President Joe Biden in a campaign advertisement, May 8

President Joe Biden’s reelection campaign wants voters to contrast his record on health care policy with his predecessor’s. In May, Biden’s campaign began airing a monthlong, $14 million ad campaign targeting swing-state voters and minority groups with spots on TV, digital, and radio.

In the ad, titled “,” Biden assails former President Donald Trump for his past promises to overturn the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. Biden also warns of the potential effect if Trump is returned to office and again pursues repeal.

“That would mean over a hundred million Americans will lose protections for preexisting conditions,” Biden said in the ad.

Less than six months from Election Day, Trump narrowly leading Biden in a head-to-head race in most swing states. And voters trust Trump to better handle issues such as inflation, crime, and the economy by significant margins.

An of about 2,200 adults, released in early May, shows the only major policy issues on which Biden received higher marks than Trump were health care and abortion access. It’s no surprise, then, that the campaign is making to Biden’s pitch to voters.

As such, we dug into the facts surrounding Biden’s claim.

Preexisting Condition Calculations

The idea that 100 million Americans are living with one or more preexisting conditions is not new. It was the subject of a back-and-forth between then-candidate Biden and then-President Trump during their previous race, in 2020. After Biden cited that statistic in a , Trump responded, “There aren’t a hundred million people with preexisting conditions.”

A 蘑菇影院 Health News/PolitiFact HealthCheck at the time rated Biden’s claim to be “mostly true,” finding a fairly large range of estimates 鈥� from 54 million to 135 million 鈥� of the number of Americans with preexisting conditions. Estimates on the lower end tend to consider “preexisting conditions” to be more severe chronic conditions such as cancer or cystic fibrosis. Estimates at the spectrum’s higher end include people with more common health problems such as asthma and obesity, and behavioral health disorders such as substance use disorder or depression.

Biden’s May ad focuses on how many people would be vulnerable if protections for people with preexisting conditions were lost. This is a matter of some debate. To understand it, we need to break down the protections put in place by the ACA, and those that exist separately.

Before and After

Before the ACA’s preexisting condition protections took effect in 2014, insurers in 鈥� people buying coverage for themselves or their families 鈥� could charge higher premiums to people with particular conditions, restrict coverage of specific procedures or medications, set annual and lifetime coverage limits on benefits, or deny people coverage.

“There were a number of practices used by insurance companies to essentially protect themselves from the costs associated with people who have preexisting conditions,” said , a co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University and an expert on the health insurance marketplace.

Insurers providing coverage to large employers could impose long waiting periods before employees’ benefits kicked in. And though employer-sponsored plans couldn’t discriminate against individual employees based on their health conditions, small-group plans for businesses with fewer than 50 employees could raise costs across the board if large numbers of employees in a given company had such conditions. That could prompt some employers to stop offering coverage.

“The insurer would say, 鈥榃ell, because you have three people with cancer, we are going to raise your premium dramatically,’ and therefore make it hard for the small employer to continue to offer coverage to its workers because the coverage is simply unaffordable,” recalled , a research professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy who researches public health insurance markets.

As a result, many people with preexisting conditions experienced what some researchers dubbed “.” People felt trapped in their jobs because they feared they wouldn’t be able to get health insurance anywhere else.

Some basic preexisting condition protections exist independent of the ACA. The 1996 , for example, restricted how insurers could limit coverage and mandated that employer-sponsored group plans can’t refuse to cover someone because of a health condition. Medicare and Medicaid similarly can’t deny coverage based on health background, though age and income-based eligibility requirements mean many Americans don’t qualify for that coverage.

Once the ACA’s preexisting condition protections kicked in, plans sold on the individual market had to provide a comprehensive package of benefits to all purchasers, no matter their health status.

Still, some conservatives say Biden’s claim overstates how many people are affected by Obamacare protections.

Even if you consider the broadest definition of the number of Americans living with such conditions, “there is zero way you could justify that 100 million people would lose coverage” without ACA protections, said , who was a Trump administration health policy adviser and is now a senior research fellow with the Paragon Health Institute and a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, a conservative think tank.

Joseph Antos, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, called the ad’s preexisting conditions claim “the usual bluster.” To reach 100 million people affected, he said, “you have to assume that a large number of people would lose coverage.” And that’s unlikely to happen, he said.

That’s because most people 鈥� about 55% of Americans, according to the most recent 鈥� receive health insurance through their employers. As such, they’re protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act rules, and their plans likely wouldn’t change, at least in the short term, if the ACA went away.

