President Donald Trump this week nominated a former deputy surgeon general who has expressed support for vaccines to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Considered a more traditional fit for the job, Erica Schwartz would be the agency’s fourth leader in roughly a year, should she be confirmed by the Senate.Ìý

And Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared on Capitol Hill this week in the first of several hearings discussing Trump’s budget request for the department. But the topics up for discussion deviated quite a bit from the subject of federal funding, with lawmakers raising issues of Medicaid fraud, measles outbreaks, the hepatitis B vaccine, peptides, unaccompanied minors, and much, much more.Ìý

This week’s panelists are Mary Agnes Carey of ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Emmarie Huetteman of ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Trump on Thursday named four officials to the CDC’s leadership team. Schwartz, whom he picked as director, is a physician and Navy officer who served as a deputy surgeon general during Trump’s first term. She has voiced support for vaccines and played a key role in the covid-19 pandemic response.
• RFK Jr. testified before three committees of the House of Representatives this week on the president’s budget request for HHS. While the hearings touched on a wide variety of topics, notable moments included a slight softening of Kennedy’s stance on the measles vaccine, including the acknowledgment that being immunized is safer than having measles — although he also stood by the decision to remove the recommendation for the newborn dose of the hepatitis B vaccine.
• New studies on the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy and the effects of water fluoridation on cognitive function refute Trump administration claims. And a White House meeting that brought together Trump, Kennedy, and other leaders of the Make America Healthy Again movement aimed to soothe concerns among supporters — yet there’s reason to believe the overture won’t completely mend fences between the Trump administration and the MAHA constituency ahead of the midterm elections.

Also this week, ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ Julie Rovner interviews Michelle Canero, an immigration attorney, about how the Trump administration’s policies affect the medical workforce.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read (or wrote) this week that they think you should read, too:Ìý

 Mary Agnes Carey: Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “,” by Teddy Rosenbluth.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg’s “,” by Anna Edney.

Emmarie Huetteman: ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ “Your New Therapist: Chatty, Leaky, and Hardly Human,” by Darius Tahir.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• JAMA Pediatrics’ “,” by Kira Philipsen Prahm, Pingnan Chen, Line Rode, et al.
• Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’ “,” by John Robert Warren, Gina Rumore, Kamil Sicinski, and Michal Engelman.
• ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ “Pennsylvania Town Faces Fallout From Trump’s Environmental Rule Rollback,” by Stephanie Armour and Maia Rosenfeld.
• The New York Times’ “,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.
• Wakely Consulting Group’s “,” by Michelle Anderson, Chia Yi Chin, and Michael Cohen.

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 .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Still, 69% of those enrolled last year signed up again this year, often for less generous coverage. About 9% said they had to forgo insurance, according to the survey by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News.

The KFF poll revisited the people who responded to of Affordable Care Act enrollees during open enrollment for ACA plans.

Steve Davis, a 64-year-old retired car salesman in Rogersville, Tennessee, who participated in both polls, said he was looking at an annual premium of about $14,000 to renew his ACA coverage this year. He didn’t qualify for enough of a tax credit to defray the cost, he said, after Congress gridlocked on an extension of more-generous subsidies put in place under President Joe Biden.

But things worked out for Davis. He landed a job at a convenience store that came with insurance, with his share costing about $100 more a month than the $300 he paid for an ACA plan last year, before the enhanced tax credits expired.

“As it happened, the Lord provided and my insurance kicked in through my employer,” he told ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News.

In the November survey, many respondents were not sure what they would do for their health insurance in the coming year.

Some were waiting to see whether Congress would extend the enhanced premium subsidies, which had helped many people get lower-cost — or even zero-cost — health premiums.

Congress’ inaction left some consumers in a bind.

Now, the new poll found, affordability issues are hitting home as the midterm election approaches. And that might play a role in competitive districts, creating headwinds for Republicans.

Midterm Signals

Across all respondents who were registered to vote, the poll found more than half place “a lot” of blame for rising costs on Republicans in Congress (54%), with a similar share putting the same level of blame on President Donald Trump (53%). A smaller group placed a lot of the blame on congressional Democrats (34%). Among independents, a group expected to be a key factor in many districts, the percentages putting a lot of the blame on the GOP (56%) and Trump (58%) were higher.

Among Republicans, 60% placed a lot of the blame on Democrats in Congress.

“Those who have marketplace coverage, who remained on it, they’re really struggling with health care costs,” said Lunna Lopes, senior survey manager for KFF.

While more than half (55%) of returning ACA enrollees said they will have to pare back on other household expenses to cover health care costs, about 17% said they might not be able to continue paying insurance premiums throughout the year.

Overall, 80% of those who reenrolled for 2026 said their premiums, deductibles, or other costs are higher this year than last, with 51% saying they are “a lot higher.”

About three-quarters of ACA enrollees in the survey who were registered voters said the cost of health care will have an impact on their decision to vote — and on which party’s candidate they support.

Democrats were more than twice as likely as Republicans to say those costs will have a major impact on their decision.

“Democrats seem particularly more energized by health care costs than their Republican counterparts,” Lopes said.

Enrollment Tally Down

Data released Jan. 28 by federal officials showed that about 23 million people enrolled in Obamacare plans across the federal healthcare.gov marketplace and those run by states, about 1.2 million fewer than in 2025.

But it isn’t yet known how many are paying their monthly premiums on time, and many analysts expect overall enrollment numbers to fall as that data becomes available in the coming months.

For most people, having to pay more for premiums this year was mainly due to the expiration of the enhanced tax cuts, pollsters noted. Because the subsidies that remain are less generous, households have to pay more of their income toward coverage. Congressional inaction also meant the restoration of an income cap for subsidies at four times the poverty level, or $62,600 for an individual, sticking people like Davis with higher bills.

Not everyone saw increases.

Matthew Rutledge, a 32-year-old substitute teacher in Apple Valley, California, who participated in both KFF polls, said he qualified as low-income and his subsidies fully offset his monthly premium payment, just as they did last year. He does have copayments when he sees a doctor or accesses other medical care, but he told ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News that “as long as the premium doesn’t go up, I’m fine with it.”

Rising premiums are fueled by a variety of factors, including hospital costs, doctors’ services, and the prices of drugs.

To lower premiums, insurers offer plans with higher deductibles or copayments. In the ACA, plans with lower premiums but higher deductibles are called “catastrophic” or “bronze” plans. “Silver” plans generally balance premiums and out-of-pocket spending, while the highest-premium plans with lower deductibles are “gold” or “platinum.”

About 28% of those who stayed in the ACA marketplaces switched plans, the pollsters noted.

One 56-year-old Texas man told pollsters that his family’s income exceeded the cap for subsidies, so they switched down from a gold plan to a bronze. “Even doing that, our premiums are three times what they were in 2025, with lower plan features and a higher deductible,” he said, according to a KFF poll news release.

For some, reenrolling was not a viable option.

In addition to the 9% who said they are now uninsured, about 5% said they switched to some type of non-ACA coverage.

Some people, like Davis, landed job-based coverage, while others found they qualified for Medicaid, the joint state-federal program for low-income residents.

Such churn in and out of ACA coverage is not unusual, Lopes noted. “People get a job. They get married. They age into Medicare,” the program for older or disabled people, she said.

The poll highlighted that many people dropping coverage were younger, between 18 and 29. About 14% of people in that range now say they are uninsured.Ìý

That’s not surprising, given that younger people tend to use health coverage less. ACA insurers said one reason they raised premiums this year was because they expected more young or healthy people to drop out, leaving them with a higher share of older, more costly enrollees. Among those 50 or older, the poll found that only 7% are now uninsured.

GOP critics of the now-expired enhanced subsidies say they were always meant to be temporary. Extending them would have cost about $350 billion from 2026 to 2035, .

But not extending them means more people will become uninsured. The CBO said the extension would have meant 3.8 million more people having insurance coverage in 2035.

KFF pollsters, in February and early March, surveyed 1,117 U.S. adults, more than 80% of the ACA enrollees originally polled in November, online and by telephone. The margin of error is plus or minus four percentage points for the full sample.

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage?ÌýClick hereÌýto contact ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News and share your story.

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 .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

As the midterm elections approach, the cost of health care is the public’s , Altman said. Although past reforms have significantly increased the number of people with health insurance, they have not successfully addressed affordability, he said.

Altman said the U.S. health system poses two major problems: Americans’ concerns about how to pay for their own medical care, and the significant share of national spending it consumes.

Rovner and Altman also discuss the downstream effects of change, including the impact of the Trump administration’s cost-cutting on states, employers, and individuals, and lessons learned from past attempts at government reform.

This is the first in a new interview series, “How Would You Fix It?” In the months to come, Rovner will interview experts and decision-makers from a variety of backgrounds and perspectives, asking each how they would repair the health care system.

An abbreviated version of this interview aired March 19 on Episode 438 of What the Health? From ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News: “RFK Jr.’s Vaccine Schedule Changes Blocked — For Now.”

Altman’s “Beyond the Data” columns — including the column discussed in this interview, “” — can be read .

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 .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The tensions risk fraying Kennedy’s dynamic MAHA coalition, potentially driving away critical supporters who helped fuel President Donald Trump’s 2024 election win.

The movement’s grassroots membership includes suburbanites, women, and independents who are generally newer entrants to the GOP and laser-focused on achieving certain results around the nation’s food supply and vaccines.

Promoting healthy foods tops their list and will be at the center of the White House’s pitch to voters during the midterm election cycle.

“President Trump’s mass appeal partly lies in his willingness to question our country’s broken status quo,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. “That includes food standards and nutrition guidelines that have helped fuel America’s chronic disease epidemic. Overhauling our food supply and nutrition standards to deliver on the MAHA agenda remains a key priority for both the President and his administration.”

At the same time, with most Americans , the White House has cooled on Kennedy’s aggressive policies to curb vaccines and MAHA’s interest in tamping down environmental chemicals that are linked to disease.

The result: Republicans are realizing just how demanding the MAHA vote can be. Moms Across America leader Zen Honeycutt warned that Republicans are facing their biggest setback yet with the MAHA movement, after Trump signed an executive order to support production of glyphosate, a herbicide the World Health Organization has .

