The lawsuit, settled on confidential terms last year, blamed not only the managers of City Creek Post-Acute and Assisted Living but also the building’s owner, a real estate investment trust, or REIT.
In the year Darby died, City Creek paid CareTrust REIT more than $1 million in rent, while the Sacramento, California, nursing home ran a deficit, court records show.
Federal tax rules ban REITs from running health care facilities, but CareTrust was not an absentee landlord either, according to internal records filed in the case. It chose the nursing home’s management company and required through the lease that the home keep at least 80% of beds occupied. CareTrust granularly tracked how well the home kept to its financial plan, down to the money spent monthly on nurses and food, the records said. And the documents showed that the real estate company kept tabs on government safety inspection findings and Medicare quality ratings.
Both CareTrust and the nursing home operator denied liability for Darby’s death. CareTrust officials said in court papers that it is not involved in day-to-day nursing home decisions or patient care, and that it monitors facilities to ensure nothing jeopardizes rent payments. In a written statement, CareTrust Corporate Counsel Joseph Layne told ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News: “We are the property owners, not the operators.”
Landlords With Influence
Over the past decade, real estate investment trusts have bought thousands of buildings that house nursing homes, hospitals, assisted living facilities, and medical offices. A ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News examination of court filings and corporate records shows that these landlords have more influence than the health care facilities publicly acknowledge.
The documents reveal REITs often select the management who oversee the operations and leave them in place even when they are aware of threadbare staffing, floundering governance, repeated safety violations, or other problems that hamper quality of care. A California jury in March awarded $92 million in punitive damages against a former REIT over the death of a 100-year-old resident with dementia who froze to death outside her assisted living facility.
“The REITs are in charge,” said Laraclay Parker, one of the lawyers who represent Darby’s daughter.
Absence of Oversight
Despite their ubiquity, REITs remain invisible to state and federal health regulators. Hospitals and nursing homes are not required to disclose rent payments or landlord identities in the annual reports they submit to Medicare.
Under President Donald Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services a Biden-era requirement that nursing homes . Catherine Howden, a CMS spokesperson, said in a statement that the agency does not regulate facilities based on their tax status or corporate form and instead focuses on the quality of the care they provide.
REITs now of the nation’s senior housing, which includes assisted living, memory care, and independent living, according to an industry analysis. REITs also hold investments in nursing homes. Publicly traded REITs that focus on health care are now worth nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars, according to Nareit, an industry association.
While one research study found REIT investments were associated with , another concluded that after being bought by REITs, nursing homes frequently with less skilled nurses and aides. A concluded that health inspection results were worse after REIT investment.
Researchers also found that investor-owned hospital chains that sold buildings to REITs were or go bankrupt, with Steward Health Care. Often, private equity investors kept the sale proceeds as profits while the hospitals were burdened with new rent costs. “There were no improvements in clinical outcomes,” said Thomas Tsai, an associate professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
REITs are required to distribute most of their income and don’t have to pay the 21% federal corporate income tax on it. There is a catch: A REIT that “directly or indirectly operates or manages” a health care facility for five years. Typically, a REIT leases the property to another company that runs the nursing home or assisted living facility and maintains its tax break. Nareit said health care REITs distributed more than $7 billion in dividends in 2024.
Michael Stroyeck, head of health care analysis at Green Street, a real estate research company, said “there’s definitely a symbiotic relationship” between REITs and facility managers because they have the same goals. He said he has seen REITs replace operators that are having difficulties or go bankrupt.
John Kane, a senior vice president at the American Health Care Association and the National Center for Assisted Living, an industry group that represents nursing homes, said in a statement: “Given government funding often falls short, REITs have been valuable partners in helping to invest in long term care without influencing daily operations.”
Low Staffing at a Chain
Strawberry Fields REIT, which like CareTrust trades on the New York Stock Exchange, owns or controls the buildings of 131 nursing home facilities. The nursing home operations inside 66 of those facilities are owned by Moishe Gubin, Strawberry Fields’ chief executive, and Michael Blisko, one of its directors, according to Strawberry Fields’ for last year.
Gubin and Blisko also jointly own , which manages their nursing homes; Blisko is Infinity’s CEO. On average, Infinity-affiliated nursing homes provided an hour and a quarter less nursing care per resident per day than the national average of four hours, a ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News analysis of federal records found.
Infinity and several of its nursing homes have recently settled 30 death and injury lawsuits in Cook County, Illinois, totaling more than $4 million, said Margaret Battersby Black, a Chicago lawyer. A jury last year awarded $12 million in a lawsuit brought against Infinity and one of its Chicago nursing homes over the 2023 death of Shirley Adams. A retired candy factory worker, Adams died after developing infected bedsores at Lakeview Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, according to the lawsuit.
“She had wounds that no one could explain,” one of her adult children, Leslie Adams, testified at trial. Medicare its lowest quality rating, one star out of five.
Paul Connery, a lawyer for Adams’ family, said they are still trying to collect on the judgment against the nursing home and management company, which now totals $17 million with interest and attorney fees.
“If I get caught speeding and I went to court, they issue me a ticket and I’ve got a fine to pay,” Adams said in an interview. “How are they able to still continue to move on with business like nothing has happened?”
In a phone interview and an email, Gubin said Strawberry Fields, Infinity, and the nursing homes are all legally distinct and that he has not played an active role in Infinity in more than a decade. He said nursing homes get sued all the time but that the verdict against Lakeview is so large that it will force the home to declare bankruptcy or shut down.
“The whole thing is unfortunate,” Gubin said by phone. “For 15 years they were a perfectly good guardian” and “a well-run building,” he said. “You wouldn’t think it was fair to be judged on your worst day.”
Blisko and an Infinity lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.
Strawberry Fields, which owns 10 assisted living facilities and two long-term care hospitals in addition to the nursing homes, earned net income last year of from $155 million in rent, a 21% profit margin, securities filings show. Gubin said those weren’t excessive returns.
A $110 Million Verdict
Traditionally, REIT leases make the operating companies responsible for paying property taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs. In 2008, Congress gave health care REITs a new option to make money: On top of collecting rents, they could set up subsidiaries and take profits directly from health care businesses. They still must have independent management overseeing care decisions. Many REITs have embraced the role even though the subsidiaries must pay corporate taxes and risk losing money if the businesses do poorly.
Colony Capital was a REIT that through layers of shell corporations owned both the building and the operation of Greenhaven Estates, a Sacramento assisted living and memory care facility. In 2018 Greenhaven paid Colony $1.4 million in rent, nearly a third of its $4.5 million in revenue that year, according to financial records filed in court.
Greenhaven also was on the verge of losing its license, according to a revocation notice filed in November 2018 by the California Department of Social Services. Greenhaven had racked up years of health violations, including from letting untrained workers administer medications, lacking enough employees to care for people with dementia, and neglecting a resident who smeared feces over his body, bed, floor, and bathroom, the notice said.
In February 2019, a few weeks after celebrating her 100th birthday, Mildred Hernandez, a resident with Alzheimer’s, wandered out of Greenhaven in the middle of the night. Her assisted living wing had no exit door alarms even though it housed several residents with dementia, court records showed. Berta Lepe, one of Greenhaven’s caregivers, found Hernandez under a bush, wearing only a shirt and underwear. The temperature was in the 30s.
“She was talking, but I couldn’t understand what she was saying,” Lepe testified at trial over a lawsuit from Hernandez’s family. Hernandez died of hypothermia a few hours later, according to her death certificate.
Frontier Management, the company that Colony had hired to manage Greenhaven, denied liability and settled the lawsuit on undisclosed terms.
Since the lawsuit, Colony has changed its name to DigitalBridge, which no longer owns Greenhaven and gave up its REIT status. At trial earlier this year, DigitalBridge said resident care was the responsibility of Frontier and that Colony “encouraged” Frontier to address problems. Richard Welch, a former Colony executive, testified that replacing management is disruptive. “I viewed it as a last resort,” he said.
In March, a jury awarded Hernandez’s family $110 million: $10 million in compensatory damages, $92 million in punitive damages against DigitalBridge, and $8 million in punitive damages against Formation Capital, an asset management company.
“REIT money is very detached from knowing about or caring about patient or resident outcomes, because it’s not in their business model,” Ed Dudensing, a lawyer for the family, said in an interview. “Their allegiance is to their investors.”
DigitalBridge has asked the judge to delay finalizing the judgment while its legal challenges to the lawsuit and the verdict are evaluated. A DigitalBridge attorney and a corporate spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment, a Formation attorney declined comment, and a Frontier attorney and a spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.
‘Wet From Head to Toe’
When CareTrust bought City Creek Post-Acute and Assisted Living in 2019, the Sacramento nursing home where Pearlene Darby lived had a one-star Medicare rating and was losing money. CareTrust leased the building to a management company called Kalesta Healthcare Group based on the business plan Kalesta submitted.
While CareTrust was not the operator, it held periodic phone calls with Kalesta, which provided “a full update of what’s happening at the facility,” including changes in leadership, financial progress, and health inspection survey results, according to deposition testimony by Ryan Williams, a Kalesta co-founder.
According to a state inspection report, in 2020, the year Darby died, City Creek left a resident in soiled linens “wet from head to toe lying in bed” for more than eight hours. During a different visit, a health inspector cited the home after watching a nurse put a dirty diaper back onto a resident after caring for a wound. “It was just a small stool and it is far from where the wound is,” the nurse told the inspector, according to the report.
James Callister, CareTrust’s chief investment officer, said in his deposition that CareTrust officials “review results of regulatory surveys provided to us by the tenant. We review the five-star rating.” He said, “We evaluate results of care, but we do not evaluate types of care given or how or when, no.”
Darby had been living in City Creek since 2011 after a stroke left her in a wheelchair. She needed help getting in and out of bed. From September through November 2020, Darby lost 30 pounds, her family’s lawsuit alleged. During those months, employees dropped her three times as one worker rather than the required two operated the mechanical lift, the lawsuit said.
The suit alleged City Creek failed to reposition her every two hours in bed or her wheelchair, which is the clinical standard for people at risk of bedsores, and to promptly order devices to protect her skin.
In November, the nursing home sent Darby to the hospital. A blood test found bacteria had entered her bloodstream from her feces’ touching open skin wounds, according to the lawsuit. The hospital diagnosed her with sepsis. A surgeon said she needed an operation to redirect fecal waste from her intestines but concluded she wasn’t medically stable enough for surgery, the suit said.
Darby began receiving comfort care measures and was sent back to City Creek. She died two weeks later. In court filings, CareTrust and Kalesta denied the allegations.
In a phone interview, Williams, the Kalesta co-founder, said Darby’s death occurred during the most challenging point of the covid pandemic, when California rules required any nurses testing positive for the virus to be sent home and nurses were quitting out of fear for their health. “It was the most herculean of professional efforts to secure enough staff,” he said.
While expressing sympathy for Darby and her family, he said it was “unconscionable” that personal injury lawyers sued nursing homes over care failures during “the worst of times.”
In court, CareTrust petitioned Judge Richard Miadich to dismiss it from the lawsuit before trial. “This case does not concern a property condition,” CareTrust’s lawyers wrote. “CareTrust is simply a landlord.” But the judge ruled last year a jury should decide whether CareTrust “exercised actual control over City Creek.”
The case was settled out of court a few months later. All parties declined to reveal the settlement terms.
A 67% Profit
As recently as November 2023 — four years after its acquisition — City Creek earned one star from Medicare. It was cited for failing to have the minimum nursing home staffing required by California law during five of 24 randomly selected days in 2022, according to an inspection report. Williams said in the interview that Kalesta had increased spending on nursing over the course of its ownership, including boosting wages, but that it takes a year or two to turn around a troubled nursing home. He said the home’s star rating in 2023 was dragged down by its poor inspection history from before Kalesta took over.
City Creek’s rating has climbed in the past two years, and it now has the top overall rating of five, according to Medicare. Medicare rates City Creek’s current staffing levels as average. That’s better than most nursing homes in more than 200 buildings CareTrust bought before 2025, according to a ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News analysis of federal data. On average, CareTrust nursing homes provided a half hour less nursing care per resident per day than the national average of four hours.
In its statement to ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, CareTrust’s counsel Layne said the REIT worked to “identify quality operators as tenants,” and that the homes the REIT rents out have more nurses and aides than the minimum required for nursing homes by their state governments. “The operators are licensed by state regulators and retain sole responsibility for operations,” the statement said.
CareTrust, which now owns more than 500 senior housing and nursing home buildings, reported net income last year of $320 million from in rents and other revenue — a 67% profit margin. By comparison, HCA Healthcare, one of the nation’s largest for-profit hospital and health care chains, for last year.
Lesley Ann Clement, one of Darby’s lawyers, said cases like hers show the nursing home industry is wrong to complain it lacks financial resources for more staffing.
“There’s plenty of money,” Clement said. “They’re just not spending it on patient care.”
This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/real-estate-investment-trusts-senior-housing-nursing-homes-profit/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2228343&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
But physicians, dentists, ambulance companies, and other health care providers are still taking their patients to court, a Connecticut Mirror-ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News investigation of state legal records shows.
Lawsuits by doctors and other nonhospital providers now dominate health care collections in Connecticut, the records show, accounting for more than 80% of cases filed against patients and their families in 2024.
That’s a major reversal from just five years earlier, when hospital system lawsuits made up three-quarters of health-related collection cases in the state’s courts.
The shift is moving medical debt collections into a less regulated realm. Most hospitals, because they are tax-exempt nonprofits, must make financial aid available to low-income patients and follow federal regulations that limit aggressive collection activities. Other medical providers, such as private medical groups, are generally exempt from these rules.
The lawsuits are typically over bills of less than $3,000, but the impact on patients can be devastating. Lawsuits are among the most ruinous byproducts of a health care debt problem that burdens an estimated 100 million people in the U.S.
Lawsuits can lead to garnished wages, liens on homes, and hundreds of dollars of added debt from interest and court fees. They also pile additional financial strains on struggling families, prevent patients from getting needed care, and sap trust in medical providers.
“It’s really messed up,” said Allie Cass-Wilson, a nurse in Bristol, Connecticut, who was sued over a $1,972 debt by an OB-GYN practice where she’d been a patient years earlier. “How can they do that to people?” She did not contest the lawsuit, court records show.
Cass-Wilson, who is 36 and lives in a small apartment just off an expressway on-ramp, said she learned of the outstanding debt only when she was sued. When she tried making an appointment, she said, she was told her doctor wouldn’t see her. “They said I was blacklisted,” Cass-Wilson said. “I was so confused. I couldn’t believe that my medical provider let my care be interrupted like this.”
Cass-Wilson ultimately sought medical care elsewhere.
Radiologists, Dentists, Ambulances
Overall, CT Mirror and ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News identified more than 16,000 health care-related debt cases in Connecticut courts from 2019 to 2024. The database was assembled from online court records with the help of January Advisors, a data science consulting firm that helped extract and sort the data.
Over the six-year period, most of Connecticut’s more than 25,000 did not pursue patients in court for outstanding balances.
But records show that more than 400 medical providers, including several hospital systems, sued their patients. Among those filing lawsuits were radiologists, anesthesiologists, eye doctors, podiatrists, allergists, and pediatricians.
Dentists, periodontists, and other dental providers filed more than 1,000 lawsuits against patients. And ambulance companies sued more than 140 people.
Med-Aid, a company based outside New Haven, Connecticut, that provides orthopedic braces and other medical supplies to patients, sued more than 400 people, the court records show. The company’s president, Frank Dilieto, did not respond to repeated interview requests.
Cass-Wilson was sued by Briar Rose Network in Bristol, Connecticut, a member of a large network of OB-GYN practices across Connecticut called Physicians for Women’s Health. The network’s members sued close to 100 patients in 2024, records show.
Paula Greenberg, CEO of Women’s Health Connecticut, a private equity-backed company affiliated with Physicians for Women’s Health that manages business operations for the network, said the lawsuits represent a small fraction of the more than 300,000 patients the network sees every year.
“This is an organization committed to patients,” Greenberg said. She noted that the group offers options to help patients pay, including installment plans and financial aid.
Geoffrey Manton, president of Naugatuck Valley Radiological Associates, said his practice also will work with people who say they can’t pay. But, he said, patients sometimes stop responding to their bills.
“Hiding from your problems isn’t going to solve them,” Manton said. “If we didn’t take any action, there could be that person that is in that late-model Mercedes that just chooses not to pay any bills.” The group sued more than 125 patients from 2019 to 2024, according to the court records.
Many medical providers say that aggressive collections stem from the growing prevalence of high-deductible health plans that leave patients with thousands of dollars of bills before their coverage kicks in.
Greenberg and Manton said each of their physician groups must collect. “This is a business,” Greenberg said. “We have to look at our operating costs.”
Critics of medical collection lawsuits note that the patients are typically sued over relatively small debts that are likely to have little impact on multimillion-dollar medical practices.
The average patient debt that members of Physicians for Women’s Health sued over in 2024 was less than $1,100, court records show. The physician group’s annual revenues are typically in the tens of millions of dollars, according to Greenberg.
Even relatively small debts — which often include interest — can place substantial burdens on families struggling to keep up with their bills, especially while dealing with a serious illness, patient advocates say.
“We don’t have a realistic choice in using health care,” said Lisa Freeman, who heads the Connecticut Center for Patient Safety and has advocated for patients struggling with medical bills. “To then get sued for it, when people have less and less funds available for anything extra, that’s very disheartening.”
A Stroke, Then a Lawsuit
Matthew Millman, 54, lost his job as an IT support worker after having a stroke. Then Meriden Imaging Center sued him over an $1,891 bill.
Millman and his wife said they tried to explain their financial situation to the center, which is affiliated with Midstate Radiology Associates, a large physician group that operates imaging centers and doctors’ offices across Connecticut.
“It was very frustrating,” said Millman, who lives in an aging apartment owned by his wife’s family in New Britain. Millman, his wife, and their teenage daughter are barely getting by on his two part-time jobs — one bagging groceries, the other helping homebound seniors. Together, the jobs pay about $1,500 a month, he said.
The imaging center, after winning the collection case against Millman, tried to garnish his wages, though that was unsuccessful because Millman had lost his IT job.
“It’s all about money,” Millman said, shaking his head. “If you are trained in helping somebody with their health, it shouldn’t be about the money first. It should be about their health.”
Court records show that Midstate Radiology, Meriden Imaging Center and affiliates filed more than 1,000 collection lawsuits against patients from 2019 to 2024, making them the most litigious nonhospital providers in the state. As is common in medical debt lawsuits, the plaintiffs prevailed in most cases, records show.
Midstate president Gary Dee, a radiologist, didn’t respond to emails and messages left at his West Hartford office.
Across town from Millman’s apartment in New Britain, Joseph Lentz lives in a cramped apartment with his wife and daughter. He used to oversee operations at a Boy Scout camp but is now unemployed. Lentz lost his job during the pandemic. The family home went into foreclosure, he said.
In 2023, Orthopedic Associates of Hartford sued Lentz over a $3,644 bill the practice said he owed after having shoulder surgery in 2018.
“I’d pay it if I could, I guess,” said Lentz, 59. “But I don’t even know where next month’s rent is coming from. I’m trying to climb out as best I can. I guess this is just one more thing to shovel in.”
The orthopedic group filed more than 580 lawsuits against patients from 2019 to 2024, prevailing in most, records show.
The medical group declined interview requests. But chief executive David Mudano said in a statement: “As an independent physician practice, we strive to balance compassion for patients with the financial responsibility required to sustain our practice.”
Old Debts and Disputed Claims
Lentz, who did not contest the lawsuit, said he has no reason to doubt he owes the debt. But in many cases reviewed by CT Mirror and ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News and in interviews, patients being sued questioned the accuracy of their medical bills, citing care they thought health insurance should have covered or, in some cases, bills for services they never received.
This reflects with aggressive collection tactics like lawsuits when disputes over the accuracy of medical bills and delayed or denied insurance claims are so widespread in American health care.
A by the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that nearly half of the medical debt complaints fielded by the agency involved bills that consumers said were erroneous in some way or that consumers said they’d already paid.
“We know people are billed incorrectly,” said Lester Bird, who studies debt collection lawsuits at the nonprofit Pew Charitable Trusts. Bird noted that courts are ill equipped to sort through disputed medical charges or insurance claims, especially when there is little documentation in most debt collection lawsuits.
“It’s complicated before it gets to the courts,” Bird said, “and it’s very complicated when it gets into the courts.”
This can create headaches for physicians and other providers. But billing problems ultimately affect patients and their families most, said Connecticut state Sen. Saud Anwar, a Democrat who is also a physician. “Patients are left to deal with it.”
Andrew Skolnick, an attorney in Milford, outside New Haven, was sued in 2023 by an imaging center where his wife had received services in 2020.
Skolnick said that when the couple, who were covered through his job-based insurance, originally received the bill from Diagnostic Imaging of Milford, he tried to tell the imaging center it had submitted the claim to the wrong insurance plan, but he said they wouldn’t speak with him.
