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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 6, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

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

Amanda Seitz: Hi, great to be here. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: We’re in the slogan phase. 

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

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

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

Kenen: Including the doctors, right?  

Rovner: Right. Oh, absolutely. 

Kenen: Nobody’s happy. 

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

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

Rovner: Shark Tank for All! 

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: I know what you mean. 

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

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

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

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

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

Seitz: Florida’s the biggest. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: OLC, the Office of Legal Counsel. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: They’re delaying it, right? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: So, how would this bill work? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kim: Yeah, thanks so much for having me. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: On Bluesky , and on X . 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly on  and on  . 

Rovner: Amanda. 

Seitz: And I am still tweeting from X on . 

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

Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Dan: Hey there. It was just a little more than a year ago, in May 2025, the last time I checked in with my colleague Julie Rovner. She’s the chief Washington correspondent for our pals at Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and in what I would call a normal world, like a little more than a year would be really, really soon to talk with her again on this show.

Cause when I started making An Arm and a Leg, I didn’t expect that trying to keep up with the news was gonna be anything I would really have to think about too much. Like, I was setting out to understand and explain a multi-trillion dollar chunk of the economy that isn’t the tech industry, so I was like, how fast could it possibly move? And Julie Rovner’s thing is fast-moving news. On her weekly podcast, What The Health?, she leads a round table of health policy experts and journalists, and pours over a steady stream of headlines. Like whatever happens, big or small, Julie is tracking it. 

And then came 2025, and suddenly there’s this avalanche of news, and it’s big. Like, the Trump administration was making these sweeping changes, cuts to federal health programs. It was a ton of change, and I wanted to talk to Julie to try and wrap my head around it. And she told me even she was struggling to keep up. 

Here’s what she said then.

Julie Rovner: I’m trying to keep a running list of what’s been cut and what’s been restored, yeah, and it’s virtually impossible because there’s 20 things every day.

Dan: Yeah. And a lot’s happened since then. Like, Congress has added work requirements to Medicaid. It allowed federal subsidies for Obamacare to expire for millions of people. And those are, like, the biggest picture items. The rest of it feels like a blur. So, pop quiz: do we have a permanent FDA commissioner, CDC director, surgeon general?

I looked it up. As of July 21 the answer is no, in all three cases. It is an avalanche. So I wanted to talk to Julie again to get a glimpse at that avalanche from, like, further up the mountain, so to speak. 

Julie, thank you so much for coming back.

Julie Rovner: Always a pleasure, Dan.

Dan: Well, we’ll see how much of a pleasure it is to talk about the American healthcare system, but let’s give it a shot. 

Dan: This is An Arm and a Leg, a show about why healthcare costs so freaking much and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter. I like a challenge, so the job we’ve chosen here is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life and bring you something entertaining, empowering, and useful. This time with help from Julie Rovner. Here we go.

Julie, last time we talked, you were astonished and worried about the pace of change and, like, destruction given all the cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services. And here’s what you said then…

Julie Rovner: How I’ve been thinking about this is that our healthcare system is a giant Jenga tower and it’s a little wobbly and what holds it up is everything that happens from the Department of Health and Human Services and they’re yanking out sticks from this Jenga tower as fast as they possibly can and when the whole thing comes down, it’s gonna be very not pretty.

Dan: So you said that a year and change ago, and just like the news I’m seeing this week, we’re taping more than a week before we’re gonna publish this, but there’s been a huge public health story in the news. You know, this outbreak of a foodborne parasite called cyclospora that causes explosive diarrhea.

Boris Sanchez: a warning to more sensitive viewers, this next story is kind of gross.

Caitríona Perry: If you are about to tuck into a bowl of raspberries or a big plate of salad, we’re very sorry because we may be about to put you off your food.

Dr. Richard Smith: If you’re somebody that’s into going to salad bars on a weekly basis Just give that a rest for a week or two

Dan: Yeah again, we’re taping this in mid-July, so maybe this all gets cleared up by the time we publish, but right now, like, I’m personally having early COVID flashbacks trying to figure out what fruits and vegetables are safe to eat and how long I have to cook them.

And you know, sure enough, folks are pointing out that among last year’s many cuts at HHS was federal tracking of a half dozen foodborne pathogens, including this one, cyclospora. So I mean, it all feels a little on the nose. Julie, how are you seeing all this play out?

