[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 from ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C., and welcome 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, Jan. 8, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

We are joined via videoconference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi.

Rovner: And Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: No interview this week, but tons of news to catch up on, so let us get right to it. So, we start 2026 in health care the same way we ended 2025, with a fight over expiring subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. By the time you hear this, the House will likely have approved a Democratic-sponsored bill to reinstate for three years the expanded ACA subsidies that were in effect from 2021 through the end of 2025.

That vote was made possible by four Republicans crossing party lines in December to sign a discharge petition that forces a floor vote, over the objection to the House leadership. Interestingly, a preliminary vote on the bill on Wednesday drew not just the four moderate Republicans who signed the original discharge petition but five more, for a total of nine. The consensus of political reporters is that the bill is DOA [dead on arrival] in the Senate, which voted an identical proposal down in early December.

But I’m wondering how much heat Republicans were exposed to over the break by constituents whose out-of-pocket costs for insurance were doubling or more, and whether that might change the forecast somewhat. What are you guys hearing?

Weber: So, it seems that there are still some big hurdles to cross. And based on what senators told my colleagues over the past couple days, there’s not even an agreement on what current law is and does, and thus, they can’t agree on how it should change. And so, I’m talking specifically about the still-unresolved abortion issue.

This is the question of whether plans that cover abortion should receive any federal subsidy, even if those subsidies do not directly pay for an abortion. The Republicans are arguing that it’s an indirect subsidy, even though these are going into separate accounts. So, one of the Republican senators who is trying to craft a deal — that’s Bernie Moreno of Ohio — he was saying that they still don’t agree whether, under current law, federal funding is going to abortion.

So, it’s like you don’t even have a shared reality that senators are operating under, and that makes it really hard to come up with a proposal. They say they’re going to have text by Monday, but we’ll see if that actually happens.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, before we get too deeply into the abortion issue, which we will do in a minute, I want to talk a little bit more about that. I won’t even call it an emerging compromise. I’ll call it a potential compromise in the Senate.

Ollstein: Some bullet points were shared.

Rovner: Some bullet points. We know what the bullet points are. They would extend the additional subsidies for two more years, not three, with a couple of changes, including capping income eligibility for those subsidies at 700% of poverty up from 400% that it reverted back to on Jan. 1. It would also replace zero-premium plans with $5-per-month plans. That’s to crack down on brokers who fraudulently sign up people who don’t even know they have insurance so the brokers can collect commissions. And it would allow people to choose whether their enhanced subsidies should go into Republican-favored health savings accounts or directly toward their premiums.

Assuming — and this is obviously a big assumption — they could get past this abortion issue, what are the chances for a compromise that looks something like this? I mean, it sounds like something that could satisfy both Democrats and Republicans, particularly Republicans who are feeling pressured by their own constituents who’ve now seen there — are either dropping their insurance or seeing their out-of-pocket cost just goes wild.

Ollstein: I’ve heard some criticism from the Democratic side about getting rid of zero-premium plans specifically. They’re saying the Republicans want to run on affordability and helping out people who are struggling. How does eliminating the ability to get a zero-premium plan align with that?

And so I expect there will be some clashes over that. But I also think, again, senators aren’t even agreeing on what the current reality is, and that applies there, too. There have been all of these allegations of widespread fraud, and some experts and lawmakers have been pointing out that just because someone who is enrolled doesn’t actually use their benefits, that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s fraud going on.

It does seem like there is some fraud going on. You mentioned the perverse incentives for brokers, but a lot of this is circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence.

Rovner: Also, one of the ironies here is that if you have somebody who’s healthy, who signs up for health insurance and doesn’t use it, that’s a good thing for the risk pool. You don’t want only sick people.

Ollstein: It helps everyone.

Rovner: There’s a lot of things making my head explode. Well, one of the things that Alice, I know, is making your head explode, too, is this disagreement about reality about abortion. And I would point out that President [Donald] Trump spoke to the retreat of the House Republicans this week and urged some flexibility, put that in air quotes, on this Hyde Amendment issue. Alice, remind us why this is an issue here. Doesn’t the Affordable Care Act already ban federal funding of abortion just like all other federal programs?

Ollstein: Yes. Yes, it does. So basically, this is part of a larger project on the right to expand the definition of Hyde.

Rovner: We should probably go back to the very beginning of what is …

Ollstein: Yes.

Rovner: … the Hyde Amendment because it only applies to annual appropriations, and that’s why it’s been important. I will let you take it from there.

Ollstein: Sure, sure. So, this is a budget rider that dates back to the 1970s that says that there can be no federal funding of abortion, except in a few instances, of there’s a risk to the mother’s life, and rape and incest. And so that has been renewed over and over under administrations of both parties, under Congress majorities of both parties.

And now, what they’re fighting over is, already federal funding that goes to these plans in the form of these subsidies, it does not go to pay for abortion directly. But conservatives are now arguing that if it goes to a plan that covers abortion using other funding, then that functions as an indirect subsidy. This is the same argument they’ve made about Title X, where any federal funding going to a program that uses other funding to pay for abortion, they now consider that sort of an indirect subsidy, even though it’s coming out of different buckets of money.

And so, what they’re pushing for is basically a nationwide restriction on any plan that gets a federal subsidy paying for abortion. So, this would have the most impact in the states where all plans on the ACA market are required to cover abortion, in states like California, New York, and Massachusetts, big states with many, many millions of people. And so that would have a huge impact and force those plans to either drop abortion coverage or forgo the federal subsidy. So, that would have a really big impact.

And Democrats say this is not necessary. There’s already restrictions that prevent federal funding to go to pay for abortion. And that is what the senators and everyone can’t agree on right now.

Rovner: That’s right. And that’s a big fund. Well, we’ll see where that goes. In the meantime, what the president was talking about when he called for flexibility on Hyde was actually health care writ large.

This clearly reflects what we know the president’s pollster has been telling him: that Republicans are currently at a distinct public disadvantage when it comes to health care, and not just the Affordable Care Act. Trump says that Republicans should, again, air quotes, try to “own” the health care issue. And he has spent a good bit of his first year working on health issues. At least he’s been talking about them a lot, but it turns out that his s are not mostly being felt by consumers here in the U.S.

The savings he’s negotiated are mostly going to the state and federal Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as to people willing and able to pay out-of-pocket for their prescription drugs. And while the administration is making much of its December announcement about the first distribution of rural health funding that was authorized in last summer’s budget bill, that $50 billion in funding won’t make much of a dent compared to the nearly $1 trillion in cuts that were created for Medicaid in that same bill. So, my question from all of this is: Can Republicans use things like this to own the health care issue or at least cut into Democrats’ advantage between now and the midterms?

Weber: Well, I think it depends on what they end up doing with it. He brought up in that same meeting with legislators wanting to own IVF [in vitro fertilization], which is something he floated during his campaign that got a lot of shock from [the] conservative Republican base. So, what does he mean? What is he saying on that? We don’t have particulars.

Bottom line is, voters don’t necessarily know the in-the-weeds policy. So, if he gets out there and says enough things, who knows that they can own the health care issue? But I would say for now that it is solely in the Democrats’ camp and is helping lead them with an advantage for midterms for now.

Rovner: Sarah, he keeps saying on drug prices that he’s done all this stuff, and he has done a lot of stuff, but it hasn’t had a big dent in what people pay for their drugs, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. And I think the one reason drug pricing has been a popular health policy topic for politicians to focus on is because people really can feel it directly compared to how they feel other health costs. And so, I think that there’s only a certain amount of time where people will just accept Trump saying, Oh, we’re saving you money, without them actually seeing it on the back end. And the problem right now is these most-favored-nation deals where he’s struck privately with a lot of drug companies to get Medicaid, really mostly at this point, in theory lower prices.

It’s not clear how much money it’s actually going to save Medicaid because Medicaid actually gets some of the best deals that the U.S. gets. Most people on Medicaid actually don’t really directly pay copays for most of their products, either. The other problem is they’ve then rolled out a number of other drug-pricing models to try and pair this concept, again, of getting the prices a lot of other countries get for drugs in the U.S., but they then exempted all these companies they’ve struck these private deals with.

So, it’s not really clear who is left in terms of drug companies and drug products. Then you might get cheaper prices under some of these other demonstrations, which by their nature, these are demonstration pilot programs that are not going to reach every Medicare beneficiary they’re pushing for. So, I think it’s going to be a big problem because many people are not actually going to see savings.

For people that have a decent amount of income and can afford some of these direct-to-consumer products where health insurers have often been denying it — like the weight loss, common popular weight loss drugs — some people may feel a little benefit there. But if you’re somebody who’s underinsured or uninsured, even if there’s really good discounts on a direct-to-consumer buying market, you’re probably also still not going to be able to afford these weight loss drugs.

Rovner: Yes, Lauren.

Weber: Just to go back to the rural health fund disbursement, I just have so many thoughts on this, because I mean, at the end of the day, rural hospitals are also the equivalent of rural jobs programs for rural America. And typically, rural hospitals fall in red America. And so, this attempt to prop them up, it sounds flashy, right? I mean, it’s billions of dollars. But when you break it down by the 50 states, it’s hundreds of millions, like tops like $281 million depending on the state.

That’s not going to cover the deficit that the bill has created for those folks. And I understand that it’s meant by the administration to be a flashy way of, Oh, we’re supporting rural health care, but the crushing Medicaid cuts that these rural hospitals are going to face, when they already operate on such thin margins, will be devastating. I mean, it will be devastating for already health care deserts that we already see, and this money is not going to be enough to stop the blood flow there in rural America.

Rovner: And Alice, you guys at Politico pointed out that even this $50 billion was not exactly distributed based on need, right? It was distributed based on deals.

Ollstein: Yes. And to build on Lauren’s point, not only is it not enough to make up for the Medicaid cuts, but there are restrictions. States can only use a little fraction of the money to keep these rural hospitals’ lights on, basically. The money is supposed to be for these transformative projects. It’s very tech focused. It’s very, Let’s try these pilot programs and completely revamp the way rural health care is delivered. Meanwhile, there are all these rural hospitals on the brink of closure, and states aren’t allowed to spend a lot of the money on just paying the salaries of the people who work there, paying for keeping the buildings in good shape. And so, we could see benefit from this money, but we could also, in the meantime, see a bunch more rural hospitals close, as they have been. And once they close, it’s really hard to come back.

And so, to your point, the way the money was distributed is getting a lot of criticism from all around the country because, one, a lot of it was split evenly between states regardless of the size of their population. And so, you saw, for instance, Alaska get more than California despite having a tiny, tiny sliver of its population. And I had people arguing with me online saying, Well, what about the rural population? Yes, California has a huge rural population. It’s not just LA and San Francisco. So, even if you only count the rural population, it’s much, much, much bigger than Alaska.

Also, there were these policy incentives in the program where states that adopted Trump-administration-friendly policies — like restrictions on what people can buy with SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], on implementing the presidential fitness test, on deregulating short-term insurance plans, which Democrats have criticized and called junk plans — these would get the states more money if they adopted these policies. So, we’ve been digging into that and digging into the struggles on the state level on that front.

Rovner: All right. Well, that’s the rural health news. We’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back.

So, the other big news out of HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] was on the vaccine front where Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made unilaterally a major change to the federal government’s childhood vaccine schedule, reducing the number of diseases with explicit vaccine recommendations from 17 to 11. No longer recommended for all children will be vaccines to protect against flu, covid, rotavirus, hepatitis A, and the germs that cause meningitis. Sarah, you’re the mom here on this panel today. How is this schedule change actually going to affect parents and children and doctors?

Karlin-Smith: I think a lot of it is going to depend [on] how the pediatrician health community reacts to this, because there’s been a lot of pushback from the medical public health community that this is not an appropriate or scientifically based change. So, doctors may still guide parents to hopefully making the decision to get these vaccines, but parents who may be a little hesitant, maybe feel more comfortable backing out.

Despite sometimes the rhetoric you hear from this administration, states are really the ones that end up creating policies that end up with actual mandates for people to get vaccinated for school and so forth. So, states may build off this and change their mandates, and that may impact access, but they may also not. So, people may still have to, for school purposes, get some of these shots as well.

Rovner: And I should point out that the American Academy of Pediatrics is fighting this, I would say tooth and nail, but also in court. I mean, they’re actually suing, saying that Kennedy didn’t even have the authority to make this change without going through a much more detailed regulatory process.

So, the administration says that all the vaccines currently on the schedule will remain, quote, “covered by insurance,” but I’m not positive that’s necessarily going to be the case in the long term, right? Isn’t mandatory insurance coverage linked to the recommendations of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]? And if these are no longer actually recommended, are they no longer required to be covered?

I know the insurance industry, we’ve talked about this, has said that they’re going to continue to cover all the vaccines at least through 2026. But I’m wondering about the legality. I tried to track this back, but I couldn’t find it all the way.

Ollstein: We could see a patchwork because a lot of states are moving to change their own laws about insurance coverage and have it be based on something other than these federal recommendations. I think that obviously patchworks are challenging when you’re talking about infectious diseases, which do not respect state or national boundaries, but Sarah can say more.

Rovner: Go ahead, Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. To build on Alice’s comment, and the thing that gets really confusing really fast always with U.S. health care is states can regulate certain insurance plans and states cannot regulate certain insurance plans, the ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] plans. So, you could end up, even if states want to mandate coverage, depending on the type of health care coverage you get in your state, you may live in that state, work in that state, and you’re not going to get covered. So, that adds to the patchwork and always adds to the confusion when trying to explain that issue to people.

