Courts Archives - 吃瓜不打烊 /topics/courts/ 吃瓜不打烊 produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of KFF. Tue, 25 Aug 2026 19:29:17 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.8 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Courts Archives - 吃瓜不打烊 /topics/courts/ 32 32 161476233 California Weighs Penalties for Healthcare Providers That Don鈥檛 Rein In Costs /health-industry/high-healthcare-costs-hospitals-state-spending-limits-california-fines/ Mon, 24 Aug 2026 13:58:42 +0000 /?p=2276649 California is weighing stiff penalties for hospitals and other healthcare entities that don’t stay under state spending limits, potentially levying hundreds of millions of dollars in fines if these providers don’t take steps to rein in rising healthcare costs.

If the state Office of Health Care Affordability adopts the fines next week, hospitals, medical groups, insurers, and others could face penalties that amount to as much as 125% of the total they spend above the state’s annual growth targets.

The penalty proposal comes after healthcare entities in California were asked to limit growth by 3.5% last year and ramp down to 3% by 2029. Seven hospitals that state officials consider particularly expensive face even smaller growth targets: 1.8% in 2026, dropping to 1.6% by 2029.

Consumer advocates argue that state financial deterrents are critical to bring relief to millions of Californians struggling with high insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses. Hospitals accounted for in U.S. health spending from 2022 to 2024, compared with 11% from retail prescription drugs. But adding teeth to those targets sets up a fight with the powerful hospital industry, which has a challenging the spending limits as unreasonable. Hospitals warned that they will cut back on vital services, including in emergency rooms, obstetrics, and behavioral health.

Healthcare industry representatives said the state affordability office hasn’t accounted for year-to-year volatility or other factors beyond the industry’s control, such as rising minimum wages, state earthquake retrofit requirements, and expensive new drugs.

“They’re building the plane while flying it,” said Ben Johnson, group vice president for financial policy at the California Hospital Association. “We know improvements in affordability are needed, but we have serious questions about how and about what the unintended consequences could be under OHCA’s rather stringent approaches.”

When calculating penalties, California regulators would consider various factors, including a healthcare entity’s financial situation, its market impact, and the gravity and number of offenses, according to a in June. And entities would first be given opportunities to implement performance improvement plans to bring their spending into line before penalties are imposed. For those that don’t comply, the board is considering penalties of $10,000 a day or a flat $500,000.

The penalties, which the affordability office’s eight-member board is required by to adopt, are slated for discussion, and a potential vote, at the board’s . The soonest healthcare providers would be subject to penalties is 2028, because it’s expected it will take two years to collect and publicly report spending data to measure against the 2026 targets. The state is still collecting data on how entities performed against the 2025 targets, which aren’t enforceable, according to Andrew DiLuccia, a spokesperson for the California Department of Health Care Access and Information.

States Set Targets

California is one of at least eight states that have set spending targets as part of an expanding effort to curb soaring healthcare spending across the nation. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Oregon, and Rhode Island have also authorized the use of some type of financial penalty. The specifics of each vary widely, although so far no state has applied them.

A by the California Health Care Foundation found that 4 out of 10 state residents said they had medical debt, and 6 in 10 reported that they or a family member had skipped or delayed medical care in the previous 12 months because of cost. Nationwide, about say it is difficult to afford healthcare costs.

After Rosalyn Book got stiches on her chin, the elementary school teacher received a $15,000 ER bill from a local hospital, despite having insurance. Many teachers in her district leave because they can’t afford the cost of healthcare and insurance premiums, she said.

“The healthcare charges are just insanity, and what we get as patients for the care, it’s not the best either,” said Book, president of the Monterey Bay Teachers Association. “If you’re a working, regular individual in terms of how much you make, the cost of living and especially the healthcare is just not doable.”

Meanwhile, hospitals are warning there’s a risk of more closures. According to Yale University’s , 17 hospitals have closed in the state since 2016, compared with only six openings.

Hospitals and other healthcare providers have said the proposed multimillion-dollar penalties are too steep and could destabilize their operations at a time when they’re facing funding challenges, including massive federal cuts to Medicaid, the end of enhanced federal subsidies for Affordable Care Act plans, and a sharp rise in uninsured patients. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by congressional Republicans and signed by President Donald Trump last summer, is expected to reduce federal Medicaid spending by more than 鈥 including by in California 鈥 and increase the rolls of the uninsured in the U.S. by over a decade.

Johnson said hospitals raise prices on commercial payers to offset the expense of treating uninsured patients, as well as patients on Medicaid and Medicare, which can reimburse care providers at rates that fall short of treatment costs.

In addition, said Anete Millers, vice president of legal and regulatory affairs at the California Association of Health Plans, tax increases on managed-care plans recently to offset federal Medicaid cuts will force plans to increase their prices for consumers.

“Some spending pressures originate outside of the control of health plans and are the result of public policy decisions rather than underlying changes in healthcare utilization or efficiency,” she told the affordability office’s .

Kristof Stremikis, the director of market analysis and insight at the nonprofit California Health Care Foundation, acknowledged that external forces can drive costs but said that plenty of unnecessary spending is within the healthcare system’s control, such as administrative waste and duplicative tests and procedures. of U.S. healthcare spending is considered wasteful, according to .

Elizabeth Mitchell, a former Office of Health Care Affordability board member whose term ended in May, agreed.

“Every business has external challenges,” said Mitchell, who is now president and CEO of Purchaser Business Group on Health, a nonprofit coalition representing large employers. “The hospital industry has not taken accountability to actually manage costs. I have heard those excuses for decades, and at some point, they have to make changes.”

First Step To Bring Down Costs

of five states with cost growth benchmarks, published in June, found that some have succeeded in modestly slowing healthcare spending, particularly those with enforcement mechanisms. However, spending growth in most states has still set. 

Jeremy Vandehey, a consultant with the Peterson-Milbank Program for Sustainable Health Care Costs, said setting benchmarks and collecting data to analyze which entities meet them is only a first step. Armed with information about what and who is driving up costs, states are more empowered to take additional action, such as imposing penalties or regulating prices, to bring down costs, he said.

“I don’t think anybody in any state is declaring victory on healthcare costs, but I wouldn’t say that that means the programs are a failure,” Vandehey said. “In all of these states, there’s much more robust conversations happening about, OK, we haven’t solved our cost crisis, so we need additional action.”

吃瓜不打烊 is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

]]> 2276649 New DOJ Guidance Could Give States Cover To Cut Disability Services /medicaid/wamu-health-hub-disability-services-funding-justice-department/ Fri, 21 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2276525&preview=true&preview_id=2276525 People with disabilities have long fought for the right to live at home rather than in institutions. Now, the Department of Justice says states don’t have to help make that happen.

The decision by the Trump administration comes amid massive cuts in federal funding for Medicaid. Advocates worry this could be a one-two punch for disabled Americans who want to live independently.

吃瓜不打烊 senior correspondent Stephanie Armour joined WAMU’s Health Hub on Aug. 19 to explain what this change means for Americans with disabilities and their loved ones.

吃瓜不打烊 is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

]]> 2276525 Headless FDA Gets a New Nominee /podcast/what-the-health-460-fda-nominee-trump-heidi-overton-august-20-2026/ Thu, 20 Aug 2026 20:02:39 +0000 /?p=2275237&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2275237 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner 吃瓜不打烊 Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 吃瓜不打烊’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Heidi Overton, a physician and White House domestic policy adviser, is President Donald Trump’s choice to be the next head of the Food and Drug Administration. Overton, an abortion opponent and supporter of Trump’s proposed changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, has made enemies while working on health policy from the White House and could face some tough questioning from senators.

Meanwhile, prescription drug prices are dropping for some people, and the wholesale retailer Costco is entering the Medicare market. Still, overall, the problem of healthcare being too expensive remains stubbornly hard to solve.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 吃瓜不打烊, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen photo
Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico
Shefali Luthra photo
Shefali Luthra The 19th
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Trump’s selection of Overton to lead the FDA is prompting concerns from a diverse crowd of skeptics that includes Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and adherents to the Make America Healthy Again movement. Her lack of managerial experience and history of controversial writings could be liabilities during the confirmation process, though Trump has a decent track record of clearing nominees through a hesitant Senate.
  • Grant money continues to be held up at the National Institutes of Health pending political reviews, and new reporting sheds light on “zombie programs” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where money has been appropriated but there’s no staff to use it. Plus, the trend of declining childhood immunizations continues, with vaccine exemptions for kindergartners jumping to another high.
  • New data shows the largest drop in prescription drug prices since the 1960s, and while the Trump administration is taking credit, it’s unclear what exactly caused it. Meanwhile, the federal government is investigating major health companies for allegedly dodging taxes or engaging in anticompetitive practices. And the wholesaler Costco is getting into the health insurance game, partnering with a nonprofit insurer to provide Medicare Advantage or Medigap plans in a few states.

Also this week, as part of the “How Would You Fix It?” series, Rovner interviews billionaire businessman Mark Cuban, who has already reshaped the generic drug market and now has his eye on the rest of the healthcare system.

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

Julie Rovner: Mother Jones’ “,” by Sophie Hurwitz.

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “,” by Barbara Rodriguez.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Texas Observer’s “,” by Mary Tuma.

Joanne Kenen: Politico’s “,” by Owen Dahlkamp.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

Click to open the transcript Transcript: Headless FDA Gets a New Nominee

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from 吃瓜不打烊 and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 吃瓜不打烊. 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. 20, 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: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have another “How Would You Fix It?” interview, from his car, with businessman and entrepreneur Mark Cuban, who’s now devoting most of his professional attention to the mess that is U.S. healthcare. But first, this week’s news. So, we finally have a nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration, which has been without a Senate-confirmed commissioner since Marty Makary resigned in May 鈥 officially, over a dispute about flavored vapes. The winner of the search is Heidi Overton, a 37-year-old physician and former protégé of Makary’s from Johns Hopkins, who currently oversees the health portfolio at the White House Domestic Policy Council. What do we know about Dr. Overton, and what are her prospects for confirmation? We’ve already seen HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy say on social media that he has “concerns” about her, but he’s voted for nominees about whom he’s had concerns as recently as 鈥 checks notes 鈥 earlier this month. 

Kenen: I mean, Cassidy’s saying he has concerns is not indicative of where this ends up. At the end of the day, President [Donald] Trump has gotten most of his choices through a Senate that often begins hesitant to recalcitrant and usually gives him what he wants. So 鈥 sometimes it doesn’t. I mean, it’s not 100%. So, Cassidy is in a different position politically since he’s about to leave the Senate, and partly because President Trump. So we just don’t know where Cassidy is. But it’s not a great start. But it doesn’t mean 鈥 it’s the end. 

Rovner: What do we know about Heidi Overton, though? Everything I’ve read about her, she’s either pro-MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] or the MAHA people don’t like her, or she’s, you know, of Marty Makary or not of Marty McCarry. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So my colleagues and I wrote about this yesterday, and a lot of the leading MAHA activists view her as having been a roadblock in the White House to their efforts around pesticides, around vaccines, and other things, and so they are up in arms about the pick. They are, you know, saying she’s 鈥 part of the swamp and not part of, you know, the movement that they want to see sweep aside some of these government practices. And I think that her time in the White House and her previous work for the America First Policy Institute could really come back to haunt her. She wrote a lot of papers and op-eds with some controversial takes and policy positions, and I think everybody is sort of scrambling to go over that. People are also talking about her lack of managerial experience. You know, managing a huge agency with a huge staff, and you know, obviously, we have seen recent examples of people who lack that experience being appointed. So that’s also not a deal-breaker necessarily. But all of these things could add up to be problematic for her in the confirmation process. And then what I focused on was her anti-abortion record, which, you know, both could help and hurt her depending on whose votes we’re talking about. 

