. It’s a really good story. Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: Mine is a story in The Boston Globe, and the headline is “” by Tal Kopan. And this was a really good profile of Tony Lyons, who is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book publisher, and he’s kind of had the role of institutionalizing all the political energy behind RFK Jr. and trying to make this into a more enduring political force. So I think he is, like, mostly a behind-the-scenes guy, not really like a D.C. fixture, more of like a New York book publishing figure. But I think his efforts and what they’re using, all the money they’re raising for, I think, is a really important thing to watch in the midterms, and like, whether they can actually leverage this beyond a Trump administration, or beyond however long Secretary Kennedy will be in his position. So I think it was just a good overview of all the tentacles of institutional MAHA that are trying to, you know, find their footing here, potentially for the long term.  

Rovner: I had never heard of him, so I was glad to read this story. Shefali. 

Luthra: My story is from NPR. It is by Tara Haelle. The headline is “.” Story says exactly what it promises, that if you have an infant, babies under 6 months, then getting a covid vaccine while you are pregnant will actually protect your baby, which is great because there is no vaccine for infants that young. I love this because it’s a good reminder of something that we were starting to see, and now it just really underscores that this is true, and in the midst of so much conversation around vaccines and safety and effectiveness, it’s a reminder that really, really good research can show us that it is a very good idea to take this vaccine, especially if you are pregnant. 

Rovner: More fodder for the argument, I guess. All right, my extra credit this week is a clever story from Stat’s John Wilkerson called “.” And, spoiler, that loophole is that one way companies can avoid running afoul of their promise not to charge other countries less for their products than they charge U.S. patients is for them to simply delay launching those drugs in those other countries that have price controls. Already, most drugs are launched in the U.S. first, and apparently some of the companies that have done deals with the administration limited their promises to three years, anyway. That way they can charge U.S. consumers however much they think the market will bear before they take their smaller profits overseas. Like I said, clever. Maybe that’s why so many companies were ready to do those deals. 

All right, that is this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman; our producer-engineer, Francis Ying; and our interview producer, 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? Shefali? 

Luthra: I am on Bluesky . 

Rovner: Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: On X , or . 

Rovner: Lizzy. 

Lawrence: I’m on X  and  and . 

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 KFF 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 I’m joined by some of the best and smartest reporters covering Washington. We are taping this week on Thursday, March 12, 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 Shefali Luthra of the 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Andy Schneider of Georgetown University, who will try to explain how the federal government’s fraud crackdown on blue-state Medicaid programs is something completely different from any fraud-fighting effort we’ve seen before. But first, this week’s news â€” and some of last week’s. 

Let’s start at the Department of Health and Human Services, where I think it’s safe to say Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. is not having a great week. The secretary reportedly had to have his rotator cuff surgically repaired on Tuesday. It’s not clear if he injured it during one of his famous video workouts. But it is clear, at least according to  from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Center, that the American public is not buying what he’s selling when it comes to policy. According to the survey, public trust in HHS agencies, which already took a dive during the pandemic, has fallen even more since Kennedy took over the department. Although, interestingly, public trust in career HHS officials is higher than it is for their political leaders. And trust in outside professional health organizations, places like the American Heart Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, is higher than for any of the government entities. 

Perhaps related to that is another piece of HHS news from this week. The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved a label change for the drug leucovorin, which Secretary Kennedy last fall very aggressively touted as a potential treatment for autism. But the drug wasn’t approved to treat autism. Rather, the label changes to treat a rare genetic condition. Kennedy bragged about leucovorin, by the way, at the same press conference that President [Donald] Trump urged pregnant women not to take Tylenol, which has not been shown to contribute to the rise in autism. Maybe it’s fair to say the public is paying attention to the news and that helps explain the results of this Annenberg Center survey? 

Luthra: Maybe. I was just thinking, we do know that Tylenol prescriptions for people who are pregnant did go down, right? There’s research that shows, after that press conference, behaviors did change. And so to your point, it’s clear there is a lot of confusion, and confusion maybe breeds mistrust. But I don’t know that we can necessarily say that American voters and the public at large are very obviously informed as much as they are perhaps disenchanted by things that seem as if they were told would restore trust and make things clearer and in fact have not done so. 

Rovner: That’s a fair assessment. Anna. 

Edney: Yeah, I think there’s a lot of overpromising and underdelivering, and that can kind of create this issue where this administration â€” and RFK Jr. has been doing this as well â€” kind of is making these decisions from the top, rather than having these normal conversations with the career scientists and things like that, where the public can kind of follow along on why the scientific decisions are being made if they so choose to, or at least have an idea that there was a discussion out there. And that’s not happening. So that’s not something that’s creating a lot of trust. I think people are seeing that as unscientific and chaotic. 

Rovner: I was particularly interested in one of the findings in the survey, is that Dr. Fauci, Dr. Tony Fauci, who was sort of the bête noire of the pandemic, has a higher approval rating than either RFK Jr. or some of his top deputies. Joanne, I see you nodding. 

Kenen: Yeah that was so stri— I mean, it’s still not high. It was, I believe it was â€” I’m looking for my note â€” but I think was 54%, which is not great. But it was better than Dr. [Mehmet] Oz [head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. It was better than Kennedy. It was better than a bunch of people. So, but it also shows that half the country still doesn’t trust him. It was a really interesting survey, but the gaps in trust in credible science are still significant. What was interesting is the declining trust in our government officials in health care, but there’s still, nationally, the U.S. population, there’s still a lot of skepticism of science and public health. Maybe not as bad as it was, but still pretty bad. 

Luthra: And Julie, you alluded to these famous push-up and workout videos. And part of what you’re getting at â€” right? â€” is that the communications that we see are targeted toward a not necessarily very large audience. It is these people who are hyper-online, in particular internet spaces and communities, and that’s somewhat divorced from most people and how they live their lives. And when you focus your message and you’re campaigning on this very particular slice, it’s just a lot easier to lose sight of where people are and what they want from their government and what they will actually appreciate. 

Rovner: It’s true. The online America is very separate from the rest of America, which is a whole lot bigger. Well— 

Kenen: And there’s also the young people who probably aren’t in these surveys who, teenagers, who are getting a lot of information on TikTok about supplements and raw milk. And the young men and the teenage boys and the supplements is a big deal, and that’s online. And also we have been seeing for a while, but I think it’s probably creeping up, the recommendations about psychedelics. So there’s all this stuff out there that isn’t going to be picked up by that poll. But yes, it was an interesting poll. 

Rovner: All right. Well, meanwhile over at the Food and Drug Administration, in-again out-again in-again vaccine chief Vinay Prasad is apparently out again, or will be as of later this spring. I feel like Prasad’s very rocky tenure has been kind of a microcosm for the difficulties this administration has had working with career scientists at FDA and elsewhere, at HHS. Anna, what made him so controversial? 

Edney: Well, I think, Prasad was an FDA critic before he came to the agency. And so essentially, when he was out in public, particularly during covid, but there were even criticisms he had before that. He was criticizing these career scientists at the agency. And so he got there, and the way he appeared to operate was that he knew best and he didn’t need to talk to any of these people that had been there, some for decades, and that was getting him in a lot of trouble. But he was being defended and protected by FDA Commissioner Martin Makary, and he really supported Prasad, and he called him a genius and wanted him to stay on. So the first time Prasad left, he convinced him to come back. And now this time, I think, things maybe just went a bridge too far when there was sort of this behind-the-scenes but very public fight with a company trying to make a rare-disease drug. And this is something that, particularly, several senators really, really hate, is when the FDA is getting in the way of a rare-disease drug getting to market, because they don’t think that that’s something the agency should be trying to do unless the drug is maybe wholly unsafe. But they think anyone should be able to try it. And so when this exploded and FDA officials were and HHS officials were behind the scenes, but very publicly, calling this company a liar, it was just a bridge too far. 

Rovner: Well, and he, this was, this incredibly unusual  in which he tried to not be quoted by name, but kind of hard when the head of the agency, or the head of the center at FDA is basically trashing a company, trying to do it on background. Was that kind of the last straw? 

Edney: Yeah, I think so. And sort of an aside on that. I’m curious how that phone call even was allowed to be set up and called. Because, it’s not like he did it on his own. There were, there was an infrastructure around him that helped him set that up. So I’m curious about why that even went down, but I think that was definitely what pushed him out the door. You know, this company wanted to get this drug approved. The FDA had said, No, not unless you do this extremely difficult trial, which the company said would require drilling holes in people’s heads, for what they were trying to get approved, and that it would be a placebo, essentially, for some of those patients, even when you get a hole drilled in your head, and this could be a 10-hour sham surgery, is what the company said. And then Prasad comes out and says: No, they’re lying. That definitely could be a half-hour. No big deal. And I just think that there were senators frustrated with this, the White House not wanting to see another thing blow up over rare-disease drugs, because that has, there have been a lot of issues at FDA under his tenure, of just drugs not being able to get to market. Or having issues with vaccines that have been years in development not being able to get even reviewed, and then that being reversed. So it was just, that was kind of the last straw. 

Rovner: And of course President Trump himself has been a big proponent of this whole Right to Try effort, that it should be easier for people with, particularly with terminal diseases to be able to try drugs that may or may not help. Joanne, you want to add something. 

Kenen: Also wasn’t he still, Prasad, still living in California and running up really huge travel bills and— 

Rovner: Yes. 

Kenen: â€”not being at the FDA very much, at a time when everybody else has been forced to come back to work? So, but I do confess that I keep looking at my phone to check if he’s still out or is he already back again. 

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: I’m really not totally convinced that this is the end of Prasad, but yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah, I was not kidding when I said on-again off-again on-again off-again. All right. Well, moving over to the National Institutes of Health, which also has a director that’s doing more than one job in more than one place. I know there’s so much news that it’s hard to keep track of it all, but I do think it’s important to continue to follow things that look to be settled, like funding for the NIH, which Congress actually increased in the spending bill that passed at the end of January. To that end, a shout-out to our podcast panelist Sandhya Raman, formerly of CQ, now at Bloomberg, for  grant funding that still pays for most of the nation’s basic biomedical research is still being held up. This is months after it was ordered resumed by courts and appropriated by Congress. 

Shout-out as well to my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleagues Rachana Pradhan and Katheryn Houghton for their project on the people and research projects that have been disrupted by all the cuts at NIH, as well as new bureaucratic hurdles put in place. I feel like if there weren’t so much else going on, what’s happening at basically the economic and health engine of NIH would be getting much, much, much more attention, particularly because of the continuing brain drain with researchers moving to other countries and students choosing different careers rather than becoming researchers. I wonder if this sort of drip, drip, drip at NIH is going to turn into a very long-term hole that’s going to be very difficult to fill. A lot of these things have years- if not decades-long runways. These great scientific achievements start somewhere, and it looks like they’re just sort of pulling out the whole starting part. 

Kenen: It’s already affecting the pipeline. In graduate schools, many schools fund their PhD candidates, and it’s NIH money, or partly NIH money. It’s different â€” I’m not an expert in every single school’s support systems for PhD candidates, but I do know that the pipeline has been shrunken in some fields at some schools, and that’s been reported on widely. And there’s been a lot of coverage about years and years of research. You can’t just restart a multiyear, complicated clinical trial or research project. Once you stop it, you’re losing everything to date, right? You can’t just sort of say, Oh, I’ll put it on hold for a couple of years and resume it. You can’t do that. So we’ve already reached some kind of a critical point. It’s just a matter of how much worse it gets, or whether the ship begins to stabilize in any way going forward. But there’s already damage. 

Rovner: I say, are you guys as surprised as I am, though, that this isn’t â€” the NIH has been this sort of bipartisan jewel that everybody has supported over the decades that I’ve been covering it, and now it’s basically being dismantled in front of our eyes, and nobody’s saying very much about it. 

Kenen: It’s also an engine of economic growth. You see different ROI [return on investment] numbers when you look at NIH, but I think the lowest number you hear is two and a half dollars of benefit for every dollar we invest. And I’ve seen reports up to $7. I don’t know what the magic number is, but this is an engine of economic growth in the United States. This is basic biomedical research that the private sector or the academic sector cannot do. It has to come from the government. And I don’t think any of us have really gotten our heads around â€” why harm the NIH when it is bipartisan, it is economically successful, and it has humanitarian value. It’s the basis. The drug companies develop the drug and bring it to the market. But that basic, basic, earlier what’s called bench science, that’s funded by the NIH. 

Rovner: I know. It’s a mystery. Well, adding to RFK Jr.’s bad week are the growing divisions within his base, the Make America Healthy Again movement. While the White House, seeing that the public doesn’t really support MAHA’s anti-vaccine positions, is trying to get HHS to tone it down, there was a major MAHA meetup just blocks from the White House this week, with sessions urging a complete end to the childhood vaccine schedule and the removal of all vaccines from the market, quote, until they can be proven “safe and effective.” By the way, most of them have been already. Meanwhile, lots of MAHA followers are still angry that the White House is supporting the continuing production of glyphosate, the weed killer sold commercially as Roundup. Democrats, , are trying to exploit the divisions in the MAHA movement, which leads to the question: Will MAHA be a net plus or a net minus for this fall’s midterm elections? On the one hand, I think Trump appointed Kennedy because he was hoping that the MAHA movement would be a boost to turnout. On the other hand, MAHA seems pretty split right now. 

Edney: Well, I think that’s the million-dollar question, is which way they’re going to swing if they swing at all. And it’s hard to say right now, because I think they are angry at certain aspects of things this administration is doing, the two things you mentioned, on Roundup and on vaccines, kind of telling RFK to kind of talk a little bit less about those. But will they be able to then vote for Democrats instead? I think, it’s only March, so it’s so difficult to say what will happen between now and then. I think there’s still things that the health secretary could do on food that he’s talked about, that could draw attention away from that anger, that might make many of them happy. I think there were some things he kind of started doing early in his term that hasn’t been talked about as much. And also, I think there’s still the prospect of Casey Means becoming surgeon general â€” or not â€” out there, and that’s kind of a big piece of this. If she is to get into the administration, and that is sort of up in the air right now, then that could kind of give them something else to focus on, because she is a large part of this playbook of the MAHA movement. 

Rovner: That’s right. And we are waiting to see sort of if she can get the votes even to get out of committee, much less get to the floor, see whether we’re going to have, as some are saying, the first surgeon general who does not have an active license to practice medicine. Shefali, you wanted to add something. 

Luthra: No, I just think we’ve talked about this before on the podcast, that the food stuff is much more popular than the vaccine stuff. The vaccine components of MAHA remain very unpopular. It’s difficult to really see or say sort of what the White House can do on food in a sustained, focused way, without going off-script, that is also popular. But I think to Anna’s point, it’s just so hard to say to what extent this ultimately matters in November, because there are just so many concerns right now. People can’t afford their health insurance, and gas prices are going up. And I just think we have to wait and see to what extent people are voting based on food policy. 

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

OK, turning to another Trump administration priority, fighting fraud. This week, the administration accused another Democratic-led state, New York, of not policing Medicaid fraud forcefully enough. This comes after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it will withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from Minnesota, which our guest, Andy Schneider, will talk about at more length. Minnesota, by the way, last week sued the federal government over its Medicaid efforts. So that fight will continue for a while. But it’s not just blue states, and it’s not just Medicaid. In something I didn’t have on my bingo card, this administration is also going after fraud in the Medicare Advantage program, which has long been a Republican darling. 

Last week, CMS banned the Medicare Advantage plan operated by Elevance Health, which has nearly 2 million Medicare patients currently enrolled, from adding any new enrollees starting March 31, for what the agency described as, quote, “substantial and persistent noncompliance with Medicare Advantage risk adjustment data.” And on Tuesday, the congressional Joint Economic Committee reported that overpayments to those Medicare Advantage plans raised premiums by an estimated $200 per Medicare enrollee annually â€” and that’s all Medicare enrollees, not just those in the private Medicare Advantage plans. Is this the end of the honeymoon for Medicare Advantage? Joanne, you were there with me when Republicans were pushing this. 

Kenen: I’ve been surprised, as you have, Julie, because basically Medicare Advantage has been the darling, and it is popular with people. It’s grown and grown and grown, not because the government forced people in. It has good marketing and some benefits for the younger, healthier post-65 population, gyms and things like that. But â€” and vision and dental, which are a big deal. But we’ve also seen a backlash, in some ways, because there’s the prior authorization issues in Medicare Advantage have gotten a lot of attention the last couple of years. But not just am I surprised by sort of the swing that we’re hearing about generally. I’m surprised by Dr. Oz, because when he ran for Senate a couple years ago in Pennsylvania, and much of his public persona has been really, really, really gung-ho, pro Medicare Advantage. 

And yet, some of you were at or, like me, watched the live stream of â€” he did a very interesting, thoughtful, and, I’ve mentioned this at least one time before, hourlong conversation with a lot of Q&A at the Aspen Institute here in D.C. a couple of months ago. And one of the questions was someone said: Dr. Oz, you’ve just turned 65. Are you doing Medicare Advantage, or are you doing traditional Medicare? And the expected answer for me was, well, I knew that he’s on government insurance now. So he, you have to, at 65 you have to go into Medicare Advanta— Medicare A, whether you â€” that’s automatic. That’s the hospital part. But you have the choice. But if you’re still working and getting insurance or government â€” he’s on a government plan. He doesn’t have to do that. But he actually, and he pointed that out, but the next sentence really surprised me, because he said: I don’t know. My wife and I are still talking about that. And I thought that was A) a very honest answer. He didn’t have to even say. But it was also, it just was interesting to me that after all that Rah-rah Medicare Advantage we were hearing about, his own personal choice was, Not sure if that one’s right for me. ³§´Ç&²Ô²ú²õ±è;—&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Rovner: I was going to say, I feel like the Republicans are sort of twisting right now between Medicare Advantage, which they’ve always pushed â€” they want to privatize Medicare because they don’t like government health insurance â€” and then there’s the current populist push against big insurance companies, because, of course, all those Medicare Advantage plans belong to those big insurance companies that Republicans are suddenly saying are too big and getting too much money. So they’re sort of caught between trying to have it both ways. I’ll be interested to see how they come down. One of the things that did strike me, though, even before Dr. Oz sort of started his little crusade against Medicare Advantage, was, I think it was at Kennedy’s confirmation hearing that Sen. Bill Cassidy was suddenly questioning Medicare Advantage. That was, I think, the first Republican I saw to like, Oh. That made me raise my eyebrows. And I think since then, I’ve kind of seen why. 

Kenen: The populist talk against insurance companies, not giving money to insurance companies, is part of the Republican â€” and, specifically, President Trump’s â€” desire to not extend the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, enhanced subsidies. That was the basic: Well, we’re not going to do this, because we’re just throwing money at these insurance companies. And we don’t want to do that. We want to empower the patients. That was the, I’m not, and the missing piece of that argument is: Yes, the ACA subsidies go to insurance companies. However, all of us are benefiting in some way or other from government policies that benefit insurance companies. The tax breaks our employers get. The tax breaks we get for our insurance. And then the biggie, of course, is Medicare Advantage. 

We are paying Medicare Advantage more than we are paying traditional Medicare. So Medicare Advantage is private insurance companies, and the government has been just sending them lots and lots of money for years. So I’m not sure it’s â€” this Medicare Advantage thing is just bubbling up, and we’re not really sure how this plays out. But I think that the rhetoric against insurance companies is the rhetoric against the ACA. 

Rovner: Oh, it is. 

Kenen: Rather that hasn’t yet been connected to the Medicare Advantage. I think they’re, yes, we all know they’re connected. But I think the political debate, it’s not Medicare Advantage is bad because insurance companies are bad. It’s the ACA is bad because it enriches insurance companies. There’s a different ideological parade going down the road. 

Rovner: I was going to say, it’s important to remember at the beginning of Medicare Advantage, which was a Republican proposal back in 2003, they purposely overpaid it. They gave it more money because they know that when they give them more money, the insurance companies are required to return some of that money to beneficiaries in the form of these extra benefits. That’s why there are gym memberships and dental and vision and hearing coverage in these Medicare Advantage plans. It does make them popular, so people sign up. And that was sort of Republicans’ intent at the beginning. It was to sort of not so much push people into it but entice people into it. 

Kenen:&²Ô²ú²õ±è;´¡²Ô»å&²Ô²ú²õ±è;³Ù³ó±ð²Ô—&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Rovner: And then maybe cut it back later. 

Kenen: No, but it’s exceeded expectations. 

Rovner: Absolutely. 

Kenen: The number of people going into Medicare Advantage has been really high, higher than people expected. And it’s also hard to get out, depending on what state you live in. It’s not impossible, but it’s costly and difficult, except for a few, I think it’s seven or eight states make it pretty easy. But also remember that the earlier version of what we now call Medicare Advantage was â€” which was the ’90s, right Julie? â€” I think the Medicare Part C, and that failed. ³§´Ç&²Ô²ú²õ±è;—&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Rovner: Well after, that failed because they cut it when they were â€” 

Kenen: Right. Right. 

Rovner: They cut all the funding when they were balancing the budget â€” 

Kenen: Right.  

Rovner:&²Ô²ú²õ±è;—&²Ô²ú²õ±è;¾±²Ô&²Ô²ú²õ±è;1997.&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Kenen: But that gave them the excu— right. 

Rovner: They made it fail. 

Kenen: That gave them an excuse to give them more money later that, when they revived it, renamed it, and launched it in 2003 legislation, that initial push to give them a ton of money, because they could say, Well, we didn’t give them enough money, and that’s why they fa—. There are all sorts of political things going on that weren’t strictly money. But yeah, it was part of the narrative of Why we have to give them more money, is They need it. 

Rovner: Yeah. Anyway, we’ll also watch that space. Well, finally, this week, there’s news on the reproductive health front, because there’s always news on the reproductive health front. Shefali, Wyoming has become the latest state to enact a so-called heartbeat ban, barring abortions when cardiac activity can be detected. That’s often around six weeks, which is before many people are even aware of being pregnant. I thought the Wyoming Supreme Court said just this past January that its constitution prevents abortion bans. So what’s up here? 

Luthra: They did, in fact, say that, and so we are seeing this law taken to court. It was actually added in a court filing to a preexisting case challenging other abortion restrictions in the state. I’m sure that’s going to play out for quite some time. But what’s interesting about the Wyoming Constitution â€” right? â€” is that it protects the right to make health care decisions, in an effort to sort of fight against the ACA. That was this conservative approach that now has come to really benefit abortion rights supporters as well. But what I think this underscores is that even as we are seeing fairly little abortion policy in Washington, at least in a meaningful way, a lot is still happening on the state level. That really is where the bulk of action is, whether you see that in Wyoming, in Missouri, where they’re trying to undo the abortion rights protections there, and just— 

Rovner: The ones that passed by voters. 

Luthra: Exactly. And so what we’re really thinking about is anti-abortion activists are not really that confident in the president’s desire, interest, ability, what have you, to get their agenda items done. And for now, they are really focusing on the states, and that is where their interest, I think, will only remain, at least until the primary for the next presidential race begins in earnest. 

Rovner: Well, Shefali, I also want to ask you about  this week on just how many things ripple out economically from abortion restrictions. Now it’s having an impact on rent prices? Please explain. 

Luthra: I thought this was so interesting. It was this NBER [National Bureau of Economic Research] paper that came out this week, and they looked at comparably trending rental markets in states with abortion bans and those without them. And what they saw was that after the Dobbs decision, rental prices declined relative to places without bans, compared to those in those that had them. And this is really interesting. It just sort of continues. Rental prices went down, and also vacancies went up. And what the researchers say is this is a very, very dramatic and clear relationship, and it illustrates that people, when they have a choice, are considering abortion rights in terms of where they want to live. And anecdotally, we know that, because we’ve seen residents make choices about where they will practice. We’ve seen doctors decide where they will live. We have seen people move. Companies offer relocation benefits if people want them. And this is more data that illustrates that actually that affects the economy of communities, and it really underscores that where we live just simply will look different based on things like abortion rights and abortion policy and other of these things that are treated as social but really do affect people’s economic behaviors. 

Rovner: And as we pointed out before, it’s not just about quote-unquote “abortion,” because when doctors choose not to live in a certain place, it’s other types of health care. It’s all health care. And we know that doctors tend to marry or partner with other doctors. So sometimes if an OB GYN doesn’t want to move to a certain place, then that OB-GYN’s partner, who may be some completely other type of doctor, isn’t going to move there either. So we are starting to see some of these geographical shifts going on. 

Luthra: And one point actually that the researcher made that I thought was so interesting was that abortion policy, it can be emblematic, in and of itself, a reason people choose not to live somewhere, but people may also be making these decisions because of what it represents. Do I look at an abortion policy and say, Oh, this reflects social values or gender beliefs? Or does it also suggest maybe more anti-LGBTQ+ laws? And all of that can create a picture that is broader than simply abortion or not, and determine where and how people want to live their lives. 

Rovner: It’s a really interesting story. We will link to it. All right, that is this week’s news. Now I’ll play my interview with Andy Schneider of Georgetown University, and then we will be back to do our extra credits. 

Rovner: I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Andy Schneider, a research professor of the practice at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. And he spent many years on Capitol Hill helping write and shape Medicaid law as a top aide to California Democratic congressman Henry Waxman â€” and many hours explaining it to me. I have asked him here to help untangle the Medicaid fraud fight now taking place between the federal government and, at least so far, mostly Democratic-led states. Andy, thanks for being here. 

Andy Schneider: Thanks for having me, Julie. 

Rovner: So, it’s not like fraud in Medicaid â€” and other health programs, for that matter â€” is anything new. Who are the major perpetrators of health care fraud? It’s not usually the patients, is it? 

Schneider: No, it’s usually some bad-actor providers or bad-actor businesspeople. 

Rovner: So how are fraud-fighting efforts at both the federal and state level, since Medicaid funding is shared, supposed to work? How does the federal government and the state government sort of try and make fraud as minimal as possible? Since presumably they’re never going to get rid of it. 

Schneider: Unfortunately, I don’t think you’re ever going to get rid of it in Medicaid or Medicare or private insurance or in other walks of life. There are bad actors out there. They’re going to try to take advantage. So you need your defenses up. So the short of this is, Medicaid is administered on a day-to-day basis by the states. The federal government pays for a majority of it and oversees how the states run their programs. In that context, the state Medicaid agency and the state fraud control unit have a primary role in identifying where there might be fraud, investigating, and then, in appropriate cases, prosecuting. The federal government also has a role, however. Depending on the scope of the fraud, it could involve the FBI. It could involve the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services. So there’s both federal and state presence, but the primary responsibilities were the states’. 

Rovner: We know that Minnesota has been experiencing a Medicaid fraud problem, because both the state and the federal government have been working on it for more than a year now. What is the Trump administration doing in Minnesota? And why is this different from what the federal government has traditionally done when it’s trying to ensure that states are appropriately trying to minimize fraud? 

Schneider: Well, usually the vice president of the United States does not get up at a White House press conference and announce he and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are withholding $260 million in federal funds, called a deferral. That is highly, highly unusual. And normally the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services does not go and make videos in the state before something like this is announced. So I would say that this is way out of the ordinary, and I think it has to do with some animus in the administration towards Gov. [Tim] Walz and his administration. 

Rovner: Right. Gov. Walz, for those who don’t remember, was the vice presidential candidate in 2024 running against President Trump, who did win, in fact. But there have been two different efforts to withhold Medicaid money for Minnesota, right? 

Schneider: Yeah. Now you’re into the Medicaid weeds, but since you asked the question, I’ll take you there. So in January, the administra— the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services â€” we’ll call them CMS here â€” they announced they were going to withhold about $2 billion a year going forward, not looking back but going forward, in matching funds that the federal government would otherwise pay to the state of Minnesota for the services that it was providing to its over 1 million beneficiaries. In February at this White House press conference, what the vice president announced was withholding temporarily â€” we’ll see how temporary it is â€” but withholding temporarily $260 million in federal Medicaid matching funds that applied to state spending that’s already occurred, happened in the past, happened in the quarter ending Sept. 30, 2025. So both the past expenditures and future expenditures are targets for these CMS actions. 

Rovner: So what happens if the federal government actually doesn’t pay the state this money? I assume more than people who are committing fraud would be impacted. 

Schneider: Well, let’s be clear. The amounts of money here, there’s no relationship between those and however much fraud is going on in Minnesota. And there has been fraud against Medicaid in Minnesota. Everybody’s clear about that. The state is clear about it. The feds are clear about it. But $2 billion going forward in a year, $1 billion going, looking backwards, $260 million times four â€” there’s no relationship between those amounts, right? Should they come to pass â€”and all of this is still in process â€” should those amounts come to pass, you’re looking at, depending on who’s doing the estimates, between 7 and 18% of the amount of money the federal government pays, helps the state with, each year in Medicaid. That’s just an enormous hole for a state to fill, and it doesn’t have many good options. It can cut eligibility. It can cut services. It can cut reimbursement rates. Filling in that hole with state revenues, that’s going to be a real stretch. 

Rovner: So it’s not just Minnesota. Now the administration says it is seeing concerning things going on in New York and has launched a probe there. Is there any indication that this administration is going after states that are not run by Democrats? 

Schneider: So the only letters that we’ve seen from the administration have been to California, New York, and Maine. There may be other letters out there. We only access the public record. So so far, based on what we know, it’s just been Democratically run states. 

Rovner: As long as I’ve been covering this, which is now a long time, fraud-fighting has been pretty bipartisan. It’s been something that Congress has worked on, Democrats and Republicans in Congress, Democrats and Republicans in the states. What’s the danger of politicizing fraud-fighting, which is what certainly seems to be going on right now? 

Schneider: Yeah, that’s a terrific point. So it always has been bipartisan, because money is green. It’s not red. It’s not blue. It’s green. And trying to keep bad actors from ripping it off from Medicaid or Medicare has always been a bipartisan undertaking. The reason that’s important, particularly in a program like Medicaid, where the federal government and the state have to talk to one another when they are flagging potential fraud, when they’re investigating it, when they’re prosecuting it, you don’t want the agencies tripping all over one another. You want them sharing information as necessary, etc. When that gets politicized, it’s very bad for the results and for the effective operation of the program. 

Rovner: Well we will keep watching this space, and we’ll have you back to explain it more. Andy Schneider, thank you very much. 

Schneider: Julie Rovner, thank you very much. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the 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 start us off this week? 

Edney: Sure. Mine is in The Wall Street Journal. It’s [“”]. This is a look at the booming business of providing therapy to children with autism. And that’s particularly been big in the Medicaid program. And I don’t want to give away too much, because there are just so many jaw-dropping details in this. So I guess the reporters were able to kind of go through the data and billing records in a way that showed some of these companies and what they were doing and how they were becoming millionaires, people who had never done anything in autism before. So if you enjoy a sort of jaw-dropping read, I think you should take a look at it. 

Rovner: Yeah, jaw-dropping is definitely the right description. Joanne. 

Kenen: So I sort of rummaged around the internet to the less widely read sources, and I came across this great story from the Idaho Capital Sun by Laura Guido. It has a long headline. Reminder that 988 is the mental health crisis line and suicide help. The headline is: “” The story is that a 15-year-old boy named Jace Woods called two years ago â€” so this still hasn’t been fixed after two years â€” and they cut him off. They sort of gently cut him off. But they can’t talk to these kids who have, who are in crisis, without parental consent. They do a quick assessment. If they think someone’s life is immediately in danger right then and there, they can stay on. But a kid who’s what they call suicidal ideation, seriously depressed and at risk, and knows he’s at risk or she’s at risk, and made this phone call, they don’t talk to them unless they think it’s imminent. So it also affects, these parental, it affects sexual health and STDs and abortion and whole lot of other things. 

Rovner: That’s what it was for. 

Kenen: That was the initial reason, but it got bigger. So a kid who calls in a crisis can get no help at all. And even in those emergency situations where they can stay on the line and try to get emergency help if they do think a kid’s in imminent danger, they’re not allowed to make a follow-up call to make sure they’re OK. So this kid has been trying for two years. There’s a state lawmaker. They’re refining a law. They say it’s, they’re refining a bill. They say it’s going to go through. But really this, talk about unintended consequences. We have a national mental health crisis, particularly acute for teens. This is not solving any problems. 

Rovner: It is not. Shefali. 

Luthra: My story is in The New York Times. It is by Apoorva Mandavilli. The headline is “.” And it’s just a good story about what is happening with the Ryan White AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, which people use to get their HIV medications paid for or for free. They get insurance support. And these are really important. Funding has been pretty flat for quite some time because they’re funded by Congress. And what the story gets into is that with growing financial pressure on these programs, there is more-expensive drugs, there are more-expensive insurance premiums, more people might be losing Medicaid. States are having to make very difficult choices, and they are cutting benefits. They are changing who is eligible, because it’s getting more expensive and there is more need and there is no support coming. And I wasn’t really on top of this and did not know what was going on, and I just thought it was interesting and a very useful look at some of the consequences of the policy choices that are making all of these health programs more expensive and health care, in general, harder to afford. 