“It has caused the biggest uproar in MAHA,” Honeycutt said during a CNN interview in late February.

A White House Warning

Trump’s top pollster, Tony Fabrizio, cautioned in December that an embrace of Kennedy’s anti-vaccine policies could cost politicians their jobs this year.

Eight in 10 MAHA voters and 86% of all voters believe vaccines save lives, his poll of 1,000 voters in 35 competitive districts found.

“In the districts that will decide the control of the House of Representatives next year, Republican and Democratic candidates who support eliminating long standing vaccine requirements will pay a price in the election,” on the poll stated.

The White House has since shaken up senior staffing at HHS, including removing from the deputy secretary role and his job as acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in which he curtailed the agency’s childhood vaccination recommendations. Ralph Abraham, a vaccine skeptic who as Louisiana’s surgeon general suspended its vaccination promotion program last year, stepped down as the CDC’s principal deputy director in late February.

, a doctor who said in congressional testimony that he doesn’t believe vaccines cause autism, is now running the CDC in addition to directing the National Institutes of Health.

Though Trump himself has frequently espoused doubts and mistruths about vaccines, polling around anti-vaccine policy has undoubtedly shaken the White House’s confidence during a tough midterm election year, said former , an Indiana Republican and retired doctor who left Congress last year.

Bucshon said Republicans can’t risk alienating voters, especially parents of young children who might be moved by Democratic attack ads on the topic at a time when hundreds of measles cases are popping up across the U.S.

“That’s the reason you’re seeing the White House get nervous about it,” Bucshon said. “This is just the political reality of it.”

Kennedy built some of his MAHA following with calls to end federal approval and recommendations for the covid vaccines during the pandemic. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a federal panel of outside experts who were handpicked by Kennedy to develop national vaccine recommendations, is expected to review and possibly withdraw its recommendation for covid shots. Its February meeting was postponed and is now scheduled for March 18-19, when the panel plans to discuss injuries from covid vaccines, HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon confirmed on March 11.

“I’m not deaf to the calls that we need to get the covid vaccine mRNA products off the market. All I can say is stay tuned and wait for the upcoming ACIP meeting,” ACIP Vice Chair Robert Malone , a conservative account on the social platform X, before the meeting was postponed. “If the FDA won’t act, there are other entities that will.”

No Fury Like Scorned MAHA Moms

Bipartisan support is also extremely high — above 80% — for another core tenet of the MAHA agenda: eliminating the use of certain pesticides on crops.

But MAHA leaders were incensed when Trump issued a Feb. 18 promoting the production of glyphosate, a chemical used in weed killers sprayed on U.S. crops and which Kennedy has railed against and sued over because of its reported links to cancer.

“There’s gonna be ups and downs, and there is zero question that this week was a down,” Calley Means, a senior adviser to the health secretary and a former White House employee, told a MAHA rally in Austin, Texas, on Feb. 26. “I am not going to gaslight or sugarcoat it: This glyphosate thing was extremely disappointing. Bobby’s disappointed.”

Despite deep unhappiness from MAHA followers, Kennedy endorsed Trump’s executive order defending access to such pesticides.

“I support President Trump’s Executive Order to bring agricultural chemical production back to the United States and end our near-total reliance on adversarial nations,” Kennedy .

Without offering policy changes, Kennedy promised a future agricultural system that “is less dependent on harmful chemicals.”

White House officials are now trying to downplay the executive order.

“The President’s executive order was not an endorsement of any product or practice,” Desai said in a statement.

But that’s done little to dampen criticism from leading MAHA influencers who had hoped, with Kennedy’s influence in the administration, that the chemical would be banned.

Some Democrats see an opening.

of Maine earned cheers from MAHA loyalists for co-sponsoring legislation with Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) to undo the executive order.

“The Trump Admin. cannot keep paying lip service to while propping up Big Chemical like this and choosing corporate profits over Americans’ health,” .

, a prominent MAHA influencer who promotes healthy eating, responded on X with a “HELL YES.”

‘Eat Real Food’

The White House and Kennedy are refocusing their messaging to emphasize one of the most popular elements of the MAHA platform: food.

At the start of the year, Kennedy unveiled new dietary guidelines that emphasize vegetables, fruits, and meats while urging Americans to avoid ultraprocessed foods.

Kennedy has leaned into his new “Eat Real Food” campaign, launching a nationwide tour in January. Ahead of the late-February MAHA rally, he stopped at a barbecue joint in Austin where he took photos with stacks of smoked ribs and grilled sausages. Large “Eat Real Food” signs have been provided for crowds of supporters to hold up during major announcements at HHS’ headquarters this year.

Focusing on nutrition will please MAHA moms, suburban swing voters, and conservatives alike, said , a physician and former Republican representative from Texas.

“They keep them happy by talking about the food pyramid,” Burgess said. “That’s an area where there is broad, bipartisan support.”

Indeed, Fabrizio’s poll shows equal support — 95% — among respondents who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris and those who voted for Trump for requiring labeling of harmful ingredients in ultraprocessed foods.

Trump is keenly aware that Kennedy’s MAHA movement is key to his political survival. At a Cabinet meeting in January, Kennedy rattled off a list of his agency’s efforts researching autism and tackling high drug prices.

Trump leaned in at the table.

“I read an article today where they think Bobby is going to be really great for the Republican Party in the midterms,” , “so I have to be very careful that Bobby likes us.”

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 .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

At the same time, congressional Republicans are eyeing health issues from theÌý“Make America Healthy Again”Ìýperspective,Ìýhoping it will provide a boost in the midterm elections.Ìý

±á±ð°ù±ð’²õÌý·É³ó²â.Ìý

Republicans see the MAHA constituency as critical in the midterms and beyond because its supporters include desirable voting demographics:Ìýindependents andÌýsomeÌýDemocrats,ÌýmanyÌýof whom are women, younger voters, or suburbanites.Ìý

The strategy risks backfiring, though, because polls showÌýÌýabout reducing health care costs thanÌýaboutÌýMAHA’sÌýwar on junk food or efforts to roll back access to vaccines.ÌýThe affordabilityÌýissueÌýwas thrustÌýcenter stageÌýlast yearÌýwhen enhanced subsidiesÌýfor Affordable Care Act marketplace plansÌýexpired.Ìý

As a result,ÌýmanyÌýof theÌýroughlyÌý23Ìýmillion peopleÌýwho buy coverage on the healthÌýlaw’sÌýmarketplaces are now facing premium payments more than double what they faced last year.ÌýÌýwith what hasÌýemergedÌýas a key kitchen table issue.Ìý

Democrats are strategizing about how to use public support for MAHA priorities to their own advantage.ÌýThey’reÌýhoping to expose GOP policies that run counter to MAHA priorities; trumpet Democrats’ efforts to tackle health care costs; and highlight their own party’s work on such MAHA goals asÌý, according to some Democratic strategists.Ìý

DemocratsÌýare talking aboutÌýtheir continuing fight to address health care costs whileÌýlargelyÌýavoidingÌýdirect attacks on Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or MAHA,Ìýbecause the movement resonates with the public. Meanwhile, cracks areÌýÌýtheÌýMake America Great Again coalitionÌýand the lockstep support Trump has enjoyed from Capitol Hill Republicans.Ìý

For Republicans, the next batch of MAHA events and summitsÌýis already scheduled. After taking a political back seat in recent years, health care may dominate the 2026 election races.

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 .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Now, though, it seems unlikely to become state law. In November, a vote to advance beyond a legislative subcommittee failed. Four out of six Republicans on the Senate Medical Affairs Committee subpanel refused to vote on the measure.

Republican state Sen. Jeff Zell said during a November subcommittee hearing that he wanted to help “move this pro-life football down the field and to save as many babies as we can.” Still, he could not support the bill as written.

“What I am interested in is speaking on behalf of the South Carolinian,” he said, “and they’re not interested in this bill right now or this issue right now.”

While that bill stalled, it signals that abortion will continue to loom large during 2026 legislative sessions. More than three years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, measures related to abortion have already been prefiled in several states, including Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Missouri, and Virginia.

Meanwhile, the South Carolina bill also exposed a rift among Republicans. Some GOP lawmakers are eager to appeal to their most conservative supporters by pursuing more restrictive abortion laws, despite the lack of support for such measures among most voters.

Until recently, the idea of charging women who obtain abortions with a crime was considered “politically toxic,” said Steven Greene, a political science professor at North Carolina State University.

Yet introduced “abortion as homicide” bills during 2024-2025 legislative sessions, many of which included the death penalty as a potential sentence, according to Dana Sussman, senior vice president of Pregnancy Justice, an organization that tracks the criminalization of pregnancy outcomes.

Even though none of those bills was signed into law, Sussman called this “a hugely alarming trend.”

“My fear is that one of these will end up passing,” she said.

Less than a month after the bill stalled in South Carolina, — which would create criminal penalties for “coercion to obtain an abortion” — was prefiled ahead of the Jan. 13 start of the state’s legislative session.

“The issue is not going away. It’s a moral issue,” said state Sen. Richard Cash, who introduced the abortion bill that stalled in the subcommittee. “How far we can go, and what successes we can have, remain to be seen.”

‘Wrongful Death’

Florida law already bans abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. But a Republican lawmaker introduced for the “wrongful death” of a fetus. If enacted, the measure will allow parents to sue for the death of an unborn child, making them eligible for compensation, including damages for mental pain and suffering.

The bill says neither the mother nor a medical provider giving “lawful” care could be sued. But anyone else deemed to have acted with “negligence,” including someone who helps procure abortion-inducing pills or a doctor who performs an abortion after six weeks, could be sued by one of the parents.

In Missouri, a constitutional amendment to legalize abortion passed in 2024 with 51.6% of the vote. In 2026, state lawmakers are asking voters to repeal the amendment they just passed. A new proposed amendment would effectively reinstate the state’s ban on most abortions, with new exceptions for cases of rape, incest, and medical emergencies.

“I think that’s a middle-of-the-road, common sense proposal that most Missourians will agree with,” said , a Republican state representative who to put the measure on the ballot.