The center later filed the lawsuit, alleging he owed more than $2,000, plus almost $300 in interest.
Despite interview requests, officials at Diagnostic Imaging of Milford did not comment for this article.
Unlike most patients who are sued, Skolnick had the resources and expertise to contest the suit. He said he offered to pay what would have been his responsibility under the plan if the imaging center had filed his claim correctly. He ultimately settled for $1,700, court records show.
“It wasn’t a tremendous amount, but I knew that they had made a mistake,” Skolnick said. “The system is not working.”
More Protections?
Anwar, the state lawmaker and physician, expressed concern that lawsuits undermine patients’ faith in their doctors.
“It’s a sacred relationship,” he said. “If your physician, who is taking care of you, is suing you for money, that’s a problem.
Many hospitals, facing bad publicity from suing patients, have stopped taking patients to court over unpaid bills. Hospital collection lawsuits identified by CT Mirror and ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News in Connecticut court records plunged from more than 4,900 in 2019 to fewer than 300 in 2024.
Also, in recent years, several states, including Connecticut, have expanded protections for patients with bills they can’t pay.
Connecticut now from consumer credit reports, and legislators are pushing to get hospitals to provide more financial aid to patients. Other states have restricted the use of wage garnishment and property liens to collect medical debt.
But state efforts to rein in aggressive medical debt collections have mostly focused on hospitals. That may need to change, said Connecticut state Sen. Matt Lesser, a Democrat who co-chairs the legislature’s Human Services Committee.
He is a key backer of a bill that would bar hospitals from billing patients who receive public benefits like food assistance or who make less than twice the federal poverty level, about $32,000 for an individual.
The restriction would not apply to bills from physicians and other nonhospital providers, however. “We may have to go bigger if that’s where the heart of the matter is,” Lesser said.
Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat who spearheaded an initiative to for more than 150,000 state residents, also expressed concern about physicians suing the people in their care.
“Everyone should do the right thing by patients,” he said.
This article was produced in partnership with , a statewide nonprofit newsroom that covers public policy and politics.
How We Did It: Analyzing Connecticut Health Care Debt Collection Lawsuits
How often do health care providers sue patients over unpaid bills?
In most states, that’s nearly impossible to answer because courts don’t typically identify which debt collection lawsuits involve a medical debt versus other kinds of debt, such as rent, credit cards, or cellphone bills.
But Connecticut is different. Debt collection cases filed in small-claims court for unpaid medical or dental bills must be classified as health care debt. We worked with the data science consulting firm January Advisors to pull these cases from the Connecticut court database and analyze them. (January Advisors has worked with nonprofits and researchers across the country to collect debt collection data from state courts. The firm did not have any editorial input in our project.)
We started with health care collection cases filed in small-claims court from 2019 to 2024. But this covered only cases involving debts smaller than $5,000. We also wanted to know about cases in which providers sued for bills exceeding $5,000. Connecticut courts don’t assign a “medical” category for large-claim cases. So we pulled all large-claim records for any plaintiff — hospital or nonhospital provider — that appeared in medical small-claims cases. We also included cases with plaintiffs that didn’t appear in that dataset but had common medical terminology in their names, like “hospital” or “DDS.”
We then went through each case manually to confirm that the plaintiff was a medical or dental provider. We determined whether the provider was part of a larger hospital or physician group. And we categorized each plaintiff by a provider type (e.g., hospital system, dental, physician group).
In some cases, the data we pulled was incomplete, so we looked up the court records online and manually entered the information into our database. The Connecticut Judicial Department purges case records from its online portal after a certain amount of time. In those cases, we asked the agency to provide summonses and claims so we could manually enter the case information into our database.
We removed cases with out-of-state defendants or out-of-state plaintiffs and any cases in which missing records made it difficult to confirm information about the provider.
This <a target="_blank" href="/news/medical-debt-connecticut-doctors-sue-patients/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2228622&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>The federal government doesn’t track how many children have entered foster care because of immigration enforcement actions, leaving it unclear how often it happens. In Oregon, as of February two children had been placed in foster care after being separated from their parents in immigration detention cases, according to Jake Sunderland, a spokesperson for the Oregon Department of Human Services.
“Before fall 2025, this simply had never happened before,” Sunderland said.
As of mid-February, nearly by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The record 73,000 people in detention in January represented an compared with one year before. According to , parents of 11,000 children who are U.S. citizens were detained from the beginning of Trump’s term through August.
The news outlet NOTUS that at least 32 children of detained or deported parents had been placed in foster care in seven states.
Sandy Santana, executive director of Children’s Rights, a legal advocacy organization, said he thinks the actual number is much higher.
“That, to us, seems really, really low,” he said.
Separation from a parent is deeply traumatic for children and can lead to , including post-traumatic stress disorder. Prolonged, intense stress can lead to more-frequent infections in children and developmental issues. That “toxic stress” is also associated with responsible for learning and memory, according to KFF.
, and amended existing laws during Trump’s first term to allow guardians to be granted temporary parental rights for immigration enforcement reasons. Now the enforcement surge that began after Trump returned to office last year has prompted a new wave of state responses.
In New Jersey, lawmakers are considering to amend a state law that allows parents to nominate standby, or temporary, guardians in the cases of death, incapacity, or debilitation. The bill would add separation due to federal immigration enforcement as another allowable reason.
Nevada and California passed laws last year to protect families separated by immigration enforcement actions. California’s law, called the , allows parents to nominate guardians and share custodial rights, instead of having them suspended, while they’re detained. They regain their full parental rights if they are released and are able to reunite with their children.
There are significant legal barriers to reunification once a child is placed in state custody, said Juan Guzman, director of children’s court and guardianship at the Alliance for Children’s Rights, a legal advocacy organization in Los Angeles.
If a parent’s child is placed in foster care and the parent cannot participate in required court proceedings because they are in detention or have been deported, it’s less likely they will be able to reunite with their child, Guzman said.
are U.S. citizens who live with a parent or family member who does not have legal immigration status, according to research from the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. Within that group, 2.6 million children have two parents lacking legal status.
Santana said he expects the number of family separation cases to grow as the Trump administration continues its immigration enforcement campaign, putting more children at risk of being placed in foster care.
the agency to make efforts to facilitate detained parents’ participation in family court, child welfare, or guardianship proceedings, but Santana said it’s uncertain whether ICE is complying with those rules.
ICE officials did not respond to requests for comment for this report.
Before the change in California’s law, the only way a parent could share custodial rights with another guardian was if the parent was terminally ill, Guzman said.
If parents create a preparedness plan and identify an individual to assume guardianship of their children, the state child welfare agency can begin the process of placing the children with that individual without opening a formal foster care case, he added.
While Nevada lawmakers expanded an existing guardianship law last year to include immigration enforcement, the measure requires the parents to take the additional step of filing notarized paperwork with the secretary of state’s office, said Cristian Gonzalez-Perez, an attorney at Make the Road Nevada, a nonprofit that provides resources to immigrant communities.
Gonzalez-Perez said some immigrants are still hesitant to fill out government forms, out of fear that ICE might access their information and target them. He reassures community members that the state forms are secure and can be accessed only by hospitals and courts.
The Trump administration has taken through the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the IRS, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other entities.
Gonzalez-Perez and Guzman said that not enough immigrant parents know their rights. Nominating a temporary guardian and creating a plan for their families is one way they can prevent feelings of helplessness, Gonzalez-Perez said.
“Folks don’t want to talk about it, right?” Guzman said. “The parent having to speak to a child about the possibility of separation, it’s scary. It’s not something anybody wants to do.”
ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .This <a target="_blank" href="/courts/immigrants-ice-arrests-family-separation-children-foster-care/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2178906&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>This year, executives from nearly every major health insurance company made the same declaration in calls with Wall Street analysts: Using artificial intelligence to make coverage decisions would help save them money.
Even the Trump administration is testing AI’s usefulness in managing the prior authorization process for the Medicare program, as well as seeking to override AI regulation by states.
But class action lawsuits have accused insurers of using AI to wrongfully withhold treatment. And outlines the risks of training AI on a current system rife with wrongful denials.
“There is a world in which using AI could make that worse, or at least replicate a bad human system, because the data that it would be training on is from that bad human system,” said Michelle Mello, a co-author of the study.
Although, Mello said, the research team found “real positives alongside the risks.”
In this video produced by ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ Hannah Norman, Darius Tahir, a correspondent covering health technology, explains.
You can read Tahir’s recent coverage of AI’s use by health insurers below:
- “Red and Blue States Alike Want To Limit AI in Insurance. Trump Wants To Limit the States,” by Darius Tahir and Lauren Sausser.
- “AI Will Soon Have a Say in Approving or Denying Medicare Treatments,” by Lauren Sausser and Darius Tahir.
This <a target="_blank" href="/courts/watch-ai-artificial-intelligence-prior-authorization-insurance-coverage-decisions/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2181021&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
At the Trump administration’s request, a federal judge in Louisiana this week agreed to delay a ruling affecting the continued availability of the abortion drug mifepristone. That angered anti-abortion groups that want the drug, if not banned, at least more strictly controlled. But the administration clearly wants to avoid big abortion fights in the run-up to November’s midterm elections.
Meanwhile, the administration’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2027 calls for more than $15 billion in cuts to programs at the Department of Health and Human Services. It’s a significant number, but less drastic than cuts it proposed for fiscal 2026.
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Maya Goldman of Axios.
Panelists
Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:
- The Trump administration says it is conducting a thorough scientific review of the abortion pill mifepristone at the Food and Drug Administration. Yet advocates on both sides of the abortion debate think the administration is just trying to buy time to avoid a controversial decision about medication abortion before November’s midterm elections.
- It’s budget time on Capitol Hill. With the unveiling of the president’s spending plan for fiscal 2027, Cabinet secretaries will make their annual tour of congressional committee hearings. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose Hill appearances have been few during his tenure, is scheduled to testify before six separate House and Senate committees before the end of the month.
- Back at HHS, Kennedy appears to be trying to reconstitute the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices in a way that will enable him to restock it with vaccine skeptics without running afoul of a March court ruling that he violated federal procedures with his replacements last year.
- Continuing his efforts to promote his Make America Healthy Again agenda, Kennedy announced this week that he will launch his own biweekly podcast. He also announced efforts to combat microplastics in the water supply and to get hospitals to stop serving ultraprocessed food to patients.
Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:
Julie Rovner: The Atlantic’s “,” by Katherine J. Wu.
Maya Goldman: ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ “Trump’s Personnel Agency Is Asking for Federal Workers’ Medical Records,” by Amanda Seitz and Maia Rosenfeld.
Lauren Weber: CNN’s “,” by Holly Yan.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “,” by Simon J. Levien.
Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:
- JAMA Internal Medicine’s “,” by Lauren J. Ralph, C. Finley Baba, Katherine Ehrenreich, et al.
- ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ “Immigrant Seniors Lose Medicare Coverage Despite Paying for It,” by Vanessa G. Sánchez, El Tímpano.
- The New York Times’ “,” by Ellen Barry.
- Stateline’s “,” by Nada Hassanein.
- The Washington Post’s “,” by Lena H. Sun.
[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. 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 covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 9, at 9:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.
Today, we are joined via video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.
Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.
Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi, everybody.
Rovner: And my fellow Michigan Wolverine this national championship week, Maya Goldman of Axios. Go, Blue!
Maya Goldman: Go, Blue.
Rovner: No interview this week, but plenty of news. So let’s get right to it. We’re going to start with reproductive health. On Tuesday, a federal judge in Louisiana ruled for the Trump administration and against anti-abortion forces in a lawsuit over the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone. Wait, what? Please explain, Alice, how the administration and anti-abortion groups ended up on opposite sides of an abortion pill lawsuit.
Ollstein: Yeah. So this has been building for a while, and it is not the only lawsuit of its kind out there. There are several. A bunch of different state attorneys general, who are very conservative and anti-abortion, have been suing the FDA in an attempt to either completely get rid of the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone or reimpose previous restrictions on it. So right now, at least according to federal rules, not according to every state’s rules, you can get it via telehealth. You can get it delivered by mail. You can pick it up at a retail pharmacy. You don’t have to get it in person handed to you from a doctor like you used to. So these lawsuits are attempting to bring back those restrictions or get the kind of national ban that a lot of groups want. And so you have other ones pending: Florida, Texas, Missouri, you have a bunch of ones. So this is the Louisiana version. And the Trump administration, it’s important to note, they are not defending the FDA or the abortion pill on the merits. They are saying, we don’t want this lawsuit and this court to force us to do something. We want to go through our own careful process and do our own internal review of the safety of mifepristone, and then we may decide to impose restrictions. But they’re asking courts to give them the time and space to complete that process and saying, you know, This is our power we should have in the executive branch. And so, in this case, the judge, in ruling for the Trump administration, basically just hit pause. This doesn’t get rid of the case. It just puts a stay on it for now, and that’s important. In some of these other cases, the Trump administration has asked the courts to throw out the case, but that was not the situation here. So this doesn’t mean that abortion pills are going to be available forever. This doesn’t mean nothing’s going to happen, and they’re going to be banned. This just means, you know, we’re kicking the can down the road.
Rovner: I was saying, just to be clear. I mean, we know that this FDA quote-unquote “study” — whether it is or isn’t going on — is part of, kind of, a delaying tactic by the administration, because they don’t want to really make abortion a big front-and-center issue in the midterms. So they’re trying to sort of run the clock out here. Is that not sort of the interpretation that’s going on right now?
Ollstein: That’s what people on both sides assume is going on. It’s really been fascinating how everyone is being kept in the dark about what’s happening inside the FDA — and if this review is even happening, if it’s real, if it’s in good faith, what is it based on? And so it’s become this sort of Rorschach test, where people on the left are saying, you know, They’re laying the groundwork to do a national ban. This is just political cover. They just want to wait until after the midterms, and then they’re going to go for it. And people on the right are saying, you know, The administration is cowardly, and they aren’t really doing anything, and they’re just trying to get us to shut up and be patient. We don’t know if either of those interpretations or neither of them are true.
Rovner: Lauren, you want to add something?
Weber: I just think it’s pretty clear this is also just on a [Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] priority. I mean, let’s go back. The man … comes from one of the top Democratic political families originally. You know, there’s obviously been a lot of chatter around his anti-abortion beliefs. Now, obviously, he’s on a Republican ticket. I think some of that plays into this as well. And he already has his hand on the stove on so many other hot issues that, [if] I had to guess, I don’t think that they’re trying to rock the boat on this one. … I think, some background context too, to some of what’s going on.
Rovner: We’ll get to some of those hotter issues. But, meanwhile, the Journal of the American Medical Association [Internal Medicine] has a suggesting that medication abortion is so safe that it could be provided over the counter — that’s without any consultation with a medical professional, either in person or online. This doesn’t feel like it’s going to happen anytime soon, though, right? While we’re still debating the existence of medication abortion in general.
Ollstein: That’s right. I mean, there are a lot of people who can’t get this medication prescribed by a valid doctor right now, let alone over the counter. I will say it is common in a lot of parts of the world to get it over the counter, whereas in the United States, the most common way to have a medication abortion is with a two-pill combination, mifepristone and misoprostol. In a lot of parts of the world, people just use misoprostol alone, and it is effective and it is largely safe. It’s slightly less safe than using both pills together. And so I think there’s a lot of international data out there, and people point to that and advocate for this. And I will say there are activist groups in the United States who are setting up networks, underground networks, to get these pills to people with no doctor’s involvement. And so that is already going on. I think that a lot of people would prefer to get it from a doctor if they could. But because of bans and restrictions, they can’t. And so people are turning to these activist groups.
Rovner: I will point out, as a person who covered the entirety of the fight to have emergency contraception — which is not the abortion pill — made over the counter, it took like, 15 years. It shortened my life covering that story. Lauren, did you want to add something?
Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say I find it really interesting. Obviously, reproductive issues end up taking 15 years, as you pointed out, to make it over the counter. But there are a lot of things that are considered potentially more dangerous that you can order up in a pretty basic telehealth visit or even just buy in not-so-sketchy ways that the administration is also even looking to deregulate. So I think the differences of access of this compared to other less studied, potentially more unsafe medication is quite striking.
Goldman: Part of [President Donald] Trump’s “Great Healthcare Plan” is making more medications available over the counter. So this is certainly something that they have said they want to do, in general. This is a political nightmare, though, to do that for abortion.
Ollstein: Yeah, and people have been pointing to this and a lot of other policies for a while to argue about something they call abortion exceptionalism, in which people apply a different standard to anything related to abortion, a different safety standard, a different standard of scrutiny than they do to medications for lots of other purposes. And you’ve seen that, and that comes up in lawsuits and political arguments about this. And I think, you know, people can point to this as another example.
Rovner: So last week, we talked about the federal family planning program Title X, which finally got funded after months of delays. But Alice, you warned us that the administration was planning to make some big changes to the program, and now those have finally been announced. Tell us what the plan is for a program that’s provided birth control and other types of primary and preventive care since the early 1970s.
Ollstein: Well, the changes have sort of been announced. They’ve more been teased. What we are still waiting for is an actual rule, like we saw in the first Trump administration, that would impose conditions on the program. And so what we saw recently, it was part of a wonky document called a “Notice of Funding Opportunity,” or NOFO, for those in the D.C. lingo. And basically it was signaling that when groups reapply — they just got this year’s money, but when they reapply for next year’s money — it sets up sort of new priorities and a new focus for the entire program. And what was really striking to me is, you know, this is a family planning program. It was created in the 1970s and it is primarily about delivering contraception to people who can’t afford it around the country, providing it to millions of people who depend on this program, and the word “contraception” did not appear in the entire 70-page document other than an assertion that it is overprescribed and has bad side effects. And instead, they signaled that they want to shift the program to focus on, quote, “family formation.” So this is really striking to me. I think we saw some signs that something like this was coming. You know, about a year ago, there was some Title X money approved to focus on helping people struggling with infertility. But that was sort of just a subset of the program, and now it looks like they want to make that, you know, an overriding focus of the program. So I think when the actual rule to this effect drops, and we don’t know when that will be — will they wait till after the midterms to, you know, avoid blowback? Who knows? I think there will certainly be lawsuits then. But I think right now, this is just sort of a sign of where they want to go in the future. And it’s important to note that it came very quickly on the heels of a big backlash from the anti-abortion movement over the approval of this year’s funding going out to all of the clinics that got it before, including Planned Parenthood clinics. The anti-abortion groups were agitating for Planned Parenthood to be cut off at once, you know, not in the future, right now.
Rovner: Just to remind people that the ban on Planned Parenthood funding from last year was for Medicaid, not for the Title X program.
Ollstein: Right.
Rovner: And that’s why Planned Parenthood got money.
Ollstein: Yes, and Planned Parenthood is not allowed to use any Medicaid or Title X money for abortions, but the anti-abortion groups say it functions like a backdoor subsidy, and so they wanted it to be cut off. So they were very pissed that this money went out to Planned Parenthood. And so very quickly after, the administration put out this document, saying, Look, we are taking things in another direction, and it is not the direction of Planned Parenthood.
Rovner: Lauren, you want to add something?
Weber: Oh, I just wanted to say Alice has really been owning the beat on all the Title X coverage, so …
Rovner: Absolutely.
Weber: … glad we are able to have her explain it to us. But just wanted to throw out a kudos for breaking all the news on that front.
Goldman: Yeah, great coverage.
Rovner: Yes. Very happy to have you for this. Turning to the budget, which is normally the major activity for Congress in the spring, we finally got President Trump’s spending blueprint last week. It does propose cuts to discretionary spending at the Department of Health and Human Services to the tune of about $15 billion, but those cuts are far less deep than those proposed last year. And, as we have noted, Congress didn’t actually cut the HHS budget last year by much at all. And many programs, like the National Institutes of Health, actually got small increases. Is this budget a reflection of the fact that the administration is recognizing that cuts to Health and Human Services programs aren’t actually popular with the public or with Congress, for that matter, going into a midterm election?
Weber: I think it’s that last little piece you mentioned there, Julie. I think it’s the “going into the midterm election.” I think you hit the nail on the head there. Cuts are also not good economically for many Republicans. You know, we saw Katie Britt be one of the — the Alabama Republican senator — be one of the most outspoken senators in general about some of the cuts that were floated for the budget for HHS last year. So I think what you’re hinting at, and what we’re getting at, is that it’s not politically popular, it can be economically problematic, on top of the scientific advances that are not found. So I suspect you are right on that.
Ollstein: The administration knows that this is “hopes and dreams” and will not become reality. It did not become reality last year. It almost never becomes reality. And I think you can see the sort of acknowledgement that this is about sending a message more than actually making policy in things like Title X, because at the same time they put out this guidance from HHS about the future of Title X, moving away from contraception, in the president’s budget he proposed completely getting rid of Title X, completely defunding it, which he has in the past as well. And so why would they put out guidance for a program that doesn’t exist?
