���ϳԹ���

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for ���ϳԹ��� News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, September 26th, 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 teleconference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello hello. 

Rovner: Alice Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning. 

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Schools of Public Health and Nursing, and Politico. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Big props to Emmarie for hosting last week while I was in Ann Arbor at the Michigan Daily reunion. I had a great time, but I brought back an unwelcome souvenir in the form of my first confirmed case of covid. So apologies in advance for the state of my voice. Now, let us get to the news. 

To steal a headline from Politico earlier this week, Congress lined up in punt formation, passing a continuing resolution that will require them to come back after the election for what could be a busy lame-duck session. Somebody remind us who wanted this outcome — the Let’s only do the CR through December — and who wanted it to go into next year? Come on, easy question. 

Ollstein: Well, the kicking it to right before Christmas, which sets up the stage for what we’ve seen so many times before where it just gets jammed through and people who have objections, generally conservatives who want to slash spending and add on a bunch of policy riders, which they tried and failed to do this time, will have a weaker base to operate from, given that everybody wants to go home for the holidays. 

And so once again, we’re seeing people mad at Speaker Mike Johnson, who, again and again, even though he is fully from the hard right of the party, is not catering to their priorities as much as they would like. And so obviously his speakership depends on which party wins control of the House in November. But I think even if Republicans win control, I’m already starting to hear rumblings of throwing him overboard and replacing with someone who they think will cater to them more. 

Rovner: It was so déjà vu all over again, which is, last year, as we approached October 1st and the Republican House could not pass any kind of a continuing resolution with just Republican votes, that eventually Kevin McCarthy had to turn to Democrats, and that’s how he lost his job. 

And yet that’s exactly what happened here, which is the Republicans wanted to go until March, I guess on the theory that they were betting that they would be in full power in March and would have a chance to do a lot more of what they wanted in terms of spending bills than if they just wait and do it in the lame duck. And yet the speaker doesn’t seem to be paying the same price that Kevin McCarthy did. Is that just acknowledgment on the part of the right wing that they can’t do anything with their teeny tiny majority? 

Kenen: I mean, yes, it’s pretty stalemate-y up there right now, and nobody is certain who’s going to control the House, and at this point it is likely to still be a narrow majority, whoever wins it. I mean, they’re six weeks out. Things can change. This has been an insane year. Nobody’s making predictions, but it looks like pretty divided. 

Rovner: Whoever wins isn’t going to win by much. 

Kenen: We have a pretty divided country, and the likelihood is we’re going to have a pretty divided House. So the dynamic will change depending on who’s in charge, but the Republicans are more fractious and divided right now than the Democrats, although that’s really easy to change, and even the Democrats have gone through their rambunctious divided phases, too. 

Everybody just doesn’t know what’s next, because the top of the ticket is going to change things. So the more months you push out, the less money you’re spending. If you control the CR, if you make the CR, the continuing resolution, meaning current spending levels for six months, it’s a win for the Republicans in many ways because they’re keeping — they’re preventing increases. But in terms of policy, both sides get some of the things they want extended. 

I don’t know if you can call it a productive stalemate. That’s sort of a contradiction in terms. But I mean, for the Republicans, longer, it would’ve been better. 

Rovner: So now that we know that Congress has to come back after the election, there’s obviously things that they are able to do other than just the spending bills. And I’m thinking of a lot of unfinished health legislation like the telehealth extensions and the constant, Are we going to do something about pharmacy benefit managers? which has been this bipartisan issue that they never seem to solve. 

I would remind the listeners that in 2022 after the election, that’s when they finally did the surprise-bills legislation. So doing big things in the lame duck is not unheard of. Is there anything any of you are particularly looking toward this time that might actually happen? 

Kenen: It’s something like telehealth because it’s not that controversial. I mean, it’s easiest to get something through in — in lame duck, you want to get some things off the plate that are either overdue and need to be taken care of or that you don’t want hanging over you next year. So telehealth, which is, there are questions about does it save money, et cetera, and what form it should take and how some of it should be regulated, so forth, but the basic idea, telehealth is popular. Something like that, yes. 

PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] is a lot harder, where there is some agreement on the need to do something but there’s less agreement about what that something should look like. So although I’m not personally covering that day-to-day basis, in any sense, that’s harder. The more consensus there is and the fewer moving parts, the easier it is to do, as a rule. I mean, sometimes they do get something big done in lame duck, but a lot of it gets kicked. 

And also there’s a huge, huge, huge tax fight next year, and it’s going to require a lot of wheeling and dealing no matter what shape it takes, because it’s expiring and things have to be either renewed or allowed to die. So that’s just going to be mega-enormous, and a lot of this stuff become bargaining chips in that larger debate, and that becomes the dominant domestic policy vehicle next year. 

Rovner: Well, even before we get to the lame duck, we have to finish the campaign, which is only a month and a half away. And we are still talking about the Affordable Care Act in an election where it was not going to be a campaign issue, everybody said. 

I know that you talked last week about all the specifics of the ways former President [Donald] Trump actually tried to sabotage rather than save the ACA and all the ways what [Sen.] JD Vance was talking about on “Meet the Press,” dividing up risk pools once again so sicker people would no longer be subsidized by the less sick, would turn the clock back to the individual insurance market as it existed before 2014. 

Now the Democrats in the Senate are taking one last shot at the ACA with a bill — that will fail — to renew the expanded marketplace subsidies, so it will expire unless Congress acts by the end of next year. Might this last effort have some impact in the swing states, or is it just a lot more campaign noise? 

Weber: I think this is a lot of campaign noise, to some extent. I mean, I think Democrats are clear in polling shows that the average American voter does trust Democrats more than Republicans on ACA and health issues and health insurance. So I do think this is a messaging push in part by the Dems to speak to voters. As we all know, this is a turnout election, so I think anything that they feel like voters care about, which often has to do with their pocketbook, I think they’re going to lead the drum on. 

I do think it’s interesting again that JD Vance really is reiterating a talking point that Donald Trump used in the debate, which is that he said he had improved the ACA and many experts would say it was very much the opposite. Again, I think I did this on the last podcast, but let me reread this because I think it’s important as a fact check. Most of the Trump administration’s ACA-related actions included cutting the program. 

So they reduced millions of dollars of funding for marketing and enrollment, and he repeatedly tried to overturn the law. So I think some of the messaging around this is getting convoluted, in part because it’s an election year, to your point. 

Rovner: And because it’s popular. Because Nancy Pelosi was right. When people found out what was in it, it got popular. 

Kenen: I think there are two things. I mean, I agree with what Lauren just said, but the Democrats came out in favor of extending the subsidies yesterday, which not only changed the eligibility criteria — more people, more higher up the middle-income chain could get subsidized — but also everybody in it had extra benefits for it, including people who were already covered. But it’s better for them. 

The idea that Republicans are going to try to take that benefit away from people six weeks before an election — they were probably not. How they handle it next year? I was really surprised by the silence yesterday. The Democrats rolled out their plans for renewing this, and I didn’t see a lot of Republican pushback. So they were really quiet about it. 

The other thing that struck me is that JD Vance went on on this risk pool thing last week on “Meet the Press” and in Raleigh, in North Carolina, and then there was pushback. And on that particular point, there’s been silence for the last week. I don’t think he stuck his neck out on that one again. Who knows what next week will bring, but it didn’t continue, and nor did I hear other Republicans saying, “Yeah, let’s go do that.”&�Բ�����;

So if that was a trial balloon, it was somewhat leaden. So I think that we really don’t know how the subsidy fight is going to play —how or when the subsidy fight will play out. It’s really, you know, we’ve all said many times before, once you give people the benefit, it’s really hard to take it away. And— 

Rovner: Although we did that with the Child Tax Credit. We gave everybody the Child Tax Credit and then took it away. 

Kenen: We did, and other things that were temporary during the pandemic, and we’ll just see how many of those temporary things do in fact go away. I mean, does it come back next year? I mean, now SALT [state and local taxes], right? I mean, Trump backed backing what’s called SALT. It’s a limit based on mortgage and state taxes. And now he’s talking about he’s going to rescue that like it wasn’t him who … So it all comes around again. 

Ollstein: Yeah, and I think what you’re seeing is both sides drawing the battle lines for next year and signaling what the core arguments are going to be. And so you had Democrats come out with their bill this year, and you are hearing a lot of Republicans in hearings and speeches sprinkled around talking about claiming that there is a huge amount of fraud in the ACA marketplaces and linking that to the subsidies and saying, Why would we continue to subsidize something where there’s all this fraud? 