Rovner: That’s right. I mean, we saw [Sen.] Patty Murray, senior member of the HELP Committee, come out and, you know, and say, Not somebody that I could ever vote for. And also, I mean, she was at the signing of the vaccine executive order that the president had. So that puts her 鈥 whether, whatever she says in her confirmation hearings 鈥 that sort of puts her with the “Let’s change the vaccine schedule” group. I mean, she seems to fit in nowhere. I guess that’s sort of my question here. 

Luthra: That’s what’s so interesting about her is that there are these sorts of different interests and constituencies that have concerns about her, but sometimes they feel as if they could be contradictory. You obviously have, I mean, Patty Murray 鈥 I don’t know if she was ever going to vote for whoever Trump picked 鈥 but then you have Susan Collins in a very difficult reelection race, where abortion is a concern. You now have these concerns about vaccines. You have people saying maybe she’s not MAHA enough. And I mean, I think to Joanne’s point, Trump has gotten most people he has wanted. However, this does feel like this could get very complicated, just given how many people may be bringing different criticism from different vantages that could ultimately add up. 

Kenen: I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything on the Senate floor where she’s going to be called anti-abortion and pro-pesticide. If it gets to the floor, I mean, it’s a weird one. But at the end of the day, you know, does it go through? You know, if you made me bet, my bet would be yes, but I wouldn’t want to bet a whole lot of money. 

Rovner: Well 鈥 we’re going to talk about reproductive health later in the podcast, but I do want to talk about abortion right now in the context of this nomination because, Alice, as you point out, Overton is known to be a fairly strident abortion opponent, and if she is confirmed, she’ll take over the study of the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone, which, as we have mentioned many, many, many times, the administration has sort of backbenched, if you will. Given that the new attorney general, Todd Blanche, has raised the specter of invoking the 1873 Comstock Act to bar the mailing of abortion pills, or anything else used for abortions, what is the outlook for medication abortion if Overton actually becomes the FDA commissioner? 

Ollstein: Well, it’s hard to say because we’ve really seen decision-making centralized in the White House, and so often it doesn’t matter what the Cabinet secretaries want to do. It’s about what the White House wants. And the White House, I think, has made it pretty clear that this is not a top, you know, restricting abortion is not a top priority for them. They are certainly sensitive to the politics of it, and so there is speculation that, you know, there’s a delay until after the midterms for anything meaningful on this front, so as not to risk the kind of backlash we saw in 2022 after the fall of Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s also pretty clear that this is just not a top priority for the White House. That doesn’t mean they won’t allow some of these, you know, former activists to do what they want to do 鈥 so Blanche, and now Overton potentially. But I think it’s not really a given either way. 

Rovner: Yeah. All right. Well, meanwhile, in administration news that we’ve talked about before but is still relevant, we’re just over a month from the end of the fiscal year, and grant money is still being held up at the National Institutes of Health, according to our podcast pal Paige [Winfield] Cunningham at NOTUS. Despite pressure from Congress, the agency is still delaying funds for already-approved grants while it conducts searches for keywords that could signal that the grant does not adhere to the administration’s political priorities. And it’s not just keywords. Reading from : “In multiple flagged grants, officials expressed concerns that they weren’t worth funding because their only practical use might be to support the writing of new laws.” Now, this is going on against the backdrop of a proposal from the Office of Management and Budget that would officially insert political approval into grant funding. That’s something the Senate has voted to at least temporarily block, but the House hasn’t weighed in on it yet. This could not only have huge implications for federally funded research going forward, but you could argue it’s having implications now. We’re seeing researchers, you know, taking opportunities overseas because they don’t know what their, you know, grant funding continuation is going to look like, and students not going to graduate school or not pursuing research careers. I mean, this is 鈥 even some of these sort of small things are having these bigger potential ripples as they go outward, right? 

Kenen: Colleagues who are grant-funded, NIH-funded, or other government-funded. I mean, they try to track the ever-changing rules. First of all, it’s very murky. It is changing. They keep adding things. Basically, they don’t want 鈥 not just the banned words 鈥 they don’t want research that can be bad, that can be used for policy 鈥  

Rovner: For things they disagree with, for policies they disagree with. 

Kenen: They don’t say it 鈥 right. Guidance doesn’t come out and say “policy that you know we don’t like.” It just says “policy.” But it’s really vast and confusing. It’s not new. What Paige wrote about is an update. I mean, this is still happening. It’s been happening since the beginning of the Trump administration. NIH is the biggie. There are some smaller agencies, like Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research [sic], AHRQ, right? 

Rovner: Research and Quality. 

Kenen: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. That’s pretty much defunct now. But those grants, the money stopped going out the door many months ago. So 鈥  

Rovner: And the National Science Foundation. I mean, NIH is sort of the biggest of them. Yeah. 

Kenen: It has to have the word “science.” 鈥 NIH is the biggie, right? I mean, and it’s also the bench science, the science that the drug industry 鈥 people don’t understand, they say, Let the drug industry do it. They can’t do this kind of basic bench research. They take this research and develop drugs, but the fundamental cellular level is NIH, or NIH-funded. And it’s really, I mean, clinical trials have been stopped in the middle 鈥 really promising research that is not partisan. 鈥 Disease doesn’t care. It’s cliché, and it’s also true. It just stopped, and work has been lost. But people haven’t done things that are several years in. 鈥 The deadline, also, for fiscal year spending is, if it’s not out the door, which is Sept 30, anything that’s out that door is, like, that’s done. It’s it. Bye-bye. The money isn’t gonna, unless it would go through a whole new process next year, which is unlikely in these grants, that’s the end of that. 

Rovner: Yeah, and that’s, I mean, my point in wanting to bring this up again 鈥 and you’re right, it is sort of an update of what we’ve seen 鈥 is that every time one of these top administration officials comes to Congress, they say, You’re supposed to be spending the money that we have appropriated, and they say, Oh yeah, not a problem. We’re going to spend the money that you’ve appropriated. And yet we keep seeing these stories that they are not spending money that Congress has appropriated. 

Kenen: Yeah, and historically NIH has been reasonably bipartisan. There have been years when there have been fights. There’s obviously stem cells and sort of certain issues have been, you know, very hot potato. But the basic enterprise of U.S. science, health science, has been largely bipartisan. Again, not every appropriation season, not every bill. But if you look at the overall arc, it’s bipartisan. 

Rovner: It was Republicans who doubled NIH funding in the 1990s 鈥 who led it.  

Kenen: [Arlen] Specter. 

Rovner: It was Newt Gingrich, actually. I mean. 

Kenen: Yeah, Gingrich, too, was very into health tech and things like that before his time. I mean, the War on Cancer was federal, right? That was [President Richard] Nixon. So, but we’re now in a 鈥  

Rovner: Different place. 

Kenen: Yeah, frozen. 

Rovner: Yeah. Meanwhile, Mike Stobbe at the AP is at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 鈥 again, where money’s been appropriated, but there is literally nobody at home. At the agency’s Office on Smoking and Health, and offices on Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, and sickle cell data collection, funds are allocated, but all the staffers have either been laid off or are still on administrative leave. So they’re being paid, but they are banned from working. This is yet another immediate challenge for new CDC Director Erica Schwartz, who had her first meeting with CDC staff yesterday. What do we expect her to take on first? 

Luthra: I don’t envy her. It, frankly, seems very difficult to figure out what your priorities are or should be, if you perhaps don’t have staff. It does seem like, from the reporting, perhaps a priority that she has outlined might be morale. And we know that morale has been very low in a lot of government agencies and the executive 鈥 especially places like the CDC, where you have a lot of career people who are mission-oriented, really believe in doing things for public health, and have seen that really attacked. And so I don’t know if that is enough to actually translate into things that are supposed to happen actually happening. But that seems like probably a place where it makes sense to start, right?, is just to help people feel confident that they actually will be able to do the work that they signed up to do. 

Rovner: Yeah, and you know, as you say, CDC is perhaps the most mission-oriented of all the HHS agencies. And because they’re in Atlanta, and you know not in the Washington area the way most of the rest of HHS is, they do often feel cut off. So she does have 鈥 she has a lot on her plate. And speaking of the CDC, the agency put out a rather cryptic press release this week on vaccine uptake among kindergartners entering school, noting that “CDC continues to encourage parents to discuss vaccination options with their doctors.” Meanwhile, the data linked to in the press release shows a small increase in parents opting out of having their children vaccinated nationwide. But that masks a much larger increase in some states. In Idaho, for example, just 75% of kindergartners entering school have had the MMR [measles, mumps, and rubella] vaccine. That’s obviously well below the 95% needed to provide herd immunity for measles. As my friend Jonathan Cohn put it in his piece for The Bulwark. “The scientific term for that is yikes.” Yikes indeed. 

Kenen: And it’s even within states 鈥 and some rural counties 鈥 there’s a lot of variation. The trend 鈥 for a number of years now has been dropping vaccine rates. Period. So I mean, whether CDC wants to engage in this as their first issue, they’re going to be asked about it. 鈥 They track it 鈥 can’t avoid it, because they have to approve and recommend, and, you know, insurance coverage, all sorts of things are imminent. So decisions have to be made. 鈥 Back to school’s already started in some parts of the country. 

Rovner: And so 鈥 I would say new CDC Director Schwartz was rather pointedly not in the room when the president signed the executive order on vaccines, even though now-FDA nominee Heidi Overton was. 

Kenen: She cannot put her head in the sand on this one. She’s going to have to 鈥 

Rovner: “She” Schwartz?  

Kenen: Yeah. So she’s she says, I mean, what we know so far is she’s been quite, you know, she went to the CDC, and the reports are that she came out and said, you know, I’m going to stick to the science, and the science supports vaccines.  

Ollstein: I thought what was really interesting about the recent reports is that, you know, the executive order the Trump administration signed doesn’t actually change anything legally, but it’s designed to put pressure on states to change their recommendations. And it’s been fascinating to me to see that even the reddest states really aren’t going for it yet. But that doesn’t mean that everything’s fine and everyone’s getting vaccinated. What we are seeing is, you know, individual parents making these moves away from vaccination. And so even without the state officially changing its requirements, the environment is just shifting, and using the bully pulpit in this way is changing people’s behavior 鈥 building on trends that were already happening: distrust and misinformation, and all of that. And so 鈥 even a small, small decline in the vaccination rate can have huge negative effects. I mean, the difference between having 97% vaccination vs. 91% 鈥 it may not seem like a big deal, but that’s the difference between herd immunity and people really being vulnerable. 

