[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 ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, Sept. 5, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News colleague Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the August “Bill of the Month” about a patient’s unfortunate run-in with a bat and an even more unfortunate run-in with the bill for rabies prophylaxis. But first, this week’s news.  

Well, it is safe to say that there has been quite a bit of health news since we last met in mid-August. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday, which we will talk about in a moment. But first, I want to catch us up on what you might’ve missed. Our story starts, kind of, with the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] approval of this year’s covid boosters, which are only being licensed for those over age 65 and those who are younger but have at least one condition that puts them at high risk of serious illness if they contract the virus. That leaves out lots of people that many doctors think ought to be boosted, like pregnant women and children. Sarah, what’s supposed to happen after the FDA acts? The next step happens at CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], right? 

Karlin-Smith: Correct. So right now the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet Sept. 17 to 18, 18 to 19, but about two weeks from now. And they would typically vote on sort of endorsing use of these vaccines and, again, have like sort of a second chance to weigh in on which populations they would be used for. And that’s often important for triggering insurance coverage without copays. And also many states rely on the CDC recommendations for various state laws that say, again, who can get the vaccine or whether you can get it via a pharmacist or only at a doctor’s office, do you need a prescription, and things like that. So the CDC and FDA, I would say, in general is a little bit behind this year. I could think a lot of people have been trying to go out and get these new shots even though those steps haven’t happened yet. 

Rovner: That’s right. I mean, it is early. Even if there was nothing else going on, there is that little bit of a lag between when FDA acts and when the CDC acts, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, there usually is. I think in the past they’ve tried to have both FDA approval and the CDC act so that the vaccines could start rolling out more like late summer, early September. So they’re definitely behind, and there’s been a number of reports of covid kind of slowly rising as the summer winds down and school gets back in session. 

Rovner: Yeah, so there’s a lot of other things going on. Well, in the meantime, nothing that was supposed to happen has happened yet, and we still don’t know all the details, but it certainly appears that Susan Monarez, who was just confirmed by the Senate to lead the CDC a month ago, was fired after she refused to override her scientific advisers and approve the new restrictions on covid vaccine availability, even before the ACIP met. In turn, four top CDC leaders resigned as well, going public to warn that the agency is being politicized by the secretary. How much of a mess is the CDC in right now? And how long is it going to take to put the pieces back together? 

Karlin-Smith: I think they’re in a pretty bad place, because not only did they lose their director really quickly, but after she resigned, about I think it was eight or nine senior CDC leaders resigned last week as well. And so, really critical people to various parts of the operation that you don’t just replace very easily. And Kennedy has slotted in Jim O’Neill as the temporary director of the CDC and kind of indicated he wants to remake the agency. And I think there are questions as to how that remaking shapes both its priorities and how it handles public health throughout the U.S. 

Rovner: And of course, morale at CDC is awesome, in part because, as we discussed the last time we met, a gunman came and shot up the place, killing a policeman and leaving the staff pretty upset. And that gunman, who then took his own life, was later found to have had some discontent with vaccines. So things are just really bright and cheery there in Atlanta at the CDC. Alice, I see you nodding. 

Ollstein: These things kind of snowball, you know? I think there are likely to be a lot of staff who were already on the fence about staying and decided to stay because they trusted these pretty senior leaders with a lot of decades of expertise and institutional knowledge. And that was sort of the thread they were hanging on as well, at least: I’m with these people. And now that they’ve left, I think that could trigger a bigger exodus on top of the exodus that was already underway. 

Rovner: And it’s important to say — even though we say it, I think, every time — that these are career scientists who’ve worked for Democrats and Republicans over the years. These are not generally political people. They’re not political appointees. And they basically do their jobs. And until fairly recently, public health wasn’t this partisan, so it wasn’t that hard to be a career public health official just working for public health. That’s just not the case anymore, is it? 

Karlin-Smith: I think there’s been a lot of insult to injury added with what happened with the shooting at the CDC, because there is a sense that the kind of rhetoric that Kennedy in particular has used over the years, even before he came into HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], on sort of his movement has sort of amplified the criticism of public health workers and put them in this situation where they’re dangerous. And Kennedy, instead of really acknowledging that and maybe apologizing or giving any sense that he was going to shift in a different direction, has actually really kind of doubled down on it. And even in some of the pieces he’s written recently about how he wants to reform the CDC, he kind of keeps criticizing the rank-and-file employees and so forth. So there’s a lot of tension between the political leadership and the career staff, I think, at this moment. 

Ollstein: And in normal times, most of the American public would not even know the names of these people. They’re not public figures. They’re just very behind-the-scenes scientists doing their work. And now their personal photos are being combed through and shared to attack them because they’ve criticized the administration. They’re getting threats. It’s just this whole level, like you said, of politicization that we haven’t seen before. 

Rovner: Well, so, in kind of a coincidence, Kennedy had already agreed to appear on Thursday before the Senate Finance Committee, which by the way doesn’t have jurisdiction over the CDC or the rest of the public health service. But no matter — a Senate hearing is a Senate hearing. And let’s just say it didn’t go that well for the secretary. Democrats were kind of withering in their criticism of Kennedy’s eight-month tenure so far. Here’s Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet. 

Sen. Michael Bennet: This is the last thing, by the way, our parents need when their kids are going back to school, is to have the kind of confusion and expense and scarcity that you’re creating as a result of your ideology. 

Rovner: Republicans weren’t that impressed, either, particularly the Republicans on the committee who are also doctors. [Sen.] Bill Cassidy, a doctor who’s on Finance but is also the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and is facing a primary challenge in Louisiana, seemed to tread pretty carefully. More surprising, at least to me, was Dr. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, who’s also in the Senate leadership. 

Sen. John Barrasso: So over the last 50 years, vaccines are estimated to have saved 154 million lives worldwide. I support vaccines. I’m a doctor. Vaccines work. 

Rovner: I was super impressed that even the Republicans who criticized RFK were careful not to criticize President [Donald] Trump. In fact, there were several suggestions — this was clearly a talking point — that Trump should be given a Nobel Prize for his work overseeing Operation Warp Speed, just so the senators could kind of bifurcate their complaints. What impact, if any, is this hearing going to have on RFK’s future as secretary? 

Ollstein: Well, I think there was an attempt to, I think, what you just mentioned. That like dual criticism with praise of Trump was meant to drive a wedge and to get Trump to question RFK’s leadership. That does not seem to have worked so far. We don’t know what’s going to happen in the future, but I think it’s an attempt to get the message to Trump that RFK’s reputation and actions could be damaging to the administration overall. And there was some reporting that polling showing that most people do support vaccines was circulated amongst Republican members before the hearing. And so, I think it’s trying to, yeah, get the message that this is both damaging in a public health sense but also potentially damaging in a political sense as well. 

But so far, the reporting is that Trump is standing by RFK, that he liked how combative he was. And so I don’t know where those attempts to drive a wedge will go in the future, but like you said, it was notable that if folks like Barrasso, [Sen. Thom] Tillis, who’s not running for reelection, was also more vocally critical, and a couple others, not a lot. We’re not seeing a great dam breaking yet. But I think there’s more cracks than there used to be on the GOP side. 

Rovner: I did notice that Trump, he had a very strange Truth Social post earlier in the week that basically said that CDC is a mess and it has to be fixed. Kind of just Trump being the omniscient observer. And then, apparently at a dinner with tech titans after the hearing, he said that he had not watched the hearing but that he heard that Kennedy did well, which is not exactly what I would call a ringing endorsement. I feel like Trump is giving himself some runway to go either way depending on sort of how things continue to shake out. I see nodding. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. I saw a lot of people reposting that clip on social media last night who are frustrated with Kennedy and using it to try and ramp up their banks and say: Keep calling. Keep pressuring. This shows we have an opening. I think it’s really always hard to read the tea leaves with Trump and his language and words. He’s a harder person to interpret. But I also thought it was really interesting that in some ways Cassidy and some of the other Republicans were throwing RFK a bone and saying: This is your president. This was his greatest achievement. Can you support it? 