Goldman: I think, also, this is the second budget that they’re putting out in this administration, right? So now they are just a little more used to what’s going on, and they have more of their feet under them.
Weber: As a preview for listeners, too, I’m sure we will have Kennedy asked about this budget when he appears in a series of so many hearings next week and the week after. And there were a lot of fireworks last year with him and various members of Congress about the budget. So I am sure that we will hear a lot more on this front in the weeks to come.
Rovner: Yeah, I would say that’s one thing that the budget process does, is when the president finally puts out a budget, the Cabinet secretaries travel to all of the various committees on Capitol Hill to, quote, “defend the president’s budget,” which is sometimes or, I guess in the case of Kennedy, one of the few chances that they get to actually have him in person to ask him questions. But in the meantime, you know, we have the budget, then we have the president himself, who at an Easter lunch last week — that was supposed to be private, but ended up being live-streamed — said, and I quote, “It’s not possible for us to take care of day care, Medicare, Medicaid, all these individual things.” The president went on to say that states should take over all that social spending, and the only thing the federal government should fund is, quote, “military protection.” Did I just hear a thousand Democratic campaign ads bloom?
Goldman: I think this is a prime example of when you should take Trump seriously, but not literally. I don’t think that there’s any world, at least in the foreseeable future, where the federal government isn’t funding Medicare. But, you know, you certainly have to watch at the margins. It’s like, it’s not a secret that this is something that they’re interested in cutting back spending on. It’s super politically difficult to do that, and they know that, and that’s part of why, which I’m sure we’ll talk about in a little bit, they bumped up the payment rate for 2027 to Medicare Advantage plans.
Rovner: Which we will get to.
Goldman: Yeah, so I mean, it’s certainly an eye-opening statement, and you should remember it. But I don’t think that we’re in immediate jeopardy here.
Rovner: This is the president who ran in 2024, you know, saying that he was going to protect Medicare and Medicaid. I mean, it’s been, you know, against some of the recommendations of his own administration. I was just sort of shocked to see these words come out of his mouth. Lauren, you wanted to say something?
Weber: I mean, it’s not that surprising, though. I mean, look at what the One Big Beautiful Bill [Act] did to Medicaid. He’s already pushed through massive Medicaid cuts, which are essentially being offloaded to the states. So, I mean, I think this ideology has already borne out and will continue to bear out, and obviously it’s happening amid the backdrop of a war. So that plays into, obviously, the commentary as well.
Rovner: Well, meanwhile, Republicans are still talking about doing another budget reconciliation bill, the 2.0 version of last year’s Big Beautiful Bill, except this time it’s essentially just to fund the military and ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and border control, because Democrats won’t vote for those things, at least they won’t vote for additional military spending. What are the prospects for that to actually happen? And would Republicans really be able to do it if those programs are paid for with more cuts to Medicare and/or Medicaid, as some have suggested?
Goldman: You know, my co-worker Peter Sullivan wrote about this last week, and there was a lot of blowback from politicos, from advocates, from, you know, kind of across the spectrum of groups there. I think that it would be extremely politically unpopular, especially going into the midterms, to use health care as an offset. But I would say that Republicans are pretty good at rhetoric, right? That’s one of the things that they’re known for right now, and there’s always a way to spin it.
Rovner: Alice and I spoke to a group earlier this week, and I went out on a limb and predicted that I didn’t think Republicans could get the votes for another big budget reconciliation this year. I mean, look at how close it was last year. The idea of cutting any deeper seems to me unlikely, just given the margins that they have.
Goldman: And I think that is something that you do in between election years. That’s not something you do in an election year.
Rovner: That’s true, yes … you do tend to see these bigger bills in the odd-numbered years rather than the even-numbered years, but …
Ollstein: And I think it’s important to remember that the reason Republicans are in this bind and that they feel like they have to keep reconciliation nearly focused on funding immigration enforcement is because Democrats refuse to fund immigration enforcement. And so they feel pressured to put all their effort and political capital towards that, and don’t want to mess that up by adding a bunch of other health care things that could cause fights and lose them votes.
Goldman: The money has got to come from somewhere.
Rovner: And health care is where all the money is. Speaking of Medicare and Medicaid, where most of the money is, there is news on those fronts, too. Maya, as you hinted on Medicare, the administration is out with its payment rule for private Medicare Advantage plans for next year. And remember, we talked about how HHS was going to really go after overbilling in Medicare Advantage and cut reimbursement dramatically? Well, you can forget all that. The final rule will provide plans with a 2.48% pay bump next year. That’s compared to the less than 1% increase in the proposed rule. That’s a difference of about $13 billion. The final rule also eliminated many of the safeguards that were intended to prevent overbilling. What happened to the crackdown on Medicare Advantage? Are their lobbyists really that good?
Goldman: Their lobbyists are pretty good. This was a year where there were — I think CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] said there were a record number of public comments on their proposed rate, flat rate increase, flat rate update. But I think it’s also not that surprising. Historically, the final rate announcement for Medicare Advantage is almost always a little higher than the proposed because they incorporate additional data from the end of the previous year that wasn’t available when first rate is proposed, the initial rate is proposed. But certainly they backed away from a big change to risk adjustment, or, like, the way to adjust payment based on how sick a plan’s enrollees are. You get more pay …
Rovner: Because that’s where the overbilling was happening, that we’d seen a lot of these wonderful stories that plans were basically, you know, inventing diagnoses for patients who didn’t necessarily have them or didn’t have a severe illness, and using that to get additional payments.
Goldman: Right. And they did move forward with a plan to prevent diagnoses that are not linked to information that’s in a patient’s medical chart from being used for risk adjustment. But a lot of plans had said, like, Yeah, this is, that’s the right thing to do, and it’s not going to be that impactful for us. You know, overall, this is a win for health insurance. I think one thing to note is that Chris Klomp, the director of Medicare, said, We’re still really focused on trying to right-size this program. That’s still a priority for us as an administration, but we also want to safeguard it. And so I think insurers are not off the hook entirely. There’s still going to be a lot of scrutiny, but their lobbyists are pretty good. And you know, no one wants to be seen as the candidate that cuts Medicare.
Rovner: And we have seen this before, that when Congress cuts “overfunding” for Medicare Advantage, the plans, seeing that they can’t make its big profits, drop out or they cut back on those extra benefits. And the beneficiaries complain because they’re losing their plans, or they’re losing their extra benefits, and they don’t really want to do that in an election year either, because there are a lot of people, many millions of people, who vote who are on these plans. So, in some ways, the plans have the administration over a political barrel, in addition to how good their lobbyists are.
Well, apparently, one group that HHS is still cracking down on are legal immigrants with Medicare. Most of the publicity around the health cuts in last year’s budget bill focused on the cuts to Medicaid. But we at ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News have a story this week about legal immigrants who’ve paid into the Medicare system with their payroll taxes for years and are now being cut off from their Medicare coverage. This is apparently the first time an entire category of beneficiaries are having their Medicare taken away. I’m surprised there hasn’t been more attention to this, or if it’s just too much all happening at once.
Ollstein: I mean, there’s a lot happening at once, and even just in the space of immigrants’ access to health care, there is so much happening at once. And so this is obviously having a huge impact on a lot of people, but so are 100 other things. And I think, you know, the zone has been flooded as promised. And really, state officials who are also dealing with a thousand other things, Medicaid cuts, you know, these federal changes, work requirements, are grappling with this as well.
Rovner: Lauren, you wanted to add something?
Weber: Yeah. I mean, I thought it was, there was a striking quote in the story from Michael Cannon, who basically said, The reason this isn’t resonating is because this won’t upset the Republican base. And I think that’s a striking quote to be considered.
Rovner: Michael Cannon, libertarian health policy expert, just kind of an observer to this one. But yeah, I think that’s true. I mean, or at least the perception is that these are not Republican voters, although, you know, as we’ve seen, you know, Congress has tried to take aim at people they think aren’t their voters, and it’s turned out that those are their voters. So we will see how this all plays out.
Well, at the same time that this is all going on, the folks over at the newsletter “Healthcare Dive” are reporting that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services are trying to embark on all these new initiatives on fraud, and work requirements, and artificial intelligence with a diminished workforce. While CMS lost far fewer workers in the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts last year than many other of the HHS agencies — it was in the hundreds rather than the thousands — CMS has long been understaffed, given the fact that it manages programs that provide health insurance to more than 160 million Americans through not just Medicare and Medicaid, but also the Children’s Health Insurance Program and the Affordable Care Act. I know last week, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said he wants to hire more workers to replace the 3,000 who were RIF’ed or took early retirement there at the FDA. And CMS does have lots of job openings being advertised. But it’s hard to see how replacing trained and experienced workers with untrained, inexperienced ones are going to improve efficiency, right?
Goldman: Tangentially, I was talking to a health insurance executive yesterday who was saying that his team is so much bigger than CMS, and they cover a fraction of the market, and they’re often the ones coming to CMS and proposing ideas and working with CMS on it. I don’t, I think that is a dynamic that far predates this administration, but …
Rovner: Oh, absolutely.
Goldman: But it’s certainly interesting. And … CMS has very ambitious plans, and not that many people to carry them out. But, you know, I think one thing that I also want to note is that when I talk to trade associations and stakeholders about this CMS, they are generally like, pretty support- … like, they say that they think they’re being heard, and they think that CMS and the career staff are doing, you know, the same kind of caliber of work that they’ve been doing, which I think is notable.
Rovner: And as we have mentioned many times, you know, Dr. [Mehmet] Oz, the head of CMS, is very serious about his job and doing a lot of really interesting things. It’s just, it’s hard, you know, in the federal government, if you don’t have the resources that you want to … if you don’t have the resources to match your ambitions. Let’s put it that way.
Well, meanwhile, on the Medicaid front, we’re already seeing states cutting back, and some of the results of those cutbacks. on how psychiatric units are at risk of being shut down due to the Medicaid cuts, since they often serve a disproportionate number of low-income people and also tend to lose money. And The New York Times has a of an Idaho Medicaid cutback of a program that had provided home visits to people living in the community with severe mental illness, until those people who lost the services began to die or to end up back in more expensive institutional care. Now the state has resumed funding the program, but obviously will end up having to cut someplace else instead. I know when Republicans in Congress passed the cuts last year, they said that people on Medicaid who were not the able-bodied working-age populations wouldn’t see their services cut. But that’s not how this is playing out, right?
Weber: I just think the story by Ellen Barry, who you should always read on mental health issues in The New York Times, “,” is such an illustrative example of unintended consequences from these cuts. And the reason that they’re being reversed — by Republican legislators, no less — in Idaho, is because it’s more expensive to have cut the money from it than it is efficient. I mean, what they found was, is that after they cut the money to the schizophrenia program, they saw this massive uptick in law enforcement cases and hospitalizations, uninsured hospitalizations, that this avoided. And I think it’s a real canary in the coal mine situation, because we’re only starting to see these states cut these things off. And this was a pretty immediate multiple-death consequence. And I think we’re going to see a lot of stories like this, of a variety of programs that we all don’t even have any idea that exist in the safety net across the country that are being chipped away at.
Rovner: Well, turning to other news from the Department of Health and Human Services, we’re getting some more competition here at What the Health? Health secretary Kennedy has announced he’ll be unveiling his own podcast, called The Secretary Kennedy Podcast, next week. He promises to, according to the trailer posted online on Wednesday, quote, “name the names of the forces that obstruct the paths to public health.” OK then, we look forward to listening.
Meanwhile, in actual secretarial work, the secretary this week also unveiled changes to the charter of the Advisory Committee on [Immunization] Practices after a federal judge last month invalidated both the replacement members that he’d appointed last year and the changes made to the federally recommended vaccine schedule. So what’s going to happen here now? Will this get around the judge’s ruling by watering down the expertise that members of this advisory committee are supposed to have in vaccines? And why hasn’t the administration appealed the judge’s ruling yet?
Goldman: You know, I don’t have actual answers to this, but I do wonder and speculate that this is going to end up being some kind of legal whack-a-mole situation where the secretary and HHS says, OK, you don’t like it that way? We’ll do it this way, and then they’ll do it another way, and advocates will sue, and we’ll see how this plays out going forward in the courts. I think this is not the end of the story. Even though the judge’s decision was a big win for vaccine advocates, it’s just we’re in the midpoint, if that.
Rovner: And Lauren, speaking of vaccines, your colleague Lena H. Sun has on HHS and vaccine policy.
Weber: Yeah, Lena Sun is always delivering. She found out that the acting director of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] at the time delayed publication of a report showing that the covid-19 vaccine[s] cut the likelihood of emergency department visits and hospitalizations for healthy adults last winter by about half. So even though Kennedy is not talking more about vaccines, it appears that, based on this reporting, that some of his underlings are not necessarily touting the benefits of vaccine, so to speak. And I’m very curious, going back to Kennedy’s podcast, I found the rollout of that so interesting because the teaser was very leaning into the Kennedy that got elected, you know, someone who speaks about, you know, dark truths that are hidden from the public, and so on. And then the press team had these statements of, like, Kennedy will investigate the affordability of health costs and food and nutrition. And I think this dichotomy of who Kennedy is and who the White House and the press secretary and HHS want Kennedy to be before the midterms really could come to a head in this podcast. So I think we will all be listening to hear how that goes.
Rovner: Yeah, we keep hearing about how the secretary is being, you know, sort of put on a leash, if you will. And, you know, told to downplay some of his anti-vaccine views and things like this. And that seems quite at odds with him having his own podcast. Alice, do you want to …?
Weber: I guess, it depends on who’s editing the podcast and who they have on. I’m just very … you could even tell from the trailer to how his press secretary presented it, there was an interesting differential in framing, and I am curious how that plays out as we see guests on it.
Ollstein: I mean, it’s also worth noting that this is an administration of podcasters. I mean, you have Kash Patel, you have so many of these folks who have a history of podcasting, clearly have a passion for it, just can’t let it go while working a full-time, high-pressure government job.
Rovner: We shall see. Meanwhile, HHS, together with the Environmental Protection Agency, is waging war on microplastics, those nearly too impossible to detect bits of plastic that are getting into our lungs and stomachs and body tissues through air and water and food. The plan here seems to be to find ways to detect exactly how much microplastics we are all getting in our water and what the health impacts might be, since we don’t have enough information to regulate them yet. I would think this would be one of those things that pleases both MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] and the science community, right? Or is it just, as one MAHA supporter called it, theater?
Goldman: I think this is a great example of the, you know, part of the reason why MAHA is so interesting to such a wide swath of people. Like, there’s a lot of legitimate concern, not that other concerns aren’t necessarily legitimate, but there’s a lot of concern over, from the scientific community, over microplastics. I’m honestly surprised that we’re this far into the administration with this announcement. I would have thought that this is something they would have done sooner, but they obviously had other priorities as well.
Rovner: Well. Finally, this week, speaking of other priorities, HHS Secretary Kennedy and CMS Administrator Dr. Oz are declaring war on junk food in hospitals. Again, this seems like a popular and fairly harmless crusade; hospitals shouldn’t be serving their patients ultraprocessed food. Except, almost as soon as the announcement came out, I saw tons of pushback online from doctors and nurses who worried about patients for whom sugary food or drinks are actually medically indicated, or who, because of medications they’re taking, or illnesses they have, can only eat, or will only eat, highly palatable, often processed food. Nothing in health care is as simple as it seems, right?
Weber: I think what’s also interesting is one of my favorite examples in the memo they put out was they hope that every hospital, as an example, could serve quinoa and salmon. And I just am curious to see how fast that gets implemented. And it’s a very valid — a lot of people complain about hospital food. It’s a very valid thing to push for better food. But I also question, as I understand it, this seems more like a carrot than a stick when it comes to the regulation they put out.
Rovner: As it were.
Weber: As it were. And so I’m curious to see how it gets implemented. That said, there are hospitals that have taken it upon themselves — the Northwell [Health] example in New York is a good example — to really improve their hospital food. And frankly, it’s a money maker. If your food’s better, people come to your hospital, especially in an urban area where there is hospital competition. So you know, like most MAHA topics, there’s a lot of interesting points in there, and then there’s a lot of what’s the reality and what’ actually going to happen. And so I’ very curious to see how this continues to play.
Rovner: I did a big story, like, 10 years ago on a hospital chain that had its own gardens, that literally grew its own healthy food. So this is not completely new but, again, interesting.
All right, that is this week’s news. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, why don’t you start us off this week?
Ollstein: I have a piece from my co-worker Simon [J.] Levien, and it is called “.” This is about thousands of doctors around the country who are from other countries that are placed on, you know, a list by the Trump administration of places where they want to scrutinize and limit the number of immigrants coming from there. And so these are people who are already here, already practicing, have poured years into their training, have been living here, and, in some cases, are the only folks willing to work in certain areas that have a lot of medical shortages, and they just can’t practice because their paperwork isn’t getting processed in time. And so they’re sort of in this scary limbo, and that’s putting these hospitals and clinics that they work in in a really tough bind. And so they’re hammering the Trump administration to give them answers about what their fate is. You know, they’re not trying to deport them yet, but they’re not allowing them to continue working either.
Rovner: For an administration that’s been pushing really hard to improve rural health care, this does not seem to be a way to improve rural health care. Maya.
Goldman: My extra credit this week is called “Trump’s Personnel Agency Is Asking for Federal Workers’ Medical Records.” It’s a great KFF Health News scoop from Amanda Seitz and Maia Rosenfeld. It’s a really great example of the administration, you know, sort of moving in silence, doing these small regulatory announcements that could have big impact. Basically, the Office of Personnel Management is asking for personally identifiable medical information from health insurers, and its reasoning is to analyze costs and improve the health system, but they could get very detailed medical information from federal employees, including things like, did they get an abortion? Are they undergoing gender-affirming care? And, obviously, there is a strong concern that that could be used against them.
Rovner: Yeah … this was quite a scoop. Really, really interesting story. Lauren.
Weber: Mine was a pretty alarming story by Holly Yan at CNN: “.” And basically there’s this type of drug test that the scientists have found is not that effective, and it’s led to things like bird poop being scraped off a man’s car appearing on a drug test as cocaine, a great-grandmother’s medication testing positive for cocaine, and a toddler’s ashes registering as meth or ecstasy, and horrible legal and other consequences of this kind of misdiagnosis in the field. And the reason these drug tests are often done is because they’re cheaper. There’s a more expensive, more accurate version, but these are cheaper. They’re done in the field. But the potential side effects and horrible, wrongly accused effects are quite large, and so Colorado has passed this law to try and move away from this. And it’s curious to see if other states will follow suit.
Rovner: Yeah, this was something I knew nothing about until I read this story. My extra credit this week is from The Atlantic by Katherine [J.] Wu, and it’s called “.” And it’s about how some of the very top career officials from the NIH [National Institutes of Health], the CDC, and other agencies have, after having been put on leave more than a year ago, finally been reassigned to far-flung outposts of the Indian Health Service in the western United States. They got news of their proposed reassignments with little description of their new roles and only a couple of weeks to decide whether to move across the country or face termination. Now, if these officials’ skills matched those needed by the Indian Health Service, this all might make some sense. But what the IHS most needs are active clinicians: doctors and nurses and social workers and lab technicians. And those who are now being reassigned are largely managers, including — and here I’m reading from the story, quote — “the directors of several NIH institutes, leaders of several CDC centers, a top-ranking official from the FDA tobacco-products center, a bioethicist, a human-resources manager, a communications director, and a technology-information officer.” The Native populations who are ostensibly being helped here aren’t very happy about this, either. Former Biden administration Interior Secretary Deb Haaland, a Native American who’s now running for governor in New Mexico, called the reassignment proposals, quote, “shameful” and “disrespectful.” Also, and this is my addition, not a very efficient use of human capital.
OK, that’s this week’s show. Thanks this week to our fill-in editor, Mary-Ellen Deily, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — 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 on X , or on Bluesky . Where do you guys hang these days? Maya.
Goldman: I am on LinkedIn under my first and last name, , and on X at .
Rovner: Alice.
Ollstein: I’m on Bluesky and on X .
Rovner: Lauren.
Weber: Still @LaurenWeberHP on both and .
¸é´Ç±¹²Ô±ð°ù:ÌýWe will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.
Credits
Click here to find all our podcasts.
And subscribe to “What the Health? From ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.
ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-441-mifepristone-trump-budget-request-hhs-april-9-2026/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2181013&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
Recent polling finds that health costs are a top worry for much of the American public, while Republicans in Congress are considering still more cuts to federal health spending on programs such as Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado cannot ban mental health professionals from using “conversion therapy” to treat LGBTQ+ minors, a decision that’s likely to affect other states with similar laws.
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law.