Lewis said the 2024 amendment went too far in allowing a legal basis to challenge all of Missouri’s abortion restrictions, sometimes called “targeted regulation of abortion providers,” or TRAP, laws. Even before Missouri’s outright ban, the number of abortions recorded in the state had dropped from to .

Meanwhile, Lewis backed another proposed constitutional amendment that will appear on the 2026 ballot. That measure would make it harder for Missourians to amend the state constitution, by requiring any amendment to receive a majority of votes in each congressional district.

One analysis suggested as few as any ballot measure under the proposal. Lewis dismissed the analysis as a “Democratic talking point.”

‘Gerrymandered’ Districts

Republican lawmakers aren’t necessarily aiming to pass abortion laws that appeal to the broadest swath of voters in their states.

Polling conducted ahead of Missouri’s vote in 2024 showed 52% of the state’s likely voters supported the constitutional amendment to protect access to abortion, a narrow majority that was consistent with the final vote.

In Texas, state law offers no exceptions for abortion in cases of rape or incest, even though a 2025 survey found 83% of Texans believe the procedure should be legal under those conditions.

In South Carolina, a 2024 poll found only 31% of respondents supported the state’s existing six-week abortion ban, which prohibits the procedure in most cases after fetal cardiac activity can be detected.

But Republicans hold supermajorities in the South Carolina General Assembly, and some continue to push for a near-total abortion ban even though such a law would probably be broadly unpopular. That’s because district lines have been drawn in such a way that politicians are more likely to be ousted by a more conservative member of their own party in a primary than defeated by a Democrat in a general election, said Scott Huffmon, director of the Center for Public Opinion & Policy Research at Winthrop University.

The South Carolina legislature is “so gerrymandered that more than half of the seats in both chambers were uncontested in the last general election. Whoever wins the primary wins the seat,” Huffmon said. “The best way to win the primary — or, better yet, prevent a primary challenge at all — is to run to the far right and embrace the policies of the most conservative people in the district.”

That’s what some proposals, including the “abortion as homicide” bills, reflect, said Greene, the North Carolina State professor. Lawmakers could vote for such a measure and suffer “very minimal, if any,” political backlash, he said.

“Most of the politicians passing these laws are more concerned with making the base happy than with actually dramatically reducing the number of abortions that take place within their jurisdiction,” Greene said.

Yet the number of abortions performed in South Carolina has dropped dramatically — by 63% from 2023 to 2024, when the state enacted the existing ban, according to data published by the state’s Department of Public Health.

Kimya Forouzan, a policy adviser with the Guttmacher Institute, which tracks abortion legislation throughout the country and advocates for reproductive rights, said South Carolina’s attempt to pass “the most extreme bill that we have seen” is “part of a pattern.”

“I think the push for anti-abortion legislation exists throughout the country,” she said. “There are a lot of battles that are brewing.”

ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News correspondent Daniel Chang and Southern bureau chief Sabriya Rice contributed to this report.

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 .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Fast-forward to the congressional stalemate that has closed the federal government for more than a month. Democrats, entrenched on one side of the legislative battle, staked their political future on merely preserving parts of the Affordable Care Act — a far cry from the systemic health policy changes that party members once described as crucial for tackling the high price of care.

Democrats succeeded in focusing national attention on rising health insurance costs, vowing to hold up funding for the federal government until a deal could be made to extend the more generous tax subsidies that have cut premiums for Obamacare plans. Their doggedness could help them win votes in midterm elections next year.

But health care prices are rocketing, costly high-deductible plans are proliferating, and 4 in 10 adults have some form of health care debt. As health costs reach a crisis point, a yawning gulf exists between voters’ desire for more aggressive action and the political urgency in Washington for sweeping change.

“There isn’t a lot of eagerness among politicians,” said , an economist who played a key role in drafting the ACA. “Why aren’t they being more bold? Probably scars from the ACA fights. But health care is a winning issue. The truth is we need universal coverage and price regulation.”

Voters rank lowering health care costs as a top priority, above housing, jobs, immigration, and crime, according to a by Hart Research Associates for Families USA, a consumer health advocacy group.

And costs are climbing. Premiums for job-based health insurance rose 6% in 2025 to an average of $26,993 a year for family coverage, according to an annual survey of employers released Oct. 22 by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News. For all the attention given to grocery, gas, and energy prices, health premiums and deductibles in recent years have risen and wages.

Democratic Headwinds

The appetite for big, bold ideas to drive down such high costs has waned in part because Democrats lack political leverage, according to economists, political strategists, and health care advocates. They’ve also been burned before for backing significant changes.

After the ACA was enacted in 2010, for example, a backlash over the law — and its mandate that most everyone have insurance — helped Republicans win the House and gain seats in the Senate. In 2016, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton backed the , a proposed government-run plan that would compete against commercial insurance. She lost to Donald Trump.

Democrats are also outnumbered in Congress. Sweeping changes to health care, such as the creation of Medicaid and Medicare and passage of the ACA, when one party has controlled both Congress and the presidency. have all that muscle. So for now, Democrats are fighting to preserve the status quo while portraying Republicans as a threat to Americans’ insurance coverage.

If the ACA subsidies aren’t extended, many of the roughly 24 million people who buy coverage on the health law’s marketplaces will see their next year, according to KFF. A released Nov. 6 found that three-quarters of the public supported extending them.

“There’s no doubt people believe the current system needs reform,” said , a Democratic strategist. “Protecting people from premium increases is part of that. You don’t win the future by losing the present.”

Even bipartisan legislative proposals aimed at lowering health costs have fizzled in an environment defined by political threats and partisan social media attacks.

Bills that would have improved health care price transparency and reined in companies that manage prescription drug benefits gained traction in late 2024 as part of a spending package. Then Elon Musk, who was serving as a senior adviser to President-elect Trump, took to his social media platform, X, to rally opposition, deriding the budget bill for what he asserted was excessive government spending.

GOP leaders dropped the health provisions, prompting Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to say on X that Musk “” the bipartisan health policies that Congress had hammered out.

But Democrats’ focus on health care has cut both ways. Their messaging amid efforts to save the ACA from repeal and to preserve the law’s protections for those with preexisting conditions helped the party in the 2018 midterm elections. “I still have PTSD from the experience,” Republican Mike Johnson, now the House speaker, .

And voters want relief. Six in 10 Americans are extremely or very worried about health care costs rising next year, according to an

, 56, is among them. The chief executive of GI Digital, a high-tech startup, felt a pain in his calf in late summer and asked OpenAI’s ChatGPT what it might be. It suggested he could have deep-vein thrombosis, or a blood clot. He went to the emergency room and obtained an ultrasound that confirmed the diagnosis, so doctors monitored him and gave him blood thinners.

His insurance was billed $7,422, and Wenzek got a bill for $890. The of an ultrasound is about $400 without insurance, according to GoodRx, a digital health platform.

“The hospital is making thousands for a procedure that costs $500. It’s kind of ridiculous,” said Wenzek, of Sleepy Hollow, New York. “I have a $40 copay just to go see a doctor for anything, and I’m on a startup budget.”

‘Defending the Status Quo’

The lack of bolder ideas to tackle spiraling costs could also work against Democrats, some critics say. Comedian and political commentator Jon Stewart, in an episode of his podcast in October, accused Democrats of committing “malpractice” by not presenting ideas to fix what people hate about the health care system. Instead, he said, they’re shutting the government down to protect a system that voters already believe is failing them.

“Once again, the Democrats are in a position of defending the status quo of policies that most people in the United States think suck,” he said. “Meanwhile, on the same day, Trump rolls out TrumpRx. Hey, I’ll just threaten Pfizer with 100% tariffs and then just open up a prescription drug outside of the middle managers and sell directly to the public at a discount.”

, which is intended to help patients find lower-priced drugs, and pledges by Big Pharma to lower drug prices could help the GOP with voters, though Democrats are also hammering Republicans over the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the bill the president signed into law in July that reduces Medicaid spending by about $1 trillion over a decade.

Republicans are promising fixes, using the shutdown to try to leverage voter frustration. Vice President JD Vance said on that “we do have a plan, actually,” in reference to a question about health care reform. (Trump has promised repeatedly that he would produce a plan to replace the ACA but never has.)

Senate Majority Leader John Thune in October that Trump wants to overhaul the ACA and “give people health insurance that is higher-quality and more affordable.”

The White House did not respond to an email requesting comment from Vance.

“It’s not that Democrats are focusing on tax credits to the exclusion of bigger, bolder reforms,” said , executive director of Families USA. “If you can get the conversation on health care, if we can prevent premiums from spiking, then we can focus on why health care costs so darn much to begin with.”

But some Democrats say voters are hurting and want bigger and bolder ideas now. Earlier this year, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz that the party needs to offer more on health care in the next election.

“I’ll tell you what people are going to expect,” he said. “They’re not going to expect us to tinker around the edge with the ACA. They’re going to expect universal health care.”

For now, at least, there are more innovative ideas in states. Oregon has established a governing board to set up a in which the state would take on health care financing — eliminating private insurance, premiums, and all deductibles for all residents as soon as 2027. The question is whether it will work. Vermont abandoned a similar effort in 2014.

“With the political environment we’re in, there isn’t currently an appetite for big reform, but we know it needs to happen,” said , the senior director of policy and strategy at Community Catalyst, a health advocacy group. “Across party lines, people want government intervention in health care and people want universal coverage. The pain point that people are feeling, the public sentiment is where we were at before the ACA.”

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 .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Much of the hubbub in health care this year has been focused on Medicaid, which faces dramatically reduced federal funding as the result of the huge budget bill signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month. But now the attention is turning to the Affordable Care Act, which is facing some big changes that could cost many consumers their health coverage as soon as 2026.