And RFK couldn’t even really twist himself into doing that. He sort of tried to, but he could never square it with the bulk of his remarks at the hearing, which were incredibly critical. MRNA vaccines and vaccines in general — he defended the massive cuts in this area for research. He defended people who have really said very untrue things about the harm caused by these vaccines. So in some ways I felt like Cassidy was trying to give him one more chance or something, and RFK couldn’t even take it when it was couched as this Trump achievement. 

Rovner: I can’t help but wonder if this is playing to Trump’s advantage because it’s distracting from Trump’s other problems, that perhaps Trump likes that there’s so much attention on this because it takes attention away from other things. 

Ollstein: Yeah. Although I do find the eagerness of Democratic members of Congress and other folks to wave away certain things as a distraction as a little bit questionable. This is all part of the agenda of the administration, and dismantling government bureaucracy is clearly a core, core part of the administration’s agenda, and so— 

Rovner: And flooding the zone. 

Ollstein: Exactly. Well, it might also serve as a distraction. I think that it should be considered a serious part of what they actually want to do as well. 

Rovner: So there were a couple of things that we learned about RFK Jr. from his confirmation hearings back in the winter. One is that he’s not at all deferential to elected officials, even calling them liars, which is pretty unheard of. And that he doesn’t really know how his department works. And it appears that eight months later, neither of those things have changed. How does he get away with being so rude? I mean, I’ve just never seen a Cabinet official who’s been so undeferential to the people who basically put him in office. Is it just me? 

Karlin-Smith: I think it’s part of the times where politics is really trumping behavior or policy, right? Even though there were a few Republicans that we’ve talked about who have kind of started to get frustrated with RFK and his vaccine policies. You saw at the beginning of the hearing, Chairman [Mike] Crapo was asked by the ranking Democrat, Sen. [Ron] Wyden, to basically swear Kennedy in because Wyden has felt like Kennedy has lied to the committee before. And Crapo just basically brushed that away and dismissed it. And I think, so, in many ways a lot of the Republicans on the committee endorsed Kennedy’s behavior kind of, maybe not overtly but indirectly, and that’s sort of been how they’ve been operating. It’s more of a political theater thing, and they’re OK with sort of this disrespect, of its sort of political fight that somebody on their side is taking up. 

Ollstein: I also think Congress’ unwillingness so far to actually sanction or take action in any way about anything RFK has done seems to have emboldened him. I think the fact that he has broken all these promises he made to Cassidy and other senators and there have been basically no consequences for him so far feeds into that. He kind of has a What are you going to do? attitude that was very evident in the hearing. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s fair. Well, there were, as always, parochial question from senators about home state issues, but one topic I don’t think I expected to see come up as many times as it did was the future of the abortion pill, mifepristone, which is about to celebrate the 25th anniversary of its original approval by the FDA. Alice, what are you hearing about whether FDA is going to rein the drug back in, which is what a lot of these anti-abortion Republicans really want to see happen? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so I think there was nothing new in the hearing this week. What he said was what he’s been saying, that they’re looking into it, that they’re evaluating. He made no specific commitments. He gave no specific timelines. He said basically enough to keep the anti-abortion people thinking that they’re cooking up some restrictions but not explicitly promising that, either. And so I think we’re just where we were before. They continue to reference data put forward by an anti-abortion think tank that was not peer-reviewed and claiming that it is this solid scientific evidence, which it is not, about the risks posed by the pills, which many actual, credible, peer-reviewed studies have found to be very safe. And so we just don’t know what’s going to happen. I think any nationwide restrictions, which is what they’re mulling at the federal level, which would impact states where abortion is legally protected, that would be a potentially politically damaging move. And so it’s understandable why they might not want to pull that trigger right now. So, right. 

Rovner: And Trump has said, I mean, Trump has indicated that he does not really want to wade into this. 

Ollstein: Correct. But again, he’s also very good about not making hard promises in either direction and sort of keeping his options open, which is what they’re doing. The anti-abortion activists, this is not their only iron in the fire. This is just one of many strategies they have going on. They also have multiple pending lawsuits and court cases that are attempting to accomplish the same thing. They’re pursuing new policies at the state level, which we’ll probably talk about, Texas and others. 

Rovner: Next. 

Ollstein: And so yes, this pressure on FDA and HHS to use regulation to restrict the pills is only one of many ongoing efforts. 

Rovner: Well, you have anticipated my next question, which is that while we are on the subject of the abortion pill, Texas, because it is always Texas, has a new bill on its way to the governor for a signature to try to outlaw . What exactly would this Texas law do? And would it work? Because, obviously, this has been the biggest loophole about stopping abortion in these states that have banned abortion, is that people are still able to get these pills from other states via telemedicine. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So in one sense, nothing’s changed. Abortion was already illegal in Texas, whether you use a pill or have a procedure. And so this is just layered on top of that. The groups who backed this explicitly said the attempt is to have a chilling effect. What they’re hoping is that no lawsuits are even needed, because this just scares people away from ordering pills and scares groups in other states away from sending pills. One concern that I saw raised is that the law criminalizes simply the shipping of the pills. Somebody doesn’t even have to take them for a crime to have been committed. 

And so that’s raising concerns that anti-abortion activists will do kind of sting operations, sort of entrapment-y things where they order the pills solely in the interest of bringing a lawsuit. Because there is a cash bounty that you can get for filing a lawsuit — there’s an incentive. So that’s a concern. And then just the general concern of a chilling effect and people who are using less safe means than these pills to terminate their pregnancies out of fear, which studies have shown is already on the rise, people injuring themselves taking herbs and other substances, chemicals. So that’s a concern as well. 

Rovner: We’ll continue to watch this, but back to vaccine policy. With the status of federal vaccine recommendations in limbo, states appear to be going their own way. Blue states California, Washington, and Oregon are banding together in a consortium to make official recommendations in the absence of federal policy, and several blue-state governors are acting unilaterally to make sure covid vaccines, at least, remain available to most people. At the same time, some red states are going the other way, with Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, who we have talked about before, now vowing to for schoolchildren. Sarah, that would be a really big deal, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think the big fear then is that the school requirements is kind of what gets us to close to, in many cases, universal vaccine uptake in the country, because everybody needs their kids to be in school. Unless you’re homeschooled, you really must follow these vaccine requirements. And it not only hurts the kids who don’t end up getting vaccinated individually, but it can really hurt the idea of herd immunity and the protection we need for these diseases to disappear in the community. So there’s— 

Rovner: And protection for people who can’t be immunized for some reason. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. Who either can’t be immunized or don’t have an adequate response to the immunization because they’re going through cancer treatment or they have some other medical reason that their body is immunocompromised. 

Rovner: So, I mean, is this going to end up like abortion, where it’s availability absolutely depends on where you live? 

Karlin-Smith: I think that’s hard to say. I think that a policy like what Florida is trying to implement could very quickly and easily go wrong, I think, and be reversed, as we’ve seen, like what’s happening in Texas now, with measles outbreaks. You know you only need just very small fractions of decreases in vaccination to create huge public health crises in places. And so I think it would be more sort of visible, in a way, to some of these states and their populations, the potential harm that could be caused, than maybe it is to them the abortion harm. But we definitely are seeing some sense of, right, the Democratic-controlled states trying to implement policies that help people get better access to vaccines, even when the federal government is trying to maybe harm that, and red states not caring as much. 