Rovner: And lots and lots more cases of measles, as we are seeing already this year. I mean, it’s, you know, talk about things that were completely predictable. Well, meanwhile, as my 吃瓜不打烊 colleagues Amanda Seitz and Stephanie Armour point out this week, all of this public pronouncing by the president and other health officials about the supposed dangers of vaccines comes as HHS Secretary RFK Jr. blows past deadline after deadline to uncover the promised cause of the rising cases of autism. The story notes that the secretary “has looking for root causes in a research effort that’s offered no public status updates and few details about who, or even which agency, is leading the effort.” We do know that one of the people working on the project is Reyn Archer 鈥 he’s a noted vaccine critic, son of a former House Ways and Means Committee chairman, and was head of the Title X Family Planning Program during the George H.W. Bush administration in the early 1990s 鈥 even as he was publicly opposing legalized birth control, which of course is what the Title X program does. He later served as Texas’ state health commissioner under then-Gov. George W. Bush, although he was eventually fired for making racist remarks to a subordinate. I had not heard his name since, until now. But he’s going to uncover the root causes of autism, am I right? That’s the plan? 

Kenen: More power to him. I mean, autism. It’s not like there’s no research, and the conclusion is that it’s multi-causal. That there’s not one cause. That’s the current state of the science, which can always evolve. But the current belief is there’s probably a genetic component, but it’s a mix of factors that we don’t fully understand. But vaccines is not one of them. 

Rovner: Or at least so every study, every big study, we have seen continues to say. Well, moving on, lots of news about healthcare prices this week, which remain a pressing issue for both Republican and Democratic voters as the midterms draw near. One interesting story this week noted that prescription drug prices fell year over year by more than 3% 鈥 that’s the largest drop since the early 1960s 鈥 but it’s not entirely clear why. The Trump administration, of course, says it was their efforts, particularly to bring down the price of those popular but very expensive GLP-1 weight loss drugs. Analysts say it’s more likely the result of the Biden-era Medicare drug price negotiations, which involved more widely used medications. Whichever, I imagine if you’re not seeing your prices drop at the pharmacy, and those drops may well be absorbed by insurers and middlemen and all the people we talk about, will this good news even have much of an impact when people go to the polls? 

Luthra: I can’t imagine it necessarily would be that meaningful because overall the macro trends remain pretty bad. Health insurance is still getting very expensive. Employers are really struggling 鈥 those that offer it 鈥 they are largely passing more costs to consumers. And so people are getting to have to pay more for healthcare, even if their drug prices may be decreasing in the aggregate. And so it’s just hard to really suggest that this good news could really outweigh those other factors, especially when you think about the broader sort of angst that exists around costs and costs continuing to go up. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, in wonky news that could actually have a larger impact on what people pay for medical care, the Trump administration is actually going after some deep-pocketed healthcare providers. Stat News reports, in separate stories, first that the 鈥 that’s the parent of UnitedHealthcare, the insurer, and Optum, the services and tech arm 鈥 for allegedly underpaying taxes by funneling money through a foreign subsidiary. And second, the for potential antitrust violations. State attorneys general are also looking at Epic’s alleged anticompetitive practices. Cracking down on some of the monopolistic practices of the largest payers in the healthcare system actually could end up saving the system money, right? I mean, this was 鈥 something that we saw a fair bit of during the Biden administration, particularly from the Federal Trade Commission, and not so much of during the Trump administration, which has seemed to have been more favorable, if you will, to big companies. 

Luthra: I guess there’s still that question about providers, and obviously bringing down prices and addressing consolidation in payers, amongst things like electronic health record companies, can be effective, but we probably also would want to see meaningful movement in terms of provider consolidation as well, and that just seems potentially like a bigger hill to climb. 

Rovner: But this is a start. One would say, particularly this administration, going after United, which is sort of the the biggest 鈥 United’s power threatens the federal government’s bargaining power at this point. I was interested to see, you know, this story, if nothing else, made public, because obviously somebody leaked it. We will see how these all shake out. Well, finally, Costco, home of the cheap rotisserie chicken and the $1.50 hot dog and soda, is entering the Medicare market, . According to the Journal, Costco will partner with the nonprofit SCAN Group to offer Medicare Advantage plans in two states and a Medicare supplement, Medigap, plan in a third state. Could this eventually make a dent in the private Medicare market? Costco already does big business selling discount prescription drugs, eyeglasses, and hearing aids. I get my dog’s flea and tick medication at Costco. It costs half of what it does at my vet’s office. One presumes this could be, you know, a leader. We’ve not seen this before, right? 

Kenen: The head of SCAN, which is a pretty reputable insurance company 鈥 

Rovner: Nonprofit insurance company. 

Kenen: Nonprofit insurance, and I should say I know 鈥 personally the current CEO, president, whatever his post is. I mean, but you know, I’ve written a lot about aging over the years, and it’s basically considered 鈥 one of the higher-quality, more reliable elderly-focused health plans. And he has something interesting to write when he announced it or wrote about on LinkedIn about how he personally, like, is a big Costco guy. But he talked about trust, which we’re all talking all the time about how there’s a lack of trust in healthcare. There’s a lot of trust in Costco, and he talked about how branding, SCAN, and Costco, you know 鈥 obviously it’s a business decision he made, but he’s also, like, this big Costco guy and who worries 鈥 I know him through conferences on trust, actually, that’s where I met him 鈥 and he’s thinking, OK, Costco, in addition to, like, giving you way too much of whatever it is you thought you needed, it can also fix the trust crisis in America. Right? 

Rovner: Hey! 

Kenen: And they’re efficient, right? I mean, I don’t know if all four of us are Costco people, but the, you know 鈥 

Rovner: I am. 

Kenen: I saw her. I ran into her buying her veterinarian [unintelligible, through laughter] 鈥 I was in the photo section. 鈥 It is a trusted brand, and it’s an interesting 鈥 and they have national reach in there, you know. 

Rovner: And you will hear in my conversation with Mark Cuban that trust is a really big deal in healthcare right now. I mean, we obviously talk about this every week. I mean, I’m, obviously this is a very small step, but I’m really interested in where it turns out. 

Kenen: It’s a smart business move, and it’s a talker, too. Like, people are gonna see this headline and pay attention to it because it’s, like, just a thing. 

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

So, a good bit of reproductive health news this week. Glad to have both Alice and Shefali here. We will start in Idaho, where a federal district court judge ruled that the state’s abortion ban cannot be used to prosecute doctors who perform abortions to protect the pregnant person’s health, not just her life. Of course, abortion opponents vehemently oppose health exceptions, as they’re called, because they say health includes mental health, and that becomes a loophole so big that it basically eviscerates the ban. The state’s attorney general, former congressman Raúl Labrador, said he would appeal and was confident the decision would be overturned. I would imagine that he’s probably right. Is the Supreme Court eventually going to have to spell this out? I wouldn’t be that surprised if they wanted to. 

Ollstein: I think this gets into some of the same EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act] territory, where we have seen the Supreme Court sort of back away from in recent years. But again, we just keep circling around and around the same question, which is, when is an abortion OK for a medical emergency purpose? How close to dying does a woman have to get before a doctor can perform an abortion? And we’ve seen again and again in Idaho that doctors are scared and confused, and even when they think that they should have the right to perform the procedure, you know, they’re still putting women on these dangerous life flights to other states in order to get care, leading to hours and hours of delays and potential complications. And so, you know, this court case and this court ruling was sort of aimed at clarifying that and giving doctors the confidence to be able to intervene when they feel it’s medically necessary. But now we’re seeing the state challenge that, and we’re just going around and around. And, you know, there have been similar cases in other states, just a whole mix of rulings, one way or the other, and that just creates more of a patchwork where, you know, some somebody’s ability to get care varies completely between states 鈥 and even within states, between hospitals, based on how much you know institutional backing doctors feel like they have. You know, will their hospital’s lawyers go to the mat for them or not? Do they work in a private practice vs. a big hospital system? All of these things come into play, 

Rovner: And, of course, we’ve also seen doctors, particularly in Idaho, leaving the state because they’re afraid that they can’t practice. I mean, they can’t adequately care for their patients. Shefali, I see you nodding. 

Luthra: Yeah, and what’s interesting about this case, other than the fact that Idaho will actually have an abortion ballot measure this November, is that we do have a federal judge here saying, in particular contexts, I see a right to an abortion. And I was talking to some abortion legal scholars about this, and they made the point that, in a way, this runs afoul of the Dobbs decision, because you do have a federal judge saying people are actually entitled to abortions, and that is a right that they have, even if it is much narrower than what Roe v. Wade guaranteed. And obviously, this is going to be appealed. This is going to continue to be litigated. We may not see immediate change for people’s ability to get healthcare in Idaho or other places with very strict bans, but it does underscore how unsettled these legal questions remain 鈥 how there remains a lot of debate over whether Dobbs was actually a correct interpretation of constitutional law. And I think it really takes us back to the argument we heard from some of the conservative majority that this would now settle every question about abortion. Obviously, it has not. Obviously, many more questions will continue to be argued and litigated in the courts. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, meanwhile, in other breaking news, a federal judge here in Washington blocked the Trump administration’s changes to the teen pregnancy prevention program that funds classes on contraception and abstinence, among other things. But they’re still not necessarily getting the money appropriated by Congress, right, Alice? 

Ollstein: So a judge in D.C. is blocking the administration from using its very strict new guidance going forward when it doles out money for the program, but it’s not ordering the administration to give back the money that was already cut earlier this summer from all of these grantees around the country. And, by the way, the money was cut both from grantees like Planned Parenthood, where you would say, “Oh, well, that sort of makes sense that the administration would go after their money.” But they’re also cutting funding from, you know, faith-based programs, abstinence-only programs in very red states, and prompting a fair amount of backlash that I’ve been covering. You know, places like Texas and South Carolina and West Virginia have also lost funding. And, of course, all the programs in those states had to abide by state restrictions around what can be taught. And so they were already following these very conservative guidelines. But that’s not conservative enough for the administration, which put out this guidance saying, you know, while abstinence-only was an option before, now it is basically mandatory. And so that guidance is on hold, but, again, the judge said that he didn’t know if he had the authority to order them to give back the money, or if some other jurisdiction could handle that. And so, this is just a preliminary injunction, which means there’s going to be months and months of litigation going forward. 

Rovner: Finally, this week, a story from the “Who Could Ever Have Imagined This?” files: A California couple hired a surrogate in Alaska to carry their pregnancy. After the fetus was diagnosed with a life-threatening heart condition, the couple exercised their option in the surrogacy contract to terminate the pregnancy. But the surrogate refused to have an abortion, and she traveled to Texas, where abortion is illegal, and gave birth to a baby boy last week. News reports say the baby, who is now in the custody of the couple who are biologically his parents, had the first of several surgeries needed to treat the heart condition. But this is a genuinely wrenching situation. Who gets to decide what here and under which state’s laws? Bioethicist Arthur Caplan told Houston Public Media that there are so many ethical issues here, he could spend an entire semester’s course teaching it. 

Luthra: And I think what is important about this case as well is, I mean, it’s obviously just like so, so, so sad, and this poor family is just having to deal with something really heartbreaking that no one should have to navigate under the national spotlight in Texas. It is really energizing conservatives who want to ban surrogacy, and we have already heard from lawmakers in the state legislature say they will be looking at surrogacy specifically when they convene next year. I have talked to anti-abortion activists in the state who are very hopeful that this case will give them new impetus to ban, at the very least, commercial surrogacy. They would love to ban all forms of surrogacy. And it is seen by a lot of anti-abortion folks who oppose fertility treatment, including IVF [in vitro fertilization], as something maybe easier to target. And I think it’s politically really complicated, because Americans don’t know as many people who get pregnant through surrogacy as they do people who might use IVF. But when I was talking to, again, legal experts about this, one point they made is that if surrogacy restrictions do take off in a meaningful way, often, the intellectual framework and arguments being made are ultimately the ones that would be used for IVF restrictions as well. And so, there is a possibility of a real slippery slope and more of that opening the door to fertility treatment restrictions that could affect a lot of people. 