Meanwhile, changes to immigration policy under Trump could have an outsize impact on the nation’s health care system, both by exacerbating shortages of health workers and by eliminating insurance coverage that helps keep some hospitals and clinics afloat.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, Julie Appleby of ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Many Americans can expect their health insurance premiums to rise next year, but those rate hikes could be even bigger for the millions who rely on ACA health plans. To afford such plans, most consumers rely on enhanced federal government subsidies, which are set to expire — and GOP lawmakers seem loath to extend them, even though many of their constituents could lose their insurance as a result.
• Congress included a $50 billion fund for rural health care in Trump’s new law, aiming to cushion the blow of Medicaid cuts. But the fund is expected to fall short, especially as many people lose their health insurance and clinics, hospitals, and health systems are left to cover their bills.
• Abortion opponents continue to claim the abortion pill mifepristone is unsafe, more recently by citing a problematic analysis — and some lawmakers are using it to pressure federal officials to take another look at the drug’s approval. Meanwhile, many Planned Parenthood clinics are bracing for an end to federal funding, stripping money not only from busy clinics where abortion is legal but also from clinics that provide only contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and other non-abortion care in states where the procedure is banned.
• And as more states implement laws enabling doctors to opt out of treatments that violate their morals, a pregnant woman in Tennessee says her doctor refused to provide prenatal care, because she is unmarried.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Jonathan Oberlander, a Medicare historian and University of North Carolina health policy professor, to mark Medicare’s 60th anniversary later this month.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:Ìý

Julie Rovner: ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife with Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules,” by Katheryn Houghton.ÌýÌý

Julie Appleby: NPR’s “,” by Rachel Treisman.ÌýÌý

Jessie Hellmann: Roll Call’s “,” by Ariel Cohen.ÌýÌý

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Associated Press’ “,” by Amanda Seitz and Jonel Aleccia.ÌýÌý

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ “Insurers and Customers Brace for Double Whammy to Obamacare Premiums,” by Julie Appleby.
• The Congressional Budget Office’s “.”
• The CBO’s “.”
• KFF’s “,” by Grace Sparks, Shannon Schumacher, Julian Montalvo III, Ashley Kirzinger, and Liz Hamel.
• The Washington Post’s “,” by Glenn Kessler.

[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.]Ìý

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 24, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.Ìý

Today we are joined via videoconference by Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.Ìý

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there.Ìý

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.Ìý

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.Ìý

Rovner: And my ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News colleague Julie Appleby.Ìý

Julie Appleby: Hi.Ìý

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have the first of a two-part series marking the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, which is July 30. Medicare historian and University of North Carolina professor Jonathan Oberlander takes us on a brief tour of the history of Medicare. Next week we’ll do the same with Medicaid. But first, this week’s news.Ìý

So, we have talked a lot about the changes to Medicaid as a result of the Trump tax and spending law, but there are big changes coming to the Affordable Care Act, too, which is why I have asked my colleague Julie Appleby to join us this week. Julie, what can people who buy insurance from the ACA marketplaces expect for 2026?Ìý

Appleby: Well, there’s a lot of changes. Let’s talk about premiums first, OK? So there’s a couple of things going on with premiums. It’s kind of a double whammy. So, on the one hand, insurers are asking for higher premiums next year to cover different things. So in the summer they put out their rates for the following year. So there’s been a lot of uncertainty this year, so that’s playing into it as well. But what they’re asking for is some money for rising medical and labor costs, the usual culprits, drug costs going up, that kind of thing. But they’re tacking on some extra percentages to deal with some of the policy changes advanced by the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. And one key factor is the uncertainty over whether Congress is going to extend those more generous covid-era tax subsidies. So we’re looking at premiums going up, and the ask right now, what they’re asking for, the median ask, is 15%, which is a lot higher. Last year when KFF did the same survey, it was 7%. So we’re getting premium increase requests of a fairly substantial amount. In fact, they say it’s about the highest in five years.ÌýÌý

And then on top of that, it’s still not clear what’s going to happen with those more generous subsidies. And if the more generous subsidies go away, if Congress does not reinstate them, there’ll be costs from that, and people could be paying maybe 75% more than they’re paying this year. And we could talk some more about that. But that’s kind of the double whammy we’re looking at, rising premiums and the potential that these more generous subsidies won’t be extended by Congress.Ìý

Rovner: So there were some things that were specifically in that tax and spending bill that drive up premiums for the ACA, right? Besides not extending the additional subsidies.Ìý

Appleby: Well, that’s the biggest piece of it, but yes. They’re tacking on about 4% of that 15% medium increase is related to the uncertainty. Well, they’re assuming that the tax credits will expire. It was not in the bill. Congress could still act. They have until the end of the year. They could extend those subsidies. So that’s about 4%. But one of the things that people haven’t really been talking about are tariffs, and some of the insurers are asking for 3% because they expect drug costs to go up. So there’s those things that are going on. And then there’s just sort of the uncertainty going forward for insurers about what’s going to happen with enrollment as a result of both these premium increases, and then looking a little bit further down the line, there are some changes in the tax and spending bill and some rules that are going to substantially reduce enrollment.Ìý

So insurers are worried that the people who are going to sign up for coverage are the ones who are most motivated, and those are probably going to be the people who have some health problems. And the folks who aren’t as motivated are going to look at the prices and maybe the additional red tape and will drop out and leave them with a sicker and more expensive pool to cover. So all of that is factoring in with these premium rate increases that they’re trying to put together. Now remember, a lot of these insurers put in these premium increase requests before they knew the outcome of the tax and spending legislation. They could still modify them.Ìý

Rovner: And Jessie, as Julie said, there’s still a chance that Republicans will change their minds on the increased subsidies and tack them onto something. And there’s a big bipartisan health bill on drug prices and other expiring programs that still could get done before the end of the year? Yes?Ìý

Hellmann: There have been discussions about a bipartisan health bill, though the main author of it, Sen. Bill Cassidy, himself even seems kind of skeptical. I talked to him this week, and he’s like, It might happen, it might not. But there are a bunch of other health extenders that Congress will need to get to, like telehealth, some Medicare and Medicaid payment things. So there’s definitely something to attach it to. Republicans are not friendly to the ACA. As you mentioned, they made a bunch of changes to it in this tax and spending bill. So I think the people I talk to think it’s a long shot that they’re going to pass billions of dollars in a subsidy extension in this bill. Though there are Republicans who do care about this issue, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She’s kind of been sounding the alarm on this. She thinks that Congress needs to do something to mitigate which could be very big premium increases for people. So there is some pressure there, but it doesn’t seem like the people who should be thinking about this right now have started thinking about it much yet.Ìý

Rovner: One presumes they’ll start thinking about it when they start seeing these actual premium increases. I sound like a broken record, but we keep saying, the people who these premium increases are going to hit the hardest are voters in red states.Ìý

Appleby: Last year, in 2024, 56% of ACA enrollees lived in Republican congressional districts and 76% were in states won by President [Donald] Trump. So I’ve got to think they’re thinking about it. When I did the reporting on this story, I spoke with a couple of folks, and they said that some people in Congress are looking at maybe they can mess around or maybe they can do something with the subsidies that’s not keeping them as they are but might deal with a piece of it. For example, there is something called a subsidy cliff. So if you make more than 400% of the federal poverty level, you used to not get any subsidies. That would come back if they don’t extend this. And so 400% of the federal poverty level, you make a dollar more, you don’t get a subsidy. So this year — and this year will be the numbers that next year’s rates are based on — $62,600 for one person is 400% of the federal poverty level and $84,600 for a couple. So people are going to start getting, if they don’t extend the tax credits, they’re going to start getting notification about how much they owe for premiums next year.Ìý

And this is going to be one of the first effects that people are going to see from all these changes in Washington, the tax and spending bill and the other things, when they get these premiums for January. And if they make even a dollar over that, they’re not going to get any subsidy at all. So what I’m told by some of my sources is that maybe they’re thinking about raising that cliff, maybe keeping the cliff but maybe moving it up a little bit to 500% or 600%. But it’s totally unclear. Like you all are saying, nothing may happen. We may go through Dec. 31 and nothing happens, but I’m hearing that they are maybe talking a little bit about that.Ìý

Rovner: Alice.Ìý

Ollstein: Yeah. And there’s a couple interesting dynamics that I think could influence the politics of this and what Congress feels motivated to do or not do. So, like Julie was saying, this would hit in January. And a lot of the stuff in the bill they just passed is designed to not hit until the midterms, but this would hit before the midterms. And so that’s got to be on their minds. And then, like you were saying, not only would this hit Republican voters the hardest, but a reason that’s more true today than it was the last time they took a round at the Affordable Care Act in 2017 is because all of these red states have expanded since then. You have a lot more enrollment, even in states that didn’t expand, and so, like we mentioned, are going to have a lot of Republican voters who get hit and have this sticker shock. And the party in power in Congress and the White House could be to blame.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. One of the things in 2017, there were, what, 12 million people who were buying coverage on the marketplaces. And now there’s 24 million people who are buying coverage on the marketplaces. So it’s a lot more people, just plain, in addition to a lot more people who are likely in some of these red states. So we will follow this closely.Ìý

Meanwhile, the fallout continues as people find out more about the new tax and spending law. The Congressional Budget Office is out with on the bill as enacted. It’s now estimating that 10 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 as a result of the new law. That’s down from the 11.8 million estimate of the original Senate bill. That’s because the parliamentarian bounced the provisions that would’ve punished states using their own money to cover undocumented people. That was not allowed to be considered under the reconciliation procedure.Ìý

We also have a brand-new poll from my colleagues here at KFF that find that more people know about the law than did before it passed, and it’s still unpopular. We’ll to those numbers so you can see just how unpopular it is. As we’ve discussed, lots of Republican senators and House members expressed concern about the impact the Medicaid cuts could have on rural hospitals in particular. So much so that a $50 billion fund was eventually added to the bill to offset roughly $155 billion in rural Medicaid cuts. Even more confusing, that $50 billion is likely to be distributed before some of the cuts begin — as you were just saying, Alice — and not necessarily to just rural areas. So is this $50 billion fund really just a big lobbying bonanza?Ìý

Ollstein: Well, it’s certainly designed to function as softening the blow. But these are different things. The hospital could be propped up and stay open, but if no one has Medicaid to go there, that’s still a problem. And the money is sort of acknowledging that a bunch of people are going to lose their coverage, because it’s meant to give the hospital something to use for uncompensated care for people who have no coverage and come to the ER. But that still means that people who lost their insurance because of other provisions in the bill, they might not be going to their preventive care appointments that would avoid them having to go to the emergency room in the first place, which costs all of us more in the long run. So there’s a lot of skepticism about the efficacy of this.Ìý