So there is going to be some more of a patchwork. And I feel like, in talking to just sort of people outside of the health policy space, there is a lot of confusion about: Where can I get my covid vaccine? Am I going to have to pay? Do I qualify? Especially being in D.C., which has less generous, I guess, pharmacy laws, because of this. So people are confused. If I go to Maryland, which is really close, does that matter even though I live in D.C.? And it’s just all these things we kind of know end up leading to less people getting vaccinated. Because even if they want to do it, the hurdles end up driving people away. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think something you’d said earlier about the fact that we’re seeing kind of a covid spike, so people are anxious to get covid vaccines, I think, a little bit earlier than normal. It’s usually kind of a fall thing and it’s only the beginning of September, but I think there’s just this combination, this confluence of events that has a lot of people very excited about this right now. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think it does. And covid has been, I think there’s been lots of hope in the public health world that covid would become a little bit like the flu, where we could predict a little bit more when it would really peak and get everybody vaccinated around the same time as they’re getting flu vaccines. Just again, because we know when we make it easier on people to get vaccinated, if you could just one-and-done it, it would be good. Unfortunately, covid has tended to also still have summer peaks, and this year again it’s kind of a late summer peak. And a lot of people, including seniors, are still recommended really actually to get two vaccines a year. So many people are kind of coming due for that second update right now. 

Rovner: Well, we’ll keep watching that space. Moving on, as we kind of pointed out already, Congress is back in town, with just a couple weeks to go before the start of fiscal 2026 on Oct. 1. This was the year Congress was really, truly going to get all of its spending bills passed in time for the start of the new year. How’s that going, Jessie? 

Hellmann: It’s going great. I’m just kidding. There’s a lot of friction on the Hill right now. The White House budget chief is talking about doing more clawbacks of foreign aid, which is frustrating both Democrats and Republicans. It’s about $5 billion, and we’re seeing Democrats kind of start to put their neck out there a little more than they did earlier in the year when they were also kind of making noise about government funding. And they’re now saying that Republicans are going to have to go this alone and they’re not going to support partisan spending bills. So it’s kind of difficult to see where we go from here. And then— 

Rovner: Are we looking at a shutdown on Oct. 1? I mean, that’s what happens if the spending bills aren’t done. 

Hellmann: It’s hard to say. There might be a short-term spending bill, but anything longer-term than that, it seems really difficult at this point. And there are just massive differences between the health bills that the House came out with and the Senate came out with. I mean, there’s differences in all the other appropriations bills, too, but I was just going to focus on health. 

Rovner: Yes, please. 

Hellmann: The Senate bill would allow an increase for HHS, and the House bill would cut it pretty significantly. So it’s kind of hard to see how they could do anything more substantive when there’s so much light between the two. 

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, on the one hand, we have both the Senate and the House subcommittee that’s marked up the Labor HHS [Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies] appropriation on record as not supporting at least the very deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health that were proposed by President Trump. But on the other hand, as you mentioned, we still have the administration, primarily budget office chief Russell Vought, making the case that the administration doesn’t have to spend money that Congress appropriates. And from all we can tell, at least as of now, there’s a lot of money that won’t be spent as of the end of the fiscal year, despite the fact that that is illegal. It’s known as a pocket rescission, a term I think we’re about to hear a lot more about. Alice, you referred to this earlier: Is Congress just going to quietly ignore the fact that the administration is usurping their power? 

Ollstein: I think that in many areas of politics, there is a faction that wants to play hardball and really use whatever leverage is possible and there’s a faction that wants to play nice and try to get what they can get by negotiation. And I think both parties always fear being blamed for shutdowns, and so that drives a lot of it. But I think there’s mounting frustration with Democratic leadership about not playing hardball enough. I mean, the jokes I hear are Democrats like to bring a spreadsheet to a gunfight, just seen as being unwilling, in the face of what many see as lawlessness, being unwilling to really put a check on that using the levers they have, including this federal spending. But I think we’ve seen that there are risks no matter what they do, and so I think people make reasonable points about the pros and cons of various strategies. 

Rovner: Well, we know that [Sen.] Susan Collins, who’s now the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is very, very concerned — because Susan Collins is always very, very concerned. But she’s the one whose power is basically being thwarted at this point. People have gotten a lot of gray hair waiting for Susan Collins to stand up and be combative, but one would think if there was ever a time for her to do it, this would be it. Jessie, are we seeing, I was going to say, any indication that the appropriators are going to say, Hey, this is our job and our constitutional responsibility, and you’re supposed to do what we say when it comes to money? 

Hellmann: They are saying these things. I feel like we are seeing more Senate Republicans, at least, express discomfort with what the Trump administration is doing, saying things like: This is Congress’ job. We have the power of the purse. And then they are passing some of these spending bills through committee. But what else are they supposed to do? Unless Susan Collins wants to get on Fox News and start screaming about government funding, which I don’t really see happening and I don’t know if it would be effective, you kind of just wonder: What other options do they have at this point? 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we’ll sort of see how this plays out over the next few weeks. Meanwhile, it’s not just the spending bills that Congress is facing deadlines for. This month is basically the last chance to re-up those, quote, “expanded subsidies” for Affordable Care Act plans before the sticker shock hits 24 million people in the face. Not only are premiums going up by an average of 18% from this year to next — that’s for a lot of reasons: increasing costs of health care, tariffs, drug prices — but eliminating those additional subsidies, or actually letting them expire, will cause some people to have to pay double or triple what they pay now. And it’s going to hit folks in red states like Georgia and Florida and Texas even harder because more folks there are on the Affordable Care Act plans, because those states didn’t expand Medicaid. Do Republicans not understand what’s about to happen to them? 

Hellmann: I think they understand, but they keep acting like there’s no urgency to the situation. They keep saying: We still have time. We have till the end of the year. Which I guess is technically true, but we’re already seeing insurers proposing these giant rate hikes. And it’s not easy to just go back and make changes to some of this. I guess the idea is— 

Rovner: So they really don’t have until the end of the year, though. Because people are going to get, they’re going to see the next year’s premiums that they have to start signing up in November. So, I mean, they basically have this month. 

Ollstein: If there’s uncertainty, they’re going to price very conservatively, aka high. They don’t want to be left holding the bag. And so, yeah, you and Jessie are exactly right that there isn’t time. These decisions are being made now. Even if they pass something to kick the can until after the midterms, I think some damage will already have been done. 

Rovner: Yeah. Jessie, I cut you off, though. I mean, the idea is that sort of their one chance to maybe do this before people actually start to get these bills, or at least see what they’re going to have to pay, would be wrapped into this end-of-fiscal-year continuing resolution. And maybe they can kick the appropriations down the road until November or December, but they can’t really kick the question of the subsidies down the road until November or December. 

Hellmann: Yeah. I think something would have to happen really quickly. We’re seeing some politically vulnerable Republicans, in the House, specifically, say that they want at least a year-long extension. It’s just a really difficult issue. We know, obviously, the Freedom Caucus is already making threats about it. They hate the ACA, maybe more than anything. It’s going to be really interesting how this turns out. I’ve also heard that maybe there might be a paired-back version of an extension that they could do, maybe messing with some of the income parameters. But I don’t know if that kind of compromise would be enough unless Republicans work with Democrats, which as we already said is complicated for other reasons. So it’s just a mess right now. 

Rovner: I love September on Capitol Hill. All right, finally this week it will launch a pilot program next January to test the use of artificial intelligence to perform prior authorization for Medicare fee-for-service patients in six states. The program is aimed at just a handful of services right now that are considered to be often wasteful and of dubious value to patients. So, honestly, what could possibly go wrong here? This is a serious question. I mean, isn’t using AI to do prior authorization what got a lot of these private health plans in trouble over the last year? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, they did. UnitedHealthcare I think is sort of infamous for that. There was a lot of irony when they first announced this concept of doing a little more prior auth, essentially, in Medicare. It came right after they made another announcement where they were trying to say, We’re actually going to crack down on prior authorization for a health plan. So there’s a bit of, and I think they were trying to not have the, in this second announcement, not have the words “prior auth,” so that they kind of could get wins on both levels. Because I think they know that prior authorization is generally not popular with health consumers. People see it as kind of a barrier to care that their doctor has said they need and is largely stopped because of cost reasons. And then I think once you add in this idea that artificial intelligence is doing it, not a human being, I think people have less trust that it’s being done in the proper way and really that they’re stopping inappropriate care. 

