���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 Friday, Aug. 23, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via teleconference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Good morning.

Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with ���ϳԹ��� News’ Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest ���ϳԹ��� News-NPR “Bill of the Month,” about a woman who got two bills for the same surgery and refused to back down. But first, this week’s news. So, now both conventions are over. Labor Day is just over a week away. And I think it’s safe to declare the general election campaign officially on. What did we learn from the just-completed Democratic [National] Convention, other than that Beyoncé didn’t show up?

Luthra: I think the obvious thing we learned is there is a lot of abortion for Democrats to talk about and very little abortion Republicans would like to. I did the fun brain exercise of going back through old Democratic conventions to see how much abortion came up. It might be interesting to note that in 2012, for instance, [the former president of Planned Parenthood] Cecile Richards spoke, never mentioned abortion.

A Planned Parenthood patient came and didn’t talk about abortion, talked about endometriosis care. And I think that really underscores what a shift we have seen in the party from treating abortion as an issue for the base, but not one that got center stage very often. And that shifted a bit in 2016, but is really very different now.

We had abortion every night, and that is just such a marked contrast from the RNC, where Republicans went to great lengths to avoid the topic because Democrats are largely on the winning side of this issue and Republicans are not.

Rovner: I’ve watched every Democratic convention since 1984. I have to say, I’m still trying to wrap my brain around the idea of all of these, and not just women, but men and [Sen.] Tammy Duckworth talking about IVF and women who had various difficulties with pregnancy. Usually, it would be tucked into a section of one night, but every single night we had people getting up and telling their individual stories. I was kind of surprised. Alice, you wanted to add something?

Ollstein: Yeah. We also wrote about how the breadth of the kinds of abortion stories being told has also changed. There’s been frustration on the left for a while that only these medical emergency cases have been lifted up.

Rovner: The good abortions.

Ollstein: Exactly. So there’s a fear that that further stigmatizes people who just had an abortion because they simply didn’t want to be pregnant, which is the majority of cases. These really awful medical emergencies are the minority, even though they are happening, and people do want those stories told. But I think it was notable that the head of Planned Parenthood talked about a case that was simply someone who didn’t want to be pregnant and the lengths she had to go through to get an abortion.

I think we’re still mostly seeing the more politically palatable, sympathetic stories of sexual assault and medical emergencies, but I think you’re starting to see the discourse broaden a little bit more. It’s still not what a lot of activists want, but it’s widening. It’s opening the door a little bit more to those different stories.

Rovner: And certainly having [Kamala] Harris at the top of the ticket rather than Biden, I mean, she’s been the point person of this administration on reproductive health even before Roe v. Wade got overturned.

Ollstein: Right. And I think it’s been interesting to see the policy versus politics side of this, where politically she’s seen as such a stronger ally on abortion rights, and her messaging is much more aggressive than [President Joe] Biden’s, a lot more specific. But when it comes to the policy, she’s exactly where Biden was. She says, “I want to restore Roe v. Wade,” where a lot of activists say that’s not enough. Roe v. Wade left a lot of people out in the cold who couldn’t get an abortion that they wanted later in pregnancy, or they ran into all these restrictions earlier in pregnancy that were allowed under Roe. And so I think we’re going to see that tension going forward of the messaging is more along the lines of what the progressive activists want, but the policy isn’t.

Luthra: And to build on Alice’s point, I mean, a lot of the speakers we had this week are speakers who would’ve been there for a Biden campaign as well. Amanda Zurawski was a very effective Biden surrogate. She is now a Harris surrogate.

And I think what’s really important for us to remember as we look not just to November, but to potentially January and beyond, is that what Harris is campaigning on, what Biden tried to campaign on, although he struggled to say the words, is something that probably isn’t going to happen because they’re talking about signing a law to codify ��DZ�’s protections and they in all likelihood won’t have the votes to do so.

Rovner: Yes. And they either have to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate or they have to have 60 votes, neither of which seems probable. And as I have pointed out many times, the Democrats have never had enough votes to codify Roe v. Wade. There’s never actually been a basically pro-choice Congress. The House has never been pro-choice until Trump was president, when obviously there was nothing they could do.