But the administration has claimed basically because the vaccines, they’re no longer universally recommended — they’re moving to what’s called the shared decision-making recommendation, where people are supposed to consult with their doctor and figure out whether these vaccines are appropriate for them and their children — that that still, under the way laws and regulations are written, requires the mandatory coverage for health care and no copays and so forth.

And I’ve talked to people who’ve looked at this, and there is precedent for that with other vaccines. I think there’s some concerns, however, that that could be challenged by people in court who don’t want these vaccines to be covered. There’s also concern when it comes to like the HPV [human papillomavirus] vaccine, which they’re now only recommending one shot of instead of two.

In that case, because they’ve really fully eliminated the recommendation for a second shot, if somebody felt like they wanted that two-series shot, I don’t think that would be covered. And the other question is, while they didn’t use the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to make these changes for the most part. And they are largely advisory, but they do have certain legal authority when it comes to vaccines for children’s program, and their legal authority from Congress very much relates to the coverage and reimbursement. So, it’ll be interesting to see, again, if this all aligns.

Rovner: And we should point out that the Vaccines for Children Program, which many people have never heard of, is actually responsible for vaccinating something like half of all children in the United States. It’s a huge program that’s just basically invisible but really, really important.

Karlin-Smith: Right. And so, I think there’s going to be legal questions that they didn’t vote on those reimbursement questions here.

Rovner: Yeah. There’s a lot that’s going to have to be sorted out here. Well, one of the arguments that HHS officials are making is that they compared the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of, quote, “peer nations” like Denmark, but those peer nations have something the U.S. does not: universal health insurance. That can make a really big difference in vaccine uptake and in just the prevalence of disease, right?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. And so, one thing that people have tried to look at and explain in recent days is the U.S. isn’t actually that different from most of its peers. Denmark, some have made the case, is actually the outlier. And if you look at Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, the amount of pathogens, viruses the U.S. is vaccinating against is actually much more in line with most of the peer population. And then when you have a country like Denmark, which has universal health insurance …

Rovner: And a very small population.

Karlin-Smith: Right. I mean, it’s very different, but they’ve made in some cases the calculus that if we don’t vaccinate for rotavirus, and we are able to treat the however many kids each year will need to be hospitalized and treated, and you have a certain comfort — I don’t think that most parents would like the idea of knowing your kid is going to get sick and need to be hospitalized maybe or treated — but there’s a lot more comfort that they would get care, and quick care, and would do better there. But they certainly are not, and there’s data to show, [they] don’t do as well as the U.S. does in terms of the amount of people that get some of these diseases.

The other thing with some of the vaccines I noted that like some of these comparison countries don’t cover is they’re newer and they’re still more expensive. So, sometimes one of the reasons these countries are choosing not to recommend them more broadly is because they’re making decisions based on the fact that they have universal health care — the taxpayers pay for it — and then deciding that at this point, the pricing is not affordable. They’re not making a decision saying if the cost was zero, that the risk-benefit calculus isn’t favorable for people.

Rovner: Right. And it’s all about the risk-benefit calculus. So, one thing we know is that the rise in vaccine hesitancy is leading to outbreaks of previously rare diseases in the U.S., including measles and pertussis, or whooping cough. Lauren, you’ve got a really cool story this week with a tool that can help people figure out if they and their families are at risk. So, tell us about it.

Weber: Yeah. My colleagues at The Washington Post, including Caitlin Gilbert, and I set out last year to tell people across the country what their . And so, we requested records from all 50 states and were able to get school-based records for about, I think, 36 of them and county-based records for vaccination records for 44 states. So, we have a nifty tool where you can look up in your local community what your vaccination rates are.

But taking a step back, what we found in our reporting is that before the pandemic, rates weren’t looking that great. Only half of the country was making 95% vaccination against measles, which is herd immunity. After the pandemic, that dropped to 28%.

And what we found in digging in a lot deeper is that schools, which were once considered kind of this bulwark against infectious disease, because they’re the ones who would enforce whether or not you needed your shots to attend school, are somewhat stepping away from that responsibility in the politically charged environment that is America today. I spoke to a superintendent in Minnesota, which has seen a large drop in vaccination for measles, who said, Look, I’m a record keeper. It’s not my job to promote a medical decision.

And you see that attitude across the country in school nurses and so on where maybe they’re not being empowered by their superintendent or principal to draw the line, or they’re valuing the child going to school over getting vaccinated. And so, there’s a lot of talk about at the state level that we have these mandates for vaccination, but if they’re not enforced and there’s no mechanism to enforce them, our investigation found that you had these slipping rates.

And a lot of folks are really concerned. Because look to South Carolina. You have hundreds of kids quarantined and missing school; you have hundreds of people infected. And, in general, measles cases were at their highest in 33 years last year. So, we have this rise of infectious disease amid an administration headed by a man who has disparaged vaccines for years and is working to roll back policy around them.

Rovner: Is there any talk from Capitol Hill on … we’ve talked so much about Sen. Bill Cassidy [R-La.], who’s a doctor, who was the deciding vote for RFK Jr. and said that he got RFK Jr. to promise not to change the vaccine schedule, which he just did. But it’s not just Cassidy. There’s 534 other members of Congress. Is anybody pushing back on any of this?

Weber: I mean, Cassidy tweeted after the vaccine change that he was appalled. I’m a physician. My job is to protect children. This is a problem. At the end of the day, the person who runs HHS is a man who has repeatedly linked the rising number of vaccines, which are rising because we have more vaccines that can fight more pathogens, to chronic conditions that experts say is not based in evidence.

And so, no, I do not see a massive Capitol Hill pushback. I mean, you have frustration and irritation, but I don’t see Cassidy hauling Kennedy in for a hearing. Hasn’t happened yet, really, besides those couple that were mandated. So, we’ll see how this continues to play out.

But the reality is amid all of this talk of vaccine schedules, the people on the front lines of this are these school nurses or pediatricians who are met with a wave of parents who are so confused. I talked to so many pediatricians who said, Look, we refer to the AAP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, but it’s really hard when the president and the head of the health system is saying something different to convince parents that may be confused. And oftentimes, if you’re confused, it’s easier to not take action, to not get your child vaccinated than to do so. And…

Rovner: And because pediatricians don’t already have enough to do.

Weber: Right. Many are scared that these trends that we identified in our investigation will continue to worsen in the years to come.

Rovner: Well, also this week we got the new food pyramid recommendations from HHS and the Department of Agriculture. Food, obviously another big priority for RFK Jr., who, as we know, is a fan of red meat and whole-fat dairy. Unlike the vaccine schedule, though, the changes to the food pyramid appear, at least at first blush, to hew to fairly consensus opinions in the nutrition world that whole foods are better than processed foods, protein is good, added sugar and refined carbohydrates are bad.

Still, when you get into the details, there are some things that are likely to cause nutrition scientists, some, shall we say, indigestion. What are some of the more controversial recommendations here other than Dr. [Mehmet] Oz saying in Wednesday’s press briefing that you might not want to drink alcohol for breakfast?

Ollstein: So, the alcohol piece has gotten pushback because it’s weakening the previous recommendation that really no amount of alcohol is safe. We talked before about a report about alcohol as a carcinogen that was buried last year, a government report that had been worked on for years that was supposed to come out that got buried by the Trump administration. And so that I think is reflected in these new recommendations. And I saw a lot of conservatives celebrating this and saying, Happy hour’s back, everyone! But look, there’s real science that shows the dangers of even moderate alcohol consumption, and that’s getting sidelined here.

Rovner: The previous recommendations were that, I would say the previous recommendations were like no more than one drink a day for women and two for men, and they took that away? I think that was the actual change here.

Ollstein: There was a push to say that no amount is safe, basically, that even small amounts are potentially harmful to health.

Rovner: And that didn’t happen.

Ollstein: Correct, correct. The other concern I was hearing is about the emphasis on red meat when that is something that Americans eat too much of already.

Rovner: Although I know there’s an irony here that I think the new recommendations state, you still shouldn’t have more than 10% of your calories from saturated fat. But saturated fat isn’t nearly as bad as we used to think it was, Sarah. I see you nodding.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. I think the saturated fat and the focus on the sources of fat and protein is one of the biggest controversies here because there is lots of research and evidence that saturated fat can lead to heart disease and other medical complications. And people have long been pushed toward plant-based proteins, leaner proteins, and the role of dairy, and whether you should be doing high-fat dairy as well.

And there’s been some good reporting from Stat and others of recent days that there was a lot of who was making these recommendations around their relationships with these various industries. They tried to avoid contradicting the science too much in how they made their push for more red meat and more saturated fat. But it’s probably another area where, if you read it in full, you’re going to get confused and you may not end up making the right decisions because some of the recommendations there are kind of contradictory.

Rovner: Although we’ll point out that the difference between the nutrition guidelines and the vaccine schedule is very large because the new nutrition guidelines are just that. They’re guidelines. They do determine what gets served in school lunches and things like that, but it’s not quite nearly of the level that the vaccine schedule is.

Well, finally this week, turning to reproductive health, the Wyoming Supreme Court struck down two abortion bans, kind of remarkable for one of the reddest states in the nation. Interestingly, one of the reasons the bans were struck down is because the state tried to thwart the Affordable Care Act back in 2012. Alice, explain what these two things have to do with each other.

Ollstein: Yes. So, the state adopted some laws saying that people have the right to make their own health care decisions, and that was squarely aimed at the Affordable Care Act. However, the judges found that it also applied to the right to have an abortion.

Rovner: Oops.

Ollstein: They said, Based on the text of this law, it doesn’t matter what you meant it to say. It matters what it actually says. And we find that it applies here.

That’s actually not the only state where that’s happened over the past few years. There have been other conservative states that have inadvertently protected the right to abortion through these right-to-control-your-own-health care provisions. So, I think we’ve seen over the past few years that state constitutions can be more protective of abortion than the federal Constitution in certain circumstances. But I think it’s also notable that Wyoming had one of the first laws specifically banning abortion pills, and that was also struck down.

So, nothing changes in practice, because these laws were already enjoined and were not being enforced, but it is a big deal. And it could lead to more efforts to hold the ballot referendums that we’ve seen over the past few years. There are set to be a few more this fall, but there could be even more following decisions like this in the courts.

Rovner: Yeah. Along those lines, there’s a really interesting piece in The Guardian that suggests that , but not so much for Republicans, most of whom still consider it a deal breaker for a candidate not to agree with them. What happened to all that enthusiasm for abortion rights that we saw in 2023 and 2024 to some extent?

Ollstein: Look, there’s a lot going on right now. So, it may be that just other issues are overshadowing this. And also, it’s a long way to go before the elections. We do not know what’s going to happen.

If various court cases lead to a big change, another big change in abortion access, this could rear its head once again. As we’ve discussed many times, this is not really ever over or settled.

Rovner: All right. Well, it is January. All right. That is this week’s news, or at least as much as we had time for.

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 post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Lauren, why don’t you start us off this week?

Weber: Yeah. I have to shout out another investigation my colleagues and I completed led by Rachel Roubein and Lena Sun and I. [“”] We dug into the first year of Kennedy in office. In interviews with nearly a hundred folks and documents, we uncovered some of his previously undisclosed shaping of vaccine policy. We got ahold of an email in which a top aide asked to replace the membership of ACIP and reconsider the universal hep B vaccine recommendation and revisit the use of multidose flu shot vials. We also analyzed how while Kennedy has talked about food twice as much as vaccines while in office, one of his advisers, Del Bigtree, told us, Look, food is more popular with the American mom. And I think some of these revelations shape and put into context what we’re seeing now, which is this culmination of changing the vaccine schedule and continued policy to upend public health infrastructure in this country.

Rovner: That’s a really good piece. Alice.

Ollstein: So, I have a very depressing piece out of San Francisco called, “” This is yet another death of a young person after heavily using some of these LLMs [large language models] for advice. Some of the chat logs show that he was able to very easily circumvent the protections that were put in place.

ChatGPT is not supposed to give people advice on using drugs recreationally, but that is very easily circumvented by pretending it’s a hypothetical question or various other means. And this article does a good job showing that it’s really a garbage-in-garbage-out scenario. ChatGPT is drawing from the entire internet. And so somebody’s dumb post on Reddit by a person who has a substance abuse issue, for instance, could be informing what advice the bot gives you. And so I think this is especially important to keep in mind as, just this week, ChatGPT is launching, making a big push, launching a whole health-care-focused chatbot and encouraging millions of people to use it.

And so this article … quotes experts who argue that it’s not possible to prevent this bad advice from getting in there, just because these chatbots are trained on huge volumes of text from the entire internet. It’s not possible to weed out things like this. And so I think that’s important to keep in mind.

Rovner: So, what could possibly go wrong? Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at some ProPublica pieces on the impact of the U.S.’ USAID cuts [“”]. One of the stories that I looked at was “” It’s just a really deep dive into the decisions that these political leaders made to cut off aid and support for various countries. This one, in particular, was looking at South Sudan, even though they were warned that they would make certain disease outbreaks and other humanitarian situations worse. And it just goes through the hardship of that, as well as the fact that Trump administration officials were making claims throughout this time, once there was pushback, that they were going to not cut off certain life-supporting aid and so forth. And that was not actually the case. They did cut it off, and they did it in ways that were extremely abrupt and fast, that there could not be any safety valve or stopgap to prevent the harm that occurred.

Rovner: Yeah. It’s quite the series and really heavy but really good. My extra credit this week comes from my colleague Fred Schulte, who’s moved on from uncovering malfeasance in Medicare Advantage to uncovering malfeasance in cosmetic surgery. This one is called “Advertisements Promising Patients a ‘Dream Body’ With Minimal Risk Get Little Scrutiny.”