Rovner: Well, to paraphrase RFK Jr. at the Senate Finance hearing, who said many times, both things can be true, even if they are contradictory. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we have time for. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Tony Leys, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News “Bill of the Month.” Tony, welcome back. 

Tony Leys: Glad to be here. Thanks, Julie. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient got a literal mouthful when she went to photograph the night sky in Arizona. Who is she and what happened? 

Leys: While Erica Kahn was taking photos at Glen Canyon last summer, a bat flew up, landed on her, and jammed itself between her camera and her face. Kahn screamed, as anyone would, and the bat went into her mouth. It only was in there for a few seconds, and she didn’t feel a bite. But she feared it could have infected her with a rabies virus, which bats frequently carry. 

Rovner: Yeah, not a great thing. So as with any run-in with a bat, Erica wisely reported to the nearest emergency room for preventive rabies treatment, which we know from previous “Bills of the Month” can total many thousands of dollars. How much did her treatment cost? 

Leys: Nearly $21,000, mostly for a series of vaccinations and other treatments, over the course of two weeks, aimed at preventing the deadly virus from gaining a foothold. 

Rovner: Yikes. 

Leys: Yikes, indeed. 

Rovner: Now, the problem here wasn’t so much that she was charged as what her insurance status was. What was her health insurance status? 

Leys: Well, Kahn had been laid off from her job as a biomedical engineer in Massachusetts, and she had turned down the COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] plan, which would’ve allowed her to stay on her employer’s insurance plan. The plan would’ve cost her about $650 a month, which seemed too much for her. And she was a young, healthy adult who was confident that she would quickly find a new job with health insurance. She also thought that if she became ill in the meantime, she could buy a private plan that would cover preexisting health conditions. 

Rovner: Yeah. That was the big problem, right? 

Leys: Right. 

Rovner: So what did she do? And then what happened? 

Leys: So before she went to the hospital for rabies prevention treatment, she signed up for a policy she found online. The policy, which she thought was full-fledged health insurance, apparently wasn’t. But she says the company selling it told her it would cover treatment of a life-threatening emergency, which this sure seemed to be. But the company later declined to cover any of the bills, citing a 30-day waiting period for coverage. 

Rovner: Yeah. Now, I mean, you can’t generally buy any kind of insurance after an insurable event happens. You can’t buy fire insurance the day after a fire or car insurance the day after an accident. Health insurance is no different. Although in her case, she could have actually resumed her previous coverage through COBRA, right? How would that have worked? 

Leys: So after you lose coverage from an employer, you generally have 60 days to decide whether to sign up for COBRA coverage, which would be retroactive to the day your old policy lapsed. Khan was within that period when the bat went in her mouth. So she could have retroactively bought COBRA coverage, but she didn’t know about that option. 

Rovner: Yeah. A lot of people, they initially lose their job or they leave their job and they don’t take COBRA, because it’s really expensive, as a rule — because it’s employer insurance and employer insurance is usually pretty generous — and they think they don’t need it. But this is one of those cases where she actually probably could have gotten it covered, right? 

Leys: Right, right. And in fairness, I’d never heard about that 60-day thing, either, and I’ve covered this, so— 

Rovner: I had, but I was there when COBRA was started. So what’s the takeaway here about people who don’t have insurance or think they can buy it at the last minute? 

Leys: Well, two things. One is you should have health insurance. 

Rovner: Because you never know when a bat’s going to fly in your mouth. 

Leys: And that a bat in the mouth does not count as a preexisting condition. 

Rovner: True. 

Leys: We know that now. 

Rovner: And what happened with this bill? 

Leys: She is still trying to get it worked out. 

Rovner: And presumably she’s going to be paying it off for some time to come. 

Leys: That’s what it sounds like. Yep. 

Rovner: But she won’t get rabies. 

Leys: Nope. 

Rovner: So happy ending of a sort. Tony Leys, thank you so much. 

Leys: Thank you for having me. Appreciate it. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, you were the first to come up with your extra credit this week. Why don’t you tell us about it? 

Karlin-Smith: I picked a piece that ran in NPR from KFF’s Blake Farmer, “,” because it’s about the one-year anniversary of my family getting lice from school. And I actually was exposed to this new reality, which is since I was in school, and it’s, I guess, a broader national policy that they no longer kick kids out of school once you see lice and make it kind of difficult before you can go back to school. And I guess the public health rationale is generally that lice is actually, while it’s quite itchy, it’s not really harmful. So trying to think about the best way to cause the least harm, letting kids stay in school while you treat the infection is seen as most appropriate now. 

But there’s been, as a story goes into, some pushback from parents who feel that then it’s just getting them in these cycles where they’re constantly getting lice and having to deal with it. And dealing with getting the shampoos and stuff for lice can be kind of costly. So I thought it was a slightly lighter health care story for people to think about in these times. 

Rovner: Yeah. Risks and benefits. Classic case of risks and benefits. Alice. 

Ollstein: Well, this is definitely more on the risks than the benefits side of things, but I have a very good piece from Vox. It’s an exclusive. It’s called “.” And so they talked to these scientists who were commissioned to compile all of the data about the risk of drinking alcohol to having cancer. And it was compiling high-quality data that was already out there. And it really shows that no amount of drinking is totally safe. Even a very small, moderate amount of drinking includes a cancer risk, and that goes up the more you drink. 

And now, according to this report, the administration is not going to publish this. The authors turned it in in March, and they’ve just been sitting on it and they said they have no plans to publish it. And this is coming as the alcohol industry does a lot of lobbying to try to prevent stuff like this from being put out in the public consciousness. I just found this really fascinating. Already the younger generations are drinking a lot less. And so there does seem to be a growing awareness of the health risks of even moderate drinking. But I think that anything that keeps people from seeing this information is worrying, although this report did say that they are planning on publishing it in a peer-reviewed medical journal, which they were always planning anyways. But not having the federal government’s backing is a big deal. 

Rovner: It’s not exactly “radical transparency” is what they’ve been talking about. Jessie. 

Ollstein: And it’s not exactly “MAHA” [“Make America Healthy Again”]. They’re talking MAHA. They’re talking about lifestyle stuff. They’re talking about what you eat, but apparently not about what you drink. 

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann: My story is from ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, from Bram Sable-Smith. It’s called “When Hospitals and Insurers Fight, Patients Get Caught in the Middle.” It is about what happens when providers and insurers have contract disputes. The one example in this story is in Missouri, and it kind of focuses on this family that’s caught in the middle of a dispute between the University of Missouri Health Care system and Anthem. And it means patients don’t get care. There’s not a lot of protections for them. There are provisions that were in the No Surprises Act kind of intended to ensure there was some continuity of care in these situations. But at least for this couple, they weren’t really able to access those protections. So unclear if those are working as intended. 

I just thought it was really interesting because it’s not a new problem, but it’s definitely something that we are hearing more and more. It just happened in the D.C .area a few weeks ago. It just happened in New York. And it kind of raises questions about: What are policymakers going to do about this? They complain about rising health care costs, but they don’t often do very much. They complain about competition and consolidation, and this is one of the effects of that. People lose access to care. So I thought this was a really interesting story. 

Rovner: Yeah. These are all the policy issues that policymakers are not working on but could be. My extra credit this week is from ProPublica. It’s called “,” by Brandon Roberts, Annie Waldman, Pratheek Rebala, and Sam Green. And it’s a deep data dive that found that more than 20,500 workers, or about 18% of the Health and Human Services Department workforce, have left or been pushed out in the first month of Trump 2.0. That includes more than a thousand regulators and safety inspectors and 3,000 scientists and public health specialists. The agency, in its official response to the story, said, quote, “Yes, we’ve made cuts — to bloated bureaucracies that were long overdue for accountability.” I guess we will have to see if America gets healthier. In the meantime, it’s good to have some data on where we were and now where we are at HHS. 