Antos said major insurance companies, which have operated under the ACA for more than a decade, would likely maintain the status quo even without such protections. “The negative publicity would be amazing,” he said.

People who lose their jobs, he said, would be vulnerable.

But Corlette argued that losing ACA protections could lead to Americans being priced out of their plans, as health insurers again begin medical underwriting in the individual market.

Park predicted that many businesses could also gradually find themselves priced out of their policies.

“For those firms with older, less healthy workers than other small employers, they would see their premiums rise,” he told 蘑菇影院 Health News.

Moreover, Park said, anytime people lost work or switched jobs, they’d risk losing their insurance, reverting to the old days of job lock.

“In any given year, the number [of people affected] will be much smaller than the 100 million, but all of those 100 million would be at risk of being discriminated against because of their preexisting condition,” Park said.

Our Ruling

We previously ruled Biden’s claim that 100 million Americans have preexisting conditions as in the ballpark, and nothing suggests that’s changed. Depending on the definition, the number could be smaller, but it also could be even greater and is likely to have increased since 2014.

Though Biden’s claim about the number of people who would be affected if those protections went away seems accurate, it is unclear how a return to the pre-ACA situation would manifest.

On the campaign trail this year, Trump has promised 鈥� as he did many times in the past 鈥� to with something better. But he’s never produced a replacement plan. Biden’s claim shouldn’t be judged based on his lack of specificity.

We rate Biden’s claim Mostly True.

our sources

ABC News/Ipsos Poll, “,” May 5, 2024

Avalere, “,” Oct. 23, 2018

Biden-Harris 2024 campaign email, “NEW AD: Biden-Harris 2024 Launches 鈥楾erminate’ Slamming Trump for Attacks on Health Care,” May 8, 2024

Center for American Progress, “,” Oct. 2, 2019

Census Bureau, “,” September 2023

CNN, “,” Oct. 22, 2018

Department of Health and Human Services, “,” Jan. 5, 2017

Department of Health and Human Services, “,” accessed May 15, 2024

Email exchanges with Biden-Harris 2024 campaign official, May 13-15, 2024

Email exchange with Karoline Leavitt, Trump 2024 campaign national press secretary, May 13, 2024

蘑菇影院, “,” May 15, 2024

蘑菇影院, “,” Feb. 6, 2024

蘑菇影院 Health News, “Drowning in a 鈥楬igh-Risk Insurance Pool’ 鈥� At $18,000 a Year,” Feb. 27, 2017

蘑菇影院 Health News and PolitiFact, “Biden’s in the Ballpark on How Many People Have Preexisting Conditions,” Oct. 1, 2020

The New York Times, “,” May 13, 2024

Phone interview and email exchanges with , a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the director of the Private Health Reform Initiative at the Paragon Health Institute, May 14-15, 2024

Phone interview with , a research professor at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, May 22, 2024

Phone interview with , a co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, May 14, 2024

Truthsocial.com, , Nov. 25, 2023

The Wall Street Journal, “,” Sept. 23, 2017

Work, Aging and Retirement, “,” Feb. 19, 2016

YouTube.com/@CSPAN, “,” Sept. 29, 2020

YouTube.com/@JoeBiden, “” campaign advertisement, May 10, 2024

Phone interview with Joseph Antos, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, June 5, 2024

Health Affairs, , Sept. 11, 2020

蘑菇影院, , Dec. 12, 2016

PolitiFact, “,” June 3, 2024

蘑菇影院 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 蘑菇影院鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“It would not matter if the governor himself walked in and said, 鈥業 need to get this prescription filled,’” said Clint Hopkins, a pharmacist and co-owner of Pucci’s Pharmacy in Sacramento, California. “If I’m losing money on it, it’s a no.”

A regulation that took effect in January changes prescription prices for Medicare beneficiaries. For years, prices included pharmacy performance incentives, possible rebates, and other adjustments made after the prescription was filled. Now the adjustments are made first, at the pharmacy counter, reducing the overall cost for patients and the government. But the new system means less money for pharmacies that acquire and stock medications, pharmacists say.

Pharmacies are already struggling with staff shortages, drug shortages, fallout from opioid lawsuits, and rising operating costs. While independent pharmacies are most vulnerable, some big chain pharmacies are also feeling a cash crunch 鈥� particularly those whose parent firms don’t own a pharmacy benefit manager, companies that negotiate drug prices between insurers, drug manufacturers, and pharmacies.