And if you’ve ever been tempted by one of those body-sculpting commercials promising quick results, little pain, and an immediate return to your daily routine, you really need to read this story first. It includes a long list of patients who either died of complications of allegedly minimally invasive techniques or who ended up in the hospital and with scars that have yet to heal. Many of the lawsuits filed in these cases are still in process, but it is definitely “buyer beware.”

OK, that is this week’s show. Hope you feel at least a little bit caught up. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and this week’s producer engineer, Zach Dyer.

A reminder, What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts, as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me still on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks hanging these days? Lauren.

Weber: I am on X, , and same thing on these days.

Rovner: Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: Mostly and at @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Alice.

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

Rovner: We will be backing 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, from ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News and, starting this week, from WAMU public radio in Washington, D.C., and welcome 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, Oct. 30, 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 video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Good to be here. 

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast one of our original panelists, Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Post. So great to see you again. 

Winfield Cunningham: Hi, Julie. It’s great to be back. 

Rovner: Before we dive in, we have a little of our own news to announce. Starting this week, we’re partnering with WAMU, Washington D.C.’s public radio station, to distribute the podcast. That means you can also now find us on the NPR app. And welcome to all you new listeners. OK, onto the news. We are now 30 days into the federal government shutdown, and there is still no discernible end in sight. And this Saturday is not only the start of open enrollment in most states for the Affordable Care Act health plans, which we’ll talk more about in a minute. It’s also the day an estimated 42 million Americans will lose access to food stamps after the Trump administration decided to stop funding the SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance] program. That’s something the administration did keep funding during the last Trump shutdown in 2019, and, according to budget experts, could continue to do now. So what’s behind this? As I think I pointed out last week, not such a great look to deprive people of food aid right before Thanksgiving. 

Ollstein: So I think this follows the pattern we’ve seen throughout the shutdown, which is just a lot of picking and choosing of what gets funded and what doesn’t. The angle of this I’ve covered is that out of all of the uniformed forces of the government, the Trump administration dug around and found money to keep paying the armed members, but not the public health officers, who are also part of the uniformed branches of the country. And yeah, you’re seeing this in the SNAP space as well. President Trump and his officials have openly threatened to go after what they see as Democrat programs. So it’s just interesting what they consider in that category. But you’re seeing a lot of choices being made to exert maximum political pressure and force various sides of this fight to cave, but we’re not seeing that yet either. 

Rovner: Yeah, they are. I mean, it seems this is also backwards because it’s usually the Republicans who are shutting down the government, the Democrats who are trying to pressure them to reopen it. And now, of course, we’re seeing the opposite because the Democrats want the Republicans to do something about the Affordable Care Act subsidies, and the Republicans are going after previously what had been kind of sacrosanct bipartisan programs like food stamps and the WIC [the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children] program, for pregnant and breastfeeding moms and babies. And now, apparently, they’re going to stop funding for Head Start, the preschool program for low-income families with kids. On the one hand, you’re right, they are programs that are very cherished by Democrats, but I feel like this whole shutdown is now sort of going after the most vulnerable people in America. 

Goldman: It’s also been interesting because [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] has tried to use SNAP as a vehicle for his Make America Healthy Again agenda, right? Trying to get states to limit the sugary drinks that their SNAP programs offer. And he’s, like, really touted that as part of the agenda. And now there does not seem to be any interest from HHS in speaking out about that. 

Rovner: Well, of course, and SNAP isn’t an HHS program. 

Goldman: Exactly. Exactly. 

Rovner: It’s a program in the Department of Agriculture, which is even more confusing, but you’re absolutely right. I mean, it’s odd that some of the things that he’s been pointing to are things that this administration is kind of trying to lay at the Democrats’ feet, as in, You want this program, reopen the government. So as I mentioned, Saturday is the start of Obamacare open enrollment in most of the states. And, Paige, you got a for plans in the 30 states that use the federal marketplace, which is now open for what we call window-shopping before open enrollment officially begins. What did you find? 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. So I got some documents at the end of last week showing that the average premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan — which, of course, is what, we know … that’s what the subsidies are pegged to — is going up 30%, which is the second-highest premium increase. The highest we saw was 2017 to 2018. But this is a really, really significant increase. And of course, CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] didn’t include that number in the document that it finally released this week. So the documents I saw had some sort of numbers like that, which were all stripped out of the official documents. But all of this is just so interesting because I was thinking about, back to 2017-2018, and the politics of this are so flipped right now because basically it was the Democrats then who didn’t want to talk about premium increases and the Republicans who were yelling about it. 

So it’s funny how that has changed. But I guess on the politics of this, it seemed for a while like Democrats were thinking maybe the Nov. 1 start of open enrollment would provide this out for them to pass the spending bill because they could say, like, OK, we tried. Now open enrollment has started, or the premiums are kind of baked, so we can’t really do anything to change it now. But I don’t think we’re going to have anything this week. It seems like both sides are pretty dug in still. I mean, I guess the other thing I would say on these costs, it’s really highlighting a weakness that we’ve known for a long time in the Affordable Care Act, which is that, like, yes, it made health insurance affordable for a lot of people, but there’s always been this smaller number of people that are above 400% federal poverty that have had no shield from insurance costs. They have the last four years, and now they’re not going to have one anymore. And it’s funny because Democrats are talking about this, but that’s sort of a problem they hadn’t wanted to acknowledge for a long time in the early years of the Affordable Care Act. And as you guys all know, there’s not going to be any political will for bipartisan work to create affordable options for these folks unless the subsidies get extended, which, of course, that doesn’t seem very likely at the moment from how things stand. 

Rovner: Yeah. Going back to what the Republicans sort of announced, their talking points, is that, well, first the premium increases aren’t that big and that the expiring extra subsidies aren’t that big a piece of it, both of which are actually kind of true. But, of course, that’s not where the sticker shock is coming from. The sticker shock is coming from the expiration of those tax credits that’s going to …  

So people who had been shielded from these very high premiums are no longer going to be shielded from them. And that’s why, if you look at social media, you see all these screenshots now of insurance that costs $3,000 a month for people who were paying $150 a month, which is obviously not affordable. Why is it so difficult to explain the difference? I’ve been working on different ways to explain it for the last three weeks. 

Goldman: I was trying to figure this out last night, when I was writing something for my newsletter today. And I think one of the really confusing parts about this is that, like Paige said, like Paige scooped, premiums are going up a certain amount, and that’s not actually what people are seeing. That’s not what almost anyone is going to actually face. Either you’re getting that huge sticker shock because you’re losing your subsidies that you had this year or you’re continuing to have subsidies, they’re not quite the same, but you’re still not going to pay a 30% increase. And so I think that that’s really confusing for me even, and hard to explain. 

Winfield Cunningham: I think one way to think about this is like the party that is going to bear the brunt of the premium costs to a large degree is the government because for people that are before 400% federal poverty, they are basically guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act that they’re not going to have to pay more for premiums over a certain percentage of their income. And so this just means, like, the subsidies are getting really expensive for the federal government, which goes back to the issue of kind of like why Democrats didn’t extend these enhanced premiums indefinitely — because it’s just expensive to do it. This is the government subsidizing private health insurance. And then it’s also significant again for those people over 400% poverty who had had a cap on what they would pay. I think it was 9.5% of their income under the enhanced … and now they have no cap. 

Rovner: I think 8.5% of their income, actually, under the enhanced premiums. 

Winfield Cunningham: Under the enhanced. OK. 

Rovner: It’s going to go back to 10%. 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. Yeah. But there’s no cap if you’re like over, over 400%. 

Rovner: 400%. 

Winfield Cunningham: Right. Yeah. Yeah. 

Rovner: That’s right. 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. But that’s why people are confused. And the other thing is, like, the administration is correct, that the vast majority of people in the marketplaces will continue to get subsidies. And we are basically going back to what the situation was before covid, but it’s that smaller number of people that are at the higher income levels. But the other thought I had was, of course, the health care industry and Democrats are talking a lot about this and spreading these huge premium increases far and wide and making sure everybody hears about them, but it’s like a relatively small number of people, if you think about it. 

And I think it’s only like a couple million people in the marketplaces who are at that higher income levels. And I wonder if that factors into Republicans’ calculations here, where they’re looking at how many voters are actually seeing these massive premium increases, having to pay for all of them. And in the whole scheme of the U.S. population, it’s not like a ton of people. So I just wonder if that’s one reason they’re sort of, like, seem to be increasingly dug in on this and very reticent to extend these subsidies. 

Rovner: Although I would point out that when the Affordable Care Act started, it was only a small number of people who lost their insurance, and that became a gigantic political issue. 

Winfield Cunningham: This is very true. 

Rovner: So it’s the people who get hurt who sometimes yell the loudest, although you’re right. I mean, at that point, the Democrats stayed the course and eventually, as Nancy Pelosi said, people came to like it. So it could work out the same way. It does help explain why everybody’s still dug in. Maya, you wanted to say something. 

Goldman: I was just going to say, I think it’ll be interesting to see, if subsidies aren’t extended, how this affects premiums next year for people and for the federal government, because if a couple million people drop out of the ACA marketplace because it’s too expensive, and those people tend to be healthier, then the remaining pool of people is sicker, and then that’s the death spiral, right? So … 

Rovner: Yeah. Although it is … 

Goldman: Obviously, that’s a lot of what ifs, but … 

Rovner: … only the death spiral that goes back to prior to covid, which — it was kind of stable at 12 million. I’m sort of amused by seeing Republicans complaining about subsidizing insurance companies. It’s like, but this was the Republicans’ idea in the first place, going back to the very origin of the ACA. 

Ollstein: And we should not forget that there is a group of people who are going to be losing all of their subsidies, not just the enhanced subsidies. And that’s legal immigrants, and that’s hundreds of thousands of people. So, like Maya said, that will probably mean a lot of younger, healthier people dropping coverage altogether, which will make the remaining pool of people more expensive to insure. So these things have ripple effects, things that impact one part of the population inevitably impact other parts of the population. And again, these are legal tax-paying immigrants with papers — will be subject to the full force of the premium increases because they won’t have any subsidies. 

Rovner: Yes, our health system at work. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back with more health news.  

Moving on, the federal government is technically shut down, but the Trump administration is still making policy. You might remember last summer, a federal judge blocked a Biden administration rule that prevented medical debt from appearing on people’s credit reports. The Trump administration chose not to appeal that ruling, thus killing the rule. Now the administration is going a step further — this week, putting out guidance that tries to stop states from passing their own laws to prevent medical debt from ruining people’s credit, and often their ability to rent, or buy a house, or purchase a car, or even sometimes get a job. According to the acting head of the federal Consumer Financial Protection [Bureau], Russell Vought — yes, that same Russell Vought who’s also cutting federal programs as head of the Office of Management and Budget — states don’t have the authority to restrict medical debt from appearing on credit reports, only the federal government does, which of course he has already shown he doesn’t want to do. Who does this help? I’m not sure I see what the point is of saying we’re not going to do it and states, you can’t do it either. Part of this, I know, is Russell Vought has made no secret of the fact that he would like to undo as much of the federal government as he can. In this case, is he doing the bidding of, I guess it’s the people who extend credit, who, I guess, want this information, want to know whether people have medical debt, think that that’s going to impact whether or not they can pay back their loans, or is this just Russell Vought being Russell Vought? 

Goldman: I guess, in theory, maybe it goes back to the idea that if you have consequences for medical debt, then people will pay their bills, and maybe that would help the health systems in the long run. But I also think that — I don’t know what health systems have said about this particular move, to be honest — but I think there’s an interest in making medical debt less difficult for people to bear in the whole health system. So I’m not sure how popular that is. 

Rovner: Yeah. Yes. Another one of those things that’s sort of like, we’re going to hurt the public to thwart the Democrats, which kind of seems to be an ongoing theme here. Well, as we tape this morning, the Senate health committee was supposed to be holding a hearing on the nomination of RFK Jr. MAHA ally Casey Means to be U.S. surgeon general. Casey Means was going to testify via video conference because she is pregnant, but, apparently, she has gone into labor, so that hearing is not happening. We will pick up on it when that gets rescheduled. Perhaps she will appear with her infant. 

Back at HHS, a U.S. district judge this week indefinitely barred the Trump administration from laying off federal workers during the shutdown, but at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it appears the damage is already done. The New York Times’ global health reporter, Apoorva Mandavilli, reports that the agency appears to have had its workforce reduced by a third and that the entire leadership now consists of political appointees loyal to HHS secretary Kennedy, who has not hidden his disdain for the agency and the fact that he wants to see it dissolved and its activities assigned elsewhere around the department. What would that mean in practice if there, in effect, was no more CDC? 

Winfield Cunningham: Hopefully we don’t have another pandemic. There’s just a lot of stuff the CDC does. And it’s been really confusing to follow these layoffs because in this last round, I remember trying to figure out with my colleague Lena Sun how many people were sent notices and then hundreds were sort of, those were rescinded and they were brought back. But yeah, I mean, I think we’re going to see the effects of this over the next couple of years. When I’ve asked the administration broadly about the reductions to HHS, what they say is that the agency overall has grown quite a lot in its headcount through the pandemic, which is true. I think they got up to like 90,000 or so. And then, according to our best estimates, maybe they’re back around 80,000, although I’m not entirely sure if that’s accurate. Again, it’s really been hard to track this. 

Rovner: Yeah. I’ve seen numbers as low as 60,000. 