Panelists
Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:
- Republicans reportedly are weighing still more cuts to federal health spending. With the war in Iran draining military coffers, GOP leaders in Congress are eying a drop in health funding — a decision that could exacerbate problems following the passage of legislation expected to lead to major reductions in Medicaid spending, as well as the expiration of enhanced ACA premium subsidies that were not renewed by lawmakers last year. And President Donald Trump’s budget could include another sizable reduction in funding to the National Institutes of Health.
- The Supreme Court this week struck down a Colorado law prohibiting licensed professionals from practicing a form of therapy that tries to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ+ minors. States have long had the power to regulate medical care, with the goal of restricting treatments that can be harmful. Also, the Idaho Legislature passed a bill requiring teachers and doctors to out transgender minors to their parents.
- Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services is studying whether to make private Medicare Advantage plans the default option for seniors enrolling in Medicare, a change that would seem to conflict with the Trump administration’s scrutiny of overpayments to the private insurance plans. And a tech nonprofit’s lawsuit seeks to reveal more about the administration’s pilot program testing the use of artificial intelligence in prior authorization in Medicare.
Also this week, Rovner interviews ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who wrote the last two ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News “Bill of the Month” stories. If you have a medical bill that’s outrageous, infuriating, or just inscrutable, you can submit it to us here.
Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:Â
Julie Rovner: New York Magazine’s “,” by Helaine Olen.
Jessie Hellmann: The Texas Tribune’s “,” by Colleen DeGuzman, Stephen Simpson, Terri Langford, and Dan Keemahill.
Sandhya Raman: Science’s “,” by Jocelyn Kaiser.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “,” by Ed Augustin and Jack Nicas.
Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:
- ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ “States Pay Deloitte, Others Millions To Comply With Trump Law To Cut Medicaid Rolls,” by Samantha Liss and Rachana Pradhan.
- ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ “Trump’s Hunt for Undocumented Medicaid Enrollees Yields Few Violators,” by Phil Galewitz.
- The Colorado Sun’s “,” by John Ingold.
- Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein, Erin Doherty, Marcia Brown, and Carmen Paun.
- The New York Times Magazine’s “,” by Coralie Kraft.
- NOTUS’ “,” by Margaret Manto.
- The Dallas Morning News’ “,” by Emily Brindley.
[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. 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 covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 2, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.
Today, we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.
Rovner: Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.
Jessie Hellmann: Thanks for having me.
Rovner: And Sandhya Raman, now at Bloomberg Law.
Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone.
Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the last two ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News “Bills of the Month.” One is about a patient who got caught in the crossfire over prices between insurers and drug companies. The other is about a woman who, and this is not an April Fools’ joke, got her insurance canceled for failing to pay a bill for 1 cent. But first, this week’s news.
So Congress is on spring break, but when they come back, health policy will be waiting. A new Gallup poll out this week found 61% of those surveyed said they worry about the availability and affordability of health care, quote, “a great deal.” That was 10 percentage points more than the economy, inflation, and the federal budget deficit, and it topped a list of 15 domestic concerns. And while we are still waiting for final enrollment numbers for Affordable Care Act plans, we do know that the share of people paying more than $500 a month for their coverage doubled from last year to 2026. Yet Axios this week is reporting that Republicans are considering still more cuts to the Affordable Care Act to potentially pay for a $200 billion war supplemental. What exactly are they thinking? And it’s looking more like Republicans are going to try for another budget reconciliation bill this spring. Isn’t that, right, Jessie?
Hellmann: House Budget chair Jodey Arrington has kind of been pushing this idea really hard of going after what he says is fraud in mandatory programs like Medicare and Medicaid. He’s also talked about funding cost-sharing reductions, which is an idea that slipped out of the last reconciliation bill, and it’s a wonky kind of idea …
Rovner: But I think the best way to explain it is that it will raise premiums for many people. That’s how I’ve just been doing it.
Hellmann: Yeah, exactly.
Rovner: Let’s not get into the details.
Hellmann: It would reduce spending for the federal government but wouldn’t really help people who buy insurance on the marketplace. He hasn’t been very specific. He’s also talked about, like, site-neutral policies in Medicare, but it’s hard to see how all of this could make a serious dent in a $200 billion Iran supplemental. There’s also a new development. I think President [Donald] Trump threw a wrench in things yesterday when he said he wanted the reconciliation bill to focus on border spending and immigration spending to cover a three-year period, and now Senate Majority Leader John Thune is saying that there’s probably not room for much else in the bill. So, unclear what the path forward is for all of that.
Rovner: Yeah, and of course, that was part of the deal to free up the Department of Homeland Security’s budget in the appropriation. It’s all one sort of big, tied-up mess at this point. Alice, I see you’re nodding.
Ollstein: Yeah. I mean, what often happens with these reconciliation bills is it starts out with a tight focus and everyone’s unified, and then, because it can often be the only legislative train leaving the station, everybody gets desperate to get their pet issue on board, and then the more and more things get piled onto it, then they start losing votes, and people start disagreeing more. And so I think even though this is still in the ideas phase, you’re already seeing some signs of that happening. And when it comes to health care, it can be particularly fraught. And of course, you have lawmakers, especially in the House, with wildly different needs. Some of them need to fend off a primary from the right, and so they want to be as conservative as possible. Some are fighting to hang on in swing districts, and so they want to be more moderate. And these things are in conflict. And so these proposals to cut health spending, even more than the massive amount that was cut last year, are already, you know, raising some red flags among some moderate Republican members. And it’s very possible the whole thing falls apart.
Rovner: Well, along those lines, we’re supposed to get the president’s budget on Friday, which is only two months late. It was due in February. And while I haven’t seen much on it, Jessie, your colleagues at Roll Call are reporting that the budget will seek a 20% cut to the National Institutes of Health. That’s only half the cut that the administration proposed last year. But given that Congress actually boosted the agency’s budget slightly this year, that feels kind of unlikely.
Hellmann: Yeah, I don’t think that the appropriators are likely to go along with this. They have really strong advocates, and Sen. Susan Collins, who’s chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. And, like you said, they rejected cuts last year. Kind of surprised. Twenty percent is not as deep as the Trump administration went last year. I was actually kind of surprised it wasn’t a bigger proposed cut. But either way, I don’t think Congress is going to go along with that.
Rovner: Meanwhile, I saw a late headline that FDA is looking to hire back people after DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cut thousands of people last year. Sandhya, HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] is just in this sort of personnel churn at this point, isn’t it?
Raman: Yeah, I think that HHS is kind of getting bit in the foot from, you know, we’ve had so many of these layoffs, and we’ve also had a lot of people just flee the various agencies over the past year because of some of this instability and all of these changes. And as we’re getting closer and closer to, you know, deadlines of things that they need to get done, they’re realizing that they do need more personnel to get some of those things done, as we’ve been passing deadlines. So I don’t think it’s something that’s unique to just FDA. But I think the way to solve this — it’s not an overnight thing for the federal government to staff up. It’s a longer process, but it’s really showing in a lot of areas right now.
Rovner: Yeah, I would say this is not like TSA [Transportation Security Administration], where you can, you know, hire new people and train them up in a couple of months. These are … many of them scientists who’ve got years and years of training and experience at doing some of these jobs that, you know, the federal government is ordered to do by legislation.
Raman: Yeah, those statutes are things that, you know, if they don’t meet those deadlines, those are things that are going to be challenged, and just further tie things up in litigation. And we already see so many of those right now that are making things more complicated.
Rovner: Well, in news that is not from Congress or the administration, the Supreme Court this week said Colorado could not ban licensed mental health professionals from using so-called conversion therapy aimed at LGBTQ individuals, at least not on minors. What’s the practical impact here? It goes well beyond Colorado, I would think.
Ollstein: Interesting, because a lot of people think of this as regulating health care, restricting providers from providing health care that is not helpful and maybe actively harmful to the health of the patients.
Rovner: And that’s … I would say that’s been a state …
Ollstein: Power.
Rovner: … power. For generations.
Ollstein: Absolutely. Right, I mean, you don’t want people selling sketchy snake oil pills on the street, etc. So many people view this as akin to that. But it has morphed in the hands of conservative courts into a free speech issue, and that, you know, these laws are restricting the speech of mental health workers who are against people transitioning. And so, yes, it definitely has national implications. And of course, we are in a national wave right now of both state and federal entities, you know, moving in the direction of rolling back trans rights in the health care space and beyond.
Rovner: Yeah. In related news, regarding Colorado and minors and gender, that Children’s Hospital Colorado has not yet resumed providing gender-affirming care for transgender youth. That’s despite a federal judge in Oregon having struck down an HHS declaration that would have punished hospitals for providing such services. Apparently, the hospital in Colorado is concerned that the judge’s ruling doesn’t provide it with enough legal cover for them to resume that care. I’m wondering, is this the administration’s strategy here to get organizations to do what they want, even if they might lack the legal authority to do it? Just by making them worry that they might come after them?
Raman: I think the chilling effect is definitely a big part of this broader issue. I mean, we’ve seen it in other issues in the past, but just that if there is this worry that it’s a) going to stop on the provider side, new folks taking part in providing care, and also just it’s going to make patients, even if there are opportunities, even less likely to want to go because of the fears there. I mean, it goes broader than that. We’ve had FTC [Federal Trade Commission] complaints, where they have gone and investigated different places that provide gender-affirming care or endorse it. So I think it’s broader than this, and really part of that chilling effect.
Rovner: And Alice, as you were saying, I mean, the subject of transgender rights, or lack thereof, remains a political hot topic. The Idaho Legislature this week passed a bill that now goes to the governor that would require teachers and doctors to out transgender minors to their parents. Parents could sue teachers, doctors, and child care providers who, quote, “facilitate the social transformation of the minor student.” That includes using pronouns or titles that don’t align with their sex at birth. I don’t know about teachers, but that definitely seems to violate patient privacy when it comes to doctors, right?
Ollstein: There’s definitely patient privacy issues there. I also think, you know, it’s interesting that this kind of nonmedical transitioning is now coming under attack. Because, you know, you would think that there would be some support for letting a kid, you know, go by a different name for a few weeks, test it out, see how it feels. Maybe it’s a phase, then they discover that they don’t want to actually pursue taking medications and going through a medical transition. But this is sort of shutting down that avenue as well. You can’t even change your appearance, change how you present in the world, at a time when kids are really trying to figure out who they are. So I think the broad acceptance of hostility to medical transitioning for youth is now spilling over into this kind of social transitioning, and I wonder if we’re going to see more of that in the future.
Rovner: Yeah, I feel like we started with minors shouldn’t have surgery. They shouldn’t do anything that’s not easily reversible. And now we’ve gotten down to, in the Idaho law, there’s actually mention of nicknames. You can’t … a kid can’t change his or her nickname. It feels like we’ve sort of reduced this way, way, way down.
Ollstein: And I think we’ve seen these laws, laws related to bathrooms. We’ve seen these have negative impacts on people who are not trans at all, people who just are a tomboy or not looking like people’s stereotypes of what different genders may look like. And so there’s a lot of policing of people who are not trans in any way. You know, there’s media reports of people being confronted by law enforcement for going into a bathroom that does align with their biological sex. And so it’s important to keep in mind that these laws have an effect that’s much broader than just the very small percentage of people who do consider themselves trans.
Rovner: Yeah, it’s kind of the opposite of not being woke. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back.
So while we’ve had lots of news out of the Department of Health and Human Services the past few weeks, it’s been mostly public health-related. But there’s a lot going on in the Medicare and Medicaid programs too. Item A: Stat News is reporting that HHS is studying whether to make the private Medicare Advantage program the default for seniors when they qualify for Medicare. Right now, you get the traditional fee-for-service plan that allows you to go to any doctor or hospital that accepts Medicare, which is most of them. You have to affirmatively opt into Medicare Advantage, which often provides extra benefits but also much narrower networks. What would it mean to make Medicare Advantage the default, that people would go into private plans instead of the government plan, unless they affirmatively opted for the traditional fee-for-service?
Hellmann: Someone’s experience with … can vary greatly between being on traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. If you’re in Medicare Advantage, you could be exposed to narrow networks. You can only see certain doctors that are covered by your plan. You can be exposed to higher cost sharing. A lot of people are kind of fine with their plans until they have a medical issue and need to go to the hospital or they need skilled nursing care. So making this the default could definitely be a challenge for some people, especially people that have complex health needs. Some people on the early side of their Medicare eligibility are fine with Medicare Advantage, and then they get older and they’re not fine with it anymore. So it’s interesting that the administration would kind of float this idea because they’ve been critical of Medicare Advantage.
Rovner: Thank you. That’s exactly what I was thinking.
Hellmann: Yeah, they’ve talked about the federal government pays these plans too much, and it’s not for better quality in a lot of cases, and they’ve talked about reforms in that area. So I was a little surprised to see that.
Rovner: Yeah, Republicans have been super ambivalent. I mean, Medicare Advantage was their creation. They overpaid them at the beginning when they, you know, sort of redid the program in 2003. And they purposely overpaid them to get people into Medicare Advantage. And then the Democrats pointed out that this is wasting money because we’re overpaying them. And now the Republicans seem to have joined a lot of their — at least some Republicans — seem to have joined a lot of the Democrats in saying, Yes, we’re overpaying them. We’re paying them too much. And you know, they talk about the big, powerful insurance companies, and yet they’re now floating this idea to make Medicare Advantage the default. So pick a side, guys.
All right, well, in other Medicare news, the Electronic Frontier Foundation is suing Medicare officials to learn more about the pilot program that’s using artificial intelligence to oversee prior authorization requests in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program. The idea here is to cut down on, quote, “low-value services,” things that doctors might be prescribing that aren’t either particularly necessary or shown to actually work. But the fear, of course, is that needed care for patients will be delayed or denied, which is what we’ve seen with prior authorization in Medicare Advantage. This is the perennial push-pull of our health care system, right? If you do everything that doctors say, it’s going to be too expensive, and if you second-guess them, it’s going to be, you know, it might turn out to be too constraining.
Hellmann: Well, I was just going to say this is another issue that was kind of a little surprising to me, because there’s been so much criticism of the use of prior authorization and Medicare Advantage. And CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] looked at that and said, Oh, what if we did it in traditional Medicare? Like it was never going to go over well politically, and I think there are even some Republican members of Congress who are not in support of this, but they haven’t really made a huge stink about it. Yeah, this wasn’t something I really expected to see.
Rovner: Yeah, we’ll see how this one plays out too. Well, meanwhile, regarding Medicaid, two really good stories this week from my ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News colleagues Phil Galewitz, Rachana Pradhan, and Samantha Liss. Phil’s story found that efforts in multiple states to find enrollees who were not eligible for the program due to their immigration status turned up very few violators. While Samantha and Rachana detailed the hundreds of millions of dollars states and the federal government are spending to set up computer programs to track Medicaid’s new work requirement, despite the fact that we already know that most people on Medicaid either already work or they are exempt from the requirements under the new law. Is it just me, or are we spending lots of time and effort on both of these policies that are going to have not a very big return?
Ollstein: Well, that’s what we’ve seen in the few states that have gone ahead and attempted this before, that it costs a lot, and you insure fewer people. And that’s not because those people got great jobs with great health care. You insure fewer people, and the level of employment does not meaningfully change.
Rovner: I would say you insure fewer people who may well still be eligible. They just get caught in the bureaucratic red tape of all of this.
Ollstein: Exactly. These tech systems that are being set up are challenging to navigate, if people even have a means to do it, if they even have a smartphone or a computer or access to Wi-Fi. There are not that many physical offices they can go to to work it out if they need to. And some of those are very far from where they live. And so you see some of these tech vendors, you know, are set to make off very well out of this system, and people who need the care not so much. And then, of course, you know, it’s not just the patients who will feel the impact. You have these hospitals around the country that are on the brink of closure. And if they have people who used to be insured — they used to be able to bill and get reimbursed for their services, suddenly they’re uninsured — and they’re coming in for emergency care that they can’t pay for, that the hospital has to throw out-of-pocket for, that puts the strain that some of these facilities can barely cope with. And so you’re seeing a lot of state hospital associations sounding the alarm as well.
Raman: I would also say the timing is interesting. You know, we spent so much time and energy last year going through the reconciliation process to tighten these areas, to get in the work requirements, to reduce immigrant eligibility for Medicaid. And then, you know, as they’re gearing up to possibly do this again, to defer their crackdown on health care as part of that, instead of it saving money — that it’s not having as much of an effect and costing so much, in the case of the work requirements, where we’re not expected to see the return of it.
Rovner: Yeah, that may be, although I guess the return is that people will not have insurance anymore, and so the federal government, the states, won’t be spending money for their medical care. They’ll be spending money on other things. All right, of course, there’s more news from HHS than just Medicare and Medicaid this week. We also have a lot of news about the Make America Healthy Again movement, which is a sentence that 2023 me would definitely not recognize. about a new poll that finds the MAHA vote isn’t necessarily locked in with Republicans. Tell us about it.
Ollstein: Yeah, that’s right. So Politico did our own polling on this, because we hadn’t really seen good data out there on who identifies as MAHA and what do they even believe about the different parties and about different issues. And so we found that, OK, yes, most people associate MAHA with the Republican Party — most, but not all. But a lot of voters who identify as MAHA, and a lot of voters who voted for Trump in 2024 don’t think that the Trump administration has done a good job making America healthy again. And they rank the Democratic Party above the Republican Party on a lot of their top priority issues, like standing up to influence from the food industry and the pharmaceutical industry. They rank Democrats as caring more about health. So, you know, we found this very fascinating, and it supports what we’ve been hearing anecdotally, where Democratic candidates, a handful of them, and Democratic electoral groups, are really seeing a lot of opportunity to go after MAHA voters and win them over for this November. And you know, we should remember that even if you don’t see a big swing of people voting for Democrats, even if MAHA voters are disillusioned and stay home, that alone could decide races. You know, midterms are decided by very narrow margins.
Rovner: Well, two other really interesting MAHA takes this week. . It’s about the tension in and among medical groups, about how to deal with HHS Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] and the MAHA movement. The American Medical Association seems to be trying to play nice, at least on things it agrees with the secretary about, lest it risk things like its giant contract to supply the CPT billing codes to Medicare. On the other hand, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American College of Physicians have been more confrontational to the point of going to court. The other story, from pushing MAHA. One thing I noticed is that all of the teens in the story seem to suffer from physical problems that are not well understood by the mainstream medical community, and so they turned online to seek advice instead, which is understandable in each individual case. But then they turn around and try to influence others. And you can see how easily misinformation can spread. It makes me not so much wonder — it makes me see how, oh, this is how this stuff sort of gets out there, because you see so much … and Alice, this goes back to what you were saying about MAHA is not a movement that’s allied with one particular political party. It’s more of sort of a mindset that doesn’t trust expertise.
Ollstein: I think it spans people who identify as Democrats, identify as Republicans. And, you know, we’re not really interested in politics until the rise of Robert F Kennedy Jr., and so I think it does show a lot of malleability. And there is a fight for this, for this cohort right now, on the airwaves, on the internet, etc.
Rovner: And, as The New York Times pointed out, you know, we’ve thought of this as being sort of a young men cohort. It’s now also a young woman cohort, too. So there’s lots of people out there to go and get, for these people who are pursuing votes.
Well, turning to reproductive health, we have a couple of follow-ups to things we covered earlier. The big one is Title X, the federal family planning program, whose grants were set to end as of April 1. Sandhya, it looks like the federal government is going to fund the program after all?
Raman: Yeah, the family planning grantees in this space have been on edge for so long, you know, waiting to see would they finally just issue the grant applications. And then it was such a short timeline for them to get them done. And then everyone that I talked to in the lead-up was expecting some sort of delay, just because it was such a short timeframe before they were set to run out of money. And so I think that they were all pleasantly surprised that HHS was able to turn things around when they confirmed that the money is going to go out the day before the deadline. It does take a couple of days to go through the process and get that done. But I think the new worry now is also that in the statements that the White House and HHS have made is just that they are still at work on getting Title X rulemaking out so that a lot of these groups would be ineligible if they also provide abortions. Or we also don’t know what will be in the rule — if it will be broader than what was under the last Trump administration, if it encompasses other restrictions. So a little bit of both there.
Rovner: Yeah. And I also was gonna say, I mean, we know that anti-abortion groups are unhappy with the administration, so this would be one place where they could presumably throw them a bone, yes?
Ollstein: So people on both sides have been a little mystified why we haven’t seen a new Title X rule yet. They were expecting that near the beginning of last year, especially if the administration was just planning to reimpose his 2019 version, that would be pretty straightforward and simple. And yet, here we are, more than a year into the administration, and we haven’t really seen this yet. The administration did confirm to me — we put this in our newsletter — that a new rule is coming. And they said it will align with pro-life values. And the White House’s comments to some conservative media outlets were very explicit that this will be the last time Planned Parenthood can get funding. Now I wonder if that statement will come back to bite them in court, because the rule previously was very careful not to name Planned Parenthood or name any specific organization. It just imposed criteria that applied to a lot of Planned Parenthood facilities, and in order to make them ineligible for Title X funding. And so I wonder if that will help Planned Parenthood sue later on. But we’ll put a pin in that and come back to it. But we have confirmed that some sort of new rule is coming, but we don’t know when, and we don’t know what it would entail. There’s a lot of speculation that this could go way beyond an attempt to kick Planned Parenthood out. There’s speculation it could involve restrictions on particular forms of birth control. There’s speculation that it could entail restrictions on gender-affirming care. There’s speculation that it could involve rules around parental consent, stricter parental consent requirements, which are currently something that’s not part of Title X. And so we just don’t know, you know, in order to mollify the anti-abortion groups that are upset, they are saying, Don’t worry, new rule is coming. But again, we don’t know when, and we don’t know what’s going to be in it.