I think that is going to be a big argument on that side next year for not extending the subsidies. So I would urge people to keep listening for that. 

Kenen: And that came from a conservative think tank consulting firm in which they blame — I actually happened to read it this week, so it’s fresh in my mind. They’re blaming the fraud actually on brokers rather than individuals. They’re saying that people are— 

Rovner: That was an investigation uncovered by my colleague Julie Appleby here at ���ϳԹ��� News. 

Kenen: Right. And they ran with that, and they were talking about the low end of the income bracket. And I’m waiting for the sequel in which the people at the upper end of the income bracket, which is the law that’s expiring that we’re talking about, it’s pretty — I’m waiting for the sequel Paragon paper saying, See, it’s even worse at the upper end, and that’s easy to get rid of because it’ll expire. That’s the argument of the day, but there’s so many flavors of anti-ACA arguments that we’ve just scratched the beginning of this round. 

Rovner: Exactly. It’ll come back. All right, well, let us move on to abortion. Vice President [Kamala] Harris said in an interview this week that she would support ending the filibuster in the Senate in order to restore abortion rights with 51 rather than 60 votes, which has apparently cost her the endorsement of retiring West Virginia Democratic senator Joe Manchin. Was Manchin’s endorsement even that valuable to her? It’s not like West Virginia was going to vote Democratic anytime soon. 

Ollstein: The Harris campaign has really leaned into emphasizing endorsements she’s been getting from across the ideological spectrum, from as far right as Dick Cheney to more centrist types and economists and national security people. And so she’s clearly trying to brandish her centrist credentials. So I guess in that sense. But like you said, Democrats are not going to win West Virginia, and so I think also he was getting upset about something, a position she’s been voicing for years now. This is not new, this question of the filibuster. So I doubt it’ll have much of an impact. 

Kenen: It’s a real careful-what-you-wish for, because if the Senate goes Republican, which at the moment looks like it’s going to be a narrow Republican majority. We don’t know until November. There’s always a surprise. There’s always a surprise. 

Rovner: You’re right. It’s more likely that it’ll be 51-49 Republican than it’ll be 51-49 Democrat. 

Kenen: Right. So if the filibuster is going to be abolished, it would be to advance Republican conservative goals. So it’s sort of dangerous territory to walk into right now. The Democrats have played with abolishing the filibuster. They wanted to do it for voting rights issues, and they decided not to go there on legislation. They did modify it a number of years ago on judicial appointments and other Cabinet appointments and so forth. 

But legislative, the filibuster still exists. It’s very, very, very heavily used, much more than historically, by both parties, whoever is in power. So changing it would be a really radical change in how things move or don’t move. So it could have a long tail, that remark. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, Senate Democrats, who don’t have the votes now, as we know, to abolish the filibuster, because Manchin is among their one-vote margin, are continuing to press Republicans on reproductive rights issues that they think work in their favor. Earlier this week, the Senate Finance Committee had a hearing on EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. 

It’s a federal law that’s supposed to guarantee women access to abortion in medical emergencies. But in practice, it has not. Last week we talked about the on women whose pregnancy complications actually did lead to their death. Is this something that’s breaking through as a campaign issue? I do feel like we’ve seen so much more on pregnancy complications and the health impacts of those rather than just, straight, women who want to end pregnancies. 

Ollstein: I just got back from Michigan, and I would say it is having a big impact. I was really interested in how Democrats were trying to campaign on abortion in Michigan, even now that the state does have protections. And I heard over and over from voters and candidates that Trump’s leave-it-to-the-states stance, they really are still energized by that. 

They’re not mollified by that, because they are pointing to stories like the ones that just came out in Georgia and saying: See? That’s what happens when you leave it to the states. We may be fine, but we care about more than just ourselves. We’re going to vote based on our concern for women in other states as well. I found that really interesting to be hearing out in the field. 

Rovner: Lauren, you want to add something? 

Weber: Yeah, I just was going to add, I mean, Harris obviously highlighted this effectively in the debate, and I think that has helped bring it to more of a crescendo, but there’s obviously been a lot of reporting for months on this. I mean, the AP has talked about — I think they did a count. It’s over 100 women, at least, have been denied emergency care due to laws like this. 