It’s not that Congress didn’t want to, or the Democrats in Congress didn’t want to or didn’t try, they never had the votes. For years and years and years, I would say, there were a significant number of Republicans who were pro-abortion rights and a significant, even larger number of Democrats who were anti-abortion. It’s only in the last decade that it’s become absolutely partisan, that basically each party has kicked out the ones on the other side. Joanne, you wanted to add something?

Kenen: Remember that the very last snag that almost pulled down the Affordable Care Act at zero hour, or zero minus, after zero hour, was anti-abortion Democrats. And that was massaged out and they cut a deal and they put in language and they got it through. But no, the phenomenon Julie’s talking about was that the dynamics have changed because of the polarization.

I mean, it wasn’t just abortion; there were centrists in both parties, and they’re pretty much gone. The other thing that struck me last night is there was rape victims and victims of traffic and abuse speaking both within the context of abortion. I mean, that was a mesmerizing presentation by a really courageous young woman.

And then there were other episodes about sexual violence against women, a nod to Biden a couple of times, who actually wrote the original Violence Against Women Act in ’94, part of the crime bill, but also in terms of liberal Democrats or progressives who … “prosecutor” isn’t their favorite title. But because they tied these themes together or at least link them or they were there in a basket together of her as a protector of victims of trafficking, rape, and abuse, starting when she was in high school with her friend.

So I thought that that was another thing that we would not have spoken about. You did not have young women talking about being raped by their stepfather and impregnated at age 12.

Rovner: So aside from reproductive rights, which was obviously a headline of this convention, it’s almost impossible to discern what a second Trump administration might mean for health because Trump has been literally all over the place on most health issues. And he may or may not hire back the former staffers who compiled Project 2025.

But we don’t really know what a Harris administration would mean either. There is still no policy section on the official Harris for President website. One thing we do seem to know is that she seems to have backed away from her support for “Medicare for All,” which she kind of ran on in 2019.

Luthra: Sort of.

Rovner: Yeah, kind of, sort of. What else do we know about what she would do on health care other than on reproductive health, where she’s been quite clear?

Ollstein: So the focus on the policies that have been rolled out so far have been cost of living and going after price-gouging. She also has a history, as California attorney general, of using antitrust and those kinds of legal tools to go after monopolistic practices in health care. In California, she did that on the insurance front and the hospital front and the drug pricing front. So there is an expectation that that would be a focus. But again, they have not disclosed to us what the plans are.

Kenen: I mean, one of the immediate things, and I watched a fair amount of the convention and none of us absorbed every word, but I don’t think I heard a single mention of it was the extension of the ACA subsidies, which expire next year. I mean, if they mentioned it, it was in passing by somebody. So you didn’t really hear too much ACA, right? You hear that wonderful line from President [Barack] Obama when he said the Affordable Care Act, and then he said that aside: “Now that it’s popular, they don’t call it Obamacare anymore.”

But you didn’t hear a lot of ACA discussion. You heard a lot of drug price and you heard a lot of some vague Medicare, mostly in the context of drug prices. But there wasn’t a segment of one night devoted to the health policy. So I mean, I think we can assume she’s pretty much going to be Biden-like. I would be surprised if she didn’t fight to preserve the subsidies.

The Medicare drug stuff is in law now and going ahead. I think Julie wants to come back to that, but I don’t think we know what’s different. And I don’t know what, in that to-do list, I don’t think she articulated the priorities, although I would imagine she’ll start talking about the subsidies because the Republicans are probably going to oppose that. But no, it wasn’t a big focus. It was like sprinkles on an ice cream cone instead of serving a sundae.

Rovner: It’s hard to remember that just four years ago in 2020, there was this huge fight about the future of health care. Do we want to go to Medicare for All? What do we want to do about the ACA? Biden was actually the most conservative, I think, of the Democratic candidates when it came to health care.

Kenen: And then he expanded things way more than people expected him to.

Rovner: Yes, that’s true. I was going to say, but the other thing that jumped out at me is how many liberals, [Rep.] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, talking like a moderate basically, I mean, giving this big speech. It feels like the left wing of the Democratic Party, at least on health care, has figured out that it’s better to be pragmatic and get something done, which apparently the right wing of the Republican Party has not figured out.