Julie Rovner: Yeah, it does feel very on the nose, if you will, um, because we’re, like, a month into this outbreak, and it’s a very big outbreak. But we still don’t know what’s causing it. So now we’re having, you know, I saw this morning, uh, a recommendation from a doctor said, “Just don’t eat any fresh fruits and vegetables for the next week or so,” um, because this is unfortunately a parasite that doesn’t –  you can’t necessarily get rid of by washing.

Which is not to say don’t wash your fruits and vegetables. Do wash your fruits and vegetables, but that’s not enough in this case. Um, but yeah, in an, in a normal world, we would know by now what it was, and nobody knows what’s safe to eat, and that’s what happens when you pull those pieces out of the Jenga tower.

Dan: Yeah. And again, like, a week from now when we publish this, who knows what we’ll know, who knows what we’ll be eating. But it seems symbolic.

Julie Rovner: Yeah, I think one of the things that’s going on, you know, last year when we had sort of DOGE cutting and, you know, there were headlines everywhere, and this, these many people were being laid off, and these many people were taking early buyouts and, you know, there was, there was all of this sort of coverage if you will, of all of these cuts.

Things are still not happening, and things are still getting cut, and it’s much quieter. You know, money that officials promised would get distributed as Congress ordered, um, is not getting distributed as Congress ordered. 

So, you know, there are people who are waiting for grants that have not come. Things are still getting cut. Um, political appointees are still making decisions that often, that in the past were always made by career professional scientists, um, doctors, um, people with long experience. As we know, we’ve seen large cuts at a lot of these agencies, so there’s a lot of expertise that’s walked out the door.

So even if there are people still there, they don’t necessarily know as much as they used to. Um, things are sort of going on at that lower level that are not making headlines, but that are still, for the people who are involved in them, or at least what they tell me, are not great.

Dan: Yeah. And what are you seeing play out as a result of the cuts that we’ve seen so far? Like, what are you hearing about that I – like, what do I not know that my neighbors might be experiencing, but I just don’t happen to be hearing about?

Julie Rovner: What you don’t know is how many people are not getting needed medical care because they can’t afford it, whether because they lost their subsidies for the Affordable Care Act and they couldn’t continue to afford their insurance, or in even more cases, their subsidies went down and they bought down into less generous policies and now they have, you know, five-figure deductibles, and so they have insurance, but they still can’t afford to get care.

Or they may be legal immigrants who lost their eligibility for health insurance that they used to have, um, or they may be part of a mixed-status family that dropped insurance because they were afraid of getting targeted by immigration authorities even though, you know, some, some people in the family, were perfectly eligible for these programs.

And we have seen states that are starting to cut back on Medicaid in anticipation of some of these federal cuts that mostly take effect next January, but that are starting to take effect in states already. 

Adam Atchison: Some individual caregivers in Colorado are about to see their Medicaid funding cut.

Michael Perchick: Tonight, the major question remains what can North Carolina do to make up for that major funding shortfall? 

Justin Corr: One of the biggest issues we knew the Idaho Legislature would debate this year. Now Medicaid cuts are moving forward.

Julie Rovner: And we’re seeing states that are cutting back on optional programs, which, you know, members of Congress last year when they were debating this bill said, “Oh, we’re not gonna go after people, you know, who are seniors or who have disabilities.”

Um, except those are the programs that are optional, and when states have to roll back their Medicaid programs, that’s what they roll back, and indeed, that’s what’s happening, and we’re seeing, you know, story after story. But again, these are happening a little more quietly, making fewer headlines. But for the people they’re hurting, they are really hurting.

Dan: Wow. Yeah, I mean, a couple of stories that I, you know, you’re reminding me of, right, that, um, new federal rules keep rolling out, and some of them include eligibility for Medicaid for, like, people giving care or, or what it means to be medically frail and not be able to work, right? Tightening those restrictions and saying, “Look, it’s, you’re gonna have to jump through a lot more hoops to prove that you can’t work.”

Julie Rovner: Yeah, almost all of these rules are being … Those are not finalized yet, but almost all of these rules are also being challenged in court, um, by states, by, uh, healthcare providers, who obviously wouldn’t get paid anymore for providing this care, um, and by patients. So we will see, you know, how these ultimately play out.