Rovner: My extra credit this week is from The Marshall Project. It’s called “.” It’s by Shannon Heffernan and Jesse Bogan and Anna Flagg. It answers the question that I’ve been wondering about since the whole immigration crackdown began, which is: What happens to the people who are snatched off the streets or out of their cars or homes, flown to a distant state, and then someone says: Oops, sorry. You can go. How do you get home from Texas or Louisiana to Minnesota or Massachusetts? Authorities don’t give you plane or even bus tickets to get back to where you were picked up, even though that’s where most of those being released are required to go to report back to immigration authorities. It turns out there’s a small network of charities that is helping. But as the story details pretty vividly, the harm to these families doesn’t end when their detention does./ 

OK. That’s this week’s show. As always, 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, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you guys hanging these days? Shefali? 

Luthra: I am at Bluesky, . 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney:  and , @annaedney. 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: A little bit of  and more on , @joannekenen. 

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.] 

Mary Agnes Carey: Hello from KFF Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Mary Agnes Carey, managing editor of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, sitting in for your host, Julie Rovner. I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 19, 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’re joined via video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Carey: Tami Luhby of CNN. 

Tami Luhby: Glad to be here. 

Carey: And Shefali Luthra of The 19^th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Carey: Let’s start today with the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has now agreed to review Moderna’s application for a new flu vaccine, reversing the agency’s decision from just a week ago to reject the application because it said the company’s research design was flawed. What happened? 

Weber: I think we got to take a step back, and we got to think about this in the lens of the midterms, because, of course, we got to talk about the midterms on this podcast. 

Carey: Of course. 

Weber: But what we’ve seen, really, since the beginning of January, after [Health and Human Services Secretary] Robert F. Kennedy [Jr.] overhauled the vaccine schedule under Jim O’Neill, is a lot of changes. And part of that, I think, is due to a big poll that came out by a Republican pollster, the Fabrizio poll, that indicated that some of the vaccine changes were making voters nervous. Basically, it told the president, and it told Republicans, that maybe you shouldn’t mess with the vaccine schedule as much. And ever since that poll has kind of reached the ether, you’ve seen a lot more tamping down of conversation about vaccines. So you’ve seen Kennedy stay a lot more on message about food. And then you saw what happened this past week with the Moderna flu reversal. So what ended up happening is the FDA came out and said they were not going to review the Moderna flu vaccine, which was an mRNA vaccine, which, as we all remember, was the vaccine technology that became quite famous during the covid pandemic that [President Donald] Trump really championed in his first term. So the FDA came out and was like, You know what, we’re not going to review this â€” which was a huge issue. It caused massive shock waves through the vaccine industry. A lot of vaccine and pharma insiders said this could really dampen their ability to develop future vaccines, because they felt like this action was made without enough explanation. And after a week of pretty much bad headlines and bad press, the decision was reversed. And Lauren Gardner from Politico had a , along with a colleague [Tim Röhn], where she pointed out that this reversal happened after a meeting with the FDA head in the White House, where Trump expressed some concern over the handling of vaccines. So I think this reversal that you’re seeing fits into the broader picture of the unpopularity of Kennedy’s push around vaccines, and I expect that, considering their hesitancy, along with a really contentious midterms race, we may see more pushback to whether or not Kennedy is able to continue on his push against vaccines. 

Carey: So, what are the implications for drug and vaccine manufacturers in the months ahead? How will this impact them? Does it provide stability and reassurance that if you spend billions of dollars on drug development, you’re not going to be stopped by federal agencies? 

Weber: I think the reversal maybe does, but, I mean, certainly they’re still spooked. I mean, the reality is that it’s a little unclear. Obviously, there was a pressure campaign to reverse this, and it has been reversed. But the current makeup of the FDA, with Vinay Prasad, has led many to be unclear on what will and will not get approved. Under this HHS administration, there’s been a big push for placebo-controlled trials and so on, and somewhat a shifting of expectations. And I think that while the reversal will settle feelings a bit, you also â€¦ this is on a backdrop of hundreds of millions of dollars being canceled in mRNA vaccine contracts. So I think there’s a lot of unease, and there’s a lot of fear that this could continue to [dampen] vaccine development. 

Luthra: I think, to add to what Lauren’s saying, it’s just pretty hard to imagine that after the past year and change that anything could really feel predictable if you are in the business of developing biopharmaceuticals in any form. It’s just so much has changed, and so much really seems to depend on the whims of where the politics are and where the different players are and who’s carrying influence. It’s just hard to really think about how you would want to invest â€” right? â€” a lot of money in developing these products, where you may or may not have success. But one other thing that I am just so struck by in this whole episode is there is a lot of tension in different parts of the health policy community groups around how the FDA is approaching different policies. And one area I’ve been thinking about a lot is where the FDA has been on abortion is a source of real frustration for a lot of abortion opponents, and seeing this episode play out if the White House did get involved, I think it raises a really interesting question for people who oppose abortion and want the FDA to take a harder look at it. Are they going to expect similar movement from the president, similar intervention, or conversations from the White House? And if they don’t get that, how does that affect, again, just another issue that feels really salient as we head into a midterm election that gets closer and closer. 

Carey: And I think you know, this is a sign of what health care might mean and play in the fall election, so we’ll keep our eye on that. Lauren, you just mentioned recently some changes at the Department of Health and Human Services. We’re going to shift from the FDA to HHS, where there’s been a shake-up in top leadership. Jim O’Neill, who had served as the HHS deputy secretary and as acting director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is leaving those positions. Other agency changes include Chris Klomp, who oversees Medicare, being named chief counselor at HHS, where he will oversee agency operations. And National Institutes of Health. Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya will also serve as acting director of the CDC. Clearly, there is a lot going on here. Why are these changes happening now? 

Weber: So our understanding from reporting is that the White House wanted to shake things up before the midterms. I mean, if you know â€” kind of what I alluded to in my last comments is, you know, Jim O’Neill was the person who signed off on the childhood vaccine schedule. I mean, his name was plastered all over that in January, and now he’s been shipped off to be head of the National Science Foundation, but certainly not as high profile of an HHS deputy role or CDC acting director. From our understanding, that’s because the White House wants a bit tighter control over messaging and overall thrust of HHS heading into the midterms. And I think it’s noticeable â€” you mentioned Chris Klomp, I mean, let’s note where he came from. He came from CMS. You know, you’re seeing a fair amount of folks from CMS, from “Oz Land,” come into HHS and exert seemingly, it looks like, more power, based on the White House’s judgment, along with Kennedy. Kennedy is said to have also signed off on these changes. But it remains to be seen how this will impact HHS focus going forward. 

Carey: So while we’re talking about HHS, let’s look at Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s first year in office. There’s so much we could talk about: the firing of members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, also known as ACIP, and the addition of several members who oppose some vaccines; major changes in the childhood vaccine schedule, changes that the American Academy of Pediatrics has called “dangerous and unnecessary”; pullbacks of federal funding for vaccination programs at local departments that were later reversed by a federal judge; the firing of Senate-confirmed CDC director Susan Monarez, who had only served in that position for less than a month; new dietary guidelines aimed at getting ultra-processed foods out of our diets, but adding red meat and whole milk â€” foods that many nutritionists have steered people away from. This is an open question for the panel: What do you make of Kennedy’s tenure so far? 

Luhby: I mean, he’s certainly been changing the agency in ways that we somewhat expected and, you know, other ways that we didn’t. I will let the others speak to some of the vaccine and others. But one thing that’s also notable is the makeup of the agency. They’ve laid off or prompted many people to quit or retire. You know, there’s major staffing changes there as well, and there’s a large brain drain, which has concerned a lot of people. 

Weber: Yeah, I’ll chime in and say, I mean, I think public health officials have been horrified by his first year in office. There is a growing fear that, obviously, his many vaccine changes could have long-term consequences for vaccine [uptake] and an increase in vaccine hesitancy. There’s been a lot of concern among public health officials and experts that Congress really has not stepped in to stop any of this. That said, there are currently â€¦ there’s a lawsuit the AAP has brought against these changes, which could have an outcome in the coming days that may or may not impact whether or not they’re going forward. You mentioned how he reconstituted ACIP, the federal advisory committee on vaccination. You know, what’s really interesting is, right now, we’re unclear if that ACIP meeting is still happening at the end of February. And again, it goes back to my point of vaccines seem to be, after this polling, not where Republicans want to be talking. And so a lot of Kennedy’s primary concern, even though he talked a lot about food in his first year in office,  of his social media, and he talked way more about food than he talked about vaccines. But his focus, and ultimately, what he was able to upend a lot of, was vaccine infrastructure. And I think this year we will see. More of the impacts of that, and also whether or not he’s allowed to make some of these changes, if there is enough backlash, or if there is enough pushback, or if there is enough political detriment that pushes back on what he has done.  

Luthra: And I think a really important thing for us to think about, that Lauren just alluded to, is a lot of the consequences of this first year are things we will be seeing play out for many years to come. There has been this dramatic upending of the vaccine infrastructure. We have seen medical groups try and step in and try and offer independent forms of authority and expertise to give people useful medical information. But that’s a very big role to fill in the context of this tremendous brain drain. And I think what we are waiting to see is, how does that translate to decision-making on the individual level and on the aggregate level? Do people feel like they can trust the information they’re given? Do they get the vaccines they would have gotten in the past for their families, for their children? Is it easier? Is it harder? Does those difficulties matter in the end? And that’s the kind of impact and consequence that we can talk about now, but that we’ll only really understand in years to come when we look at whether and how population health outcomes shift. 

Carey: Sure. And so we’re talking about, you know, Lauren and the full panel has made this clear, talking about some of the shifts in the messaging out of HHS as we head into the fall elections. Lauren, if I heard you correctly, you were saying on Secretary Kennedy’s social media feeds, he had talked a lot more about food than vaccines, but yet, the vaccine message seems to have resonated more. So, as you look towards the fall elections, right? We’re talking about affordability, in a moment we’re going to be talking about the Affordable Care Act. We’ve read a lot â€¦ and folks have talked on this podcast about drug prices. Are the steps enough that are happening here on the messaging? Is it enough to focus the message, and is it going to land with voters, or will they be looking at it in a different way? 

Weber: And will he stay on message? 

Carey: Exactly. 

Weber: I’ve watched, I’ve watched hundreds of hours of Kennedy speaking, and the man, when let rip â€” I mean, recently he said in a podcast, he talked about snorting cocaine off a toilet seat. I mean, that was something that came up in a long-form conversation. Obviously, there’s more context around it. But he is known for speaking off the cuff. And so, I think it remains to be seen if, if they are able to see how that messaging â€” in order to talk about drug prices, talk about affordability â€” if that continues to play for the midterms, and if it doesn’t, what the consequences of that may be. I think it’s important too â€¦ I mean, last night, Trump issued an executive order that is aimed at encouraging the domestic production of glyphosate, which is a really widely used weed killer that has been key in a bunch of health lawsuits around Roundup and other pesticides, is a real shot against, across the bow for the MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] crowd, and it puts Kennedy in a tough position. I mean, he’s issued a statement saying he supports the president, but I mean, this is a man who’s advocated against glyphosate and pesticides for years and years and years, and it’s really divided the MAHA movement that, you know â€¦ many folks who said they joined MAHA, many MAHA moms, pesticides are a huge issue, and this could fracture this movement, you know, that , just as they’re starting to try to get on message. 

Luhby: One thing also that my colleague, I wanted to talk about, my colleague Meg Tirrell did a fantastic piece last week about Kennedy’s first year, and it’s headlined “.” So I think that that’s one thing that also we have to look at is that Trump had said that there would be historic reforms to health and public health, and that, you know, it would bring back people’s trust and confidence in the American health care systems after covid â€” and you know, after what he criticized the Biden administration for. But also it shows that actually, if you look at recent polling from KFF, it shows that trust in government health agencies has plummeted over the last year. So that’s going to be something that they also will have to contend with, both in the midterms and going forward. 

Carey: We’ll keep our eye on those issues now and in the months ahead. And right now, we’re taking a quick break. We’ll be right back. 

All right, we’re back and returning to the upcoming confirmation hearing for Dr. Casey Means. She’s President Trump’s nominee to be surgeon general. The Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, or HELP, Committee, as it is known, will consider that nomination next Wednesday, Feb. 25. You might remember that Means’ confirmation hearing was scheduled for late October, but it was delayed when she went into labor. She was expected then to face tough questions about her medical credentials and her stance on vaccines, among other areas. Means is known as a wellness influencer, an entrepreneur, an author, and a critic of the current medical system, which she says is more focused on managing disease than addressing its root causes. If confirmed as surgeon general, she would oversee the more than 6,000 members of the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes physicians, nurses, and scientists working at various federal agencies. What do you expect from the hearing, and what should people look for? 

Weber: So I did a  last fall. And what we learned, in really digging into reading her book, going through her newsletters, going through her public comments, is that this is someone who left the medical establishment. She left her residency near the end of it, and has really promoted and become central in MAHA world due to her book, Good Energy, which, you know, some folks in politics referred to as the bible of MAHA. So if confirmed, I think she could play a rather large role in shepherding the MAHA movement. But I think she’ll face a lot of questions from folks about her medical license and practicing medicine. So Casey Means currently has a medical license in Oregon that she voluntarily placed in inactive status, which, according to the Oregon State Medical Board, means she cannot practice medicine in the state as of the beginning of 2024. Additionally, she has received over half a million dollars in partnerships from various wellness products and diagnostic companies, you know, some of which in her disclosure forms talked about elixirs and supplements and so on. And I expect that will get a lot of scrutiny from senators as well. And I will just note, too, I think it’s important to look at a passage from her book that a lot of public health experts that we spoke to were a bit concerned about, because she wrote in her book that “the ability to prevent and reverse” a variety of ailments, including infertility and Alzheimer’s, “is under your control and simpler than you think.” And statements like that really worried a fair amount of the public health experts I spoke to. [They] said she would have this bully pulpit to speak about health, but they’re concerned that she doesn’t underpin it with enough scientific reasoning. And so we’ll see if those issues and, also obviously having to answer for Kennedy and the HHS shake-ups and Kennedy and vaccines â€” I’m sure a lot of that will come up as well. It should â€¦ I expect it to be a hearing with a fair amount of fireworks. 

Carey: Do you think the fact that â€¦ they’ve scheduled this hearing means that they have the votes for confirmation? Or is it simply a sign that the administration just wants to get moving on this, or shift a bit from some of the hotter issues that have happened recently? 

Weber: I mean, this is a long time for the American public to not have a surgeon general. So I mean, I think they were hoping to get this moving, to get her in the position. As I said, she could be a very strong voice for MAHA, considering her book underpins a lot of the MAHA movement. I think, in general, Republicans do have the votes to confirm her, but it just depends on how much they are agitated by her medical credentials and some of her past comments. I think we could see some fireworks, but, you know, we saw fireworks in the Kennedy hearing, and he got approved. So, you know, I think it remains to be seen what happens next week. 

Carey: Sure. Well, thanks for that. Let’s move on to the Affordable Care Act, or the ACA. More Americans than expected enrolled in ACA health plans for this year, even though the enhanced premium subsidies expired Jan. 1. But it’s unclear if these folks are going to keep their coverage as their health care costs increase. Federal data released late last month showed a year-over-year drop of about 1.2 million enrollments across the federal and state marketplaces. But these aren’t the final numbers, right? 

Luhby: No. What’s going to happen is people have time now, they still have to pay their premiums. The numbers that were being released were the number of people who signed up for plans. So what experts expect is that, over time, people who receive their bills may not pay them. A lot of people, remember, get automatically enrolled, so they may not be even aware of how much their premiums are going to increase until they actually get their bill. So they may not pay the bills, or they may try to pay the bills for a short time and find that they’re just too high. Remember that the premiums, on average, premium payments were expected to increase by 114% according to KFF. So that just may be unmanageable. The experts I’ve spoken to expect that we should get better numbers around April or so to see what the numbers of actual enrollees are. Because people, actually, if they don’t pay their premiums, can stay in the plants for three months, and then they get washed out. So we’re expecting to see if, hopefully, CMS will release it, but we’re hoping to see better numbers in April. 

Carey: Shefali, I know you closely follow abortion. How much has the abortion and the Hyde Amendment played in all these discussions about Congress trying to find, if they really want to find, a resolution to this subsidy issue? 

Luthra: It’s so interesting. A lot of anti-abortion activists have been quite firm. They say that there cannot be any permission that ACA-subsidized plans cover abortion if the subsidies are renewed. That, of course, would go against laws in some states that require those claims to cover abortion using state funds, not using federal funds, because of the Hyde Amendment. The president relatively recently, even though it feels like a lifetime, said, Oh, we should be flexible on this abortion restriction that anti-abortion activists want. They were, of course, furious with him and said, We can’t compromise on this. This is very important to our base. And they view it as the federal government making abortion more available. And so I think it’s still an open question as to whether this will ultimately be a factor. It’s, to your point, not really clear that lawmakers are anywhere close to coming to a deal on the subsidies. They very well may not, right? They still have to figure out funding for DHS [Department of Homeland Security]. They have many other things that are keeping them quite occupied. But this is absolutely something that abortion opponents will remain very firm on. And I mean, they haven’t had the victories they really would have hoped for in this administration so far, and I think it’d be very difficult for them to take another loss. 

Carey: So, Lauren, what’s going on with the discussions on Capitol Hill about potentially extending the enhanced ACA subsidies? We’re hearing reports from negotiators that the deal might be dead. How would that impact voters in November? 

Weber: I think people should be interested in getting a solution, because I think â€” talk about hitting voters’ pocketbooks and actual consequences. I mean, this seems like this is a thing that’s only going to continue to pick up speed. I was fascinated â€¦ I know you want to talk more about that great Politico piece that dives into the ticktock of how this all happened. But â€¦  

Carey: Yes, great story. 

Weber: I think, in general, the ACA subsidies fall into a trap of most of the contentious two-party system that we’re in right now, where different issues that are issues that we can’t touch end up blowing up problems that affect everyday Americans in their day-to-day, and then no action gets made, and then we end up closer to the midterms, where people actually may or may not want to do something. So I’m not sure that people don’t want to do something. I’m just not sure that there’s enough consensus around what that would be, and in the meantime, actual people are feeling the pain. So we’ll see how that continues to play out.  

Carey: Sure. 

Luthra: I just wanna say, just to add one more point to what Lauren mentioned about political pressure and backlash. The  shows that health care costs are voters’ No. 1 affordability concern. And we know there was that brief moment when the president said, We should be the affordability party, not Zohran Mamdani and the Democrats. And so I think that’s really interesting, right? Are they able to stick to that? Are they able to address this policy that voters are saying is such a high priority for them, because it is so visceral, right? You know what you’re paying, and you know that your bills are higher than last year. And if they can’t, is that the kind of thing that actually does shape how voters react in November, especially given so many other cost-of-living concerns many of them have. 

Luhby: Right, well, one of  about how the Trump administration’s messaging, or what they’re suggesting that the GOP message for the midterms is lower drug prices, which is something that they have been very active on. So they don’t want to discuss the exchanges, and we’ll talk a little bit about the new rule that they’ve just proposed. But yeah, I think the administration is going to focus on health care. They’re aware of the concerns of health care, and their message is going to be “most favored nation,” TrumpRx, and the other efforts that they’ve made to lower drug prices, which is something, of course, Trump was also very focused on in his first term as well, but to less effect. 

Carey: Speaking of that rule, Tami, can you tell us more about that? 

Luhby: Sure. Well, CMS wants to make sweeping changes for ACA plans for 2027. It issued a proposed rule last week that would give more consumers access to catastrophic policies. Now these are policies that have very high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, generally offer skimpier benefits, but, importantly for the administration, have lower premiums. The proposed rule would also repeal a requirement that exchanges offer standardized plans, which are designed to make it easier for people to compare options. It would ease network adequacy rules and require, as we were just talking about, require more income verifications to get subsidies and crack down on brokers and agents who, we’ve just discussed about, you know, have been â€¦ some of whom have been complicit in fraud. The goal is to lower the ACA premiums and give people more choice, according to CMS. Premiums, of course, have been a big issue, as we discussed â€¦ because of the increase in monthly payments due to the expiration of the subsidies. But notably, the agency itself says that up to 2 million people could lose ACA coverage because of this proposed rule. It’s a sweeping, 577-page rule, I think? And if you want to get more information, I highly recommend you read Georgetown’s Katie Keith’s , which was published in Health Affairs. 

Carey: All right, well, we’ll have to keep our eye on that rule and all the comments that I am sure will come in. 

Luhby: Many comments. 

Carey: Many. I’m also intrigued about some of the GOP talking points on potential fraud in the program. For example, the House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed eight health insurers, asking for information on their subsidized ACA enrollees and potential subsidy-related fraud. It has been a Republican talking point that it’s their perception, for many Republicans, that there is a lot of fraud in the program that needs to be investigated. Is there any merit to the claim, and will this discussion of fraud shift away from this really critical affordability issue that we’re all talking about? 

Luhby: Well, we know that there has been fraud in the program, particularly after the enhanced subsidies went into effect. I mean, even the Biden administration released reports and information about brokers and agents that were basically switching people into different plans, switching them into low-cost plans, enrolling them in order to get the commissions. And it’s one that actually played also into the argument on Capitol Hill about extending the subsidies, whereas the Republicans were very forceful about not having zero-premium subsidies, because they felt that this helped contribute to the fraud. So you know, that’s not an issue anymore, because the subsidies were not renewed, but both CMS and Congress are still focused on this idea of fraud with the subsidies. 

Carey: All right, well, we’ll keep watching that now and in the months ahead.  

So that’s the news for this week. And before we get to our extra credits, we need to correct the name of the winner of our Health Policy Valentines contest. The winner is Andrew Carleen of Massachusetts, and thanks again to everyone who entered.  

All right, now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story that we read this week and think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll post the links in our show notes. Lauren, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Weber: Yeah, I have two pieces, a piece from NiemanLab: “.” And then I also have one from my publication at The Washington Post. It’s from Scott Nover. The Atlantic’s essay about measles was gut-wrenching. And some readers feel deceived. And for a little bit of background for anyone who didn’t read it, Elizabeth wrote a very striking, beautifully written piece in The Atlantic from the perspective of a mom who lost her child to measles after a fatal complication that can happen for measles. But the way it was written, a lot of people did not realize it was fiction, or creative nonfiction, or creative fiction to some degree. And so it was written from the perspective like it was Bruenig’s story, but at the very end of the piece, and it turns out this was attached later, after publication, was an editor’s note saying this piece is based on interviews. I gotta say, as, when I initially read it, as a savvy consumer, I initially was like, Is this her story? until I got to the editor’s note at the end. The NiemanLab reporting says that that editor’s note wasn’t actually even on the piece when it started. I think this is a fascinating question, in general. I think that in an era where vaccine misinformation is rampant and the truth is important, it seems like having a pretty clear editor’s note at the top of this piece is essential. But that’s just my two cents on that, and I thought both the discussion and the online discussion about it was really fascinating this week. 

Carey: That’s fascinating. Indeed. Tami, what’s your extra credit? 

Luhby: My extra credit is titled “,” by Claudia Irizarry Aponte and Ben Fractenberg in The City, an online publication covering New York. We’ve been having a major nurses’ strike in New York City. It’s, you know, notable in the size and number of hospitals and length of the strike, which has been going on already for over a month. It’s affected several large hospitals â€” Mount Sinai, Montefiore, and NewYork-Presbyterian â€” with nurses demanding stronger nurse-to-patient staffing ratios, which, you know, has been a long-standing issue at many hospitals. Now, the interesting development is that the city uncovered a rift between NewYork-Presbyterian’s nurses union and their leadership. So what happened is the nurses at Montefiore and Mount Sinai have recently approved their contracts and are back to work, but the NewYork-Presbyterian nurses did not approve their contract because the language differed on the staffing-ratio enforcement and did not guarantee job security for existing nurses. And what actually apparently happened is that the union’s executive committee rejected the contract, but the union leaders still forced the vote on it, which was, actually, ended up voting down. So now the nurses have demanded a formal disciplinary investigation into the union leaders for forcing this vote. So more than 1,500 nurses at NewYork-Presbyterian signed the petition, and more than 50 nurses delivered it to the New York State Nurses Association headquarters. One nurse told The City they are overriding our voices. The union president urged members not to rush to judgment. Now, the NewYork-Presbyterian nurses remain on strike, which has lasted already for more than a month, and it’s going to be interesting to watch how this develops, especially because you have, obviously, the contentious negotiations between the hospital and the nurses union, but now you also have this revolt, and, you know, issues within the nurses union itself. 

Carey: Wow, that is also an amazing story. Shefali? 

Luthra: Sure. My piece is from NPR. It is by Jasmine Garsd. The headline is “.” And the story looks at something that we know from research happens, but on the ground in Minneapolis, of people concerned about ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and immigration presence at medical centers, delaying important health care that can be treatment for chronic ailments, it can also be treatment for acute conditions. And what I like about this story is that it highlights that this is something that is going to have consequences, even now with this surge of DHS law enforcement in Minnesota winding down. The consequences of missed health care can last for a very long time. And something I have heard often when just talking to immigrants and medical providers in the Minneapolis metropolitan area is exactly this fear that they actually don’t know what the coming weeks and months are going to bring. They don’t know when they will feel safe getting health care again, when it will feel as if the consequences of this really concentrated federal blitz will be ameliorated in any way. And I love that this story takes that longer view and highlights that we are going to be navigating the medical effects of something so seismic and frankly pretty unprecedented for quite some time. And I encourage people to read it. 

Carey: Thank you for that. My extra credit is from Politico by Robert King and Simon J. Levien, called “.” The piece is an inside look at why and how Congress failed to take action on extending the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history and higher ACA premiums for millions of Americans. 

OK, that’s this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer and engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts â€” as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us with your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me on X . Lauren, where can people find you these days? 

Weber: On  and on : @LaurenWeberHP. The HP stands for health policy. 

Carey: All right. Shefali. 

Luthra: On Bluesky:  

Carey: And Tami. 

Luhby: You can find me at . 

Carey: We’ll 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 I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 12, 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 Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Lizzy Lawrence of Stat News. 

Lizzy Lawrence: Hi.  

Rovner: And up early to join us from California, my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Jackie Fortiér. Welcome, Jackie.  

Jackie Fortiér: Hey, everyone. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but plenty of news. So let’s jump right in. We will start this week at the Food and Drug Administration, where things are â€” why don’t we call it â€” newsmaking. The biggest FDA story that broke this week was controversial vaccine chief Vinay Prasad outright rejecting an application for a new flu vaccine from Moderna, maker of the mRNA covid vaccine that so many anti-vaxxers have criticized. Lizzy, you . Congratulations. What happened exactly? And why is this such a big deal beyond the flu vaccine? 

Lawrence: This is a big deal because to refuse to file is a pretty rare occurrence in general, because in general the FDA and industry like to have agreed-upon standards for clinical trials before companies embark on them and pour millions of dollars into them. So that was surprising. And then— 

Rovner: And refuse to file means that they said that they’ve got the application and said: Yeah, we’re not accepting that. We’re not going to review this. Right? 

Lawrence: Yes, yes. And Prasad wrote that the grounds for this was that it wasn’t an adequate, controlled trial. Well, Moderna is saying that actually the FDA greenlit this trial back under the Biden administration in 2024. They acknowledged that there was basically a control vaccine that the FDA say they would prefer that Moderna use for the older population. But they said, however, it’s acceptable if you don’t do that. 

Rovner: And I want to make sure I understand this. The complication here is that this is supposed to be a better vaccine for older people, but right now there’s vaccines for older people that start at age 65 and this is a vaccine that’s supposed to start at age 50, right? So it was unclear who they were going to test it against, whether it was going to be the 50-to-64s or the 65s and older. Because there isn’t a vaccine right now that’s approved for 50 and up, right? 

Lawrence: Exactly, exactly. So it was there’s the high-dose vaccine, which is recommended for the above-65s, but that is not recommended for the 50-to-64, which is part of why Moderna didn’t use that high-dose vaccine, because the population that they were studying was broader than this over-65s. So anyway, so yeah, so refusing to file is already rare, and then for there to be an overriding refuse to file, where the, I was told, basically, while there may have been individuals who agreed with Dr. Prasad’s assessment, the review team, every discipline, thought that it was reviewable. And the head of vaccines wrote a memo explaining why he thought it was viable, so that the career staff kind of documented their thoughts here. It’s not clear whether this will be made public ever, but one would hope, with radical transparency, but we’ll see. Despite that, Dr. Prasad still refused to review Moderna’s application. 

Rovner: So obviously it’s a big deal for the flu vaccine, but it’s a big deal beyond this. Moderna’s CEO was on cable news this morning, said that, as you said, after consulting with the FDA officials about the trial, they spent a billion dollars on this trial. How do we expect companies to invest in new medicines like this if the FDA is basically acting on vibes? 

Lawrence: I don’t know. Yeah. And it’s interesting. It doesn’t seem like there’s a ton of sympathy from this administration. Even back last year, [FDA] Commissioner [Marty] Makary tweeted something â€” this was when they were limiting, wanted to require more data for covid vaccines for the under-65 crowd. And I think he said something like: Our goal is not to save companies money. That’s not something we â€” which of course that isn’t. The FDA’s goal is to promote public health. But it’s definitely a change in tune. I think that in the past, the FDA has understood that you’re really only going to get innovation if you have clear, consistent guidance and that it’s a really worst-case scenario for a company to spend a billion dollars on a clinical trial and then there’s nothing to show for it and nothing for it to benefit patients, either. So. 

Rovner: Is this over? What happens now? 

Lawrence: So now Moderna has requested a meeting to challenge this decision, and now there begins a kind of negotiation. It might be possible that the FDA would, in fact, would review at least the 50-to-64 cohort, because they don’t have any objections there, seemingly. But we’ll have to see. On a call yesterday, a senior FDA official talked about Moderna kind of coming to the agency with humility and acknowledging that the FDA had recommended this high-dose vaccine. And so I don’t know. I think companies are definitely â€” it’s a lesson that they’re, especially if you’re in the vaccine space, you have to tread very carefully. 

Rovner: Yeah. And I would think others in the drug space, too. It’s not just â€” that’s the point of this â€” it’s not just vaccines. Alice, you wanted to say something. 

Ollstein: Oh, yeah. Not only the monetary investment, which we’ve touched on a bunch, but companies spend years. So it’s the time investment as well. And why would you dedicate years of effort to something that you’re not sure if a political appointee is going to swoop in and override career scientific officials’ assessment, if you can’t trust the regulatory system to work as it’s always worked. There really is just a lot of risk there, and you might see people not making these submissions on all kinds of fronts. Of course, this is coming as we’ve had a really bad flu season. I’ve had people in my life get really sick and say it’s been really, really bad. So the prospect of having something that works better to prevent, or even just make it milder, not coming to fruition is rough. 

Rovner: Yeah. And this year, as we know, this year’s flu vaccine was not very well matched to the strains that ended up circulating. And that’s kind of the point of this Moderna vaccine, this mRNA vaccine, is that they say it would be much faster for them to match strains to what’s going around. If it works as the clinical trials suggest it would actually be a better flu vaccine than we have now. 

Well, meanwhile, cases of measles are also continuing to multiply, as they do when people aren’t vaccinated, and not just in the places we’ve talked about, like Texas and South Carolina, but also all around us here in the nation’s capital, apparently, as a result of people traveling here for the anti-abortion March for Life in January. There have been more than 730 confirmed cases of measles in the U.S. already this year. That’s four times more than have been typical for a full year, and it’s not yet the middle of February. Yet that doesn’t seem to be deterring the administration from its anti-vaccine activities. So now, the American Medical Association and the University of Minnesota Vaccine Integrity Project have announced they’ll convene a parallel group of experts to make vaccine recommendations, basically saying they are done following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This has been brewing for a while. Right, Lizzy? 

Lawrence: Yes. As soon as the secretary fired all of the experts who served on the advisory panel to the CDC on vaccines, I think there’s been unease. And now, as you said, there’s an active parallel public health establishment that’s trying to spread credible information and provide an alternative resource, because it’s clear that HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] has become compromised when it comes to vaccine recommendations. And yet, you’re seeing the spread of infectious diseases right now. 