Luthra: Well, part of what happened, right, is, I mean, the left lost in 2020. Joe Biden won. He became president. And there’s this real interesting effort that we saw this week to try and recapture the energy of 2008, 2012, the Obama era, and that wasn’t a Medicare-for-All-type time. That was much more vibes and pragmatism, which is what we are seeing now.

Kenen: The other thing is that the progressives, more centrist, more moderate, whatever you call the mainstream bring, they kissed and made up. I mean, [Sen.] Bernie Sanders became an incredible backer of Biden. I mean, they fought on the original Bring [Build] Back Better. That became the watered-down Inflation Reduction [Act]. They had some policy differences and some of which were stark.

But basically, Bernie Sanders became this bulwark for it, helped create party unity, helped move it ahead, supported Biden when he was thinking about staying in the race. So I think that Bernie’s support of Biden, who did do an awful lot of things on the progressive agenda; he did expand health care, although not through single-payer, but through expanded ACA. He did do a lot on climate. He did do a lot of things they cared about, and the party is less divided. We don’t know how long that’ll last. We had, not just unusual, but unprecedented last two months. So these things like Medicare for All versus strengthening the ACA, they’ll bubble up again, but they’re not going to divide the party in the next seven weeks, eight weeks, whatever we’re out: 77 days. Do the math, 10 weeks.

Rovner: Seventy-some days. In other political news, third-party candidate and anti-vax crusader Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is going to drop out of the race later today and perhaps endorse Donald Trump. The rumor is he’s hoping to win a position in a second Trump administration, if there is one, possibly even secretary of Health and Human Services. What would that look like? A lot of odd faces from our panelists here.

Ollstein: I’m always skeptical. There’s also talk about Elon Musk getting a Cabinet job. I’m always skeptical of these incredibly wealthy individuals — who, currently, as private citizens, can basically do whatever they want — I have a hard time imagining them wanting to submit to the constrictures and the oversight of being in the Cabinet. I would be surprised. I think that it sounds good to have that power, but to actually have to do that job, I think, would not be appealing to such people. But I could be surprised.

Rovner: We did have Steve Mnuchin as secretary of the Treasury, and he seemed to have a pretty good time doing it.

Ollstein: I guess so, but I think his background was maybe a little more suited to that. I don’t know.

Kenen: Mnuchin, you’ve also had Democrats who appoint Wall Street types. Rubin being one of several, at least.

Rovner: We tend to have billionaires at the Treasury Department.

Kenen: The idea of Bobby Kennedy running HHS, I think even many Republicans who support Trump would find a bridge too far. And remember they want … if you look at the part of the Republican Party that really equate … their priority is anti-abortion, that’s it for them. There’s some on the right who talked about — I’m pretty sure this is in 2025, but at least it’s out there — change it to the Department of Life.

There’s a faction within the Republican Party who sees HHS as the way of driving an anti-abortion agenda. What’s left of abortion, right? It has oversight over the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], et cetera. You can’t say that Trump won’t do something because he is a very unpredictable person. So, who knows what Donald Trump would do? I don’t think it’s all that likely that Bobby Kennedy gets HHS.

But I do think that in order to get the endorsement that Trump wants, he’d have to promise him something in the health realm — whether it’s a special adviser for vaccine safety, who knows what it would be? But something that makes him feel like he got something in exchange for the support.

Rovner: I do wonder what the support would mean politically to have prominent anti-vaxxer. If Trump is out trying to capture swing voters, this doesn’t seem necessarily a way to appeal to suburban moms.

Kenen: Remember the vaccine commission to study vaccine safety? And it was Bobby Kennedy who came out of a meeting with Trump and said it was going to happen, that he was going to be the chair of it. The commission didn’t happen, and Bobby Kennedy didn’t chair it. So we already know that this goes back, what, eight years now. So there’s going to be a tit-for-tat. That’s politics. Whether the tat is HHS secretary, I’m skeptical. But again, I’d never say anything isn’t possible in Washington.

Rovner: If nothing else, this year has shown us that …

Kenen: I think it’s extremely unlikely.