Winfield Cunningham: It may be lower. Yeah. Yeah. So I think actually the 80,000, that may have been the headcount before the pandemic. Anyway, all that to say, it did grow during the pandemic, and that’s kind of the argument that they’re making, is that they’re just bringing it back to pre-pandemic levels. 

Rovner: But CDC, I mean, it really does look like they want to just sort of devolve everything that CDC does to the states, right? I mean, that we’re just not going to have as much of a federal public health presence as we’ve had over these past 50, 60 years. 

Winfield Cunningham: For sure. They’ve definitely targeted CDC. I mean, they mostly left CMS alone and FDA because, statutorily, I think it’s easier for them to shrink CDC, but it definitely is going to have massive effects over the next couple of years, especially as we see future pandemics. 

Ollstein: And the whole argument about returning to pre-covid, that doesn’t fit with what they’re actually cutting. I mean, they’re gutting offices that have been around for decades — focused on smoking, focused on maternal health, all these different things. And so this is not just rolling back increases from the past few years. This is going deeper than that. 

Winfield Cunningham: Well, yeah, it’s not like they’re just cutting the roles that were added since the pandemic. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: It’s not a last-in, first-out kind of thing. Well, as I said, since it looks like public health is now mostly going to be devolved to the states, let’s check in on some state doings. In Florida, where state Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo last month announced a plan to end school vaccination mandates. My ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News colleague Arthur Allen has a story about how health officials, including university professors and county health officials, who actually do believe in vaccinating children, are effectively being muzzled, told they cannot speak to reporters without the approval of their supervisors, who are likely to say no. Seeing the rising number of unvaccinated children in a state like Florida, where so many tourists come and go, raising the likelihood of spreading vaccine preventable diseases, this all seems kind of risky, yes? 

Goldman: Yes. That was a fantastic article from your colleague, and there was a really illuminating line, which I think had been reported before, but a reporter asked the surgeon general if he had done any disease modeling before making the decision. And he said, Absolutely not, because this to him was a personal choice issue and not a public health issue. And I think that just goes to show that we have no idea what is going to happen as a result of this public health decision and it could have massive ripple effects. 

Rovner: But what we are already seeing are the rise of vaccine-preventable diseases around the country. I mean, measles, first in Texas, now in South Carolina; whooping cough in Louisiana; I’m sure I am missing some, but we are already seeing the consequences of this dwindling herd immunity, if you will. Alice, you’re nodding your head. 

Ollstein: Yeah. And I’ve heard from experts that measles is really sort of the canary in the coal mine here because it’s so infectious. It spreads so easily. You can have an infected person cough in a room and leave the room, and then a while later, someone else comes in the room and they can catch it. Not all of these vaccine-preventable illnesses are like that. So the fact that we’re seeing these measles outbreaks is an indication that other things are probably spreading as well. We’re just not seeing it yet, which is pretty scary. 

Rovner: And of course, one of the things that the CDC does is collect all of that data, so we’re probably not seeing it for that reason, too. Well, meanwhile, in Texas, Attorney General and Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton is suing the makers of Tylenol. He’s claiming that Johnson & Johnson spun off its consumer products division — that includes not just Tylenol, but also things like Band-Aids and Baby Shampoo — to shield it from liability from Tylenol’s causing of autism, something that has not been scientifically demonstrated by the way — even Secretary Kennedy admits that has not been scientifically demonstrated. My recollection, though, is that Johnson & Johnson was trying to shield itself from liability when it spun off its consumer products division, but not because of Tylenol, rather from cancer claims related to talc in its eponymous Baby Powder. So what’s Paxton trying to do here beyond demonstrate his fealty to President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? 

Ollstein: I was interested to see some GOP senators distancing themselves from the Texas lawsuit and saying like, Look, there is no proof of this connection and this harm. Let’s not go crazy. But as I’ve reported, it’s just very hard to get good information out to people because there just isn’t enough data on the safety of various drugs, because testing drugs on pregnant women was always hard and it’s gotten even harder in recent years. And so, based on the data we have, this is a correlation, not causation. But it would be easier to allay people’s fears if we had more robust and better data. 

Rovner: Yeah. Does a lawsuit like this, though, sort of spread the … give credence to this idea that — I see you nodding, Maya — that there is something to be worried about using Tylenol when pregnant? Which is freaking out the medical community because Tylenol is pretty much the only drug that currently is recommended for pregnant women to deal with fever and pain. 

Goldman: Yeah. I think some of my colleagues have reported on the concern of another death spiral here, right? Where people get concerned, perhaps without basis, of taking Tylenol or any other drugs, vaccines even, because there are lawsuits and then the makers of these drugs say it’s not worth it for us to make these anymore. And then they don’t make them. And then it’s like a bad cascade of events. And so it’s obviously too soon to see if that’s what’s happening here, but it’s certainly something to watch. 

Rovner: But as we’ve pointed out earlier, not treating, particularly, fever can also cause problems. So … 

Ollstein: Right. Basically all of the alternatives are more dangerous. Not taking anything to treat pain and fever in pregnancy can be dangerous and can lead to birth effects. And taking other painkillers and fever reducers are known to have dangerous side effects. Tylenol was the safest option known to science. And now that that’s being questioned in the court of public opinion, people are worried about these ramifications. 

Winfield Cunningham: I think about the effect on moms who have kids with autism who are now thinking back to their pregnancies and thinking, Oh my gosh, how much Tylenol did I take? I know I took, I had pregnancies that I took plenty of Tylenol during. My nephew has autism, and I was talking to my sister about this, and she was like, “I took Tylenol.” And what they’re doing is, I guess, other reflection I have on it is, in general, there’s just less research on most things than we need. And there are some studies showing a correlation, which as we all know is not causation. And what it looks like the administration did was they took those tiny little nuggets of suggestions and have blown them up into this overly confident declaration of Tylenol and pregnancy and probably unnecessarily causing many women to blame themselves or think, Should I have done something differently during my pregnancy? when they were really just doing what their doctor recommended they do. 

Ollstein: I’m surprised that we haven’t seen legal action from Tylenol yet. I imagine we might at some point, especially if there is some kind of government action around this, like a label change. I think we will see some sort of legal action from the company because this is absolutely going to impact their bottom line. 

Rovner: Yeah. All right. Well, finally this week, more news on the reproductive health front. California announced it would help fund Planned Parenthood clinics so they can continue providing basic health services, as well as reproductive health services, after Congress made the organization ineligible for Medicaid funds for a year and the big budget bill passed last summer. California’s the fourth state to pitch in joining fellow blue states Washington, Colorado, and New Mexico. Meanwhile, family planning clinics in Maine are closing today due to that loss of Medicaid funding. And at the same time, the Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs, which oversees the federal family planning program, Title X, is down apparently from a staff of 40 to 50 to a single employee, . Is contraception going to become the next health care service that’s only available in blue states, Alice? 

Ollstein: So Title X has been in conservatives’ crosshairs for a long time. There have been attempts on Capitol Hill to defund it. There have been various policies of various administrations to make lots of changes to it. Some of those changes have really limited who gets care. And so it’s been a political football for a while. Of course, Title X doesn’t just do contraception. It’s one of the major things they do, providing subsidized and sometimes even free contraception to millions of low-income people around the country. But they also provide STI testing, even some infertility counseling and other things, cancer screenings. And so this is really hitting people at the same time as the anticipated Medicaid cuts, and at the same time Planned Parenthood clinics are closing because they got defunded. And so it’s just one on top of another in the reproductive health space. Each one alone would be really impactful, but taken all together, yeah, there’s a lot of concern about people losing access to these services. 

Winfield Cunningham: I think the politics of this are more interesting to me than the practical effect. I mean, under the ACA, birth control has to be covered, right? by marketplace plans. Generally speaking, if people have insurance, they do have coverage for a range of birth control. But the Title X program is interesting because it seems to like overlap between the MAHA priorities and the social conservatives. Of course, as Alice said, this has long been a target of social conservatives. I think in Project 2025 called for any Title X, I believe. And then there’s this current in the MAHA movement that’s kind of like anti-hormonal birth control and there’s also these kinds of streams of pronatalist people, of have more babies, don’t take birth control. So that’s kind of interesting to me because there’s this larger narrative I think in HHS right now of the RFK MAHA people versus the traditional conservative, anti-abortion people. So that’s just like one program where I see overlap between the two. 

Rovner: One of my favorite pieces of congressional trivia is that Title X has not been reauthorized since 1984, which, by the way, is before I started covering this. But I’ve been doing this 39 years and I have never covered a successful reauthorization of the Title X program. So it’s obviously been in crosshairs for a very, very long time. Maya, did you want to add something? 

Goldman: I was just going to say to Paige’s point, telling women that they can’t take any painkillers during pregnancy is not a good way to raise the birth rate. 

Rovner: Yes. That’s also a fair point. Well, meanwhile, red states are trying to expand the role of crisis pregnancy centers, which provide mostly nonmedical services and try to convince those with unplanned pregnancies not to have abortions. In Wyoming, state lawmakers are pushing a bill that would prohibit the state or any of the localities from regulating those centers “based on the center’s stance against abortion.” This comes after a similar proposal became law in Montana, the efforts being pushed by the anti-abortion group Alliance Defending Freedom. Is the idea here to have crisis pregnancy centers replace these Title X clinics and Planned Parenthoods? 

Ollstein: I think there are a lot of people that would like to see that, but, as you said, they do not provide the same services, so it would not be a one-to-one replacement. Already, there are way more crisis pregnancy centers around the country than there are Planned Parenthood clinics, for example, but that doesn’t mean that everyone has access to all the services they want. 

Rovner: And many of these crisis pregnancy centers don’t have any medical personnel, right? I mean, some of them do, but … 

Ollstein: It’s really a range. I mean, some have a medical director on staff, or maybe there’s one medical person who oversees several clinics, some do not. Some offer ultrasounds, some don’t, some just give pamphlets and diapers and donated items. It’s just really a range around the country. And states have also been grappling with how much to, on the conservative side, support and fund such centers. And on the other side, states like California have really gone to battle over regulating what they tell patients, what they’re required to tell patients, what they can’t tell patients. And that’s gotten into the courts and they’ve fought over whether that violates their speech rights. And so it’s a real ongoing fight. 

Rovner: Yes, I’m sure this will continue. All right, that is the news for this week. 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. Maya, why don’t you go first this week? 

Goldman: Sure. So this story is from ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News and New England Public Media. It’s called “As Sports Betting Explodes, States Try To Set Limits To Stop Gambling Addiction,” by Karen Brown. And I think this stood out to me because I was just in Vegas last week for health, but this, I think, is a really interesting issue to explore through a public health lens, the issue of sports betting and betting addiction. And there are states that are trying to do a lot of work around this and just organizations. And then of course the gaming companies themselves have their own pushback on that, and I think this story just lays it out really well and it’s an important issue that gets very overlooked. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is a public health issue, an interesting one. Alice? 

Ollstein: I chose a story from ProPublica by reporter, Eric Umansky, and it’s called “.” So this is one of many examples that you could give of policies intended to target transgender folks having spillover effects and impacting cisgender folks, too. In this instance, it’s now harder for male veterans to qualify to get treatment for breast cancer. Men can get breast cancer. Let’s just say that. Men can and do get breast cancer, and it can be harder to detect and very lethal, and obviously very expensive to treat if you don’t have coverage. And so this story has a lot of sad quotes from folks who are losing their coverage, especially because they likely acquired cancer by being exposed during their service to various toxic substances. And so I think, yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah. A combination of a lot of different factors in that story. 

Ollstein: Definitely. 

Rovner: Paige? 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. So my story is by, actually, my colleague Mark Johnson. I sit next to him at The [Washington] Post, and the headline is “.” I was really struck by this story because it talks about how patients with advanced lung cancer, they were given the covid vaccines and it somehow had the effect of supercharging their immune systems. And, actually, their median survival rates went up by 17 months compared with those that weren’t given the vaccines. And, of course, this administration has really gone after the covid vaccines and the mRNA research, in particular, and canceled $500 million in funding for mRNA research. And all of the ACIP’s [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’] moves on vaccines have gotten so much attention. But I think the thing that also is going to be perhaps even more impactful is pulling back on this really promising research, because it has sort of become politicized because the covid vaccines have become politicized. And it seems a shame that we’re pulling back on this really promising research. So I thought that was a really interesting story by my colleague. 

Rovner: Yes. Yet another theme from 2025. My extra credit this week is from my ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News colleague Bernard J. Wolfson, and it’s called “Many Fear Federal Loan Caps Will Deter Aspiring Doctors and Worsen MD Shortage.” And it’s a good reminder about something we did talk about earlier this year when the Republican budget bill passed. It limits federal grad school loans to $50,000 per year at a time when the median tuition for a year in medical school is more than $80,000. The idea here is to push medical schools to lower their tuition, but in the short run, it’s more likely to push lower-income students either out of medicine altogether or to require them to take out private loans with more stringent repayment terms, which could in turn push them into pursuing more lucrative medical specialties rather than the primary care slots that are already so difficult to fill. It’s yet another example of how everybody agrees on a problem: Medical education is way too expensive in this country. But nobody knows quite how to fix it.  

OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks this week to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder, “What the Health?” is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever else you get your podcasts, as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. If you already follow the show, nothing will change. The podcast will show up in your feed as usual. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me at X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks hanging these days? Maya? 

Goldman: I am on X as and I’m also on . 

Rovner: Alice? 

Ollstein: on Bluesky and on X.  

Rovner: Paige? 

Winfield Cunningham: I am still on X. 

Rovner: Great. 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 from ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C., and welcome 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, Jan. 8, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

We are joined via videoconference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi.