I’d be curious — and it sounds like Alice has this, for voters that are in swing states, that it’s breaking through to — I’d be curious how much this has siloed to people that are outraged by this, and so we’re hearing it and how much it’s skidding down to those that — the Republican talking points have been that these are rare, they don’t really happen, it’s a liberal push to get against this. I’d be curious how much it’s breaking through to folks of all stripes. 

Rovner: I watched a big chunk of the Finance Committee hearing, and the anti-abortion witnesses were saying this is not how it worked, that ectopic pregnancies, pregnancy complications do not qualify as abortions, and basically just denying that it happened. They’re sitting here. They’re sitting at the witness table with the woman to whom this happened and saying that this does not happen. So it was a little bit difficult, shall we say. Go ahead. 

Ollstein: Well, and the pushback I’ve been hearing from the anti-abortion side is less that it’s not happening and more that it’s not the fault of the laws, it’s the fault of the doctors. They are claiming that doctors are either intentionally withholding care or are wrong in their interpretation of the law and are withholding care for that reason. They’re pointing to the letter of the law and saying, Oh no, it doesn’t say let women bleed out and die, so clearly it’s fine. They’re not really grappling with the chilling effect it’s having. 

Rovner: Although we do know that in Texas when, I think it was Amanda Zurawski, there was — no, it was Kate Cox who actually got a judge to say she should be allowed to have an abortion. Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, then threatened the hospital, said, If you do this, I will come after you. On the one hand, they say, Well, that’s not what the law says. On the other hand, there are people saying, Yeah, that’s what the law says. 

Turning to the Republicans, Donald Trump had some more things to say about abortion this week, including that he is women’s protector and that women will, and I quote, “be happy, healthy, confident, and free. You will no longer be thinking about abortion.”&�Բ�����;

If that wasn’t enough, in Ohio, Bernie Moreno, who’s the Republican running against Senator Sherrod Brown in the otherwise very red state, said the other night that he doesn’t understand why women over 50 would even care about abortion, since, he suggested, they can no longer get pregnant, which isn’t correct, by the way. But who exactly are the voters that Trump and Moreno are going after here? 

Kenen: Moreno is already lagging in the polls. Sherrod Brown is a pretty liberal Democrat in an increasingly conservative state, and he’s also very popular. And it looks like he’s on a glide path to win, and this probably made it easier for him to win. And there are men who support abortion rights, and there are women who oppose. 

I mean, this country’s divided on abortion, but it’s not age-related. It’s not like if you’re under 50 and female, you care about abortion and nobody else does. I mean, that’s really not the way it works. Fifty-year-old and older women, some of whom had abortions when they were younger, would want that right for younger women, including their daughters. It’s not a quadrant. It’s not like, oh, only this segment cares. 

Ollstein: It’s interesting that it comes amid Democrats really working to broaden who they consider an abortion voter, like I said, trying to encourage people in states where abortion is protected to vote for people in states where abortion is not protected and doing more outreach to men and saying this is a family issue, not just a women’s issue, and this affects everybody. 

So as you see Democrats trying to broaden their outreach and get more people to care, you have Bernie Moreno saying the opposite, saying, I don’t understand why people care when it doesn’t affect their own particular life and situation. 

Rovner: Although I will say, having listened to a bunch of interviews with undecided voters in the last couple of weeks, I do hear more and more voters saying: Well, such and such candidate, and this is on both sides, is not speaking to me. It’s almost like this election is about them individually and not about society writ large. 

And I do hear that on both sides, and it’s kind of a surprise. And I don’t know, is that maybe where Moreno is coming from? Maybe that’s what he’s hearing, too, from his pollsters? It’s only that people are most interested in their own self-interest and not about others? Lauren, you wanted to add to that? 

Weber: I mean, I would just say I think that’s a kind interpretation, Julie. I think that more likely than not, he was just speaking out of turn. And in some prior reporting I did this year on misinformation around birth control and contraception, I spoke to a bunch of women legislators, I believe it was in Idaho, who found that in speaking with their male legislator friends, that a lot of them were uncomfortable talking about abortion, birth control, et cetera, which led to a lot of these misconceptions. And I wonder if we’re seeing that here. 