Kenen: I think there’s a lot of public misunderstanding about what a gestational carrier is. When surrogacy became, not common, but sort of emerged in the public eye, there were a couple of really high-profile court cases. This was in the late ’80s. The “Baby M” was the most famous. And these were situations, at that point, where the woman carrying the child, it was her egg. So in the Baby M case, it was a couple that couldn’t have children. She was-鈥 I don’t even know if that was 鈥 that wasn’t probably IVF. That was probably some other kind of artificial insemination. But the woman who decided she didn’t want to give up the baby after carrying it 鈥 it was, in fact, her biological child 鈥 and the practice became not to let, to separate the surrogate carrier from the egg donor. It’s not 100%. It’s not that it never happens, particularly if there’s family situations where maybe an aunt carries, etc. In this case, we’re really, based on public record, because I did a little reading on it this morning, it’s not clear, of the “biological parents,” it’s his baby. It’s not 100% clear on the public record that it’s actually her egg, the wife’s egg. But it is not the carrier’s egg. The woman suing to keep the child, saying she wants to have the baby, it is not her, it was not her egg. State law varies. Most states say that the surrogate in this kind of situation does not have maternal rights; that it’s the couple that hired her. Texas is, I believe, more blurry. There are a few states that it is more ambiguous, and also remember that this is a really tight, unusually and unexpectedly tight Senate race in Texas, where a very anti-abortion state, obviously, and also in this case the couple says they didn’t even ask for the abortion, but that’s he-said-she-said-they-said, we don’t know. I don’t know, at least, right? But abortion is a huge political driver in Texas; it’s a close race. [Ken] Paxton, who is the state attorney general, who is taking the side of the surrogate mother, is also the Senate candidate. You know, this is, you know, we’re 2陆 months out, whatever, from the election. Three, I guess, closer to three still. But it’s very political in a state that probably has more politics around abortion than probably any other state. 

Rovner: Just what we needed: another thorny issue to throw into this mix. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much of it as we could get to. Now we will play my in-the-car interview with Mark Cuban, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome businessman and entrepreneur Mark Cuban to “How Would You Fix It?” Mark is probably best known to most people as a former shark on the TV show Shark Tank and the former [co-]owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team. But he’s also the co-founder of the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs company, which sells generic medications directly to consumers at transparent prices and big discounts. More recently, he’s been talking about even bigger reforms to the healthcare system, which is why I’m so excited to have him here. Mark Cuban, thank you so much for joining us. 

Mark Cuban: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: I’m curious: Your background’s been mostly in tech and in sports. How did you come to make healthcare such a priority? 

Cuban: I got a cold email from my now co-founder, Dr. Alex Oshmyansky, and he wanted to build a compounding pharmacy that made sterile injectables that are on the FDA short-supply list 鈥 which it’s crazy that there is a short-supply list for generic injectables. So that was great, but it wasn’t big enough. And as I looked into it, it was right around the time that “pharma bro” [Martin Shkreli] was going to jail, and I was like, “How can this dude jack up the price of a generic medication to the detriment of so many people?” And then it became obvious that nobody knew what a medication costs, nobody knew why it cost what it costs, and nobody understood why everybody paid a different price for the same medication. That list led to us launching costplusdrugs.com in January of 2022, and it’s just been growing like a weed ever since. 

Rovner: For decades now, the big debate in health policy has been whether the system should be more run by the government or more run by the private sector. Is that even the right way to focus on this anymore? Now everything is sort of hybrid and a mess. 

Cuban: Yeah, no, it’s not, because if the government doesn’t have data, and the government can’t trust the vendors that they’re working with, it doesn’t matter that it’s the government doing all the negotiating. And you see that in other countries. For instance, we get emails from countries around the world 鈥 from Canada, England 鈥 asking to buy generics from us ’cause our prices for generics, particularly specialty generics, are less expensive than what they sell for in countries that have single-payer or universal care. And so, while I’m not opposed to single-payer or universal healthcare at all, and kind of the analogy I use is: If healthcare costs $1 per person per year 鈥 yeah, great, taxpayers would pay that. But it would be a set $1 and it’d be obviously inexpensive. But when you don’t know all the costs, when there’s no transparency, it’s impossible to determine if it’s a better solution or not. 

Rovner: Are there segments of the healthcare industry that would work better if the private sector ran them, and better if the government ran them? I’m thinking, you know, hospitals, doctors, drugs.  

Cuban: I don’t think it’s like that at all. I think it depends on how much transparency there is. The fundamental issue is transparency and trust. If you don’t know 鈥 like, there are a lot of hospitals, and you know this better than anybody, that don’t know their costs. And if you just hire the same people and just say, “Look, we’re going to pay Medicare pricing to Mayo Clinic, and Mayo Clinic doesn’t know all their costs,” or “We’re going to take an urban hospital and continue to pay them Medicare and Medicaid because that’s most of their business,” and they don’t know their cost, they just know their cash balance, it doesn’t matter who runs it. 

Rovner: So, what do you fix first? 

Cuban: Transparency. You have to be able to publish contracts so that any contract that’s signed with a federal agency, the federal government, a state agency, a city, not only are the terms of the contract published, but the prices are published, so that Tricare would be required to publish their prices. By seeing the actual contract, you can see where the city-state agency is getting ripped off. Because right now there’s confidentiality requirements, and the companies, like the big insurance conglomerates, they say, you know, we can’t do this. We can’t show this, it’s proprietary information, which is nonsense. You’ve got hundreds of thousands of companies. You’ve got hundreds of agencies and states and cities that negotiate the same contracts. So lots of people know, but they do it to make it more complicated. And so, as a result, nobody knows how the deals are structured. And if you don’t know how the deals are structured, it’s impossible to negotiate better ones. And if they’ll sue you for discussing it with their peers, then nobody 鈥 it’s like Fight Club. The No. 1 rule [of] Fight Club is you can’t talk about Fight Club. The No. 1 rule of healthcare contracts is you can’t talk about healthcare contracts. 

Rovner: Yeah, and we’ve, you know, Congress has passed laws. The president has pushed a lot of these transparency rules, and basically, the health industry has said, “Yep, sorry, we can’t do it,” or “We’re going to do it in such a way that you can’t find it out anyway.” 

Cuban: Correct. 

Rovner: “We’re going to send you reams and reams and reams of data, and you can go digging if you would like.” 

Cuban: Correct. And so you take that to the next step. The big healthcare companies 鈥 first of all, they’re vertically integrated. They have hundreds, if not thousands, of subsidiaries. People don’t even know what the subsidiaries are when they do business with them, right? And so, when that happens, there’s just no way for any of the states, cities, federal government to enforce the laws. The big healthcare companies have more lawyers, move faster, are better able to find loopholes than the government and the agencies that enforce it are able to enforce it. And so, what ends up happening. You see all these fines. This PBM, this insurance company, whatever got fined for A, B, or C, and then they just go right back to doing business with them. So when I talk to governors, one of the first things I say in terms of reform is A) publish the contracts, and B) if you are doing business with a vertically integrated healthcare company, and they are fined by any federal agency or any state government, they get one mulligan. If they are fined a second time, they can’t do business with you for five years. That will act as the enforcement mechanism to keep them in line. And then the third thing that I always push is that anybody is able to go out and make a cash purchase, whether it’s medical or pharmacy, as long as it’s less expensive than their out-of-pocket, and have it by law count towards their deductible and max out-of-pocket. When you do that, you give them the opportunity to shop. When something is shoppable 鈥 not everything is 鈥 but you give them the opportunity to shop, and that helps force down prices. 

Rovner: So, I’ve been doing this since the 1980s, and it’s always been the Democrats beating up on the big insurance companies, and the Republicans basically defending them. Now that Republicans are beating up on the big insurance companies, are we kind of inevitably going towards a government-run single-payer? 

Cuban: No. Like, if you look up, if you look at the Break Up Big Medicine bill that was introduced by Josh Hawley, a Republican, and Elizabeth Warren, to me that’s the first step. So the good news: It was introduced on a bipartisan basis. Because if you break up these big, huge conglomerates, everything changes. The price of everything drops like a rock. But the problem is, nobody else, no senators have supported it, and nobody in the House has introduced a comparable bill. Everybody just chickened out. And so that’s the first step. Put aside the economics. Put aside that we don’t know the cost. Put aside that we have no transparency. All those things are important, but making sure we have health care for everybody is more important. That’s the difference. I think that also should be an American dream. As an entrepreneur, I’m a big fan of the American dream. But being able to be healthy and not be afraid that you can’t afford what you need or your family needs, that’s wrong in our American dream. And you know, when we talk about healthcare as a right, doctors freak out because they presume that they’re going to be paid Medicare rates, and they lose control of their life, right? And they talk about opting out and not doing it, you know. And so you need to get all these stakeholders accounted for. And until you start to do that and put together a plan that people will accept, we’re not going to ever be in a position to take care of people like so many of us hope to do. 

Rovner: And yet that would require both parties to basically lay down their arms.  

 

Cuban: Yes, which I think is possible. I think it’s doable because the No. 1 thing that, in every poll, people are concerned about healthcare costs. It’s not the quality of healthcare. Nobody really complains about the quality. Our doctors are great. Our systems are great. It’s the economic side. And who defines the economic side? Those humongous healthcare conglomerates. And what’s the best way to get to a point where we have transparency at the contract level, you know, flexibility and understanding, etc., all the things I mentioned? You break up those huge conglomerates that have thousands of subsidiaries that do $150-plus billion in intercompany transfers, that game the medical loss ratio. I mean, all these things happen because those big companies have more control over the economics of our healthcare system than the government does. 

Rovner: Well, I hope we actually get to that point, and I hope you’re around to help with some of these stakeholder conversations. 

Cuban: Oh, hopefully I’m not going anywhere. 

Rovner: Thank you so much. 

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

Luthra: Sure. My story is from The 19th by my colleague Barbara Rodriguez. The headline is “.” And I love this whole genre of story. The GLP-1 market is exploding because these drugs can be so expensive to get from your healthcare provider. You see advertisements everywhere, all over social media, people promising to sell you a GLP-1. And as Barbara’s story gets into, often they are not actually GLP-1s. It is something fake. It is not actually going to help you lose weight, but it is going to take your money. And I just think that this is such an exploding market. So much has changed that we can’t read enough about how the, just the growth of options, or not legitimate options, is affecting people, and I’m really glad she did this story. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was a really good story. Alice. 

Ollstein: I have a story from The Texas Observer by Mary Tuma, and it’s called “.” So this is taking a deep dive on the situation in Texas, but the article does a good job of pointing out that this is a trend across several states that implemented abortion bans, where there was, you know, efforts to pause or revamp, or obscure, or change in some way the groups in every, that exist in every state that study maternal deaths. And there is just a suspicion that this is an attempt to hide from the public the impact of the abortion ban on maternal mortality. You have a lot of experts quoted in this piece. You have the family members who have lost their wives and mothers to pregnancy-related deaths, and so this is just an ongoing fight. And, you know, doctors say we really need this data and this analysis to know how to better provide care in the future. It’s not just a political football; it’s actual medical knowledge that we need to build. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think ProPublica did this for Georgia, I think, last year, so yet another in these series. Joanne. 