Fortiér: Having kind of this rival court is not surprising, because they’ve refused to participate in any of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meetings for months and months. I do wonder if this will maybe change some of the tone. We do have an upcoming ACIP meeting in February. Normally we would have a agenda out by now. Before Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] we would have them weeks in advance, and we haven’t seen one yet, so we’re really not totally sure what they’re going to be talking about. But Dr. [Mehmet] Oz did say this week that he finally advised people â€” he’s the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] director— to take the vaccine. And there’s been over 933 cases in just South Carolina during this outbreak that started last October. And so when I talk to people on the ground who are treating folks in South Carolina and have been treating them for months, and they’ve been doing vaccine clinics and things like that, they were just so fed up with Dr. Oz and the administration, because they partially blame them for these various outbreaks. And I had one of them tell me, like, well, it’s like a band-aid on a bullet hole. Like, now they’re finally encouraging people to get vaccinated when we could have had this months ago. 

Rovner: And, of course, the CDC doesn’t have a director at the moment, because the Senate-approved director was summarily fired and/or quit, not clear which, after refusing to basically rubber-stamp the immunization panel’s recommendations that had not been made at the time. So the American Academy of Pediatrics is suing to stop this February ACIP meeting. I did not hear what the last decision was on that, but I know that there’s still a lot of movement around here. I guess the big worry is: Who should the public trust now? Is it going to be this sort of grouping of medical societies led by the AMA, or the CDC, which people and doctors are used to following the advice of? 

Ollstein: And there’s all these state alliances forming to do the same thing. And so I think, yeah, the more competing recommendations the average person hears, the more they just sort of throw their hands up and say: I don’t even know who to trust anymore. I’m not listening to any of these people. And the trust that’s eroded in the federal government, that’s going to be really hard to recuperate in the future. You can’t just flip a switch and say: OK, it’s a different government. We trust them again. Once those seeds of doubt are planted in people’s minds, it’s really hard to unearth. And so, if not permanent damage, all of this is doing at least very long-term damage to the idea of expertise and authoritative information. 

Rovner: And science, which this administration insists it wants to follow. Well, turning to FDA-related “MAHA” [“Make America Healthy Again”] news, the agency said last week it would relax enforcement of its food additive regulations to make it easier for manufacturers to say they’re not using artificial dyes. Now this was a huge deal when the agency announced the phaseout of artificial coloring. Looking at you, fancy-colored Froot Loops. Now the administration says it’s going to allow foodmakers to say they’re not using artificial colors as long as they’re not using petroleum-based dyes. Apparently, natural dyes are OK. But even that is controversial, and it appears that this whole effort really relies on manufacturers’ willingness to comply rather than, you know, actual regulation, which is kind of what the FDA does for a living. It’s a regulatory agency. 

Ollstein: Well, every time the word “natural” comes up, I always laugh because there is no definition of that. And there are plenty of things that are natural that could kill you or hurt you very badly. And there are plenty of things that are synthetically manufactured that are helpful and fine for you. And so it has this veneer of safety, veneer of health with no actual substance. So my red flags go up whenever I hear that word, and I think everyone should be skeptical. 

Rovner: But it goes with RFK Jr.’s quest now that you should, quote, “eat real food.” 

Lawrence: Right. Yeah. I was going to say same with “chemical.” I feel like, “chemical” abortion drug, “chemical.” And it’s like, a lot of things are chemicals. That’s not— 

Ollstein: Yeah, like in your own body, naturally. 

Lawrence: Yeah. 

Ollstein: You have chemicals. 

Lawrence: We are chemicals. 

Ollstein: We are chemicals. 

Rovner: You guys are all too young to remember the Dow Chemical advertising line “Better Living Through Chemistry,” which at the time, in the ’60s and ’70s, was true. There was, there â€” we’ve had a lot of better living through chemistry. And some of it has turned out to be maybe not so good for us, but a lot of it has turned out to be pretty darn good for us. 

Well, finally, in FDA land, Commissioner Marty Makary this week met with anti-abortion senators about that ongoing review of the abortion pill mifepristone, which senators want the FDA to remove from the market. Alice, how’d that meeting go? 

Ollstein: Not great for the FDA, from what I was told. I got on the phone with Sen. Josh Hawley after it, and he was extremely frustrated. He said he didn’t get answers to any of the questions he’s been sending in public letters to the FDA for months and now asking in this briefing behind closed doors that they held on Capitol Hill this week. He said he didn’t get answers about what the timeline is for this review of the abortion pill mifepristone, what the review consists of, whether it’s even begun, really, whether it’s even underway. And so he is sort of concluding that this is not going anywhere, and he wants Congress to step in and take action. Now, Congress has tried to step in and take action before. They’ve tried to put restrictions on mifepristone in the FDA funding bill. That didn’t pass. So I don’t know if this is even plausible in this environment where Congress can’t really pass much of anything anymore. 

But Hawley is not just another Republican senator. He is very intertwined with the anti-abortion movement. His wife is an extremely prominent anti-abortion lawyer who’s led a lot of the major cases trying to restrict or ban mifepristone. They founded their own anti-abortion advocacy group. And so it really shows that the tensions, clashes, whatever we want to call them, between the anti-abortion movement and the Trump administration, so after backing the Trump administration for years and years, they’re really getting fed up. And they’re fed up that even after they achieved their grand goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, there are actually more abortions happening now than before, and that’s largely through these pills and people’s ability to get them. And so they’re getting increasingly impatient with the Trump administration, who has been sort of stringing them along and saying: Yeah, we’re working on it. We’re working on it. But they want to see results. Now, of course, if there were some sort of restrictions imposed, that could have a big political effect. And so a lot of Republicans are very torn about that. But not Sen. Hawley. Sen. Hawley wants to see it.  

Rovner: That’s right. Well, moving to what I call FDA-adjacent news, one of the many thorny issues that FDA has been dealing with is the compounding of those very popular and very pricey obesity drugs. When the drugs were in shortage, it was legal for compounders to make their own copies. But now the shortage for both of the leading medications â€” semaglutide, made by Novo Nordisk, and tirzepatide, made by Eli Lilly â€” is over, and those cheaper copycats were supposed to be pulled from the market. So it was a bit of a surprise when the company Hims, one of those direct-to-consumer drug sites, announced the unveiling of a semaglutide tablet just weeks after the first such drug was approved by the FDA, by Novo Nordisk. The FDA promptly referred the company to the Justice Department for possible violation of federal drug laws, after which Hims said, Oh, maybe we won’t start selling the drug after all. Oh, and Novo is suing for patent infringement. But I would think that the war over the “fat” drugs, as President [Donald] Trump likes to call them, is likely to lower prices just as effectively as government regulation might. Or am I misreading that? Lizzy, this has been quite the sideshow, if you will. 

Lawrence: Yeah. It might. I think that the compounding, the FDA’s crackdown on Hims was very interesting to me because I think before the commissioner had come into his role, there was some speculation. He had worked for a telehealth company that prescribed compounded drugs. And there’s also, I think compounders have tried to tap into a little bit of the MAHA medical freedom aspect. But clearly that’s not been the case, at least at the FDA. They are clearly very upset about this and mean business, and I think it’s tying into their crackdown on direct-to-consumer drug advertising as well. But as far as price, yeah. I think the deals that Trump has managed to strike with the companies could actually be reducing price for patients. I think we’ll have to see. I know there’s obviously drug pricing programs as well that they could pursue. So, yeah, we’ll have to see.  

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

OK. We’re back. And speaking of President Trump, there’s also drug news this week that’s not directly related to the FDA. That’s the official unveiling of TrumpRx, the website the president says will lower drug prices like no one’s “ever seen before.” That’s a direct quote, by the way. Except it turns out that’s not quite the case. First, these discounts are only for people who are paying out-of-pocket, not those with insurance, which makes them valuable mostly for people who have no coverage or people who take drugs that insurance often doesn’t cover, like those for obesity or infertility. Yet of the 43 drugs so far that are promoted on the TrumpRx website, about half already have cheaper generic copies available through sites like GoodRx and Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs. And really, the website just points people to already existing manufacturer websites that were already offering those lower prices. So what is the point of TrumpRx? 

Lawrence: Great question. Yeah. This administration has been very focused on, obviously, media and wins and attaching President Trump’s name to things. So it accomplishes that goal. Maybe it does raise awareness for these other sites that already exist. But that’s a theme of a lot of the movement on health care so far, has been â€” there’s been a lot of chaos, and then there’s also sometimes things that they announce as like a grand, brand-new, no-one’s-ever-thought-of-it-before policy, but then there are already, of course, existing programs or avenues for that. 

Rovner: And to be fair, Trump has jawboned down some prices, including some prices for the obesity drugs, by basically dragging in the CEOs of these companies and saying, You will lower prices. 

Lawrence: Yeah, yeah. The dealmaking has been effective. And I think the question is: Will this last beyond his administration? Will there be a legacy there? 

Ollstein: I think there’s also some danger in overpromising, because he’s out there saying things that don’t comport with how math works. He’s basically suggesting prices will come down so many percents that we’ll be getting paid to take drugs, because that’s what more than 100% is. And people who are hearing that, voters who are hearing that, if they aren’t seeing that show up in their bills, if they’re not actually seeing those drastic, drastic drops that they’re being promised by the president, are they going to get upset? And is that going to impact how they vote? So yes, there has been some, on the margins, improvements, but when you’re out there promising 600% reductions and not delivering, there’s a risk to that. 

Rovner: Jackie, you wanted to add something. 

Fortiér: Well, I was going to say, I think it’s also confusing for a lot of people, from a consumer perspective, because you log on and I think people, they hear these huge promises, like Alice is talking about, and then they think that they can, necessarily, buy the drugs through there and immediately get them shipped, what these third parties like Hims and Weight Watchers are doing a lot of with the GLP-1s. And that’s not how this works. You still have another step of getting a prescription and then going to the pharmacy and using these to potentially get discounts and lower prices, in the same way that these have been available from pharmaceutical manufacturers and other things like GoodRx for years. But it’s that disconnect between, even if you can get a discount, actually getting the discount and crediting the Trump administration for that that I think is going to be really difficult for a lot of voters to make that connection in the way that the administration wants them to. 

Rovner: And this was ever the case with rebates â€” for other consumer products, not just talking about drugs. We’ll give you a $15 rebate, but you have to fill out 87 forms and send it to this place and get it exactly right, do it before the end date, and we’ll send you back $15. Because they count on most people not being able or willing to follow all of the various steps. So instead of giving everybody the discounted price, they make you really basically work for your discount, which is a consumer thing, but it’s pretty popular in the drug space as well. Rather than just lowering prices, they’re going to say, We will give you a discount, but you’re going to have to do this, that, and the other thing in order to get it. 

Fortiér: Right. But when you’re president and you want credit for it, it’s going to be a little more â€” it’s harder in order to make that connection. Sorry. 

Rovner: Yes, that’s true. That is a good point. All right, moving on. We have talked a lot about consolidation in the health care industry, particularly companies like UnitedHealthcare, which used to be just an insurer, now owns its own PBM [pharmacy benefit manager], its own claims processing company, and thousands of medical practices around the country. Well, now an extremely unlikely pair in the Senate, Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren and Missouri Republican Josh Hawley, have joined to introduce something called the Break Up Big Medicine Act, which would basically outlaw so-called vertical integration, like that of United and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Cigna and CVS Health, which owns Aetna, the insurer. Some are referring to this as the health version of the 1932 Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial from investment banking â€” and, side note, whose repeal in 1999 is considered a major factor setting off the financial crisis of 2008. But that was a risk thing. It was done to prevent another stock market crash like the one in 1929. This is a cost thing. This is to go after high health care costs. Could it work? Could it pass? And is this the beginning of the next big thing in health reform? 

Lawrence: Perhaps. Yeah. Last year, I worked with my colleagues on  kind of examining UnitedHealth Group and the effects of consolidation on doctors and patients. And at the time, I think, there were some vocal lawmakers on either side of the aisle who were criticizing this, especially in the wake of the murder of the UnitedHealth CEO, and which had a surprising â€” the public sort of had this reaction and to— 

Rovner: Not in United’s favor. 

Lawrence: Not in United’s favor. And so I think that there is, this is a political issue that affects everyone, Republican and Democrat, the, well, cost in general, but I think there’s a lot of resentment and anger, and it seems like that is bringing together these unlikely and pretty powerful senators. I’m not an expert on the Hill. I don’t know if this has a chance. Especially, it’s targeting massive, powerful companies with hands in every part of the health care system. So it’s something that you would imagine the entire health care industry would fight against. But, yeah, I don’t know. 

Rovner: And I will point out that Sen. Josh Hawley, in addition to all his anti-abortion activities, last year, when Congress was debating the Medicaid cuts, kept vowing not to vote for those Medicaid cuts. So he’s â€” which, of course, in the end, he did â€” but he’s been sort of on the consumer side of health care for a while now. It’s just this is not brand new to him. 

Lawrence: Right. And I’m not sure how many other Republican senators would follow him down this path. But it’s definitely a noteworthy development, and curious to see where it goes. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’m curious to see sort of if the populist part of health care costs sort of rises to the fore. We’ll have to, we will have to watch that space. Well, finally this week, more on the impact of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns and health. My KFF Health News colleague Amy Maxmen has  about health professionals in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps actually resigning rather than accepting postings to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where some immigrants are being detained in prisons that used to hold al-Qaida suspects. Another  by Claudia Boyd-Barrett describes how when people detained by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] end up in the hospital, often their immediate families and their lawyers aren’t even allowed to know where. And remember, last week we talked about cases of measles in some immigration detention facilities. Well, now there are two confirmed cases of tuberculosis at the ICE facility at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. I’m thinking maybe the health part of this is starting to kind of get to people as much as the whole depriving-civil-liberties part. 

Fortiér: Yeah, and there’s also been cases of covid-19, which makes sense. You’re going to have respiratory viruses as you get hundreds of people grouped together. That makes sense. A judge in California a couple days ago ordered that there had to be adequate health provided to detainees in one specific California â€” it was a prison and now it’s an ICE detainee facility. That’s specific to there, but it’s â€” more and more senators, I think, are also looking at this and pointing out that they’re just not providing the health facilities that people need. And especially ongoing care â€” a lot of folks need diabetes treatment, and that treatment just isn’t really happening in many cases. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’ve talked about this at some length, over many weeks, that people in detention are not getting health care, even though it is required, that we keep hearing stories about people not getting needed health care. I didn’t know until I read this story that people who actually end up being hospitalized, that their family members are not allowed to know. That’s allegedly, well, it is because of security, because the idea is that if somebody who’s in detention is in a hospital, you don’t necessarily want bad people knowing that and being able to come to the hospital. But these are people often who are, as we have documented at length, do not have criminal records, and it’s hard to find out where they are. Alice, you wanted to add something. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So there was a recent GAO [Government Accountability Office] report about this, and it found that people were not getting evaluated when they entered a facility to see if they were medically vulnerable and at risk of having a really bad episode or emergency, and that even children, pregnant women, vulnerable populations weren’t getting that initial evaluation, which then led to problems down the road. And it also said that people upon their release â€” either deportation or release within the United States if that’s what a court ordered â€” they weren’t being given their medical records, their prescriptions. And so the continuity of care was disrupted. And it’s important to note that that GAO report was about a few years ago under the Biden administration. So this isn’t new. These problems aren’t new, but they’re getting much worse, because the number of people detained is at record levels and so everything’s just getting multiplied. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is. Well, we will keep watching that space. OK, that’s this week’s news. Before we get to our extra credits, I am pleased to present the winner of our annual Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Health Policy Valentine contest. It’s from [Andrew Carleen] of Massachusetts, based on a story about Medicare Advantage overpayments. And it goes like this: “I thought it was love. My heart felt spring-loaded. Turns out our relationship was significantly upcoded.” Congratulations, and happy Valentine’s Day to all. 

OK, 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 start us off this week? 

Ollstein: Sure. So I have a kind of fun story [“”] from my co-worker Amanda Chu about how the Oura ring has taken over D.C. They have been heavily lobbying the Trump administration and Congress to prevent tough regulations. Basically, there’s a debate about whether it should be regulated as a medical device or not. 

Rovner: Tell us again what it does. 

Ollstein: It’s a ring you wear on your finger that monitors different health metrics. And so the Trump administration MAHA movement has gone all in on this. They love it. The Pentagon has a huge contract with them. Other government agencies are looking at it, too. I think it’s interesting because it is this very sort of conservative mindset of individual responsibility in health care and, oh, if you could just track your own metrics and do the right things. That’s an approach that is sort of counter to the idea of public health and government protecting your health through policy. 

Rovner: And we know HHS Secretary Kennedy is a big fan of wearables. 

Ollstein: Exactly, and this is one of the most popular ones right now. And so this story does a good job digging into all the lobbying and also into concerns about data privacy and pointing out that these technologies are moving much faster than government can regulate them. And that is leaving some lawmakers really concerned about who could have access to this data. 

Rovner: Jackie. 

Fortiér: Mine is by Ariana Hendrix. She’s a writer based in Norway. It’s entitled “.” It was published in Stat. And she writes eloquently about being a parent in Norway and knowing that her children wouldn’t go to day care until they were about 16 months old, because Norway has paid parental leave. And she points out, beyond the vaccine debate there’s a bigger issue, that the U.S. lacks universal health care and federal paid parental leave. So changes in infant vaccines in the U.S. have a large effect, because babies in the U.S. often go to day care, when they’re around a lot of other kids when they’re just a few weeks old. So she points to the, in January, the infant RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] vaccine was moved to the high-risk category of shots, so now it isn’t routinely recommended for all babies in the U.S. And RSV, of course, is the most common cause of hospitalizations for infants, and that’s due to the fact that they’re exposed to the virus in day care a lot earlier than other children in other countries like Norway and Denmark whose vaccine schedules U.S. officials are now kind of trying to emulate. So she does a really great job of laying out how families face greater health and financial risks in the U.S. without the same safety net that other countries have. 

Rovner: Or just the same social policies that other countries have. 

Fortiér: Yeah, it reminded me— 

Rovner: It’s hard to, right, it’s hard to import another country’s â€” part of another country’s â€” policies without importing all of them. It is really good story. Lizzy. 

Lawrence: Yeah. So my piece is by Rachana Pradhan and KFF Health News, and it’s about the “” And I thought this piece was very interesting, just because in general I’ve been fascinated by â€” politicization of medicine isn’t new â€” but just like right-wing-coded products and left-wing-coded products. And in this piece, Rachana talks about NIH [National Institutes of Health] Director Jay Bhattacharya kind of talking about how, It’s the people’s NIH and if a lot of people are using it, well, we want to investigate it. So she just, she does a really good job of kind of unpacking why this is problematic, that they’re kind of just choosing a random medication and there’s not really any scientific reason to be investing in it as much as they are. And she got a response from NIH after the fact as well, kind of where they were trying to defend this decision to pour this much investment. And so, yeah, I think it’s just a really interesting development in NIH land. 

Rovner: It is. My extra credit this week is from ProPublica, by Mica Rosenberg, and it’s called “.” It’s about what immigration detention looks like from the point of view of children being held at a family facility in Dilley, Texas. That’s the one where the two cases of measles were diagnosed earlier this winter. The story includes some pretty wrenching letters and video calls from kids who were living elsewhere in the U.S., while their parents were mostly working within the immigration system. And these kids had been ripped from their daily lives, their other parents and siblings in some cases, their schools and their classmates, and in many cases, from hope itself. Wrote one 14-year-old from Hicksville, New York, quote: “Since I got to this Center all you will feel is sadness and mostly depression.” It really is a must-read story. 

OK. That is this week’s show. As always, 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, . Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks hanging these days? Jackie. 

Fortiér: Bluesky mainly, . 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: Mainly on Bluesky, , and still on X, . 

Rovner: Lizzy. 

Lawrence: On X, . On Bluesky, . 

Rovner: We’ll 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., and welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 15, 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 Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Alice [Miranda] Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

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 my interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” about an ER trip, a scorpion pepper, and a ghost bill. But first, this week’s news. Let’s start this week on Capitol Hill, where both houses of Congress are here and legislating. This week alone, the Senate rejected a Democratic effort to accept the House-passed bill that would renew for three years the Affordable Care Act’s expanded subsidies â€” the ones that expired Jan. 1.  

The Senate also turned back an effort to cancel the Trump administration’s regulation covering the ACA, which, although it has gotten far less attention than the subsidies, would also result in a lot of people losing or dropping health insurance coverage.  

Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans are struggling just to keep the lights on. Between resignations, illnesses, and deaths, House Republicans are very nearly â€” in the words of longtime Congress watcher  â€” a [majority] in name only, which I guess is pronounced “MINO.” Their majority is now so thin that one or two votes can hand Democrats a win, as we saw earlier this week in a surprise defeat on an otherwise fairly routine labor bill. Which brings us to the prospects for renewing those Affordable Care Act subsidies. When the dust cleared from last week’s House vote, 17 Republicans joined all the House’s Democrats to pass the bill and send it to the Senate. But it seems that the bipartisan efforts in the Senate to get a deal are losing steam. What’s the latest you guys are hearing? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so it wasn’t a good sign when the person who has sort of come out as a leader of these bipartisan negotiations, Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno, at first came out very strong and said, We’re in the end zone. We’re very close to a deal. We’re going to have bill text. And that was several days ago, and now they’re saying that maybe they’ll have something by the end of the month. But the initial enthusiasm very quickly fizzled as they really got into the negotiations, and, from what my colleagues have reported, there’s still disagreements on several fronts, you know, including this idea of having a minimum charge for all plans, no zero-premium plans anymore, which the right says is to crack down on fraud, and the left says would really deter low-income people from getting coverage. And there, of course, is, as always, a fight about abortion, as we spoke about on this podcast before. There is not agreement on how Obamacare currently treats abortion, and thus there can be no agreement on how it should treat abortion. 

And so the two sides have not come to any kind of compromise. And I don’t know what compromise would be possible, because all of the anti-abortion activist groups and their allies in Congress, of which there are many, say that the only thing they’ll accept is a blanket national ban on any plan that covers abortion receiving a subsidy, and that’s a nonstarter for most, if not all, Democrats. So I don’t know where we go from here. 

Rovner: Well, we will talk more about both abortion and the ACA in a minute, but first, lawmakers have just over two weeks to finish the remaining spending bills, or else risk yet another government shutdown. They seem to [be] making some headway on many of those spending bills, but not so much on the bill that funds most of the Department of Health and Human Services. Any chance they can come up with a bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the much more conservative House? That is a pretty narrow needle to thread. I don’t think abortion is going to be a huge issue in Labor, HHS, because that’s where the Hyde Amendment lives, and we usually see the Hyde Amendment renewed. But, you know, I see a lot of Democrats and, frankly, Republicans in the Senate wanting to put money back for a lot of the things that HHS has cut, and the House [is] probably not so excited about putting all of that money back. I’m just wondering if there really is a deal to be had, or if we’re going to see for the, you know, however many year[s] in a row, another continuing resolution, at least for the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Ollstein: Well, you’re hearing a lot more optimism from lawmakers about the spending bill than you are about a[n] Obamacare subsidy deal or any of the other things that they’re fighting about. And I would say, on the spending, I think the much bigger fights are going to be outside the health care space. I think they’re going to be about immigration, with everything we’re seeing about foreign policy, whether and how to put restraints on the Trump administration, on both of those fronts. On health, yes, I think you’ve seen efforts to restore funding for programs that was slashed by the Trump administration, and you are seeing some Republican support for that. I mean, it impacts their districts and their voters too. So that makes sense. 

Kenen: We’ve also seen the Congress vote for spending that the administration hasn’t been spent. So Congress has just voted on a series of things about science funding and other health-related issues, including global health. But it remains to be seen whether this administration takes appropriations as law or suggestion. 

Rovner: So while the effort to revive the additional ACA subsidies appears to be losing steam, there does seem to be some new hope for a bipartisan health package that almost became law at the end of 2024, so 13 months ago. Back then, Elon Musk got it stripped from the year-end spending bill because the bill, or so Musk said, had gotten too big. That health package includes things like reforms for pharmacy benefits managers and hospital outpatient payments, and continued funding for community health centers. Could that finally become law? That thing that they said, Oh, we’ll pass it first thing next year, meaning 2025. 

Edney: I think it’s certainly looking more likely than the subsidies that we’ve been talking about. But I do think we’ve been here before several times, not just at the end of last year â€” but, like with these PBM reforms, I feel like they have certainly gotten to a point where it’s like, This is happening. It’s gonna happen. And, I mean, it’s been years, though, that we’ve been talking about pharmacy benefit manager reforms in the space of drug pricing. So basically, you know, from when [President Donald] Trump won. And so, you know, I say this with, like, a huge amount of caution: Maybe. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will, but we’ll believe it when â€¦ we get to the signing ceremony. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, back to the Affordable Care Act, for which enrollment in most states end today. We’re getting an early idea of how many people actually are dropping coverage because of the expiration of those subsidies. Sign-ups on the federal marketplace are down about 1.5 million from the end of last year’s enrollment period, and that’s before most people have to pay their first bill. States that run their own marketplaces are also reporting that people are dropping coverage, or else trying to shift to cheaper plans. I’m wondering if these early numbers â€” which are actually stronger than many predicted, with fewer people actually dropping coverage â€” reflect people who signed up hoping that Congress might actually renew the subsidies this month. Since we kept saying that was possible. 

Ollstein: I would bet that most people are not following the minutiae of what’s happening on Capitol Hill and have no idea the mess we’re in, and why, and who’s responsible. I would love to be wrong about that. I would love for everyone to be super informed. Hopefully they listen to this podcast. But you know, I think that a lot of people just sign up year after year and aren’t sure of what’s going on until they’re hit with the giant bill.  

Rovner: Yeah. 

Ollstein: One thing I will point out about the emerging numbers is it does show, at least early indications, that the steps a lot of states are taking to make up for the shortfalls and put their own funding into helping people and subsidizing plans, that’s really working. You’re seeing enrollment up in some of those states, and so I wonder if that’ll encourage any others to get on board as well. 

Kenen: But â€¦ I think what Julie said is it’s â€¦ the follow-up is less than expected. But for the reasons Julie just said is that you haven’t gotten your bill yet. So either you haven’t been paying attention, or you’re an optimist and think there’ll be a solution. So, and people might even pay their first bill thinking that there’ll be a solution next month, or that we’re close. I mean, I would think there’d be drop-off soon, but there might be a steeper cliff a month or two from now, when people realize this is it for the year, and not just a tough, expensive month or two. So just because they’re not as bad as some people forecast doesn’t say that this is going to be a robust coverage year. 

Edney: And I think, I mean, they are the whole picture when you’re talking about who’s signing up, but a lot of these people that I’ve read about or heard about are on the radio programs and different things are signing up, are drastically changing their lives to be able to afford what they think might be their insurance. So how does that play out in other aspects? I think will be .. of the economy of jobs, like, where does that lead us? I think will be something to watch out for too. 

Rovner: And by the way, in case you’re wondering why health insurance is so expensive, we got the , and total health expenditures grew by 7.2% from the previous year to $5.3 trillion, or 18% of the nation’s GDP [gross domestic product], up from 17.7% the year before. Remember, these are the numbers for 2024, not 2025, but it makes it pretty hard for Republicans to blame the Affordable Care Act itself for rising insurance premiums. Insurance is more expensive because we’re spending more on health care. It’s not really that complicated, right? 

Kenen: This 17%-18% of GDP has been pretty consistent, which doesn’t mean it’s good; it just means it’s been around that level for many, many, many years. Despite all the talk about how it’s unsustainable, it’s been sustained, with pain, but sustained. $5.7 trillion, even if you’ve been doing this a long time â€¦ 

Rovner: It’s $5.3 trillion. 

Kenen: $5.3 trillion. It’s a mind-boggling number. It’s a lot of dollars! So the ACA made insurance more â€” the out-of-pocket cost of insurance for millions of Americans, 20-ish million â€” but the underlying burden we’ve not solved the — to use the word of the moment, the “affordability” crisis in health care is still with us and arguably getting worse. But like, I think we’re sort of numb. These numbers are just so insane, and yet you say it’s unsustainable, but â€¦ I think it was Uwe’s line, right? 

Rovner: It was, it was a famous Uwe Reinhardt line. 

Kenen: No, it’s sustainable, if we’re sustaining it at a high â€” in economically â€” zany price.  

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: And, like, the other thing is, like, where is the money? Right? Everybody in health care says they don’t have any money, so I can’t figure out who has the $5 trillion. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, it’s not â€¦ it does not seem to be the insurance companies as much as it is, you know, if you look at these numbers â€” and I’ll post a link to them â€” you know, it’s hospitals and drug companies and doctors and all of those who are part of the health care industrial complex, as I like to call it. 

Kenen: All of them say they don’t have enough.  

Rovner: Right. All right. So we know that the Affordable Care Act subsidies are hung up over abortion, as Alice pointed out, and we know that the big abortion demonstration, the March for Life, is coming up next week, so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that Senate health committee chairman and ardent anti-abortion senator Bill Cassidy would hold a hearing not on changes to the vaccine schedule, which he has loudly and publicly complained about, but instead about the reputed dangers of the abortion pill, mifepristone. Alice, like me, you watched yesterday’s hearing. What was your takeaway? 

Ollstein: So, you know, in a sense, this was a show hearing. There wasn’t a bill under consideration. They didn’t have anyone from the administration to grill. And so this is just sort of your typical each side tries to make their point hearing. And the bigger picture here is that conservatives, including senators and the activist groups who are sort of goading them on from the outside â€” they’re really frustrated right now about the Trump administration and the lack of action they’ve seen in this first year of this administration on their top priority, which is restricting the abortion pill. Their bigger goal is outlawing all abortion, but since abortion pills comprise the majority of abortions these days, that’s what they’re targeting. And so they’re frustrated that, you know, both [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] and [Marty] Makary have promised some sort of review or action on the abortion pill, and they say, We want to see it. Why haven’t you done it yet? And so I think that pressure is only going to mount, and this hearing was part of that. 

Rovner: I was fascinated by the Louisiana attorney general saying, basically, the quiet part out loud, which is that we banned abortion, but because of these abortion pills, abortions are still going up in our state. That was the first time I think I’d heard an official say that. I mean that, if you wonder why they’re going after the abortion pill, that’s why â€” because they struck down Roe [v. Wade] and assumed that the number of abortions would go down, and it really has not, has it? 

Ollstein: That’s right. And so not only are people increasingly using pills to terminate pregnancies, but they’re increasingly getting them via telemedicine. And you know, that’s absolutely true in states with bans, but it’s also true in states where abortion is legal. You know, a lot of people just really prefer the telemedicine option, whether because it’s cheaper, or they live really far away from a doctor who is willing to prescribe this, or, you know, any other reasons. So the right â€” you know, again, including senators like Cassidy, but also these activist groups â€” they’re saying, at a bare minimum, we want the Trump administration to ban telemedicine for the pills and reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement. That would really roll back access across the country. But what they really want is for the pills to be taken off the market altogether. And they’re pretty open about saying that.  

Rovner: Well, rather convenient timing from the , which published a peer-reviewed study of 5,000 pages of documents from the FDA that found that over the last dozen years, when it comes to the abortion pill and its availability, the agency followed the evidence-based recommendations of its scientists every single time, except once, and that once was during the first Trump administration. Alice, is there anything that will convince people that the scientific evidence shows that mifepristone is both safe and effective and actually has a very low rate of serious complications? There were, how many, like 100, more than 100 peer-reviewed studies that basically show this, plus the experience of many millions of women in the United States and around the world. 

Ollstein: Well, just like I’m skeptical that there’s any compromise that can be found on the Obamacare subsidies, there’s just no compromise here. You know, you have the groups that are making these arguments about the pills’ safety say very openly that, you know, the reason they oppose the pills is because they cause abortions. They say it can’t be health care if it’s designed to end a life, and that kind of rhetoric. And so the focus on the rate of complication â€¦ I mean, I’m not saying they’re not genuinely concerned. They may be, but, you know, this is one of many tactics they’re using to try to curb access to the pills. So it’s just one argument in their arsenal. It’s not their, like, primary driving, overriding goal is, is the safety which, like you said, has been well established with many, many peer-reviewed studies over the last several years. 

¸é´Ç±¹²Ô±ð°ù:ÌýSo, in between these big, high-profile anti-abortion actions like Senate hearings, those supporting abortion rights are actually still prevailing in court, at least in the lower courts. This week, [a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association against the Trump administration after the administration also quietly gave Planned Parenthood and other family planning groups] back the Title X family planning money that was appropriated to it by Congress. That was what Joanne was referring to, that Congress has been appropriating money that the administration hasn’t been spending. But this wasn’t really the big pot of federal money that Planned Parenthood is fighting to win back, right?