Rovner: Well, we’ll be here when it happens. Another topic we’ve talked about at some length is crisis pregnancy centers, which are anti-abortion organizations that sometimes offer some medical services. who was told after an ultrasound at a crisis pregnancy center that she had a normal pregnancy, and three days later, ended up in emergency surgery because the pregnancy was not normal, but rather ectopic — in other words, implanted in her fallopian tube rather than her uterus, which could have been fatal if not caught. This is not the first such case, but it again raises this question of whether these centers should be treated as medical facilities, which we’ve talked about many states do.
Raman: And I think a lot of the rationale that people have for trying to do some of these mandatory ultrasounds, you know, encouraging people to go to this is because the talking point is that you don’t know if you have an ectopic pregnancy, you don’t have another complication, so you should go here to instead of just taking a medication abortion. So … we’re coming full circle here, where this is also not helping the case, if you’re not finding the full information there. So I think that was an interesting point to me …
Rovner: Yeah, it’s going on both sides basically. It is fraught, and we will continue to cover it.
All right, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with Elisabeth Rosenthal at ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.
I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the last two “Bills of the Month.” Libby, thanks for coming back.
Elisabeth Rosenthal: Thanks for having me.
Rovner: So let’s start with our drug copay card patient. Before we get into the particulars, what’s a drug copay card?
Rosenthal: Well, copay cards, or copayment programs, are things that the drug companies give patients. You know, when it says you could pay as little as $0, where they pay your copayment, which is usually pretty big — when you see a copay card, it means the price is big, and they’ll bill your insurance for the rest. So for patients, it sounds like a good deal, and it is a good deal when they work.
Rovner: So tell us about this patient, and what drug did he need that cost so much that he required a copay card?
Rosenthal: Well, the funny thing is — his name is Jayant Mishra, and he has a psoriatic arthritis. And the doctor told him, you know, there’s this drug called Otezla that would really help you. And he was, he was a little cautious, because he knew it could be expensive, so he did wait a few months, and his symptoms, his joint pain, in particular, got worse. He was like, OK, I’ll start it. So he started it the first month, and it worked really well.
Rovner: “It” the drug, or “it” the copay card, or both?
Rosenthal: Both seemed to work very well. So the copay card covered his copay of over $5,000 and he was like, Oh, this is great. And then what happened was, the next month, he tried to fill it, and it was like, Wait, the copay card didn’t work! And really what happens is copay cards, they are often limited in time and in the amount of money that’s on them. So depending on how much the copay is, they can run out, basically expire. You used all the money, and you have a drug that you’ve used that is working really well for you, and then suddenly you’re hit with a big bill. So they kind of get people addicted to drugs, which they then can’t afford.
Rovner: And what happened in this case was the insurance company charged more than expected, right?
Rosenthal: Well, Otezla, you know, there’s so many things about this, and many “Bill of the Month” stories that, you know, are eye-rollers. Otezla — there are biosimilars that were approved by the FDA in … 2021? … which everyone’s talking about, faster approval of biosimilars. Well, this was approved, but the drugmaker filed multiple suits and patent infringement, and so in the U.S., it won’t be on the market, the biosimilar, until 2028, so that’s a problem too.
Rovner: So if you want this drug, it’s going to be expensive.
Rosenthal: It’s going to be expensive. And the other problem is copay cards. Insurers used to say, OK, that will count towards your deductible, right? So you didn’t really feel it, right? Because you got a $5,000 copay card, and you had a $5,000 deductible if you had a high-deductible plan. And everything was good. Now, insurers kind of said, Whoa, we’re not sure we like these things. So yeah, you can use them, but it won’t count towards your deductibles. So they’re not nearly as useful as they might have been in the past. But patients are really stuck, because these are really expensive drugs that most people couldn’t afford without copay cards.
Rovner: So what eventually happened to this patient, and how can other people avoid falling into the copay card trap?
Rosenthal: So basically, because he had used up the amount on the copay card, which was $9,400 for the year, by the second month, he tried for the third month to kind of ration his drugs to take half as much, and his symptoms came back. And then the lucky thing for him was then it was January, right, copay cards are usually done for the year. So he got a new copay card for another $9,400 and he was good for January, and he paid with his health savings account for the first month’s copay, with the copay card the second month, with the copay card and his health savings account. And when this went to press, he wasn’t sure how he was going to pay for the rest of the year. And for him, it’s not a huge problem, because he has a very well-funded health savings account, which few of us do, but he was really up in the air for the rest of the year when we wrote about this.
Rovner: So sort of moral of this story, be careful if you want to take an expensive drug, and the theory that when the drugmaker promises, Oh, you can have this for as little as $0 copay.
Rosenthal: Well, I think it’s you have to understand what a particular card does. You have to understand what’s the limit on how much is on the copay card. You have to understand how many months it’s good for. You have to understand, from your insurer’s point of view, if that will count as your deductible or not. And then, man, you know, you’re kind of on your own, right? Sometimes your copay card will work great for you, and at other times it will work for a shorter amount of time. And you got to figure out what to do. I think the third, bigger lesson is getting biosimilars, which are these very expensive drugs approved, is not really the big problem in our country. The problem is the patent thickets that surround so many of these drugs that prevent them from getting to the patients who need them.
Rovner: In other words, you can make a copy of this drug, but you might not be able to get it onto the market.
Rosenthal: Right. You can make a copy this drug — it [a generic] was approved in 2021 — but that won’t help patients until 2028, which is really terrible. You know, it’s available in other countries, but not here.
Rovner: So moving on, our March patient had insurance through the Affordable Care Act exchange and was benefiting from one of those zero-premium plans until she got caught in a literally Kafkaesque mess over a 1-cent bill that turned into a 5-cent bill. Who is she and what happened here?
Rosenthal: Yeah, her name in this wonderful, terrible story is Lorena Alvarado Hill. And what happened here is she was on one of these $0 insurance plans through the Obamacare exchanges with that great subsidy, the Biden-era subsidy, and she and her mother were on the same plan, and her mother went on to Medicare, turned 65. So Lorena didn’t need the family coverage and told the insurer that. And the insurance, of course, automatically recalculates your subsidy, and her premium went from being zero to 1 cent. Now, no human would make that, you know, would say, Oh, that makes sense. And to Lorena, it didn’t really make sense either. She was like, I’m not sure how to pay 1 cent, like, will it work on my credit card? And some of the bills said, you know, you understand that this could impact the continuation of your insurance, but, you know, she was like, 1 cent, I don’t think so. And then she kept going to doctors, and the insurance still worked, and then at some point, four months later, she got a letter in November saying, Oh, your insurance was canceled in July, and you owe money for all these bills.
Rovner: And what happened with this case?
Rosenthal: Well, you know, like many of our “Bill of the Month” patients, I celebrate them for being real fighters, because her bill, since her premium was 1 cent a month, went from 1 cent to 2 cents to 3 cents to 4 cents to 5 cents, when they sent her the note saying your insurance has been canceled for the last four months. And what turns out, which is really interesting, is this is a known glitch in the way the subsidies were calculated, were administered. There’s a recalculation of subsidies every time there’s a life event, a kid goes off the plan, you change jobs, get married, you get divorced. So the recalculation happens automatically. And the Biden administration, understanding that this glitch could exist, they gave the insurers the option not to cancel insurance if the amount owed was less than $10. And there were apparently 180,000 people caught in this situation where their insurance could have been canceled for under $10 of a recalculated premium. The Trump administration revoked that rule because their feeling was, you owe something, you pay something. So it’s part of their “stamp out fraud and abuse,” and this was, in their view, abuse of a system when people didn’t pay what they owed.
Rovner: One cent.
Rosenthal: One cent, right. So what happened with her is, you know, a good bill-paying citizen sending her daughter to college with loans. She wrote her insurers, she wrote to the state, she wrote to everyone. And as a last resort, of course, someone said, Well, there’s this thing called Bill of the Month you could write to. So when we looked into this, at first HealthFirst, which was her insurer in Florida, said, Oh, she’s not insured through us. And I was like, Yeah, because you canceled her insurance. And then I gave them her insurance number, and they said, Well, yes, according to law, we did the right thing. She didn’t pay, so it was canceled. Somehow, through all of this, word got back to the hospital and the insurer, and they worked together, and her bills were suddenly zero on her portal. So that’s the good news for Lorena Alvarado Hill. It doesn’t really help all those other people whose insurance may have been canceled for premiums that were under $10.
Rovner: So, basically, if you get a bill for 5 cents, you should pay it.
Rosenthal: Yeah, you know, it was funny when this story went up, many people were sympathetic, but other commenters said, Well, she should have just paid $1 because you can pay that. And maybe there was a way to pay 1 cent. And I’m kind of with her, like, if I got a bill for 1 cent, life is busy. This is a woman who is a teacher’s aide and works on weekends at a store to help pay for her daughter’s college. Life is busy. You just can’t sweat over 1-cent bills and spend a lot of time figuring out how to pay them. And I guess the lesson is, what’s the worst that can happen in a very dysfunctional system where so much is automated now? The worst that can happen is always really bad. Your insurance could be canceled.
Rovner: So basically, stay on top of it, I guess, is the message for both of these stories this month. Elisabeth Rosenthal, thank you so much.
Rosenthal: Thanks, Julie, for having me.
Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Jessie, why don’t you go first this week?
Hellmann: My story is from The Texas Tribune, from a group of reporters who I can’t name individually. There’s too many of them. But it is in Texas after the governor issued an executive order a few years ago requiring that hospitals check patients’ citizenship. So the story found that hospital visits by undocumented people dropped by about a third, and the story also got into how this is bleeding into other types of health care at other facilities, free vaccine clinics are not being attended as widely anymore. People aren’t attending their preventive care appointments, like cancer screenings or prenatal care checkups. Some of these other health facilities are required to check citizenship status, but it’s definitely a chilling effect over the broader health care landscape in Texas.
Rovner: Yeah. There have been a lot of good stories about that. Sandhya.
Raman: My extra credit is from Science, and it’s by Jocelyn Kaiser, and the story is “.” In her story, she talks about how last year, you know, the administration cut a lot of staff at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. They’ve canceled all of the open grants, but Congress still appropriated $345 million for the agency this year, and so supporters kind of want to revive what should be going on at the agency, which hasn’t been issuing any of the grants since the start of the fiscal year, and just kind of make progress on some of the things that this agency does do, like running the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which has been, you know, something that has been talked about this year. So thought it was an interesting piece.
Rovner: Yeah, I’m old enough to remember when AHRQ was bipartisan. Alice.
Ollstein: So a very harrowing story in The New York Times titled “.” And I will say, since this piece ran, we have seen that an oil shipment from Russia is going through to the island, but I don’t think that will be sufficient to completely wipe away all of the upsetting conditions that this piece really gets into, what is happening as a result of the ramped-up U.S. embargo and blockade of the island. People can’t get food, they can’t get medicine, they can’t get electricity, and that is having a devastating effect on health care. The Cuban health care system has been really miraculous over the years, just the pride of the government. It has meant, prior to this blockade, that their life expectancy was better than ours, and a lot of their outcomes were better. And so this has been really devastating. There’s, you know, harrowing scenes of people on ventilators having to be hand-pumped when the electricity cuts out, babies in incubators, you know, losing power. You know, people having to skip medications, etc. And so this is really shining a light on a foreign policy situation that this administration is behind.
Rovner: Yeah, that’s really been an under-covered story, too, I think, you know, right off our shores. My extra credit this week is one I simply could not resist. It’s from New York Magazine, and it’s called “,” by Helaine Olen. And as the headline rather vividly points out, we are witnessing the rise of pet medical tourism, along with human medical tourism, which has been a thing for a couple of decades now. It seems that veterinary medicine is getting nearly as expensive as human medicine, and that one way to find cheaper care is to cross the border, which is obviously easier if you live near the border. I’m not sure how much cheaper veterinary care is in Canada, but as the owner of two corgis, I may have to do some investigating of my own.
OK, that is this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — 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? Sandhya.
Raman: On and on .
Rovner: Alice.
Ollstein: On Bluesky and on X .
Rovner: Jessie.
Hellmann: I’m on LinkedIn under Jessie Hellmann and on X .
Rovner: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.
Credits
Click here to find all our podcasts.
And subscribe to “What the Health? From ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.
ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-440-gop-health-cuts-iran-april-2-2026/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2177532&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>The upshot, : Babies fed rival Mead Johnson Nutrition’s acidified liquid human milk fortifier — a nutritional supplement used in neonatal intensive care units — developed certain complications at higher rates than those given an Abbott fortifier, a researcher at the University of Nebraska had found.
At least one of those complications .
The Abbott scientist, Bridget Barrett-Reis, described the results in the email to colleagues, using two exclamation points. Then she proposed that Abbott test the Mead Johnson fortifier, acidified for sterilization, against another Abbott product.
The clinical trial among preterm infants that Abbott subsequently sponsored, , is a case study of corporate warfare in the high-stakes business of infant nutrition, wherein preemies have been coveted like commodities; their anxious, vulnerable parents have been — whether they know it or not — targets of calculated commercial pursuit; and scientific research has been used as a marketing tool.
In hospitals around the country, dozens of babies born an average of 11 weeks early were fed Mead Johnson’s fortifier. Dozens of others were fed an Abbott fortifier that wasn’t acidified.
The clinical trial became a boon for Abbott, which to wrest market share from Mead Johnson. But for some of the babies enrolled, it didn’t turn out so well, a ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News investigation found.
Far more infants given Mead Johnson’s product developed a buildup of acid in the blood called metabolic acidosis than those fed Abbott’s product — 19 versus four, according to results published in the journal .
Two outside doctors monitoring infants in the study became so alarmed that they refused to enroll any more babies, according to an April 2016 email one of them sent to Abbott.
In a related email to Abbott, neonatologist Robert White of Memorial Hospital in South Bend, Indiana, and Pediatrix Medical Group — an investigator in the study — .
“We had another SAE” — serious adverse event — “today in which a child developed profound metabolic acidosis while on the study fortifier,” White wrote. The severity was “unlike what we would see in most children with these issues.”
A manager at Abbott replied that the company was “taking your concerns very seriously.”
The study continued for almost a year.
At least some of the consent forms used to inform parents about risks did not mention metabolic acidosis or the often-fatal necrotizing enterocolitis, another condition identified in the 2013 email that led to the study.
In a November response to questions for this article, Abbott spokesperson Scott Stoffel said the clinical trial “was safe and ethical” and that the fortifiers it compared were “on the market and widely used.”
The study was “led by 20 non-Abbott investigators,” Stoffel said.
According to a federal website, chaired the study.
Stoffel added that the study was approved “by 14 independent safety review boards at hospitals” and “published in a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal.”
“It is reckless and not credible to suggest that these doctors and institutions conducted and then published the results of an unsafe or unethical study,” Stoffel said.
A spokesperson for Mead Johnson, Jennifer O’Neill, did not comment on Abbott’s clinical trial but said in a November statement to ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News that existing studies “cannot responsibly support” any connection between the acidified fortifier and conditions such as necrotizing enterocolitis or metabolic acidosis.
Mead Johnson executive Cindy Hasseberg argued in a deposition that Abbott waged a “smear campaign” against the acidified fortifier that was “very hard to come back from.”
In 2024, Mead Johnson discontinued the product.
Winning the ‘Hospital War’
Behind their warm-and-fuzzy marketing, industry giants Abbott, maker of Similac products, and Mead Johnson, maker of the Enfamil line, have turned neonatal intensive care units into arenas of brutal competition.
This article quotes from and is based largely on records from three lawsuits against formula manufacturers that went to trial in 2024 and are now on appeal. The cases are , , and The records include emails, internal presentations, and other company documents used as exhibits in litigation, as well as court transcripts and witness testimony from depositions.
The records provide an inside view of the business of infant formula and fortifier, a nutritional supplement added to a mother’s milk. For example, a Mead Johnson slide deck for a 2020 national sales meeting — later used in the Whitfield trial — outlined a plan for “Branding NICU Babies.”
Urging employees to win more sales from neonatal intensive care units, the document said: “’”
In internal documents and other material from litigation reviewed by ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, formula makers described hospitals as gateways to the much larger retail market because parents are likely to stick with the brand their babies started on. Products used in the NICU help win hospital contracts, and hospital contracts help establish brand loyalty, according to court records.
Manufacturers vie for contracts that can be “exclusive” or nearly so, according to records from the litigation, including company documents and testimony by people who have worked in management for the companies.
An undated Abbott presentation used in the Gill case, apparently referring to inroads with hospitals in its rivalry with Mead Johnson, boasted of “MJ Strongholds Broken!”
It saluted two employees who “Own 27K Babies Exclusively,” and said another “Stole 600 formula feeders from MJ.”
Still others were praised for “Playing in Mom’s mailbox” or “kicking … and ‘taking names.’”
In July 2024, Abbott CEO Robert Ford said in a conference call for investors that formula and fortifier for preterm infants generated total annual revenue of about $9 million — a small portion of Abbott’s total sales of $42 billion in 2024 and its $2.2 billion of sales in the United States from pediatric nutritional products.
Industry documents cited in litigation provide a different perspective.
“‘,” stated an Abbott training presentation from about a decade ago used in the Gill and Whitfield trials.
That described a baby’s first formula feeding in the hospital, the document said. Over 74% of the time, an infant fed formula in the hospital stays on that brand at home, the document said.
Abbott’s goal was that the first-bottle-fed strategy , the document showed. A staff training slide displayed during the Whitfield trial showed how that momentum could pay off in bonuses for Abbott sales representatives, leading to a “Happy Rep.”
Mead Johnson has espoused a similar strategy.
The company rolled out a with cash rewards for flipping hospitals from Abbott, according to a 2019 document marked for internal use by Mead Johnson and its parent company, England-based Reckitt Benckiser Group, and admitted into evidence in the Watson case.
“ is critical to contract gains and acquisition,” stated a company plan for 2022 that was cited in the Whitfield case.
One Abbott document shown in the Whitfield trial said more than half of first feedings happen at night, adding, “.”
A “Mead Johnson University” training document described a scenario in which a sales rep overhears patient information in a NICU and encouraged the rep to promote the company’s products. The document, titled “,” was admitted as evidence in the Watson case.
“[Y]ou are walking back into your most important NICU,” it said. “You overhear the HCP’s” — health care providers, apparently — “stating all of the notes,” it said. “There may be some information that may help you to position your products as a resource for this patient and to handle any objections that the HCP may present you with.”
To win parents’ business, companies have supplied formula to hospitals free or at a loss, court records show. That has resulted in such curiosities as a Mead Johnson “purchasing agreement” cited in the Watson case, listing the price for product after product as “no charge.”
In a 2017 strategy document prepared for Mead Johnson, a consulting firm laid out a plan “to win hospital war.”
Why focus on hospitals? “,” it explained.
The document was displayed in the Whitfield case.
In the market for preterm nutrition, Abbott and Mead Johnson compete with each other, not against the use of human milk, the companies told ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News.
“Thus, references in documents about wanting to ‘win’ or ‘own’ the NICU refer to out-performing Mead Johnson by offering the highest-quality products,” Abbott’s Stoffel said in February.
Asked specific questions about business strategies and internal documents, Mead Johnson’s O’Neill said the company was “concerned that you are presenting a misleading and incomplete picture.”
Mead Johnson’s products “are safe, effective, and recommended by neonatologists when clinically appropriate,” O’Neill added.
On the Defensive
In courthouses around the country, Abbott and Mead Johnson are on the defensive — and have been for years.
In hundreds of lawsuits, parents of sickened or deceased preterm infants have alleged that formula designed for preemies has caused necrotizing enterocolitis, or NEC, a devastating condition in which immature intestinal tissue can become infected and die, spreading infection through the body.
Lawsuits also accuse the manufacturers of failing to warn parents of the risk.
One of the cases on which this article is based, , resulted in a against Mead Johnson. , Gill v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., resulted in a against Abbott. , Whitfield v. St. Louis Children’s Hospital, et al., resulted in a , but the judge found errors and misconduct on the part of defense counsel, faulted his own performance, and .
The cases have involved children like Robynn Davis, who was born at 26 weeks, lost 75% to 80% of her intestine to NEC, suffered brain damage — and, at almost 3 years old, couldn’t walk, couldn’t really talk, and was eating through a tube, as Jacob Plattenberger, an attorney representing her, in 2024.