Luthra: To your point about who Bobby Kennedy appeals to, the polls tell us that everyone who supports him, by and large, would vote for Trump if he dropped out. So I mean, that’s obviously why this would happen. It’s because it is a net gain for Trump and his calculus is probably that it would outweigh the losses he might get from having someone with a strong anti-vax bent on his side. I think that’s a pretty obvious, to me at least, gain for him rather than loss, especially given how close the race is.

Rovner: While we are on the subject of national politics and abortion, former President Trump this week said in an interview with CBS that he would not enforce the Comstock Act to basically impose a national abortion ban, reiterating that he wants to leave it to the states to decide what they want to do. Alice, it’s fair to say this did not go over very well with the anti-abortion base, right?

Ollstein: That’s right. It’s interesting. I reached out to lots of different folks in the anti-abortion movement to get their take, and I expected at least some of them to say, “Oh, Trump’s just saying that. He doesn’t really mean it. He’ll still do it anyways.” None of them said that. They all completely took him seriously and said that they were extremely upset about this. I mean, it’s also not happening in a vacuum.

They were already upset about the RNC [Republican National Convention] platform having some anti-abortion language being taken out of it. There is still some anti-abortion language in there. Folks should remember him declining to endorse a national abortion ban. Him refusing to say how he plans to vote in Florida’s referendum on abortion coming up. So this is one more thing that they’re upset about. And they told me that they think it could really cost him some votes and enthusiasm from the base.

He’s having trouble winning over these moderate swing voters. If that’s true, then he needs every vote on the more religious right/conservative wing of things. And they’re saying, look, most people are probably going to vote for him anyways because they don’t want Kamala Harris to be president. But will they volunteer? Will they tell a friend? Will they go knock on doors? Begrudgingly voting for someone versus being enthusiastic difference.

Rovner: I think it’s fair to say that it was the anti-abortion right that basically got him over the finish line in 2016 when he put out that list of potential Supreme Court nominees and signed a now-infamous letter that Marjorie Dannenfelser of the SBA [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America] list put together. Then the anti-abortion movement put a lot of money into door-knocking and getting out the vote. And obviously, as we all remember, it was just a few thousand votes in a couple of states that made him president.

So I was a little bit surprised that he was that definitive — although as we said 14 times already this morning — he often says one thing and does another, or says one thing and says another thing later, right.

Kenen: In the same day!

Rovner: Or in the same conversation sometimes. I was interested to see Kamala Harris in her speech refer to the Comstock Act without doing it by name. I thought that was artfully done.

Ollstein: Yeah, and several other speakers did talk about it by name, which is interesting because I think earlier this year there was this attitude among Democrats and some abortion rights leaders that there should not be a lot of talk about the Comstock Act because they didn’t want to give the right ideas. But I think now it’s pretty clear that the right doesn’t need to be given ideas. They already had these ideas. And so there’s a lot more open talk about it.

And just this piece of Project 2025, along with all of the focus on Project 2025 in general, just really seemed to resonate with voters in a really unusual way. And no matter how much Trump tries to disavow it or distance himself from it, it doesn’t seem like people are convinced, because these are very close allies of Trump who worked for him, who are likely to work for him in the future, who are the authors of this.

Rovner: And who put together this whole list of people who could work in a second administration. It’s basically the second Trump term all ready to go. It’s hard to imagine where he would then find a list of people to populate his agencies if not turning to the list that was put together by Project 2025.

So Trump says, as we’ve mentioned, that he wants voters in each state to decide how to regulate abortion. And that’s pretty much what he’s getting. Since we last talked, several states have finalized abortion rights ballot questions. But some have come with a couple of twists. Alice, where are we on the state ballot measure checklist?

Ollstein: It’s been a crazy couple of weeks. So we have Arizona and Montana certified for the ballot. Those are two huge states that also have major Senate races. Arizona is a presidential swing state. Montana, arguably not. But these are states that are going to get a blitz of ads and campaign attention. I think there is an expectation that the abortion measures on the ballot will benefit the Democratic candidates.

I would caution people to be skeptical about this. We’ve done analyses of the abortion ballot measures that have been on the ballot in the past couple of years in other states, and they did not always benefit the Democratic candidates who shared the ballot. Of course, this is a presidential year. It could be totally different.