Ollstein: It was one pot of money they’re fighting to win back. But yes, the much bigger Medicaid cuts that Congress passed over last summer, those are still in place. And so that’s an order of magnitude more than this pot of Title X family planning money that they just got back. So that aside, I’ve seen a lot of conservatives conflate the two and accuse the Trump administration of violating the law that Congress passed and restoring funding to Planned Parenthood. This is different funding, and it’s a lot less than the cuts that happened. And so I talked to the organizations impacted, and it was clear that even though they’re getting this money back, for some it came too late, like they already closed their doors and shut down clinics in a lot of states, and they can’t reopen them with this chunk of money. This money is when you give a service to a patient, you can then submit for reimbursement. And so if the clinic’s not there, it’s not like they can use this money to, like, reopen the clinic, sign a lease, hire people, etc.  

Rovner: Yeah. The wheels of the courts, as we have seen, have moved very slowly. 

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

So while abortion gets most of the headlines, it’s not the only culture war issue in play. The Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments in a case challenging two of the 27 state laws barring transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams. Reporters covering the argument said it seemed unlikely that a majority of justices would strike down the laws, which would allow all of those bans to stand. Meanwhile, the other two branches of the federal government have also weighed in on the gender issue in recent weeks. The House passed a bill in December, sponsored by now former Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene that would make it a felony for anyone to provide gender-affirming care to minors nationwide. And the Department of Health and Human Services issued proposed regulations just before Christmas that wouldn’t go quite that far, but would have roughly the same effect. The regulations would ban hospitals from providing gender-affirming care to minors or risk losing their Medicare and Medicaid funding, and would bar funding for gender-affirming care for minors by Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. At the same time, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy issued a declaration, which is already being challenged in court, stating that gender-affirming care, quote, “does not meet professionally recognized standards of health care,” and therefore practitioners who deliver it can be excluded from federal health programs. I get that sports team exclusions have a lot of public support, but does the public really support effectively ending all gender-affirming care for minors? That’s what this would do. 

Edney: Well, I think that when a lot of people hear that, they think of surgery, which is the much, much, much, much, much less likely scenario here that we’re even talking about. And so those who are against it have done an effective job of making that the issue. And so there â€¦ who support gender-affirming care, who have looked into it, would see that a lot of this is hormone treatment, things like that, to drugs â€¦  

Rovner: Puberty blockers! 

Edney: â€¦ they’re taking â€” exactly â€” and so it’s not, this isn’t like a permanent under-the-knife type of thing that a lot of people are thinking about, and I think, too, talking about, like mental health, with being able to get some of these puberty blockers, the effect that it can have on a minor who doesn’t want to live the way they’ve been living, so it’s so helpful to them. So I think that there’s just a lot that has, you know, there’s been a lot of misinformation out there about this, and I feel like that that’s kind of winning the day. 

Kenen: I think, like, from the beginning, because, like, five or six years ago was the first time I wrote about this. The playbook has been very much like the anti-abortion playbook. They talk about it in terms of protecting women’s health, and now they’re talking about it in protecting children’s health. And, as Anna said, they’re using words like mutilation. Puberty blockers are not mutilation. Puberty blockers are a medication that delays the onset of puberty, and it is not irreversible. It’s like a brake. You take your foot off the brake, and puberty starts. There’s some controversy about what age and how long, and there’s some possible bone damage. I mean, there’s some questions that are raised that need to be answered, but the conversation that’s going on now â€” most of the experts in this field, who are endocrinologists and psychologists and other people who are working with these kids, cite a lot of data saying that not only this is safe, but it’s beneficial for a kid who really feels like they’re trapped in the wrong body. So you know, I think it’s really important to repeat â€¦ the point that Anna made, you know, 12-year-olds are not getting major surgery. Very few minors are, and when they are, it’s closer â€¦ they may be under 18, it’s rare. But if you’re under 18, you’re closer to 18, it’s later in teens. And it’s not like you walk into an operating room and say, you know, do this to me. There’s years of counseling and evaluation and professional teams. It really did strike a nerve in the campaign. I think Pennsylvania, in particular. This is something that people don’t understand and get very upset about, and the inflammatory language, it’s not creating understanding. 

Rovner: We’ll see how this one plays out. Finally, this week, things at the Department of Health and Human Services continues to be chaotic. In the latest round of “we’re cutting you off because you don’t agree with us,” the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration sent hundreds of letters Tuesday to grantees canceling their funding immediately. It’s not entirely clear how many grants or how much money was involved, but it appeared to be something in the neighborhood of $2 billion â€” that’s around a fifth of SAMHSA’s entire budget. SAMHSA, of course, funds programs that provide addiction and mental health treatment, treatment for homelessness and suicide prevention, among other things. Then, Wednesday night, after a furious backlash from Capitol Hill and just about every mental health and substance abuse group in the country, from what I could tell from my email, the administration canceled the cuts. Did they miscalculate the scope of the reaction here, or was chaos the actual goal in this?  

Edney: That is a great question. I really don’t know the answer. I don’t know what it could serve anyone by doing this and reversing it in 24 hours, as far as the chaos angle, but it does seem, certainly, like there was a miscalculation of how Congress would react to this, and it was a bipartisan reaction that wanted to know why, what is it even your justification? Because these programs do seem to support the priorities of this administration and HHS. 

Rovner: I didn’t count, but I got dozens of emails yesterday.  

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: My entire email box was overflowing with people basically freaking out about these cuts to SAMHSA. Joanne, you wanted to say something? 

Kenen: I think that one of the shifts over â€” I’m not exactly sure how many years â€” 7, 8, 9, years, whatever we’ve been dealing with this opioid crisis, the country has really changed and how we see addiction, and that we are much more likely to view addiction not as a criminal justice issue, but as a mental health issue. It’s not that everybody thinks that. It’s not that every lawmaker thinks that, but we have really turned this into, we have seen it as, you know, a health problem and a health problem that strikes red states and blue states. You know, we are all familiar with the “deaths of despair.” Many of us know at least an acquaintance or an acquaintance’s family that have experienced an overdose death. This is a bipartisan shift. It is, you know, you’ve had plenty of conservatives speaking out for both more money and more compassion. So I think that the backlash yesterday, I mean, we saw the public backlash, but I think there was probably a behind-the-scenes â€” some of the “Opioid Belts” are very conservative states, and Republican governors, you know, really saying we’ve had progress. Right? The last couple of years, we have made progress. Fatal overdoses have gone down, and Narcan is available. And just like our inboxes, I think their telephones, they were bombarded.  

Rovner: Yeah. Well, meanwhile, several hundred workers have reportedly been reinstated at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health â€” that’s a subagency of CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. Except that those RIF [reduction in force] cancellations came nine months after the original RIFs, which were back in April. Does the administration think these folks are just sitting around waiting to be called back to work? And in news from the National Institutes of Health, Director Jay Bhattacharya told a podcaster last week that the DEI-related [diversity, equity, and inclusion] grants that were canceled and then reinstated due to court orders are likely to simply not be renewed. And at the FDA, former longtime drug regulator Richard Pazdur said at the J.P. Morgan [Healthcare] Conference in San Francisco this week that the firewall between the political appointees at the agency and its career drug reviewers has been, quote, “breached.” How is the rest of HHS expected to actually, you know, function with even so much uncertainty about who works there and who’s calling the shots? 

Ollstein: Not to mention all of this back and forth and chaos and starting and stopping is costing more, is costing taxpayers more. Overall spending is up. After all of the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] and RIFs and all of it, they have not cut spending at all because it’s more expensive to pay people to be on administrative leave for a long time and then try to bring them back and then shut down a lab and then reopen a lab. And all of this has not only meant, you know, programs not serving people, research not happening, but it hasn’t even saved the government any money, either. 

Kenen: Like, you know, the game we played when we were kids, remember, “Red Light-Green Light,” you know, you’d run in one direction, you run back. And if you were 8 years old, it would end with someone crying. And that’s sort of the way we’re running the government these days [laughs]. The amount of people fired, put on leave. The CDC has had this incredible yo-yoing of people. You can’t even keep track. You don’t even know what email to use if you’re trying to keep in touch with them anymore. The churn, with what logic? It’s, as Alice said, just more expensive, but it’s, it’s also just â€¦ like you can’t get your job done. Even if you want a smaller government, which many of conservatives and Trump people do, you still want certain functions fulfilled. But there’s still a consensus in society that we need some kind of functioning health system and health oversight and health monitoring. I mean, the American public is not against research, and the American public is not against keeping people alive. You know, the inconsistency is pretty mind-boggling. 

Edney: Well, there’s a lot of rank-and-file, but we’re seeing a lot of heads of parts of the agencies where, like at the FDA, with the drug center, or many of the different institutes at NIH that really don’t have anyone in place that is leading them. And I think that that, to me, like this is just my humble opinion, is it kind of seems like the message as anybody can do this part, because it’s all coming from one place. There’s really just one leader, essentially, RFK, or maybe it’s Trump, or they want everyone to do it the way that they’re going to comply with the different, like you said, everyone wants research, but I, Joanne, but I do think they only want certain kinds of research in this case. So it’s been interesting to watch how many leaders in these agencies that are going away and not being replaced. 

Rovner: And all the institutional memory that’s walking out the door. I mean, more people â€” and to Alice’s point about how this hasn’t saved money â€” more people have taken early retirement than have been actually, you know, RIF’d or fired or let go. I mean, they’ve just â€¦ a lot of people have basically, including a lot of leaders of many of these agencies, said, We just don’t want to be here under these circumstances. Bye. Assuming at some point this government does want to use the Department of Health and Human Services to get things done, there might not be the personnel around to actually effectuate it. But we will continue to watch that space. 

OK, that’s this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Elisabeth Rosenthal, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Elisabeth Rosenthal, senior contributing editor at KFF Health News and originator of our “Bill of the Month” series, which in its nearly eight years has analyzed nearly $7 million in dubious, infuriating, or inflated medical charges. Libby also wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” which we’ll talk about in a minute. Libby, welcome back to the podcast. 

Elisabeth Rosenthal: Thanks for having me back. 

Rovner: So before we get to this month’s patient, can you reflect for a moment on the impact this series has had, and how frustrated are you that eight years on, it’s as relevant as it was when we began? 

Rosenthal: We were worried it wouldn’t last a year, and here we are, eight years later, still finding plenty to write about. I mean, we’ve had some wins. I think we helped contribute to the No Surprises Act being passed. There are states clamping down on facility fees, you know, and making sure that when you get something done in a hospital rather than an outpatient clinic, it’s the same cost. The country’s starting to address drug prices. But, you know, we seem to be the billing police, and that’s not good. We’ve gotten a lot of bills written off for our individual patients. Suddenly, when a reporter calls, they’re like, Oh, that was a mistake or Yeah, we’re going to write that off. And I’m like, You’re not writing that off; that shouldn’t have been billed. So sadly, the series is still going strong, and medical billing has proved endlessly creative. And you know, I think the sad thing for me is our success is a sign of a deeply, deeply dysfunctional system that has left, as we know, you know, 100 million adult Americans with medical debt. So we will keep going until it’s solved, I hope. 

Rovner: Well, getting on to this month’s patient, he gives new meaning to the phrase “It must have been something I ate.” Tell us what it was and how he ended up in the emergency room. 

Rosenthal: Well, Maxwell [Kruzic] loves eating spicy foods, but he’s never had a problem with it. And suddenly, one night, he had just excruciating, crippling abdominal pain. He drove himself to the emergency room. It was so bad he had to stop three times, and when he got there, it was mostly on the right-lower quadrant. You know, the doctors were so convinced, as he was, that he had appendicitis, that they called a surgeon right away, right? So they were all like, ready to go to the operating room. And then the scan came back, and it was like, whoops, his appendix is normal. And then, oh, could he have kidney stones? And it’s like no sign of that either. And finally, he thought, or someone asked, Well, what did you eat last night? And of course, Maxwell had ordered the hottest chili peppers from a bespoke chili pepper-growing company in New Mexico. They have some chili pepper rating of 2 million [Scoville heat units], which is, like, through the roof, and it was a reaction to the chili peppers. I didn’t even know that could happen, and I trained as a doctor, but I guess your intestines don’t like really, really, really hot stuff. 

Rovner: So in the end, he was OK. And the story here isn’t even really about what kind of care he got, or how much it cost. The $8,000 the hospital charged for his few hours in the ER doesn’t seem all that out of line compared to some of the bills we’ve seen. What was most notable in this case was the fact that the bill didn’t actually come until two years later. How much was he asked to pay two years after the hot pepper incident? 

Rosenthal: Well, he was asked to pay a little over $2,000, which was his coinsurance for the emergency room visit. And as he said, you know, $8,000 â€¦ now we go, well, that’s not bad. I mean, all they did, actually, was do a couple of scans and give him some IV fluids. But in this day and age, you’re like, wow, he got away â€” you know, from a “Bill of a Month” perspective, he got away cheap, right? 

Rovner: But I would say, is it even legal to send a bill two years after the fact? Who sends a bill two years later? 

Rosenthal: That’s the problem, like, and Maxwell â€” he’s a pretty smart guy, so he was checking his portal repeatedly. I mean, he paid something upfront at the ER, and he kept thinking, I must owe something. And he checked and he checked and he checked and it kept saying zero. He actually called his insurer and to make sure that was right. And they said, No, no, no, it’s right. You owe zero. And then, you know, after like, six months, he thought, I guess I owe zero. But then he didn’t think about it, and then almost two years later, this bill arrives in the mail, and he’s like, What?! And what I discovered, which is a little disturbing, is it is not, I wouldn’t say normal, but we see a bunch of these ghost bills at “Bill of the Month,” and in many cases, it’s legal, because of what was going on in those two-year periods. And of course, I called the hospital, I called the insurer, and they were like, Yeah, you know, someone was away on vacation, and someone left their job, and we couldn’t â€¦ you know, the hospital billed them correctly. And the hospital said, No, we didn’t. And they were just kind of doing the usual back-end negotiations to figure out what a service is worth. And when they finally agreed two years later what should be paid, that’s when they sent Maxwell the bill. And the problem is, whether it’s legal really depends on your insurance contracts, and whether they allow this kind of late billing. I do not know to this day if Maxwell’s did, because as soon as I called the insurer and the hospital, they were like, Never mind. He doesn’t owe anything. And you know, as he said, he’s a geological engineer. He has lots of clients, and as he said, you know, if I called them two years later and said, Whoops, I forgot to bill for something, they would be like, Forget it! you know. So I do think this is something that needs to be addressed at a policy level, as we so often discover on “Bill of the Month.” 

Rovner: So what should you do if you get one of these ghost bills? I should say I’m still negotiating bills from a surgery that I had six months ago. So I guess I should count myself lucky. 

Rosenthal: Well, I think you should check with your insurer and check with the hospital. I think more with your insurer â€” if the contract says this is legal to bill. It’s unclear to me, in this case, whether it was. The hospital was very much like, Oh, we made a mistake; because it took so long, we actually couldn’t bill Maxwell. So I think in his case, it probably was in the contract that this was too late to bill. But, you know, I think a lot of hospitals, I hate to say it, have this attitude. Well, doesn’t hurt to try, you know, maybe they’ll pay it. And people are afraid of bills, right? They pay them.  

Rovner: I know the feeling. 

Rosenthal: Yeah, I do think, you know, they should check with their insurer about whether there’s a statute of limitations, essentially, on billing, because there may well be and I would say it’s a great asymmetry, because if you submit an insurance claim more than six months late, they can say, Well, we won’t pay this. 

Rovner: And just to tie this one up with a bow, I assume that Maxwell has changed his pepper-eating ways, at least modified them? 

Rosenthal: He said he will never eat scorpion peppers again. 

Rovner: Libby Rosenthal, thank you so much. 

Rosenthal: Oh, sure. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back, and 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. Anna, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Edney: Sure. So my extra credit is from MedPage Today: “.” I appreciated this article because it answered some questions that I had, too, after the sweeping change to the childhood vaccine schedule. There was just a lot of discussions I had about, you know, well, what does this really mean on the ground? And will parents be confused? Will pediatricians â€” how will they be talking about this? You know, will they stick to the schedule we knew before? And there was an article in JAMA Perspectives that lays out, essentially, to clinicians, you know, that they should not fear malpractice .. issues if they’re going to talk about the old schedule and not adhere to the newer schedule. And so it lays out some of those issues. And I thought that was really helpful. 

Rovner: Yeah, this was a big question that I had, too. Alice, why don’t you go next? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so I have a piece from ProPublica. It’s called “.” So this is about how there’s been this huge push on the right to end public water fluoridation that has succeeded in a couple places and could spread more. And the proponents of doing that say that it’s fine because there are all these other sources of fluoride. You can get a treatment at the dentist, you can get it in stuff you buy at the drugstore and take yourself. But at the same time, the people who arepushing for ending fluoridated public drinking water are also pushing for restricting those other sources. There have been state and federal efforts to crack down on them, plus all of the just rhetoric about fluoride, which is very misleading. It misrepresents studies about its alleged neurological impacts. But it also, that kind of rhetoric makes people afraid to have fluoride in any form, and people are very worried about that, what that’s going to do to the nation’s teeth? 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s like vaccines. The more you talk it down, the less people want to do it. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is a piece by Dhruv Khullar in The New Yorker called “,” and it was really great, because there’s certain things I think that we who â€” like, I don’t know how all of you watch it â€” but like, there’s certain things that didn’t even strike me, because I’m so used to writing about, like, the connection between poverty, social determinants of health, and, like, of course, people who come to the ED [emergency department] have, you know, homelessness problems and can’t afford food and all that. But Dhruv talked about how it sort of brought that home to him, how our social safety net, the holes in it, end up in our EDs. And he also talked about some of it is dramatized more for TV, that not everybody’s heart stops every 15 minutes. He said that sort of happens to one patient a day. But he talked about compassion and how that is rediscovered in this frenetic ED/ER scene. It’s just a very thoughtful piece about why we all love that TV show. And it’s not just because of Noah Wyle. 

Rovner: Although that helps. My extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “,” by Maxine Joselow. And while it’s not about HHS, it most definitely is about health. It seems that for the first time in literally decades, the Environmental Protection Agency will no longer calculate the cost to human health when setting clean air rules for ozone and fine particulate matter, quoting the story: “That would most likely lower costs for companies while resulting in dirtier air.” This is just another reminder that the federal government is charged with ensuring the help of Americans from a broad array of agencies, aside from HHS â€” or in this case, not so much.  

OK, that’s this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had help this week from producer 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, at 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 folks hanging these days? Alice. 

Ollstein: Mostly on Bluesky  and still on X . 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly on  or on  . 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney:  or 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 I’m joined by some of the best and smartest reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, March 26, 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, everybody. 

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: And Lizzy Lawrence of Stat News. 

Lizzy Lawrence: Hello. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Katie Keith of Georgetown University about the state of the Affordable Care Act as it turns 16 â€” old enough to drive in most states. But first, this week’s news. 

So, it has been another busy week at the Department of Health and Human Services. Last week, a federal judge in Massachusetts blocked the department’s vaccine policy, ruling it had violated federal administrative procedures regarding advisory committees. This week, a federal judge in Portland, Oregon, ruled the department also didn’t follow the required process to block federal reimbursement for transgender-related medical treatment. The case was brought by 21 Democratic-led states. Where does this leave the hot-button issue of care for transgender teens? Shefali, you’ve been following this. 

Luthra: I mean, I think it’s still really up in the air. A lot of this depends on how hospitals now respond â€” whether they feel confident in the court’s decision, having staying power enough to actually resume offering services. Because a lot of them stopped. And so that’s something we’re still waiting to actually see how this plays out in practice. Obviously, it’s very symbolic, very legally meaningful, but whether this will translate into changes in practical health care access, I think, is an open question still. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will definitely have to see how this one plays out â€” and, obviously, if and when the administration appeals it. Well, speaking of that vaccine ruling from last week â€” which, apparently, the administration has not yet appealed, but is going to â€” one of the most contentious members of that very contentious Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has resigned. Dr. Robert Malone, a physician and biochemist, said he didn’t want to be part of the “drama,” air quotes. But he caused a lot of the drama, didn’t he? 

Cohrs Zhang: He has been pretty outspoken, and I think he isn’t like a Washington person necessarily â€” isn’t somebody who’s used to, like, being on a public stage and having your social media posts appear in large publications. So I think it’s questionable, like, whether he had a position to resign from. I think his nomination was stayed, too. But I think it is â€¦ the back-and-forth, I think, there is a good point that this limbo can be frustrating for people when meetings are canceled at the last minute, and people have travel plans, and it does â€¦ just changes the calculus for kind of making it worth it to serve on one of these advisory committees. 

Rovner: And I’m not sure whether we mentioned it last week, but the judge’s ruling not only said that the people were incorrectly appointed to ACIP, but it also stayed any meetings of the advisory committee until there is further court action, until basically, the case is done or it’s overruled by a higher court. So â€¦ vaccine policy definitely is in limbo.  

Well, meanwhile, yesterday was the deadline for the administration to nominate someone to head the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention since Susan Monarez was abruptly dismissed, let go, resigned, whatever, late last summer. Now that that deadline has passed, it means that acting Director Jay Bhattacharya, who had added that title to his day job as head of the National Institutes of Health, can no longer remain acting director of CDC. Apparently, though he’s going to sort of remain in charge, according to HHS spokespeople, with some authorities reverting to [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.]. What’s taking so long to find a CDC director?  

To quote D.C. cardiologist and frequent cable TV health policy commentator , “The problem here is that there’s no candidate who’s qualified, MAHA acceptable, and Senate confirmable. Those job requirements are mutually exclusive.” That feels kind of accurate to me. Is that actually the problem? Rachel, I see you smiling. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah. I think it is tough to find somebody who checks all of those boxes. And though it has been 210 days since the clock has started, I would just point out that there has been a significant leadership shake-up at HHS, like among the people who are kind of running this search, and they came in, you know, not that long ago. It’s only been, you know, a month and a half or so. So I think there certainly have been some new faces in the room who might have different opinions. But I think it isn’t a good look for them to miss this deadline when they have this much notice. But I think there’s also, like, legal experts that I’ve spoken with don’t think that there’s going to be a huge day-to-day impact on the operations of the CDC. It kind of reminds me of that office where there’s, like, an “assistant to the regional manager vibe” going on, where, like, Dr. Bhattacharya is now acting in the capacity of CDC director, even though he isn’t acting CDC director anymore. So, I think I don’t know that it’ll have a huge day-to-day impact, but it is kind of hanging over HHS at this point, as they are already struggling with the surgeon general nomination, to get that through the Senate. So it just creates this backlog of nominations. 

Rovner: I’ve assumed they’ve floated some names, let us say, one of which is Ernie Fletcher, the former governor of Kentucky, also a former member of the House Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, with some certainly medical chops, if not public health chops. I think the head of the health department in Mississippi. There was one other who I’ve forgotten, who it is among the names that have been floated â€¦ 

Cohrs Zhang: Joseph Marine. He’s a cardiologist at Johns Hopkins, who has â€” is kind of like in the kind of Vinay Prasad world of critics of the FDA and, like, CDC’s covid booster strategy. 

Rovner: And yet, apparently, none of them could pass, I guess, all three tests. Do we think it might still be one of them? Or do we think there are other names that are yet to come? 

Cohrs Zhang: Our understanding is that there are other candidates whose names have not become public, and I think there’s also a possibility they don’t choose any of these candidates and just drag it on for a while because, at this point, like, I don’t know what the rush is, now that the deadline is passed. 

Lawrence: Yeah, is there another deadline to miss? 

Cohrs Zhang: I don’t think so. 

Lawrence: I think this was the only one. 

Cohrs Zhang: This was the big one that they now have. It’s vacant, but it was vacant before as well. Like, I think, earlier in the administration, when Susan Monarez was nominated. 

Rovner: But she, well â€¦ that’s right, she was the “acting,” and then once she was nominated, she couldn’t be the acting anymore. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah. 

Rovner: So I guess it was vacant while she was being considered. 

Cohrs Zhang: It was. So it’s not an unprecedented situation, even in this administration. It’s just not a good look, I guess. And I think there is value in having a leader that can interface with the White House and with different leaders, and just having a direction for the agency, especially because it’s in Atlanta, it’s a little bit more removed from the everyday goings-on at HHS in general. So I think there’s definitely a desire for some stability over there. 

Rovner: And we have measles spreading in lots more states. I mean, every time I â€¦ open up my news feeds, it’s like, oh, now we have measles, you know, in Utah, I think, in Montana. Washtenaw County, Michigan, had its first measles case recently. So this is something that the CDC should be on top of, and yet there is no one on top of the CDC. Well, Rachel, you already alluded to this, but it is also apparently hard to find a surgeon general who’s both acceptable to MAHA and Senate confirmable, which is my way of saying that the Casey Means nomination still appears to lack the votes to move out of the Senate, Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee. Do we have any latest update on that? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think the latest update, I mean, my colleagues at Bloomberg Government just kind of had an update this week that they’re still not to “yes” — like, there are some key senators that still haven’t announced their positions publicly. So I think a lot of the same things that we’ve been hearing â€¦ like Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski and Bill Cassidy obviously have not stated their positions publicly on the nomination. Sen. Thom Tillis, who you know is kind of in a lame-duck scenario and doesn’t really have anything to lose, has, you know, said he’s not really made a decision. So I think they’re kind of in this weird limbo where they, like, don’t have the votes to advance her, but they also have not made a decision to pull the nomination at this time. So either, I think, they have to push harder on some of these senators, and I think senators see this as a leverage point that I don’t know that a lot of â€” that all of the complaints are about Dr. Means specifically, but anytime that there is frustration with the wider department, then this is an opportunity for senators to have their voice heard, to â€¦ potentially extract some concessions. And so there’s a question right now, are they going to change course again for this position, or are they going to, you know, sit down at the bargaining table and really cut some deals to advance her nomination? I just don’t think we know the answer to that yet. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s worth reminding that, frequently, nominations get held up for reasons that are totally disconnected from the person involved. We went â€” I should go back and look this up â€” we went, like, four years in two different administrations without a confirmed head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services because members of Congress were angry about other things, not because of any of the people who had actually been nominated to fill that position. But in this case, it does seem to be, I think, both Casey Means and, you know, her connection to MAHA, and the fact that among those who haven’t declared their positions yet, it’s the chairman of the committee, Bill Cassidy, who’s in this very tight primary to keep his seat. So we will keep on that one.  

Also, meanwhile, HHS continues to push its Make America Healthy Again priority. Secretary Kennedy hinted on the Joe Rogan podcast last month that the FDA will soon take unspecified action to make customized peptides easier to obtain from compounding pharmacies. These mini-proteins are part of a biohacking trend that many MAHA adherents say can benefit health, despite their not having been shown to be safe and effective in the normal FDA approval process. The FDA has also formally pulled a proposed rule that would have banned teens from using tanning beds. We know that the secretary is a fan of tanning salons, even though that has been shown to cause potential health problems, like skin cancer. Lizzy, is Kennedy just going to push as much MAHA as he can until the courts or the White House stops him? 

Lawrence: I guess so. I mean, we do have this new structure at HHS now that’s trying to â€” clearly â€¦ there are warring factions with the MAHA agenda and the White House really trying to focus more on affordability and less on â€¦ vaccine scrutiny and the medical freedom movement that is really popular among Kennedy’s supporters. â€¦ I’m very curious about what’s going to happen with peptides, because it’s a sign of Kennedy’s regulatory philosophy, where there’s some products that are good and some that are bad. It’s very atypical, of course, for â€¦ 

Rovner: And that he gets to decide rather than the scientists, because he doesn’t trust the scientists. 

Lawrence: Right. Right. But there has been, I mean, the FDA has kind of been pretty severe on GLP-1 compounders Hims & Hers, so it’ll be interesting to see, you know, how much Kennedy is able to exert his will here, and how much FDA regulators will be able to push back and make their voices heard. 

Rovner: My favorite piece of FDA trivia this week is that FDA is posting the jobs that are about to be vacant at the vaccine center, and one of the things that it actually says in the job description is that you don’t have to be immunized. I don’t know if that’s a signal or what. 

Lawrence: Yeah, I think it said no telework, which Vinay Prasad famously was teleworking from San Francisco. So, yeah, I don’t know. But this was, I think it was for his deputy, although I’m sure, I mean, they do need a CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] director as well. 

Rovner: Yeah, there’s a lot of openings right now at HHS. All right, we’re gonna take a quick break. We will be right back. 

So Monday was the 16th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act, which we will hear more about in my interview with Katie Keith. But I wanted to highlight a story by my KFF Health News colleague Sam Whitehead about older Americans nearing Medicare eligibility putting off preventive and other care until they qualify for federal coverage that will let them afford it. For those who listened to my interview last week with Drew Altman, this hearkens back to one of the big problems with our health system. There are so many quote-unquote “savings” that are actually just cost-shifting, and often that cost-shifting raises costs overall. In this case, because those older people can no longer afford their insurance or their deductibles, they put off care until it becomes more expensive to treat. At that point, because they’re on Medicare, the federal taxpayer will foot a bill that’s even bigger than the bill that would have been paid by the insurance company. So the savings taxpayers gained by Congress cutting back the Affordable Care Act subsidies are lost on the Medicare end. Is this cost-shifting the inevitable outcome of addressing everything in our health care system except the actual prices of medical care? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think it’s just another example of how people’s behavior responds to these weird incentives. And I think we’re seeing this problem, certainly among early retirees, exacerbated by the expiration of the Affordable Care Act subsidies that we’ve talked about very often on this podcast, because it affects these higher earners, and it can dramatically increase costs for coverage. And I think people just hope that they can hold on. But again, these statutory deadlines that lawmakers make up sometimes, not with a lot of forethought or rational reasoning, they have consequences. And obviously, the Medicare program continues to pay beyond age 65 as well. And I think it’s just another symptom of what the administration talks about when they talk about emphasizing, you know, preventative care and addressing chronic conditions â€” like, that is a real problem. And, yeah, I think we’re going to see these problems in this population continue to get worse as more people forgo care, as it becomes more expensive on the individual markets. 

Luthra: I think you also make a good point, though, Julie, because the increase in costs and cost sharing is not limited to people with marketplace plans, right? Also, people with employer-sponsored health care are seeing their out-of-pocket costs go up. Employers are seeing what they pay for insurance go up as well. And there absolutely is something to be said about it’s been 16 years since the Affordable Care Act passed, we haven’t really had meaningful intervention on the key source of health care prices, right? Hospitals, providers, physicians. And it does seem, just thinking about where the public is and the politics are, that there is possibly appetite around this. You see a lot of talk about affordability, but a lot of this feels, at least as an observer, very focused on insurance, which makes sense. Insurance is a very easy villain to cast. But I think you’ve raised a really good point: that addressing these really potent burdens on individuals and eventually on the public just requires something more systemic and more serious if we actually want to yield better outcomes. 

Rovner: Yeah, there’s just, there’s so much passing the hat that, you know, I don’t want to do this, so you have to do this. You know, inevitably, people need health care. Somebody has to pay for it. And I think that’s sort of the bottom line that nobody really seems to want to address. 

Well, the other theme of 2026 that I feel like I keep repeating is what funding cutbacks and other changes are doing to the future of the nation’s biomedical and medical workforces. Last week was Match Day. That’s when graduating medical school seniors find out if and where they will do their residency training. One big headline from this year’s match is that the percentage of non-U.S. citizen graduates of foreign medical schools matching to a U.S. residency position fell to a five-year low of 56.4%. That compares to a 93.5% matching rate for U.S. citizen graduates of U.S. medical schools. Why does that matter? Well, a quarter of the U.S. physician workforce are immigrants, and they are disproportionately represented, both in lower-paid primary care specialties, particularly in rural areas, both of which U.S. doctors tend to find less desirable. This would seem to be the result of a combination of new fees for visas for foreign professionals that we’ve talked about, a general reduction in visa approvals, and some people likely not wanting to even come to the U.S. to practice. But that rural health fund that Republicans say will revitalize rural health care doesn’t seem like it’s really going to work without an adequate number of doctors and nurses, I would humbly suggest. 

Lawrence: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it’s patients that suffer, right? I mean, you need the people doing the work. And so I think that the impacts will start being felt sooner rather than later. That is something that hopefully people will start to feel the pain from. 

Rovner: I feel like when people think about the immigrant workforce, they think about lower-skilled, lower-paid jobs that immigrants do, and they don’t think about the fact that some of the most highly skilled, highly paid jobs that we have, like being doctors, are actually filled by immigrants, and that if we cut that back, we’re just going to exacerbate shortages that we already know we have. 