But there are, you know, a — this administration has been sort of cut first, answer questions later. That’s been kind of the theme from the beginning, and that is still what’s going on. You know, one of the things we’re gonna talk about, um, on our podcast this week, uh, are stories of family caregivers, people who are losing eligibility for their families, uh, to help take care of them. You know, and, uh, Dr. Oz, who’s the head of Medicare and Medicaid, you know, has been talking about people who are, you know, collecting money for, you know, going to the grocery store or bringing in the newspaper…

Dr. Oz: Something called personal care services. You’ve never heard of that. Personal care services, basically, you’re paying your kids to carry the groceries upstairs, but you’re not actually paying. The state’s paying, and then the federal government’s paying the state back.

Julie Rovner: That’s not what these people are doing. These are people who are changing feeding tubes and, you know, helping people who are not ambulatory in and out of bed and on and off the toilet. I mean, this is … these are very, very difficult jobs, um, that, yes, sometimes family members are paid to do, but if they make it impossible, a lot of these people don’t know where they’re going to get help, and in some cases, these patients are gonna end up in institutions, and that’s gonna end up costing the federal government and taxpayers even more money in the long run.

Dan: And, and these cutoffs are happening now? 

Julie Rovner: They are. 

Dan: Like, folks are, folks are getting notices or being told, like, “No, your check for taking care of mom isn’t coming this week. You’re not getting that.”

Julie Rovner: That’s exactly what’s going on. In, in, in my home state of Maryland, they are cutting off this program. I believe… I can’t remember the exact date. It may be, there may be another month or so, but it’s, you know, they are getting notices that these programs are ending and I think Maryland is one of a half a dozen states that’s doing that.

Dan: Wow. And it’s, it’s like you said, these huge stories, they’re not grabbing a lot of headlines. I mean, like recently on your show, you were like, “What was shocking last year is now kind of status quo,” like at least in terms of media attention. But you’re still tracking all of it. 

And, all this reminded me of what you said when I talked with you the first time last year. So our Zoom meeting started, we started rolling tape. I said, “How are you?” And this is what you said:

Julie Rovner: I have a shirt that says, “Up and not crying.” I also have a shirt that says, “This is not normal.”

Dan: And I wanted to ask you, like, how are you doing now? Are y- d- are those shirts still in your wardrobe?

Julie Rovner: They are, and I have another one that says, “This is my living in unprecedented times shirt.” And I kind of rotate them.

Dan: And, and how, because many of us have the option, I always figured I did, of like, “Yeah, I’m gonna, I’m gonna titrate my exposure to news. I’m gonna calibrate, like this is how much I, you know, is good for me, is healthy for me to have right now.” And you know, some people turn it off altogether. And you do not have that option, unless you choose to do something entirely different. But like, I wanna ask you personally, like what is that like for you? 

Julie Rovner: It’s exhausting. 

Dan: Yeah.

Julie Rovner: I mean, I, and I worry. I worry about people, um, who need healthcare and aren’t getting it. I worry about students who, um, are trying to decide whether they can actually pursue their dreams of becoming a healthcare practitioner or a scientific researcher who are seeing sort of their pipelines cut off. That’s, that’s a big concern for me right now.

And I see things like Ben Sasse, the former senator who was very near death from pancreatic cancer, suddenly being able to take a new drug. And he said that, you know, his cancer is 99% gone. I mean, you see these medical breakthroughs that frankly government-sponsored research has helped bring to us, um, and I worry about whether they’re gonna be there for the next generation.

I mean, that’s something that’s, that’s really sort of jumping out at me. It’s like, look at all the things that we can do. Do you know why we’ve been able to do this? We’ve had this bipartisan agreement that investing in science and medicine is a good thing. That’s separate and apart from the fact that our healthcare system is messed up and costs too much, which I know is what you concentrate on – thank you very much. Um, but, you know, both of them are in trouble right now. And as I say, it’s not so much … You know, last year it was all the headlines. Now it’s just sort of, as I said, it’s kind of become the status quo that things are crumbling, and that worries me even more than when it was all over the headlines.

Dan: Coming up, I get Julie’s take on what’s happening to the Affordable Care Act and what she thinks is gonna happen in 2028 and beyond. That’s next

Dan: This episode of An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. That’s a nonprofit newsroom covering health issues in America.

The folks at Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News are amazing journalists like, you know, today’s guest, Julie Rovner. Their work wins all kinds of awards every year, and we are honored to work with them

Dan: So, Julie, you know, since the last time we talked, as you noted: some Obamacare subsidies ended, and premiums went through the roof. Millions of people have dropped their insurance. And lots have signed up for cheaper plans that cover less.