OK, that’s this week’s show. Thanks to our fill-in editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. 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. As always, you can email us your comments or questions at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you guys hanging out these days? Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: Kind of everywhere. At , , — @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann: I am on X, . I’m also on . 

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 31, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: And Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have the second of our two-part series marking the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, which was yesterday, for those keeping track. This week, Sara Rosenbaum of George Washington University, one of the nation’s leading Medicaid experts, takes us through the history of that program and what the next 60 years could bring. And if you want to hear more from both our Medicare and Medicaid experts, we’re going to put the full-length versions of both interviews together for a special episode later in August. But first, this week’s news. 

Before we start, I hope you’ll bear with me this week. I slipped and fell and broke my wrist. So my typing and some of my thinking skills are a little lacking at the moment. But on this week of the 35th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which we will talk about in a few minutes, I am very grateful for all the various technological advances that are now available to those of us with disabilities, whether permanent or temporary, and which allowed the podcast to actually come to you this week. So, now, here we go. 

It was another busy week at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services]. Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., having already fired all the members of the vaccine advisory board, is reportedly now taking aim at the U.S. preventive health services task force. Now, this was not wholly unexpected. When the Trump administration switched sides on that lawsuit over the task force brought in Texas earlier this year, we assumed that RFK Jr. wanted to do something exactly like this. Right, Shefali? 

Luthra: We certainly did, because it wouldn’t have otherwise made a lot of sense to argue that they could continue to make recommendations unless, perhaps, RFK Jr. wasn’t going to listen to them. It just, once again, really bears noting that this was something many people discussed as a likely possibility, given his record, when he was nominated to be secretary. And there were some senators who suggested that perhaps he had made individual promises, commitments, to actually keep the expert panels in place. And here we are. He did not do that. 

Rovner: Yeah. And we should say he has, at least as of this moment, he has not yet fired all of the members, but certainly there are indications that he’s considering it. And obviously that was what they argued to the court, was that, Hey, it’s OK for the Senate not to confirm the members of this task force, because the secretary has control over them. So here’s the secretary suggesting that he’s going to take control over them. 

Edney: And now the senators show support for the task force. It’s just this circle that keeps on going where they need to try to bolster the backing, but the writing was on the wall when they voted to confirm him. 

Rovner: Well, apparently the secretary isn’t finished with vaccine policy, either. He’s also taking aim at the 1980s-era Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or VICP. That’s what provides a no-fault way for people injured by vaccine side effects to get compensation for those injuries. This program was literally created to prevent the vaccine industry from going out of business in the 1980s because it was being sued into oblivion. I know that RFK Jr. said the program is, quote, “broken” and he intends to, quote, “fix it.” But does anybody have any idea what he might be planning for it? I will remind people, like, I’m shouting into the wind, that this was an act of Congress created by Congress, reformed by Congress. I don’t know whether the secretary can just take it apart on his own. 

Kenen: He can try, or leave it intact but create some kind of barriers to filing, or— 

Rovner: Actually, I think he wants to make it easier for people to get compensation. 

Kenen: He wants it easier to get compensation. We don’t know what it will do. But they keep finding workarounds or just ignoring things. So we can’t say we can or cannot do, because we don’t know what they’re going to do. But his whole health persona really is built on the fact that he believes that vaccines are damaging or dangerous and they kill more people than they save. And therefore, apparently all of us could just get a payout because we had a shot. But it’s not as much of a moneymaking business in general, not for a specific new shot, but vaccination is not as profitable as the public may perceive. Yes, the covid shots, there was some exceptional things about the speed and scale, etc.— 

Rovner: Right. Because everybody got one at the same time. 

Kenen: And they’re subsidized, etc., or some of them were. So Anna knows more about this than I do. Basically, it was designed to both protect people who were — nobody, even the strongest pro-vaccine people, nobody denies that there is such a thing as an injury. They would say it’s rare and not autism, but when it is, it is rare, but someone should get compensation and the care they need. 

Rovner: And Anna, we’re really looking at the potential for some of these vaccine makers to just say, We’re going to wash our hands of making vaccines. Right? 

Edney: Yeah, absolutely. The point of this program was to, like Joanne said, admit that there can be injury but to make it no-fault so that the vaccine makers could continue providing vaccines for the majority of people who respond well to them and to not be caught up in court battles for millions and billions of dollars all the time. And there may be some complaints, but it does seem that people, by and large, are able to get some compensation from this. And you mentioned covid vaccines. Those aren’t included in this program, so that may be something he is looking at, because they’re done through a different program, which is maybe some complaints about it or that it’s a little less likely to pay out or to give as much compensation. And so maybe a way of expanding it is to include the covid vaccines. But if it becomes that — Well, you can keep using this program, but we’re also going to make it easier to sue the vaccine makers — we’re going to see the companies be wary of being involved in providing vaccines at that point. 

Rovner: Well, in still more vaccine-related news, the controversial head of the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] vaccine division resigned unexpectedly this week. Anna, tell us why Vinay Prasad was so controversial. And why did he leave after only three months on the job? 

Edney: Yeah, this was a huge amount of drama at the FDA. So Prasad himself can be a polarizing figure. He has been at UCSF [the University of California-San Francisco] for a long time and gained prominence as someone who criticized the agency for what’s called accelerated approvals, getting certain drugs, particularly cancer drugs, quickly to patients even when they hadn’t proven necessarily that they worked. And he criticized that program. He got to the FDA. He was head of the vaccines division, which also covers biologic drugs. And under this division was a drug made by a company called Sarepta. Every one of their drugs that has come to market has had a lot of drama surrounding it because these are drugs for very, very sick, usually young boys who have Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and it’s a huge parent population that wants these drugs, even when maybe they don’t always show that they work very well. 

Well, a few kids have unfortunately died while taking these drugs in recent months, and so the FDA was looking at that, and it came out that there was another death in a clinical trial of an older gentleman, and no one knew definitely if it was related to the drug. And so once that became public, it’s not like the FDA or the company came out with it, but once it became public, the FDA kind of seemed to overcorrect and try to have the drug be paused, and then maybe take it off the market. And so Vinay Prasad was at the center of this debate. Already he was disliked by some of [President Donald] Trump’s higher-up people, particularly Laura Loomer. We may have heard her name before. 

Rovner: We have. 

Edney: She goes after some nominees, successfully in many cases. And Rick Santorum also got involved at this point. He has a daughter with a rare disease and didn’t like the way that this rare-disease drug was being treated. So essentially Prasad, who clearly for the last several years has only wanted to be at the FDA, has left after three months, was pushed out after three months. 

Rovner: Wow. It’s quite the drama. I’ll link to or two if you actually want to go deeper. 

Kenen: But one of the criticisms that Laura Loomer had is that he used to be a Democrat. 

Edney: Right. 

Kenen: Well, that would also apply to RFK Jr. 

Edney: Right. That’s true. 

Rovner: It would. Oh, I’m sure the drama, both at FDA and at HHS writ large, is far from over. Well, speaking of turning the clock back, President Trump issued a new executive order that would end the, quote, “housing first” policy that has driven homelessness strategy since the late 1990s. I guess this is also not a surprise. Trump complained repeatedly on the campaign trail about how homeless encampments were destroying cities. We’ve had a recent Supreme Court case on this, but this new policy seeks to not just allow but encourage localities to force at least some homeless people off the streets and into residential treatment. I imagine this is going to make for another long line of lawsuits, right? 