Ollstein: Just quickly, I think it’s also reflective of a particular conservative mind-set. I mean, it reminds me of when I was covering the Obamacare fight in Congress and you had Republican lawmakers making jokes about, Oh, well, wouldn’t want to lose coverage for my mammograms. And just what we were just talking about, about the separate risk pools and saying, Oh, I’m healthy. Why should I subsidize a sick person? when that’s literally how insurance works. 

But I think just the very individualistic go-it-alone, rugged-individual mind-set is coming out here in different ways. And so it seems like he did not want this particular comment to be scrutinized as it is getting now, but I think we hear versions of this from conservative lawmakers all the time in terms of, Why should I have to care about, pay for, subsidize, et cetera, other people in society? 

Rovner: Yeah, there’s a lot of that. Well, finally this week in reproductive health issues that never seem to go away, a federal judge in North Dakota this week slapped an injunction on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s enforcement of some provisions of the 2022 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, ruling that Catholic employers, including for-profit Catholic-owned entities, don’t have to provide workers with time off for abortions or fertility treatments that violate the church’s teachings. 

Now, lest you think this only applies to North Dakota, it does not. There’s a long way to go before this ruling is made permanent, but it’s kind of awkward timing for Republicans when they’re trying to convince voters of their strong support of IVF [in vitro fertilization], and yet here we have a large Catholic entity saying, We don’t even want to give our workers time off for IVF. 

Ollstein: Yeah, I think you’ve been hearing a lot of Republicans scoffing at the idea that anyone would oppose IVF, when there are many, many conservatives who do either oppose it in its entirety or oppose certain ways that it is currently commonly practiced. You had the Southern Baptist Convention vote earlier this year in opposition to IVF. You have these Catholic groups who are suing over it. 

And so I think there needs to be a real reckoning with the level of opposition there is on the right, and I think that’s why you’re seeing an interesting response to Trump’s promise for free IVF for all and whether or not that is feasible. I think this shows that it would get a lot of pushback from groups on the right if they were ever to pursue that. 

Rovner: Yeah, I will also note that this was a Trump-appointed judge, which is pretty … The EEOC, when they were doing these final regulations, acknowledged that there will be cases of religious employers and that they will look at those on a case-by-case basis. But this is a pretty sweeping ruling that basically says, we’re back to the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case: If you don’t believe in something, you don’t have to do it. 

I mean, that’s essentially where we are with this, and we will see as this moves forward. Well, moving on to another big election issue, drug prices, the CEO of Novo Nordisk, makers of the blockbuster obesity and diabetes drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, appeared at the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Tuesday in front of Senator Bernie Sanders, who has been one of their top critics. 

And maybe it’s just my covid-addled brain, but I watched this hearing and I couldn’t make heads or tails of how Lars Jørgensen, the CEO, tried to explain why either the differences between prices in the U.S. and other countries for these drugs weren’t really that big, or how the prices here are actually the fault of PBMs, not his company. Was anybody able to follow this? It was super confusing, I will say, that he tried to … 

First he says that, well, 80% of the people with insurance coverage can get these drugs for $25 a month or less, which I’m pretty sure only applies to people who are using it for diabetes, not for obesity, because I think most insurers aren’t covering it for obesity. And there was much backing and forthing about how much it costs and how much we pay and how much it would cost the country to actually allow people, everybody who’s eligible for these drugs, to use them. And no real response. I mean, this is a big-deal campaign issue, and yet I feel like this hearing was something of a bust. 

Weber: I mean, do we really expect a CEO of a highly profitable drug to promise to reduce it immediately on the spot? I mean, I guess I’m not surprised that the hearing was a back-and-forth. From what I understand of what happened, I mean, most hearings with folks that have highly lucrative drugs, they’re not looking to give away pieces of the lucrative drugs. So I think to some extent we come back to that. 

But I did think what was interesting about the hearing itself was that Sanders did confront him with promises from PBMs that they would be able to offer these drugs and not short the American consumer, which was actually a fascinating tactic on Sanders part. But again, what did we really walk away with? I’m not sure that we know. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, even if you were interested in this issue — and I’m interested in this issue and I know this issue better than the average person, as I said —I literally could not follow it. I found it super frustrating. I mean, I know what Sanders was going for here. I just don’t feel like he got what he was hoping to. I don’t know. Maybe he was hoping to get the CEO to say, “We’ve been awful, and so many people need this drug, and we’re going to cut the price tomorrow.” And yes, you point out, Lauren, that did not happen. But we shall see. 