And now, the Trump administration has been rewriting the rules for next year to encourage more people to sign up for plans that would cover a lot less, like including plans that require you to spend $30,000 or more to cover your family before insurance kicks in at all. And, you know, like, the two pillars of the Affordable Care Act were, like, let’s use subsidies to make non-crummy private insurance affordable for most people, and let’s expand Medicaid.

So, Republicans kept saying they just wanted to repeal the ACA, but, you know, they never did. And now I’m wondering, like, are we seeing something that’s, like, effectively kind of a slow motion repeal of the ACA by other means?

Julie Rovner: Oh, absolutely. No question about it. Um, most of the Affordable Care Act has been dismantled over, you know, th- th- this was … Several people have written this story. It’s like, you know, Republicans failed on their repeal and replace when they called it repeal. But basically, over the last 10 years, look at all the things we’ve taken away.

All the taxes that supported the financing of this have gone away. So the supporting taxes which were on mostly individ- you know, they were on health insurers, and drug companies, and, and large businesses, most of those have been, have gone away. Thank you lobbyists, you know, who came and said, “We don’t wanna pay these taxes.” Um, so basically the money’s just coming out of the treasury now. 

The- one of the things that the Republican budget bill did last year um, it didn’t roll back the explicit, expansion of Medicaid, but now we’re gonna have these work requirements, which, what we know from other states that have done work requirements end up, yes, taking off people who are, who simply refuse to work, but also because of the bureaucracy involved, end up cutting off people who are working, and who are eligible, and who do need the, the health insurance coverage. We have seen this.

You know, most of the people who end up getting kicked off the program get kicked off for what are called administrative reasons, which means they just could not navigate all of the required paperwork and bureaucracy. Um, so I mean, we really are seeing a slow motion repeal of the Affordable Care Act.

Dan: And so what might happen? I mean, Like, you’ve been looking at this for 40 years, and I’m, I am old enough to remember as a young person noticing that, like, when Bill Clinton ran for president in the early 1990s, you know, a big piece of the pitch was like, “Healthcare costs too much. Not enough people have insurance. We gotta do something about it.” And it, you know, they weren’t able to pass a law. But where might things go?

Julie Rovner: So let me tell you one of the things that kind of freaks me out. Um, would, and you go back to sort of the Affordable Care Act. I covered the Clinton health plan, and it- it died, as I like to describe, because, you know, everybody, all of those special interests wanted to cut off just one finger of it, and in the end, the patient bled to death. That’s sort of been my go-to metaphor for the Clinton healthcare plan. 

So what happened when they tried to put together the Obama healthcare plan is it like- like rather than have all of the special interest outside of the tent, let’s get all the special interest into the tent, and one of the ways they did that is said, “Look, if more people are insured, then you’re gonna get more of your bills paid.”

And particularly, you know, the hospitals and the drug companies said, “Yeah, that sounds good. We would like people to be able to pay for the things that we provide.” Um, well, so what are we doing now? We’re taking this apart, and we’re having people not be able to pay for things, and we’re having states not be able to pay for things.

States had used what was called creative financing for their portion of Medicaid, which remember, is a shared expense between the federal government and the states. So now you’ve got hospitals freaking out, and you also … I mean, we’re seeing hospitals close. It starts with rural hospitals. But, you know, I- I like to say it’s not just people without insurance who are gonna be impacted by this.

If health providers can no longer keep their doors open, then even if you have insurance, you may not have any place to go to get it. We’re already seeing healthcare deserts in, you know, less populated parts of the country. What is this gonna do when you see fewer people with health insurance, fewer people with Medicaid, fewer people with the Affordable Care Act?

Dan: Umm. Wow. 

Julie Rovner: Sorry, I’m just a continuing ray of sunshine.

Dan: No, no, no. No, no, you’re, you’re like– I’m asking you what might happen, you’re like, “Well, here’s the worst that might happen.” But, um, you know, what might a path look like to changing course?

Julie Rovner: Well, I feel like, you know, and when it comes to healthcare, the left is moving to the left and the right is moving to the right. Um, you know, we’ve always in, in the 40 years I’ve been doing this, um, and even going back to things like Medicare in 1965, what has gotten things done is when people, is when the two sides come together in a compromise. Those are the only big achievements in healthcare. Um, with the possible exception of the Affordable Care Act, which Republicans say, you know, “Oh, that wasn’t, you know, that w- that was only, that passed only with Democratic votes,” but it was a Republican idea. It was pulled from what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts in 2006. So it was intended as a compromise, um, even if in the end the Republicans … The Republicans started moving right, I think, before the Democrats started moving left. 