Luthra: And training doctors takes, famously, a very long time. And so if you are disincentivizing people from coming here to practice, cutting off this key source of supply, it’s not as if you can immediately go out and say, Here, let’s find some new people and make them doctors. It will take years to make that tenable, make that attractive, and make that a reality. And it just seems, to Lizzy’s point, that even in the scenario where that was possible â€” which I would be somewhat doubtful; medicine is a hard and difficult career; it’s not like you can make someone want to do that overnight â€” patients will absolutely see the consequences. I don’t know if it’s enough to change how people think about immigration policy and ways in which we recruit and engage with immigrant workers, but it’s absolutely something that should be part of our discussion. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I think it’s been left out. Well, meanwhile, over at the National Institutes of Health, a , Lizzy, found that more than a quarter have laid off laboratory workers. More than 2 in 5 have canceled research, and two-thirds have counseled students to consider careers outside of academic research. A separate study published this week found that women and early-career scientists have been disproportionately affected by the NIH cuts, even though most of the money goes to men and to later-career scientists. As I keep saying, this isn’t just about the future of science. Biomedical research is a huge piece of the U.S. economy. Earlier this month, the group United for Medical Research , finding that every dollar invested produced $2.57 for the economy. Concerned members of Congress from both parties last week at an appropriations hearing got NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya to again promise to push all the money that they appropriated out the door. But it’s not clear whether it’s going to continue to compromise the future workforce. I feel like, you know, we talk about all these missing people and nomination stuff, but we’re not really talking a lot about what’s going on at the National Institutes of Health, which is a, you know, almost $50 billion-a-year enterprise. 

Lawrence: Right. In some labs, the damage has already been done. You know, even if Dr. Bhattacharya [follows through], try spending all the money that has been appropriated. There are young researchers that have been shut out and people that have had to choose alternative career paths. And I think this is one of those things that’s difficult politically or, you know, in the public consciousness, because it is hard to see the immediate impacts it’s measured. And I think my colleague Jonathan wrote [that] breakthroughs are not discovered things, you know. So it’s hard to know what is being missed. But the immediate impact of the workforce and not missing this whole generation of scientists that has decided to go to another country or go to do something else, those impacts will be felt for years to come. 

Rovner: Yeah, this is another one where you can’t just turn the spigot back on and have it immediately refill.  

Finally, this week, there is always reproductive health news. This week, we got the Alan Guttmacher Institute’s  for the year 2025, which both sides of the debate consider the most accurate, and it found that for the second year in a row, the number of abortions in the U.S. remained relatively stable, despite the fact that it’s outlawed or seriously restricted in nearly half the states. Of course, that’s because of the use of telehealth, which abortion opponents are furiously trying to get stopped, either by the FDA itself or by Congress. Last week, anti-abortion Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri introduced legislation that would basically rescind approval for the abortion pill mifepristone. But that legislation is apparently giving some Republicans in the Senate heartburn, as they really don’t want to engage this issue before the midterms. And, apparently, the Trump administration doesn’t either, given what we know about the FDA saying that they’re still studying this. On the other hand, Republicans can’t afford to lose the backing of the anti-abortion activists either. They put lots of time, effort, and money into turning out votes, particularly in times like midterms. How big a controversy is this becoming, Shefali? 

Luthra: This is a huge controversy, and it’s so interesting to watch this play out. When I saw Sen. Hawley’s bill, I mean, that stood out to me as positioning for 2028. He clearly wants to be a favorite among the anti-abortion movement heading into a future presidential primary. But at the same time, this is teasing out really potent and powerful dynamics among the anti-abortion movement and Republican lawmakers, exactly what you said. Republican lawmakers know this is not popular. They do not want to talk about abortion, an issue at which they are at a huge disadvantage with the public. Susan B Anthony List and other such organizations are trying to make the argument that if they are taken for granted, as they feel as if they are, that will result in an enthusiasm gap. Right? People will not turn out. They will not go door-knocking, they won’t deploy their tremendous resources to get victories in a lot of these contested, particularly Senate and House, races. And obviously, the president cares a lot about the midterms. He’s very concerned about what happens when Democrats take control of Congress. But I think what Republicans are wagering, and it’s a fair thought, is that where would anti-abortion activists go? Are they going to go to Democrats, who largely support abortion rights? And a lot of them seem confident that they would rather risk some people staying home and, overall, not alienating a very large sector of the American public that does not support restrictions on abortion nationwide, especially those that many are concerned are not in keeping with the actual science. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think the White House, as you said, would like to make this not front and center, let’s put it that way, for the midterms. But yeah, and just to be clear, I mean, Sen. Hawley introduced this bill. It can’t pass. There’s no way it gets 60 votes in the Senate. I’d be surprised if it could get 50 votes in the Senate. So he’s obviously doing this just to turn up the heat on his colleagues, many of whom are not very happy about that. 

Luthra: And anti-abortion activists are already thinking about 2028. They are, in fact, talking to people like Sen. Hawley, like the vice president, like Marco Rubio, trying to figure out who will actually be their champion in a post-Trump landscape. And so far, what I’m hearing, is that they are very optimistic that anyone else could be better for them than the president is because they are just so dissatisfied with how little they’ve gotten. 

Rovner: Although they did get the overturn of Roe v. Wade. 

Luthra: That’s true. 

Rovner: But you know, it goes back to sort of my original thought for this week, which is that the number of abortions isn’t going down because of the relatively easy availability of abortion pills by mail. Well, speaking of which, in a somewhat related story, a woman in Georgia has been charged with murder for taking abortion pills later in pregnancy than it’s been approved for, and delivering a live fetus who subsequently died. But the judge in the case has already suggested the prosecutors have a giant hill to climb to convict her and set her bail at $1. Are we going to see our first murder trial of a woman for inducing her own abortion? We’ve been sort of flirting with this possibility for a while. 

Luthra: It seems possible. I think it’s a really good question, and this moment certainly feels like a possible Rubicon, because going after people who get abortions is just so toxic for the anti-abortion movement. They have promised they would not go after people who are pregnant, who get abortions. And this is exactly what they are doing. And I think what really stands out to me about this case is so much of it depends on individual prosecutors and individual judges. You have the law enforcement officials who decided to make this a case, and they’re actually using, not the abortion law, even though the language in the case, right, really resonates, reflects with the law in Georgia’s six-week ban. Excuse me, with the language in Georgia’s six-week ban. But then you have a judge who says this is very suspect. And what feels so significant is that your rights and your protection under abortion laws depend not only on what state you live in, but who happens to be the local prosecutor, the local cop, the local judge, and that’s just a level of micro-precision that I think a lot of Americans would be very surprised to realize they live under. 

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. We should point out that the woman has been charged but not yet indicted, because many, many people are watching this case very, very carefully. And we will too. 

All right, that is this week’s news. Now I’ll play my interview with Katie Keith of Georgetown University Law Center, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Katie Keith. Katie is the founding director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center and a contributing editor at Health Affairs, where she keeps all of us up to date on the latest health policy, legal happenings. Katie, thanks for joining us again. It’s been a minute. 

Katie Keith: Yeah. Thanks for having me, Julie, and happy ACA anniversary. 

Rovner: So you are my go-to for all things Affordable Care Act, which is why I wanted you this week in particular, when the health law turned 16. How would you describe the state of the ACA today? 

Keith: Yeah, it’s a great question. So, the ACA remains a hugely important source of coverage for millions of people who do not have access to job-based coverage. I am thinking of farmers, and self-employed people, and small-business owners. And you know, in 2025, more than 24 million people relied on the marketplaces all across the country for this coverage. So it remains a hugely important place where people get their health insurance. And we are already starting to see real erosion in the gains made under the Biden administration as a result of, I think, three primary changes that were made in 2025. So the first would be Congress’ failure to extend the enhanced premium tax credits, which you have covered a ton, Julie and the team, as having a huge impact there. The second is the changes from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. And then the third is some of the administrative changes made by the Trump administration that we’re already seeing. So we don’t yet have full data to understand the impact of all three of those things yet. We’re still waiting. But the preliminary data shows that already enrollments down by more than a million people. I’m expecting that to drop further. There was some KFF survey data out last week that about 1 in 10 people are going uninsured from the marketplace already, and that’s not even, doesn’t even account for all the people who are paying more but getting less, which their survey data shows is about, you know, 3 in 10 folks. So you know what makes all of this really, really tough, as you and I have discussed before, is, I think, 2025, was really a peak year. We saw peak enrollment at the ACA. We saw peak popularity of the law, which has been more popular than not ever since 2017, when Republicans in Congress tried to repeal it the first time. And â€¦ but now it feels like we’re sort of on this precipice for 2026, watching what’s going to happen with the data into this really important source of coverage for so many people. 

Rovner: And â€¦ there’s been so much news that I think it’s been hard for people to absorb. You know, in 2017, when Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, they said that, We’re trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Well, the 2025 you know, “Big, Beautiful Bill,” they didn’t call it a repeal, but it had pretty much the same impact, right? 

Keith: It had a quite significant impact. And I think a lot, like, you know, there was so much coverage about how Democrats in Congress and the White House learned, in doing the Affordable Care Act, learned from the failed effort of the Clinton health reform in the ’90s. I think similarly here you saw Republicans in Congress, in the White House, learn from the failed effort in 2017 to be successful here. And so you’re exactly right. You did not hear any talk of “repeal and replace,” by any stretch of the imagination. I think in 2017 Republicans were judged harshly â€” and appropriately so, in my opinion â€” by the “replace” portion of what, you know, what they were going to do, and it just wasn’t there. And so you did not see that kind of framing this time around. Instead, it really is an attempt to do death by a thousand paper cuts and impose administrative burdens and a real focus on kind of who â€” you can’t see me, but air quotes, you know â€” who “deserves” coverage and a focus on immigrant populations. So â€¦ those changes, when you layer all of them on â€” changes to Medicaid coverage, Medicaid financing, paperwork burdens, all across all these different programs â€” you know, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, it really does erect new barriers that fundamentally change how Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act will work for people. And so it’s not repealed. I think those programs will still be there, but they will look very different than how they have and, you know, the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] at the time, the coverage losses almost â€¦ they look quite close to, you know, the skinny repeal that we all remember in the middle of the morning â€” early, like, late night, Sen. John McCain with his thumbs down. The coverage losses were almost the same, and you’ve got the CBO now saying, estimating about 35 million uninsured people by 2028, which, you know, is not â€¦ it’s just erasing, I think, not all, but a lot of the gains we’ve made over the past 15, now 16, years under the Affordable Care Act. 

Rovner: And now the Trump administration is proposing still more changes to the law, right? 

Keith: Yep, that’s right. They’re continuing, I think, a lot of the same. There’s several changes that, you know, go back to the first Trump administration that they’re trying to reimpose. Others are sort of new ideas. I’m thinking some of the same ideas are some of the paperwork burdens. So really, in some cases, building off of what has been pushed in Congress. What’s maybe new this time around for 2027 that they’re pushing is a significant expansion of catastrophic plans. So huge, huge, high-deductible plans that, you know, really don’t cover much until you hit tens of thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. You get your preventive services and three primary care visits, but that’s it. You’re on the hook for anything else you might need until you hit these really catastrophic costs. They’re punting to the states on core things like network adequacy. You know, again, some of it’s sort of new. Some of it’s a throwback to the first Trump administration, so not as surprising. And then on the legislative front, I don’t know what the prospects are, but you do continue to see President [Donald] Trump call for, you know, health savings account expansions. We think, I think, you know, the idea is to send people money to buy coverage, rather than send the money to the insurers, which I think folks have interpreted as health savings accounts. There’s a continued focus on funding cost-sharing reductions, but that issue continues to be snarled by abortion restrictions across the country. So that’s something that continues to be discussed, but I don’t know if it will ever happen. And you know anything else that’s kind of under the so-called Great Healthcare Plan that the White House has put out. 

Rovner: You mentioned that 2025 was the peak not just of enrollment but of popularity. And we have seen in poll after poll that the changes that the Trump administration and Congress is making are not popular with the public, including the vast majority of independents and many, many Republicans as well. Is there any chance that Congress and President Trump might relent on some of these changes between now and the midterms? We did see a bunch of Republicans, you know, break with the rest of the party to try to extend the, you know, the enhanced premiums. Do you see any signs that they’re weakening or are we off onto other things entirely right now? 

Keith: It’s a great question. I think you probably need a different analyst to ask that question to. I don’t think my crystal ball covers those types of predictions. But to your point, Julie, I thought that if there would have been time for a compromise and sort of a path forward, it would have been around the enhanced premium tax credits. And it was remarkable, you know, given what the history of this law has been and the politics surrounding it, to see 17 Republicans join all Democrats in the House to vote for a clean three-year extension of the premium tax credits. But no, I think especially thinking about where those enhanced tax credits have had the most benefit, it is states like Georgia, Florida, Texas, and I thought that maybe would, could have moved the needle if there was a needle to be moved. So I, it seems like there’s much more focus on prescription drugs and other issues, but anything can happen. So I guess we’ll all stay tuned. 

Rovner: Well, we’ll do this again for the 17th anniversary. Katie Keith, thank you so much. 

Keith: Thanks, 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. Lizzy, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Lawrence: Sure. So my extra credit is by Nick [Nicholas] Florko, former Stat-ian, in The Atlantic, “” I immediately read this piece, because this is something that’s been driving me kind of crazy. Just seeing â€” if you’ve missed it â€” there have been â€¦ HHS has been posting AI-generated videos of Secretary Kennedy wrestling a Twinkie, wearing waterproof jeans, all of these things. And this has been, this is not unique to HHS â€” [the] White House in general has really embraced AI slop as a genre, and I can’t look away. And so I thought Nick did a good job just acknowledging how crazy this is, and then also what goes unsaid in these videos. I think I personally am just very curious if this resonates with people, or if it’s kind of disconcerting for the average American seeing these videos like, Oh, my government is making AI slop. Like I, you know, social media strategy is so important, so maybe for some people are really liking this. But yeah, I’m just kind of curious about public sentiment. 

Rovner: I know I would say, you know, the National Park Service and the Consumer Product Safety Commission have been sort of famous for their very cutesy social media posts, but not quite to this extent. I mean, it’s one thing to be cheeky and funny. This is sort of beyond cheeky and funny. I agree with you. I have no idea how this is going over the public, but they keep doing it. It’s a really good story. Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: Mine is a story in The Boston Globe, and the headline is “” by Tal Kopan. And this was a really good profile of Tony Lyons, who is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book publisher, and he’s kind of had the role of institutionalizing all the political energy behind RFK Jr. and trying to make this into a more enduring political force. So I think he is, like, mostly a behind-the-scenes guy, not really like a D.C. fixture, more of like a New York book publishing figure. But I think his efforts and what they’re using, all the money they’re raising for, I think, is a really important thing to watch in the midterms, and like, whether they can actually leverage this beyond a Trump administration, or beyond however long Secretary Kennedy will be in his position. So I think it was just a good overview of all the tentacles of institutional MAHA that are trying to, you know, find their footing here, potentially for the long term.  

Rovner: I had never heard of him, so I was glad to read this story. Shefali. 

Luthra: My story is from NPR. It is by Tara Haelle. The headline is “.” Story says exactly what it promises, that if you have an infant, babies under 6 months, then getting a covid vaccine while you are pregnant will actually protect your baby, which is great because there is no vaccine for infants that young. I love this because it’s a good reminder of something that we were starting to see, and now it just really underscores that this is true, and in the midst of so much conversation around vaccines and safety and effectiveness, it’s a reminder that really, really good research can show us that it is a very good idea to take this vaccine, especially if you are pregnant. 

Rovner: More fodder for the argument, I guess. All right, my extra credit this week is a clever story from Stat’s John Wilkerson called “.” And, spoiler, that loophole is that one way companies can avoid running afoul of their promise not to charge other countries less for their products than they charge U.S. patients is for them to simply delay launching those drugs in those other countries that have price controls. Already, most drugs are launched in the U.S. first, and apparently some of the companies that have done deals with the administration limited their promises to three years, anyway. That way they can charge U.S. consumers however much they think the market will bear before they take their smaller profits overseas. Like I said, clever. Maybe that’s why so many companies were ready to do those deals. 

All right, that is this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman; our producer-engineer, Francis Ying; and our interview producer, 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? Shefali? 

Luthra: I am on Bluesky . 

Rovner: Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: On X , or . 

Rovner: Lizzy. 

Lawrence: I’m on X  and  and . 

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 KFF 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 I’m joined by some of the best and smartest reporters covering Washington. We are taping this week on Thursday, March 12, 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 Shefali Luthra of the 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Andy Schneider of Georgetown University, who will try to explain how the federal government’s fraud crackdown on blue-state Medicaid programs is something completely different from any fraud-fighting effort we’ve seen before. But first, this week’s news â€” and some of last week’s. 

Let’s start at the Department of Health and Human Services, where I think it’s safe to say Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. is not having a great week. The secretary reportedly had to have his rotator cuff surgically repaired on Tuesday. It’s not clear if he injured it during one of his famous video workouts. But it is clear, at least according to  from the University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Center, that the American public is not buying what he’s selling when it comes to policy. According to the survey, public trust in HHS agencies, which already took a dive during the pandemic, has fallen even more since Kennedy took over the department. Although, interestingly, public trust in career HHS officials is higher than it is for their political leaders. And trust in outside professional health organizations, places like the American Heart Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, is higher than for any of the government entities. 

Perhaps related to that is another piece of HHS news from this week. The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approved a label change for the drug leucovorin, which Secretary Kennedy last fall very aggressively touted as a potential treatment for autism. But the drug wasn’t approved to treat autism. Rather, the label changes to treat a rare genetic condition. Kennedy bragged about leucovorin, by the way, at the same press conference that President [Donald] Trump urged pregnant women not to take Tylenol, which has not been shown to contribute to the rise in autism. Maybe it’s fair to say the public is paying attention to the news and that helps explain the results of this Annenberg Center survey? 

Luthra: Maybe. I was just thinking, we do know that Tylenol prescriptions for people who are pregnant did go down, right? There’s research that shows, after that press conference, behaviors did change. And so to your point, it’s clear there is a lot of confusion, and confusion maybe breeds mistrust. But I don’t know that we can necessarily say that American voters and the public at large are very obviously informed as much as they are perhaps disenchanted by things that seem as if they were told would restore trust and make things clearer and in fact have not done so. 

Rovner: That’s a fair assessment. Anna. 

Edney: Yeah, I think there’s a lot of overpromising and underdelivering, and that can kind of create this issue where this administration â€” and RFK Jr. has been doing this as well â€” kind of is making these decisions from the top, rather than having these normal conversations with the career scientists and things like that, where the public can kind of follow along on why the scientific decisions are being made if they so choose to, or at least have an idea that there was a discussion out there. And that’s not happening. So that’s not something that’s creating a lot of trust. I think people are seeing that as unscientific and chaotic. 

Rovner: I was particularly interested in one of the findings in the survey, is that Dr. Fauci, Dr. Tony Fauci, who was sort of the bête noire of the pandemic, has a higher approval rating than either RFK Jr. or some of his top deputies. Joanne, I see you nodding. 

Kenen: Yeah that was so stri— I mean, it’s still not high. It was, I believe it was â€” I’m looking for my note â€” but I think was 54%, which is not great. But it was better than Dr. [Mehmet] Oz [head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]. It was better than Kennedy. It was better than a bunch of people. So, but it also shows that half the country still doesn’t trust him. It was a really interesting survey, but the gaps in trust in credible science are still significant. What was interesting is the declining trust in our government officials in health care, but there’s still, nationally, the U.S. population, there’s still a lot of skepticism of science and public health. Maybe not as bad as it was, but still pretty bad. 

Luthra: And Julie, you alluded to these famous push-up and workout videos. And part of what you’re getting at â€” right? â€” is that the communications that we see are targeted toward a not necessarily very large audience. It is these people who are hyper-online, in particular internet spaces and communities, and that’s somewhat divorced from most people and how they live their lives. And when you focus your message and you’re campaigning on this very particular slice, it’s just a lot easier to lose sight of where people are and what they want from their government and what they will actually appreciate. 

Rovner: It’s true. The online America is very separate from the rest of America, which is a whole lot bigger. Well— 

Kenen: And there’s also the young people who probably aren’t in these surveys who, teenagers, who are getting a lot of information on TikTok about supplements and raw milk. And the young men and the teenage boys and the supplements is a big deal, and that’s online. And also we have been seeing for a while, but I think it’s probably creeping up, the recommendations about psychedelics. So there’s all this stuff out there that isn’t going to be picked up by that poll. But yes, it was an interesting poll. 

Rovner: All right. Well, meanwhile over at the Food and Drug Administration, in-again out-again in-again vaccine chief Vinay Prasad is apparently out again, or will be as of later this spring. I feel like Prasad’s very rocky tenure has been kind of a microcosm for the difficulties this administration has had working with career scientists at FDA and elsewhere, at HHS. Anna, what made him so controversial? 

Edney: Well, I think, Prasad was an FDA critic before he came to the agency. And so essentially, when he was out in public, particularly during covid, but there were even criticisms he had before that. He was criticizing these career scientists at the agency. And so he got there, and the way he appeared to operate was that he knew best and he didn’t need to talk to any of these people that had been there, some for decades, and that was getting him in a lot of trouble. But he was being defended and protected by FDA Commissioner Martin Makary, and he really supported Prasad, and he called him a genius and wanted him to stay on. So the first time Prasad left, he convinced him to come back. And now this time, I think, things maybe just went a bridge too far when there was sort of this behind-the-scenes but very public fight with a company trying to make a rare-disease drug. And this is something that, particularly, several senators really, really hate, is when the FDA is getting in the way of a rare-disease drug getting to market, because they don’t think that that’s something the agency should be trying to do unless the drug is maybe wholly unsafe. But they think anyone should be able to try it. And so when this exploded and FDA officials were and HHS officials were behind the scenes, but very publicly, calling this company a liar, it was just a bridge too far. 

Rovner: Well, and he, this was, this incredibly unusual  in which he tried to not be quoted by name, but kind of hard when the head of the agency, or the head of the center at FDA is basically trashing a company, trying to do it on background. Was that kind of the last straw? 

Edney: Yeah, I think so. And sort of an aside on that. I’m curious how that phone call even was allowed to be set up and called. Because, it’s not like he did it on his own. There were, there was an infrastructure around him that helped him set that up. So I’m curious about why that even went down, but I think that was definitely what pushed him out the door. You know, this company wanted to get this drug approved. The FDA had said, No, not unless you do this extremely difficult trial, which the company said would require drilling holes in people’s heads, for what they were trying to get approved, and that it would be a placebo, essentially, for some of those patients, even when you get a hole drilled in your head, and this could be a 10-hour sham surgery, is what the company said. And then Prasad comes out and says: No, they’re lying. That definitely could be a half-hour. No big deal. And I just think that there were senators frustrated with this, the White House not wanting to see another thing blow up over rare-disease drugs, because that has, there have been a lot of issues at FDA under his tenure, of just drugs not being able to get to market. Or having issues with vaccines that have been years in development not being able to get even reviewed, and then that being reversed. So it was just, that was kind of the last straw. 

Rovner: And of course President Trump himself has been a big proponent of this whole Right to Try effort, that it should be easier for people with, particularly with terminal diseases to be able to try drugs that may or may not help. Joanne, you want to add something. 

Kenen: Also wasn’t he still, Prasad, still living in California and running up really huge travel bills and— 

Rovner: Yes. 

Kenen: â€”not being at the FDA very much, at a time when everybody else has been forced to come back to work? So, but I do confess that I keep looking at my phone to check if he’s still out or is he already back again. 

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: I’m really not totally convinced that this is the end of Prasad, but yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah, I was not kidding when I said on-again off-again on-again off-again. All right. Well, moving over to the National Institutes of Health, which also has a director that’s doing more than one job in more than one place. I know there’s so much news that it’s hard to keep track of it all, but I do think it’s important to continue to follow things that look to be settled, like funding for the NIH, which Congress actually increased in the spending bill that passed at the end of January. To that end, a shout-out to our podcast panelist Sandhya Raman, formerly of CQ, now at Bloomberg, for  grant funding that still pays for most of the nation’s basic biomedical research is still being held up. This is months after it was ordered resumed by courts and appropriated by Congress. 

Shout-out as well to my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleagues Rachana Pradhan and Katheryn Houghton for their project on the people and research projects that have been disrupted by all the cuts at NIH, as well as new bureaucratic hurdles put in place. I feel like if there weren’t so much else going on, what’s happening at basically the economic and health engine of NIH would be getting much, much, much more attention, particularly because of the continuing brain drain with researchers moving to other countries and students choosing different careers rather than becoming researchers. I wonder if this sort of drip, drip, drip at NIH is going to turn into a very long-term hole that’s going to be very difficult to fill. A lot of these things have years- if not decades-long runways. These great scientific achievements start somewhere, and it looks like they’re just sort of pulling out the whole starting part. 

Kenen: It’s already affecting the pipeline. In graduate schools, many schools fund their PhD candidates, and it’s NIH money, or partly NIH money. It’s different â€” I’m not an expert in every single school’s support systems for PhD candidates, but I do know that the pipeline has been shrunken in some fields at some schools, and that’s been reported on widely. And there’s been a lot of coverage about years and years of research. You can’t just restart a multiyear, complicated clinical trial or research project. Once you stop it, you’re losing everything to date, right? You can’t just sort of say, Oh, I’ll put it on hold for a couple of years and resume it. You can’t do that. So we’ve already reached some kind of a critical point. It’s just a matter of how much worse it gets, or whether the ship begins to stabilize in any way going forward. But there’s already damage. 

Rovner: I say, are you guys as surprised as I am, though, that this isn’t â€” the NIH has been this sort of bipartisan jewel that everybody has supported over the decades that I’ve been covering it, and now it’s basically being dismantled in front of our eyes, and nobody’s saying very much about it. 

Kenen: It’s also an engine of economic growth. You see different ROI [return on investment] numbers when you look at NIH, but I think the lowest number you hear is two and a half dollars of benefit for every dollar we invest. And I’ve seen reports up to $7. I don’t know what the magic number is, but this is an engine of economic growth in the United States. This is basic biomedical research that the private sector or the academic sector cannot do. It has to come from the government. And I don’t think any of us have really gotten our heads around â€” why harm the NIH when it is bipartisan, it is economically successful, and it has humanitarian value. It’s the basis. The drug companies develop the drug and bring it to the market. But that basic, basic, earlier what’s called bench science, that’s funded by the NIH. 

Rovner: I know. It’s a mystery. Well, adding to RFK Jr.’s bad week are the growing divisions within his base, the Make America Healthy Again movement. While the White House, seeing that the public doesn’t really support MAHA’s anti-vaccine positions, is trying to get HHS to tone it down, there was a major MAHA meetup just blocks from the White House this week, with sessions urging a complete end to the childhood vaccine schedule and the removal of all vaccines from the market, quote, until they can be proven “safe and effective.” By the way, most of them have been already. Meanwhile, lots of MAHA followers are still angry that the White House is supporting the continuing production of glyphosate, the weed killer sold commercially as Roundup. Democrats, , are trying to exploit the divisions in the MAHA movement, which leads to the question: Will MAHA be a net plus or a net minus for this fall’s midterm elections? On the one hand, I think Trump appointed Kennedy because he was hoping that the MAHA movement would be a boost to turnout. On the other hand, MAHA seems pretty split right now. 

Edney: Well, I think that’s the million-dollar question, is which way they’re going to swing if they swing at all. And it’s hard to say right now, because I think they are angry at certain aspects of things this administration is doing, the two things you mentioned, on Roundup and on vaccines, kind of telling RFK to kind of talk a little bit less about those. But will they be able to then vote for Democrats instead? I think, it’s only March, so it’s so difficult to say what will happen between now and then. I think there’s still things that the health secretary could do on food that he’s talked about, that could draw attention away from that anger, that might make many of them happy. I think there were some things he kind of started doing early in his term that hasn’t been talked about as much. And also, I think there’s still the prospect of Casey Means becoming surgeon general â€” or not â€” out there, and that’s kind of a big piece of this. If she is to get into the administration, and that is sort of up in the air right now, then that could kind of give them something else to focus on, because she is a large part of this playbook of the MAHA movement. 

Rovner: That’s right. And we are waiting to see sort of if she can get the votes even to get out of committee, much less get to the floor, see whether we’re going to have, as some are saying, the first surgeon general who does not have an active license to practice medicine. Shefali, you wanted to add something. 

Luthra: No, I just think we’ve talked about this before on the podcast, that the food stuff is much more popular than the vaccine stuff. The vaccine components of MAHA remain very unpopular. It’s difficult to really see or say sort of what the White House can do on food in a sustained, focused way, without going off-script, that is also popular. But I think to Anna’s point, it’s just so hard to say to what extent this ultimately matters in November, because there are just so many concerns right now. People can’t afford their health insurance, and gas prices are going up. And I just think we have to wait and see to what extent people are voting based on food policy. 

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

OK, turning to another Trump administration priority, fighting fraud. This week, the administration accused another Democratic-led state, New York, of not policing Medicaid fraud forcefully enough. This comes after the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it will withhold hundreds of millions of dollars from Minnesota, which our guest, Andy Schneider, will talk about at more length. Minnesota, by the way, last week sued the federal government over its Medicaid efforts. So that fight will continue for a while. But it’s not just blue states, and it’s not just Medicaid. In something I didn’t have on my bingo card, this administration is also going after fraud in the Medicare Advantage program, which has long been a Republican darling. 

Last week, CMS banned the Medicare Advantage plan operated by Elevance Health, which has nearly 2 million Medicare patients currently enrolled, from adding any new enrollees starting March 31, for what the agency described as, quote, “substantial and persistent noncompliance with Medicare Advantage risk adjustment data.” And on Tuesday, the congressional Joint Economic Committee reported that overpayments to those Medicare Advantage plans raised premiums by an estimated $200 per Medicare enrollee annually â€” and that’s all Medicare enrollees, not just those in the private Medicare Advantage plans. Is this the end of the honeymoon for Medicare Advantage? Joanne, you were there with me when Republicans were pushing this. 

Kenen: I’ve been surprised, as you have, Julie, because basically Medicare Advantage has been the darling, and it is popular with people. It’s grown and grown and grown, not because the government forced people in. It has good marketing and some benefits for the younger, healthier post-65 population, gyms and things like that. But â€” and vision and dental, which are a big deal. But we’ve also seen a backlash, in some ways, because there’s the prior authorization issues in Medicare Advantage have gotten a lot of attention the last couple of years. But not just am I surprised by sort of the swing that we’re hearing about generally. I’m surprised by Dr. Oz, because when he ran for Senate a couple years ago in Pennsylvania, and much of his public persona has been really, really, really gung-ho, pro Medicare Advantage. 

And yet, some of you were at or, like me, watched the live stream of â€” he did a very interesting, thoughtful, and, I’ve mentioned this at least one time before, hourlong conversation with a lot of Q&A at the Aspen Institute here in D.C. a couple of months ago. And one of the questions was someone said: Dr. Oz, you’ve just turned 65. Are you doing Medicare Advantage, or are you doing traditional Medicare? And the expected answer for me was, well, I knew that he’s on government insurance now. So he, you have to, at 65 you have to go into Medicare Advanta— Medicare A, whether you â€” that’s automatic. That’s the hospital part. But you have the choice. But if you’re still working and getting insurance or government â€” he’s on a government plan. He doesn’t have to do that. But he actually, and he pointed that out, but the next sentence really surprised me, because he said: I don’t know. My wife and I are still talking about that. And I thought that was A) a very honest answer. He didn’t have to even say. But it was also, it just was interesting to me that after all that Rah-rah Medicare Advantage we were hearing about, his own personal choice was, Not sure if that one’s right for me. ³§´Ç&²Ô²ú²õ±è;—&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Rovner: I was going to say, I feel like the Republicans are sort of twisting right now between Medicare Advantage, which they’ve always pushed â€” they want to privatize Medicare because they don’t like government health insurance â€” and then there’s the current populist push against big insurance companies, because, of course, all those Medicare Advantage plans belong to those big insurance companies that Republicans are suddenly saying are too big and getting too much money. So they’re sort of caught between trying to have it both ways. I’ll be interested to see how they come down. One of the things that did strike me, though, even before Dr. Oz sort of started his little crusade against Medicare Advantage, was, I think it was at Kennedy’s confirmation hearing that Sen. Bill Cassidy was suddenly questioning Medicare Advantage. That was, I think, the first Republican I saw to like, Oh. That made me raise my eyebrows. And I think since then, I’ve kind of seen why. 

Kenen: The populist talk against insurance companies, not giving money to insurance companies, is part of the Republican â€” and, specifically, President Trump’s â€” desire to not extend the ACA, the Affordable Care Act, enhanced subsidies. That was the basic: Well, we’re not going to do this, because we’re just throwing money at these insurance companies. And we don’t want to do that. We want to empower the patients. That was the, I’m not, and the missing piece of that argument is: Yes, the ACA subsidies go to insurance companies. However, all of us are benefiting in some way or other from government policies that benefit insurance companies. The tax breaks our employers get. The tax breaks we get for our insurance. And then the biggie, of course, is Medicare Advantage. 