Kenen: Well, there’s housing first itself. It’s not without controversy. There’s a philosophical divide. Housing first means you house people and then you deal with their social and economic and physical and psychological and drug abuse, etc. Get a roof over their head and then you deal with everything else. Other people say, No, get them into treatment and stabilize them, and then you put them in housing, and they have to … Housing first has been the dominant philosophy in addressing homelessness in recent years. That’s a different debate. This is, like, put them in an institution against their will, which the courts have power to do in limited cases. There are times when a court can say, This individual doesn’t want to be hospitalized, but for their own safety they really need to be. But that’s one by one and not that common, and it’s limited. I believe it’s 30 days. I might be wrong about that. 

But this is a whole different thing. It’s a combination of this, We’re going to force them into institutional settings for treatment, whether they want it or not, combined with the Supreme Court decision of about a year ago allowing cities and local government, not just cities but governments, to forcibly clear away, to dismantle encampments, to force people out. So you have it coming from both the administration’s policies and the court decisions. This creates a whole — and housing money is being cut. Housing assistance is being cut. So you really have this tremendous shift in how we approach homelessness at a time when homelessness is high, while homelessness has been high. And nobody’s saying that there’s not a mental health component for some, but by no means all, people who are homeless. But this is not in accord with how the health and homelessness advocacy and treatment world has been approaching it. This is a significant shift. 

Rovner: And as you point out, this is a health and social service issue, too, because we are seeing money cut and money diverted that, basically this executive order will say, We’re going to give more money to localities that sort of handle this the way we want and less money to others. So I imagine this is going to have trickle-down effects for some time to come. 

Kenen: Yeah. And the clearing the encampments is going on, and we should know it’s not only a conservative state. California has done it. Other states have done it. So the idea of dismantling these — we’ve all seen these encampments — that is happening in various places in the country already, and this is sort of an extra step. It’s not only do you clear them, but this would envision forcing them into treatment, often in an institutional setting. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, as I mentioned at the top, this week marks the 35th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which I also covered, by the way. Secretary Kennedy spoke at an event marking the occasion on Monday. But an awful lot of the disability community is up in arms about the cuts to Medicaid, which they say will roll back much of the progress the movement has made in the past three and a half decades, much of it for people getting in-home types of assistance. And yet the ADA was pushed hard and signed by a Republican administration, that of President George H.W. Bush. Is this yet another formerly Republican priority being kind of tossed out the window? 

Luthra: I think to your point, a lot of things that used to be bipartisan in the health policy world are not anymore. The other example is something like Title X, and it’s just we have really seen this shift of things that used to be broadly uncontroversial, because the health implications are clear, become much more so and largely become rejected by Republicans in a way that is just really, really different from what you might’ve imagined even, I don’t know, 10, 15 years ago. 

Rovner: And my favorite piece of Title X trivia: It was signed by Richard Nixon, but it was sponsored in the House by then-Rep. George H.W. Bush. So he both sponsored Title X, the Family Planning Program, and signed the ADA into law. Boy, it feels like a million years ago and not 35. 

Well, moving on to health care costs. It is tariff week in Washington — again — and not surprisingly, prescription drugs are a big part of that conversation. The trade deal that President Trump announced with the EU while he was in Scotland last weekend includes a 15% tariff on brand-name prescription drugs imported from Europe. That will include things like, I don’t know, the blockbuster weight loss drug Ozempic? Anna, how does Trump think this is going to eventually lower drug prices in the U.S.? It sounds like it’s just going to raise them. 

Edney: Yeah. I think most people agree with your sentiment that it’s going to raise them. I think a lot of this is focused on bringing drug-making back to the United States and trying to get companies to do more of that here. Whether you see that from brand-name companies seems like it could be really difficult. I know Botox is made in Ireland, and this is a facility where, because it’s essentially a toxin, a very deadly toxin if released— 

Rovner: Yes, it’s botulism. 

Edney: Right. This is a facility that is highly guarded. A colleague of mine wrote a story on it many years ago now, but you had to go underground. They’re not just moving this thing over to the United States. So I think for brand-name drugs that it’s going to be particularly difficult to lower the prices based on tariffs, or to say We’re moving production over here in any capacity. So what the thinking of how exactly this works or is beneficial will be interesting to see, because they’re also still doing — this would not apply to these — but they’re doing this national security assessment for tariffs on drugs from other places and trying to figure out if there’s a national security reason to be putting tariffs on them. For the most part, when drug quality comes into question, it’s not usually the European drugmakers that we’re concerned about. 

Rovner: And we’re still waiting to hear about the generic-drug makers in India and China, right? 

Edney: Yeah, exactly. We’re waiting to see what they’ll decide. They’re still doing their investigation, the administration is, to see what those tariffs might be from India or China, or any other countries that are making generic drugs. 

Rovner: Another story that we will continue to watch, and glad to have Anna here to continue to help us watch that. Now, it’s time for this week in what we’re still learning about the impact of the big tax and spending bill that President Trump signed on July Fourth. This week’s installment comes from my ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News colleague Bernard Wolfson, whose column points out that eliminating eligibility for Affordable Care Act subsidies for immigrants who are here legally will mostly just raise premiums for everyone else by taking more healthy people out of the insurance pool. I get the administration’s insistence on not having people who are not here legally collecting benefits. We’ve talked about emergency Medicaid, but that’s a different issue. But what’s the justification for taking coverage away for people who are here because they’re refugees or victims of abuse, or those with temporary protected status? I don’t honestly understand what the point is of this. 

Kenen: There’s a stigmatization across the board as being an immigrant, right? So the administration is not embracing immigrants who are here legally. We’ve all seen reports of people who are here legally still being picked up by immigration officials. It’s very messy. Sometimes people just say, OK, we’ll save money this way, not understanding that the costs pop up someplace else in the system and it may be more expensive. So not just in terms of that individual, but if things are going untreated in communities because people aren’t seeking care, communicable diseases can also spread. So there have been attempts to blame disease outbreaks on immigration when that’s not the case. 

Rovner: Going back hundreds of years. 

Kenen: Right. Smallpox was brought here by immigrants, right? 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: Hundreds of years ago. 

Rovner: By the European immigrants. 

Kenen: Right. That’s what I— 

Rovner: And given to the Native population. 

Kenen: Right. Right. So it’s just part of an overall gestalt about immigrants and immigration, and sort of treating them as leeches, not as people who live here. 

Rovner: But I feel like both — it’s funny because this connects back to the whole tariff issue. The idea that Trump has here is to make things more “America First,” have more things made in America, and obviously more people made in America, and more Americans here to be served in America. But both of these things would take a long time. I guess the idea of not allowing legal immigrants to have benefits is to discourage people from coming here legally. One can’t see any other thing that would make that logical. And the idea of the tariffs, Anna, as you said, is to have companies build more manufacturing here. Both of those things would take a lot longer than Donald Trump is likely to be president. He doesn’t usually have a long-term view of things, and yet both of these issues are long-term issues, right? 

Edney: Yeah. I think at least for the tariffs and for — there’ve been these small announcements with certain companies where they’ll say, Well, because of Trump, we’re going to build a new plant in Indianapolis. And that plant sure isn’t, like, it’s five years away, but he can make these announcements. And Joanne, and you’re absolutely right that he obviously wants to degrade immigrants in any way that he can, but also Obamacare, right? That’s still a thing that they’re in certain ways willing to go after. 

Rovner: Good point. It’s a twofer. 

Edney: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. So if you can erode Obamacare some and have a sicker population, and people being angry that they had to pay more, but Republicans have been good at still attaching that to Democrats: Oh, Obamacare. So I don’t know, maybe that comes back around. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, question answered. OK. Turning to abortion, the on-again, off-again Planned Parenthood funding is apparently on again, at least for now. You may recall last week a judge had allowed some of the defunding included in the budget bill to begin, but now another federal judge has said, Nope, you’ve got to keep letting Planned Parenthood collect from Medicaid for non-abortion-related services. Shefali, what comes next? 