But now you’re seeing, you know, most of the Democratic candidates, I’m looking in the midterms, you know, are, are back to the mantra of Medicare for All. Joe Biden was one of the few candidates in 2020 who did not endorse Medicare for All. He wanted to just expand the Affordable Care Act. That’s what was seen as a middle ground. 

Now nobody seems to want a middle ground. You know, the right wants to just take everything apart and get government out of healthcare in general and let people, you know, sort of give people a little bit of money and have them, you know, have the free market take over. And the left wants Medicare for All, which is, you know, the, the U.S. has tried to, to do what every other country has done and have universal coverage, and has so far not really succeeded at that. Although I will say at its peak, the, when the Affordable Care Act had the expanded subsidies, we were down to about an 8% uninsurance rate, which was the lowest since anybody had been keeping track. So it was, it was getting closer. 

Um, but now I see the parties moving apart. Will they move back together again at some point? I don’t know. Um, but, but for, I think, the immediate future, we’re seeing them retreat to their corners. And in healthcare that really, even though sometimes at the 30,000-foot level they’ve been fighting about that, at the 5,000-foot level they’ve been able to get together and do things. Um, a good example is the No Surprises Act, you know, the let’s get rid of surprise bills. 

Um, I’m not sure I even see them coming together on sort of the little stuff right now. Everybody is just very, very, very unhappy with everybody else.

Dan: Wow. Well. Okay. Uh, it’s not the cheerfulest thing I ever

Julie Rovner: You look like you’re, you’re processing that.

Dan: I am. I am. I am. I am. And of course, you know, as you say, during this period when people had, when the, the greatest proportion of people had insurance, uh, you know, I’m still doing this show. I mean, people have insurance, but having insurance doesn’t necessarily mean you have healthcare that you need and can afford.

Julie Rovner: Yes, everything. We will both be employed for as long as we want talking about the foibles of the U.S. healthcare system.

Dan: I mean…

Julie Rovner: That I am con- that prediction I am very confident of

Dan: I will never run out of material – that’s the crappy thing. But things are, like we said, they’re accelerating, they’re different, and I’m wondering how is all this changing how you see your job going forward?

Julie Rovner: Well, one thing that I’m, working towards myself, is I am predicting that we are going to have another major political throw down over healthcare in the coming years. Not necessarily next year, but probably, you know, the … I think this will be a big focus of the 2028 presidential campaign, and in 2029 we’re gonna have a big debate.

Are we gonna solve anything? I have no idea. But in preparation for that debate, I feel like there’s a whole generation that sort of didn’t live through the Clinton health plan, and that didn’t even live through the fight over the Affordable Care Act, and that one of the things that I would like to do as sort of a public service, um, is throw all of the options back on the table for people to see that, you know, that if this was easy, we would’ve solved it a long time ago. 

So I am … One of the things that we’re doing as part of our podcast is a special project called How Would You Fix It? I am sort of calling every smart person I know from across the ideological spectrum and asking them, “Okay, how would you fix it?”

I mean, I’m nearing retirement myself. I feel like I have this obligation to kind of, you know, shepherd the people who wanna learn through another round of this, um, so that we can have an educated debate and decide what we as a society wanna do about healthcare.

Dan: Wow. You think there will be a great big conversation, there will be a great big change. 

Julie Rovner: Uh, I think there will be a great big conversation. I don’t know that I think there will be great big change. I’ve, I’ve, I have covered enough of unsuccessful ones of these. I, I am not predicting its success, I am simply predicting the fight.

Dan: Fair, fair, fair. But, uh, even so, um, having a big public conversation seems better than not. 

Julie Rovner: As a journalist, I would think that. As somebody, and who’s … As somebody who cares about the, the, the sorry state of our healthcare system, I, I think it would be — I think it’s time.

Frankly, one of the reasons I think this is about to happen is that when in the early 2000s, when we were sort of building up to the fight over the Affordable Care Act, you could sort of see it coming because everybody was unhappy, and everybody wanted to sue for peace.

Um, you know, that the, the hospitals were unhappy, the drug companies were unhappy, the doctors were unhappy. You know, the, the employers were unhappy. The labor unions were unhappy. I feel like that is true again, and it’s more true.