Well, speaking of PBMs, the Federal Trade Commission late last week filed an administrative complaint against the nation’s three largest PBMs, accusing them of inflating insulin prices and steering patients toward higher-cost products so they, the PBMs, can make more money, which is, of course, the big problem with PBMs, which is that they get a piece of the action. So the more expensive the drug, the bigger the piece of the action that they get. 

I was most interested in the fact that the FTC’s three Democratic appointees voted in favor of the legal action. Its two Republican appointees didn’t vote but actually recused themselves. This whole PBM issue is kind of awkward for Republicans who say they want to fight high drug prices, isn’t it? I feel like the whole PBM issue, which, as we said, is something that Congress in theory wants to get to during the lame-duck session, is tricky. 

I mean, it’s less tricky for Democrats who can just demagogue it and a little bit more tricky for Republicans who tend to have more support from both the drug industry and the insurance industry and the PBM industry. How much can they say they want to fight high drug prices without irritating the people with whom they are allied? 

Kenen: And the PBMs themselves are owned by insurers. The pharmaceutical drug pricing, it’s really, really, really confusing, right? 

Rovner: Nobody understands it. 

Kenen: The four of us, none of us cover pharma full time, but the four of us are all pretty sophisticated health care reporters. And if we had to take a final exam on the drug industry, none of us would probably get an A-plus. So I’d be surprised if they figure this out in lame duck. I mean, they could —there’s always the possibility that when they look at the outcome of things, they decide: We do need to cut a deal and get this off the plate. This is the best we’re going to get. We’re going to be in a worse position next month. And they do it. 

But it just seems really sticky and complicated, and it doesn’t feel like it’s totally jelled yet to the point that they can move it. I would expect this to spill into next year. If a deal comes through, if a big budget deal comes through at the end of the year, it does have a lot of trade-offs and moving parts, and this could, in fact, get wrapped into it. 

If I had to guess, I would say it’s more likely to spill into the following year, but maybe they’ve decided they’ve had enough and want to tie the bow on it and move on. And then it’ll go to court and we’ll spend the next year talking about the court fight against the PBM law. So it’s not going to be gone one way or another, and nor are high drug prices going to be gone one way or another. 

Rovner: The issue that keeps on giving. Well, finally this week, a new entry in out This Week in Health Misinformation segment from, surprise, Florida. This is a story from my ���ϳԹ��� News colleagues Arthur Allen, Daniel Chang, and Sam Whitehead. And the headline kind of says it all: “Florida’s New Covid Booster Guidance Is Straight-Up Misinformation.”&�Բ�����;

This is the continuing saga involving the state surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, who’s been talking down the mRNA covid vaccine for several years now and is recommending that people at high risk from covid not get the latest booster. What surprised me about this story, though, was how reluctant other health leaders in Florida, including the Florida Medical Association, have been to call the surgeon general out on this. 

I guess to avoid angering his boss, Republican governor Ron DeSantis, who’s known to respond to criticism with retribution. Anybody else surprised by the lack of pushback to this there in Florida? Lauren? 

Weber: No, I’m not really surprised. I mean, we’ve seen the same thing over and over and over again. I mean, this is the man who really didn’t make a push to vaccinate against measles when there was an outbreak. He has previously stated that seniors over 65 should not get an mRNA vaccine, with misinformation about DNA fragments. We’ve seen this pattern over and over again. 

He is a bit of a rogue state public health officer in a crew that usually everyone else is on pretty much the same page, whether or not they’re red- or blue-state public health officers. And I think what’s interesting about this story and what continues to be interesting is as we see RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] gaining influence, obviously, in Trump’s potential health picks, you do wonder if this is a bit of a tryout. Although Ladapo is tied to DeSantis, who Trump obviously has feelings about. So who knows there. But it very clearly is the politicization of public health writ large. 