Luthra: The case continues to go through the courts. We know that right now that is in a federal district court. It could eventually go to the appellate courts. It could eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, including the debate over whether this proceeding is allowed to take effect or not. In the meantime, I’ve been talking to a lot of clinics, and they are preparing for the real possibility that they lose their Medicaid funding. Some of them are not optimistic about the long-term legal viability of this injunction, and so they’re thinking: What will we do if we lose all of these Medicaid dollars? Will we be able to see patients in the volume that we do? Will we be able to get funds from the state? Some are in active conversations with state governments. Some are looking to private fundraising. Others are thinking about which clinics they would close and also how they would do that in a way that minimizes service loss to patients, while acknowledging that some ability to access care — whether that is abortion or STI [sexually transmitted infection] screening or contraception or cancer screening — will simply not be replaced. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I have to say, for all the million times I have said on this podcast, an administration can’t cut off Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, because it’s written into the Medicaid law, that doesn’t mean that Congress can’t cut off Planned Parenthood, because they can change the law. So I’m also a little bit wondering what the justification for Planned Parenthood being able to argue — I know that they’re arguing that they’re going after Planned Parenthood specifically, and that that’s not allowed. But certainly Congress can change the Medicaid law if it wants to. Congress wrote the Medicaid law. 

Luthra: And I think it’s worth throwing in a couple of other components as well, considering there are multiple lawsuits at play right now, not just the original from Planned Parenthood. There’s the liberal states’ attorneys general. There’s the Maine Family Planning suit, as well. But conservative states do have an avenue to block Medicaid funds going to Planned Parenthood now, if they choose. The Supreme Court gave them that opportunity in the South Carolina case earlier this year. So no matter what happens in this case, there is a very real likelihood that in many parts of the country, Planned Parenthood clinics will lose funding they are reliant on and will probably have to close many facilities. 

Rovner: Yeah. And just to reiterate, this goes back to the Title X Family Planning Program that we were talking about earlier, so it all comes full circle this week. This week we also have the latest chapter in the continuing fight between states with abortion bans and those with shield laws to try to protect doctors who are sending abortion pills through the mail into those states with abortion bans. According to , a man from Galveston is suing a doctor in California for sending his girlfriend pills to end her pregnancy. The man is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell, whose name may well be familiar to you as the originator of, most now, of Texas’s various abortion bans. The suit seeks both damages for the man who’s suing and an injunction on behalf of, quote, “all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States.” Shefali, that feels pretty broad. 

Luthra: It certainly does feel very broad. When I read it, I really wondered: How do you decide who are future potential parents of unborn children? Is that— 

Rovner: Fathers, fathers. 

Luthra: Excuse me. Yes. Potential fathers. Even more, how — is it everyone who has sperm? I don’t know. But this is part of a really central strategy to where the anti-abortion movement is right now. They are very upset about shield law prescription and provision of abortion medication. In Texas, they are trying a bunch of things to try and block this, whether that is this particular suit, whether that is one from the attorney general that continues to move back and forth, whether that is trying to get new state laws enacted during this special session. We’ll see if that happens with all the redistricting that is going on. 

Rovner: This is all about Texas, by the way. 

Luthra: And Texas is a really important player. But we did just see a group of attorneys general around the country from conservative states just reach out to members of Congress this week and say, Can you pass some kind of law that will block shield law prescription? We’ve also seen a case out of Louisiana that is held up in court right now because it’s a criminal case. But this is just such an important goal for them, because the reason abortions haven’t gone down is because people can keep accessing care through the mail. And if they can stop that, it will have tremendous implications for people in states with abortion bans, but also in other parts of the country where maybe it’s just too much of a pain or too far to go to a clinic and you can have a doctor mail you that care. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, clearly the abortion fights continue. We will continue to follow them. All right, that is this week’s news. Now, we’ll play excerpts of my interview with Medicaid expert Sara Rosenbaum, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome Sara Rosenbaum to the podcast. Sara is professor emerita of health law and policy at George Washington University, one of the, if not the, leading experts on Medicaid. She’s also the person who has taught me at least 80% of what I know about the program. So I am extra thrilled that she’s agreed to come be our guide. Sara, welcome. 

Sara Rosenbaum: Well, and thank you for having me. It’s such a pleasure to be on the show. 

Rovner: So let’s start at the beginning. Medicaid was kind of an afterthought to Medicare when they were both created 60 years ago. How did Medicaid come to be? 

Rosenbaum: It’s a really interesting question. This is, of course, the lore, that Medicaid was an afterthought. If you look at the original act, which had been enacted about five years before, and you read the original statutory language — which we lawyers revel in doing — you are amazed. This was not such a big afterthought. I would say that Wilbur Cohen and Wilbur Mills and Lyndon Johnson and everybody else had a good idea of what they were doing. They knew that they were planting the seeds for a program that ultimately would come to be the foundation of health insurance for low-income people across the United States, as well as, of course, specific categories such as people with very severe disabilities. 

Rovner: So what was the difference between Medicare and Medicaid supposed to be when they were signed into law 60 years ago? 

Rosenbaum: Yeah. So Medicaid was very much structured in the classic style of a state grants program. It has come, of course, to be so much more than that, but it was a grant to states, and states would set up state plans. This is all language that has become very familiar to us. And they would provide medical assistance, as it was called, to certain categories of poor people. And the theory was that the program would start with these people, but tucked into — the categories were cash welfare recipients — but tucked in there were a group of people known as the medically needy, in the early days. And the medically needy, I always felt, was sort of the first seeds of something much bigger, because the point was that it was a program for people who were low-income, who couldn’t afford their medical care, but didn’t get cash welfare. 

So the theory was exactly the theory that has carried the program for 60 years now. And originally the thought was that it would really — and of course, this has turned out to be the case — that that would enable people who had very serious health care costs for things that Medicare did not cover — nursing home care, home health benefits ultimately, those kinds of really big-ticket long-term care items outside of Medicare — because Medicare was really sort of like Blue Cross Blue Shield for old people like me. 

Rovner: You weren’t old at the time though? 

Rosenbaum: I was not. Right. I was just a kid. But the program was meant to replicate what folks had had during their working years, and so it was very important and very profound, but limited. 

Rovner: So Medicare’s long been the more politically popular of the two programs. 

Rosenbaum: Yes. 

Rovner: Primarily because of the political clout of older voters, which is how it was created. How was it that Medicaid became the program that grew so much? 

Rosenbaum: What would propel Medicaid forward is that, unlike Medicare, which is tied to a premium structure, right? Medicare is funded through premium payments, which is great, but premium payments are quite unique. Because they are actuarially based, they are a very tightly controlled form of financing, because you’re asking — whether it’s the government or, now, of course, private insurers that contracted the government — you’re asking them to take on a lot of financial risk, and so everybody wanted the assurance of premium structure. Well, Medicaid was not. Medicaid is a classic public health statute. It’s general revenue. And so every time something happened that required an intervention by the federal government where health care was concerned, you could just add a few pages to the Medicaid statute and end up with, voilà, a fix. And by the mid-’70s, people said, Well, what if we decoupled this category from cash welfare funding levels and just let poor children have Medicaid? And there then ensued, essentially, a decade-long effort to add poor children and pregnant women as groups in their own right to the Medicaid program. 

Rovner: I feel like in 2017, in the fight over the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, that was sort of a big change for Medicaid. I think people had finally realized that Medicaid had grown larger than— 

Rosenbaum: Yes. 

Rovner: —Medicare, that it was not just a program for the poorest of the poor, that it did all of these other things that you’re talking about, and that really a lot of, I guess, the stigma had been taken away. And yet this Congress felt comfortable — I don’t know if I’d say comfortable — but a majority of them voted to make these really deep, profound changes. What is that going to mean going forward, both to the health care system and to the political system? 