An attorney for Abbott, James Hurst, that Robynn suffered a catastrophic brain injury at birth, 10 days before she received any Abbott formula, and that her NEC resulted not from formula but from many health problems.
In at least three cases, a federal judge has in favor of Abbott — ruling for the company before the lawsuits even reached trial.
The formula makers have repeatedly denied fault.
Addressing stock analysts in 2024, as “without merit or scientific support” the theory that preterm infant formula or milk fortifier caused NEC.
In a issued in 2024, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health said there was “no conclusive evidence that preterm infant formula causes NEC.”
Mead Johnson’s O’Neill said the scientific consensus is that there is no established causal link between the use of specialized preterm hospital nutrition products and NEC.
Neonatologists use the products routinely, O’Neill said.
O’Neill cited a statement by the saying the causes of NEC “are multifaceted and not completely understood.”
In a legal brief filed with an Illinois appeals court in the Watson case, the company said “the NEC-related risks” of a formula for preterm infants “are the subject of medical debate,” adding that trial evidence “demonstrated, at a minimum, uncertainty as to the magnitude of the risk, as well as the causal role of various feeding options in the development of NEC.”
Manufacturers say formula is needed when mother’s milk or human donor milk isn’t an option. Fortifier, a product tailored to preemies, is meant to augment mother’s milk when babies are born prematurely and a mother’s milk alone doesn’t deliver enough nutrition. The Mead Johnson fortifier used in the head-to-head clinical trial sponsored by Abbott was acidified to prevent bacterial contamination.
In March 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that his department, which encompasses the FDA, was undertaking a review of infant formula, dubbed “Operation Stork Speed.” It includes and increasing testing for heavy metals and other contaminants, HHS said.
However, is limited. The agency doesn’t approve the products or their labeling. Whether to report adverse events — illnesses or deaths potentially related to the products — to the FDA is largely at manufacturers’ discretion.
The business of infant formula further spotlights a central contradiction in the Trump administration’s health policies. When it comes to food and medical products, the administration has criticized industry-funded research as unworthy of trust. Yet under Kennedy, it has disrupted, defunded, or sought to cut government-funded research, which could leave industry-funded research with a larger and more influential role.
It “is entirely appropriate for the Department to scrutinize research design, conflicts of interest, and funding sources, particularly when research is used to inform public policy,” HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said.
‘At the Table’
Company emails cited in litigation shed light on the industry’s approach to research.
In a 2015 email, when Mead Johnson was considering supplying some of its formula to a researcher for a study, a company neonatologist expressed concern that the results could be spun to make the preemie product look unsafe.
“However, we are more likely to have control over final language if we provide the small support and are ‘at the table’ with him,” Mead Johnson’s Timothy Cooper added in the email, which was cited in the Watson trial.
In 2017, Abbott with researchers at Johns Hopkins University about a study on how the composition of infant formula might affect NEC in mice. The email thread became an exhibit in the Whitfield case.
Abbott was both funding and collaborating on the work, shows.
Forwarding a draft of the resulting paper to Abbott, David Hackam, chief of pediatric surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said in one of the emails, “We hope you like it.” He also requested help from Abbott in filling in information.
“The manuscript looks great!” Abbott’s Tapas Das , after a back-and-forth.
But Abbott had some changes, the email thread shows.
“We (VM & DT) made some edits in the text especially to soften a bit with the statement ‘infant formula seems responsible for developing NEC,’” Das wrote.
“Instead, we thought if we could state as ‘infant formula is linked to severity of NEC’. So we made changes throughout the text emphasizing on severity of NEC by infant formula rather than development of NEC by infant formula,” Das wrote.
Das wrote that “other factors are involved for NEC development as described in the text.”
Hackam did not respond to questions ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News sent by email.
Efforts to reach Das and Cooper — including by phoning numbers and sending letters to addresses that appeared to be associated with them — were unsuccessful.
When Mead Johnson provided support to scientific researchers, the company would want to make sure they reported the results “in an honest way,” Cooper said in a deposition played in the Watson trial.
The Abbott co-authors “proposed routine edits to the article for scientific accuracy and for the consideration of the other authors, some of the most well-respected NEC researchers in the world,” Abbott’s Stoffel said.
“Abbott regularly collaborates with and publishes studies with leading NEC scientists for the benefit of both premature infants and the entire scientific community,” Stoffel said.
“The research studies Mead Johnson supports are conducted independently and appropriately, with full transparency,” said O’Neill, the Mead Johnson spokesperson.
‘In the Wrong Direction’
Transparency can be subjective.
More than a decade ago, Mead Johnson sponsored a clinical trial testing what was then a new acidified liquid fortifier against a powdered fortifier already on the market.
In the study, which enrolled 150 babies, 5% of infants fed the acidified liquid developed NEC compared with 1% of infants fed the powder, according to deposition testimony and a record of the clinical trial used in the Watson case.
That information was not included in a 2012 that reported the study results.
The article, in the journal Pediatrics, whose authors included two Mead Johnson employees, concluded it was safe to use the new liquid fortifier instead of the powdered one. The article also said that, comparing babies fed the liquid with those fed the powder, the study observed no difference in the incidence of NEC.
The unpublished finding of 5% to 1% represented so few babies that it was not statistically significant.
Nonetheless, retired neonatologist Victor Herson, who ran a NICU in Connecticut and has studied fortifiers, said in an interview he would have wanted to see those numbers.
“The trend was in the wrong direction,” Herson said, “and would have, I think, alerted the typical neonatologist that, well, maybe not to rush in and adopt” the new fortifier.
It’s common for study publications to include tables showing complications even if they aren’t statistically significant so that readers can draw their own conclusions, Herson said.
Neonatologist Fernando Moya, a co-author of the Pediatrics article, had a different perspective.
“You may not be very familiar with medical literature but when there are no ‘statistically significant’ differences, we do not comment on whether something was increased or decreased,” Moya said by email. He referred questions to Mead Johnson.
Mead Johnson’s O’Neill gave several reasons why “the data you cite was not included in the publication.” She said the study was designed to examine infant nutrition and growth, NEC was a “secondary outcome,” the NEC numbers weren’t statistically significant, and the size of the study, “while appropriate, was not powered to draw any conclusions with respect to any potential differences in NEC.”
In a deposition used in the Watson trial, Carol Lynn Berseth — a co-author of the paper and Mead Johnson’s director of medical affairs for North America when the study was completed — testified that the article was peer-reviewed and that no reviewer asked for additional data.
“Had they asked for it, we would have shown it,” Berseth testified.
Berseth did not respond to a phone message or to an email or letter sent to addresses apparently associated with her.
‘It Should Not Be in a NICU’
The Abbott scientist who flagged research on Mead Johnson’s acidified fortifier in 2013, Bridget Barrett-Reis, was later of AL16, the follow-up clinical trial Abbott sponsored, and of .
In a deposition, she was asked why she conducted the study.
“I conducted that study because I thought [the acidified fortifier] could be dangerous,” she said, “and I thought it would be a good idea to find out if it really was because nobody was doing anything about it.”
Elaborating on the thinking behind the study, she testified: “It should not be in a NICU in the United States. That product should not be anywhere for preterm infants.”
In her 2013 email recommending that Abbott conduct a study, Barrett-Reis cited findings by “an independent investigator,” Ann Anderson-Berry, that showed, compared with preterm infants fed an Abbott powder, those on Mead Johnson’s acidified liquid “had slower growth, higher incidence of metabolic acidosis and NEC!!”
Asked about the exclamation points, Barrett-Reis testified in a January 2024 deposition used in the Gill case that she wasn’t excited about the findings. “I am known to put exclamation points instead of question marks and everything anywhere, so I have no idea at the time what those meant,” she testified.
The research that caught her eye in 2013 reviewed patient records from the Nebraska Medical Center. The institution had switched to the acidified fortifier with high hopes but stopped using it after four months because it was concerned about patient outcomes, Anderson-Berry and Nebraska co-authors .
In an interview, Anderson-Berry said she set out to analyze why, during those four months, babies’ growth “fell apart in our hands.”
Abbott was “very pleased” with Anderson-Berry’s findings and paid her to go around the country discussing them, she said.
Metabolic acidosis can be fatal, Anderson-Berry said. But typically it can be managed, she said, adding that she didn’t know of deaths from metabolic acidosis caused by the acidified fortifier.
Research has found that metabolic acidosis “is associated with poor developmental and neurologic outcomes in very low birth weight infants,” according to . In addition, it is “a risk factor for neonatal necrotizing enterocolitis,” the paper said.
Barrett-Reis did not respond to inquiries for this article, including a message sent via LinkedIn and a letter sent to an address that appeared to be associated with her.
In court, Abbott representative Robyn Spilker testified that metabolic acidosis and that nobody should knowingly put kids at risk for getting NEC in an effort to make money.
Before infants were enrolled in the AL16 study, their parents or guardians had to sign consent forms disclosing, among other things, the risks that clinical trial subjects would face.
International ethical principles for medical research on humans, known as the , say each participant must be adequately informed of the “potential risks.”
Questioning Abbott’s Spilker in litigation, plaintiff’s attorney Timothy Cronin said, “Ma’am, despite the hypothesis going in, are you aware Abbott on the informed consent form given to parents that signed their kids up for that study?” Spilker, who identified herself in court as a senior brand manager, said she didn’t know what was on the consent forms.
Through a request under a Kentucky open-records law, ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News obtained an informed consent form for the AL16 study used at a public institution, the University of Louisville. The form mentioned risks such as diarrhea, constipation, gas, and fussiness. It did not mention metabolic acidosis or NEC.
ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News also reviewed an informed consent form for the AL16 study used at Memorial Hospital of South Bend. It was largely identical to the one used in Louisville and did not mention metabolic acidosis or NEC.
Cronin, the plaintiff’s attorney, said in an interview that Abbott showed disregard for the health and safety of premature babies participating in the AL16 clinical trial.
“I think it’s unethical to do a study if you know you are subjecting participants in the study to an increased risk of a potentially deadly disease and you don’t at least tell them that,” Cronin said.
Anderson-Berry told ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News that Abbott was “ethically well positioned” to conduct the AL16 clinical trial because her paper was not definitive.
Yet she said she was unwilling to enroll any of her patients in the Abbott clinical trial because she didn’t want to take the chance that they would be given the acidified liquid.
White, the neonatologist who stopped enrolling patients in the study, defended the decision to conduct it. In an interview, he said it was appropriate to conduct a large, properly controlled clinical trial to see whether concerns raised in earlier research were borne out. The two babies whose serious adverse events he reported to Abbott ended up doing fine, he said.
But White, who went on to be listed as a co-author of the study, told ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News that parents should have been informed that the risks included metabolic acidosis and NEC.
“In retrospect, obviously, that is something that we, I think, should have informed parents of,” he said.
Abbott did not directly answer questions about the consent forms.
The results of AL16 were in 2018. The conclusion: Infants fed the acidified product — in other words, the Mead Johnson fortifier — had higher rates of metabolic acidosis and poorer feeding tolerance. Plus, poorer “initial weight gain.”
The title of the article trumpeted “Improved Outcomes in Preterm Infants Fed a Nonacidified Liquid Human Milk Fortifier” — in other words, the Abbott product.
Eight of the 78 infants receiving the Mead Johnson fortifier were treated for metabolic acidosis, compared with none of the 82 receiving the Abbott product, the article said. Four infants on Mead Johnson’s product experienced serious adverse events, compared with one on the Abbott product, the article reported.
One infant receiving the Mead Johnson product died — from sepsis, the article said. One had a case of NEC, and infants on Mead Johnson’s fortifier “had significantly more vomiting,” the article said.
However, in a pair of letters to the editor published in the Journal of Pediatrics, the article as hyped. Writers said the article emphasized findings that were .
In its business battle with Mead Johnson, Abbott deployed the study. It produced an annotated copy for its sales force, which was shown in the Whitfield trial.
Abbott’s use of AL16 as a marketing tool worked.
In 2019, when Barrett-Reis applied for a promotion at Abbott, she wrote that the results of the study had been “leveraged to secure whole hospital contracts which have increased hospital share to > 70%.”
Her letter was displayed in a deposition video filed in the Gill litigation.
Internally, Mead Johnson conceded it had been beaten in the fight over fortifiers. In the slide deck for a 2020 national sales meeting, the company said, “Abbott won the narrative.”
Share your story with us: Do you have experience with infant formula or any insights about it that you’d like to share? We’d like to hear from you. Click here to contact our reporting team.
This <a target="_blank" href="/health-industry/infant-formula-fortifier-high-stakes-corporate-battle-preemies-abbott-mead-johnson/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2165280&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>“I feel like I’m suffocating inside this shelter, trapped with no way out,” Carlos’ son said, according to one of the teens’ attorneys, when asked to describe how he felt after months at the Houston-area facility. “Every day, the same routine. Every day, feeling stuck. It makes me feel hopeless and terrified.”
During daily video calls, Carlos, who had temporary protected status, urged the siblings to be patient, to trust the process. Federal officials had vetted Carlos before he could be granted custody and told him his case was complete. He believed he would soon be back with his children, who, like him, had sought refuge from political violence in Venezuela.
An immigration officer called Carlos on a Friday and asked him to attend a meeting at an ICE office the following Monday to discuss reunification with his children. Once Carlos arrived, officers tried to force him to sign documents he said he didn’t understand. When he refused, they stripped off his clothes, seized his ID and belongings, and chained him by the neck, waist, and legs.
“They tricked me,” Carlos said in a phone call from an immigration detention center in El Paso, Texas, where he was held for several months. “They used my children to grab me,” he said.
In reporting on the family’s story, ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News reviewed court documents, spoke with the family’s immigration attorneys, interviewed Carlos, and reviewed statements from his children, translated from Spanish. Carlos is a pseudonym, being used at the request of attorneys concerned that speaking out could jeopardize Carlos’ immigration case or further delay his reunion with his family.
Using Children to Arrest Parents
Since 2003, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement has cared for immigrant children under 18 who arrive in the country without their parents, often fleeing violence, abuse, or trafficking. The office, which in February had more than 2,300 children in shelters or with foster families across the country, is supposed to promptly release them to vetted caregivers, typically parents or other family members already living in the country.
Congress placed this responsibility with the health agency over 20 years ago to prioritize the well-being of unaccompanied children and separate their care from immigration enforcement priorities.
Now the second Trump administration is using migrant children held by the resettlement office to lure their parents, such as Carlos, whether or not they have a criminal record. A ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News investigation found the resettlement office, , coordinates with the Department of Homeland Security to arrest people seeking custody of migrant children.
Arrest documents show Homeland Security Investigations, the arm of the agency that normally focuses on organized criminals and traffickers, will interview parents or other caregivers then arrest them if they are in the country illegally. Before Donald Trump returned to the White House, the resettlement office prohibited data sharing and collaboration with immigration enforcement, and it did not deny caregivers custody of children solely because of their immigration status. Those last year.
It’s unclear exactly how many caregivers have been baited into arrest. LAist indicating more than 100 have been arrested while trying to get their kids out of detention, but ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News could not independently verify that number with federal agencies.
Since February, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, and Justice Department have not responded to questions about caregiver arrests. Prior to leaving DHS last month, Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the administration protects children from being released to people who shouldn’t care for them. Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, referred questions related to immigration enforcement to DHS.
At the same time, the resettlement office has that make it harder for caregivers to gain custody of unaccompanied children. These include narrowing the range of accepted documents, requiring fingerprint-based background checks for every adult in the home and backup caregivers, and requiring in-person appointments to verify identification documents, sometimes with ICE agents present. The requirements keep “children safe from traffickers and other bad, dangerous people,” Nixon said.
As of January, the agency had detained at least 300 children already placed with vetted sponsors and asked their caregivers to reapply, according to the National Center for Youth Law and the Democracy Forward Foundation. The advocacy groups filed calling these actions “a quieter, new form of family separation.”
Reverse Separation
Dulce, a Guatemalan mother in Virginia, said her 8-year-old son was sent to a government shelter after he was detained during a traffic stop last summer while visiting family members in a different state.
At first, Dulce expected to get her son back within days — she had passed the government’s sponsorship requirements in 2024 and was reunited with him three weeks after he first crossed the border. But resettlement agency officials asked her to repeat the entire process and resubmit documents, Dulce said. It took eight months to get him back.
Dulce is a pseudonym being used at her request because she fears speaking out could get her deported.
At one point, Dulce was told to attend an interview at an ICE office to show her identification as part of the process of reuniting with her son. She refused out of fear that she too might be detained, because she doesn’t have legal status. She believes ICE agents visited her home at one point.
“I stopped going home,” Dulce said. “I lived with some of my friends for days.”
Even though she lived just 45 minutes away, Dulce was allowed to visit her son only twice a month.
Until recently, most unaccompanied children landed in government custody after being detained at the border. But border crossings started to fall in 2024, and the number of people coming to the U.S. has dropped precipitously in President Trump’s second term.
Now, hundreds of kids have been taken to government shelters after being swept up inside the country, often during immigration raids or traffic stops, according to the advocates’ lawsuit. Many were already living with relatives, including guardians already vetted by the resettlement agency.
Releases have grinded nearly to a halt. According to the resettlement office, children in its custody stayed in government shelters or foster care for an average of one month in 2024. As of February, that had jumped to more than half a year.
When children do get released, it’s often only after their attorneys file a lawsuit in federal court challenging their detention as unconstitutional.
Authorities released Dulce’s son to her in February after the boy’s attorneys filed such a petition. Dulce said she’s relieved to have him back but still anxious that ICE could show up at their house.
Immigrants at Risk
During Trump’s first term, his administration was criticized for of children who had been released from custody. President Joe Biden was blamed for how his administration processed a surge of unaccompanied children that peaked in 2021 with about 22,000 in the resettlement office’s custody. Though most children were placed with legitimate sponsors, some were placed with people who hadn’t cleared , putting them at risk of .
The Trump administration says it is checking on those , and the Justice Department has prosecuted . On March 1, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who is set to leave her role at the , touted a , including the resettlement office, that DHS said had tracked down 145,000 unaccompanied children who had been placed with caregivers during Biden’s term.
Yet internal HHS reports about that initiative obtained by ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News show that nearly 11,800 of those migrant children and nearly 500 of their caregivers were arrested as of Jan. 29. Only 125 of those migrant children and 55 of those caregivers were arrested for alleged criminal activity, suggesting the majority were for immigration violations.
HHS referred questions about the figures in the reports to DHS, which did not respond to requests for comment about the data. However, Michelle Brané, who was a DHS official in the Biden administration, said the figures show that most of the arrests were to detain and deport migrants. Previously, the administration targeted parents and caregivers who had paid for children to cross the border, trying to levy smuggling charges against them.
“They have really dropped that pretense in a lot of ways, and they are going for anyone openly,” Brané said. “These numbers clearly reflect that this is not about public safety or about safety of the children.”
Case on Hold
Carlos left Venezuela in 2022 because of death threats and, like thousands of others fleeing that country, was granted what’s called temporary protected status under the Biden administration. That protection for most Venezuelans by the Trump administration.
In January 2025, days before Trump was sworn in for his second term, Carlos’ children crossed the border from Mexico to the U.S., turned themselves over to border authorities, and were immediately placed in the resettlement agency’s custody. Carlos spent months submitting paperwork to reunite with them. He said he’s their only parent, because their mother left when they were toddlers.
Officials visited his home twice and determined he was fit to care for them, according to court documents petitioning for his release from detention. He passed DNA testing, proving he’s the biological father, one of his attorneys said. His arrest documents show he has “no criminal history.” In July, Carlos was told his reunification case was complete and being sent for approval. But then, with little explanation, the case was put on hold.
Before his arrest by ICE, Carlos said, he drove 14 hours each way from his home to visit his children. Once there, he could see them for only one hour. When he was in detention, he said, he spoke to them about every two weeks in quick, monitored phone calls.
He’s trying to stay hopeful, but it’s hard.
According to documents completed by ICE officers during his arrest and submitted in his court case, Carlos was arrested under an initiative called Operation Guardian Trace, which requires immigration officers to detain potential caregivers if they are in the country without legal authorization and recommend that they be deported.
“This operation is designed to force parents to make an impossible choice between reuniting with their children and seeking safety,” said one of Carlos’ attorneys, Chiqui Sanchez Kennedy of the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, a nonprofit that helps low-income immigrants.
‘I’m Going to Wait’
In March, a federal judge said officials had unlawfully detained Carlos and he was released on bond.
But his children still face an uncertain future for now. Government shelters often lack sufficient resources, , and social workers say lengthy stays in these facilities can result in additional trauma.
“Not only is it bad, full stop, but the longer you’re there, the worse it gets,” said Jonathan Beier, associate director of research and evaluation for the Acacia Center for Justice’s Unaccompanied Children Program, which coordinates legal services for unaccompanied minors.