At the same time, the big news this week was that a Arkansas Supreme Court ruling means that their abortion rights ballot measure will almost certainly not be on the ballot in November. And there’s a lot of consternation about that. The dissenting justices accused the majority of making up rules out of whole cloth and treating different ballot measures differently based on the content.

So basically there was a medical marijuana ballot measure and the sponsors of it wrote a brief saying, “Hey, we made the same alleged paperwork error that the abortion rights folks are accused of making, yet ours was certified for the ballot and theirs wasn’t. What gives?” So there are accusations of the conservative officials of Arkansas making these rulings to prevent a vote on abortion rights in that state. So they could try again in 2026. They are weighing their options right now.

Rovner: So abortion issues are not just bubbling among voters and in the elections. We now have a series of lawsuits with patients accusing hospitals that deny them emergency care of violating the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Some may remember this was also the subject of a Supreme Court case this term. For those who have forgotten, Shefali, what happened with that Supreme Court case? Where are we with EMTALA?

Luthra: Great question, Julie. We are waiting, as ever, and we will be waiting for a long time because the Supreme Court after taking up that case said, “Actually, never mind. We were wrong to take this case up now. It should go back to the lower courts and continue to progress.” And what that means is uncertainty. It does mean that EMTALA’s protections exist for now in Idaho. They do not exist in Texas, where there is a related corresponding case going through the courts as well.

But regardless, EMTALA’s protections are quite meaningful for providers compared to not having them. But they are still pretty vague and pretty limited in terms of how abortion can come up in pregnancy. And that’s why we are still seeing patients filing these complaints saying, “My rights were violated. I did not get this emergency care I needed until it was very late.” But the problem there is that: A, EMTALA is retroactive.

So these complaints only come up when people know to file them; when they have perhaps already suffered medical consequences such as losing a fallopian tube, as two women in Texas both reported experiencing. You know, serious implications for their future fertility. And the other thing that’s important to note is that complaints are one step, but enforcement is another one.

And we haven’t seen a ton of hospitals being penalized by the federal government for not giving people care in these medical emergencies. And so if you’re a hospital, the dilemma is complicated, but in some ways not. Because if you provide care for someone and you find yourself in violation of state law, that’s a felony, potentially. But if you are going against EMTALA, well, maybe it’ll be reported, maybe it won’t be. Maybe you’ll be fined or penalized by the federal government, but maybe you won’t be. And that creates a real challenge for patients in particular because they are once again caught in a situation where they need emergency medical care, and the incentives are against hospitals providing it.

Ollstein: The Biden administration has not been transparent on how many complaints have been filed, how many hospitals they’ve investigated, what measures they’ve taken to make hospitals correct their behavior, whether they’ve come into compliance or not, whether they are getting these penalties, including losing Medicare status, which is one of the most severe penalties possible.

We just don’t know. And so they say they’re making this big focus on EMTALA enforcement, but we are not really seeing the evidence of that. And the only way we even know anything is happening is when the patients themselves are choosing to disclose it, either to advocacy groups or the media.

Rovner: Or the Democratic National Convention, where we saw several of these stories. It is a continuing theme as we go forward. Well, moving on. While we were celebrating the 50th anniversary of ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] here on “What the Health?” last week — and if you did not hear that special episode, I highly recommend it — the Biden administration unveiled negotiated prices for the first 10 drugs chosen under the new authority granted by the Inflation Reduction Act.

It’s hard to tell how much better the prices that they got are because so much of the information remains proprietary. But Joanne, what’s the reaction been, both in the drug industry and larger in the political realm?

Kenen: The drug industry obviously doesn’t like it. This is only 10 drugs this year, but it’ll be more in the future. Look, I’m not so sure how well that message has gotten through yet. The Medicare drugs came under what ended up being called the Inflation Reduction Act. There’s several measures in it. There’s protection for everybody in Medicare, how much you spend on drugs in a year, it’s $2,000. That’s it. Which is a big difference from what some of the out-of-pocket vulnerabilities people had in the past.

When you look at the polls or you look at interviews with undecided voters, you wonder who’s paying attention other than us? The Democrats have wanted this for more than 20 years. Twenty years is a conservative estimate. I mean, it was part of the fight over what became the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003.