Kenen: There’s a story in Politico by Owen Dahlkamp: “.” This is not unique to health law, but given how complicated health law is and how much health law Congress deals with in any given year, it’s quite relevant to health law. So staffers are using AI to actually draft legislation, not just to research something. And I mean, it’s hard to get away from AI now. It’s, like, even pops up on people’s phones, right? But drafting legislation is very precise and complicated, and AI is apparently not very good at it. So the House counsel, which is the Office of Legal Counsel, which actually has to make sure the legislative language is correct and doesn’t accidentally reveal the wrong thing, they’re having a hard time. Although they have now created their own tool to try to correct the AI slop, but they’re getting overwhelmed. There’s, you know, we’ve all seen stories, we’ve all gotten pitches about, you know, so-and-so introduced a law. What the general public doesn’t understand is introducing a law, you know, it’s good for a press release 鈥 introducing a bill, excuse me. Introducing a bill does not mean a whole hell of a lot, except that you’re satisfying some constituent or constituent group, right? But congresspeople and senators like to say they introduce this and they introduce that and they introduce the other thing. So the number of bills being introduced was already rising spectacularly, and now with the slop, there’s like the slopth degree of it. So it’s messy. 

Rovner: It is messy, and it does, I mean, it sort of prevents the real work of actually drafting legislation that’s going to become law from getting done. 

Kenen: There’s going to be something, like, really bad that comes out that somebody in the poor OLC office doesn’t catch, and it’s going to repeal, like, you know, the flag. 

Rovner: Yeah. We will see. All right my extra credit this week is from Mother Jones by Sophie Hurwitz. It’s called “.” And you may have heard that ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is spending $20 million to buy these gloves, which administer an electric shock at the touch of a button on the wrist for their officers. What makes them better than a Taser or other non-[lethal] device? Well, one Missouri police officer whose force uses them said the gloves “allow their wearer to inflict pain without leaving the sort of marks that could look bad to witnesses or leave an officer vulnerable to lawsuits.” In other words, they make it easier for people to inflict pain on others, whether warranted or not, without likely recourse. How very 2026. 

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

Ollstein: on Bluesky and on X. 

Rovner: Shefali. 

Luthra: on Bluesky. 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: Mostly on and on . 

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

Credits

Zach Dyer Audio producer
Taylor Cook Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From 吃瓜不打烊” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

吃瓜不打烊 is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

]]> 2275237 Watch: Why Abortions Are on the Rise Since 鈥楻oe鈥 Was Overturned /courts/video-five-things-abortions-increase-since-roe-overturned/ Fri, 07 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2264199 Say you live in deep-red Louisiana, a state that has effectively banned abortion. It may be easier for you to get abortion pills now than before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Here’s why 鈥 and what it means for future battles over abortion access.

And as a federal court mulls a case that could result in significant restrictions on a pill used in most abortions, healthcare providers say they have alternatives to preserve access even in states with bans in place. Read more here.

吃瓜不打烊 is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

]]> 2264199 People With Disabilities Fear Service Cuts as Trump鈥檚 DOJ Questions Legal Protections /news/people-with-disabilities-fear-service-cuts-as-trumps-doj-questions-legal-protections/ Mon, 03 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2266682 Amanda DeSimone-Shabrack relies on a home healthcare aide to help her high-needs autistic 12-year-old son. Virginia’s Medicaid program covers the assistance, enabling her to work as both an education technology specialist and a professor, run errands, and keep Mason in the home.

That could change. In June, the Department of Justice issued saying federal disability rights laws don’t require states to provide services that allow people with disabilities to remain in their homes rather than institutions.

It’s a sharp reversal from 1999, when a held that unjustified institutionalization constituted discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Previous administrations have relied on that ruling to enforce civil rights for disabled people, but the Trump administration says that long-held interpretation is wrong.

Advocacy groups say legal protections for about and 5 million children who have disabilities could be undermined, and they worry that the new interpretation may herald a return to forced institutionalization.

The stage is also now set for a legal fight between advocates, states, and the federal government. Some states with ongoing lawsuits challenging disability rights requirements are already citing the DOJ opinion in hopes it will help them prevail.

In a case in Texas, for example, that a rule instituting a 1973 civil rights law that led to community and home integration of people with disabilities is costly and infringes on states’ rights.

People like DeSimone-Shabrack are especially worried because, they say, the opinion follows a spate of White House and Republican-led initiatives that have already begun eroding hard-won protections for people with disabilities.

“I’m worried. Am I going to have to put him in an institution, and what’s that going to be like for him?” said DeSimone-Shabrack, whose personal home care help was recently reduced from 30 to 18 hours a week by the state. “As he gets older, am I going to be able to care for him without this support?”

The Department of Health and Human Services remains steadfast in enforcing federal civil rights laws, agency spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email.

“Our commitment to ensuring that individuals with disabilities are treated with dignity, afforded equal opportunity, and are able to meaningfully access community services remains unchanged,” she said.

But advocacy groups say the DOJ opinion could have sweeping repercussions. The opinion doesn’t change existing law, but advocates worry that HHS and the DOJ could begin that mandate integration for people with disabilities.

They’re concerned that agencies will stop enforcing disability laws that ensure people aren’t. HHS, for example, has historically investigated disability discrimination claims at hospitals and in states that get federal funding, enforcing compliance with home and community integration through . Disability rights experts say those agreements could now be imperiled.

And some states facing financial pressures may roll back Medicaid services that enable people with disabilities to stay in their homes and communities 鈥 a trend that’s already happening following last year’s passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cuts a projected from the safety net program over a decade.

Democrats are seizing on the opinion, which was released in a DOJ memo, to portray President Donald Trump and Republicans as a threat to people with disabilities. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and other Senate Democrats led the calling on the DOJ to rescind the opinion.

“The Trump Administration’s memo is an outrageous attack on the rights and independence of the disability community,” Duckworth said in a statement.

The DOJ didn’t return emails seeking comment.

According to the DOJ’s interpretation, regulations that give disabled people the right to demand certain services for daily living 鈥 bathing, mental health counseling, and financial budgeting help, for instance 鈥 and that require states to extend to mentally disabled individuals are unlawful, a view the agency acknowledged “is out of step with the common understanding of that decision within the federal courts.”

States may have legitimate reason to treat mentally disabled people in institutions, “including resource constraints, capacity limitations in community-based facilities, and safety concerns for both the patient and the community,” the memo reads.

The Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., has long shaped federal policy. And while it remains to be seen how courts will respond to the DOJ, some states seeking to curtail disability protections see the opinion as significant.

Consider the in federal court in the Northern District of Texas by Republican-led states arguing that an HHS rule about the integration mandate is unlawful. The lawsuit began with broader claims and 17 state plaintiffs. Following significant advocacy from the disability community, only Texas, Alaska, and Florida remain.

Following the new DOJ interpretation, the states filed documentation to inform the court about the memo as a new and relevant development. Similar documentation citing the memo has been filed in disability rights cases in Florida and New Hampshire, according to The Arc of the United States, a disability advocacy group.

Advocates for people with disabilities say the speed at which plaintiffs are citing the opinion underscores how it may be used to justify the erosion of protections.

“The administration’s attempt to dismantle decades of progress in community integration is alarming and inconsistent with federal disability rights laws and Supreme Court precedent as well as the critical enforcement work of prior administrations,” said , senior executive officer of legal advocacy and general counsel at The Arc.

Forced institutionalization led to human rights violations, segregation, and a eugenics movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries that included involuntary sterilization.

Exposure of the abuses, legal battles, and an caused a major shift toward integration. Fewer than 1% of people with intellectual or developmental disabilities lived in state-run facilities in 2021, down from almost 30% in 1967, from the University of Minnesota’s , which maintains metrics on such long-term services and supports.

The Trump administration has already taken steps to reverse that trend, advocates say.

Trump signed that addresses homelessness by expanding involuntary treatment and institutionalization, reversing a championed by the Biden administration.

Much of the special education program office is moving from the Department of Education to HHS, raising concerns among advocates that the administration is reverting to a view that disabilities are a medical issue to be fixed rather than differences that can be accommodated.

And cuts in federal funding for Medicaid, a federal-state insurance program for people with low incomes or disabilities, also portend fewer resources and services. States have responded by reducing some optional benefits such as home health aides and support. In addition, qualifying for an exemption from the program’s work requirements, which take effect Jan. 1 in most states, will pose significant hurdles for people with disabilities.

The June DOJ opinion, advocates say, could accelerate the shift and result in court rulings that chip away at disability rights.

“While it doesn’t overnight change the law, it’s very troubling and very dangerous,” said , director of the Disability Rights Program at the American Civil Liberties Union. “It reflects a really deeply held disrespect for disabled people from this administration and a total lack of awareness of the lived experiences of people with disabilities who are living in their homes.”

Data shows there can be benefits to involuntary institutionalization. Relative to those voluntarily admitted, people with psychiatric illness who were involuntarily admitted “experienced greater improvements in symptoms and function,” according to a in Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, a peer-reviewed academic journal.

Deinstitutionalization has created new challenges. More hospitals have been forced to board people with psychiatric illness in emergency rooms because of a dearth of available beds. And moving people into home- and community-based living was supposed to be accompanied by an increase in outpatient care and treatment that never materialized, creating gaps in support.

But advocates for the disabled community say involuntary institutionalization and poses a higher risk of neglect and abuse.

, 57, of Cleveland, spent two years in a nursing home. She has spinal muscular atrophy, a genetic disease that kills motor neurons, leaving her able to move only part of her left arm and her head.

At the institution, she said, she felt bored and trapped and developed intense itching from scabies, which is caused by microscopic mites.

For more than a decade, however, she has lived in an apartment with the help of caregivers who come in the morning to get her dressed and ready and return to put her to bed. She works at a disability rights group, and her care is covered by Medicaid.

“The two years I lived in the nursing home, it was the most horrible time in my life,” said Kucera, who worries about the DOJ opinion on Olmstead. “My future is a shaking floor beneath me. With the stroke of a pen, they could get rid of everything I’ve built for myself.”

吃瓜不打烊 is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

]]> 2266682 The Politics of Grant Cuts /podcast/what-the-health-457-trump-grant-cuts-fauci-hearing-covid-july-30-2026/ Thu, 30 Jul 2026 18:30:15 +0000 /?p=2266610&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2266610 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner 吃瓜不打烊 Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 吃瓜不打烊’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

The Trump administration has conceded in court documents that it used purely political considerations to cancel grant funding previously approved by Congress. But that has provoked a surprisingly muted response from lawmakers, who under the Constitution control the power of the purse.

Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate summoned former National Institutes of Health and White House official Anthony Fauci to testify 鈥 again 鈥 about his handling of the covid pandemic. Fauci, however, refused to answer questions, citing the advice of his attorneys.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 吃瓜不打烊, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang photo
Rachel Cohrs Zhang Bloomberg News
Shefali Luthra photo
Shefali Luthra The 19th
Liz Essley Whyte photo
Liz Essley Whyte The Wall Street Journal

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Recent court filings shed light on how the Trump administration has used politics to justify its decisions to cancel federal grants. While similar revelations may have been explosive under other presidents, the filings have triggered muted, if any, responses from lawmakers.
  • The Trump administration announced this week that it would end the temporary Medicare Part D subsidies, introduced under the Biden administration, that help lower the monthly premiums older Americans pay for drug coverage. While next year’s premiums probably would have increased anyway, the change 鈥 which many will notice when they shop for plans later this year, shortly before the midterm elections 鈥 may not help Republicans in the voting booth.
  • Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) brought Fauci before the committee he chairs to address accusations related to his role in the nation’s covid response as a key adviser to Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden. But little of substance was said, with the hearing quickly devolving into political grandstanding as Fauci asserted his constitutional right not to self-incriminate.
  • An FDA advisory panel voted to recommend the agency make it easier for Americans to obtain several previously banned compounds known as peptides 鈥 even as FDA staff caution that there’s no evidence they are safe. The panel included members who stand to profit from expanded access to peptides.

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

Julie Rovner: The Arkansas Times’ “,” by Byron Tate.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: 吃瓜不打烊’ “Trump Administration Demands Hospitals Share Emergency Room Records,” by Amanda Seitz, Maia Rosenfeld, and Darius Tahir.  

Liz Essley Whyte: Stat’s “,” by J. Todd R. Lawrence and Madison A. Kesler.  

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post’s “,” by Aaron E. Carroll.  

 Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • The New York Times’ “,” by Tony Romm and Brad Plumer.
  • CalMatters’ “,” by Mikhail Zinshteyn.
  • The Wall Street Journal’s “,” by Liz Essley Whyte.
  • Bloomberg News’ “,” by Rachel Cohrs Zhang.
  • 吃瓜不打烊’ “Trump Has Quietly Throttled an Agency Devoted to the Safety of American Healthcare,” by Arthur Allen.
  • The Washington Post’s “,” by Lauren Weber.
  • Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Ariel Wittenberg.
Click to expand the transcript Transcript: The Politics of Grant Cuts

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from 吃瓜不打烊 and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 吃瓜不打烊. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 30, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today, we are joined via video conference by Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal. 

Liz Essley Whyte: Hello. 

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: The transition away from using thimerosal. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: It’s a golf term. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: He did. 

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

Rovner: He will. 

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

Rovner: We’ll see how that goes.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: They’re talking points, basically. 

Luthra: Absolutely. 

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Yeah. Liz. 

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

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

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

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

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

Cohrs Zhang: I’m on X  and also on . 

Rovner: Shefali. 

Luthra: On Bluesky . 

Rovner: Liz. 

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From 吃瓜不打烊” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

吃瓜不打烊 is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

]]> 2266610 Abortion Drug Law in Louisiana Heightens Hemorrhage Risk for Pregnant Patients /courts/abortion-drug-access-misoprostol-louisiana-law-pregnancy-hemorrhage-risk/ Thu, 30 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2262962 Over the past decade, Louisiana hospitals began stocking specialized carts designed to treat hemorrhages, one of the in the state. The plug-in cart can be wheeled from room to room and holds surgical tools and lifesaving medications to stem blood loss.

A passed in 2024 forced hospitals to remove a key drug 鈥 misoprostol 鈥 from the medical cart and keep it locked in a secure room designated for controlled substances.

For physicians like New Orleans obstetrician-gynecologist Nicole Freehill, misoprostol is the go-to medication to treat hemorrhages. The drug is uniquely cheap, safe, and shelf-stable, she said.

But it’s also the second in a two-pill procedure that millions of people have used to have medical abortions. Because of that use, Louisiana lawmakers reclassified misoprostol as a controlled substance, a category typically reserved for addictive drugs.

Now, physicians like her have gone from reaching over to the cart to grab misoprostol to waiting at least two minutes while a nurse sprints to retrieve the medication, Freehill said.

“鈥奩ou could literally have someone lose, like, a liter of blood or more in that time frame,” Freehill said. “You could have a significantly worse hemorrhage for literally someone running to this medicine and running back because it can’t be on that cart 2 feet from you while you’re treating the hemorrhage.”

She said the reclassification of misoprostol as a controlled substance has set back progress to decrease the frequency of postpartum hemorrhage and blood transfusions. Under the law, her preliminary research found, hemorrhage rates have worsened statewide, she said.

Although the cart includes alternative drugs to treat hemorrhages, they can’t be used if a patient has certain preexisting conditions like asthma or high blood pressure. They’re also more costly.

“鈥奣here’s unfortunately a lot of patients nowadays that have these conditions that we might be forced to go straight to misoprostol first without any other real good option because of their medical history,” Freehill said.

Misoprostol has other uses in reproductive healthcare. It prepares women’s cervixes ahead of common, sometimes painful procedures such as inserting an IUD. It also plays a critical role in inducing labor and managing failed pregnancies.

In medication abortions, misoprostol is combined with a medication called mifepristone, which Louisiana also reclassified as a controlled substance. Both mifepristone and misoprostol have uses outside reproductive healthcare, including treating Cushing’s syndrome and preventing stomach ulcers caused by anti-inflammatory drugs.

When Louisiana passed a near-total ban on abortions after Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022, the number of abortion procedures performed in the state dropped from 7,444 in 2021 to . Similar trends occurred in other states that largely banned abortions that year.

However, in the years since, the number of abortions has largely remained the same in Louisiana and nationally as people receive medication abortions through telemedicine and pills sent across state lines. More than 7,500 Louisianans received medication abortions in 2024, the year the law passed, according to the .

Since then, states with abortion bans have tried to to medication abortions prescribed in telehealth appointments and shipped by mail, looking to close what they saw as a loophole through legislation and lawsuits.

Kimya Forouzan, the state policy adviser for the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit reproductive rights advocacy group, said the assault on medication abortions comes as more states that have maintained abortion rights pass laws to shield prescribing providers from prosecution.

“This has been a really important lifeline for a lot of people in states with total bans who are looking to access abortion,” Forouzan said. “However, I think a lot of the restrictive states know that this is happening, and they have wanted to increase the threat and the threat of liability to providers who are doing this.”

Louisiana’s controlled-substance law became one way to do so, though it was originally passed to ensure strict penalties for coerced abortions. Republican state Sen. Thomas Pressly of Shreveport, who introduced the bill, said he did so after his brother-in-law fed his sister the pills to cause an abortion . She gave birth to the baby, and the husband was sentenced to six months in prison after the failed attempt.

The bill was later amended in the legislature to add more restrictions and monitoring of mifepristone and misoprostol by classifying them as controlled substances.

Last October, Louisiana also tried to halt medication abortions by telehealth with a against the FDA. The case is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The New Orleans Health Department called for the repeal of the law in a last September, based on surveys of patients, doctors, and pharmacists. Patients reported delays in treatment while hemorrhaging after birth. Fewer pharmacies filled prescriptions for misoprostol, frustrating doctors.

“鈥奣here’s no evidence that it is reducing elective abortions in Louisiana. There’s no evidence that it is helping anybody. There’s only evidence of harm,” said Dara Kass, an emergency physician and a professor at Brown University.

Since Louisiana’s law passed, similar legislation has been introduced in at least nine states, despite established abortion bans.

But so far, no other states have reclassified the medications. Pushback from the medical community and reproductive health advocates over implementation has surprisingly stifled any other attempts, said Alina Salganicoff, director of the women’s health policy program at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes 吃瓜不打烊.

“This puts a risk 鈥奿nside the healthcare system and potentially could delay really extremely time-sensitive lifesaving care,” Salganicoff said. “Especially where we have situations where we have really an unacceptably high maternal mortality situation in the United States.”

Instead of being a model for other states, Louisiana’s law has served as a cautionary tale. Freehill, the New Orleans OB-GYN, said her colleagues have also had patients struggle to fill their misoprostol prescriptions ahead of uterus examinations intended to help with their fertility.

“鈥奡o it’s having the complete opposite effect of what it’s been intended,” she said.

According to the New Orleans Health Department’s report, some pharmacists said they were too afraid to release the medication to the patient, confused about what’s required under the law. Others refused to fill prescriptions and stock the medication because they preferred to “stay away from any abortion pills.”

Tehmi Chassion, a pharmacist and a Democratic state representative in Lafayette, is pushing the state to study the law’s impact, given the loss of access to the medications.

Louisiana allows pharmacists to choose not to dispense medication if they are uncomfortable doing so, but Chassion said some pharmacists may be crossing a line by blocking access to medication based on their personal beliefs.

“鈥奣hose medications have helped save thousands of lives, and we just need to get to a safe space where prescribers and patients don’t have any worries,” Chassion said.

吃瓜不打烊 is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

]]> 2262962 A Shrinking Safety Net /podcast/what-the-health-456-federal-safety-net-shrinking-july-23-2026/ Thu, 23 Jul 2026 17:45:00 +0000 /?p=2263410&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2263410 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner 吃瓜不打烊 Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 吃瓜不打烊’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Enrollment in the federal food stamp program 鈥 the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, known as SNAP 鈥 is down by more than 10% nationally, according to a new report, and in some states by as much as half. Those numbers are falling as states enact changes ordered by the GOP budget bill passed in 2025. The drop is much steeper than was predicted and could portend a similar fate for those on Medicaid, as states prepare to implement many of the same changes ordered for SNAP. 

Meanwhile, amid a rise in reported cases of the gastrointestinal ailment caused by the parasite cyclospora, federal public health officials once again struggle to explain to a confused populace how to stay safe. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 吃瓜不打烊, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen photo
Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico
Margot Sanger-Katz photo
Margot Sanger-Katz The New York Times

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Participation in the nation’s food stamp program is down, with children representing nearly half of those losing benefits, according to a recent analysis. Some states are showing much larger drops than others. The GOP-passed budget law imposes penalties for errors, leaving states spooked about the possibility of losing funding 鈥 and suggesting problems ahead for the full rollout of Medicaid work requirements next year.
  • President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown is increasing pressure on the health system, in particular on the availability of home-based and long-term care workers 鈥 including those who fill critical roles such as serving food and driving patients to medical appointments. Research has shown that the presence of immigrant workers has a protective effect on the health of their charges.
  • Responding to revelations that doctors are reaping large payouts from the surprise-billing arbitration process, the Trump administration this week released information showing a spike in such payments and noted the need for changes to the law 鈥 without specifying what kind of changes. That law, the No Surprises Act, took effect in 2022 with the primary intention of shielding patients from big bills when they unknowingly receive out-of-network medical care.
  • In other news, the Pentagon is imposing testosterone tests for many service members. The cyclospora outbreak continues. And the Trump administration announced plans to withhold Medicaid funding from California and Minnesota over accusations of fraud.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, as part of the “How Would You Fix It?” series.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “,” by Arijeta Lajka, Isabelle Niu, Mark Boyer, James Surdam, and Dan T. Peters.

Joanne Kenen: Stat’s “,” by Adam Feuerstein.