And now even the haves, what we call them, the people who have insurance and don’t want, you know, are afraid of change, even the haves are unhappy. Everybody thinks they’re paying too much, which is why I’m predicting we’re gonna have another big public debate about this in the next four or five years.

Dan: I think the prospect of having a big public debate about a big public problem also strikes me as like an optimistic stance for anyone who cares about, you know, living in a democracy where people have a say in, in democracy where people have a say in what happens.  

Julie Rovner: It is, I, I’m sort of clinging to it as a, as a hope

Dan: Mm-hmm. I, uh, I just really appreciate that.

Julie Rovner, thank you so much for joining me. It’s been such a pleasure. Um, till next time, I’ll be listening to “How Did You Fix It?”

Julie Rovner: Thank you, Dan. And see, talking to you makes me feel better.

Dan: All right. That’s what I’m going for. That’s what I’m going for. Let, let’s stay in touch. 

Julie Rovner: We will. 

Dan: All right. Great. Take care. 

Julie Rovner: Thanks, Dan. 

Dan: Bye-bye. 

Dan: Okay, so I asked Julie Rovner how the avalanche of change has her thinking about her job description these days, and I wanna share how I’ve been thinking about mine.

You might have noticed over the last couple of months we’ve taken a break from producing podcast episodes, and here’s why. Basically, in April a few family health issues blossomed all at once. And as I turned my attention there, I realized I had some health issues of my own that needed attention. 

I started making this show eight years ago. I’ve been running it on a shoestring ever since, and that has meant running myself a little ragged sometimes. Honestly, too often and for too long. That’s not good for my health, and it’s not good for An Arm and a Leg, ’cause a ragged version of me does not make the best version of this show.

I needed some time just to break some habits — I called it detox from workaholism — and I needed to attend to my own health.

Like, earlier this year, I’d scheduled a little surgery, and I put it off ’cause I got sick from — you guessed it — running myself so ragged. And of course I was still trying to run so hard, I couldn’t imagine when I might reschedule it. So honestly, it wasn’t until I put myself on break for a minute that I even thought, “Oh yeah, I, I could do that surgery now.”

So surgery happened in early June. I’m all healed up, and I’ve been working with a really excellent therapist, and I’ve been incredibly grateful to my colleagues for their patience and for keeping things running. And together, we are starting to put together some new ways of doing things. It’s gonna be a work in progress.

There are so many things we wanna do. But I can’t be a workaholic anymore. So for our next episode, we’re gonna bring back one more favorite from our archives, give ourselves a running start, and then we’ve got some incredible, important stories and projects we just can’t wait to get back to. For now, thank you so much for sticking with us. It is a privilege to get to do this work, make this show for you, and to work with my incredible colleagues.

I will catch you soon. Till then let’s all take care of ourselves.

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by Emily Pisacreta, with help from our summer intern, Lynn Barbera (welcome, Lynn!) — and edited by Ellen Weiss. 

Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard.

Our music is by Dave Weiner and Blue Dot Sessions. 

Claire Davenport is our engagement producer.

Amanda Boyd is our Operations Manager. Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. 

An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about health issues in America and a core program at KFF, an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show.

An Arm and a Leg is distributed by KUOW, Seattle’s NPR news station.

And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor.

They allow us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN.org.

Finally, thank you to everybody who supports this show financially.

You can join in any time at arm and a leg show, dot com, slash: support.

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 23, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.  

Today we are joined via video conference by Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times. 

Margot Sanger-Katz: Hello. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi, Julie. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenen: How can anybody not remember healthcare.gov? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Right, more testosterone is better. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: I’ve been picking my own. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Cassidy: Julie, thank you for having me. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: But we haven’t heard back yet? 

Cassidy: Not had a confirmation that he will yet. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cassidy: Thank you, Julie. 

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Feuerstein. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly on  and  @JoanneKenen. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein:  on X, and  on Bluesky. 

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 16, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law. 

Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edney: Exactly. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: Correct, and â€¦  

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

Ollstein: The bosses, yes. 

Rovner: Right. The bosses. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: I’ll talk to them separately. 

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

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

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

Rovner: So more education, basically. 

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

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

Mitchell: Thank you. 

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

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

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

Ollstein: Thank you. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raman: On  and on  @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney:  and  @annaedney. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: On Bluesky  and on X . 

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