Rovner: Jessie, are you seeing the lobbying already begin for who’s going to get this $50 billion?Ìý

Hellmann: Yeah, because the legislation leaves a lot of how the money will be handed out to the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] secretary, and so that’s something that they’re going to start thinking about. It reminds me a lot of the provider relief fund that was set up during covid. And that didn’t go very well. There were lots of complaints that providers were getting the funding that didn’t need the funding, and the small safety net hospitals weren’t getting enough of the funding. So I’m wondering if they’re going to revisit how that went and try to learn any lessons from it. And then at the same time, like Alice said, this just isn’t a lot of money. It’s not going to offset some of the pain to rural providers that the bill has caused.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. Well, another piece that we will be watching. Meanwhile, the cuts to SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] food benefits conflict with another stated goal of this administration, improving health by getting people to eat healthier food. Except, as we know, healthier food is often more expensive. Other than not letting people buy soda and candy with their SNAP cards, has the administration tried to address this contradiction at all? I’m seeing a lot of blank stares. I’m assuming that the answer to that is no. We’re hearing so much about food and unhealthy food, and we’re getting rid of seed oils and we’re getting rid of dyes, but at the same time, it’s the biggest cut ever to nutrition assistance, and yet nobody’s really talking about it, right?Ìý

Appleby: Sounds like, I think, the states are really worried, obviously, because they’re going to have to make up the difference if they can. And so what other programs are they going to cut? So I’m sure they are talking with folks in Congress, but I don’t know how much leverage they’re going to have. Do you guys have any idea whether the states, is there anything else that they can do to try to get some of this funding?Ìý

Rovner: There’s no — I’ve seen no indication. As we said, there’s already some buyer’s remorse on the health side. Last week we talked about [Sen.] Josh Hawley introducing legislation to restore some of the Medicaid cuts that he just voted for, but I haven’t seen anybody talking about restoring any of these nutrition assistance cuts or any of the other cuts, right?Ìý

Appleby: Right. And from what I’ve read, the SNAP cuts won’t fully take effect until after the midterm elections. So maybe we’re just not hearing about it as much because it hasn’t really hit home yet. People are still trying to figure out: What does all this mean?Ìý

Rovner: Well, one thing that has hit home yet, I’ve wanted for a while to highlight what some of the changes to immigration policy are going to mean for health care. It’s not just ending legal status for people who came and have lived in the U.S. legally for years, or reinterpreting, again, the 1996 welfare law to declare ineligible for Medicaid and other programs many legal immigrants who are not yet permanent residents but who have been getting benefits because they had been made legally eligible for them by Congress and the president. One of the big changes to policy came to light last week when it was revealed that immigration officials are now being given access to Medicaid enrollment information, including people’s physical addresses. Why is this such a big deal? Alice, you’ve been following this whole immigration and health care issue, right?Ìý

Ollstein: Yes. Experts are warning that this is very dangerous from a public health perspective. If you deter people from physically wanting to visit a clinic or a doctor out of fear of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforcement there, which we’ve already seen — we’ve already seen ICE try to barge into hospitals and seize people. And so fear of that is keeping people away from their appointments. That makes it harder to manage chronic illnesses. That makes it harder to manage infectious diseases, which obviously impacts the whole community and the whole society. We all bear those costs. We live in an interconnected world. What impacts part of the population impacts the rest of the population.Ìý

And so what you mentioned about the Medicaid data, as well, deters people who are perfectly eligible, who are not undocumented, who have legal status, who are eligible for Medicaid. It deters them from enrolling, which again deters people from using that health care and keeping their conditions in check. And so there’s a lot of concern about how this could play out and how long the effect could last, because there are studies showing that policies from the first Trump administration were still deterring immigrants from enrolling even after they were lifted by the Biden administration.Ìý

Rovner: And we should point out that this whole address thing is a big issue because, as you say, there, maybe, there are a lot of families where there are people who live there who are perfectly, as you say, perfectly eligible. You’re not eligible for Medicaid if you’re not here legally. But they may live in a family, in a household with people who are not here with documentation, and they’re afraid now that if they have their addresses, that ICE is going to come knocking at their door to get, if not them, then their relatives or people who are staying with them.Ìý

Appleby: Yeah. And I think it’s also affecting employment. So nursing homes are already saying that they’re losing some people who are losing their protected status or this or that. So they’re losing employees. Some of them are reporting, from what I’ve read, that they are getting fewer applicants for jobs. This is going to make it even tougher. Many of them already have staffing issues, and the nursing home industry has said, Hey, how come we’re not getting any special consideration? Like maybe some of the farmers or other places are supposedly getting, but I don’t know if that’s actually happening. But why aren’t they being considered and why are they losing some of their workers who are here under protected status, which they’re going to lose? And some of them may also be undocumented — I don’t know. But that’s just the nursing homes. Think of all the people around the country who need help in their homes, and maybe they’re taking care of elderly parents and they hire people, and some of those people may not be documented. And that’s a vast number of folks that we’re never going to hear about, but if they start losing their caregivers as well, I think that’s going to be a big impact as we go forward.Ìý

Rovner: And it’s also skilled health workers who are here on visas who are immigrants.Ìý

Appleby: Right.Ìý

Rovner: In rural areas in particular, doctors and nurses are usually people who have been recruited from other countries because there are not enough people or not health professionals living in those rural areas. The knock-on effect of this, I think, is bigger than anybody has really sort of looked at yet.Ìý

Ollstein: Absolutely. States have even been debating and in some cases passing legislation to make it easier for foreign medical workers to come practice here, making it so that they don’t have to redo their residency if they already did their residency somewhere abroad, things like that, because there’s such shortages right now, especially in primary care and maternal care and a lot of different areas.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. This is another area that I think we’re only just beginning to see the impact of. Well, there is also news this week in Trump administration cuts that are not from the budget bill. from the Congressional Budget Office that’s separate from the latest budget reconciliation estimate, analysts said that the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to the budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration could reduce the number of new drugs coming to market. That would not only mean fewer new treatments and cures but also a hit to the economy. And apparently it doesn’t even take into account the uncertainty that’s making many researchers consider offers to decamp to Canada or Europe or other countries. There’s a real multiplier effect here on what’s a big part of U.S. innovation.Ìý

Hellmann: I’ve been talking to people on the Hill about this who traditionally have been big supporters of the NIH and authorizing and appropriating increases for the NIH every year. And they are still kind of playing a little coy. The White House is suggesting a budget cut at the NIH of 40%, which would be massive. It’s so massive that the CBO report was like: We cannot estimate the impact of this. We’re going to estimate a smaller hypothetical. Because they just can’t.Ìý

And so I think it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in the appropriations process. You do have senators who are more publicly concerned about it, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who obviously is on the Appropriations Committee. So we might see a situation where Congress ignores the budget request. That usually happens, but these are weird times. And so I think there are questions about, even if they do, if Congress does proceed as normal and appropriate the money that they typically do for NIH, what is the administration going to do with it? They’ve already signaled that they’re fine not spending money that has been appropriated by Congress. And so I think that there’s a big question about that.Ìý

Rovner: At some point, this has to come to a head. We’ve been — as I say, I feel like a broken record on this. We talk about it a lot, that this is money that’s been appropriated by Congress and signed by the president and that we keep hearing that people, particularly at NIH, are not being allowed, for one reason or another, to send out. This is technically illegal impoundment. And at some point it comes to a head. We know that Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management Budget, thinks that the anti-impoundment law is illegal and that he can just ignore it. And that’s a lot of what’s happening right now. I’m still surprised that it’s the end of July and Congress is going out for the August recess — and Jessie, I know you’re talking to people and they’re playing coy — that they haven’t jumped up and down yet. The NIH in particular has been such a bipartisanly supported entity. If you’ve ever been around the campus in Bethesda, all of the buildings are named after various appropriators of both parties. This is something that is really dear to Congress, and yet they are just basically sitting there holding their tongues. At some point, won’t it stop?Ìý

Hellmann: I think maybe they’re hoping to say something through whatever legislation that they come out with, whatever spending legislation. But, yeah, they’re not being very forceful about it. And I think people are obviously just very afraid of making the Trump administration angry. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has said this, like she kind of fears the repercussions of making the president mad. And he’s on this spending-cut spree. So I definitely expected more anger, especially the bipartisan history of the NIH has lasted so long. It’s kind of a weird thing to see happen.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. Of all the things that I didn’t expect to see happen this year, that has to be the thing that I most didn’t expect to see happen this year, which was basically an administration just stopping funding research and Congress basically sitting back and letting it happen. It is still sort of boggling to my mind. Well, we also learned this week about hospitals stopping gender-affirming care of all kinds for minors, under increasing pressure from the administration. And we’re not just talking about red states anymore. Children’s hospitals in California and here in Washington, D.C., have now announced they won’t be offering the care anymore. Wasn’t it just a few months ago when people were moving from red states to blue states to get their kids care? Now what are they going to be able to do?Ìý

Ollstein: I think a lot of what we’re seeing play out in the gender-affirming care fight, it reminds me of the abortion rights fight. There are a lot of themes about the formal health care system being very, very risk-averse. And so rather than test the limits of the law, rather than continuing to provide services while things are still pingponging back and forth in courts, which is the case, they’re saying, just out of caution, We’re just going to stop altogether. And that is cutting off a lot of families from care that they were relying on. And there’s a lot of concern about the physical and mental health impacts on — again, this is very small compared to the general population of trans kids — but it’s going to hit a lot of people. And yeah, like you said, this is happening in blue states as well. There’s sort of nowhere for them to go.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. We’re going to see how this one also plays out. Well, turning to abortion, we talked last week about how a federal appeals court upheld a West Virginia law aimed at banning the abortion pill mifepristone. And I wondered why we weren’t hearing more from the drug industry about the dangers of state-by-state undermining of the FDA. And lo and behold, here come the drugmakers. In comments letters to the FDA, more than 50 biotech leaders and investors are urging the agency to disregard a controversial study from the anti-abortion think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center that officials are citing as a reason to reopen consideration of the drug’s approval. Alice, remind us what this study is and why people are so upset about it.Ìý