Kenen: And DeSantis, during the beginning of the pandemic, he disagreed with the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines about who should get vaccinated, but he did push them for older people. And I think that was his cutoff. If you’re 15 up, you should have them. He was quite negative from the start on under. Florida’s vaccination rates for the older population back when they rolled out in late 2020, early 2021, were not — they were fairly high. And there’s been a change of tone. As the political base became more anti-vax, so did the Florida state government. 

Rovner: And obviously, Florida, full of older people who vote. So, I mean, super-important constituency there. Well, we will watch that space. All right, that is this week’s news. Now it is time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include links to all these stories in our show notes on your phone or other device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week? 

Kenen: Elaine Godfrey in the Atlantic has a story called “,” and it’s about a four-hour summit on the Hill with RFK Jr., moderated by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who also has some unconventional ideas about vaccination and public health. The writer called it the “crunch-ificiation of conservatism.”&�Բ�����;

It was the merging of the anti-vax pharma-skeptic left and the Trump right and RFK Jr. talking about MAHA, Making America Healthy Again, and his priorities for what he expects to be a leading figure in some capacity in a Trump administration fixing our health. It was a really fun — just a little bit of sarcasm in that story, but it was a good read. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I would point out that this goes, I mean, back more than two decades, which is that the anti-vax movement has always been this combination of the far left and the far right. 

Kenen: But it’s changed now. I mean, the medical liberty movement, medical freedom movement and the libertarian streak has changed. It started changing before covid, but it’s not the same as it was a few years ago. It’s much more conservative-dominated, or conservative-slash-libertarian-dominated. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: I have an interesting story from Stat. It’s called “.” It’s about how the Special Olympics, which just happened, over the years have helped shine a light on just how many people with developmental and intellectual disabilities just aren’t getting the health care that they need and aren’t even getting recognized as having those disabilities. 

And the data we’re using today comes from the Clinton administration still. It’s way out of date. So there have been improvements because of these programs like Healthy Athletes that have been launched around this, but it’s still nowhere near good enough. And so this was a really fascinating story on that front and on a population that’s really falling through the cracks. 

Rovner: It really was. Lauren. 

Weber: I actually picked an opinion piece in Stat that’s called, quote, “,” by Paul Ginsburg and Steve Lieberman. And I want to give a shoutout to my former colleague Fred Schulte, who basically has single-handedly revealed — and now, obviously, there’s been a lot of fall-on coverage — but he was really beating this drum first, how much Medicare Advantage is overbilling the government. 

And Fred, through a lot of FOIAs [Freedom of Information Act requests] — and KFF has sued to get access to these documents — has shown that, through government audits, the government’s being charged billions and billions of dollars more than it should be to pay for Medicare Advantage, which was billed as better than Medicare and a free-market solution and so on. But the reality is … 

Rovner: It was billed as cheaper than Medicare. 

Weber: And billed as cheaper. 

Rovner: Which it’s not. 

Weber: It’s not. And this opinion piece is really fascinating because it says, look, no presidential candidate wants to talk about changing Medicare, because all the folks that want to vote usually have Medicare. But something that you really could do to reduce Medicare costs is getting a handle around these Medicare Advantage astronomical sums. And I just want to shout out Fred, because I really think this kind of opinion piece is possible due to his tireless coverage to really dig into what’s some really wonky stuff that reveals a lot of money. 

Rovner: Yes, I feel like we don’t talk about Medicare Advantage enough, and we will change that at some point in the not-too-distant future. All right, well, my story is from ���ϳԹ��� News from my colleague Noam Levey, along with Ames Alexander of the Charlotte Observer. It’s called “How North Carolina Made Its Hospitals Do Something About Medical Debt.”&�Բ�����;

Those of you who are regular listeners may remember back in August when we talked about the federal government approving North Carolina’s unique new program to have hospitals forgive medical debt in exchange for higher Medicaid payments. It turns out that getting that deal with the state hospitals was a lot harder than it looked, and this piece tells the story in pretty vivid detail about how it all eventually got done. It is quite the tale and well worth your time. 

OK, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X. I’m @jrovner. Lauren, where are you? 

Weber: I’m still on X @LaurenWeberHP. 

Rovner: Alice? 

Ollstein: On X at @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Joanne? 

Kenen: X @JoanneKenen and Threads @JoanneKenen1. 

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