Rovner: And Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: No interview this week, but tons of news to catch up on, so let us get right to it. So, we start 2026 in health care the same way we ended 2025, with a fight over expiring subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. By the time you hear this, the House will likely have approved a Democratic-sponsored bill to reinstate for three years the expanded ACA subsidies that were in effect from 2021 through the end of 2025.

That vote was made possible by four Republicans crossing party lines in December to sign a discharge petition that forces a floor vote, over the objection to the House leadership. Interestingly, a preliminary vote on the bill on Wednesday drew not just the four moderate Republicans who signed the original discharge petition but five more, for a total of nine. The consensus of political reporters is that the bill is DOA [dead on arrival] in the Senate, which voted an identical proposal down in early December.

But I’m wondering how much heat Republicans were exposed to over the break by constituents whose out-of-pocket costs for insurance were doubling or more, and whether that might change the forecast somewhat. What are you guys hearing?

Weber: So, it seems that there are still some big hurdles to cross. And based on what senators told my colleagues over the past couple days, there’s not even an agreement on what current law is and does, and thus, they can’t agree on how it should change. And so, I’m talking specifically about the still-unresolved abortion issue.

This is the question of whether plans that cover abortion should receive any federal subsidy, even if those subsidies do not directly pay for an abortion. The Republicans are arguing that it’s an indirect subsidy, even though these are going into separate accounts. So, one of the Republican senators who is trying to craft a deal — that’s Bernie Moreno of Ohio — he was saying that they still don’t agree whether, under current law, federal funding is going to abortion.

So, it’s like you don’t even have a shared reality that senators are operating under, and that makes it really hard to come up with a proposal. They say they’re going to have text by Monday, but we’ll see if that actually happens.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, before we get too deeply into the abortion issue, which we will do in a minute, I want to talk a little bit more about that. I won’t even call it an emerging compromise. I’ll call it a potential compromise in the Senate.

Ollstein: Some bullet points were shared.

Rovner: Some bullet points. We know what the bullet points are. They would extend the additional subsidies for two more years, not three, with a couple of changes, including capping income eligibility for those subsidies at 700% of poverty up from 400% that it reverted back to on Jan. 1. It would also replace zero-premium plans with $5-per-month plans. That’s to crack down on brokers who fraudulently sign up people who don’t even know they have insurance so the brokers can collect commissions. And it would allow people to choose whether their enhanced subsidies should go into Republican-favored health savings accounts or directly toward their premiums.

Assuming — and this is obviously a big assumption — they could get past this abortion issue, what are the chances for a compromise that looks something like this? I mean, it sounds like something that could satisfy both Democrats and Republicans, particularly Republicans who are feeling pressured by their own constituents who’ve now seen there — are either dropping their insurance or seeing their out-of-pocket cost just goes wild.

Ollstein: I’ve heard some criticism from the Democratic side about getting rid of zero-premium plans specifically. They’re saying the Republicans want to run on affordability and helping out people who are struggling. How does eliminating the ability to get a zero-premium plan align with that?

And so I expect there will be some clashes over that. But I also think, again, senators aren’t even agreeing on what the current reality is, and that applies there, too. There have been all of these allegations of widespread fraud, and some experts and lawmakers have been pointing out that just because someone who is enrolled doesn’t actually use their benefits, that doesn’t necessarily mean there’s fraud going on.

It does seem like there is some fraud going on. You mentioned the perverse incentives for brokers, but a lot of this is circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence.

Rovner: Also, one of the ironies here is that if you have somebody who’s healthy, who signs up for health insurance and doesn’t use it, that’s a good thing for the risk pool. You don’t want only sick people.

Ollstein: It helps everyone.

Rovner: There’s a lot of things making my head explode. Well, one of the things that Alice, I know, is making your head explode, too, is this disagreement about reality about abortion. And I would point out that President [Donald] Trump spoke to the retreat of the House Republicans this week and urged some flexibility, put that in air quotes, on this Hyde Amendment issue. Alice, remind us why this is an issue here. Doesn’t the Affordable Care Act already ban federal funding of abortion just like all other federal programs?

Ollstein: Yes. Yes, it does. So basically, this is part of a larger project on the right to expand the definition of Hyde.

Rovner: We should probably go back to the very beginning of what is …

Ollstein: Yes.

Rovner: … the Hyde Amendment because it only applies to annual appropriations, and that’s why it’s been important. I will let you take it from there.

Ollstein: Sure, sure. So, this is a budget rider that dates back to the 1970s that says that there can be no federal funding of abortion, except in a few instances, of there’s a risk to the mother’s life, and rape and incest. And so that has been renewed over and over under administrations of both parties, under Congress majorities of both parties.

And now, what they’re fighting over is, already federal funding that goes to these plans in the form of these subsidies, it does not go to pay for abortion directly. But conservatives are now arguing that if it goes to a plan that covers abortion using other funding, then that functions as an indirect subsidy. This is the same argument they’ve made about Title X, where any federal funding going to a program that uses other funding to pay for abortion, they now consider that sort of an indirect subsidy, even though it’s coming out of different buckets of money.

And so, what they’re pushing for is basically a nationwide restriction on any plan that gets a federal subsidy paying for abortion. So, this would have the most impact in the states where all plans on the ACA market are required to cover abortion, in states like California, New York, and Massachusetts, big states with many, many millions of people. And so that would have a huge impact and force those plans to either drop abortion coverage or forgo the federal subsidy. So, that would have a really big impact.

And Democrats say this is not necessary. There’s already restrictions that prevent federal funding to go to pay for abortion. And that is what the senators and everyone can’t agree on right now.

Rovner: That’s right. And that’s a big fund. Well, we’ll see where that goes. In the meantime, what the president was talking about when he called for flexibility on Hyde was actually health care writ large.

This clearly reflects what we know the president’s pollster has been telling him: that Republicans are currently at a distinct public disadvantage when it comes to health care, and not just the Affordable Care Act. Trump says that Republicans should, again, air quotes, try to “own” the health care issue. And he has spent a good bit of his first year working on health issues. At least he’s been talking about them a lot, but it turns out that his s are not mostly being felt by consumers here in the U.S.

The savings he’s negotiated are mostly going to the state and federal Medicare and Medicaid programs, as well as to people willing and able to pay out-of-pocket for their prescription drugs. And while the administration is making much of its December announcement about the first distribution of rural health funding that was authorized in last summer’s budget bill, that $50 billion in funding won’t make much of a dent compared to the nearly $1 trillion in cuts that were created for Medicaid in that same bill. So, my question from all of this is: Can Republicans use things like this to own the health care issue or at least cut into Democrats’ advantage between now and the midterms?

Weber: Well, I think it depends on what they end up doing with it. He brought up in that same meeting with legislators wanting to own IVF [in vitro fertilization], which is something he floated during his campaign that got a lot of shock from [the] conservative Republican base. So, what does he mean? What is he saying on that? We don’t have particulars.

Bottom line is, voters don’t necessarily know the in-the-weeds policy. So, if he gets out there and says enough things, who knows that they can own the health care issue? But I would say for now that it is solely in the Democrats’ camp and is helping lead them with an advantage for midterms for now.

Rovner: Sarah, he keeps saying on drug prices that he’s done all this stuff, and he has done a lot of stuff, but it hasn’t had a big dent in what people pay for their drugs, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. And I think the one reason drug pricing has been a popular health policy topic for politicians to focus on is because people really can feel it directly compared to how they feel other health costs. And so, I think that there’s only a certain amount of time where people will just accept Trump saying, Oh, we’re saving you money, without them actually seeing it on the back end. And the problem right now is these most-favored-nation deals where he’s struck privately with a lot of drug companies to get Medicaid, really mostly at this point, in theory lower prices.

It’s not clear how much money it’s actually going to save Medicaid because Medicaid actually gets some of the best deals that the U.S. gets. Most people on Medicaid actually don’t really directly pay copays for most of their products, either. The other problem is they’ve then rolled out a number of other drug-pricing models to try and pair this concept, again, of getting the prices a lot of other countries get for drugs in the U.S., but they then exempted all these companies they’ve struck these private deals with.

So, it’s not really clear who is left in terms of drug companies and drug products. Then you might get cheaper prices under some of these other demonstrations, which by their nature, these are demonstration pilot programs that are not going to reach every Medicare beneficiary they’re pushing for. So, I think it’s going to be a big problem because many people are not actually going to see savings.

For people that have a decent amount of income and can afford some of these direct-to-consumer products where health insurers have often been denying it — like the weight loss, common popular weight loss drugs — some people may feel a little benefit there. But if you’re somebody who’s underinsured or uninsured, even if there’s really good discounts on a direct-to-consumer buying market, you’re probably also still not going to be able to afford these weight loss drugs.

Rovner: Yes, Lauren.

Weber: Just to go back to the rural health fund disbursement, I just have so many thoughts on this, because I mean, at the end of the day, rural hospitals are also the equivalent of rural jobs programs for rural America. And typically, rural hospitals fall in red America. And so, this attempt to prop them up, it sounds flashy, right? I mean, it’s billions of dollars. But when you break it down by the 50 states, it’s hundreds of millions, like tops like $281 million depending on the state.

That’s not going to cover the deficit that the bill has created for those folks. And I understand that it’s meant by the administration to be a flashy way of, Oh, we’re supporting rural health care, but the crushing Medicaid cuts that these rural hospitals are going to face, when they already operate on such thin margins, will be devastating. I mean, it will be devastating for already health care deserts that we already see, and this money is not going to be enough to stop the blood flow there in rural America.

Rovner: And Alice, you guys at Politico pointed out that even this $50 billion was not exactly distributed based on need, right? It was distributed based on deals.

Ollstein: Yes. And to build on Lauren’s point, not only is it not enough to make up for the Medicaid cuts, but there are restrictions. States can only use a little fraction of the money to keep these rural hospitals’ lights on, basically. The money is supposed to be for these transformative projects. It’s very tech focused. It’s very, Let’s try these pilot programs and completely revamp the way rural health care is delivered. Meanwhile, there are all these rural hospitals on the brink of closure, and states aren’t allowed to spend a lot of the money on just paying the salaries of the people who work there, paying for keeping the buildings in good shape. And so, we could see benefit from this money, but we could also, in the meantime, see a bunch more rural hospitals close, as they have been. And once they close, it’s really hard to come back.

And so, to your point, the way the money was distributed is getting a lot of criticism from all around the country because, one, a lot of it was split evenly between states regardless of the size of their population. And so, you saw, for instance, Alaska get more than California despite having a tiny, tiny sliver of its population. And I had people arguing with me online saying, Well, what about the rural population? Yes, California has a huge rural population. It’s not just LA and San Francisco. So, even if you only count the rural population, it’s much, much, much bigger than Alaska.

Also, there were these policy incentives in the program where states that adopted Trump-administration-friendly policies — like restrictions on what people can buy with SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], on implementing the presidential fitness test, on deregulating short-term insurance plans, which Democrats have criticized and called junk plans — these would get the states more money if they adopted these policies. So, we’ve been digging into that and digging into the struggles on the state level on that front.

Rovner: All right. Well, that’s the rural health news. We’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back.

So, the other big news out of HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] was on the vaccine front where Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made unilaterally a major change to the federal government’s childhood vaccine schedule, reducing the number of diseases with explicit vaccine recommendations from 17 to 11. No longer recommended for all children will be vaccines to protect against flu, covid, rotavirus, hepatitis A, and the germs that cause meningitis. Sarah, you’re the mom here on this panel today. How is this schedule change actually going to affect parents and children and doctors?

Karlin-Smith: I think a lot of it is going to depend [on] how the pediatrician health community reacts to this, because there’s been a lot of pushback from the medical public health community that this is not an appropriate or scientifically based change. So, doctors may still guide parents to hopefully making the decision to get these vaccines, but parents who may be a little hesitant, maybe feel more comfortable backing out.

Despite sometimes the rhetoric you hear from this administration, states are really the ones that end up creating policies that end up with actual mandates for people to get vaccinated for school and so forth. So, states may build off this and change their mandates, and that may impact access, but they may also not. So, people may still have to, for school purposes, get some of these shots as well.

Rovner: And I should point out that the American Academy of Pediatrics is fighting this, I would say tooth and nail, but also in court. I mean, they’re actually suing, saying that Kennedy didn’t even have the authority to make this change without going through a much more detailed regulatory process.

So, the administration says that all the vaccines currently on the schedule will remain, quote, “covered by insurance,” but I’m not positive that’s necessarily going to be the case in the long term, right? Isn’t mandatory insurance coverage linked to the recommendations of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]? And if these are no longer actually recommended, are they no longer required to be covered?

I know the insurance industry, we’ve talked about this, has said that they’re going to continue to cover all the vaccines at least through 2026. But I’m wondering about the legality. I tried to track this back, but I couldn’t find it all the way.

Ollstein: We could see a patchwork because a lot of states are moving to change their own laws about insurance coverage and have it be based on something other than these federal recommendations. I think that obviously patchworks are challenging when you’re talking about infectious diseases, which do not respect state or national boundaries, but Sarah can say more.

Rovner: Go ahead, Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. To build on Alice’s comment, and the thing that gets really confusing really fast always with U.S. health care is states can regulate certain insurance plans and states cannot regulate certain insurance plans, the ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] plans. So, you could end up, even if states want to mandate coverage, depending on the type of health care coverage you get in your state, you may live in that state, work in that state, and you’re not going to get covered. So, that adds to the patchwork and always adds to the confusion when trying to explain that issue to people.