Ollstein: So it’s not a study, first of all. Even its supporters in the anti-abortion movement admitted, in private in a Zoom meeting that I obtained access to, that it is not a study. This is an analysis that they created. They are not disclosing the dataset that it is based on. It did not go through peer review. And so they are citing their own sort of white-paper analysis put out by an explicitly anti-abortion think tank to argue that abortion pills are more dangerous than previously known or that the FDA has previously acknowledged. There’s been a lot of fact checks and debunks of some of their main points that we’ve been through on this podcast also before. The Washington Post did if people want to look that up. But suffice it to say that that has not deterred members of Congress from citing this and to pressure the FDA.Ìý

And now you have the FDA sort of promising to do a review. If you look at the exact wording of what [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary said, I’m not sure. He said something like, Like we monitor the safety of all drugs, we’re going to blah, blah, blah. And so it’s unclear if there’s anything specific going on. But the threat that there could be, like you said, is really shaking up the drugmaking industry. And you’re hearing a lot of the same alarms that we heard from the pharmaceutical industry when this was before the Supreme Court, when they were afraid the Supreme Court would second-guess the FDA’s judgment and reimpose restrictions on mifepristone. And they’re saying, Look, if we can’t count on this being a process that just takes place based on the science and not politics and not courts coming in 25 years later and saying actually no, then why would we invest so much money in developing drugs if we can’t even count on the rules being fair and staying the same?Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. We will see how this goes. I was surprised, though. We know that that Texas case that the Supreme Court managed to not reach the point of, because the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, is still alive elsewhere. But I didn’t realize that this other case was still sort of chugging along. So we’ll see when the Supreme Court gets another bite at it. Meanwhile, the fight over funding for Planned Parenthood — whose Medicaid eligibility, at least for one year, was canceled by the new budget law — continues in court. This week a judge in Massachusetts gave the group a partial win by blocking the defunding for some smaller clinics and those that don’t perform abortions, but that ruling replaced a more blanket delay on the defunding. So many clinics are now having their funding stopped while the court fight continues. Alice, what’s the impact here of these Planned Parenthood clinics closing down? It’s not just abortion that we’re talking about. In fact, it’s not even primarily abortion that we’re talking about.Ìý

Ollstein: Absolutely. So this is one, it’s set to hit a lot of clinics in states where abortion is legal. And so these are the clinics that are serving a lot of people traveling from red states. And so there’s already an issue with wait times, and this is set to make it worse. But that’s just for abortion. Like you said, this is also set to hit a bunch of clinics in states where abortion is illegal and where these clinics are only providing other services, like birth control, like STI [sexually transmitted infection] testing. And at the same time we’re having a lot of other funding frozen, and so this could really be tough for some of these areas where there aren’t a lot of providers, and especially there are not a lot of providers who accept Medicaid.Ìý

Rovner: Meanwhile, a number of states are passing conscience laws that let health professionals opt out of things like doing abortions or providing gender-affirming care if they violate their beliefs. Well, in Tennessee now we have a story of a pregnant woman who says her doctor refused to provide her with prenatal care, because she’s not married to her partner of 15 years. She said at a congressional town hall that her doctor said her marital status violated his Christian beliefs, and he’s apparently protected by the new Tennessee state law called the Medical Ethics Defense Act. I’ve heard of doctors refusing to prescribe birth control for unmarried women, but this is a new one to me, and I’ve been doing this for a very long time. Are these just unintended consequences of these things that maybe state lawmakers didn’t think a lot about? Or are they OK with doctors saying, We’re not going to provide you with prenatal care if you’re pregnant and not married?Ìý

Ollstein: So one, as we just said, we’re in a situation where there is such a shortage of providers and such a shortage of providers who accept certain coverage that being turned away by one place, you might not be able to get an appointment somewhere else, depending where you live. And so this isn’t just an issue of, Oh, well, just don’t go to that doctor who believes that. People have very limited choices in a lot of circumstances. But I—Ìý

Rovner: Apparently this woman in Tennessee said she’s having to go to Virginia to get her prenatal care.Ìý

Ollstein: Well, exactly. Yeah. Exactly. This isn’t like people have tons of options. And also this is an example of a slippery slope, of if you allow people to be able to refuse service for this reason, for that reason, what else could happen? And some states have more legal protections for things like marital status, and some do not. And so it’s worth thinking through what could be sort of the next wave.Ìý

Rovner: Well, we’re certainly going to see what the outcome of this could be. Well, before we end our news segment this week, I want to give a shoutout to tennis legend Venus Williams, who at age 45 won a singles match at a professional tournament here in Washington this week and said in her post-match interview that she came back to playing because she needed the pro tour’s health insurance to take care of several chronic conditions that she has. So see, even rich athletes need their health insurance. All right. That is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Medicare historian Jonathan Oberlander, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.Ìý

I am so pleased to welcome Jonathan Oberlander to the podcast. He’s a professor of social medicine, professor of health policy and management, and adjunct professor of political science at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill and one of the nation’s leading experts on Medicare. Jon, welcome to “What the Health?”Ìý

Jonathan Oberlander: Great to see you, Julie.Ìý

Rovner: So Medicare, to me at least, remains the greatest paradox in the paradox that is the U.S. health care system. It is at once both so popular and so untouchable that it’s considered the third rail of politics, yet at its core it’s a painfully out-of-date and meager benefit that nevertheless threatens to go bankrupt on a regular basis. How did we get here?Ìý

Oberlander: Wow. So let’s talk about the benefits for a minute. And I think one of the things we can say about Medicare in 2025 as we mark this 60th anniversary is it still bears the imprint of Medicare in 1965. And when Medicare was designed as a program — and the idea really dates back to the early 1950s — it was not seen as a comprehensive benefit. It was intended to pay for the most consequential costs of medical care, for acute care costs. And so when it was enacted in 1965, the benefits were incomplete. And the problem is, as you know very well, they haven’t been added to all that much. And here we have a population, and all of us know as we get older, we generally don’t get healthier. I wish it was true, but it’s not. Older persons deal with all kinds of complex medical issues and have a lot of medical needs, and yet Medicare’s benefits are very limited, so limited that actually a very small percentage of Medicare beneficiaries have only Medicare. Most Medicare beneficiaries have Medicare plus something else. And that may be an individual private plan that they purchase called a Medigap plan, or maybe a declining number of people have retiree health insurance that supplements Medicare.Ìý

Some low-income Medicare beneficiaries have Medicaid as well as Medicare and they are dual-eligible. Some Medicare beneficiaries have extra benefits through the Medicare Advantage program, which I’m sure—Ìý

Rovner: We’ll get to.Ìý

Oberlander: —we’ll have a lot to say. So the bottom line, though, is Medicare has grown. It has, what, about 70 million Americans rely on Medicare. But the benefit package — with some intermittent exceptions that are significant, such as the addition of outpatient prescription drugs in 2006 — really has not kept pace.Ìý

Rovner: So let’s go back to the beginning. What was the problem that Medicare set out to solve?Ìý

Oberlander: Well, it was both a substantive problem and a political problem. The origins of Medicare are in the ashes, the failure, of the Truman administration proposals for national health insurance during the mid- and late 1940s. And after they had lost repeatedly, health reformers decided they needed a new strategy. So instead of national health insurance, what today we would call a single-payer, federal-government-run program for everybody, they trimmed their ambitions down to, initially, just hospital insurance, 60 days of hospital insurance for elderly Social Security beneficiaries. And that was it. And they thought if they just focused on older Americans, maybe they would tamp down the controversy and the opposition and the American Medical Association and charges of socialized medicine, all things that are really throwing a wrench into plans for national health insurance. It didn’t quite work out as they thought. It took about 14 years from the time Medicare was proposed to enact it. And there was a big, divisive, controversial debate about Medicare’s enactment. But it was fundamentally a solution to that political problem of, how do you enact government health insurance in the United States? You pick a more sympathetic population.Ìý

Now, there was a substantive problem, which was in the 1940s and especially 1950s, private health insurance was growing in the United States for Americans who are working-age, and that growth of employer-sponsored health insurance really left out retirees. They were expensive. Commercial insurers didn’t want to cover them. And the uninsured rate, if you can believe it, for people over age 65, before Medicare, was around 50%. Not 15 but five zero, 50%. And so here you had a population that had more medical needs, was more expensive, and they had less access to health insurance than younger people. And Medicare was created in part to end that disparity and give them access to reliable coverage.Ìý

Rovner: So as you mentioned, Medicare was initially just aimed at elderly Social Security recipients. What were some of the biggest benefit and population changes as the years went by?Ìý

Oberlander: So in terms of populations in 1972, Medicare added coverage for persons who have end-stage renal disease, so people who need dialysis no matter what the age. It’s a lifesaving technology. They can qualify for Medicare. It didn’t really make sense to add it to Medicare — it’s just it was there. So they added it to Medicare. And also a population we don’t talk nearly enough about, younger Americans with permanent disabilities who are recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance. For a couple of years they qualify for Medicare as well and are a very important part in the Medicare population. Beyond that, Medicare’s covered population has not really changed all that much since the beginning, which actually would be a great disappointment to the architects of Medicare, who thought the program would expand to eventually cover everybody.Ìý

In terms of benefits, the benefit package has been remarkably stable, for better and actually probably for worse, with the exception of, for example, the addition of outpatient prescription drug coverage, which came online in 2006, the addition of coverage for various preventive services such as mammography and cancer screenings. But Medicare still does not cover long-term stays in nursing homes. Many Americans think it does. They will be disappointed to find out it does not. Medicare does not cover, generally, hearing or vision or dental services. Traditional Medicare run by the government does not have a cap on the amount of money that beneficiaries can spend in a year on deductibles and copayments and so forth. So really its benefits remain quite limited.Ìý

Rovner: So Medicare is also the biggest payer in the nation’s health care system and for decades set the standard in how private insurance covered and paid for health care. So let’s talk about privatization. Medicare Advantage, the private health plan alternative to traditional Medicare, is now more than half the program, both in terms of people and in terms of budget. Is this the future of Medicare? Or will we look back in many years and see it as kind of a temporary diversion?Ìý