Margot Sanger-Katz: NPR’s “,” by Andrea Hsu.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Roll Call’s “,” by Ariel Cohen.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

click to open the transcript Transcript: A Shrinking Safety Net

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from 吃瓜不打烊 and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 吃瓜不打烊. 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 4陆 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 鈥 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 吃瓜不打烊 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 鈥  

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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 like not, sort of, what the “Bro World” says is low 鈥 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 鈥 like with many other supplements, but this is a little bit more complex 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 we don’t really know how many people are affected, and we also don’t know how many people are currently infected and 鈥 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 鈥 there’s been political contacts. Taylor Farms has contacted the White House. 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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. 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥  

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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 you have a sophisticated audience, so I’ll speak this way鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 the wife’s pregnant, or the son, you know, gets in a car wreck 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 and we have some other provisions in there that protect the patient, a lot of provisions 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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. 

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Taylor Cook Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From 吃瓜不打烊” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

吃瓜不打烊 is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

]]> 2263410 Violence Repeatedly Erupts at Dementia Care Facilities Despite Warnings, Inspections Show /health-industry/dementia-violence-assaults-nursing-homes-assisted-living-california-minnesota-virginia/ Mon, 20 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2257718 Sam Ato Timaloa, a paroled sex offender who also served time for attempted murder, had dementia and an acute intolerance of noise — especially from roommates at Sunrise Post Acute, a nursing home in Banning, California. Over four months in 2025, a state investigative report found, Sunrise switched Timaloa’s room eight times, the last into one occupied by Attilio Cecchetto, 92, a retired tile installer whose dementia led him to frequently moan, mumble, and yell.

Overnight, a nurse aide walked into their room and saw blood splattered on the floor, walls, and ceiling, according to a grand jury transcript. Cecchetto’s face “looked twisted and smashed,” the aide testified. A Banning city police officer testified that Timaloa, 77, told him that he had punched Cecchetto twice.

“He just kept saying that Attilio was being too loud: ‘He talks too much,’” the officer said.

Two men, sitting at a table and wearing hats, smile as their picture is taken
Attilio Cecchetto (right), a retired tile installer pictured with his son Gino, often moaned or yelled, a symptom of his dementia. His California nursing home assigned him a new roommate, a former convict whose dementia made him react strongly to noise, a state report said. (Marco Cecchetto)

Cecchetto died two days later from blunt force facial trauma.

“You get placed in a facility like this to be taken care of, not to be murdered,” one of his sons, Gino Cecchetto, said in an interview. “This was completely preventable at many different points.”

Timaloa pleaded not guilty to assault. The charges were later upgraded to murder, and a judge ordered a mental health evaluation. The judge will rule as early as August on whether Timaloa is competent to stand trial.

PACS Group, the nursing home chain that owns Sunrise, denied negligence. “We strive to provide quality care to everyone we serve, and our hearts continue to go out to the Cecchetto family for their loss,” PACS spokesman Brooks Stevenson said in an email.

In nursing homes primarily occupied by impoverished people as well as posh assisted living facilities that cost upward of $10,000 a month, agitated residents have shoved, punched, bit, and kicked others. They have wielded canes, walkers, pens, a plate, a mop stick, a shoe, a belt buckle, and even the footrests of wheelchairs as weapons, federal inspection reports show.

How often these altercations take place nationwide is unknown, but an of 14 assisted living facilities in New York state led by Cornell University researchers estimated 1 in 7 residents experienced aggression within a month, including verbal, physical, or sexual acts. Their of 10 New York state nursing homes estimated 1 in 5 residents experienced an altercation in a month. Researchers have found that these assailants are to have dementia.

The diseases that cause dementia can impair brain circuits involved in impulse control and threat perception, raising the risk of aggressive behavior. Residents with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias constitute more than living in these settings, many of which include specialized units.

Often, altercations involving a resident with dementia erupt after danger signals are missed or ineffectively addressed, according to a 吃瓜不打烊 examination of court records, police reports, and state and federal inspection reports.

Since the start of 2024, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has faulted nursing homes at least 700 times for failing to protect residents from physical, sexual, or verbal abuse by other residents, CMS inspection reports show. The federal records do not include assisted living facilities, which are regulated by states.

In the first three months of this year, CMS cited nursing homes more often for resident-to-resident abuse than for any other type of abuse, neglect, or exploitation, including abuse by employees, the reports show.

Resident Clashes Are the Most Frequent Type of Nursing Home Abuse or Neglect (Bar Chart)

Resident Clashes Are the Most Frequent Type of Nursing Home Abuse or Neglect

The federal government requires that nursing homes keep all residents free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property, and exploitation. In the first three months of 2026, federal inspectors cited nursing homes over resident-to-resident altercations more often than other types of mistreatment.

Note: 吃瓜不打烊 analyzed inspection citations for violations of the federal requirement to keep residents free of abuse, neglect, or exploitation. Only citations for actual harm or immediate jeopardy were examined. The analysis included inspection reports from January 2026 through March 2026.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services nursing home <a href=” statement of deficiencies</a>, May 2026

The long-term care industry says not every clash can be averted. Presbyterian Homes & Services, a nonprofit Christian chain of senior living facilities, said in a statement: “Caring for individuals living with advanced dementia is complex, and behaviors can change in ways that are difficult to fully predict or prevent, even with clinical interventions in place.”

Eilon Caspi, a and researcher who studies resident-on-resident altercations, said that usually there is a specific unmet need that precedes an altercation. “In the vast majority of incidents,” he said, “there are warning signs in the months, weeks, days, hours, and sometimes minutes and seconds prior.”

Fertile Battlegrounds

One about Alzheimer’s, the most common dementia disease, holds that as the brain’s networks deteriorate, the balance shifts between the prefrontal cortex, which helps govern judgment and self-control, and limbic regions including the amygdala, which helps process fear and threat responses.

As cognition clouds, people lose the ability to understand what is happening around them and to put distress into words, researchers say. Pain, infection, medication side effects, and other physical and emotional distresses through shouting, intimidating gestures, kicking, pushing, or punching. Long-term care facilities can be triggering environments, with intimate care often delivered by a changing stream of aides whom residents can’t recognize. Amid noise, close quarters, and rigid routines, interactions become flash points.

“You don’t feel safe, because you don’t know these strangers who are coming in and taking off your clothes,” said Al Power, a geriatrician and an advocate for alternative models of care for people with cognitive issues. “These things will be distressing to anybody.”

The Cornell researchers found verbal altercations were the most common type of aggressive interaction but estimated 4% of assisted living residents and 5% of nursing home residents in their studies experienced physical assaults in a month.

Another Cornell study found that Connecticut police were called to nursing homes for more often than allegations of staff abuse, theft, and residents wandering away without supervision combined. A national analysis of survey data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calculated in assisted living facilities engaged in physical aggression or abuse toward other residents or staff members.

Many of the physical aggressions 吃瓜不打烊 identified in CMS inspection reports were perpetrated by residents with diagnoses of dementia, schizophrenia, or other cognitive disorders. In some physical altercations, both residents were aggressors, while other fights were one-sided. Sometimes the residents were roommates.

Laura Mosqueda, a geriatrician at the University of Southern California’s Keck Medicine in Los Angeles and a senior adviser to the National Center on Elder Abuse, said: “What worries me is that we just end up blaming two people who have either cognitive impairment or severe, uncontrolled mental health issues, when they’re supposed to be in an environment where people are safe.”

‘Only a Matter of Time’

Gladys Lynch, a retired department store accountant, transferred into the memory care unit at Harbor Crossing in White Bear Lake, Minnesota, in September 2025. Her monthly cost was more than $10,000, according to an invoice provided by the family.

One of Lynch’s daughters, Rebecca Norton, installed web cameras in her room and often saw another resident inside. “Every day I looked at it, this woman would be walking into my mom’s room, harassing her, digging through her things, using her bathroom, yelling at her,” Norton said in an interview. She informed Harbor Crossing’s administration, and the facility said it would start locking her mother’s door.

Norton emailed a Harbor Crossing administrator a list of issues with her mother’s care. “My biggest concern,” she wrote, was that her mother’s door was not consistently locked and the webcam showed the woman had again entered, rummaged through the bathroom, and taken a couple of adult diapers.

A woman wearing a white shirt holds a photo of a woman wearing black gloves, a red hat and a red and green scarf
A Minnesota investigative report determined Gladys Lynch’s memory care home failed to protect her from another resident known for behaving aggressively. “My mom deserved better than what they gave her,” says her daughter Rebecca Norton, seen here holding a photo of Lynch. The home has asked the state to reconsider its findings. (Liam James Doyle for 吃瓜不打烊)

Unknown to Norton, Harbor aides had raised concerns about the other resident, who like Lynch was new to Harbor Crossing’s memory unit, according to a . Diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, severe dementia with agitation, depression, and anxiety, the woman was confused, had difficulty communicating her needs, and hit aides.

Aides repeatedly reported that the woman had “ongoing aggression, entered other residents’ apartments, invaded others’ personal space, and was difficult to redirect,” the health report said. They said medications had been ineffective and pressed for new ones. The report said one nurse told the woman’s doctor it was “only a matter of time before” she “hurts another resident.”

Captured on Camera

On the last day of September, she entered Lynch’s room and resisted leaving, the state report said. The next morning, she reappeared. Video of the incident was described in the police and state reports and reviewed by 吃瓜不打烊. It shows Lynch guided the woman out and appeared to attempt to lock the door, but the woman opened it and returned once more.

The woman declared it was her house, went into Lynch’s bathroom, used the toilet, and then returned to the room Lynch was in. Lynch can be seen repeatedly pressing the alert pendant around her neck to signal nurses for help.

The video shows the woman was almost out of her apartment door when she attempted to touch an object near the door. Lynch put her hands up to block her. The woman slapped at her hands and said, “I’m going to kill you if you don’t quit it.” She pushed Lynch, who fell, her head hitting the floor and blood seeping out.

Aides arrived 13 minutes after she had initially pressed her pendant, the state report said. Lynch suffered a brain hemorrhage and fractures to her eye socket and ribs, according to the state report. She died in the hospital five days later at age 96; the medical examiner’s office declared it a homicide.

Norton said her mother was kind and pleasant and never combative. “My mom deserved better than what they gave her,” she said.

Photos and handwritten notes are displayed on a tabletop
Gladys Lynch was a department store accountant and raised three daughters before developing dementia. Here her daughter Rebecca Norton shows a collection of Lynch’s personal letters and photographs at Norton’s home in Hugo, Minnesota. (Liam James Doyle for 吃瓜不打烊)

Prosecutors declined to bring charges, according to the police report. The Harbor Crossing was responsible for neglect because it was aware the woman “exhibited violent and aggressive behaviors” and yet had failed to put in place effective interventions. Harbor Crossing has requested the state reconsider its findings.

In June, Suzanne Scheller, the attorney for Lynch’s family, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Presbyterian Homes, which owns Harbor Crossing.

Presbyterian said in a statement: “We are deeply saddened by the loss of Ms. Lynch, and our thoughts remain with her family and all those impacted.” It declined to comment further on the incident or the lawsuit.

An image of the exterior of a three-story building, with a sign that says "Harbor Crossing"
Before Gladys Lynch’s death, employees at the memory care unit at Harbor Crossing in White Bear Lake, Minnesota, struggled to keep the resident who fatally assaulted her from behaving aggressively and wandering into other residents’ rooms, a state report found. Harbor Crossing has asked the state to reconsider its findings of negligence. (Liam James Doyle for 吃瓜不打烊)

Preventive Tactics

Geriatricians, researchers, and resident advocates say long-term care homes should to reduce the risk of altercations, including closer supervision of residents at high risk, relocating them closer to nursing stations, separating residents with repeated conflicts, and adjusting roommate assignments or seating in shared spaces.