We are paying Medicare Advantage more than we are paying traditional Medicare. So Medicare Advantage is private insurance companies, and the government has been just sending them lots and lots of money for years. So I’m not sure it’s â€” this Medicare Advantage thing is just bubbling up, and we’re not really sure how this plays out. But I think that the rhetoric against insurance companies is the rhetoric against the ACA. 

Rovner: Oh, it is. 

Kenen: Rather that hasn’t yet been connected to the Medicare Advantage. I think they’re, yes, we all know they’re connected. But I think the political debate, it’s not Medicare Advantage is bad because insurance companies are bad. It’s the ACA is bad because it enriches insurance companies. There’s a different ideological parade going down the road. 

Rovner: I was going to say, it’s important to remember at the beginning of Medicare Advantage, which was a Republican proposal back in 2003, they purposely overpaid it. They gave it more money because they know that when they give them more money, the insurance companies are required to return some of that money to beneficiaries in the form of these extra benefits. That’s why there are gym memberships and dental and vision and hearing coverage in these Medicare Advantage plans. It does make them popular, so people sign up. And that was sort of Republicans’ intent at the beginning. It was to sort of not so much push people into it but entice people into it. 

Kenen:&²Ô²ú²õ±è;´¡²Ô»å&²Ô²ú²õ±è;³Ù³ó±ð²Ô—&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Rovner: And then maybe cut it back later. 

Kenen: No, but it’s exceeded expectations. 

Rovner: Absolutely. 

Kenen: The number of people going into Medicare Advantage has been really high, higher than people expected. And it’s also hard to get out, depending on what state you live in. It’s not impossible, but it’s costly and difficult, except for a few, I think it’s seven or eight states make it pretty easy. But also remember that the earlier version of what we now call Medicare Advantage was â€” which was the ’90s, right Julie? â€” I think the Medicare Part C, and that failed. ³§´Ç&²Ô²ú²õ±è;—&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Rovner: Well after, that failed because they cut it when they were â€” 

Kenen: Right. Right. 

Rovner: They cut all the funding when they were balancing the budget â€” 

Kenen: Right.  

Rovner:&²Ô²ú²õ±è;—&²Ô²ú²õ±è;¾±²Ô&²Ô²ú²õ±è;1997.&²Ô²ú²õ±è;

Kenen: But that gave them the excu— right. 

Rovner: They made it fail. 

Kenen: That gave them an excuse to give them more money later that, when they revived it, renamed it, and launched it in 2003 legislation, that initial push to give them a ton of money, because they could say, Well, we didn’t give them enough money, and that’s why they fa—. There are all sorts of political things going on that weren’t strictly money. But yeah, it was part of the narrative of Why we have to give them more money, is They need it. 

Rovner: Yeah. Anyway, we’ll also watch that space. Well, finally, this week, there’s news on the reproductive health front, because there’s always news on the reproductive health front. Shefali, Wyoming has become the latest state to enact a so-called heartbeat ban, barring abortions when cardiac activity can be detected. That’s often around six weeks, which is before many people are even aware of being pregnant. I thought the Wyoming Supreme Court said just this past January that its constitution prevents abortion bans. So what’s up here? 

Luthra: They did, in fact, say that, and so we are seeing this law taken to court. It was actually added in a court filing to a preexisting case challenging other abortion restrictions in the state. I’m sure that’s going to play out for quite some time. But what’s interesting about the Wyoming Constitution â€” right? â€” is that it protects the right to make health care decisions, in an effort to sort of fight against the ACA. That was this conservative approach that now has come to really benefit abortion rights supporters as well. But what I think this underscores is that even as we are seeing fairly little abortion policy in Washington, at least in a meaningful way, a lot is still happening on the state level. That really is where the bulk of action is, whether you see that in Wyoming, in Missouri, where they’re trying to undo the abortion rights protections there, and just— 

Rovner: The ones that passed by voters. 

Luthra: Exactly. And so what we’re really thinking about is anti-abortion activists are not really that confident in the president’s desire, interest, ability, what have you, to get their agenda items done. And for now, they are really focusing on the states, and that is where their interest, I think, will only remain, at least until the primary for the next presidential race begins in earnest. 

Rovner: Well, Shefali, I also want to ask you about  this week on just how many things ripple out economically from abortion restrictions. Now it’s having an impact on rent prices? Please explain. 

Luthra: I thought this was so interesting. It was this NBER [National Bureau of Economic Research] paper that came out this week, and they looked at comparably trending rental markets in states with abortion bans and those without them. And what they saw was that after the Dobbs decision, rental prices declined relative to places without bans, compared to those in those that had them. And this is really interesting. It just sort of continues. Rental prices went down, and also vacancies went up. And what the researchers say is this is a very, very dramatic and clear relationship, and it illustrates that people, when they have a choice, are considering abortion rights in terms of where they want to live. And anecdotally, we know that, because we’ve seen residents make choices about where they will practice. We’ve seen doctors decide where they will live. We have seen people move. Companies offer relocation benefits if people want them. And this is more data that illustrates that actually that affects the economy of communities, and it really underscores that where we live just simply will look different based on things like abortion rights and abortion policy and other of these things that are treated as social but really do affect people’s economic behaviors. 

Rovner: And as we pointed out before, it’s not just about quote-unquote “abortion,” because when doctors choose not to live in a certain place, it’s other types of health care. It’s all health care. And we know that doctors tend to marry or partner with other doctors. So sometimes if an OB GYN doesn’t want to move to a certain place, then that OB-GYN’s partner, who may be some completely other type of doctor, isn’t going to move there either. So we are starting to see some of these geographical shifts going on. 

Luthra: And one point actually that the researcher made that I thought was so interesting was that abortion policy, it can be emblematic, in and of itself, a reason people choose not to live somewhere, but people may also be making these decisions because of what it represents. Do I look at an abortion policy and say, Oh, this reflects social values or gender beliefs? Or does it also suggest maybe more anti-LGBTQ+ laws? And all of that can create a picture that is broader than simply abortion or not, and determine where and how people want to live their lives. 

Rovner: It’s a really interesting story. We will link to it. All right, that is this week’s news. Now I’ll play my interview with Andy Schneider of Georgetown University, and then we will be back to do our extra credits. 

Rovner: I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Andy Schneider, a research professor of the practice at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. And he spent many years on Capitol Hill helping write and shape Medicaid law as a top aide to California Democratic congressman Henry Waxman â€” and many hours explaining it to me. I have asked him here to help untangle the Medicaid fraud fight now taking place between the federal government and, at least so far, mostly Democratic-led states. Andy, thanks for being here. 

Andy Schneider: Thanks for having me, Julie. 

Rovner: So, it’s not like fraud in Medicaid â€” and other health programs, for that matter â€” is anything new. Who are the major perpetrators of health care fraud? It’s not usually the patients, is it? 

Schneider: No, it’s usually some bad-actor providers or bad-actor businesspeople. 

Rovner: So how are fraud-fighting efforts at both the federal and state level, since Medicaid funding is shared, supposed to work? How does the federal government and the state government sort of try and make fraud as minimal as possible? Since presumably they’re never going to get rid of it. 

Schneider: Unfortunately, I don’t think you’re ever going to get rid of it in Medicaid or Medicare or private insurance or in other walks of life. There are bad actors out there. They’re going to try to take advantage. So you need your defenses up. So the short of this is, Medicaid is administered on a day-to-day basis by the states. The federal government pays for a majority of it and oversees how the states run their programs. In that context, the state Medicaid agency and the state fraud control unit have a primary role in identifying where there might be fraud, investigating, and then, in appropriate cases, prosecuting. The federal government also has a role, however. Depending on the scope of the fraud, it could involve the FBI. It could involve the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services. So there’s both federal and state presence, but the primary responsibilities were the states’. 

Rovner: We know that Minnesota has been experiencing a Medicaid fraud problem, because both the state and the federal government have been working on it for more than a year now. What is the Trump administration doing in Minnesota? And why is this different from what the federal government has traditionally done when it’s trying to ensure that states are appropriately trying to minimize fraud? 

Schneider: Well, usually the vice president of the United States does not get up at a White House press conference and announce he and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are withholding $260 million in federal funds, called a deferral. That is highly, highly unusual. And normally the head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services does not go and make videos in the state before something like this is announced. So I would say that this is way out of the ordinary, and I think it has to do with some animus in the administration towards Gov. [Tim] Walz and his administration. 

Rovner: Right. Gov. Walz, for those who don’t remember, was the vice presidential candidate in 2024 running against President Trump, who did win, in fact. But there have been two different efforts to withhold Medicaid money for Minnesota, right? 

Schneider: Yeah. Now you’re into the Medicaid weeds, but since you asked the question, I’ll take you there. So in January, the administra— the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services â€” we’ll call them CMS here â€” they announced they were going to withhold about $2 billion a year going forward, not looking back but going forward, in matching funds that the federal government would otherwise pay to the state of Minnesota for the services that it was providing to its over 1 million beneficiaries. In February at this White House press conference, what the vice president announced was withholding temporarily â€” we’ll see how temporary it is â€” but withholding temporarily $260 million in federal Medicaid matching funds that applied to state spending that’s already occurred, happened in the past, happened in the quarter ending Sept. 30, 2025. So both the past expenditures and future expenditures are targets for these CMS actions. 

Rovner: So what happens if the federal government actually doesn’t pay the state this money? I assume more than people who are committing fraud would be impacted. 

Schneider: Well, let’s be clear. The amounts of money here, there’s no relationship between those and however much fraud is going on in Minnesota. And there has been fraud against Medicaid in Minnesota. Everybody’s clear about that. The state is clear about it. The feds are clear about it. But $2 billion going forward in a year, $1 billion going, looking backwards, $260 million times four â€” there’s no relationship between those amounts, right? Should they come to pass â€”and all of this is still in process â€” should those amounts come to pass, you’re looking at, depending on who’s doing the estimates, between 7 and 18% of the amount of money the federal government pays, helps the state with, each year in Medicaid. That’s just an enormous hole for a state to fill, and it doesn’t have many good options. It can cut eligibility. It can cut services. It can cut reimbursement rates. Filling in that hole with state revenues, that’s going to be a real stretch. 

Rovner: So it’s not just Minnesota. Now the administration says it is seeing concerning things going on in New York and has launched a probe there. Is there any indication that this administration is going after states that are not run by Democrats? 

Schneider: So the only letters that we’ve seen from the administration have been to California, New York, and Maine. There may be other letters out there. We only access the public record. So so far, based on what we know, it’s just been Democratically run states. 

Rovner: As long as I’ve been covering this, which is now a long time, fraud-fighting has been pretty bipartisan. It’s been something that Congress has worked on, Democrats and Republicans in Congress, Democrats and Republicans in the states. What’s the danger of politicizing fraud-fighting, which is what certainly seems to be going on right now? 

Schneider: Yeah, that’s a terrific point. So it always has been bipartisan, because money is green. It’s not red. It’s not blue. It’s green. And trying to keep bad actors from ripping it off from Medicaid or Medicare has always been a bipartisan undertaking. The reason that’s important, particularly in a program like Medicaid, where the federal government and the state have to talk to one another when they are flagging potential fraud, when they’re investigating it, when they’re prosecuting it, you don’t want the agencies tripping all over one another. You want them sharing information as necessary, etc. When that gets politicized, it’s very bad for the results and for the effective operation of the program. 

Rovner: Well we will keep watching this space, and we’ll have you back to explain it more. Andy Schneider, thank you very much. 

Schneider: Julie Rovner, thank you very much. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the 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 start us off this week? 

Edney: Sure. Mine is in The Wall Street Journal. It’s [“”]. This is a look at the booming business of providing therapy to children with autism. And that’s particularly been big in the Medicaid program. And I don’t want to give away too much, because there are just so many jaw-dropping details in this. So I guess the reporters were able to kind of go through the data and billing records in a way that showed some of these companies and what they were doing and how they were becoming millionaires, people who had never done anything in autism before. So if you enjoy a sort of jaw-dropping read, I think you should take a look at it. 

Rovner: Yeah, jaw-dropping is definitely the right description. Joanne. 

Kenen: So I sort of rummaged around the internet to the less widely read sources, and I came across this great story from the Idaho Capital Sun by Laura Guido. It has a long headline. Reminder that 988 is the mental health crisis line and suicide help. The headline is: “” The story is that a 15-year-old boy named Jace Woods called two years ago â€” so this still hasn’t been fixed after two years â€” and they cut him off. They sort of gently cut him off. But they can’t talk to these kids who have, who are in crisis, without parental consent. They do a quick assessment. If they think someone’s life is immediately in danger right then and there, they can stay on. But a kid who’s what they call suicidal ideation, seriously depressed and at risk, and knows he’s at risk or she’s at risk, and made this phone call, they don’t talk to them unless they think it’s imminent. So it also affects, these parental, it affects sexual health and STDs and abortion and whole lot of other things. 

Rovner: That’s what it was for. 

Kenen: That was the initial reason, but it got bigger. So a kid who calls in a crisis can get no help at all. And even in those emergency situations where they can stay on the line and try to get emergency help if they do think a kid’s in imminent danger, they’re not allowed to make a follow-up call to make sure they’re OK. So this kid has been trying for two years. There’s a state lawmaker. They’re refining a law. They say it’s, they’re refining a bill. They say it’s going to go through. But really this, talk about unintended consequences. We have a national mental health crisis, particularly acute for teens. This is not solving any problems. 

Rovner: It is not. Shefali. 

Luthra: My story is in The New York Times. It is by Apoorva Mandavilli. The headline is “.” And it’s just a good story about what is happening with the Ryan White AIDS Drug Assistance Programs, which people use to get their HIV medications paid for or for free. They get insurance support. And these are really important. Funding has been pretty flat for quite some time because they’re funded by Congress. And what the story gets into is that with growing financial pressure on these programs, there is more-expensive drugs, there are more-expensive insurance premiums, more people might be losing Medicaid. States are having to make very difficult choices, and they are cutting benefits. They are changing who is eligible, because it’s getting more expensive and there is more need and there is no support coming. And I wasn’t really on top of this and did not know what was going on, and I just thought it was interesting and a very useful look at some of the consequences of the policy choices that are making all of these health programs more expensive and health care, in general, harder to afford. 

Rovner: My extra credit this week is from The Marshall Project. It’s called “.” It’s by Shannon Heffernan and Jesse Bogan and Anna Flagg. It answers the question that I’ve been wondering about since the whole immigration crackdown began, which is: What happens to the people who are snatched off the streets or out of their cars or homes, flown to a distant state, and then someone says: Oops, sorry. You can go. How do you get home from Texas or Louisiana to Minnesota or Massachusetts? Authorities don’t give you plane or even bus tickets to get back to where you were picked up, even though that’s where most of those being released are required to go to report back to immigration authorities. It turns out there’s a small network of charities that is helping. But as the story details pretty vividly, the harm to these families doesn’t end when their detention does./ 

OK. That’s this week’s show. As always, 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, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you guys hanging these days? Shefali? 

Luthra: I am at Bluesky, . 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney:  and , @annaedney. 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: A little bit of  and more on , @joannekenen. 

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.] 

Mary Agnes Carey: Hello from KFF Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Mary Agnes Carey, managing editor of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, sitting in for your host, Julie Rovner. I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 19, 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’re joined via video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Carey: Tami Luhby of CNN. 

Tami Luhby: Glad to be here. 

Carey: And Shefali Luthra of The 19^th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Carey: Let’s start today with the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA has now agreed to review Moderna’s application for a new flu vaccine, reversing the agency’s decision from just a week ago to reject the application because it said the company’s research design was flawed. What happened? 

Weber: I think we got to take a step back, and we got to think about this in the lens of the midterms, because, of course, we got to talk about the midterms on this podcast. 

Carey: Of course. 

Weber: But what we’ve seen, really, since the beginning of January, after [Health and Human Services Secretary] Robert F. Kennedy [Jr.] overhauled the vaccine schedule under Jim O’Neill, is a lot of changes. And part of that, I think, is due to a big poll that came out by a Republican pollster, the Fabrizio poll, that indicated that some of the vaccine changes were making voters nervous. Basically, it told the president, and it told Republicans, that maybe you shouldn’t mess with the vaccine schedule as much. And ever since that poll has kind of reached the ether, you’ve seen a lot more tamping down of conversation about vaccines. So you’ve seen Kennedy stay a lot more on message about food. And then you saw what happened this past week with the Moderna flu reversal. So what ended up happening is the FDA came out and said they were not going to review the Moderna flu vaccine, which was an mRNA vaccine, which, as we all remember, was the vaccine technology that became quite famous during the covid pandemic that [President Donald] Trump really championed in his first term. So the FDA came out and was like, You know what, we’re not going to review this â€” which was a huge issue. It caused massive shock waves through the vaccine industry. A lot of vaccine and pharma insiders said this could really dampen their ability to develop future vaccines, because they felt like this action was made without enough explanation. And after a week of pretty much bad headlines and bad press, the decision was reversed. And Lauren Gardner from Politico had a , along with a colleague [Tim Röhn], where she pointed out that this reversal happened after a meeting with the FDA head in the White House, where Trump expressed some concern over the handling of vaccines. So I think this reversal that you’re seeing fits into the broader picture of the unpopularity of Kennedy’s push around vaccines, and I expect that, considering their hesitancy, along with a really contentious midterms race, we may see more pushback to whether or not Kennedy is able to continue on his push against vaccines. 

Carey: So, what are the implications for drug and vaccine manufacturers in the months ahead? How will this impact them? Does it provide stability and reassurance that if you spend billions of dollars on drug development, you’re not going to be stopped by federal agencies? 

Weber: I think the reversal maybe does, but, I mean, certainly they’re still spooked. I mean, the reality is that it’s a little unclear. Obviously, there was a pressure campaign to reverse this, and it has been reversed. But the current makeup of the FDA, with Vinay Prasad, has led many to be unclear on what will and will not get approved. Under this HHS administration, there’s been a big push for placebo-controlled trials and so on, and somewhat a shifting of expectations. And I think that while the reversal will settle feelings a bit, you also â€¦ this is on a backdrop of hundreds of millions of dollars being canceled in mRNA vaccine contracts. So I think there’s a lot of unease, and there’s a lot of fear that this could continue to [dampen] vaccine development. 

Luthra: I think, to add to what Lauren’s saying, it’s just pretty hard to imagine that after the past year and change that anything could really feel predictable if you are in the business of developing biopharmaceuticals in any form. It’s just so much has changed, and so much really seems to depend on the whims of where the politics are and where the different players are and who’s carrying influence. It’s just hard to really think about how you would want to invest â€” right? â€” a lot of money in developing these products, where you may or may not have success. But one other thing that I am just so struck by in this whole episode is there is a lot of tension in different parts of the health policy community groups around how the FDA is approaching different policies. And one area I’ve been thinking about a lot is where the FDA has been on abortion is a source of real frustration for a lot of abortion opponents, and seeing this episode play out if the White House did get involved, I think it raises a really interesting question for people who oppose abortion and want the FDA to take a harder look at it. Are they going to expect similar movement from the president, similar intervention, or conversations from the White House? And if they don’t get that, how does that affect, again, just another issue that feels really salient as we head into a midterm election that gets closer and closer. 

Carey: And I think you know, this is a sign of what health care might mean and play in the fall election, so we’ll keep our eye on that. Lauren, you just mentioned recently some changes at the Department of Health and Human Services. We’re going to shift from the FDA to HHS, where there’s been a shake-up in top leadership. Jim O’Neill, who had served as the HHS deputy secretary and as acting director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is leaving those positions. Other agency changes include Chris Klomp, who oversees Medicare, being named chief counselor at HHS, where he will oversee agency operations. And National Institutes of Health. Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya will also serve as acting director of the CDC. Clearly, there is a lot going on here. Why are these changes happening now? 

Weber: So our understanding from reporting is that the White House wanted to shake things up before the midterms. I mean, if you know â€” kind of what I alluded to in my last comments is, you know, Jim O’Neill was the person who signed off on the childhood vaccine schedule. I mean, his name was plastered all over that in January, and now he’s been shipped off to be head of the National Science Foundation, but certainly not as high profile of an HHS deputy role or CDC acting director. From our understanding, that’s because the White House wants a bit tighter control over messaging and overall thrust of HHS heading into the midterms. And I think it’s noticeable â€” you mentioned Chris Klomp, I mean, let’s note where he came from. He came from CMS. You know, you’re seeing a fair amount of folks from CMS, from “Oz Land,” come into HHS and exert seemingly, it looks like, more power, based on the White House’s judgment, along with Kennedy. Kennedy is said to have also signed off on these changes. But it remains to be seen how this will impact HHS focus going forward. 

Carey: So while we’re talking about HHS, let’s look at Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s first year in office. There’s so much we could talk about: the firing of members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, also known as ACIP, and the addition of several members who oppose some vaccines; major changes in the childhood vaccine schedule, changes that the American Academy of Pediatrics has called “dangerous and unnecessary”; pullbacks of federal funding for vaccination programs at local departments that were later reversed by a federal judge; the firing of Senate-confirmed CDC director Susan Monarez, who had only served in that position for less than a month; new dietary guidelines aimed at getting ultra-processed foods out of our diets, but adding red meat and whole milk â€” foods that many nutritionists have steered people away from. This is an open question for the panel: What do you make of Kennedy’s tenure so far? 

Luhby: I mean, he’s certainly been changing the agency in ways that we somewhat expected and, you know, other ways that we didn’t. I will let the others speak to some of the vaccine and others. But one thing that’s also notable is the makeup of the agency. They’ve laid off or prompted many people to quit or retire. You know, there’s major staffing changes there as well, and there’s a large brain drain, which has concerned a lot of people. 

Weber: Yeah, I’ll chime in and say, I mean, I think public health officials have been horrified by his first year in office. There is a growing fear that, obviously, his many vaccine changes could have long-term consequences for vaccine [uptake] and an increase in vaccine hesitancy. There’s been a lot of concern among public health officials and experts that Congress really has not stepped in to stop any of this. That said, there are currently â€¦ there’s a lawsuit the AAP has brought against these changes, which could have an outcome in the coming days that may or may not impact whether or not they’re going forward. You mentioned how he reconstituted ACIP, the federal advisory committee on vaccination. You know, what’s really interesting is, right now, we’re unclear if that ACIP meeting is still happening at the end of February. And again, it goes back to my point of vaccines seem to be, after this polling, not where Republicans want to be talking. And so a lot of Kennedy’s primary concern, even though he talked a lot about food in his first year in office,  of his social media, and he talked way more about food than he talked about vaccines. But his focus, and ultimately, what he was able to upend a lot of, was vaccine infrastructure. And I think this year we will see. More of the impacts of that, and also whether or not he’s allowed to make some of these changes, if there is enough backlash, or if there is enough pushback, or if there is enough political detriment that pushes back on what he has done.  

Luthra: And I think a really important thing for us to think about, that Lauren just alluded to, is a lot of the consequences of this first year are things we will be seeing play out for many years to come. There has been this dramatic upending of the vaccine infrastructure. We have seen medical groups try and step in and try and offer independent forms of authority and expertise to give people useful medical information. But that’s a very big role to fill in the context of this tremendous brain drain. And I think what we are waiting to see is, how does that translate to decision-making on the individual level and on the aggregate level? Do people feel like they can trust the information they’re given? Do they get the vaccines they would have gotten in the past for their families, for their children? Is it easier? Is it harder? Does those difficulties matter in the end? And that’s the kind of impact and consequence that we can talk about now, but that we’ll only really understand in years to come when we look at whether and how population health outcomes shift. 

Carey: Sure. And so we’re talking about, you know, Lauren and the full panel has made this clear, talking about some of the shifts in the messaging out of HHS as we head into the fall elections. Lauren, if I heard you correctly, you were saying on Secretary Kennedy’s social media feeds, he had talked a lot more about food than vaccines, but yet, the vaccine message seems to have resonated more. So, as you look towards the fall elections, right? We’re talking about affordability, in a moment we’re going to be talking about the Affordable Care Act. We’ve read a lot â€¦ and folks have talked on this podcast about drug prices. Are the steps enough that are happening here on the messaging? Is it enough to focus the message, and is it going to land with voters, or will they be looking at it in a different way? 

Weber: And will he stay on message? 

Carey: Exactly. 

Weber: I’ve watched, I’ve watched hundreds of hours of Kennedy speaking, and the man, when let rip â€” I mean, recently he said in a podcast, he talked about snorting cocaine off a toilet seat. I mean, that was something that came up in a long-form conversation. Obviously, there’s more context around it. But he is known for speaking off the cuff. And so, I think it remains to be seen if, if they are able to see how that messaging â€” in order to talk about drug prices, talk about affordability â€” if that continues to play for the midterms, and if it doesn’t, what the consequences of that may be. I think it’s important too â€¦ I mean, last night, Trump issued an executive order that is aimed at encouraging the domestic production of glyphosate, which is a really widely used weed killer that has been key in a bunch of health lawsuits around Roundup and other pesticides, is a real shot against, across the bow for the MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] crowd, and it puts Kennedy in a tough position. I mean, he’s issued a statement saying he supports the president, but I mean, this is a man who’s advocated against glyphosate and pesticides for years and years and years, and it’s really divided the MAHA movement that, you know â€¦ many folks who said they joined MAHA, many MAHA moms, pesticides are a huge issue, and this could fracture this movement, you know, that , just as they’re starting to try to get on message. 

Luhby: One thing also that my colleague, I wanted to talk about, my colleague Meg Tirrell did a fantastic piece last week about Kennedy’s first year, and it’s headlined “.” So I think that that’s one thing that also we have to look at is that Trump had said that there would be historic reforms to health and public health, and that, you know, it would bring back people’s trust and confidence in the American health care systems after covid â€” and you know, after what he criticized the Biden administration for. But also it shows that actually, if you look at recent polling from KFF, it shows that trust in government health agencies has plummeted over the last year. So that’s going to be something that they also will have to contend with, both in the midterms and going forward. 

Carey: We’ll keep our eye on those issues now and in the months ahead. And right now, we’re taking a quick break. We’ll be right back. 

All right, we’re back and returning to the upcoming confirmation hearing for Dr. Casey Means. She’s President Trump’s nominee to be surgeon general. The Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, or HELP, Committee, as it is known, will consider that nomination next Wednesday, Feb. 25. You might remember that Means’ confirmation hearing was scheduled for late October, but it was delayed when she went into labor. She was expected then to face tough questions about her medical credentials and her stance on vaccines, among other areas. Means is known as a wellness influencer, an entrepreneur, an author, and a critic of the current medical system, which she says is more focused on managing disease than addressing its root causes. If confirmed as surgeon general, she would oversee the more than 6,000 members of the U.S. Public Health Service, which includes physicians, nurses, and scientists working at various federal agencies. What do you expect from the hearing, and what should people look for? 

Weber: So I did a  last fall. And what we learned, in really digging into reading her book, going through her newsletters, going through her public comments, is that this is someone who left the medical establishment. She left her residency near the end of it, and has really promoted and become central in MAHA world due to her book, Good Energy, which, you know, some folks in politics referred to as the bible of MAHA. So if confirmed, I think she could play a rather large role in shepherding the MAHA movement. But I think she’ll face a lot of questions from folks about her medical license and practicing medicine. So Casey Means currently has a medical license in Oregon that she voluntarily placed in inactive status, which, according to the Oregon State Medical Board, means she cannot practice medicine in the state as of the beginning of 2024. Additionally, she has received over half a million dollars in partnerships from various wellness products and diagnostic companies, you know, some of which in her disclosure forms talked about elixirs and supplements and so on. And I expect that will get a lot of scrutiny from senators as well. And I will just note, too, I think it’s important to look at a passage from her book that a lot of public health experts that we spoke to were a bit concerned about, because she wrote in her book that “the ability to prevent and reverse” a variety of ailments, including infertility and Alzheimer’s, “is under your control and simpler than you think.” And statements like that really worried a fair amount of the public health experts I spoke to. [They] said she would have this bully pulpit to speak about health, but they’re concerned that she doesn’t underpin it with enough scientific reasoning. And so we’ll see if those issues and, also obviously having to answer for Kennedy and the HHS shake-ups and Kennedy and vaccines â€” I’m sure a lot of that will come up as well. It should â€¦ I expect it to be a hearing with a fair amount of fireworks. 

Carey: Do you think the fact that â€¦ they’ve scheduled this hearing means that they have the votes for confirmation? Or is it simply a sign that the administration just wants to get moving on this, or shift a bit from some of the hotter issues that have happened recently? 

Weber: I mean, this is a long time for the American public to not have a surgeon general. So I mean, I think they were hoping to get this moving, to get her in the position. As I said, she could be a very strong voice for MAHA, considering her book underpins a lot of the MAHA movement. I think, in general, Republicans do have the votes to confirm her, but it just depends on how much they are agitated by her medical credentials and some of her past comments. I think we could see some fireworks, but, you know, we saw fireworks in the Kennedy hearing, and he got approved. So, you know, I think it remains to be seen what happens next week. 

Carey: Sure. Well, thanks for that. Let’s move on to the Affordable Care Act, or the ACA. More Americans than expected enrolled in ACA health plans for this year, even though the enhanced premium subsidies expired Jan. 1. But it’s unclear if these folks are going to keep their coverage as their health care costs increase. Federal data released late last month showed a year-over-year drop of about 1.2 million enrollments across the federal and state marketplaces. But these aren’t the final numbers, right? 

Luhby: No. What’s going to happen is people have time now, they still have to pay their premiums. The numbers that were being released were the number of people who signed up for plans. So what experts expect is that, over time, people who receive their bills may not pay them. A lot of people, remember, get automatically enrolled, so they may not be even aware of how much their premiums are going to increase until they actually get their bill. So they may not pay the bills, or they may try to pay the bills for a short time and find that they’re just too high. Remember that the premiums, on average, premium payments were expected to increase by 114% according to KFF. So that just may be unmanageable. The experts I’ve spoken to expect that we should get better numbers around April or so to see what the numbers of actual enrollees are. Because people, actually, if they don’t pay their premiums, can stay in the plants for three months, and then they get washed out. So we’re expecting to see if, hopefully, CMS will release it, but we’re hoping to see better numbers in April. 

Carey: Shefali, I know you closely follow abortion. How much has the abortion and the Hyde Amendment played in all these discussions about Congress trying to find, if they really want to find, a resolution to this subsidy issue? 

Luthra: It’s so interesting. A lot of anti-abortion activists have been quite firm. They say that there cannot be any permission that ACA-subsidized plans cover abortion if the subsidies are renewed. That, of course, would go against laws in some states that require those claims to cover abortion using state funds, not using federal funds, because of the Hyde Amendment. The president relatively recently, even though it feels like a lifetime, said, Oh, we should be flexible on this abortion restriction that anti-abortion activists want. They were, of course, furious with him and said, We can’t compromise on this. This is very important to our base. And they view it as the federal government making abortion more available. And so I think it’s still an open question as to whether this will ultimately be a factor. It’s, to your point, not really clear that lawmakers are anywhere close to coming to a deal on the subsidies. They very well may not, right? They still have to figure out funding for DHS [Department of Homeland Security]. They have many other things that are keeping them quite occupied. But this is absolutely something that abortion opponents will remain very firm on. And I mean, they haven’t had the victories they really would have hoped for in this administration so far, and I think it’d be very difficult for them to take another loss. 

Carey: So, Lauren, what’s going on with the discussions on Capitol Hill about potentially extending the enhanced ACA subsidies? We’re hearing reports from negotiators that the deal might be dead. How would that impact voters in November? 

Weber: I think people should be interested in getting a solution, because I think â€” talk about hitting voters’ pocketbooks and actual consequences. I mean, this seems like this is a thing that’s only going to continue to pick up speed. I was fascinated â€¦ I know you want to talk more about that great Politico piece that dives into the ticktock of how this all happened. But â€¦  

Carey: Yes, great story. 

Weber: I think, in general, the ACA subsidies fall into a trap of most of the contentious two-party system that we’re in right now, where different issues that are issues that we can’t touch end up blowing up problems that affect everyday Americans in their day-to-day, and then no action gets made, and then we end up closer to the midterms, where people actually may or may not want to do something. So I’m not sure that people don’t want to do something. I’m just not sure that there’s enough consensus around what that would be, and in the meantime, actual people are feeling the pain. So we’ll see how that continues to play out.  

Carey: Sure. 