Oberlander: I think it’s the present and probably the future. The future is always so hard to predict, Julie, because it’s unwritten. But this is really a shocking outcome historically, because what Medicare’s architects expected was that the program was going to expand government health insurance to all Americans, first with the older population, then adding children, then adding everybody. Did not turn out that way. The original aspiration was Medicare for all, through any incremental means. Instead, 60 years later, we don’t have Medicare for all, but Medicare is mostly privatized. It’s a hybrid program with a public and private component that increasingly is dominated by private insurance. And the fact that over half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in these private plans is a stunning development historically, by the way with lots of implications politically, because that’s an important new political force in Medicare that you have these large private plans and it’s changed Medicare politics.Ìý

I don’t think Medicare Advantage is going anywhere. I think the question is, how big is it going to get? And I’m not sure any of us know. It’s been on a growth trajectory for a long time. And the question is — given that all the studies show that Medicare Advantage plans are overpaid, and overpaid by a lot, by the federal government, and it’s losing a lot of money on Medicare Advantage, and it’s never saved money — is there going to come a point where they actually clamp down? There’ve been some incremental efforts to try and restrain payments. Really haven’t had much effect. Are we actually going to get to a place where the federal government says: We need savings, yeah. This 22% extra that you’re getting, no, we can’t do that anymore. So I think it’s an open question about, how big is it going to get? Is it going to be two-thirds of the Medicare program, three-quarters of the Medicare program? And if so, then what is the future, turning the question on its head, of traditional Medicare if it’s that small? And that’s one of the great questions about Medicare in the next decade or two.Ìý

Rovner: Thank you so much.Ìý

Oberlander: Oh, thanks for having me. It was great to see you.Ìý

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

Appleby: Yeah. I found this story on NPR quite interesting. It’s maybe something that a lot of us have thought about, but it just added a lot of numbers to the question of how many chemicals are in our beauty products — basically, the makeup we use, the lotions, our hairspray, the stuff that happens at the salon, that kind of thing. And it’s called “.” And it was written by Rachel Treisman. Basically it says that the average American adult uses about 12 personal care products a day, resulting in exposure to about 168 chemicals, which can include things like formaldehyde, mercury, asbestos, etc., etc. OK, so that’s interesting. But it also talks about how the European Union has banned more than 2,000 chemicals, basically, but the FDA puts limits on only about a dozen.Ìý

So this has caused four Democratic lawmakers to introduce a package of legislation, actually they’re calling the Safer Beauty Bill Package, and it’s four bills. And basically one of them would ban two entire classes of chemicals, phthalates and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals. And it also calls for some other things as well, which they say hasn’t been done and needs to be looked at. So I just thought it was an interesting thing that pulled together a lot of data from various sources and talked about this package of bills and whether or not it might make a difference in terms of looking at some of these chemicals in the products we use all the time and requiring a little bit more transparency about that. It’s a step. I don’t know if it’s going to resolve everybody’s concerns about this, but I just thought it was an interesting little piece looking at that topic.Ìý

Rovner: It’s worth remembering that the FDA’s governing statute is actually called the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.Ìý

Appleby: That’s right.Ìý

Rovner: The cosmetics often gets very short shrift in that whole thing. Alice, why don’t you go next?Ìý

Ollstein: Yeah. So I have a piece from The Associated Press. It’s called “.” And so this really gets at something we’ve been talking about on the podcast, where the administration is really fixated on a few kind of superficial food health things like colored dyes in food and frying something in beef tallow instead of vegetable oil. But something fried in beef tallow is still unhealthy. Froot Loops without the color dye are still unhealthy. And these meals that he is promoting as a service for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees are unhealthy. So this article is about how they do have chemical additives, they are high in sodium and sugar and saturated fats, and so it’s not in sort of keeping with the overall MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] message. But in a way it kind of is.Ìý

Rovner: From the oops file. Jessie.Ìý

Hellmann: My extra credit is from my colleague Ariel Cohen at Roll Call. It’s called “.” She did a story about something that kind of, I think, flew under the radar this week. The Trump administration is starting to make good on its promise to look at SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], and the panel was very much full of skeptics of SSRIs who sought to undermine the confidence in using them while pregnant. And Marty Makary himself, FDA commissioner, claimed it could cause birth defects and other fetal harm. That was a statement that was echoed by many of the panelists. There was only one panelist who talked about the benefits of SSRIs in pregnant people who need them, the risks of postpartum depression to both the mom and the baby. And so I think this is definitely something to keep an eye on, is it looks like they’re going to keep looking more at this and raising questions about SSRIs without having much of a nuanced conversation about it.Ìý

Rovner: Yeah. I did see something from ACOG, from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, this week pushing back very hard on the anti-SSRI-during-pregnancy push. So we’ll see how that one goes, too. My extra credit this week is from my ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News colleague Katheryn Houghton, and it’s called “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife With Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules.” And it’s about something that didn’t really come up during the whole Medicaid debate, the fact that if Republicans really want people to go to work, well, then maybe they shouldn’t take away their health insurance if they get a small raise or a few extra hours. The subject of this story, only identified as James, technically makes about $50 a week too much to stay on Medicaid, but he otherwise can’t afford his six prescription medications and he can’t afford the care that he needs through even a subsidized Affordable Care Act plan, or his employer’s plan, either.Ìý

The point of the ACA was to make coverage seamless so that as you earn more, you can still afford coverage even if you’re not on Medicaid anymore. But obviously that isn’t happening for everyone. Quoting from the story: “‘I don’t want to be a fraud. I don’t want to die,’ James said. ‘Those shouldn’t be the only two options.’” Yet for a lot of people they are. It’s not great, and it’s not something that’s currently being addressed by policymakers.Ìý

OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. If you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me still on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks hanging on social media these days? Jessie?Ìý

Hellmann: I’m @jessiehellmann on and .Ìý

Rovner: Alice.Ìý

Ollstein: on X and on Bluesky.Ìý

Rovner: Julie.Ìý

Appleby: on X.Ìý

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

Credits

To hear all our podcasts,Ìýclick here.

And subscribe to ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News’ “What the Health?” onÌý,Ìý,Ìý, 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 .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Iglesias, a trans woman who had been incarcerated for more than 25 years, was transferred from a men’s prison to a women’s one in 2021. And in 2022, she with the Federal Bureau of Prisons to receive gender-affirming surgery, which the agency said it had never provided for anyone in its custody.

By the time she got the surgery 10 months later, another federal inmate had also received a procedure to align their body with their gender identity. No other such surgeries for people in federal custody are publicly documented, although some people in state prisons have also received gender-affirming surgery, including at least and within a U.S. prison population that .

Still, those procedures loomed large in the 2024 presidential election. Political advertising for President Donald Trump and other Republicans included , according to media tracking firm AdImpact. One such ad declared that Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris supported “taxpayer-funded sex changes for prisoners,” and concluded, “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” Some Democrats the election.

In the run-up to the Nov. 5 election, 55% of voters felt support for trans rights had gone too far, according to VoteCast, a survey by The Associated Press and partners including KFF, the health policy research, polling, and news organization that includes ºÚÁϳԹÏÍø News.

On Inauguration Day, Trump issued a flurry of executive orders that to bar federal spending on gender-affirming care in federal prisons and to “ensure that males are not detained” in federal women’s facilities.

“President Trump received an overwhelming mandate from the American people to restore commonsense principles and safeguard women’s spaces — even prisons — from biological men,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly wrote in an email. “Forcing taxpayers to pay for gender transition for prisoners is the exact sort of insanity that the American people rejected at the ballot box in November.”

But for Iglesias, 50, Trump’s order was a shocking reversal.

“It puts someone’s life in danger being in a men’s prison as a trans woman,” she said from Chicago, where she’s lived since her release in 2023. “It’d be like putting sheep in a hyenas’ den.”

Iglesias said she faced emotional and physical abuse from her father for her desire to be female. When she was 12, she said, he put a gun in her mouth after finding her wearing her sister’s clothes. Iglesias said she ran away from home, stole checks, cars, and jewelry, and ended up in jail.Lockup was not fun, Iglesias said, but it was the first place she got to be treated as a woman. So, she said, she wanted to stay. In 1994, she landed in federal prison after writing threatening letters to federal judges and prosecutors, according to court filings. In 2005, records show, she pleaded guilty to sending a letter to British officials that she falsely claimed contained anthrax. She told investigators .

“I was reading these things where they were allowing trans females to start living with females,” Iglesias said.

She said her outlook changed after the death of her mother in 2010, which prompted her to get serious about having a life outside of prison, and about improving her life inside it.

She began requesting hormone therapy in 2011 and was approved for it in 2015, according to court records. The 2019 lawsuit that led to her transfer to a women’s prison and her surgery was initially handwritten and prepared with the help of only another inmate.

“The lawsuit was the foundation for everything that I am today,” Iglesias said. “For the first time in my life, instead of digging myself in these holes, I was digging myself out.”

Along with her settlement, Iglesias from the Federal Bureau of Prisons to create a timeline for considering other inmates’ requests for gender-affirming care, and to recognize permanent hair removal and gender-affirming surgery as medically necessary treatments for gender dysphoria — a in which the discrepancy between a person’s gender identity and their sex assigned at birth causes significant distress.

In February, in response to Trump’s executive order, the bureau requiring prison staffers to refer to inmates’ “legal name or pronouns corresponding to their biological sex,” and ending clothing requests “that do not align with an inmate’s biological sex.” The guidelines end referrals for gender-affirming surgery but allow inmates already receiving treatment, such as hormone therapy, to continue.

However, in a , a trans prisoner alleged the hormone therapy she had been receiving since 2016 was stopped on Jan. 26.

Spokespeople for the bureau did not respond to requests for comment.

The bureau on hormone therapy in fiscal year 2022, its former director told Congress, 0.01% of its total spending on health care.

The new guidelines on trans inmates say that Trump’s executive order “does not supersede or change” the obligation to comply with federal regulations. But the executive order calls for amending them to prevent trans women from being housed in women’s prisons.

“It hurt my heart when I seen that because I do know other girls that are still in prison,” said Iglesias, who spent more than 25 years in male facilities. “Female prison is safe for a trans woman, and you can be who you are. You’re not penalized because you’re feminine.”