But the administration has claimed basically because the vaccines, they’re no longer universally recommended — they’re moving to what’s called the shared decision-making recommendation, where people are supposed to consult with their doctor and figure out whether these vaccines are appropriate for them and their children — that that still, under the way laws and regulations are written, requires the mandatory coverage for health care and no copays and so forth.

And I’ve talked to people who’ve looked at this, and there is precedent for that with other vaccines. I think there’s some concerns, however, that that could be challenged by people in court who don’t want these vaccines to be covered. There’s also concern when it comes to like the HPV [human papillomavirus] vaccine, which they’re now only recommending one shot of instead of two.

In that case, because they’ve really fully eliminated the recommendation for a second shot, if somebody felt like they wanted that two-series shot, I don’t think that would be covered. And the other question is, while they didn’t use the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to make these changes for the most part. And they are largely advisory, but they do have certain legal authority when it comes to vaccines for children’s program, and their legal authority from Congress very much relates to the coverage and reimbursement. So, it’ll be interesting to see, again, if this all aligns.

Rovner: And we should point out that the Vaccines for Children Program, which many people have never heard of, is actually responsible for vaccinating something like half of all children in the United States. It’s a huge program that’s just basically invisible but really, really important.

Karlin-Smith: Right. And so, I think there’s going to be legal questions that they didn’t vote on those reimbursement questions here.

Rovner: Yeah. There’s a lot that’s going to have to be sorted out here. Well, one of the arguments that HHS officials are making is that they compared the U.S. vaccine schedule to that of, quote, “peer nations” like Denmark, but those peer nations have something the U.S. does not: universal health insurance. That can make a really big difference in vaccine uptake and in just the prevalence of disease, right?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. And so, one thing that people have tried to look at and explain in recent days is the U.S. isn’t actually that different from most of its peers. Denmark, some have made the case, is actually the outlier. And if you look at Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, the amount of pathogens, viruses the U.S. is vaccinating against is actually much more in line with most of the peer population. And then when you have a country like Denmark, which has universal health insurance …

Rovner: And a very small population.

Karlin-Smith: Right. I mean, it’s very different, but they’ve made in some cases the calculus that if we don’t vaccinate for rotavirus, and we are able to treat the however many kids each year will need to be hospitalized and treated, and you have a certain comfort — I don’t think that most parents would like the idea of knowing your kid is going to get sick and need to be hospitalized maybe or treated — but there’s a lot more comfort that they would get care, and quick care, and would do better there. But they certainly are not, and there’s data to show, [they] don’t do as well as the U.S. does in terms of the amount of people that get some of these diseases.

The other thing with some of the vaccines I noted that like some of these comparison countries don’t cover is they’re newer and they’re still more expensive. So, sometimes one of the reasons these countries are choosing not to recommend them more broadly is because they’re making decisions based on the fact that they have universal health care — the taxpayers pay for it — and then deciding that at this point, the pricing is not affordable. They’re not making a decision saying if the cost was zero, that the risk-benefit calculus isn’t favorable for people.

Rovner: Right. And it’s all about the risk-benefit calculus. So, one thing we know is that the rise in vaccine hesitancy is leading to outbreaks of previously rare diseases in the U.S., including measles and pertussis, or whooping cough. Lauren, you’ve got a really cool story this week with a tool that can help people figure out if they and their families are at risk. So, tell us about it.

Weber: Yeah. My colleagues at The Washington Post, including Caitlin Gilbert, and I set out last year to tell people across the country what their . And so, we requested records from all 50 states and were able to get school-based records for about, I think, 36 of them and county-based records for vaccination records for 44 states. So, we have a nifty tool where you can look up in your local community what your vaccination rates are.

But taking a step back, what we found in our reporting is that before the pandemic, rates weren’t looking that great. Only half of the country was making 95% vaccination against measles, which is herd immunity. After the pandemic, that dropped to 28%.

And what we found in digging in a lot deeper is that schools, which were once considered kind of this bulwark against infectious disease, because they’re the ones who would enforce whether or not you needed your shots to attend school, are somewhat stepping away from that responsibility in the politically charged environment that is America today. I spoke to a superintendent in Minnesota, which has seen a large drop in vaccination for measles, who said, Look, I’m a record keeper. It’s not my job to promote a medical decision.

And you see that attitude across the country in school nurses and so on where maybe they’re not being empowered by their superintendent or principal to draw the line, or they’re valuing the child going to school over getting vaccinated. And so, there’s a lot of talk about at the state level that we have these mandates for vaccination, but if they’re not enforced and there’s no mechanism to enforce them, our investigation found that you had these slipping rates.

And a lot of folks are really concerned. Because look to South Carolina. You have hundreds of kids quarantined and missing school; you have hundreds of people infected. And, in general, measles cases were at their highest in 33 years last year. So, we have this rise of infectious disease amid an administration headed by a man who has disparaged vaccines for years and is working to roll back policy around them.

Rovner: Is there any talk from Capitol Hill on … we’ve talked so much about Sen. Bill Cassidy [R-La.], who’s a doctor, who was the deciding vote for RFK Jr. and said that he got RFK Jr. to promise not to change the vaccine schedule, which he just did. But it’s not just Cassidy. There’s 534 other members of Congress. Is anybody pushing back on any of this?

Weber: I mean, Cassidy tweeted after the vaccine change that he was appalled. I’m a physician. My job is to protect children. This is a problem. At the end of the day, the person who runs HHS is a man who has repeatedly linked the rising number of vaccines, which are rising because we have more vaccines that can fight more pathogens, to chronic conditions that experts say is not based in evidence.

And so, no, I do not see a massive Capitol Hill pushback. I mean, you have frustration and irritation, but I don’t see Cassidy hauling Kennedy in for a hearing. Hasn’t happened yet, really, besides those couple that were mandated. So, we’ll see how this continues to play out.

But the reality is amid all of this talk of vaccine schedules, the people on the front lines of this are these school nurses or pediatricians who are met with a wave of parents who are so confused. I talked to so many pediatricians who said, Look, we refer to the AAP, the American Academy of Pediatrics, but it’s really hard when the president and the head of the health system is saying something different to convince parents that may be confused. And oftentimes, if you’re confused, it’s easier to not take action, to not get your child vaccinated than to do so. And…

Rovner: And because pediatricians don’t already have enough to do.

Weber: Right. Many are scared that these trends that we identified in our investigation will continue to worsen in the years to come.

Rovner: Well, also this week we got the new food pyramid recommendations from HHS and the Department of Agriculture. Food, obviously another big priority for RFK Jr., who, as we know, is a fan of red meat and whole-fat dairy. Unlike the vaccine schedule, though, the changes to the food pyramid appear, at least at first blush, to hew to fairly consensus opinions in the nutrition world that whole foods are better than processed foods, protein is good, added sugar and refined carbohydrates are bad.

Still, when you get into the details, there are some things that are likely to cause nutrition scientists, some, shall we say, indigestion. What are some of the more controversial recommendations here other than Dr. [Mehmet] Oz saying in Wednesday’s press briefing that you might not want to drink alcohol for breakfast?

Ollstein: So, the alcohol piece has gotten pushback because it’s weakening the previous recommendation that really no amount of alcohol is safe. We talked before about a report about alcohol as a carcinogen that was buried last year, a government report that had been worked on for years that was supposed to come out that got buried by the Trump administration. And so that I think is reflected in these new recommendations. And I saw a lot of conservatives celebrating this and saying, Happy hour’s back, everyone! But look, there’s real science that shows the dangers of even moderate alcohol consumption, and that’s getting sidelined here.

Rovner: The previous recommendations were that, I would say the previous recommendations were like no more than one drink a day for women and two for men, and they took that away? I think that was the actual change here.

Ollstein: There was a push to say that no amount is safe, basically, that even small amounts are potentially harmful to health.

Rovner: And that didn’t happen.

Ollstein: Correct, correct. The other concern I was hearing is about the emphasis on red meat when that is something that Americans eat too much of already.

Rovner: Although I know there’s an irony here that I think the new recommendations state, you still shouldn’t have more than 10% of your calories from saturated fat. But saturated fat isn’t nearly as bad as we used to think it was, Sarah. I see you nodding.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. I think the saturated fat and the focus on the sources of fat and protein is one of the biggest controversies here because there is lots of research and evidence that saturated fat can lead to heart disease and other medical complications. And people have long been pushed toward plant-based proteins, leaner proteins, and the role of dairy, and whether you should be doing high-fat dairy as well.

And there’s been some good reporting from Stat and others of recent days that there was a lot of who was making these recommendations around their relationships with these various industries. They tried to avoid contradicting the science too much in how they made their push for more red meat and more saturated fat. But it’s probably another area where, if you read it in full, you’re going to get confused and you may not end up making the right decisions because some of the recommendations there are kind of contradictory.

Rovner: Although we’ll point out that the difference between the nutrition guidelines and the vaccine schedule is very large because the new nutrition guidelines are just that. They’re guidelines. They do determine what gets served in school lunches and things like that, but it’s not quite nearly of the level that the vaccine schedule is.

Well, finally this week, turning to reproductive health, the Wyoming Supreme Court struck down two abortion bans, kind of remarkable for one of the reddest states in the nation. Interestingly, one of the reasons the bans were struck down is because the state tried to thwart the Affordable Care Act back in 2012. Alice, explain what these two things have to do with each other.

Ollstein: Yes. So, the state adopted some laws saying that people have the right to make their own health care decisions, and that was squarely aimed at the Affordable Care Act. However, the judges found that it also applied to the right to have an abortion.

Rovner: Oops.

Ollstein: They said, Based on the text of this law, it doesn’t matter what you meant it to say. It matters what it actually says. And we find that it applies here.

That’s actually not the only state where that’s happened over the past few years. There have been other conservative states that have inadvertently protected the right to abortion through these right-to-control-your-own-health care provisions. So, I think we’ve seen over the past few years that state constitutions can be more protective of abortion than the federal Constitution in certain circumstances. But I think it’s also notable that Wyoming had one of the first laws specifically banning abortion pills, and that was also struck down.

So, nothing changes in practice, because these laws were already enjoined and were not being enforced, but it is a big deal. And it could lead to more efforts to hold the ballot referendums that we’ve seen over the past few years. There are set to be a few more this fall, but there could be even more following decisions like this in the courts.

Rovner: Yeah. Along those lines, there’s a really interesting piece in The Guardian that suggests that , but not so much for Republicans, most of whom still consider it a deal breaker for a candidate not to agree with them. What happened to all that enthusiasm for abortion rights that we saw in 2023 and 2024 to some extent?

Ollstein: Look, there’s a lot going on right now. So, it may be that just other issues are overshadowing this. And also, it’s a long way to go before the elections. We do not know what’s going to happen.

If various court cases lead to a big change, another big change in abortion access, this could rear its head once again. As we’ve discussed many times, this is not really ever over or settled.

Rovner: All right. Well, it is January. All right. That is this week’s news, or at least as much as we had time for.

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 post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Lauren, why don’t you start us off this week?

Weber: Yeah. I have to shout out another investigation my colleagues and I completed led by Rachel Roubein and Lena Sun and I. [“”] We dug into the first year of Kennedy in office. In interviews with nearly a hundred folks and documents, we uncovered some of his previously undisclosed shaping of vaccine policy. We got ahold of an email in which a top aide asked to replace the membership of ACIP and reconsider the universal hep B vaccine recommendation and revisit the use of multidose flu shot vials. We also analyzed how while Kennedy has talked about food twice as much as vaccines while in office, one of his advisers, Del Bigtree, told us, Look, food is more popular with the American mom. And I think some of these revelations shape and put into context what we’re seeing now, which is this culmination of changing the vaccine schedule and continued policy to upend public health infrastructure in this country.

Rovner: That’s a really good piece. Alice.

Ollstein: So, I have a very depressing piece out of San Francisco called, “” This is yet another death of a young person after heavily using some of these LLMs [large language models] for advice. Some of the chat logs show that he was able to very easily circumvent the protections that were put in place.

ChatGPT is not supposed to give people advice on using drugs recreationally, but that is very easily circumvented by pretending it’s a hypothetical question or various other means. And this article does a good job showing that it’s really a garbage-in-garbage-out scenario. ChatGPT is drawing from the entire internet. And so somebody’s dumb post on Reddit by a person who has a substance abuse issue, for instance, could be informing what advice the bot gives you. And so I think this is especially important to keep in mind as, just this week, ChatGPT is launching, making a big push, launching a whole health-care-focused chatbot and encouraging millions of people to use it.

And so this article … quotes experts who argue that it’s not possible to prevent this bad advice from getting in there, just because these chatbots are trained on huge volumes of text from the entire internet. It’s not possible to weed out things like this. And so I think that’s important to keep in mind.

Rovner: So, what could possibly go wrong? Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at some ProPublica pieces on the impact of the U.S.’ USAID cuts [“”]. One of the stories that I looked at was “” It’s just a really deep dive into the decisions that these political leaders made to cut off aid and support for various countries. This one, in particular, was looking at South Sudan, even though they were warned that they would make certain disease outbreaks and other humanitarian situations worse. And it just goes through the hardship of that, as well as the fact that Trump administration officials were making claims throughout this time, once there was pushback, that they were going to not cut off certain life-supporting aid and so forth. And that was not actually the case. They did cut it off, and they did it in ways that were extremely abrupt and fast, that there could not be any safety valve or stopgap to prevent the harm that occurred.

Rovner: Yeah. It’s quite the series and really heavy but really good. My extra credit this week comes from my colleague Fred Schulte, who’s moved on from uncovering malfeasance in Medicare Advantage to uncovering malfeasance in cosmetic surgery. This one is called “Advertisements Promising Patients a ‘Dream Body’ With Minimal Risk Get Little Scrutiny.”