Each resident should have a care plan, and homes should train staff to be alert to a resident’s triggers and intervene quickly, dementia specialists say. Organized activities are essential to keep residents occupied and engaged. Antipsychotics and other psychotropic medications are often prescribed, but they can increase the risk of falls, strokes, and .

An aide can be assigned to watch a particularly challenging resident one-on-one, but many places lack enough staff for protracted, dedicated supervision. Some assisted living facilities will tell a resident’s family they must hire a personal aide, who can cost thousands of dollars extra each month. In extreme situations, facilities might send a resident to an emergency room for evaluation or to a psychiatric hospital, or .

Camille Russell, who served as Kansas’ long-term care ombudsman until 2024, said she observed nurses and aides were often “woefully undertrained” in basic elements of dementia care.

“We’ve gotten too far away from making decisions that are caring decisions,” Russell said. “There has to be a balance, and the balance has gotten too far to the profit side.”

A Debilitating Kick

Many physical altercations between residents result in a scratch or a bruise, but nonfatal scraps can leave permanent damage on deeply frail residents.

Linda Twiddy’s first weeks in a Chesapeake, Virginia, memory care unit in August 2024 were happy, her daughter, Barbara Howerin, said in a May interview. Twiddy, a former church secretary with vascular dementia, sang along with a visiting church choir, decorated pumpkins, and visited a cat cafe. The facility, The Vero at Chesapeake, charged Twiddy a one-time $6,825 move-in fee and monthly charges of $7,475, according to the lease.

Seven weeks after Twiddy started living there, a nurse called Howerin. She told her that her mother had been kicked in an altercation with another resident and was being sent to the hospital.

When Howerin arrived at the hospital, she was shocked by the extent of the injury. “It was like 10 inches long by 6 inches wide, the whole front of her shin,” she said. “The calf was just like dangling down.”

According to an internal facility incident report the family obtained, an aide heard Twiddy scream for help and raced over to see a male resident with dementia trying to hit Twiddy as she sat on the floor in “a pool of blood.” The report said, “Linda was screaming get him away from me, he pushed and kicked me.”

The man had prior episodes of aggression, according to documents Twiddy’s family obtained in a lawsuit they brought against The Vero in Chesapeake Circuit Court. At his previous facility, a progress note from 2023 stated, he was “becoming very aggressive in tone and actions to residents and staff.” He “grabbed another resident by the wrists and pushed her,” according to the note. He was sent to an emergency room for evaluation of agitation, according to a hospital report. It did not make clear whether he was discharged back to the facility or elsewhere.

Agitation Tied to Pain

The male resident’s medical records at The Vero said he was diagnosed with late-onset Alzheimer’s disease, agitation, and anxiety, according to his doctor’s deposition. He had chronic pain in his back and trouble sleeping. He could answer simple yes-or-no questions but had trouble providing more extensive answers and couldn’t communicate that he was in pain, she testified. His behavioral changes usually occurred when he had a urinary tract infection, the doctor said.

When he was agitated, aides could sometimes calm him by turning on the television so he could watch his beloved New England Patriots, one aide testified in a deposition. A former aide said she tried to avoid dealing with him altogether. “If you go up to him and he was agitated, he’d reach out to try to grab you,” she testified. “If he had that cane, he would swing that cane or he would punch at you.”

In a court filing, The Vero denied allegations by Twiddy’s family that it should have protected residents from him. The filing said The Vero complied with all standards of care and that any injuries Twiddy sustained “were caused by her own negligence” or acts of others.

In their investigation of the incident, Virginia regulators alleged The Vero had for the health, safety, and well-being of its residents. The inspection report said The Vero pledged to appropriately staff the memory care unit based on the number of residents and to ensure someone completed rounds at least every two hours during sleeping hours.

Twiddy underwent three surgeries at the hospital for her leg, including a skin graft, then spent a month in rehabilitation. “She was never able to walk again,” her son, Doug Twiddy, said in a May interview.

The family moved Linda Twiddy to a different memory care facility where the nursing station had a clear view of all the rooms. She lived there until her death earlier this year.

The lawsuit was settled on confidential terms in early June. Carlton Bennett, the family’s attorney, declined to comment. In an email, Lauren Rogers, a spokesperson for Sinceri Senior Living, which operates The Vero, said the company was pleased the legal case had been resolved but could not comment further, citing confidentiality and patient privacy.

“The Vero at Chesapeake is committed to providing a caring, supportive environment where resident health, safety, and well-being remain our highest priorities,” she said.

A History of Violence

After Attilio Cecchetto was fatally bludgeoned at Sunrise Post Acute, his adult children and their attorney, Jody Moore, discovered disturbing details about Sam Ato Timaloa. He had been imprisoned in 1999 after being convicted of raping an underage girl and sentenced in 2008 to 24 years in prison for attempted murder involving domestic violence, according to Riverside County court records. His public defender declined to comment.

Cecchetto’s sons, Moore, and her colleagues at Moore Hutchins Moore also learned more about the home’s owner, PACS Group, a publicly traded company with more than 300 long-term care facilities. Last year, PACS earned $191 million on revenue of $5.3 billion, according to its .

In the Cecchettos and their father’s widow filed against PACS, they accused the company’s founders, Jason Murray and Mark Hancock, of draining resources from their nursing homes to pay for the chain’s expansion and swell their personal wealth.

The two had earned more than $650 million through stock sales since taking the company public and bought two private luxury jets, according to the lawsuit and securities filings. PACS has also purchased corporate sponsorships for Utah sports teams even though it owns no nursing homes in the state, the lawsuit said.

A gurney with blood and a blue medical glove on the mattress
Attilio Cecchetto was allegedly beaten by his roommate at a California nursing home. Police photographed Cecchetto’s bed after he was taken to a hospital. He died two days later. (Banning Police Department)

California regulators fined Sunrise $120,000 for Cecchetto and for not taking Timaloa’s articulated dislike of noise into account when assigning rooms. Medicare issued its own $62,810 fine.

In responding to the Cecchettos’ lawsuit, PACS denied negligence for his death and alleged he “failed to exercise ordinary care on his own behalf for his own safety.” It has sued to overturn the $120,000 state fine, saying it was issued too late and that Sunrise “did what might reasonably be expected of a long-term health care facility licensee acting under similar circumstances” to comply with state rules.

The Cecchettos’ lawsuit asks for a judge to impose robust procedures PACS homes must follow for admissions, staff training, room changes, and the reporting of altercations between residents. The suit asks for a court-appointed monitor to oversee compliance. In its written statement to 吃瓜不打烊, PACS said “important context” would come out during the process and declined further comment.

In an interview, Cecchetto’s three sons, Dino, Gino, and Marco Cecchetto, described their father’s life. He spent his childhood on a farm in Italy, growing up under Benito Mussolini. After World War II he moved to Canada, where he learned to tile and lay marble and terrazzo, a decorative flooring material made of chips of stone, glass, or other materials embedded in cement or resin. He relocated to California in the early 1960s, became naturalized, and worked as a tile journeyman and a contractor for decades.

“We don’t want this to happen to somebody again,” Gino Cecchetto said. “With the life he led, he deserved a quiet, dignified death. Instead, he ended his life in pain and fear.”

Data Methodology

吃瓜不打烊’ analysis of federal nursing home inspection reports focused on citations for violations of stating that each resident has the right to be free of abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

The analysis looked at the most serious levels of citations, those in which inspectors determined that one or more residents had been harmed, or that the facility’s actions caused — or were likely to place residents in immediate jeopardy of — serious injury, harm, impairment, or death. We reviewed the reports since January 2024 and tallied those that explicitly described resident-to-resident altercations.

We conducted a more granular analysis of a subset of the inspection reports from January through March 2026 involving harm or immediate jeopardy. Each report was reviewed and categorized by the type of abuse, neglect, or exploitation.

吃瓜不打烊 is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

]]> 2257718 States Start Their Medicaid Cuts /podcast/what-the-health-455-medicaid-cuts-state-budgets-confirmation-hearings-july-16-2026/ Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:40:00 +0000 /?p=2260181&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2260181 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner 吃瓜不打烊 Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 吃瓜不打烊’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

When Republicans passed their big budget bill in 2025, they scheduled many of the Medicaid reductions to take effect in 2027, after the 2026 midterm elections. But in anticipation of getting less money from Washington come January, many states are already cutting their Medicaid programs, making the issue more relevant for voters in November.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 吃瓜不打烊, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law.

Panelists

Anna Edney photo
Anna Edney Bloomberg News
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico
Sandhya Raman photo
Sandhya Raman Bloomberg Law

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Congress has no clear path to passing its annual spending bills, with the issue of Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood again threatening to gum up the works. Meanwhile, senators this week screened President Donald Trump’s newest health nominees: Erica Schwartz to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Sean Kaufman to lead the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response. But Schwartz undermined some senators’ confidence by claiming ignorance about a number of Trump administration funding cuts, and Kaufman faced fiery questions over a deleted social media post about the hepatitis B vaccine.
  • The confirmation hearing for Todd Blanche as attorney general also trod into health territory, with Blanche saying he would review potentially using the 19th-century Comstock Act to block distribution of medication abortion drugs by mail. Such a move could block not only mifepristone but also misoprostol, which is the second abortion medication in the two-drug regimen 鈥 and is also used for non-abortion purposes. Trump promised on the campaign trail not to invoke the Comstock Act.
  • In politics, Maine Democrats are cautiously eying the abortion stances of a replacement Senate candidate, hoping to pin the rollback of abortion rights on Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican incumbent. And Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is calling for an investigation into whether Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. violated a federal law aimed at preventing electioneering by officials when he made recent calls to persuade some candidates to drop out of congressional races.
  • And the gastrointestinal infection cyclosporiasis is sickening more Americans and drawing attention to the Trump administration’s actions undermining food safety surveillance programs. The cyclospora parasite was once subject to mandatory reporting but has since been made voluntary, challenging efforts to track the source and contain the outbreak.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Elizabeth Mitchell of the Purchaser Business Group on Health as part of the “How Would You Fix It?” series.

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

Julie Rovner: Mississippi Today’s “,” by Sophia Paffenroth and Joanne Kenen.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “,” by Anna Edney.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “,” by Amanda Chu and Robert King.

Sandhya Raman: Bloomberg Law’s “,” by Nyah Phengsitthy and Skye Witley.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • Stat’s “,” by O. Rose Broderick.
  • NPR’s “,” by Selina Simmons-Duffin.
  • Stat’s “” by Anil Oza and J. Emory Parker.
  • Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
Click to open the transcript Transcript: States Start Their Medicaid Cuts

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from 吃瓜不打烊 and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 吃瓜不打烊. 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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 

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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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. 鈥 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. 鈥 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 鈥 

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 鈥 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 鈥 

Rovner: They are facilitating 鈥 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 鈥  

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 鈥 like with the attorney general, “in the mix” 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 and not the kind that is just set up as a feeder into the health system 鈥 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 鈥 you know, “Medicare for All” 鈥 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 鈥 

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 鈥 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 鈥 

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 鈥 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 鈥 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 鈥 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. 

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From 吃瓜不打烊” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

吃瓜不打烊 is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

]]> 2260181