A top official at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said it’s a matter for pharmacies, Medicare insurance plans, and PBMs to resolve.

“We cannot interfere in the negotiations that occur between the plans and pharmacy benefits managers,” Meena Seshamani, director of the Center for Medicare, said at a conference on June 7. “We cannot tell a plan how much to pay a pharmacy or a PBM.”

Nevertheless, CMS has reminded insurers and PBMs in several letters that they are required to provide the drugs and other benefits promised to beneficiaries.

Several independent pharmacists told 蘑菇影院 Health News they’ll soon cut back on the number of medications they keep on shelves, particularly brand-name drugs. Some have even decided to stop accepting certain Medicare drug plans, they said.

As he campaigns for reelection, President Joe Biden has touted his administration’s moves to make prescription drugs more affordable for Medicare patients, hoping to appeal to voters troubled by rising health care costs. His achievements , the Inflation Reduction Act, that caps the price of insulin at $35 a month for Medicare patients; caps Medicare patients’ drug spending at $2,000 a year, beginning next year; and allows the program to bargain down drug prices with manufacturers.

More than 51 million people have Medicare drug coverage. CMS officials estimated the new rule reducing pharmacy costs would save beneficiaries $26.5 billion from 2024 through 2032.

Medicare patients’ prescriptions can account for at least 40% of pharmacy business, according to a by the National Community Pharmacists Association.

Independent pharmacists say the new rule is causing them financial trouble and hardship for some Medicare patients. Hopkins, in Sacramento, said that some of his newer customers used to rely on a local grocery pharmacy but came to his store after they could no longer get their medications there.

The crux of the problem is cash flow, the pharmacists say. Under the old system, pharmacies and PBMs reconciled rebates and other behind-the-scenes transactions a few times a year, resulting in pharmacies refunding any overpayments.

Now, PBM clawbacks happen immediately, with every filled prescription, reducing pharmacies’ cash on hand. That has made it particularly difficult, pharmacists say, to stock brand-name drugs that can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars for a month’s supply.

Some patients have been forced to choose between their pharmacy and their drug plan. Kavanaugh Pharmacy in Little Rock, Arkansas, no longer accepts Cigna and Wellcare Medicare drug plans, said co-owner and pharmacist Scott Pace. He said the pharmacy made the change because the companies use Express Scripts, a PBM that has cut its reimbursements to pharmacies.

“We had a lot of Wellcare patients in 2023 that either had to switch plans to remain with us, or they had to find a new provider,” Pace said.

Pace said one patient’s drug plan recently reimbursed him for a fentanyl patch $40 less than his cost to acquire the drug. “Because we’ve had a long-standing relationship with this particular patient, and they’re dying, we took a $40 loss to take care of the patient,” he said.

Conceding that some pharmacies face cash-flow problems, Express Scripts recently decided to accelerate payment of bonuses for meeting the company’s performance measures, said spokesperson Justine Sessions. She declined to answer questions about cuts in pharmacy payments.

Express Scripts, which is owned by The Cigna Group, last year, second to CVS Health, which had 34% of the market.

In North Carolina, pharmacist Brent Talley said he recently lost $31 filling a prescription for a month’s supply of a weight control and diabetes drug.

To try to cushion such losses, Talley’s Hayes Barton Pharmacy sells CBD products and specialty items like reading glasses, bath products, and books about local history. “But that’s not going to come close to making up the loss generated by the prescription sale,” Talley said.

His pharmacy also delivers medicines packaged by the dose to Medicare patients at assisted living facilities and nursing homes. Reimbursement arrangements with PBMs for that business are more favorable than for filling prescriptions in person, he said.

When Congress added drug coverage to Medicare in 2003, lawmakers privatized the benefit by requiring the government to contract with commercial insurance companies to manage the program.

Insurers offer two options: Medicare Advantage plans, which usually cover medications, in addition to hospital care, doctor visits, and other services; as well as stand-alone drug plans for people with traditional Medicare. The insurers then contract with PBMs to negotiate drug prices and pharmacy costs with drug manufacturers and pharmacies.

The terms of PBM contracts are generally secret and restrict what pharmacists can tell patients 鈥� for example, if they’re asked why a drug is out of stock. (It took an act of Congress in 2018 to eliminate restrictions on disclosing a drug’s cash price, which can sometimes be less than an insurance plan’s copayment.)