Rosenbaum: Well, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking in this post-enactment period about when was the die cast that’s had everybody spinning. And I think congressional leaders and the White House leadership understood the fatal error they’d made in 2017, which was separating the tax reforms from the spending reforms. Because, of course, we were then able to battle the spending reforms on our own turf, right?. Here, because of the decision that was made back, I’m sure, almost a year ago— 

Rovner: Literally the idea to do one “big, beautiful” bill. 

Rosenbaum: Yes. And that meant that Medicaid, along with food stamps, or SNAP [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], along with everything else, just became pay-fors. They just became offsets. And the name of the game then became beating back every attempt to deprive Congress of pay-fors to do the thing that it really wanted to do, which was tax reform. And so we were all reduced to — “we” in the sense of people who worked on social welfare policy — to bystanders in this effort to get to a trillion dollars. And therefore— 

Rovner: A trillion dollars in cuts. 

Rosenbaum: A trillion dollars in cuts, and therefore it opened the door to extraordinary things. 

Rovner: So what happens next? Does this happen? And if it happens, does it undergird or take out the underpinnings of the entire health care system? Or does Congress eventually realize what it’s done and change its mind? 

Rosenbaum: Well, I think the hope is that — some people are saying: Well, the two-year runway. It’s like two years until it becomes effective. The two-year runway is sort of going to make people forget about this, and then boom, it’ll be upon us. I don’t think so. I think the two-year runway will end up shining a huge light on the fact that states cannot implement the whole system. While we are very focused on the number of people who will lose their coverage, the states are confronting an insurmountable problem here. They’ve never had to link Medicaid to work records, and Congress did everything it could to make matters so much worse. For example, they could have just said that, We’re going to import the same requirements that apply to SNAP to Medicaid, and so if you’re getting SNAP in your working age, then you automatically enroll in Medicaid. They didn’t do that. They didn’t do that. It’s a different-enough set of eligibility criteria and exemption categories. For example, SNAP ends, I think, at about 60, and the Medicaid work requirements go all the way to 65. 

Rovner: Age 60 and 65. 

Rosenbaum: Yes, exactly. But the exemptions are different. The requirements are different. And so states — people are talking about, Oh, well, it’s just the line reporting systems. No, no, no, no. You are liable for all kinds of error rate penalties. If you just rely on SNAP, you can’t. So states have no way to deal with this. So there’s no mitigation strategy for this, and I think the hope is that Congress will call it back. 

Rovner: If it doesn’t, is this — the one sort of silver lining that I’d been sort of thinking about is, well, maybe if we tear down the health care system, we’ll have to start again and build a better one. Is it possible that we could get there, or are we just going to limp along? 

Rosenbaum: I have those thoughts often, and then I stop and think, well, those of us with health insurance could sit there and say, Yeah, maybe we just tear down the health system to start again. Meanwhile, of course, we will have millions of people without health care. So I — interestingly, the Affordable Care Act, of course, was designed not to tear down the health care system but to strengthen the health care system. But it was the brilliance of the Affordable Care Act was that it saw the holes and it sort of tried to fix them. And if we’d left it alone with everybody in this what I consider to be sort of an intermediate arrangement, we could have done exactly what you are talking about. With just about everybody in the United States covered, we could have begun to really do the serious work of moving to something more unified, better— 

Rovner: Cheaper. 

Rosenbaum: And of course, cheaper. 

Rovner: More efficient. 

Rosenbaum: More efficient. That’s right. Far easier to use. But we have decided instead to tear the Affordable Care Act apart, both the access to the marketplace by rolling back the assistance and, of course, the Medicaid reforms. 

Rovner: Well, happy birthday, Medicaid. 

Rosenbaum: Happy birthday, Medicaid. 

Rovner: Thank you so much, Sara Rosenbaum. 

Rosenbaum: Thank you for having me. It was a — it was both uplifting and sad. 

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

Kenen: The story I’m doing is in ScienceAlert: “,” by David Nield. OK, I should begin with a caveat, which is I basically don’t like it when journalists hype findings. It’s something that was only in a dozen mice or something. My exception is when something is really, really sort of just interesting to learn about. Then it’s OK to report it as long as you just sort of shout: This is only in mice! We don’t know if it’s going to work in people! But it is an interesting study. 

One reason people don’t get vaccines is they’re afraid of needles. And if you could actually apply the vaccine to a dental floss pick and get it — because the line between our gums and our teeth is permeable, stuff can get in and out. That’s why we have to clean it. If you could treat a dental floss with the vaccine instead of just plain old dental floss or a needle in your arm or leg or whatever, maybe that could be a way of improving. And so these animal studies have been suggestive that this is a worthwhile course to follow. But before you go out to the drugstore with your dental floss and ask them to put the vaccine stuff on it — they’ve done it with a couple of people with dye, not with vaccine, just to sort of trace it. We are a long way away, but it was interesting enough for me to decide that we could discuss it. 

Rovner: I thought it was pretty cool. Shefali? 

Luthra: My piece also is dentistry adjacent, even dentistry directly relevant. It is from The New Yorker. It is by Burkhard Bilger. The headline is “” This is a really fun read. He travels to this town. Los Algodones, in Mexico, is right across the border, and it is where a lot of people go to get dental work. It is much cheaper there than getting it in America. So he goes through the history of dental work, why it has been something that people really do not enjoy, the pain associated with it, how many bad dentists are out there, also the stigma and violence against dentists. And then he talks through his own personal journey of trying to figure out: Does he need this dental work? How much would it cost to get it in this Mexican town compared to getting it in the U.S.? 

He talks to a dentist there, talks to a celebrity dentist as well, and in the end decides to keep his teeth as they are, which is very beautiful to me as someone who hates going to the dentist. But it’s a really fun read to think about how expensive health care is, how often things are marketed to us that maybe we do or don’t need, and also why dentistry has really been siloed out of all other health care for basically all of our history. 

Rovner: Yeah, it really has. It’s a wonderful combination of stories. Anna. 

Edney: Mine is not dental-related. I apologize. But this is an obit in The Washington Post by Stefanie Dazio, “.” And I wanted to talk about him because he was the reporter responsible for bringing to light everything that was going on with thalidomide. He wrote a 1962 front-page Washington Post profile on Francis Kelsey, the FDA pharmacologist who essentially blocked thalidomide from getting to market in the U.S., and she faced a lot of pressure and a lot of name-calling and things to stand in the way. And he took on the story, and he did many amazing stories, so it’s just, it’s worth a read. He wrote a lot about the pharmaceutical industry as well, and so I think it’s just nice to remember him. 

Rovner: It is. I will point out he was a fellow Michigan Daily alum, a close family friend. My mother actually worked on the Michigan Daily with his younger sister and then later worked with him at The Washington Post for years, so I can attest, not just a great reporter but a really swell guy. All right, well, my extra credit is not dental-related, either. It’s another great investigation from my ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News colleague Fred Schulte. It’s called, “Cosmetic Surgeries Led to Disfiguring Injuries, Patients Allege.” And it’s mostly about a chain you’ve probably seen advertised called Sono Bello and how this private-equity-owned business and some others like it are being sued in scores of medical malpractice and negligence lawsuits, claiming under-trained medical professionals have caused disfiguring injuries and, in at least a dozen cases, wrongful deaths. The subtext of this story, of course, is that this is another one of those not quite med spa but not quite ambulatory surgery center categories that’s not very well regulated by either the FDA or most states. So it’s yet another good case of buyer beware when it comes to protecting your health. 

OK. That’s this week’s show. As always, thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. Extra-special thanks this week to Taylor Cook, who’s editing our Medicare and Medicaid anniversary interviews. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks hanging these days? Shefali. 

Luthra: I am at Bluesky, . 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: and , @joannekenen. 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: or , @annaedney. 

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