And if you’ve ever been tempted by one of those body-sculpting commercials promising quick results, little pain, and an immediate return to your daily routine, you really need to read this story first. It includes a long list of patients who either died of complications of allegedly minimally invasive techniques or who ended up in the hospital and with scars that have yet to heal. Many of the lawsuits filed in these cases are still in process, but it is definitely “buyer beware.”

OK, that is this week’s show. Hope you feel at least a little bit caught up. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and this week’s producer engineer, Zach Dyer.

A reminder, What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts, as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me still on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks hanging these days? Lauren.

Weber: I am on X, , and same thing on these days.

Rovner: Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: Mostly and at @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Alice.

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

Rovner: We will be backing 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, from ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News and, starting this week, from WAMU public radio in Washington, D.C., and welcome 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, Oct. 30, 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 video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Good to be here. 

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast one of our original panelists, Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Post. So great to see you again. 

Winfield Cunningham: Hi, Julie. It’s great to be back. 

Rovner: Before we dive in, we have a little of our own news to announce. Starting this week, we’re partnering with WAMU, Washington D.C.’s public radio station, to distribute the podcast. That means you can also now find us on the NPR app. And welcome to all you new listeners. OK, onto the news. We are now 30 days into the federal government shutdown, and there is still no discernible end in sight. And this Saturday is not only the start of open enrollment in most states for the Affordable Care Act health plans, which we’ll talk more about in a minute. It’s also the day an estimated 42 million Americans will lose access to food stamps after the Trump administration decided to stop funding the SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance] program. That’s something the administration did keep funding during the last Trump shutdown in 2019, and, according to budget experts, could continue to do now. So what’s behind this? As I think I pointed out last week, not such a great look to deprive people of food aid right before Thanksgiving. 

Ollstein: So I think this follows the pattern we’ve seen throughout the shutdown, which is just a lot of picking and choosing of what gets funded and what doesn’t. The angle of this I’ve covered is that out of all of the uniformed forces of the government, the Trump administration dug around and found money to keep paying the armed members, but not the public health officers, who are also part of the uniformed branches of the country. And yeah, you’re seeing this in the SNAP space as well. President Trump and his officials have openly threatened to go after what they see as Democrat programs. So it’s just interesting what they consider in that category. But you’re seeing a lot of choices being made to exert maximum political pressure and force various sides of this fight to cave, but we’re not seeing that yet either. 

Rovner: Yeah, they are. I mean, it seems this is also backwards because it’s usually the Republicans who are shutting down the government, the Democrats who are trying to pressure them to reopen it. And now, of course, we’re seeing the opposite because the Democrats want the Republicans to do something about the Affordable Care Act subsidies, and the Republicans are going after previously what had been kind of sacrosanct bipartisan programs like food stamps and the WIC [the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children] program, for pregnant and breastfeeding moms and babies. And now, apparently, they’re going to stop funding for Head Start, the preschool program for low-income families with kids. On the one hand, you’re right, they are programs that are very cherished by Democrats, but I feel like this whole shutdown is now sort of going after the most vulnerable people in America. 

Goldman: It’s also been interesting because [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] has tried to use SNAP as a vehicle for his Make America Healthy Again agenda, right? Trying to get states to limit the sugary drinks that their SNAP programs offer. And he’s, like, really touted that as part of the agenda. And now there does not seem to be any interest from HHS in speaking out about that. 

Rovner: Well, of course, and SNAP isn’t an HHS program. 

Goldman: Exactly. Exactly. 

Rovner: It’s a program in the Department of Agriculture, which is even more confusing, but you’re absolutely right. I mean, it’s odd that some of the things that he’s been pointing to are things that this administration is kind of trying to lay at the Democrats’ feet, as in, You want this program, reopen the government. So as I mentioned, Saturday is the start of Obamacare open enrollment in most of the states. And, Paige, you got a for plans in the 30 states that use the federal marketplace, which is now open for what we call window-shopping before open enrollment officially begins. What did you find? 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. So I got some documents at the end of last week showing that the average premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan — which, of course, is what, we know … that’s what the subsidies are pegged to — is going up 30%, which is the second-highest premium increase. The highest we saw was 2017 to 2018. But this is a really, really significant increase. And of course, CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] didn’t include that number in the document that it finally released this week. So the documents I saw had some sort of numbers like that, which were all stripped out of the official documents. But all of this is just so interesting because I was thinking about, back to 2017-2018, and the politics of this are so flipped right now because basically it was the Democrats then who didn’t want to talk about premium increases and the Republicans who were yelling about it. 

So it’s funny how that has changed. But I guess on the politics of this, it seemed for a while like Democrats were thinking maybe the Nov. 1 start of open enrollment would provide this out for them to pass the spending bill because they could say, like, OK, we tried. Now open enrollment has started, or the premiums are kind of baked, so we can’t really do anything to change it now. But I don’t think we’re going to have anything this week. It seems like both sides are pretty dug in still. I mean, I guess the other thing I would say on these costs, it’s really highlighting a weakness that we’ve known for a long time in the Affordable Care Act, which is that, like, yes, it made health insurance affordable for a lot of people, but there’s always been this smaller number of people that are above 400% federal poverty that have had no shield from insurance costs. They have the last four years, and now they’re not going to have one anymore. And it’s funny because Democrats are talking about this, but that’s sort of a problem they hadn’t wanted to acknowledge for a long time in the early years of the Affordable Care Act. And as you guys all know, there’s not going to be any political will for bipartisan work to create affordable options for these folks unless the subsidies get extended, which, of course, that doesn’t seem very likely at the moment from how things stand. 

Rovner: Yeah. Going back to what the Republicans sort of announced, their talking points, is that, well, first the premium increases aren’t that big and that the expiring extra subsidies aren’t that big a piece of it, both of which are actually kind of true. But, of course, that’s not where the sticker shock is coming from. The sticker shock is coming from the expiration of those tax credits that’s going to …  

So people who had been shielded from these very high premiums are no longer going to be shielded from them. And that’s why, if you look at social media, you see all these screenshots now of insurance that costs $3,000 a month for people who were paying $150 a month, which is obviously not affordable. Why is it so difficult to explain the difference? I’ve been working on different ways to explain it for the last three weeks. 

Goldman: I was trying to figure this out last night, when I was writing something for my newsletter today. And I think one of the really confusing parts about this is that, like Paige said, like Paige scooped, premiums are going up a certain amount, and that’s not actually what people are seeing. That’s not what almost anyone is going to actually face. Either you’re getting that huge sticker shock because you’re losing your subsidies that you had this year or you’re continuing to have subsidies, they’re not quite the same, but you’re still not going to pay a 30% increase. And so I think that that’s really confusing for me even, and hard to explain. 

Winfield Cunningham: I think one way to think about this is like the party that is going to bear the brunt of the premium costs to a large degree is the government because for people that are before 400% federal poverty, they are basically guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act that they’re not going to have to pay more for premiums over a certain percentage of their income. And so this just means, like, the subsidies are getting really expensive for the federal government, which goes back to the issue of kind of like why Democrats didn’t extend these enhanced premiums indefinitely — because it’s just expensive to do it. This is the government subsidizing private health insurance. And then it’s also significant again for those people over 400% poverty who had had a cap on what they would pay. I think it was 9.5% of their income under the enhanced … and now they have no cap. 

Rovner: I think 8.5% of their income, actually, under the enhanced premiums. 

Winfield Cunningham: Under the enhanced. OK. 

Rovner: It’s going to go back to 10%. 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. Yeah. But there’s no cap if you’re like over, over 400%. 

Rovner: 400%. 

Winfield Cunningham: Right. Yeah. Yeah. 

Rovner: That’s right. 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. But that’s why people are confused. And the other thing is, like, the administration is correct, that the vast majority of people in the marketplaces will continue to get subsidies. And we are basically going back to what the situation was before covid, but it’s that smaller number of people that are at the higher income levels. But the other thought I had was, of course, the health care industry and Democrats are talking a lot about this and spreading these huge premium increases far and wide and making sure everybody hears about them, but it’s like a relatively small number of people, if you think about it. 

And I think it’s only like a couple million people in the marketplaces who are at that higher income levels. And I wonder if that factors into Republicans’ calculations here, where they’re looking at how many voters are actually seeing these massive premium increases, having to pay for all of them. And in the whole scheme of the U.S. population, it’s not like a ton of people. So I just wonder if that’s one reason they’re sort of, like, seem to be increasingly dug in on this and very reticent to extend these subsidies. 

Rovner: Although I would point out that when the Affordable Care Act started, it was only a small number of people who lost their insurance, and that became a gigantic political issue. 

Winfield Cunningham: This is very true. 

Rovner: So it’s the people who get hurt who sometimes yell the loudest, although you’re right. I mean, at that point, the Democrats stayed the course and eventually, as Nancy Pelosi said, people came to like it. So it could work out the same way. It does help explain why everybody’s still dug in. Maya, you wanted to say something. 

Goldman: I was just going to say, I think it’ll be interesting to see, if subsidies aren’t extended, how this affects premiums next year for people and for the federal government, because if a couple million people drop out of the ACA marketplace because it’s too expensive, and those people tend to be healthier, then the remaining pool of people is sicker, and then that’s the death spiral, right? So … 

Rovner: Yeah. Although it is … 

Goldman: Obviously, that’s a lot of what ifs, but … 

Rovner: … only the death spiral that goes back to prior to covid, which — it was kind of stable at 12 million. I’m sort of amused by seeing Republicans complaining about subsidizing insurance companies. It’s like, but this was the Republicans’ idea in the first place, going back to the very origin of the ACA. 

Ollstein: And we should not forget that there is a group of people who are going to be losing all of their subsidies, not just the enhanced subsidies. And that’s legal immigrants, and that’s hundreds of thousands of people. So, like Maya said, that will probably mean a lot of younger, healthier people dropping coverage altogether, which will make the remaining pool of people more expensive to insure. So these things have ripple effects, things that impact one part of the population inevitably impact other parts of the population. And again, these are legal tax-paying immigrants with papers — will be subject to the full force of the premium increases because they won’t have any subsidies. 

Rovner: Yes, our health system at work. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back with more health news.  

Moving on, the federal government is technically shut down, but the Trump administration is still making policy. You might remember last summer, a federal judge blocked a Biden administration rule that prevented medical debt from appearing on people’s credit reports. The Trump administration chose not to appeal that ruling, thus killing the rule. Now the administration is going a step further — this week, putting out guidance that tries to stop states from passing their own laws to prevent medical debt from ruining people’s credit, and often their ability to rent, or buy a house, or purchase a car, or even sometimes get a job. According to the acting head of the federal Consumer Financial Protection [Bureau], Russell Vought — yes, that same Russell Vought who’s also cutting federal programs as head of the Office of Management and Budget — states don’t have the authority to restrict medical debt from appearing on credit reports, only the federal government does, which of course he has already shown he doesn’t want to do. Who does this help? I’m not sure I see what the point is of saying we’re not going to do it and states, you can’t do it either. Part of this, I know, is Russell Vought has made no secret of the fact that he would like to undo as much of the federal government as he can. In this case, is he doing the bidding of, I guess it’s the people who extend credit, who, I guess, want this information, want to know whether people have medical debt, think that that’s going to impact whether or not they can pay back their loans, or is this just Russell Vought being Russell Vought? 

Goldman: I guess, in theory, maybe it goes back to the idea that if you have consequences for medical debt, then people will pay their bills, and maybe that would help the health systems in the long run. But I also think that — I don’t know what health systems have said about this particular move, to be honest — but I think there’s an interest in making medical debt less difficult for people to bear in the whole health system. So I’m not sure how popular that is. 

Rovner: Yeah. Yes. Another one of those things that’s sort of like, we’re going to hurt the public to thwart the Democrats, which kind of seems to be an ongoing theme here. Well, as we tape this morning, the Senate health committee was supposed to be holding a hearing on the nomination of RFK Jr. MAHA ally Casey Means to be U.S. surgeon general. Casey Means was going to testify via video conference because she is pregnant, but, apparently, she has gone into labor, so that hearing is not happening. We will pick up on it when that gets rescheduled. Perhaps she will appear with her infant. 

Back at HHS, a U.S. district judge this week indefinitely barred the Trump administration from laying off federal workers during the shutdown, but at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it appears the damage is already done. The New York Times’ global health reporter, Apoorva Mandavilli, reports that the agency appears to have had its workforce reduced by a third and that the entire leadership now consists of political appointees loyal to HHS secretary Kennedy, who has not hidden his disdain for the agency and the fact that he wants to see it dissolved and its activities assigned elsewhere around the department. What would that mean in practice if there, in effect, was no more CDC? 

Winfield Cunningham: Hopefully we don’t have another pandemic. There’s just a lot of stuff the CDC does. And it’s been really confusing to follow these layoffs because in this last round, I remember trying to figure out with my colleague Lena Sun how many people were sent notices and then hundreds were sort of, those were rescinded and they were brought back. But yeah, I mean, I think we’re going to see the effects of this over the next couple of years. When I’ve asked the administration broadly about the reductions to HHS, what they say is that the agency overall has grown quite a lot in its headcount through the pandemic, which is true. I think they got up to like 90,000 or so. And then, according to our best estimates, maybe they’re back around 80,000, although I’m not entirely sure if that’s accurate. Again, it’s really been hard to track this. 

Rovner: Yeah. I’ve seen numbers as low as 60,000. 