But requesting a transfer to a facility matching inmates’ gender identity , and few prisoners had been moved before the order. A 2025 said that federal prisons house 2,198 trans prisoners out of . Of those, the filing said, 22 are trans women housed in female facilities, and one is a trans man in a men’s facility. Although courts have blocked attempts to move that small subset of trans prisoners after the order, a trans prisoner not included in those suits had been relocated, news outlet reported.

A Department of Justice report from 2014 estimated that trans inmates in state and federal prisons were as other prisoners to report incidents of sexual victimization.

Iglesias said she experienced such violence firsthand. Included in her suit was a copy of a 2017 psychological report that said Iglesias reported being the victim of sexual misconduct or abuse in 1993, 2001, 2013, 2015, 2016, and 2017. Later filings included allegations of having been raped in 2019 and 2020, and a series of in 2021 before she was transferred to a female facility. Iglesias said she faced more abuse than she officially reported.

“Just because you commit a crime doesn’t mean you deserve to have violence against you,” said Michelle García, deputy legal director of the and one of the attorneys who ultimately represented Iglesias.

Federal law requires all inmates to be protected from abuse. A acknowledged trans inmates as particularly vulnerable to attack. Regulations from the , passed unanimously by Congress in 2003, contain , including allowing them to shower separately from other inmates and requiring prison officials to consider their health and safety when deciding whether to house them in male or female facilities.

Courts also that “deliberate indifference” to an inmate’s “serious medical needs” violates the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishments. The quality of overall medical care for federal prisoners has of inmates going without needed medical care and preventable deaths.

Iglesias successfully argued in court that gender-affirming surgery was necessary for her gender dysphoria. She was diagnosed with what was then called “gender identity disorder” soon after entering federal custody in 1994, according to court filings. Her diagnosis was updated to gender dysphoria in 2015.

Iglesias’ court filings documented her having been assessed for the risk of suicide 33 times and placed on suicide watch 12 times, as well as an attempt at self-castration in 2009.

“Defendants are aware of Iglesias’s suffering, but have delayed her treatment without evaluating her medically,” the .

García called the Trump administration’s targeting of care for trans inmates cruel, unnecessary, and illogical.

“They’re not assessing the constitutional rights of people,” García said. “They’re making choices because this is a vulnerable community that they can rally people behind to hate.”

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 .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Trump’s from the World Health Organization means the U.S. will probably not be at the table in February when the WHO executive board next convenes. The WHO is shaped by its members: 194 countries that set health priorities and make agreements about how to share critical data, treatments, and vaccines during international emergencies. With the U.S. missing, it would cede power to others.

“It’s just stupid,” said Kenneth Bernard, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University who served as a top biodefense official during the George W. Bush administration. “Withdrawing from the WHO leaves a gap in global health leadership that will be filled by China,” he said, “which is clearly not in America’s best interests.”

Executive orders to withdraw from the WHO and to reassess America’s cite the WHO’s “mishandling of the COVID-19 pandemic” and say that U.S. aid serves “to destabilize world peace.” In action, they echo priorities established in ’s “Mandate for Leadership,” a conservative policy blueprint from the Heritage Foundation.

The 922-page report says the U.S. “must be prepared” to withdraw from the WHO, citing its “manifest failure,” and advises an overhaul to international aid at the State Department. “The Biden Administration has deformed the agency by treating it as a global platform to pursue overseas a divisive political and cultural agenda that promotes abortion, climate extremism, gender radicalism, and interventions against perceived systemic racism,” it says.

As one of the world’s largest funders of global health — through both international and national agencies, such as the WHO and the U.S. Agency for International Development — America’s step back may curtail efforts to provide lifesaving health care and combat deadly outbreaks, especially in lower-income countries without the means to do so alone.

“This not only makes Americans less safe, it makes the citizens of other nations less safe,” said Tom Bollyky, director of global health at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The U.S. cannot wall itself off from transnational health threats,” he added, referring to policies that block travelers from countries with disease outbreaks. “Most of the indicates that they provide a false sense of security and distract nations from taking the actions they need to take domestically to ensure their safety.”

Less Than 1%

Technically, countries cannot withdraw from the WHO until a year after official notice. But Trump’s executive order cites his termination notice from 2020. If Congress or the public , the administration can argue that more than a year has elapsed.

Trump suspended funds to the WHO in 2020, a measure that doesn’t require congressional approval. U.S. contributions to the agency hit a low of during that first year of covid, falling behind Germany and the Gates Foundation. Former President Joe Biden restored U.S. membership and payments. In 2023, the country gave the WHO .

As for 2024, Suerie Moon, a co-director of the global health center at the Geneva Graduate Institute, said the Biden administration paid for 2024-25 early, which will cover some of this year’s payments.

“Unfairly onerous payments” are cited in the executive order as a reason for WHO withdrawal. Countries’ dues are a percentage of their gross domestic product, meaning that as the world’s richest nation, the United States has generally paid more than other countries.

Funds for the WHO represent about 4% of America’s , which in turn is less than 0.1% of U.S. federal expenditures each year. At about $3.4 billion, the WHO’s entire budget is roughly a third of the budget for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which got $9.3 billion in core funding in 2023.

The WHO’s funds support programs to prevent and treat polio, tuberculosis, HIV, malaria, measles, and other diseases, especially in countries that struggle to provide health care domestically. The organization also responds to health emergencies in conflict zones, including places where the U.S. government doesn’t operate — in parts of Gaza, Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, among others.

In January 2020, the WHO alerted the world to the danger of the covid outbreak by sounding its highest alarm: a public health emergency of international concern. Over the next two years, it vetted diagnostic tests and potential drugs for covid, regularly updated the public, and advised countries on steps to keep citizens safe.

Experts have cited missteps at the agency, but that internal problems account for the United States’ having one of the world’s highest rates of death due to covid. “All nations received the WHO’s alert of a public health emergency of international concern on Jan. 30,” Bollyky said. “South Korea, Taiwan, and others responded aggressively to that — the U.S. did not.”

‘It’s a Red Herring’

Nonetheless, Trump’s executive order accuses the WHO of “mishandling” the pandemic and failing “to adopt urgently needed reforms.” In fact, the WHO has made some changes through bureaucratic processes that involve input from the countries belonging to it. Last year, for example, the organization to its regulations on health emergencies. These include provisions on transparent reporting and coordinated financing.

“If the Trump administration tried to push for particular reforms for a year and then they were frustrated, I might find the reform line credible,” Moon said. “But to me, it’s a red herring.”

“I don’t buy the explanations,” Bernard said. “This is not an issue of money,” he added. “There is no rationale to withdraw from the WHO that makes sense, including our problems with China.”

Trump has accused the WHO of being complicit in China’s failure to openly investigate covid’s origin, which he alludes to in the executive order as “inappropriate political influence.”

“The World Health Organization disgracefully covered the tracks of the Chinese Communist Party every single step of the way,” Trump said in posted to social media in 2023.

On multiple occasions, the WHO has from China. The agency doesn’t have the legal authority to force China, or any other country, to do what it says. This fact also repudiates Trump’s warnings that a pandemic treaty under negotiation at the WHO impinges on American sovereignty. Rather, the accord aims to lay out how countries can better cooperate in the next pandemic.

Trump’s executive order calls for the U.S. to “cease negotiations” on the pandemic agreement. This means the pharmaceutical industry may lose one of its staunchest defenders as discussions move forward.

In the negotiations so far, the U.S. and the European Union have sided with lobbying from the to uphold strict patent rights on drugs and vaccines. They have from middle-income countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to include licensing agreements that would allow more companies to produce drugs and vaccines when supplies are short in a crisis. A estimated that more than a million lives would have been saved had covid vaccines been available around the world in 2021.

“Once the U.S. is absent — for better and for worse — there will be less pressure on certain positions,” Moon said. “In the pandemic agreement negotiations, we may see weakening opposition towards more public-health-oriented approaches to intellectual property.”

“This is a moment of geopolitical shift because the U.S. is making itself less relevant,” said Ayoade Alakija, chair of the Africa Union’s Vaccine Delivery Alliance. Alakija said countries in Asia and Africa with emerging economies might now put more money into the WHO, change policies, and set agendas that were previously opposed by the U.S. and European countries that are grappling with the war in Ukraine. “Power is shifting hands,” Alakija said. “Maybe that will give us a more equitable and fairer world in the long term.”

Echoes of Project 2025

In the near term, however, the WHO is unlikely to recoup its losses entirely, Moon said. Funds from the U.S. typically account for about 15% of its budget. Together with Trump’s that pauses international aid for 90 days, a lack of money may keep many people from getting lifesaving treatments for HIV, malaria, and other diseases.

Another loss is the scientific collaboration that occurs via the WHO and at about 70 centers it hosts at U.S. institutions such as Columbia University and Johns Hopkins University. Through these networks, scientists share findings despite political feuds between countries.

A commands the secretary of state to ensure the department’s programs are “in line with an America First foreign policy.” It follows on the order to pause international aid while reviewing it for “consistency with United States foreign policy.” That order says that U.S. aid has served “to destabilize world peace by promoting ideas in foreign countries that are directly inverse to harmonious and stable relations.”

These and executive orders on climate policies track with policy agendas expressed by Project 2025. Although Trump and his new administration have distanced themselves from the Heritage Foundation playbook, the work histories of the 38 named primary authors ofÌýProject 2025Ìýand found that at least 28 of them worked in Trump’s first administration.ÌýOne of Project 2025’s chief architects was Russell Vought, who served as director of the Office of Management and Budget during Trump’s first term and has been nominated for it again. Multiple contributors to Project 2025 are from the America First Legal Foundation, a group headed by Trump adviser Stephen Miller that’s filed complaints against “woke corporations.”

Project 2025 recommends cutting international aid for programs and organizations focused on climate change and reproductive health care, and steering resources toward “strengthening the fundamentals of free markets,” lowering taxes, and deregulating businesses as a path to economic stability.

Several experts said the executive orders appear to be about ideological rather than strategic positioning.

The White House did not respond to questions about its executive orders on global health. Regarding the executive order saying U.S. aid serves “to destabilize world peace,” a spokesperson at USAID wrote in an email: “We refer you to the White House.”

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 .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).