They fought for it every year. They lost every year. They finally got it through. So the idea of having Medicare negotiating drug prices is a huge victory for the Democrats. Ten drugs, not a big deal for the industry, but they know something changed. They will fight every opportunity for a lawsuit or a lobbying campaign or blocking a new regulation or the next round of negotiations.

This is going to be probably just like these annual fights we have about physician pay. This’ll be an annual fight about how much can PhRMA punch back. That would assume that a Democrat wins and that these policies don’t get rescinded. It’s a big deal. It’s not a big deal for individual pocketbooks yet, but it’s a big, big deal on the balance of power between PhRMA, which is so powerful, and the federal government, which pays for these drugs.

Rovner: I’m reminded of a sentence I wrote about the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, which was passed and repealed much at the behest of the drug industry because it had what would’ve been the first Medicare outpatient drug benefit ever. And I wrote, the drug industry fought this tooth and nail because they were concerned that if Medicare started covering drugs, they would want to have some say in how much they cost. That was, I think, 1989.

Kenen: Right.

Rovner: And here we are, however many years later it is.

Kenen: It’s really hard to take away a benefit, as the Republicans learned when they spent all that energy trying and failing to repeal the ACA. Once people have a benefit, it’s hard to say, “Whoops! No more.” However, that doesn’t mean there’s not fights about technical matters or how the regulations are worded or how deep discounts are or what other things they could get in exchange that make up for the losses on this.

I mean, PhRMA is really a huge lobby, hugely influential, and sympathetic in some ways because they do create a pro … — unlike something like tobacco — they do create products that saves our lives, right? And their argument, innovation, and those arguments resonate with people. But I don’t really see this turning back. I don’t think any of us can predict how PhRMA will regain some of the influence that it did lose in this battle.

It’s certainly not permanent defeat of PhRMA. I mean, PhRMA is powerful. PhRMA has allies in both parties. But this was a huge victory for the Democrats. They got something after 20-plus years.

Rovner: Well, finally this week, earlier this spring we talked at some length about the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission proposal to ban noncompete clauses, which in health care often applied to even the lowest-level jobs. It was supposed to take effect Sept. 4, but a federal district court judge in Texas has ruled in favor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the agency lacks the authority to implement such a sweeping rule.

And the appeals court there in the 5th Circuit is notoriously conservative and unlikely to overturn that lower-court decision even if Vice President Harris wins and becomes president. Are we just going to continue to see every agency effort blocked by some Trump-appointed judge in Texas? That seems to be what’s happening now.

Ollstein: I mean, I think especially with the recent Supreme Court rulings on Chevron, I think we’re just … I mean, that plus the makeup of the judiciary means that executive power is just a lot more curtailed than it used to be. Theoretically, that should apply to both parties to whoever is president, but we have seen courts be very politicized and treat different things differently. So I think that it will be a special challenge for a Democratic or progressive administration to push those policies going forward.

Rovner: And of course in Texas, as we have pointed out on many occasions, there are all these single-judge districts, where if you file in certain places you know which judge you’re going to get. I mean, it’s the ultimate in judge shopping.

Luthra: I was just thinking about [U.S. District Judge] Reed O’Connor and [U.S. District Judge] Matthew Kacsmaryk, two names that listeners know well.

Rovner: Yes, that’s right. And this was a third judge, by the way. This was neither Reed O’Connor nor Matthew Kacsmaryk in this case.

Ollstein: But a secret third thing.

Rovner: A secret, a secret third thing.

Kenen: I mean, what Alice just referred to as the Supreme Court reducing the power of the regulators, and they said Congress has to pass the laws. You’re not going to get something this sweeping through Congress. But could you end up getting bits of it written into legislation about hospital personnel or doctors or things like that? I can see nibbles added in certain fields. And also you’re going to see some of it at the state level. I’m pretty sure Maryland has passed some kind of a noncompete.

Rovner: Yeah, there are states that have their own noncompete laws.

Kenen: I think they’ll go at it piecemeal. They may not be able to do anything that huge, all noncompetes, but by profession, or sector by sector, I think they may try to keep nibbling away at it. But the effort that we saw is gone.