Carlos’ children could also be sent back to the country they fled. Because of his detention, Carlos will have to redo much of the process to reunite with them, according to an attorney for the children, Alexa Sendukas, also with the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project.
In statements shared through Sendukas, Carlos’ daughter said she no longer wants to be around others and spends most of the time in her room. His son, now 15, described having panic attacks and feeling that he’s missing out on life, whether it’s the opportunities he longs for — to learn English, to study science — or watching basketball with his family.
“I remember when I first arrived at this shelter, I was so hopeful and had faith that I would be reunited with my dad soon,” he said.
Carlos’ daughter spent the day crying in bed when the siblings learned their father had been detained. For days, they didn’t know where he was. Now, they fear the only way out is through adoption or foster care.
“I am afraid,” she said. “I’m going to wait for my dad forever.”
ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .This <a target="_blank" href="/courts/trump-deportation-immigration-unaccompanied-children-bait-parent-arrests-hhs/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2171527&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s effort to change how the federal government recommends vaccines against childhood diseases was dealt at least a temporary setback in federal court this week. A judge in Massachusetts sided with a coalition of public health groups arguing that changes to the vaccine schedule violated federal law. The Trump administration said it would appeal the judge’s ruling.
Meanwhile, some of the same public health groups continue to worry about the slow pace of grantmaking at the National Institutes of Health, which, for the second straight year, is having trouble getting money appropriated by Congress out the door to researchers.
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.
Panelists
Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:
- The latest decision on potential changes to the federal childhood vaccine schedule, even if ultimately reversed by a higher court, may re-elevate the vaccine issue as midterm campaigns kick into gear — and just as the Trump administration is trying to downplay it.
- A new survey of Affordable Care Act marketplace enrollees from KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, illuminates how many people are struggling to afford health insurance after the expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits. A large majority of respondents say their costs are higher this year, with half saying their costs are “a lot higher.”
- A dip in the number of health care jobs last month could suggest medical facilities and other providers are bracing for the impact of federal funding cuts. A reduction in the number of people with health insurance — an expected outcome of the expiration of enhanced ACA tax credits and, soon, stricter eligibility limits for Medicaid — would probably mean more unpaid bills that hospitals and others must absorb.
- And clinics that rely on Title X funding to provide care are in a bind, with funding set to expire at the end of the month and the federal government only just recently releasing guidance about applying. Many clinics are bracing for a gap in funding.
Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF President and CEO Drew Altman to kick off a new series on health care solutions, called “How Would You Fix It?”
Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:
Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “,” by Rebecca Robbins.
Lauren Weber: The Atlantic’s “,” by McKay Coppins.
Margot Sanger-Katz: Stat’s “,” by Tara Bannow.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “,” by Stephanie Nolen.
Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:
- KFF’s “,” by Lunna Lopes, Isabelle Valdes, Grace Sparks, Mardet Mulugeta, and Ashley Kirzinger.
- The Washington Post’s “,” by Lauren Weber, Caitlin Gilbert, Dylan Moriarty, and Joshua Lott.
- ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ “Trump’s Cuts to Medicaid Threaten Services That Help Disabled People Live at Home,” by Tony Leys.
- Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
- States Newsroom’s “,” by Kelcie Moseley-Morris.
- ProPublica’s “,” by Amy Yurkanin.
Episode Title: RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Schedule Changes Blocked — For Now
Episode Number: 438
Published: March 19, 2026
[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. 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, March 19, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.
Today, we are joined via video conference by Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times. Welcome back, Margot.
Margot Sanger-Katz: Thanks. It’s good to see you guys.
Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.
Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.
Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi, there.
Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll kick off our new series, “How Would You Fix It?” The idea is to let experts from across the ideological spectrum offer their ideas for how to make the U.S. health care system function at least better than it does right now. We’ll post the entire discussions on our website and social channels, and we’ll include a shortened version here on What the Health? And to help me set the stage for the series, we’ll have one of the smartest people I know in health care policy — also my boss — KFF President and CEO Drew Altman. But first, this week’s news.
We’re going to start this week with vaccine policy. On Monday, a federal judge in Massachusetts sided with a coalition of public health groups and blocked the new childhood vaccine schedule recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services, at least for now. The judge ruled that HHS violated the law governing federal advisory committees when HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. summarily fired all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and replaced them, largely with people who share his anti-vaccine views. The judge also blocked the January directive from then-acting Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Jim O’Neill, formally changing the vaccine recommendations. The administration is appealing the decision, so it could change back any minute now — you should check. What’s the public health impact of this ruling, though?
Ollstein: I mean, I think we’ve seen that the more back-and-forth we have and the more clashing voices and shifting guidance, you know, trust just continues to drop and drop and drop amongst the public. The average person, I’m sure, doesn’t know what ACIP is, or how it functions, or how these decisions usually get made versus how they’re getting made under this administration. And so all of that just makes people throw up their hands and not know who to trust.
Rovner: Lauren.
Weber: I think, to add to what Alice said, I think when you inject so much confusion, it’s easier to choose not to get vaccinated. Several pediatricians have told me it’s, you know, when they’re like, Oh, I don’t know, the president’s saying one thing, and the pediatrician’s saying something else. And I’m just, I’m just going to walk away from this. Because that’s almost easier than to make an active choice. And so there’s a lot of concern among health professionals that even with all this, who knows what people will decide. And I do think what’s very interesting about this is, obviously, you know, it’s getting appealed and so on. This is just a slew of vaccine headlines that the administration does not want right now. And I am very curious to see how that continues to play out, as there’s been this concentrated effort to not talk about vaccines, after doing a lot on vaccines. And this is going to put vaccines firmly in the headlines for quite a period of time.
Rovner: Yeah, actually, you’ve anticipated my next question, which is one of the immediate things the ruling did is postpone the ACIP meeting that was scheduled for this week and, with it, consideration of whether to recommend further changes to the covid vaccine policy. Margot, your colleagues got ahold of a pretty provocative working paper that suggested the creation of a whole new category of reported covid vaccine injuries, basically putting more focus on a subject the Trump administration is trying to get HHS to downplay. Yes?
Sanger-Katz: Yeah. I mean, I just think that this issue is becoming increasingly politicized. As Lauren and Alice said, I think that does affect the confusion around it, does affect people’s willingness to take up vaccine. But I do wonder also if we’re just going to see over time that there is not a kind of scientific expertise-based way that we make these decisions as a country. But instead … it’s going to become much more polarized along the lines that many other health policy areas are. I think this has historically been a rare area of relatively broad consensus across the parties. Not that there haven’t been disagreements among scientists or among different groups of Americans. There’s always been resistance to vaccines or concerns about vaccine safety in this country. But I think there was a sense that it’s not — that one party is for and one party is against, and I think all of this debate and the ping-ponging and the desire to highlight vaccine injury in ways that haven’t been done before, I think, risks this becoming a much bigger kind of partisan political issue going into the next election.
Rovner: And yet, the backdrop of this is this continuing seemingly spread of outbreaks of measles. I mean, we’ve seen big outbreaks in Texas and, particularly, South Carolina. But now we’re seeing … smaller outbreaks in lots and lots of places. I’m wondering if there’s going to come a point where complications from vaccine-preventable diseases are going to maybe push people back into the oh, maybe we actually should get our kids vaccinated camp.
Ollstein: I think we’ve seen that start to bubble up. I think there’s been reporting about a surge in parents wanting to get their kids vaccinated, like in Texas, for instance, in places where outbreaks have gotten really big already. And I think news coverage of those outbreaks, you know, helps raise that awareness. It’s not just word of mouth. So I don’t know whether that will vary from place to place that trend, but it’s definitely something you see.
Rovner: Apparently, public health requires us to relearn things. Before we leave this … yes, Lauren, you want to add something?
Weber: My colleagues and I had at the end of last year that found that, you know, in order to be protected against measles, your county or area or school needs to be above 95% vaccinated. And we found in December that the numbers on that are pretty bad around the country. According to our analysis of state school-level and county-level records, we found that before the pandemic only about 50% of counties in the U.S. could meet that herd immunity status from among kindergartners. After the pandemic, that number dropped to about a quarter, to 28%. That’s not great. That does mean, obviously, there are still places that could be vaccinated at 94% or so on. But there’s a lot more that are also vaccinated at 70% and really risk high outbreak spread. And so I think amid this confusion, and it’s important to note that vaccine rates have been dropping for some time as the anti-vaccine movement has gained power. And it remains to be seen how much this confusion continues to contribute to that.
Rovner: Speaking of long-running stories, let’s revisit the grant funding slowdown at the National Institutes of Health. Again this year, grants, particularly grants for early career scientists, are slow leaving the agency, which is one of the few HHS subsidiaries that actually got a boost in appropriations from Congress for this fiscal year. According to researchers at Johns Hopkins, the NIH has awarded 74% fewer new awards than the average for the same time period, from 2021 to 2024. Last year, only a gigantic speed-up at the very end of the fiscal year prevented the NIH from not disbursing all the funding ordered by Congress. Coincidentally, or maybe not so coincidentally, the Office of Management and Budget removed one hurdle just this week, approving NIH’s funding apportionment the night before NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya appeared before a House Appropriations Subcommittee. But, much as with vaccines, public health groups are worried about the impact of this sort of closing funding funnel on biomedical research, which, as we have pointed out, is not just important to medical advancement, but to a large chunk of the entire U.S. economy. Biomedical research is a very, very large export of the United States.
Sanger-Katz: Yeah, the NIH has just been giving out this money in a very weird way. It’s not just that they gave it all out at the end of the fiscal year before it was too late, but they didn’t distribute it in the way that they normally distribute the funding. So, normally, the way that these things work is people submit applications for multiyear grants, or for these shorter grants for early researchers, they get a multiyear grant, and they get one year of money at a time. And so over the course of, say, the four or five years of their grant, they get money out of the NIH’s appropriation in each of those years. And then … it’s kind of rolling so new grants come in. What the Trump administration did last year is they got all the money out the door, but they actually funded much fewer research projects than in a typical year, because instead of funding the first year of lots of new grants, what they did is they paid for all the years of a much smaller number of grants. They sort of prepaid for the whole thing. And so my colleague Aatish Bhatia did a wonderful story on this around the end of the fiscal year, sort of pointing this out. And I think this is the kind of pattern that will result in NIH actually funding a lot less research. I mean, over time, presumably, they’re going to, I guess they could, catch up. But I think in the short term, what it’s allowing them to do is to fund many fewer scientists and many, many fewer research projects. And I think that that does have an effect on the kind of reach and diversity of the projects that are getting funded by NIH and that are the kind of scientific research that’s being conducted. And it’s also, of course, extremely destabilizing to universities and other institutions that depend on this money to pay for the bills of not just the salaries of their researchers, but also for their facilities and their students. And there’s just much less money going to much fewer people, because even those prepaid grants, they can’t all be spent in the first year. So it’s kind of like, almost like, the money is no longer with the NIH, but it’s kind of like sitting in a bank account somewhere. It’s not actually out there in the economy, in the university, in the researcher’s pocket funding research in each of those years.
Rovner: And as we pointed out, it’s also sort of impacting the pipeline of future researchers, because why do you want to go into a line of work where there might not be jobs?
Sanger-Katz: And not just that. A lot of these universities are really tightening their belts, and they’re bringing in fewer PhD students because they’re concerned that they won’t be able to support them. So there’s less potentially interest in pursuing science, because it doesn’t seem like as valuable career. But there’s also just fewer slots for even those scientists who want to move forward in their careers. They can’t get jobs, they can’t get spots as PhD students, they can’t get slots as post-docs because all these universities are really tightening their belts.
Rovner: Yeah, this is one of those stories that I feel like would be a much bigger story if there weren’t so many other big stories going on at the same time. Congress is kind of busy these days not figuring out how to end the funding freeze for the Department of Homeland Security and not having much say over the ongoing war with Iran. Something else that Congress is not doing right now is continuing the debate over the Affordable Care Act. At least right not at the moment. But that doesn’t mean it’s not still a big political issue looming for the midterms. Just today, my colleagues in our KFF polling unit are that finds 80% say their health care costs are up this year, and 51% say their costs are, quote, “a lot higher.” More than half report they have or plan to cut spending on food or other basic expenses to pay for their health care, including more than 60% of those with chronic health conditions. I saw a random tweet this week that kind of summed it up perfectly. Quote, “Health insurance is cool because you get to pay a bunch of money each month for nothing, and then if something happens to you, you pay a bunch more.” So where are we in the ACA debate cycle right now?
Sanger-Katz: I think as far as the ACA debate, as like a policy matter, we’re a little bit nowhere. I think there is no one in Congress currently who is actively discussing some kind of bipartisan compromise that might make major reforms to the law or might bring more of this funding back that expired at the end of the year. But there is some regulatory action by the Trump administration, who, I think, officials there are sensitive to the idea that insurance is so expensive, and they want to think about how to address that. And then we’re starting to see, just today, some green shoots from the Democrats in the Senate that they’re looking to explore kind of big ideas in this space. So I think we shouldn’t think of this as some kind of legislation or policy debate that’s going to happen right now. But I think they’re thinking about what would happen in a future where Democrats controlled the government again, what would they want to do about these issues? And they feel like they want to start getting ready, having these internal debates and having some hearings, maybe, and talking to experts and doing some of the kind of work I was thinking that they did before they debated and passed the ACA, right? They did a process like this. So we don’t know what that’s going to be.
Rovner: Exactly. That’s sort of the origin of our series of “How Would You Fix It?” — that we’re in that stage where people are starting to think about the big picture. And in order to think about the big picture, you have to do an enormous amount of planning and stakeholder discussions and all kinds of stuff before you even get to a point where you can have legislative proposals.
Sanger-Katz: Which is … all of which is fine, except, I think it is important to say, like, this is not close to a concrete policy proposal, that even if the Democrats had the votes that they could, you know, there’s not like they’re gonna come forward with, OK, here’s what we’re gonna do about this. I think this is: Let’s do some studies, let’s talk, let’s debate, let’s think. Let’s get ready for the future.
Rovner: Let’s be ready in case we get the White House back in 2028 is basically where we are right now.
Sanger-Katz: What the Trump administration has proposed for ACA is some pretty radical changes to the kind of nature and structure of health insurance for people who are buying in this market. And I think it’s tied to their concern that premiums are really high and people can’t afford coverage. So they’re trying to think about, like, OK, what are some things that we could do that would make insurance more affordable for people? And one of the things that they propose is making the availability of what are called catastrophic plans. This is something that was created by the ACA — plans that have really high deductibles, but, you know, still have comprehensive coverage after the deductible. Could they make those available to more people, and could they kind of jack up the deductible even more? So those would be plans, still pretty expensive, and you would end up with, you know, having to pay tens of thousands of dollars before your insurance kicked in, but you would have insurance if something really bad happened to you. That’s one of their ideas. They also have some other ideas that are actually, like, really new, including having a kind of insurance where you don’t actually have a guaranteed network of doctors and hospitals, but there is a sort of a payment rate that your insurance will pay for certain services. And then you, as the patient, have to go around and say, Will you take this amount for my knee replacement or for my pneumonia hospitalization? or whatever. And then you might be on the hook for the difference if no one wants to accept that price. So it —
Rovner: I call this “the really fancy discount card.”
Sanger-Katz: The really fancy discount card. That’s good. And, you know, the idea is not that different than what some employer plans do, but generally, these kinds of bundled, capped payments are in relatively discreet services, and they’re being overseen by HR professionals. And I do think the idea that individual people are going to be able to navigate a system like this is it seems a little extreme. So I think that’s sort of where we are on ACA, is that enrollment is down. People are really struggling with the affordability of it, and it just doesn’t look like anyone is going to come forward, at least in this year, and do anything that’s going to substantially change that. Even these Trump proposals, whether you think they’re a good idea or a bad idea, are proposals for next year.
Rovner: The general consensus is, by next month, we’re going to have a better handle on how many people dropped coverage because their costs went up too much, and I’m wondering if that may restart some of the debate.
Weber: Again, to talk about midterms conversations, I mean the folks that are often hit hardest by this, as I understand, are middle-income earners, early retirees, or folks that live in expensive states. And that’s a voting bloc. I mean, early retirees … who else is voting? I mean that’s who’s voting. So I’m very curious how this will continue to animate a conversation around the election, as there’s so much conversation around how folks are forgoing medical care or forgoing other expenses in order to make up the difference of what we’re seeing.
Rovner: Well, meanwhile, in news that I think counts as both bad and good: Health care jobs took a dip in February, according to the Labor Department, the first such decline in four years. On the one hand, every new health care job means more health care spending, which contributes to health care unaffordability, at least in the aggregate. But I wonder if this dip is an anomaly or it represents the health care sector bracing both for people dropping their insurance that they can no longer afford or bracing for the Medicaid cuts that we know are coming. Alice, you wanted to add something?
Ollstein: Yeah. I mean, I think that these things have a cascading effect, and it can take years to really see, like, the full damage of something. And so we’re just starting to see the very beginning of a trend of people dropping their insurance because they can’t afford it. But then it’ll take a while to see when people have emergencies or get sick and need care. And then is that uncompensated care? And are hospitals that are already on the brink of closure having to cover that uncompensated care? And does that lead to more closures, and that leads to health deserts? And so, you know, there could be this domino effect, and we’re just at the very beginning of it, and we can sort of infer what could happen based on what’s happened in the past. But that’s a challenge for the political cycle, because it’s hard to talk about things that haven’t happened yet, both good and bad. I mean, you see that also with promising to lower drug prices; if voters don’t actually see lower prices by the time they go to cast their votes, it feels like an empty promise, even if you know it pays off down the line.
Rovner: Well, speaking of things that weren’t supposed to happen yet, a shoutout to my KFF Health News colleague Tony Leys for a wrenching story he did last week about a family in Iowa facing a cut in home care through Medicaid for their adult son with severe autism and deafness. It appears that Iowa is not the only state cutting back on expensive but optional Medicaid services like home and community-based care in anticipation of the Medicaid cuts to come. But this was not what Republicans were hoping were going to happen before the midterms, right?
Sanger-Katz: Yeah, I think there was this idea that a lot of Republicans were saying that, because most of the Medicaid cuts are not scheduled to take place until after the midterms, I think there was an expectation that there would be no reason for states to start making changes to their program in the short term. And that just really hasn’t happened. States kind of went into this budget cycle already a little bit in the hole, and then they looked ahead and saw that, you know, their finances and their Medicaid program are not going to get any better next year. And so we’re seeing, like, a pretty large number of states that have been making substantial cutbacks, either to, as you say, some of these benefits that are optional to the payments that they make to doctors, hospitals, and other kinds of health care providers. It’s pretty ugly out there.
Rovner: It is. All right. Well, finally, this week, still more news on the reproductive health front. Alice, you’ve been following some last-minute scrambling on yet another federal program that’s technically funded but the federal government’s not actually passing the money to those who are supposed to receive it. That’s the nation’s Title X family planning program. What is happening there?
Ollstein: Well, nothing happened for a while. The things that were supposed to happen didn’t happen, and now they may be happening, but it may be too late to avoid some problems happening. So to break that all down: The way it normally works is that all of these clinics around the country that provide subsidized or entirely free birth control and other reproductive health services, you know, things like STI [sexually transmitted infections] testing and treatment, cancer screenings, etc., to millions of low-income people, men and women, they were supposed to get guidance last fall or winter in order to know how to apply for the next year of funding. So that funding runs out at the end of this month, March, and they only just got the guidance a few days ago. And I will say there was no guidance for months and months and months. I ; a couple days later, the guidance came out. Not saying that was the reason, but that was the timing.
Rovner: But a lot of people are thanking you.
Ollstein: The issue is, all of the clinics now have only one week to apply for the next round of funding. Normally, they have months. And then HHS only has like a week or so to process all of those applications and get the money out the door. And they usually take months to do that. And so people are anticipating a gap between when the money runs out and when the new money comes in, unless there’s some sort of last-minute emergency extension, which there’s been no mention of that yet. And so they’re bracing for this funding shortfall, and, you know, are worried that they won’t be able to offer a sliding scale, or they’ll have to curtail certain services they offer, or have fewer hours that the clinics are open. And we’ve already seen, based on what happened last year where some Title X clinics had their funding formally withheld for months and months and months, and even though they got it back later, that came too late for a lot of places; they closed. You know, these clinics are sometimes hanging on by a thread, and even a short funding gap can really do them in. And so at a time when demand for birth control is up and the stakes are high, this is really worrying a lot of people.
Rovner: Well, speaking of federal funding on reproductive-related health care, found that most of the money that Missouri is giving to crisis pregnancy centers — those are the anti-abortion alternatives to Planned Parenthoods and other clinic … that the crisis pregnancy centers provide neither abortions nor, in most cases, contraceptives — has been coming from TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] — that’s the federal welfare program that’s supposed to pay for things like housing and job training. It turns out that at least eight states are using TANF money for these crisis pregnancy centers, and this is just the tip of the iceberg in public money going to these often overtly religious organizations, right?