Luthra: I just wanna say, just to add one more point to what Lauren mentioned about political pressure and backlash. The  shows that health care costs are voters’ No. 1 affordability concern. And we know there was that brief moment when the president said, We should be the affordability party, not Zohran Mamdani and the Democrats. And so I think that’s really interesting, right? Are they able to stick to that? Are they able to address this policy that voters are saying is such a high priority for them, because it is so visceral, right? You know what you’re paying, and you know that your bills are higher than last year. And if they can’t, is that the kind of thing that actually does shape how voters react in November, especially given so many other cost-of-living concerns many of them have. 

Luhby: Right, well, one of  about how the Trump administration’s messaging, or what they’re suggesting that the GOP message for the midterms is lower drug prices, which is something that they have been very active on. So they don’t want to discuss the exchanges, and we’ll talk a little bit about the new rule that they’ve just proposed. But yeah, I think the administration is going to focus on health care. They’re aware of the concerns of health care, and their message is going to be “most favored nation,” TrumpRx, and the other efforts that they’ve made to lower drug prices, which is something, of course, Trump was also very focused on in his first term as well, but to less effect. 

Carey: Speaking of that rule, Tami, can you tell us more about that? 

Luhby: Sure. Well, CMS wants to make sweeping changes for ACA plans for 2027. It issued a proposed rule last week that would give more consumers access to catastrophic policies. Now these are policies that have very high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs, generally offer skimpier benefits, but, importantly for the administration, have lower premiums. The proposed rule would also repeal a requirement that exchanges offer standardized plans, which are designed to make it easier for people to compare options. It would ease network adequacy rules and require, as we were just talking about, require more income verifications to get subsidies and crack down on brokers and agents who, we’ve just discussed about, you know, have been â€¦ some of whom have been complicit in fraud. The goal is to lower the ACA premiums and give people more choice, according to CMS. Premiums, of course, have been a big issue, as we discussed â€¦ because of the increase in monthly payments due to the expiration of the subsidies. But notably, the agency itself says that up to 2 million people could lose ACA coverage because of this proposed rule. It’s a sweeping, 577-page rule, I think? And if you want to get more information, I highly recommend you read Georgetown’s Katie Keith’s , which was published in Health Affairs. 

Carey: All right, well, we’ll have to keep our eye on that rule and all the comments that I am sure will come in. 

Luhby: Many comments. 

Carey: Many. I’m also intrigued about some of the GOP talking points on potential fraud in the program. For example, the House Judiciary Committee has subpoenaed eight health insurers, asking for information on their subsidized ACA enrollees and potential subsidy-related fraud. It has been a Republican talking point that it’s their perception, for many Republicans, that there is a lot of fraud in the program that needs to be investigated. Is there any merit to the claim, and will this discussion of fraud shift away from this really critical affordability issue that we’re all talking about? 

Luhby: Well, we know that there has been fraud in the program, particularly after the enhanced subsidies went into effect. I mean, even the Biden administration released reports and information about brokers and agents that were basically switching people into different plans, switching them into low-cost plans, enrolling them in order to get the commissions. And it’s one that actually played also into the argument on Capitol Hill about extending the subsidies, whereas the Republicans were very forceful about not having zero-premium subsidies, because they felt that this helped contribute to the fraud. So you know, that’s not an issue anymore, because the subsidies were not renewed, but both CMS and Congress are still focused on this idea of fraud with the subsidies. 

Carey: All right, well, we’ll keep watching that now and in the months ahead.  

So that’s the news for this week. And before we get to our extra credits, we need to correct the name of the winner of our Health Policy Valentines contest. The winner is Andrew Carleen of Massachusetts, and thanks again to everyone who entered.  

All right, now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story that we read this week and think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll post the links in our show notes. Lauren, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Weber: Yeah, I have two pieces, a piece from NiemanLab: “.” And then I also have one from my publication at The Washington Post. It’s from Scott Nover. The Atlantic’s essay about measles was gut-wrenching. And some readers feel deceived. And for a little bit of background for anyone who didn’t read it, Elizabeth wrote a very striking, beautifully written piece in The Atlantic from the perspective of a mom who lost her child to measles after a fatal complication that can happen for measles. But the way it was written, a lot of people did not realize it was fiction, or creative nonfiction, or creative fiction to some degree. And so it was written from the perspective like it was Bruenig’s story, but at the very end of the piece, and it turns out this was attached later, after publication, was an editor’s note saying this piece is based on interviews. I gotta say, as, when I initially read it, as a savvy consumer, I initially was like, Is this her story? until I got to the editor’s note at the end. The NiemanLab reporting says that that editor’s note wasn’t actually even on the piece when it started. I think this is a fascinating question, in general. I think that in an era where vaccine misinformation is rampant and the truth is important, it seems like having a pretty clear editor’s note at the top of this piece is essential. But that’s just my two cents on that, and I thought both the discussion and the online discussion about it was really fascinating this week. 

Carey: That’s fascinating. Indeed. Tami, what’s your extra credit? 

Luhby: My extra credit is titled “,” by Claudia Irizarry Aponte and Ben Fractenberg in The City, an online publication covering New York. We’ve been having a major nurses’ strike in New York City. It’s, you know, notable in the size and number of hospitals and length of the strike, which has been going on already for over a month. It’s affected several large hospitals â€” Mount Sinai, Montefiore, and NewYork-Presbyterian â€” with nurses demanding stronger nurse-to-patient staffing ratios, which, you know, has been a long-standing issue at many hospitals. Now, the interesting development is that the city uncovered a rift between NewYork-Presbyterian’s nurses union and their leadership. So what happened is the nurses at Montefiore and Mount Sinai have recently approved their contracts and are back to work, but the NewYork-Presbyterian nurses did not approve their contract because the language differed on the staffing-ratio enforcement and did not guarantee job security for existing nurses. And what actually apparently happened is that the union’s executive committee rejected the contract, but the union leaders still forced the vote on it, which was, actually, ended up voting down. So now the nurses have demanded a formal disciplinary investigation into the union leaders for forcing this vote. So more than 1,500 nurses at NewYork-Presbyterian signed the petition, and more than 50 nurses delivered it to the New York State Nurses Association headquarters. One nurse told The City they are overriding our voices. The union president urged members not to rush to judgment. Now, the NewYork-Presbyterian nurses remain on strike, which has lasted already for more than a month, and it’s going to be interesting to watch how this develops, especially because you have, obviously, the contentious negotiations between the hospital and the nurses union, but now you also have this revolt, and, you know, issues within the nurses union itself. 

Carey: Wow, that is also an amazing story. Shefali? 

Luthra: Sure. My piece is from NPR. It is by Jasmine Garsd. The headline is “.” And the story looks at something that we know from research happens, but on the ground in Minneapolis, of people concerned about ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and immigration presence at medical centers, delaying important health care that can be treatment for chronic ailments, it can also be treatment for acute conditions. And what I like about this story is that it highlights that this is something that is going to have consequences, even now with this surge of DHS law enforcement in Minnesota winding down. The consequences of missed health care can last for a very long time. And something I have heard often when just talking to immigrants and medical providers in the Minneapolis metropolitan area is exactly this fear that they actually don’t know what the coming weeks and months are going to bring. They don’t know when they will feel safe getting health care again, when it will feel as if the consequences of this really concentrated federal blitz will be ameliorated in any way. And I love that this story takes that longer view and highlights that we are going to be navigating the medical effects of something so seismic and frankly pretty unprecedented for quite some time. And I encourage people to read it. 

Carey: Thank you for that. My extra credit is from Politico by Robert King and Simon J. Levien, called “.” The piece is an inside look at why and how Congress failed to take action on extending the enhanced Affordable Care Act subsidies, which led to the longest government shutdown in U.S. history and higher ACA premiums for millions of Americans. 

OK, that’s this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer and engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts â€” as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us with your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me on X . Lauren, where can people find you these days? 

Weber: On  and on : @LaurenWeberHP. The HP stands for health policy. 

Carey: All right. Shefali. 

Luthra: On Bluesky:  

Carey: And Tami. 

Luhby: You can find me at . 

Carey: We’ll 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 I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 12, 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 Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Lizzy Lawrence of Stat News. 

Lizzy Lawrence: Hi.  

Rovner: And up early to join us from California, my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Jackie Fortiér. Welcome, Jackie.  

Jackie Fortiér: Hey, everyone. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but plenty of news. So let’s jump right in. We will start this week at the Food and Drug Administration, where things are â€” why don’t we call it â€” newsmaking. The biggest FDA story that broke this week was controversial vaccine chief Vinay Prasad outright rejecting an application for a new flu vaccine from Moderna, maker of the mRNA covid vaccine that so many anti-vaxxers have criticized. Lizzy, you . Congratulations. What happened exactly? And why is this such a big deal beyond the flu vaccine? 

Lawrence: This is a big deal because to refuse to file is a pretty rare occurrence in general, because in general the FDA and industry like to have agreed-upon standards for clinical trials before companies embark on them and pour millions of dollars into them. So that was surprising. And then— 

Rovner: And refuse to file means that they said that they’ve got the application and said: Yeah, we’re not accepting that. We’re not going to review this. Right? 

Lawrence: Yes, yes. And Prasad wrote that the grounds for this was that it wasn’t an adequate, controlled trial. Well, Moderna is saying that actually the FDA greenlit this trial back under the Biden administration in 2024. They acknowledged that there was basically a control vaccine that the FDA say they would prefer that Moderna use for the older population. But they said, however, it’s acceptable if you don’t do that. 

Rovner: And I want to make sure I understand this. The complication here is that this is supposed to be a better vaccine for older people, but right now there’s vaccines for older people that start at age 65 and this is a vaccine that’s supposed to start at age 50, right? So it was unclear who they were going to test it against, whether it was going to be the 50-to-64s or the 65s and older. Because there isn’t a vaccine right now that’s approved for 50 and up, right? 

Lawrence: Exactly, exactly. So it was there’s the high-dose vaccine, which is recommended for the above-65s, but that is not recommended for the 50-to-64, which is part of why Moderna didn’t use that high-dose vaccine, because the population that they were studying was broader than this over-65s. So anyway, so yeah, so refusing to file is already rare, and then for there to be an overriding refuse to file, where the, I was told, basically, while there may have been individuals who agreed with Dr. Prasad’s assessment, the review team, every discipline, thought that it was reviewable. And the head of vaccines wrote a memo explaining why he thought it was viable, so that the career staff kind of documented their thoughts here. It’s not clear whether this will be made public ever, but one would hope, with radical transparency, but we’ll see. Despite that, Dr. Prasad still refused to review Moderna’s application. 

Rovner: So obviously it’s a big deal for the flu vaccine, but it’s a big deal beyond this. Moderna’s CEO was on cable news this morning, said that, as you said, after consulting with the FDA officials about the trial, they spent a billion dollars on this trial. How do we expect companies to invest in new medicines like this if the FDA is basically acting on vibes? 

Lawrence: I don’t know. Yeah. And it’s interesting. It doesn’t seem like there’s a ton of sympathy from this administration. Even back last year, [FDA] Commissioner [Marty] Makary tweeted something â€” this was when they were limiting, wanted to require more data for covid vaccines for the under-65 crowd. And I think he said something like: Our goal is not to save companies money. That’s not something we â€” which of course that isn’t. The FDA’s goal is to promote public health. But it’s definitely a change in tune. I think that in the past, the FDA has understood that you’re really only going to get innovation if you have clear, consistent guidance and that it’s a really worst-case scenario for a company to spend a billion dollars on a clinical trial and then there’s nothing to show for it and nothing for it to benefit patients, either. So. 

Rovner: Is this over? What happens now? 

Lawrence: So now Moderna has requested a meeting to challenge this decision, and now there begins a kind of negotiation. It might be possible that the FDA would, in fact, would review at least the 50-to-64 cohort, because they don’t have any objections there, seemingly. But we’ll have to see. On a call yesterday, a senior FDA official talked about Moderna kind of coming to the agency with humility and acknowledging that the FDA had recommended this high-dose vaccine. And so I don’t know. I think companies are definitely â€” it’s a lesson that they’re, especially if you’re in the vaccine space, you have to tread very carefully. 

Rovner: Yeah. And I would think others in the drug space, too. It’s not just â€” that’s the point of this â€” it’s not just vaccines. Alice, you wanted to say something. 

Ollstein: Oh, yeah. Not only the monetary investment, which we’ve touched on a bunch, but companies spend years. So it’s the time investment as well. And why would you dedicate years of effort to something that you’re not sure if a political appointee is going to swoop in and override career scientific officials’ assessment, if you can’t trust the regulatory system to work as it’s always worked. There really is just a lot of risk there, and you might see people not making these submissions on all kinds of fronts. Of course, this is coming as we’ve had a really bad flu season. I’ve had people in my life get really sick and say it’s been really, really bad. So the prospect of having something that works better to prevent, or even just make it milder, not coming to fruition is rough. 

Rovner: Yeah. And this year, as we know, this year’s flu vaccine was not very well matched to the strains that ended up circulating. And that’s kind of the point of this Moderna vaccine, this mRNA vaccine, is that they say it would be much faster for them to match strains to what’s going around. If it works as the clinical trials suggest it would actually be a better flu vaccine than we have now. 

Well, meanwhile, cases of measles are also continuing to multiply, as they do when people aren’t vaccinated, and not just in the places we’ve talked about, like Texas and South Carolina, but also all around us here in the nation’s capital, apparently, as a result of people traveling here for the anti-abortion March for Life in January. There have been more than 730 confirmed cases of measles in the U.S. already this year. That’s four times more than have been typical for a full year, and it’s not yet the middle of February. Yet that doesn’t seem to be deterring the administration from its anti-vaccine activities. So now, the American Medical Association and the University of Minnesota Vaccine Integrity Project have announced they’ll convene a parallel group of experts to make vaccine recommendations, basically saying they are done following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This has been brewing for a while. Right, Lizzy? 

Lawrence: Yes. As soon as the secretary fired all of the experts who served on the advisory panel to the CDC on vaccines, I think there’s been unease. And now, as you said, there’s an active parallel public health establishment that’s trying to spread credible information and provide an alternative resource, because it’s clear that HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] has become compromised when it comes to vaccine recommendations. And yet, you’re seeing the spread of infectious diseases right now. 

Fortiér: Having kind of this rival court is not surprising, because they’ve refused to participate in any of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meetings for months and months. I do wonder if this will maybe change some of the tone. We do have an upcoming ACIP meeting in February. Normally we would have a agenda out by now. Before Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] we would have them weeks in advance, and we haven’t seen one yet, so we’re really not totally sure what they’re going to be talking about. But Dr. [Mehmet] Oz did say this week that he finally advised people â€” he’s the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] director— to take the vaccine. And there’s been over 933 cases in just South Carolina during this outbreak that started last October. And so when I talk to people on the ground who are treating folks in South Carolina and have been treating them for months, and they’ve been doing vaccine clinics and things like that, they were just so fed up with Dr. Oz and the administration, because they partially blame them for these various outbreaks. And I had one of them tell me, like, well, it’s like a band-aid on a bullet hole. Like, now they’re finally encouraging people to get vaccinated when we could have had this months ago. 

Rovner: And, of course, the CDC doesn’t have a director at the moment, because the Senate-approved director was summarily fired and/or quit, not clear which, after refusing to basically rubber-stamp the immunization panel’s recommendations that had not been made at the time. So the American Academy of Pediatrics is suing to stop this February ACIP meeting. I did not hear what the last decision was on that, but I know that there’s still a lot of movement around here. I guess the big worry is: Who should the public trust now? Is it going to be this sort of grouping of medical societies led by the AMA, or the CDC, which people and doctors are used to following the advice of? 

Ollstein: And there’s all these state alliances forming to do the same thing. And so I think, yeah, the more competing recommendations the average person hears, the more they just sort of throw their hands up and say: I don’t even know who to trust anymore. I’m not listening to any of these people. And the trust that’s eroded in the federal government, that’s going to be really hard to recuperate in the future. You can’t just flip a switch and say: OK, it’s a different government. We trust them again. Once those seeds of doubt are planted in people’s minds, it’s really hard to unearth. And so, if not permanent damage, all of this is doing at least very long-term damage to the idea of expertise and authoritative information. 

Rovner: And science, which this administration insists it wants to follow. Well, turning to FDA-related “MAHA” [“Make America Healthy Again”] news, the agency said last week it would relax enforcement of its food additive regulations to make it easier for manufacturers to say they’re not using artificial dyes. Now this was a huge deal when the agency announced the phaseout of artificial coloring. Looking at you, fancy-colored Froot Loops. Now the administration says it’s going to allow foodmakers to say they’re not using artificial colors as long as they’re not using petroleum-based dyes. Apparently, natural dyes are OK. But even that is controversial, and it appears that this whole effort really relies on manufacturers’ willingness to comply rather than, you know, actual regulation, which is kind of what the FDA does for a living. It’s a regulatory agency. 

Ollstein: Well, every time the word “natural” comes up, I always laugh because there is no definition of that. And there are plenty of things that are natural that could kill you or hurt you very badly. And there are plenty of things that are synthetically manufactured that are helpful and fine for you. And so it has this veneer of safety, veneer of health with no actual substance. So my red flags go up whenever I hear that word, and I think everyone should be skeptical. 

Rovner: But it goes with RFK Jr.’s quest now that you should, quote, “eat real food.” 

Lawrence: Right. Yeah. I was going to say same with “chemical.” I feel like, “chemical” abortion drug, “chemical.” And it’s like, a lot of things are chemicals. That’s not— 

Ollstein: Yeah, like in your own body, naturally. 

Lawrence: Yeah. 

Ollstein: You have chemicals. 

Lawrence: We are chemicals. 

Ollstein: We are chemicals. 

Rovner: You guys are all too young to remember the Dow Chemical advertising line “Better Living Through Chemistry,” which at the time, in the ’60s and ’70s, was true. There was, there â€” we’ve had a lot of better living through chemistry. And some of it has turned out to be maybe not so good for us, but a lot of it has turned out to be pretty darn good for us. 

Well, finally, in FDA land, Commissioner Marty Makary this week met with anti-abortion senators about that ongoing review of the abortion pill mifepristone, which senators want the FDA to remove from the market. Alice, how’d that meeting go? 

Ollstein: Not great for the FDA, from what I was told. I got on the phone with Sen. Josh Hawley after it, and he was extremely frustrated. He said he didn’t get answers to any of the questions he’s been sending in public letters to the FDA for months and now asking in this briefing behind closed doors that they held on Capitol Hill this week. He said he didn’t get answers about what the timeline is for this review of the abortion pill mifepristone, what the review consists of, whether it’s even begun, really, whether it’s even underway. And so he is sort of concluding that this is not going anywhere, and he wants Congress to step in and take action. Now, Congress has tried to step in and take action before. They’ve tried to put restrictions on mifepristone in the FDA funding bill. That didn’t pass. So I don’t know if this is even plausible in this environment where Congress can’t really pass much of anything anymore. 

But Hawley is not just another Republican senator. He is very intertwined with the anti-abortion movement. His wife is an extremely prominent anti-abortion lawyer who’s led a lot of the major cases trying to restrict or ban mifepristone. They founded their own anti-abortion advocacy group. And so it really shows that the tensions, clashes, whatever we want to call them, between the anti-abortion movement and the Trump administration, so after backing the Trump administration for years and years, they’re really getting fed up. And they’re fed up that even after they achieved their grand goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, there are actually more abortions happening now than before, and that’s largely through these pills and people’s ability to get them. And so they’re getting increasingly impatient with the Trump administration, who has been sort of stringing them along and saying: Yeah, we’re working on it. We’re working on it. But they want to see results. Now, of course, if there were some sort of restrictions imposed, that could have a big political effect. And so a lot of Republicans are very torn about that. But not Sen. Hawley. Sen. Hawley wants to see it.  

Rovner: That’s right. Well, moving to what I call FDA-adjacent news, one of the many thorny issues that FDA has been dealing with is the compounding of those very popular and very pricey obesity drugs. When the drugs were in shortage, it was legal for compounders to make their own copies. But now the shortage for both of the leading medications â€” semaglutide, made by Novo Nordisk, and tirzepatide, made by Eli Lilly â€” is over, and those cheaper copycats were supposed to be pulled from the market. So it was a bit of a surprise when the company Hims, one of those direct-to-consumer drug sites, announced the unveiling of a semaglutide tablet just weeks after the first such drug was approved by the FDA, by Novo Nordisk. The FDA promptly referred the company to the Justice Department for possible violation of federal drug laws, after which Hims said, Oh, maybe we won’t start selling the drug after all. Oh, and Novo is suing for patent infringement. But I would think that the war over the “fat” drugs, as President [Donald] Trump likes to call them, is likely to lower prices just as effectively as government regulation might. Or am I misreading that? Lizzy, this has been quite the sideshow, if you will. 

Lawrence: Yeah. It might. I think that the compounding, the FDA’s crackdown on Hims was very interesting to me because I think before the commissioner had come into his role, there was some speculation. He had worked for a telehealth company that prescribed compounded drugs. And there’s also, I think compounders have tried to tap into a little bit of the MAHA medical freedom aspect. But clearly that’s not been the case, at least at the FDA. They are clearly very upset about this and mean business, and I think it’s tying into their crackdown on direct-to-consumer drug advertising as well. But as far as price, yeah. I think the deals that Trump has managed to strike with the companies could actually be reducing price for patients. I think we’ll have to see. I know there’s obviously drug pricing programs as well that they could pursue. So, yeah, we’ll have to see.  

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

OK. We’re back. And speaking of President Trump, there’s also drug news this week that’s not directly related to the FDA. That’s the official unveiling of TrumpRx, the website the president says will lower drug prices like no one’s “ever seen before.” That’s a direct quote, by the way. Except it turns out that’s not quite the case. First, these discounts are only for people who are paying out-of-pocket, not those with insurance, which makes them valuable mostly for people who have no coverage or people who take drugs that insurance often doesn’t cover, like those for obesity or infertility. Yet of the 43 drugs so far that are promoted on the TrumpRx website, about half already have cheaper generic copies available through sites like GoodRx and Mark Cuban’s Cost Plus Drugs. And really, the website just points people to already existing manufacturer websites that were already offering those lower prices. So what is the point of TrumpRx? 

Lawrence: Great question. Yeah. This administration has been very focused on, obviously, media and wins and attaching President Trump’s name to things. So it accomplishes that goal. Maybe it does raise awareness for these other sites that already exist. But that’s a theme of a lot of the movement on health care so far, has been â€” there’s been a lot of chaos, and then there’s also sometimes things that they announce as like a grand, brand-new, no-one’s-ever-thought-of-it-before policy, but then there are already, of course, existing programs or avenues for that. 

Rovner: And to be fair, Trump has jawboned down some prices, including some prices for the obesity drugs, by basically dragging in the CEOs of these companies and saying, You will lower prices. 

Lawrence: Yeah, yeah. The dealmaking has been effective. And I think the question is: Will this last beyond his administration? Will there be a legacy there? 

Ollstein: I think there’s also some danger in overpromising, because he’s out there saying things that don’t comport with how math works. He’s basically suggesting prices will come down so many percents that we’ll be getting paid to take drugs, because that’s what more than 100% is. And people who are hearing that, voters who are hearing that, if they aren’t seeing that show up in their bills, if they’re not actually seeing those drastic, drastic drops that they’re being promised by the president, are they going to get upset? And is that going to impact how they vote? So yes, there has been some, on the margins, improvements, but when you’re out there promising 600% reductions and not delivering, there’s a risk to that. 

Rovner: Jackie, you wanted to add something. 

Fortiér: Well, I was going to say, I think it’s also confusing for a lot of people, from a consumer perspective, because you log on and I think people, they hear these huge promises, like Alice is talking about, and then they think that they can, necessarily, buy the drugs through there and immediately get them shipped, what these third parties like Hims and Weight Watchers are doing a lot of with the GLP-1s. And that’s not how this works. You still have another step of getting a prescription and then going to the pharmacy and using these to potentially get discounts and lower prices, in the same way that these have been available from pharmaceutical manufacturers and other things like GoodRx for years. But it’s that disconnect between, even if you can get a discount, actually getting the discount and crediting the Trump administration for that that I think is going to be really difficult for a lot of voters to make that connection in the way that the administration wants them to. 

Rovner: And this was ever the case with rebates â€” for other consumer products, not just talking about drugs. We’ll give you a $15 rebate, but you have to fill out 87 forms and send it to this place and get it exactly right, do it before the end date, and we’ll send you back $15. Because they count on most people not being able or willing to follow all of the various steps. So instead of giving everybody the discounted price, they make you really basically work for your discount, which is a consumer thing, but it’s pretty popular in the drug space as well. Rather than just lowering prices, they’re going to say, We will give you a discount, but you’re going to have to do this, that, and the other thing in order to get it. 

Fortiér: Right. But when you’re president and you want credit for it, it’s going to be a little more â€” it’s harder in order to make that connection. Sorry. 

Rovner: Yes, that’s true. That is a good point. All right, moving on. We have talked a lot about consolidation in the health care industry, particularly companies like UnitedHealthcare, which used to be just an insurer, now owns its own PBM [pharmacy benefit manager], its own claims processing company, and thousands of medical practices around the country. Well, now an extremely unlikely pair in the Senate, Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren and Missouri Republican Josh Hawley, have joined to introduce something called the Break Up Big Medicine Act, which would basically outlaw so-called vertical integration, like that of United and, to a somewhat lesser extent, Cigna and CVS Health, which owns Aetna, the insurer. Some are referring to this as the health version of the 1932 Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial from investment banking â€” and, side note, whose repeal in 1999 is considered a major factor setting off the financial crisis of 2008. But that was a risk thing. It was done to prevent another stock market crash like the one in 1929. This is a cost thing. This is to go after high health care costs. Could it work? Could it pass? And is this the beginning of the next big thing in health reform? 

Lawrence: Perhaps. Yeah. Last year, I worked with my colleagues on  kind of examining UnitedHealth Group and the effects of consolidation on doctors and patients. And at the time, I think, there were some vocal lawmakers on either side of the aisle who were criticizing this, especially in the wake of the murder of the UnitedHealth CEO, and which had a surprising â€” the public sort of had this reaction and to— 

Rovner: Not in United’s favor. 

Lawrence: Not in United’s favor. And so I think that there is, this is a political issue that affects everyone, Republican and Democrat, the, well, cost in general, but I think there’s a lot of resentment and anger, and it seems like that is bringing together these unlikely and pretty powerful senators. I’m not an expert on the Hill. I don’t know if this has a chance. Especially, it’s targeting massive, powerful companies with hands in every part of the health care system. So it’s something that you would imagine the entire health care industry would fight against. But, yeah, I don’t know. 

Rovner: And I will point out that Sen. Josh Hawley, in addition to all his anti-abortion activities, last year, when Congress was debating the Medicaid cuts, kept vowing not to vote for those Medicaid cuts. So he’s â€” which, of course, in the end, he did â€” but he’s been sort of on the consumer side of health care for a while now. It’s just this is not brand new to him. 

Lawrence: Right. And I’m not sure how many other Republican senators would follow him down this path. But it’s definitely a noteworthy development, and curious to see where it goes. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’m curious to see sort of if the populist part of health care costs sort of rises to the fore. We’ll have to, we will have to watch that space. Well, finally this week, more on the impact of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns and health. My KFF Health News colleague Amy Maxmen has  about health professionals in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps actually resigning rather than accepting postings to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where some immigrants are being detained in prisons that used to hold al-Qaida suspects. Another  by Claudia Boyd-Barrett describes how when people detained by ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] end up in the hospital, often their immediate families and their lawyers aren’t even allowed to know where. And remember, last week we talked about cases of measles in some immigration detention facilities. Well, now there are two confirmed cases of tuberculosis at the ICE facility at Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas. I’m thinking maybe the health part of this is starting to kind of get to people as much as the whole depriving-civil-liberties part. 

Fortiér: Yeah, and there’s also been cases of covid-19, which makes sense. You’re going to have respiratory viruses as you get hundreds of people grouped together. That makes sense. A judge in California a couple days ago ordered that there had to be adequate health provided to detainees in one specific California â€” it was a prison and now it’s an ICE detainee facility. That’s specific to there, but it’s â€” more and more senators, I think, are also looking at this and pointing out that they’re just not providing the health facilities that people need. And especially ongoing care â€” a lot of folks need diabetes treatment, and that treatment just isn’t really happening in many cases. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’ve talked about this at some length, over many weeks, that people in detention are not getting health care, even though it is required, that we keep hearing stories about people not getting needed health care. I didn’t know until I read this story that people who actually end up being hospitalized, that their family members are not allowed to know. That’s allegedly, well, it is because of security, because the idea is that if somebody who’s in detention is in a hospital, you don’t necessarily want bad people knowing that and being able to come to the hospital. But these are people often who are, as we have documented at length, do not have criminal records, and it’s hard to find out where they are. Alice, you wanted to add something. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So there was a recent GAO [Government Accountability Office] report about this, and it found that people were not getting evaluated when they entered a facility to see if they were medically vulnerable and at risk of having a really bad episode or emergency, and that even children, pregnant women, vulnerable populations weren’t getting that initial evaluation, which then led to problems down the road. And it also said that people upon their release â€” either deportation or release within the United States if that’s what a court ordered â€” they weren’t being given their medical records, their prescriptions. And so the continuity of care was disrupted. And it’s important to note that that GAO report was about a few years ago under the Biden administration. So this isn’t new. These problems aren’t new, but they’re getting much worse, because the number of people detained is at record levels and so everything’s just getting multiplied. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is. Well, we will keep watching that space. OK, that’s this week’s news. Before we get to our extra credits, I am pleased to present the winner of our annual Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Health Policy Valentine contest. It’s from [Andrew Carleen] of Massachusetts, based on a story about Medicare Advantage overpayments. And it goes like this: “I thought it was love. My heart felt spring-loaded. Turns out our relationship was significantly upcoded.” Congratulations, and happy Valentine’s Day to all. 

OK, 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 start us off this week? 

Ollstein: Sure. So I have a kind of fun story [“”] from my co-worker Amanda Chu about how the Oura ring has taken over D.C. They have been heavily lobbying the Trump administration and Congress to prevent tough regulations. Basically, there’s a debate about whether it should be regulated as a medical device or not. 

Rovner: Tell us again what it does. 

Ollstein: It’s a ring you wear on your finger that monitors different health metrics. And so the Trump administration MAHA movement has gone all in on this. They love it. The Pentagon has a huge contract with them. Other government agencies are looking at it, too. I think it’s interesting because it is this very sort of conservative mindset of individual responsibility in health care and, oh, if you could just track your own metrics and do the right things. That’s an approach that is sort of counter to the idea of public health and government protecting your health through policy. 

Rovner: And we know HHS Secretary Kennedy is a big fan of wearables. 

Ollstein: Exactly, and this is one of the most popular ones right now. And so this story does a good job digging into all the lobbying and also into concerns about data privacy and pointing out that these technologies are moving much faster than government can regulate them. And that is leaving some lawmakers really concerned about who could have access to this data. 

Rovner: Jackie. 

Fortiér: Mine is by Ariana Hendrix. She’s a writer based in Norway. It’s entitled “.” It was published in Stat. And she writes eloquently about being a parent in Norway and knowing that her children wouldn’t go to day care until they were about 16 months old, because Norway has paid parental leave. And she points out, beyond the vaccine debate there’s a bigger issue, that the U.S. lacks universal health care and federal paid parental leave. So changes in infant vaccines in the U.S. have a large effect, because babies in the U.S. often go to day care, when they’re around a lot of other kids when they’re just a few weeks old. So she points to the, in January, the infant RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] vaccine was moved to the high-risk category of shots, so now it isn’t routinely recommended for all babies in the U.S. And RSV, of course, is the most common cause of hospitalizations for infants, and that’s due to the fact that they’re exposed to the virus in day care a lot earlier than other children in other countries like Norway and Denmark whose vaccine schedules U.S. officials are now kind of trying to emulate. So she does a really great job of laying out how families face greater health and financial risks in the U.S. without the same safety net that other countries have. 

Rovner: Or just the same social policies that other countries have. 

Fortiér: Yeah, it reminded me— 

Rovner: It’s hard to, right, it’s hard to import another country’s â€” part of another country’s â€” policies without importing all of them. It is really good story. Lizzy. 

Lawrence: Yeah. So my piece is by Rachana Pradhan and KFF Health News, and it’s about the “” And I thought this piece was very interesting, just because in general I’ve been fascinated by â€” politicization of medicine isn’t new â€” but just like right-wing-coded products and left-wing-coded products. And in this piece, Rachana talks about NIH [National Institutes of Health] Director Jay Bhattacharya kind of talking about how, It’s the people’s NIH and if a lot of people are using it, well, we want to investigate it. So she just, she does a really good job of kind of unpacking why this is problematic, that they’re kind of just choosing a random medication and there’s not really any scientific reason to be investing in it as much as they are. And she got a response from NIH after the fact as well, kind of where they were trying to defend this decision to pour this much investment. And so, yeah, I think it’s just a really interesting development in NIH land. 