Rovner: I mean, just to broaden it out, obviously this was something that the Biden administration has relied on the power of the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, something that the Biden administration has highlighted. It’s something that I think Vice President Harris is relying on going forward. So this is probably not a good sign for wanting to make policy in this way.

See, nods all around. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Tony Leys, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast my ���ϳԹ��� News colleague Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest ���ϳԹ��� News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” Tony, welcome back to “What the Health?”

Tony Leys: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: So tell us about this month’s patient: who she is, where she’s from, and what kind of medical care she got.

Leys: The patient is Jamie Holmes, who lives in Washington state. In 2019, she went to a surgical center to have her fallopian tubes tied. While she was on her anesthesia, the surgeon noticed early signs of endometriosis, a common condition in which fibrous tissue grows in and around the uterus. The surgeon took care of that secondary issue. Holmes said he later told her the whole operation was done within the allotted time for the original surgery, which was about an hour.

Rovner: As one who’s had and knows a lot of people who’ve had endometriosis, it is extremely painful and very difficult to treat. So medically, at least this story seems to have a happy ending, a doctor who was on his toes spotted an impending problem and took care of it on the spot. But then, as we say, the bill came.

Leys: The bill came. The surgery center billed her for two separate operations, $4,810 each.

Rovner: So even though she only went under anesthesia once and simply had two different things done to her at the time.

Leys: Right. And the surgery center is the place that does the support work for the operation. And there was just one operation.

Rovner: So obviously she figured this must be a mistake and complained. What happened?

Leys: She thought once she explained what really happened, they would go, “Oh,” and they would fix it. But that didn’t work. And after adjustments and the insurance payment for the one operation, they said that she still owed the surgery center $2,605, and she said, “Nope.”

Rovner: This was in 2019. So obviously things have happened since then.

Leys: Right. The bill was turned over to a collections agency, which wound up suing Holmes last year for about $3,800, including interest and fees.

Rovner: Now, to be clear, Jamie says she doesn’t object to paying extra for the extra service that she got. What she does object to is being charged as if it was two separate surgical procedures. So what happened next?

Leys: I mean, she joked that it was as if she went to a fast-food restaurant and ordered a value meal, ended up with one extra order of fries and then got charged for two full meals. The collections agency went to court. They asked for a summary judgment, which could have allowed the collection agency to garnish Holmes’ wages.

But she went to a couple of court hearings and explained her side, and the judge ruled last February that he wasn’t going to grant summary judgment to the collection agency. And if it really wanted to pursue the matter, it would have to go to trial. And she has not heard from them since then.

Rovner: Because presumably it would cost them more to go to trial than it would to collect her … however many couple of thousand dollars they say she still owes, right?

Leys: That could certainly be the explanation. We don’t know.

Rovner: So what’s a takeaway here?

Leys: The takeaway is if you get a bill that’s totally bogus, don’t necessarily pay it. Don’t be afraid to fight it. And if someone sues you, don’t be afraid to go to court and tell your side of it.

Rovner: Yeah, because I mean, that’s mostly what happens is that these collection agencies go to court, nobody shows up on the other side, and they get to start garnishing wages, right?

Leys: Exactly. That’s probably what would’ve happened here.

Rovner: She didn’t even have to hire a lawyer. She just showed up and told her side of the story.

Leys: And her take on it is she could have arranged to pay it. It’s not a huge, huge amount of money. But she just wasn’t going to do it. So she stood her ground.

Rovner: And as we pointed out, she was willing to pay for the extra order of fries. She just wasn’t willing to pay for an entire second meal that she didn’t get.

Leys: Right. I mean, she told me, “I didn’t get the extra burger and drink and a toy.”

Rovner: There we go. So basically fight back if you have a problem, and don’t be afraid to fight back.

Leys: Exactly.

Rovner: Tony Leys, thank you so much.

Leys: Thanks, Julie.

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s 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 of these stories in our show notes on your phone or other device. Alice, you chose first this week. Why don’t you go first?