Winfield Cunningham: It may be lower. Yeah. Yeah. So I think actually the 80,000, that may have been the headcount before the pandemic. Anyway, all that to say, it did grow during the pandemic, and that’s kind of the argument that they’re making, is that they’re just bringing it back to pre-pandemic levels. 

Rovner: But CDC, I mean, it really does look like they want to just sort of devolve everything that CDC does to the states, right? I mean, that we’re just not going to have as much of a federal public health presence as we’ve had over these past 50, 60 years. 

Winfield Cunningham: For sure. They’ve definitely targeted CDC. I mean, they mostly left CMS alone and FDA because, statutorily, I think it’s easier for them to shrink CDC, but it definitely is going to have massive effects over the next couple of years, especially as we see future pandemics. 

Ollstein: And the whole argument about returning to pre-covid, that doesn’t fit with what they’re actually cutting. I mean, they’re gutting offices that have been around for decades — focused on smoking, focused on maternal health, all these different things. And so this is not just rolling back increases from the past few years. This is going deeper than that. 

Winfield Cunningham: Well, yeah, it’s not like they’re just cutting the roles that were added since the pandemic. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: It’s not a last-in, first-out kind of thing. Well, as I said, since it looks like public health is now mostly going to be devolved to the states, let’s check in on some state doings. In Florida, where state Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo last month announced a plan to end school vaccination mandates. My ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News colleague Arthur Allen has a story about how health officials, including university professors and county health officials, who actually do believe in vaccinating children, are effectively being muzzled, told they cannot speak to reporters without the approval of their supervisors, who are likely to say no. Seeing the rising number of unvaccinated children in a state like Florida, where so many tourists come and go, raising the likelihood of spreading vaccine preventable diseases, this all seems kind of risky, yes? 

Goldman: Yes. That was a fantastic article from your colleague, and there was a really illuminating line, which I think had been reported before, but a reporter asked the surgeon general if he had done any disease modeling before making the decision. And he said, Absolutely not, because this to him was a personal choice issue and not a public health issue. And I think that just goes to show that we have no idea what is going to happen as a result of this public health decision and it could have massive ripple effects. 

Rovner: But what we are already seeing are the rise of vaccine-preventable diseases around the country. I mean, measles, first in Texas, now in South Carolina; whooping cough in Louisiana; I’m sure I am missing some, but we are already seeing the consequences of this dwindling herd immunity, if you will. Alice, you’re nodding your head. 

Ollstein: Yeah. And I’ve heard from experts that measles is really sort of the canary in the coal mine here because it’s so infectious. It spreads so easily. You can have an infected person cough in a room and leave the room, and then a while later, someone else comes in the room and they can catch it. Not all of these vaccine-preventable illnesses are like that. So the fact that we’re seeing these measles outbreaks is an indication that other things are probably spreading as well. We’re just not seeing it yet, which is pretty scary. 

Rovner: And of course, one of the things that the CDC does is collect all of that data, so we’re probably not seeing it for that reason, too. Well, meanwhile, in Texas, Attorney General and Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton is suing the makers of Tylenol. He’s claiming that Johnson & Johnson spun off its consumer products division — that includes not just Tylenol, but also things like Band-Aids and Baby Shampoo — to shield it from liability from Tylenol’s causing of autism, something that has not been scientifically demonstrated by the way — even Secretary Kennedy admits that has not been scientifically demonstrated. My recollection, though, is that Johnson & Johnson was trying to shield itself from liability when it spun off its consumer products division, but not because of Tylenol, rather from cancer claims related to talc in its eponymous Baby Powder. So what’s Paxton trying to do here beyond demonstrate his fealty to President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? 

Ollstein: I was interested to see some GOP senators distancing themselves from the Texas lawsuit and saying like, Look, there is no proof of this connection and this harm. Let’s not go crazy. But as I’ve reported, it’s just very hard to get good information out to people because there just isn’t enough data on the safety of various drugs, because testing drugs on pregnant women was always hard and it’s gotten even harder in recent years. And so, based on the data we have, this is a correlation, not causation. But it would be easier to allay people’s fears if we had more robust and better data. 

Rovner: Yeah. Does a lawsuit like this, though, sort of spread the … give credence to this idea that — I see you nodding, Maya — that there is something to be worried about using Tylenol when pregnant? Which is freaking out the medical community because Tylenol is pretty much the only drug that currently is recommended for pregnant women to deal with fever and pain. 

Goldman: Yeah. I think some of my colleagues have reported on the concern of another death spiral here, right? Where people get concerned, perhaps without basis, of taking Tylenol or any other drugs, vaccines even, because there are lawsuits and then the makers of these drugs say it’s not worth it for us to make these anymore. And then they don’t make them. And then it’s like a bad cascade of events. And so it’s obviously too soon to see if that’s what’s happening here, but it’s certainly something to watch. 

Rovner: But as we’ve pointed out earlier, not treating, particularly, fever can also cause problems. So … 

Ollstein: Right. Basically all of the alternatives are more dangerous. Not taking anything to treat pain and fever in pregnancy can be dangerous and can lead to birth effects. And taking other painkillers and fever reducers are known to have dangerous side effects. Tylenol was the safest option known to science. And now that that’s being questioned in the court of public opinion, people are worried about these ramifications. 

Winfield Cunningham: I think about the effect on moms who have kids with autism who are now thinking back to their pregnancies and thinking, Oh my gosh, how much Tylenol did I take? I know I took, I had pregnancies that I took plenty of Tylenol during. My nephew has autism, and I was talking to my sister about this, and she was like, “I took Tylenol.” And what they’re doing is, I guess, other reflection I have on it is, in general, there’s just less research on most things than we need. And there are some studies showing a correlation, which as we all know is not causation. And what it looks like the administration did was they took those tiny little nuggets of suggestions and have blown them up into this overly confident declaration of Tylenol and pregnancy and probably unnecessarily causing many women to blame themselves or think, Should I have done something differently during my pregnancy? when they were really just doing what their doctor recommended they do. 

Ollstein: I’m surprised that we haven’t seen legal action from Tylenol yet. I imagine we might at some point, especially if there is some kind of government action around this, like a label change. I think we will see some sort of legal action from the company because this is absolutely going to impact their bottom line. 

Rovner: Yeah. All right. Well, finally this week, more news on the reproductive health front. California announced it would help fund Planned Parenthood clinics so they can continue providing basic health services, as well as reproductive health services, after Congress made the organization ineligible for Medicaid funds for a year and the big budget bill passed last summer. California’s the fourth state to pitch in joining fellow blue states Washington, Colorado, and New Mexico. Meanwhile, family planning clinics in Maine are closing today due to that loss of Medicaid funding. And at the same time, the Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs, which oversees the federal family planning program, Title X, is down apparently from a staff of 40 to 50 to a single employee, . Is contraception going to become the next health care service that’s only available in blue states, Alice? 

Ollstein: So Title X has been in conservatives’ crosshairs for a long time. There have been attempts on Capitol Hill to defund it. There have been various policies of various administrations to make lots of changes to it. Some of those changes have really limited who gets care. And so it’s been a political football for a while. Of course, Title X doesn’t just do contraception. It’s one of the major things they do, providing subsidized and sometimes even free contraception to millions of low-income people around the country. But they also provide STI testing, even some infertility counseling and other things, cancer screenings. And so this is really hitting people at the same time as the anticipated Medicaid cuts, and at the same time Planned Parenthood clinics are closing because they got defunded. And so it’s just one on top of another in the reproductive health space. Each one alone would be really impactful, but taken all together, yeah, there’s a lot of concern about people losing access to these services. 

Winfield Cunningham: I think the politics of this are more interesting to me than the practical effect. I mean, under the ACA, birth control has to be covered, right? by marketplace plans. Generally speaking, if people have insurance, they do have coverage for a range of birth control. But the Title X program is interesting because it seems to like overlap between the MAHA priorities and the social conservatives. Of course, as Alice said, this has long been a target of social conservatives. I think in Project 2025 called for any Title X, I believe. And then there’s this current in the MAHA movement that’s kind of like anti-hormonal birth control and there’s also these kinds of streams of pronatalist people, of have more babies, don’t take birth control. So that’s kind of interesting to me because there’s this larger narrative I think in HHS right now of the RFK MAHA people versus the traditional conservative, anti-abortion people. So that’s just like one program where I see overlap between the two. 

Rovner: One of my favorite pieces of congressional trivia is that Title X has not been reauthorized since 1984, which, by the way, is before I started covering this. But I’ve been doing this 39 years and I have never covered a successful reauthorization of the Title X program. So it’s obviously been in crosshairs for a very, very long time. Maya, did you want to add something? 

Goldman: I was just going to say to Paige’s point, telling women that they can’t take any painkillers during pregnancy is not a good way to raise the birth rate. 

Rovner: Yes. That’s also a fair point. Well, meanwhile, red states are trying to expand the role of crisis pregnancy centers, which provide mostly nonmedical services and try to convince those with unplanned pregnancies not to have abortions. In Wyoming, state lawmakers are pushing a bill that would prohibit the state or any of the localities from regulating those centers “based on the center’s stance against abortion.” This comes after a similar proposal became law in Montana, the efforts being pushed by the anti-abortion group Alliance Defending Freedom. Is the idea here to have crisis pregnancy centers replace these Title X clinics and Planned Parenthoods? 

Ollstein: I think there are a lot of people that would like to see that, but, as you said, they do not provide the same services, so it would not be a one-to-one replacement. Already, there are way more crisis pregnancy centers around the country than there are Planned Parenthood clinics, for example, but that doesn’t mean that everyone has access to all the services they want. 

Rovner: And many of these crisis pregnancy centers don’t have any medical personnel, right? I mean, some of them do, but … 

Ollstein: It’s really a range. I mean, some have a medical director on staff, or maybe there’s one medical person who oversees several clinics, some do not. Some offer ultrasounds, some don’t, some just give pamphlets and diapers and donated items. It’s just really a range around the country. And states have also been grappling with how much to, on the conservative side, support and fund such centers. And on the other side, states like California have really gone to battle over regulating what they tell patients, what they’re required to tell patients, what they can’t tell patients. And that’s gotten into the courts and they’ve fought over whether that violates their speech rights. And so it’s a real ongoing fight. 

Rovner: Yes, I’m sure this will continue. All right, that is the news for this week. 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. Maya, why don’t you go first this week? 

Goldman: Sure. So this story is from ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News and New England Public Media. It’s called “As Sports Betting Explodes, States Try To Set Limits To Stop Gambling Addiction,” by Karen Brown. And I think this stood out to me because I was just in Vegas last week for health, but this, I think, is a really interesting issue to explore through a public health lens, the issue of sports betting and betting addiction. And there are states that are trying to do a lot of work around this and just organizations. And then of course the gaming companies themselves have their own pushback on that, and I think this story just lays it out really well and it’s an important issue that gets very overlooked. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is a public health issue, an interesting one. Alice? 

Ollstein: I chose a story from ProPublica by reporter, Eric Umansky, and it’s called “.” So this is one of many examples that you could give of policies intended to target transgender folks having spillover effects and impacting cisgender folks, too. In this instance, it’s now harder for male veterans to qualify to get treatment for breast cancer. Men can get breast cancer. Let’s just say that. Men can and do get breast cancer, and it can be harder to detect and very lethal, and obviously very expensive to treat if you don’t have coverage. And so this story has a lot of sad quotes from folks who are losing their coverage, especially because they likely acquired cancer by being exposed during their service to various toxic substances. And so I think, yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah. A combination of a lot of different factors in that story. 

Ollstein: Definitely. 

Rovner: Paige? 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. So my story is by, actually, my colleague Mark Johnson. I sit next to him at The [Washington] Post, and the headline is “.” I was really struck by this story because it talks about how patients with advanced lung cancer, they were given the covid vaccines and it somehow had the effect of supercharging their immune systems. And, actually, their median survival rates went up by 17 months compared with those that weren’t given the vaccines. And, of course, this administration has really gone after the covid vaccines and the mRNA research, in particular, and canceled $500 million in funding for mRNA research. And all of the ACIP’s [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’] moves on vaccines have gotten so much attention. But I think the thing that also is going to be perhaps even more impactful is pulling back on this really promising research, because it has sort of become politicized because the covid vaccines have become politicized. And it seems a shame that we’re pulling back on this really promising research. So I thought that was a really interesting story by my colleague. 

Rovner: Yes. Yet another theme from 2025. My extra credit this week is from my ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News colleague Bernard J. Wolfson, and it’s called “Many Fear Federal Loan Caps Will Deter Aspiring Doctors and Worsen MD Shortage.” And it’s a good reminder about something we did talk about earlier this year when the Republican budget bill passed. It limits federal grad school loans to $50,000 per year at a time when the median tuition for a year in medical school is more than $80,000. The idea here is to push medical schools to lower their tuition, but in the short run, it’s more likely to push lower-income students either out of medicine altogether or to require them to take out private loans with more stringent repayment terms, which could in turn push them into pursuing more lucrative medical specialties rather than the primary care slots that are already so difficult to fill. It’s yet another example of how everybody agrees on a problem: Medical education is way too expensive in this country. But nobody knows quite how to fix it.  

OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks this week to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder, “What the Health?” is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever else you get your podcasts, as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. If you already follow the show, nothing will change. The podcast will show up in your feed as usual. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me at X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks hanging these days? Maya? 

Goldman: I am on X as and I’m also on . 

Rovner: Alice? 

Ollstein: on Bluesky and on X.  

Rovner: Paige? 

Winfield Cunningham: I am still on X. 

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