Rovner: It is. My extra credit this week is from ProPublica, by Mica Rosenberg, and it’s called “.” It’s about what immigration detention looks like from the point of view of children being held at a family facility in Dilley, Texas. That’s the one where the two cases of measles were diagnosed earlier this winter. The story includes some pretty wrenching letters and video calls from kids who were living elsewhere in the U.S., while their parents were mostly working within the immigration system. And these kids had been ripped from their daily lives, their other parents and siblings in some cases, their schools and their classmates, and in many cases, from hope itself. Wrote one 14-year-old from Hicksville, New York, quote: “Since I got to this Center all you will feel is sadness and mostly depression.” It really is a must-read story. 

OK. That is this week’s show. As always, 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, . Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks hanging these days? Jackie. 

Fortiér: Bluesky mainly, . 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: Mainly on Bluesky, , and still on X, . 

Rovner: Lizzy. 

Lawrence: On X, . On Bluesky, . 

Rovner: We’ll 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., and welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 15, 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 Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Alice [Miranda] Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

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 my interview with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” about an ER trip, a scorpion pepper, and a ghost bill. But first, this week’s news. Let’s start this week on Capitol Hill, where both houses of Congress are here and legislating. This week alone, the Senate rejected a Democratic effort to accept the House-passed bill that would renew for three years the Affordable Care Act’s expanded subsidies â€” the ones that expired Jan. 1.  

The Senate also turned back an effort to cancel the Trump administration’s regulation covering the ACA, which, although it has gotten far less attention than the subsidies, would also result in a lot of people losing or dropping health insurance coverage.  

Meanwhile, in the House, Republicans are struggling just to keep the lights on. Between resignations, illnesses, and deaths, House Republicans are very nearly â€” in the words of longtime Congress watcher  â€” a [majority] in name only, which I guess is pronounced “MINO.” Their majority is now so thin that one or two votes can hand Democrats a win, as we saw earlier this week in a surprise defeat on an otherwise fairly routine labor bill. Which brings us to the prospects for renewing those Affordable Care Act subsidies. When the dust cleared from last week’s House vote, 17 Republicans joined all the House’s Democrats to pass the bill and send it to the Senate. But it seems that the bipartisan efforts in the Senate to get a deal are losing steam. What’s the latest you guys are hearing? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so it wasn’t a good sign when the person who has sort of come out as a leader of these bipartisan negotiations, Ohio Sen. Bernie Moreno, at first came out very strong and said, We’re in the end zone. We’re very close to a deal. We’re going to have bill text. And that was several days ago, and now they’re saying that maybe they’ll have something by the end of the month. But the initial enthusiasm very quickly fizzled as they really got into the negotiations, and, from what my colleagues have reported, there’s still disagreements on several fronts, you know, including this idea of having a minimum charge for all plans, no zero-premium plans anymore, which the right says is to crack down on fraud, and the left says would really deter low-income people from getting coverage. And there, of course, is, as always, a fight about abortion, as we spoke about on this podcast before. There is not agreement on how Obamacare currently treats abortion, and thus there can be no agreement on how it should treat abortion. 

And so the two sides have not come to any kind of compromise. And I don’t know what compromise would be possible, because all of the anti-abortion activist groups and their allies in Congress, of which there are many, say that the only thing they’ll accept is a blanket national ban on any plan that covers abortion receiving a subsidy, and that’s a nonstarter for most, if not all, Democrats. So I don’t know where we go from here. 

Rovner: Well, we will talk more about both abortion and the ACA in a minute, but first, lawmakers have just over two weeks to finish the remaining spending bills, or else risk yet another government shutdown. They seem to [be] making some headway on many of those spending bills, but not so much on the bill that funds most of the Department of Health and Human Services. Any chance they can come up with a bill that can get 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the much more conservative House? That is a pretty narrow needle to thread. I don’t think abortion is going to be a huge issue in Labor, HHS, because that’s where the Hyde Amendment lives, and we usually see the Hyde Amendment renewed. But, you know, I see a lot of Democrats and, frankly, Republicans in the Senate wanting to put money back for a lot of the things that HHS has cut, and the House [is] probably not so excited about putting all of that money back. I’m just wondering if there really is a deal to be had, or if we’re going to see for the, you know, however many year[s] in a row, another continuing resolution, at least for the Department of Health and Human Services. 

Ollstein: Well, you’re hearing a lot more optimism from lawmakers about the spending bill than you are about a[n] Obamacare subsidy deal or any of the other things that they’re fighting about. And I would say, on the spending, I think the much bigger fights are going to be outside the health care space. I think they’re going to be about immigration, with everything we’re seeing about foreign policy, whether and how to put restraints on the Trump administration, on both of those fronts. On health, yes, I think you’ve seen efforts to restore funding for programs that was slashed by the Trump administration, and you are seeing some Republican support for that. I mean, it impacts their districts and their voters too. So that makes sense. 

Kenen: We’ve also seen the Congress vote for spending that the administration hasn’t been spent. So Congress has just voted on a series of things about science funding and other health-related issues, including global health. But it remains to be seen whether this administration takes appropriations as law or suggestion. 

Rovner: So while the effort to revive the additional ACA subsidies appears to be losing steam, there does seem to be some new hope for a bipartisan health package that almost became law at the end of 2024, so 13 months ago. Back then, Elon Musk got it stripped from the year-end spending bill because the bill, or so Musk said, had gotten too big. That health package includes things like reforms for pharmacy benefits managers and hospital outpatient payments, and continued funding for community health centers. Could that finally become law? That thing that they said, Oh, we’ll pass it first thing next year, meaning 2025. 

Edney: I think it’s certainly looking more likely than the subsidies that we’ve been talking about. But I do think we’ve been here before several times, not just at the end of last year â€” but, like with these PBM reforms, I feel like they have certainly gotten to a point where it’s like, This is happening. It’s gonna happen. And, I mean, it’s been years, though, that we’ve been talking about pharmacy benefit manager reforms in the space of drug pricing. So basically, you know, from when [President Donald] Trump won. And so, you know, I say this with, like, a huge amount of caution: Maybe. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will, but we’ll believe it when â€¦ we get to the signing ceremony. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, back to the Affordable Care Act, for which enrollment in most states end today. We’re getting an early idea of how many people actually are dropping coverage because of the expiration of those subsidies. Sign-ups on the federal marketplace are down about 1.5 million from the end of last year’s enrollment period, and that’s before most people have to pay their first bill. States that run their own marketplaces are also reporting that people are dropping coverage, or else trying to shift to cheaper plans. I’m wondering if these early numbers â€” which are actually stronger than many predicted, with fewer people actually dropping coverage â€” reflect people who signed up hoping that Congress might actually renew the subsidies this month. Since we kept saying that was possible. 

Ollstein: I would bet that most people are not following the minutiae of what’s happening on Capitol Hill and have no idea the mess we’re in, and why, and who’s responsible. I would love to be wrong about that. I would love for everyone to be super informed. Hopefully they listen to this podcast. But you know, I think that a lot of people just sign up year after year and aren’t sure of what’s going on until they’re hit with the giant bill.  

Rovner: Yeah. 

Ollstein: One thing I will point out about the emerging numbers is it does show, at least early indications, that the steps a lot of states are taking to make up for the shortfalls and put their own funding into helping people and subsidizing plans, that’s really working. You’re seeing enrollment up in some of those states, and so I wonder if that’ll encourage any others to get on board as well. 

Kenen: But â€¦ I think what Julie said is it’s â€¦ the follow-up is less than expected. But for the reasons Julie just said is that you haven’t gotten your bill yet. So either you haven’t been paying attention, or you’re an optimist and think there’ll be a solution. So, and people might even pay their first bill thinking that there’ll be a solution next month, or that we’re close. I mean, I would think there’d be drop-off soon, but there might be a steeper cliff a month or two from now, when people realize this is it for the year, and not just a tough, expensive month or two. So just because they’re not as bad as some people forecast doesn’t say that this is going to be a robust coverage year. 

Edney: And I think, I mean, they are the whole picture when you’re talking about who’s signing up, but a lot of these people that I’ve read about or heard about are on the radio programs and different things are signing up, are drastically changing their lives to be able to afford what they think might be their insurance. So how does that play out in other aspects? I think will be .. of the economy of jobs, like, where does that lead us? I think will be something to watch out for too. 

Rovner: And by the way, in case you’re wondering why health insurance is so expensive, we got the , and total health expenditures grew by 7.2% from the previous year to $5.3 trillion, or 18% of the nation’s GDP [gross domestic product], up from 17.7% the year before. Remember, these are the numbers for 2024, not 2025, but it makes it pretty hard for Republicans to blame the Affordable Care Act itself for rising insurance premiums. Insurance is more expensive because we’re spending more on health care. It’s not really that complicated, right? 

Kenen: This 17%-18% of GDP has been pretty consistent, which doesn’t mean it’s good; it just means it’s been around that level for many, many, many years. Despite all the talk about how it’s unsustainable, it’s been sustained, with pain, but sustained. $5.7 trillion, even if you’ve been doing this a long time â€¦ 

Rovner: It’s $5.3 trillion. 

Kenen: $5.3 trillion. It’s a mind-boggling number. It’s a lot of dollars! So the ACA made insurance more â€” the out-of-pocket cost of insurance for millions of Americans, 20-ish million â€” but the underlying burden we’ve not solved the — to use the word of the moment, the “affordability” crisis in health care is still with us and arguably getting worse. But like, I think we’re sort of numb. These numbers are just so insane, and yet you say it’s unsustainable, but â€¦ I think it was Uwe’s line, right? 

Rovner: It was, it was a famous Uwe Reinhardt line. 

Kenen: No, it’s sustainable, if we’re sustaining it at a high â€” in economically â€” zany price.  

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: And, like, the other thing is, like, where is the money? Right? Everybody in health care says they don’t have any money, so I can’t figure out who has the $5 trillion. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, it’s not â€¦ it does not seem to be the insurance companies as much as it is, you know, if you look at these numbers â€” and I’ll post a link to them â€” you know, it’s hospitals and drug companies and doctors and all of those who are part of the health care industrial complex, as I like to call it. 

Kenen: All of them say they don’t have enough.  

Rovner: Right. All right. So we know that the Affordable Care Act subsidies are hung up over abortion, as Alice pointed out, and we know that the big abortion demonstration, the March for Life, is coming up next week, so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that Senate health committee chairman and ardent anti-abortion senator Bill Cassidy would hold a hearing not on changes to the vaccine schedule, which he has loudly and publicly complained about, but instead about the reputed dangers of the abortion pill, mifepristone. Alice, like me, you watched yesterday’s hearing. What was your takeaway? 

Ollstein: So, you know, in a sense, this was a show hearing. There wasn’t a bill under consideration. They didn’t have anyone from the administration to grill. And so this is just sort of your typical each side tries to make their point hearing. And the bigger picture here is that conservatives, including senators and the activist groups who are sort of goading them on from the outside â€” they’re really frustrated right now about the Trump administration and the lack of action they’ve seen in this first year of this administration on their top priority, which is restricting the abortion pill. Their bigger goal is outlawing all abortion, but since abortion pills comprise the majority of abortions these days, that’s what they’re targeting. And so they’re frustrated that, you know, both [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] and [Marty] Makary have promised some sort of review or action on the abortion pill, and they say, We want to see it. Why haven’t you done it yet? And so I think that pressure is only going to mount, and this hearing was part of that. 

Rovner: I was fascinated by the Louisiana attorney general saying, basically, the quiet part out loud, which is that we banned abortion, but because of these abortion pills, abortions are still going up in our state. That was the first time I think I’d heard an official say that. I mean that, if you wonder why they’re going after the abortion pill, that’s why â€” because they struck down Roe [v. Wade] and assumed that the number of abortions would go down, and it really has not, has it? 

Ollstein: That’s right. And so not only are people increasingly using pills to terminate pregnancies, but they’re increasingly getting them via telemedicine. And you know, that’s absolutely true in states with bans, but it’s also true in states where abortion is legal. You know, a lot of people just really prefer the telemedicine option, whether because it’s cheaper, or they live really far away from a doctor who is willing to prescribe this, or, you know, any other reasons. So the right â€” you know, again, including senators like Cassidy, but also these activist groups â€” they’re saying, at a bare minimum, we want the Trump administration to ban telemedicine for the pills and reinstate the in-person dispensing requirement. That would really roll back access across the country. But what they really want is for the pills to be taken off the market altogether. And they’re pretty open about saying that.  

Rovner: Well, rather convenient timing from the , which published a peer-reviewed study of 5,000 pages of documents from the FDA that found that over the last dozen years, when it comes to the abortion pill and its availability, the agency followed the evidence-based recommendations of its scientists every single time, except once, and that once was during the first Trump administration. Alice, is there anything that will convince people that the scientific evidence shows that mifepristone is both safe and effective and actually has a very low rate of serious complications? There were, how many, like 100, more than 100 peer-reviewed studies that basically show this, plus the experience of many millions of women in the United States and around the world. 

Ollstein: Well, just like I’m skeptical that there’s any compromise that can be found on the Obamacare subsidies, there’s just no compromise here. You know, you have the groups that are making these arguments about the pills’ safety say very openly that, you know, the reason they oppose the pills is because they cause abortions. They say it can’t be health care if it’s designed to end a life, and that kind of rhetoric. And so the focus on the rate of complication â€¦ I mean, I’m not saying they’re not genuinely concerned. They may be, but, you know, this is one of many tactics they’re using to try to curb access to the pills. So it’s just one argument in their arsenal. It’s not their, like, primary driving, overriding goal is, is the safety which, like you said, has been well established with many, many peer-reviewed studies over the last several years. 

¸é´Ç±¹²Ô±ð°ù:ÌýSo, in between these big, high-profile anti-abortion actions like Senate hearings, those supporting abortion rights are actually still prevailing in court, at least in the lower courts. This week, [a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association against the Trump administration after the administration also quietly gave Planned Parenthood and other family planning groups] back the Title X family planning money that was appropriated to it by Congress. That was what Joanne was referring to, that Congress has been appropriating money that the administration hasn’t been spending. But this wasn’t really the big pot of federal money that Planned Parenthood is fighting to win back, right?

Ollstein: It was one pot of money they’re fighting to win back. But yes, the much bigger Medicaid cuts that Congress passed over last summer, those are still in place. And so that’s an order of magnitude more than this pot of Title X family planning money that they just got back. So that aside, I’ve seen a lot of conservatives conflate the two and accuse the Trump administration of violating the law that Congress passed and restoring funding to Planned Parenthood. This is different funding, and it’s a lot less than the cuts that happened. And so I talked to the organizations impacted, and it was clear that even though they’re getting this money back, for some it came too late, like they already closed their doors and shut down clinics in a lot of states, and they can’t reopen them with this chunk of money. This money is when you give a service to a patient, you can then submit for reimbursement. And so if the clinic’s not there, it’s not like they can use this money to, like, reopen the clinic, sign a lease, hire people, etc.  

Rovner: Yeah. The wheels of the courts, as we have seen, have moved very slowly. 

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

So while abortion gets most of the headlines, it’s not the only culture war issue in play. The Supreme Court this week heard oral arguments in a case challenging two of the 27 state laws barring transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams. Reporters covering the argument said it seemed unlikely that a majority of justices would strike down the laws, which would allow all of those bans to stand. Meanwhile, the other two branches of the federal government have also weighed in on the gender issue in recent weeks. The House passed a bill in December, sponsored by now former Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene that would make it a felony for anyone to provide gender-affirming care to minors nationwide. And the Department of Health and Human Services issued proposed regulations just before Christmas that wouldn’t go quite that far, but would have roughly the same effect. The regulations would ban hospitals from providing gender-affirming care to minors or risk losing their Medicare and Medicaid funding, and would bar funding for gender-affirming care for minors by Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. At the same time, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy issued a declaration, which is already being challenged in court, stating that gender-affirming care, quote, “does not meet professionally recognized standards of health care,” and therefore practitioners who deliver it can be excluded from federal health programs. I get that sports team exclusions have a lot of public support, but does the public really support effectively ending all gender-affirming care for minors? That’s what this would do. 

Edney: Well, I think that when a lot of people hear that, they think of surgery, which is the much, much, much, much, much less likely scenario here that we’re even talking about. And so those who are against it have done an effective job of making that the issue. And so there â€¦ who support gender-affirming care, who have looked into it, would see that a lot of this is hormone treatment, things like that, to drugs â€¦  

Rovner: Puberty blockers! 

Edney: â€¦ they’re taking â€” exactly â€” and so it’s not, this isn’t like a permanent under-the-knife type of thing that a lot of people are thinking about, and I think, too, talking about, like mental health, with being able to get some of these puberty blockers, the effect that it can have on a minor who doesn’t want to live the way they’ve been living, so it’s so helpful to them. So I think that there’s just a lot that has, you know, there’s been a lot of misinformation out there about this, and I feel like that that’s kind of winning the day. 

Kenen: I think, like, from the beginning, because, like, five or six years ago was the first time I wrote about this. The playbook has been very much like the anti-abortion playbook. They talk about it in terms of protecting women’s health, and now they’re talking about it in protecting children’s health. And, as Anna said, they’re using words like mutilation. Puberty blockers are not mutilation. Puberty blockers are a medication that delays the onset of puberty, and it is not irreversible. It’s like a brake. You take your foot off the brake, and puberty starts. There’s some controversy about what age and how long, and there’s some possible bone damage. I mean, there’s some questions that are raised that need to be answered, but the conversation that’s going on now â€” most of the experts in this field, who are endocrinologists and psychologists and other people who are working with these kids, cite a lot of data saying that not only this is safe, but it’s beneficial for a kid who really feels like they’re trapped in the wrong body. So you know, I think it’s really important to repeat â€¦ the point that Anna made, you know, 12-year-olds are not getting major surgery. Very few minors are, and when they are, it’s closer â€¦ they may be under 18, it’s rare. But if you’re under 18, you’re closer to 18, it’s later in teens. And it’s not like you walk into an operating room and say, you know, do this to me. There’s years of counseling and evaluation and professional teams. It really did strike a nerve in the campaign. I think Pennsylvania, in particular. This is something that people don’t understand and get very upset about, and the inflammatory language, it’s not creating understanding. 

Rovner: We’ll see how this one plays out. Finally, this week, things at the Department of Health and Human Services continues to be chaotic. In the latest round of “we’re cutting you off because you don’t agree with us,” the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration sent hundreds of letters Tuesday to grantees canceling their funding immediately. It’s not entirely clear how many grants or how much money was involved, but it appeared to be something in the neighborhood of $2 billion â€” that’s around a fifth of SAMHSA’s entire budget. SAMHSA, of course, funds programs that provide addiction and mental health treatment, treatment for homelessness and suicide prevention, among other things. Then, Wednesday night, after a furious backlash from Capitol Hill and just about every mental health and substance abuse group in the country, from what I could tell from my email, the administration canceled the cuts. Did they miscalculate the scope of the reaction here, or was chaos the actual goal in this?  

Edney: That is a great question. I really don’t know the answer. I don’t know what it could serve anyone by doing this and reversing it in 24 hours, as far as the chaos angle, but it does seem, certainly, like there was a miscalculation of how Congress would react to this, and it was a bipartisan reaction that wanted to know why, what is it even your justification? Because these programs do seem to support the priorities of this administration and HHS. 

Rovner: I didn’t count, but I got dozens of emails yesterday.  

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: My entire email box was overflowing with people basically freaking out about these cuts to SAMHSA. Joanne, you wanted to say something? 

Kenen: I think that one of the shifts over â€” I’m not exactly sure how many years â€” 7, 8, 9, years, whatever we’ve been dealing with this opioid crisis, the country has really changed and how we see addiction, and that we are much more likely to view addiction not as a criminal justice issue, but as a mental health issue. It’s not that everybody thinks that. It’s not that every lawmaker thinks that, but we have really turned this into, we have seen it as, you know, a health problem and a health problem that strikes red states and blue states. You know, we are all familiar with the “deaths of despair.” Many of us know at least an acquaintance or an acquaintance’s family that have experienced an overdose death. This is a bipartisan shift. It is, you know, you’ve had plenty of conservatives speaking out for both more money and more compassion. So I think that the backlash yesterday, I mean, we saw the public backlash, but I think there was probably a behind-the-scenes â€” some of the “Opioid Belts” are very conservative states, and Republican governors, you know, really saying we’ve had progress. Right? The last couple of years, we have made progress. Fatal overdoses have gone down, and Narcan is available. And just like our inboxes, I think their telephones, they were bombarded.  

Rovner: Yeah. Well, meanwhile, several hundred workers have reportedly been reinstated at the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health â€” that’s a subagency of CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. Except that those RIF [reduction in force] cancellations came nine months after the original RIFs, which were back in April. Does the administration think these folks are just sitting around waiting to be called back to work? And in news from the National Institutes of Health, Director Jay Bhattacharya told a podcaster last week that the DEI-related [diversity, equity, and inclusion] grants that were canceled and then reinstated due to court orders are likely to simply not be renewed. And at the FDA, former longtime drug regulator Richard Pazdur said at the J.P. Morgan [Healthcare] Conference in San Francisco this week that the firewall between the political appointees at the agency and its career drug reviewers has been, quote, “breached.” How is the rest of HHS expected to actually, you know, function with even so much uncertainty about who works there and who’s calling the shots? 

Ollstein: Not to mention all of this back and forth and chaos and starting and stopping is costing more, is costing taxpayers more. Overall spending is up. After all of the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] and RIFs and all of it, they have not cut spending at all because it’s more expensive to pay people to be on administrative leave for a long time and then try to bring them back and then shut down a lab and then reopen a lab. And all of this has not only meant, you know, programs not serving people, research not happening, but it hasn’t even saved the government any money, either. 

Kenen: Like, you know, the game we played when we were kids, remember, “Red Light-Green Light,” you know, you’d run in one direction, you run back. And if you were 8 years old, it would end with someone crying. And that’s sort of the way we’re running the government these days [laughs]. The amount of people fired, put on leave. The CDC has had this incredible yo-yoing of people. You can’t even keep track. You don’t even know what email to use if you’re trying to keep in touch with them anymore. The churn, with what logic? It’s, as Alice said, just more expensive, but it’s, it’s also just â€¦ like you can’t get your job done. Even if you want a smaller government, which many of conservatives and Trump people do, you still want certain functions fulfilled. But there’s still a consensus in society that we need some kind of functioning health system and health oversight and health monitoring. I mean, the American public is not against research, and the American public is not against keeping people alive. You know, the inconsistency is pretty mind-boggling. 

Edney: Well, there’s a lot of rank-and-file, but we’re seeing a lot of heads of parts of the agencies where, like at the FDA, with the drug center, or many of the different institutes at NIH that really don’t have anyone in place that is leading them. And I think that that, to me, like this is just my humble opinion, is it kind of seems like the message as anybody can do this part, because it’s all coming from one place. There’s really just one leader, essentially, RFK, or maybe it’s Trump, or they want everyone to do it the way that they’re going to comply with the different, like you said, everyone wants research, but I, Joanne, but I do think they only want certain kinds of research in this case. So it’s been interesting to watch how many leaders in these agencies that are going away and not being replaced. 

Rovner: And all the institutional memory that’s walking out the door. I mean, more people â€” and to Alice’s point about how this hasn’t saved money â€” more people have taken early retirement than have been actually, you know, RIF’d or fired or let go. I mean, they’ve just â€¦ a lot of people have basically, including a lot of leaders of many of these agencies, said, We just don’t want to be here under these circumstances. Bye. Assuming at some point this government does want to use the Department of Health and Human Services to get things done, there might not be the personnel around to actually effectuate it. But we will continue to watch that space. 

OK, that’s this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Elisabeth Rosenthal, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Elisabeth Rosenthal, senior contributing editor at KFF Health News and originator of our “Bill of the Month” series, which in its nearly eight years has analyzed nearly $7 million in dubious, infuriating, or inflated medical charges. Libby also wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” which we’ll talk about in a minute. Libby, welcome back to the podcast. 

Elisabeth Rosenthal: Thanks for having me back. 

Rovner: So before we get to this month’s patient, can you reflect for a moment on the impact this series has had, and how frustrated are you that eight years on, it’s as relevant as it was when we began? 

Rosenthal: We were worried it wouldn’t last a year, and here we are, eight years later, still finding plenty to write about. I mean, we’ve had some wins. I think we helped contribute to the No Surprises Act being passed. There are states clamping down on facility fees, you know, and making sure that when you get something done in a hospital rather than an outpatient clinic, it’s the same cost. The country’s starting to address drug prices. But, you know, we seem to be the billing police, and that’s not good. We’ve gotten a lot of bills written off for our individual patients. Suddenly, when a reporter calls, they’re like, Oh, that was a mistake or Yeah, we’re going to write that off. And I’m like, You’re not writing that off; that shouldn’t have been billed. So sadly, the series is still going strong, and medical billing has proved endlessly creative. And you know, I think the sad thing for me is our success is a sign of a deeply, deeply dysfunctional system that has left, as we know, you know, 100 million adult Americans with medical debt. So we will keep going until it’s solved, I hope. 

Rovner: Well, getting on to this month’s patient, he gives new meaning to the phrase “It must have been something I ate.” Tell us what it was and how he ended up in the emergency room. 

Rosenthal: Well, Maxwell [Kruzic] loves eating spicy foods, but he’s never had a problem with it. And suddenly, one night, he had just excruciating, crippling abdominal pain. He drove himself to the emergency room. It was so bad he had to stop three times, and when he got there, it was mostly on the right-lower quadrant. You know, the doctors were so convinced, as he was, that he had appendicitis, that they called a surgeon right away, right? So they were all like, ready to go to the operating room. And then the scan came back, and it was like, whoops, his appendix is normal. And then, oh, could he have kidney stones? And it’s like no sign of that either. And finally, he thought, or someone asked, Well, what did you eat last night? And of course, Maxwell had ordered the hottest chili peppers from a bespoke chili pepper-growing company in New Mexico. They have some chili pepper rating of 2 million [Scoville heat units], which is, like, through the roof, and it was a reaction to the chili peppers. I didn’t even know that could happen, and I trained as a doctor, but I guess your intestines don’t like really, really, really hot stuff. 

Rovner: So in the end, he was OK. And the story here isn’t even really about what kind of care he got, or how much it cost. The $8,000 the hospital charged for his few hours in the ER doesn’t seem all that out of line compared to some of the bills we’ve seen. What was most notable in this case was the fact that the bill didn’t actually come until two years later. How much was he asked to pay two years after the hot pepper incident? 

Rosenthal: Well, he was asked to pay a little over $2,000, which was his coinsurance for the emergency room visit. And as he said, you know, $8,000 â€¦ now we go, well, that’s not bad. I mean, all they did, actually, was do a couple of scans and give him some IV fluids. But in this day and age, you’re like, wow, he got away â€” you know, from a “Bill of a Month” perspective, he got away cheap, right? 

Rovner: But I would say, is it even legal to send a bill two years after the fact? Who sends a bill two years later? 

Rosenthal: That’s the problem, like, and Maxwell â€” he’s a pretty smart guy, so he was checking his portal repeatedly. I mean, he paid something upfront at the ER, and he kept thinking, I must owe something. And he checked and he checked and he checked and it kept saying zero. He actually called his insurer and to make sure that was right. And they said, No, no, no, it’s right. You owe zero. And then, you know, after like, six months, he thought, I guess I owe zero. But then he didn’t think about it, and then almost two years later, this bill arrives in the mail, and he’s like, What?! And what I discovered, which is a little disturbing, is it is not, I wouldn’t say normal, but we see a bunch of these ghost bills at “Bill of the Month,” and in many cases, it’s legal, because of what was going on in those two-year periods. And of course, I called the hospital, I called the insurer, and they were like, Yeah, you know, someone was away on vacation, and someone left their job, and we couldn’t â€¦ you know, the hospital billed them correctly. And the hospital said, No, we didn’t. And they were just kind of doing the usual back-end negotiations to figure out what a service is worth. And when they finally agreed two years later what should be paid, that’s when they sent Maxwell the bill. And the problem is, whether it’s legal really depends on your insurance contracts, and whether they allow this kind of late billing. I do not know to this day if Maxwell’s did, because as soon as I called the insurer and the hospital, they were like, Never mind. He doesn’t owe anything. And you know, as he said, he’s a geological engineer. He has lots of clients, and as he said, you know, if I called them two years later and said, Whoops, I forgot to bill for something, they would be like, Forget it! you know. So I do think this is something that needs to be addressed at a policy level, as we so often discover on “Bill of the Month.” 

Rovner: So what should you do if you get one of these ghost bills? I should say I’m still negotiating bills from a surgery that I had six months ago. So I guess I should count myself lucky. 

Rosenthal: Well, I think you should check with your insurer and check with the hospital. I think more with your insurer â€” if the contract says this is legal to bill. It’s unclear to me, in this case, whether it was. The hospital was very much like, Oh, we made a mistake; because it took so long, we actually couldn’t bill Maxwell. So I think in his case, it probably was in the contract that this was too late to bill. But, you know, I think a lot of hospitals, I hate to say it, have this attitude. Well, doesn’t hurt to try, you know, maybe they’ll pay it. And people are afraid of bills, right? They pay them.  

Rovner: I know the feeling. 

Rosenthal: Yeah, I do think, you know, they should check with their insurer about whether there’s a statute of limitations, essentially, on billing, because there may well be and I would say it’s a great asymmetry, because if you submit an insurance claim more than six months late, they can say, Well, we won’t pay this. 

Rovner: And just to tie this one up with a bow, I assume that Maxwell has changed his pepper-eating ways, at least modified them? 

Rosenthal: He said he will never eat scorpion peppers again. 

Rovner: Libby Rosenthal, thank you so much. 

Rosenthal: Oh, sure. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back, and 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. Anna, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Edney: Sure. So my extra credit is from MedPage Today: “.” I appreciated this article because it answered some questions that I had, too, after the sweeping change to the childhood vaccine schedule. There was just a lot of discussions I had about, you know, well, what does this really mean on the ground? And will parents be confused? Will pediatricians â€” how will they be talking about this? You know, will they stick to the schedule we knew before? And there was an article in JAMA Perspectives that lays out, essentially, to clinicians, you know, that they should not fear malpractice .. issues if they’re going to talk about the old schedule and not adhere to the newer schedule. And so it lays out some of those issues. And I thought that was really helpful. 

Rovner: Yeah, this was a big question that I had, too. Alice, why don’t you go next? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so I have a piece from ProPublica. It’s called “.” So this is about how there’s been this huge push on the right to end public water fluoridation that has succeeded in a couple places and could spread more. And the proponents of doing that say that it’s fine because there are all these other sources of fluoride. You can get a treatment at the dentist, you can get it in stuff you buy at the drugstore and take yourself. But at the same time, the people who arepushing for ending fluoridated public drinking water are also pushing for restricting those other sources. There have been state and federal efforts to crack down on them, plus all of the just rhetoric about fluoride, which is very misleading. It misrepresents studies about its alleged neurological impacts. But it also, that kind of rhetoric makes people afraid to have fluoride in any form, and people are very worried about that, what that’s going to do to the nation’s teeth? 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s like vaccines. The more you talk it down, the less people want to do it. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is a piece by Dhruv Khullar in The New Yorker called “,” and it was really great, because there’s certain things I think that we who â€” like, I don’t know how all of you watch it â€” but like, there’s certain things that didn’t even strike me, because I’m so used to writing about, like, the connection between poverty, social determinants of health, and, like, of course, people who come to the ED [emergency department] have, you know, homelessness problems and can’t afford food and all that. But Dhruv talked about how it sort of brought that home to him, how our social safety net, the holes in it, end up in our EDs. And he also talked about some of it is dramatized more for TV, that not everybody’s heart stops every 15 minutes. He said that sort of happens to one patient a day. But he talked about compassion and how that is rediscovered in this frenetic ED/ER scene. It’s just a very thoughtful piece about why we all love that TV show. And it’s not just because of Noah Wyle. 

Rovner: Although that helps. My extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “,” by Maxine Joselow. And while it’s not about HHS, it most definitely is about health. It seems that for the first time in literally decades, the Environmental Protection Agency will no longer calculate the cost to human health when setting clean air rules for ozone and fine particulate matter, quoting the story: “That would most likely lower costs for companies while resulting in dirtier air.” This is just another reminder that the federal government is charged with ensuring the help of Americans from a broad array of agencies, aside from HHS â€” or in this case, not so much.  

OK, that’s this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had help this week from producer 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, at 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 folks hanging these days? Alice. 

Ollstein: Mostly on Bluesky  and still on X . 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly on  or on  . 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney:  or X . 

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