Ollstein: Sure. So I had an interesting piece from The Wall Street Journal by Theo Francis and Melanie Evans called “.” So we’ve seen this growing effort from conservative activists to go after so-called DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, to go after affirmative action, to go after a lot of various programs in government and in the private sector that take race into account when allocating resources.

And so now this is coming to health care where you have a lot of major players. This story is about a complaint filed against the Cleveland Clinic. But throughout health care, you have efforts to say, OK, certain racial groups and other demographics have higher risk and are less likely to get treatment for various diseases. This one is about strokes, but it applies in many areas of health care. And so they have created these targeted programs to try to help those populations because they are at higher risk and have been historically marginalized and denied care. And now those efforts are coming under attack. And so it’s unclear. So this is a federal complaint, and so the federal government would have to agree with it and take action. I don’t think that’s super likely from the Biden administration to crack down on a minority health care program. But this could be yet another thing people should keep in mind regarding the stakes of the election because a conservative administration could very well take a different approach.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: My story is from The Washington Post. It is by Ariana Eunjung Cha, and the headline is “.” I think this is a really smart framing and it gets at something that folks have been worried about for a long time, which is that we have these revolutionary drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy. They show massive improvements for people with diabetes, for people with obesity. And they are so expensive and often not covered by Medicaid. Or if you are uninsured, you cannot get them. And what this story gets at really …

Rovner: If you’re insured, you can’t get them in a lot of cases.

Luthra: It’s true. What I love about this story is it sets us in place. It takes us to Atlanta and helps us see in the different parts of the city, based on income, on access to all sorts of other, to use the jargon, race, social determinants of health, obesity and diabetes are already very unequal diseases. They hit people differently because of access to safe places to exercise, walkable streets, affordable groceries, time to cook, all of that. And then you add on it another layer, which is this drug that can be very helpful is just out of reach for people who are already at higher risk because of systemic inequalities. The story also gets into some of the more social challenges that you might see from a drug like Ozempic. People saying, “Well, I know that rich people get that drug, but how do I know they would be giving the same thing to me? How do I know that the side effects will not be really damaging down the line because these drugs are so new?” And what it speaks to, in a way that I think we’re seeing a lot more journalism do very intelligently, is that there are going to be very real challenges — economic and cultural and social and political — to helping these drugs have the impact that they were touted as potentially able to have.

Rovner: Indeed. Joanne.

Kenen: Well, after that amazing moment with Gus Walz and his dad on the convention floor, I looked up the quick 24-hour coverage of what was going to best explain what a nonverbal learning disorder is and a little bit about who Gus Walz is. And Natalie Eilbert of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did a nice piece [“”]

Nothing I read yesterday answered every question I had about this particular processing disorder, but this was a good one and it explained what kind of things kids with these kinds of issues have trouble comprehending, and also what kind of things they’re really good at. This is not a learning disability. You can be really, really smart and still have a learning disability.

There’s actually an acronym, as there always is, which is GTLD: gifted and talented and learning disabled. Much of the country responded really warmly, as we all saw, and some of the country did not. But in terms of just what is this disorder and how does it affect your ability to communicate, which is part of what it is, understanding language cues, Natalie Eilbert did a good job.

Rovner: And no matter what you can be proud of your dad, particularly when he’s just been nominated to run for vice president. All right, my extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “.” And it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while because packages get subjected to major extremes of temperature in both the summer and the winter.

Indeed, now we have studies that show particularly that heat can degrade the efficacy and safety of some medications. One new study that embedded data-logging thermometers in packages found that those packages spent more than two-thirds of their transit time outside the recommended temperature range.

While the FDA has very strict temperature guidelines for shipping and storing medications between manufacturers and wholesalers and pharmacies, once it leaves the pharmacy it’s apparently up to each state to regulate. Just one more unexpected consequence of climate change.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. 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 . Shefali, where are you these days?

Luthra: I am on the former Twitter platform .

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: On X .

Rovner: Joanne?

Kenen: On X and on Threads @JoanneKenen1.

Rovner: Before we go, a quick note about our schedule. We are taking next week off. I’m going to the beach. The week after that, we’ll have a very special show from The Texas Tribune TribFest in Austin. We’ll be back with our regular panel and all the news we might’ve missed on Sept. 12. Until then, be healthy.