Ollstein: Yeah, I think we’ve seen that more and more over the last few years. These centers were, by conservative activists and politicians, have held them up as an alternative to reproductive health clinics that are closing around the country, and these centers can really vary. Some of them employ trained health care providers. Some of them don’t. Some of them offer real health services. Some of them don’t. And there’s very little oversight and regulation. There’s been some really strong reporting by ProPublica about this money going to them in Texas and other states with very little accountability and being spent on, you know, things that arguably don’t help the people that they should be helping. And so I think that we haven’t yet seen that on the federal level, but we’re absolutely seeing it on the state level. And I think this is just contributing to the national patchwork of, you know, where you live determines what kind of services you can access, because we do not see blue states funneling money to these centers. And so you’re going to see a real split there.
Rovner: And I will point out, before people complain, that some of these centers do provide social services, and, you know, even things like diapers and car seats, but many of them don’t. So it’s a very mixed bag, from what we’ve been able to see.
Well, lastly, ProPublica, speaking of ProPublica, has about women in labor in Florida who are required to undergo court-ordered C-sections, even if they don’t want them, in order to protect the fetus. It turns out a lot of states have these laws that let the state intervene to protect fetal life, even if it means further threatening the life of the pregnant patient. Is this “fetal personhood” quietly taking hold without our even really noticing it? It seems these laws, some of them, have been challenged, and the courts have sort of gone different ways on it, but mostly just left it to the states.
Ollstein: So I thought the article did a good job of pointing out that this isn’t a phenomenon caused by the overturning of Roe v. Wade. This was an issue before that. So I think that’s really important for people to remember. Obviously, these personhood laws that have been on the books or are newly on the books have taken on a heightened significance after Dobbs. But this is not a brand-new phenomenon, and this tension between whose life and health should be prioritized in these situations is not new. But it’s important that it’s getting this new scrutiny, and the details in the article were just horrifying. I mean, having to participate in a court hearing when you’re in active labor on your back in the bed is just a nightmare.
Rovner: And without legal representation. I mean, there’s a court hearing with the judge, and, you know, a woman who’s 12 hours into her labor, so it would, yeah, it is quite a story. I will definitely post the link to it. Anybody else? Lauren, you looked like you wanted to say something.
Weber: Yeah. I mean, I just wanted to add — I think you all covered it. But, I mean, the story is absolutely worth reading for its dystopian details. I just don’t think anyone realizes that in America, you could be in your hospital bed — in active labor with all that entails — and then a Zoom screen with a judge and a bunch of other people appears. I mean, I had no idea that could even happen. So kudos to ProPublica for continuing to really charge forward on this coverage.
Rovner: Yeah, all right. That is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with KFF President and CEO Drew Altman, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits.
I am so pleased to welcome back to the podcast Drew Altman, president and CEO of KFF. And yes, Drew is my boss, but since long before I worked here, Drew has been one of the people I turn to regularly to help explain the U.S. health system and its politics. So I can’t think of anyone better to help launch our new interview series called “How Would You Fix It?”
Here is the premise. I think it’s pretty clear that the U.S. is heading for another major debate about health care. It’s been 16 years since the Affordable Care Act passed and, once again, we’re looking at increasing numbers of Americans without health insurance, increasing numbers of Americans with insurance who are still having trouble paying their bills and just navigating the system, and just about everyone, from patients to doctors to hospitals to employers, pretty frustrated with the status quo. The idea behind the series is to start to air — or, in some cases, re-air — both old and new ideas about how to reshape the health care “system” — I put that in air quotes — that we have now into something that works, or at least works better than what we currently have. In the months to come, we plan to interview experts and decision-makers from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives and ask each of them: How would you fix it? You’ll hear a condensed version of each interview here on the podcast, and you can find the full versions on the ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News website and our YouTube page.
So Drew, thank you for helping us kick off the series. What do you see as the big signs that it’s time for another major debate about health care?
Drew Altman: Well, first of all, Julie, I’m thrilled to be here, and we’re very proud of What the Health? And I’m always happy to join you on this program. There’s no question that health care is going to be a big issue in the midterms. We’re seeing something now that we haven’t seen maybe ever before, but we’ve, certainly, seldom seen it before. And that is when we ask people what their top economic concerns are, their health care costs are actually at the very top of the list. It’s a real problem for people, and so it will be front and center in the midterms.
Rovner: And this is bigger even than it was, as I recall, before the Affordable Care Act debate, before the Clinton debate even?
Altman: No, health care has always been a hot issue. Sometimes it’s been a voting issue. So now it’s a hot issue and a voting issue. And we just don’t see that a lot.
Rovner: I feel like every time the U.S. goes through one of these major political throwdowns over health care, it’s because the major stakeholders are so frustrated they’re ready to sue for peace — the hospitals, the insurance companies, the doctors. In other words, as painful as change is, it’s better than the current pain that everyone is experiencing. Are we there yet, in this current cycle?
Altman: No, I don’t think so. I mean, I’ve seen this many times before. The country has never had either the courage or the political system capable of mounting a significant effort on health care costs. We neither have a competitive health care system — the industry is too consolidated — or the political chemistry to regulate health care costs or health care prices— the two big answers. So we fumble around the edges. We are about to enter a stage of more significant fumbling around the edges, what we political scientists would call incremental reforms. But it’s unlikely to be more than that. We have made, as a country, very significant progress on coverage. Now 92% of the American people [are] covered; that [is] now endangered by big cutbacks, unprecedented cutbacks. But we made very little progress on health care costs. And there are two big problems. The big one that is really driving the debate are the concerns that the American people have about their own health care costs, which impinges on their family budgets and their ability to pay for everything they need to pay for their lives. And that is what has made this a voting issue, and that’s what’s really driving this debate. And the other one is the one that we experts talk about, and that’s just overall national health care spending as a share of gross national product, and how that affects everything else we can do in the country, almost one-fifth of the economy. But we’re pretty much nowhere on that one and going backwards on the other one. So, without being the captain of doom and gloom here, I think what we’re looking at is an interest in incremental changes at the margin that will be blown all out of proportion as bigger changes than they really are.
Rovner: You had a column earlier this year about how the fight to reduce health care spending is more about everyone trying to pass costs to someone else than about lowering costs in general. In other words, I spend less, so you spend more. Can you explain that a little bit?
Altman: Well, I think in the absence of some kind of a global solution, every other nation, wealthy nation, has a way to control overall health care spending. How they do it differs from country to country. But they have a way to control the spigot. We don’t. And so instead, we micromanage everything to death, and make ourselves pretty miserable in the health care system in the process. Nobody likes the prior authorization review or narrow networks or all the other things that we do. But what it has resulted in is what I called, in that column, a “Darwinian approach” to health care costs. Kind of every payer on their own. And so the federal government tries to reduce their own health care costs, as they just did galactically, in the so-called Big Beautiful Bill, reducing federal health spending by about a trillion dollars. What happens? That burden then falls to the states, which have to try and deal with that. Or employers have only so much they can do to try and control their own health care costs, so a lot of that burden gets shifted onto working people. And on and on and on. That’s not a strategy on health care costs. And if you think about it, we don’t actually have a national strategy on health care costs. The Congress has never mandated that someone come up with a strategy on that. There are parts of agencies that have pieces of it. There are places in the government that track spending, but we don’t actually have anyone responsible for an overall strategy on health care costs. And it shows.
Rovner: So, if anything, the politics of health care have become more partisan over the years. We are both old enough to remember when Democrats and Republicans actually agreed on more things than they disagreed on when it came to health care. Is there any hope of coming together, or is this going to be one more red-versus-blue debate?
Altman: It’s red versus blue right now. There is hope for coming together. What is important, and what the media struggles with a lot, is what I call proportionality, or recognizing proportionality. They can come together on small things. They might come together on site-neutral payment, not paying more for the same thing, you know, in a hospital-affiliated place than a free-standing place. They might come together on juicing up transparency. These are not solutions to the health cost problem, but they’re helpful. And, you know, so there are a broad range of areas. AI [artificial intelligence] is another area which, of course, is going to demand tremendous attention, where there’s potential for tremendous good and also tremendous harm. And that discussion is important, and that’s a part of it that KFF will focus on.
Rovner: Are there some lessons from past major health debates that — some of which have been successful, some of which haven’t — that policymakers would be smart to heed from this go-round?
Altman: Well, you know, the biggest lesson, maybe in the history of all these debates, is people don’t like to change what they have very much. And it’s hard to sell them on that. A second lesson is: Ideas seem very popular. And you’ll see a lot of polls: Would you like this? And 90% of people like everything. That doesn’t mean that they will still like it when you get to an all-out debate about legislation, with ads and arguments about the pros and cons, because the other horrible lesson of health policy is absolutely everything has trade-offs. And so when you get to actually discussing the trade-offs, support falls. It becomes a much, much tougher debate. And the fate of legislation turns on a set of other issues, like, who wins, who loses? How much does it cost? Which states are affected? Not just on public opinion. So those are a couple of lessons. There is also a silent crisis, I think, in health care costs that doesn’t get enough recognition. And that is the crisis facing people with chronic illness and serious medical problems. They are the people who use the health care system the most, who face the biggest problems with health care costs. So we may see that 25%, sometimes it gets up to 30%, of the American people tell us they’re really struggling with their health care costs. They have to put off care. They may be splitting pills, whatever it may be. But those numbers for people who have cancer, diabetes, heart disease, a long-term chronic illness can go up to 40% or 50%, and it truly affects their lives. I don’t think that problem gets enough attention. So you could say, OK, Drew, well, that’s just obvious. They use the most health care. You could also say, yes, but that’s the reverse of how any functioning health care system should work; it should first of all take care of people who are sick, and we are not doing that in our health insurance system.
Rovner: Well, that seems like as good a place to leave our starting point as anything. Drew Altman, thank you so much.
Altman: Great, Julie. Thank you, appreciate it.
Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Margot, why don’t you go first this week?
Sanger-Katz: Sure. So I’m so excited to encourage everyone to read this wonderful story from Tara Bannow at Stat called “.” And I say that it’s a wonderful story, but it’s not necessarily good news. This is a story about a Texas couple of entrepreneurs who have figured out how to exploit the system that was set up by the No Surprises Act in order to get extremely rich. As you guys may remember, this was the bill that ended most surprise medical billing, so you would never go to an emergency room and suddenly end up with a doctor that was out-of-network that was sending you an extra bill. And the law, since it was passed a few years ago, has been extremely effective in preventing those bills from getting sent to individuals. But it created this very complicated and Byzantine arbitration system on the back end so that the insurers and the health care providers could figure out what everyone should get paid. And this company has very effectively exploited that system. And the story just does a really interesting job of laying out what their strategies have been, of just kind of flooding the system with tons and tons of claims, some of which are bogus, recognizing that the system didn’t have a good mechanism for differentiating between valid and invalid claims, and recognizing that some of them would just be paid even though they were invalid, recognizing that the insurance companies might not be fast enough to reply if they came in these huge batches. So they were sending hundreds of thousands at the same time, so that someone would have to respond to all of them by a deadline or lose by default. And this couple that they wrote about, Alla and Scott LaRoque, were personally very colorful. She was a former contestant on The Apprentice, and they had a sort of crazy wedding where they gave everyone luxury gifts. And, anyway, I thought that the story was extremely good, both because the details about these people were very interesting, but also because I think it shows how the No Surprises Act, which I covered at the time of its passage, you know —
Rovner: We talked about it at great length on the podcast.
Sanger-Katz: I think in a lot of ways, it was like a, it was a kind of health policy triumph. It was a bipartisan bill. There was a lot of cooperation. There was a lot of this kind of discussion and planning we were talking about earlier in the podcast, about how to do this right. It was a real problem in the health care system that Congress came together to try to solve, and yet, and yet, the work is never done. And there are always unanticipated problems.
Rovner: It also illustrates the continuing point of because there’s so much money in health care, grifters are going to find it, even if it seems unlikely. Lauren.
Weber: I had a little bit of a different plot twist this time. It’s called “,” by McKay Coppins at The Atlantic. And it is just a gut-wrenching tale of how Coppins, who it talks about how he’s Mormon, and so gambling isn’t really a part of his religion. That special dispensation from religious authorities to gamble. For The Atlantic to learn, you know, how one can kind of fall into a gambling rabbit hole or not. And despite thinking that maybe he would be above the fray, that this wasn’t something that would really catch him. He finds himself utterly sucked in and exhibiting incredibly addictive tendencies, and basically talking about how — essentially, the moral of the story is, I cannot believe the guardrails are off of American gambling, and a lot of people will suffer. If he’s not able to really survive being given $10,000 by The Atlantic to gamble away. It’s a great piece. I highly recommend it. And I also recommend as a follow-up, one of my friends from college just wrote a book called . That kind of gets into the history of why this has happened and why it matters now. And I think this is going to end up being a health policy issue that we end up talking about a lot, because this is an addiction problem that now is accessible from your pocket, and that you can constantly be on. And you know, we’re all women on this podcast right now. And the article actually gets into how gambling is not as, psychologically, as enticing to women, at least for sports gambling. But it’s very enticing to men, it appears, from the science that he points out. And so I think there’s a lot that’s going to come out on this in the next couple of years. And it’s a great piece to read.
Rovner: Oh, this is a huge public health problem, particularly for young men. I mean … it’s the vaping of this decade, I call it. Alice.
Ollstein: So I have , and it is about how the Trump administration is trying to use HIV funding for Zambia as a lever to coerce them to grant minerals access. So a completely unrelated economic and infrastructure priority, and they’re using this health funding as a bargaining chip. And so this caught my attention. It came up in a recent hearing with the head of the NIH on Capitol Hill, and lawmakers were pressing him, saying, you know, if the United States is doing things like this and threatening to cut HIV funding abroad, how are we supposed to meet our goal of eliminating HIV in the U.S. by 2030? Because, as we learned during covid, we live in a global society, and things that impact other countries impact us as well. And [Jay] Bhattacharya answered, you know, oh, I think we can still eliminate HIV in the U.S., not necessarily in the whole world. So really, really urge people to check out this piece.
Rovner: Yeah, it was a really good story. My extra credit is also from The New York Times. It’s by Rebecca Robbins, and it’s called “.” And, spoiler, the TrumpRx website does not offer the best prices for medications in the world. The Times, along with three German news organizations, sent secret shoppers to pharmacies in eight cities around the world, and also compared TrumpRx’s prices to Germany’s publicly published prices. It seems that while TrumpRx, at least for the few dozen drugs that it sells right now, has narrowed the gap between what the U.S. and European patients pay. “But,” quote from the story, “the gap persists.” I will note that the administration disputes the Times’ reporting and says that when you factor in economic conditions in every country that TrumpRx prices can count as cheaper. You can read the story and judge for yourself.
OK, that is this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying, and this week for special help to Taylor Cook. 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 on X , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging these days? Alice.
Ollstein: I am mostly on Bluesky and still on X .
Rovner: Lauren?
Weber: On and as LaurenWeberHP; the HP is for health policy.
Rovner: Margot.
Sanger-Katz: At all the places and at Signal .
Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.
Credits
Click here to find all our podcasts.
And subscribe to “What the Health? From ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.
ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-438-rfk-vaccine-schedule-changes-blocked-obamacare-midterms-march-19-2026/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2171044&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>The legislation would prohibit state and local governments from requiring crisis pregnancy centers to perform abortions, provide referrals for abortion services, or inform patients about such services or contraception options. It also would allow crisis pregnancy centers to sue the violating government entity.
Wyoming lawmakers of the Center Autonomy and Rights of Expression Act, or , on March 4. Other versions have advanced in and this year. One was in 2025. The CARE Act is “model legislation” created by the , an anti-abortion, conservative Christian legal advocacy group.
A similar proposal, the , was introduced in Congress last year but hasn’t moved out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
The Wyoming bill says that pregnancy centers, many of which are affiliated with religious organizations, need legal protection after facing “unprecedented attacks” following the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade. It says that several state legislatures have introduced bills that . Opponents of these centers say they falsely present themselves to consumers as medical clinics, though they are not subject to state and federal laws that protect patients in medical facilities.
“Across the country, government officials are increasingly, increasingly targeting pregnancy care centers,” Valerie Berry, executive director of the in Cheyenne, said at a February legislative hearing on the Wyoming bill. “This legislation is not about creating division. It’s about protecting constitutional freedoms, freedom of speech, and freedom of conscience.”
Wyoming state , a Republican, expressed concern at the hearing about granting protections to pregnancy centers that other private businesses do not have.
“They have protections in place,” he said. “My issue with this is giving extra special protections.”
In 2022, Wellspring Health Access, the only clinic in Wyoming that provides abortions, in an arson attack.
“We are the ones providing the accurate information on reproductive health care, and we suffer the consequences for that,” Julie Burkhart, the president and founder of Wellspring Health Access, told ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News.
, a professor at the University of California-Davis School of Law, said the proposed legislation would insulate crisis pregnancy centers from having to meet the standards that medical organizations face. It would blur the line between advocacy and medical practice, she said. And such legislation provides Republicans with a potentially useful campaign message ahead of midterm elections.
“The GOP needs a messaging strategy as for how it cares about women even if it bans abortion and even if it doesn’t want to commit state resources to helping people before and after pregnancy,” Ziegler said. “The strategy is to outsource that to pregnancy counseling centers, which of course increases the incentive to protect them.”
Model Legislation
The Alliance Defending Freedom is the same group that , the 1973 court ruling that protected the right to abortion nationwide. The group drafted model legislation to establish a 15-week abortion ban that was the basis of a 2018 Mississippi law. That led to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case that overturned Roe.
The alliance said its attorneys were unavailable to comment on the organization’s strategy for the CARE Act. In for the bill, the group said federal, state, and local efforts are targeting pregnancy care centers in a “clear attempt to undermine and impede” their work and shut them down.
In recent years, have been targeted with vandalism and threats.
But the attacks the model legislation primarily aims to address are the legal and regulatory efforts by some states seeking more oversight of the crisis pregnancy centers, including a California law requiring centers to clearly inform patients about their services. That law was overturned when the Supreme Court ruled in favor of crisis pregnancy centers’ argument that it violated their First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court is that will decide whether states can subpoena the organizations for donor and internal information.
It’s unlikely that crisis pregnancy centers would face such regulatory measures in the conservative states where the legislation is under consideration. One Wyoming lawmaker acknowledged that in the February committee hearing.
Differing Services
During that hearing, state , a Republican who heads the committee sponsoring the bill, presented the measure as “so important, especially with our maternity desert,” referring to a lack of access to maternity health care services.
Some crisis pregnancy centers may have a few licensed clinicians, but many do not. Many offer free resources, such as diapers, baby clothing, and other items, sometimes in exchange for participation in counseling or parenting classes.
Planned Parenthood clinics, by contrast, provide a range of health services, such as testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, primary care, and screenings for cervical cancer. They also are regulated as medically licensed organizations.
Since Roe was overturned, the abortion rights movement has faced significant challenges. Congressional Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Donald Trump signed into law last summer, to abortion providers. The move contributed to Planned Parenthood closing last year.
As of 2024, operated nationwide, according to a map created by researchers at the University of Georgia, compared with providing abortions at the end of 2025.
a research organization affiliated with the anti-abortion nonprofit SBA Pro-Life America, has suggested that pregnancy centers could help fill the gap left by the Planned Parenthood closures.
Ziegler said that would leave patients vulnerable to medical risks.
Centers’ Growing Power
Previous efforts in , Colorado, and Vermont to regulate crisis pregnancy centers arose from concerns over allegations of and questions about .
In 2024, in five states to investigate whether centers were misleading patients into believing that their personal information was protected under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, known as HIPAA, and to find out how the centers were using patients’ information.
Courts, including the Supreme Court, have regularly that argue the attempts at regulation are violations of their First Amendment rights to free speech and religious expression.
Crisis pregnancy centers also have seen a flood of funding since Roe was overturned.
At least , including crisis pregnancy centers, according to the Lozier Institute.
Six states distribute a portion of their federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funding — cash payments meant for low-income families with children — to crisis pregnancy centers. Texas, Florida, Tennessee, and Oklahoma have provided tens of millions of dollars for the organizations.
One analysis found that crisis pregnancy centers also received from 2017 to 2023, including from the 2020 relief package signed into law during Trump’s first term amid the covid pandemic.
Despite the challenges clinics that provide abortions face, Burkhart, the head of the Wellspring facility in Wyoming, said it’s important to continue offering access to people who need it. She’s helped open clinics in rural parts of other conservative states and said those clinics continue to see people walking through their doors.
“That proves to me, regardless of your religion, political party, there are times in people’s lives that people need access to qualified reproductive health care,” she said. “That includes abortion.”
ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .This <a target="_blank" href="/courts/abortion-bans-clinics-crisis-pregnancy-centers-maternity-care-wyoming/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">KFF Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">
<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2166071&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>