The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a trade group representing PBMs, warned CMS repeatedly “that pharmacies would likely receive lower payments under the new Medicare Part D rule,” spokesperson Greg Lopes said. His group opposes the change.

Recognizing the new policy could cause cash-flow problems for pharmacies, Medicare officials had delayed implementation for a year before the rule took effect, giving them more time to adjust.

“We have heard pharmacies saying that they have concerns with their reimbursement,” Seshamani said.

But the agency isn’t doing enough to help now, said Ronna Hauser, senior vice president of policy and pharmacy affairs at the National Community Pharmacists Association. “They haven’t taken any action even after we brought potential violations to their attention,” she said.

蘑菇影院 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 蘑菇影院鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

蘑菇影院 Health News contributor Andy Miller discussed Affordable Care Act subsidy changes on WUGA’s “The Georgia Health Report” on May 31.

• Read Miller’s “Presidential Election Could Decide Fate of Extra Obamacare Subsidies”

蘑菇影院 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 蘑菇影院鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The goal of the agency, established in 2022, is to make care more affordable and accessible while improving health outcomes, especially for the most disadvantaged state residents. That will require a sustained wrestling match with a sprawling, often dysfunctional health system and powerful industry players who have lots of experience fighting one another and the state.

Can the new agency get insurers, hospitals, and medical groups to collaborate on containing costs even as they jockey for position in the state’s ? Can the system be transformed so that financial rewards are tied more to providing quality care than to charging, often exorbitantly, for a seemingly limitless number of services and procedures?

The jury is out, and it could be for many years.

California is the 鈥� after Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington 鈥� to set annual health spending targets.

Massachusetts, which started annual spending targets in 2013, was the first state to do so. It’s the only one old enough to have a substantial pre-pandemic track record, and its results are mixed: The annual health spending increases were below the target in three of the first five years and dropped beneath the national average. But more recently, health spending has greatly increased.

In 2022, growth in health care expenditures by a wide margin. The Health Policy Commission, the state agency established to oversee the spending control efforts, warned that “there are many alarming trends which, if unaddressed, will result in a health care system that is unaffordable.”

Neighboring Rhode Island, despite a preexisting policy of limiting hospital price increases, target in 2019, the year it took effect. In 2020 and 2021, spending was largely skewed by the pandemic. In 2022, the spending increase came in at half the state’s target rate. and , by contrast, both overshot their 2022 targets.

It’s all a work in progress, and California’s agency will, to some extent, be playing it by ear in the face of state policies and demographic realities that require more spending on health care.

And it will inevitably face pushback from the industry as it confronts unreasonably high prices, unnecessary medical treatments, overuse of high-cost care, administrative waste, and the inflationary concentration of a growing number of hospitals in a small number of hands.

“If you’re telling an industry we need to slow down spending growth, you’re telling them we need to slow down your revenue growth,” says Michael Bailit, president of Bailit Health, a Massachusetts-based consulting group, who has consulted for various states, including California. “And maybe that’s going to be heard as 鈥榳e have to restrain your margins.’ These are very difficult conversations.”

Some of California’s most significant health care sectors have voiced disagreement with the fledgling affordability agency, even as they avoid overtly opposing its goals.

In April, when the affordability office was considering an annual per capita spending growth target of 3%, the California Hospital Association saying hospitals “stand ready to work with” the agency. But the proposed number was far too low, the association argued, because it failed to account for California’s aging population, new investments in Medi-Cal, and other cost pressures.

The hospital group suggested a spending increase target averaging 5.3% over five years, 2025-29. That’s slightly higher than the in per capita health spending over the five years from 2015 to 2020.

Five days after the hospital association sent its letter, the affordability board approved a that starts at 3.5% in 2025 and drops to 3% by 2029. Carmela Coyle, the association’s chief executive, said that the board’s decision still failed to account for an aging population, the growing need for , and a .

The California Medical Association, which represents the state’s doctors, expressed . The new phased-in target, it said, was “less unreasonable” than the original plan, but the group would “continue to advocate against an artificially low spending target that will have real-life negative impacts on patient access and quality of care.”

But let’s give the state some credit here. The mission on which it is embarking is very ambitious, and it’s hard to argue with the motivation behind it: to interject some financial reason and provide relief for millions of Californians who forgo needed medical care or nix other important household expenses to afford it.

Sushmita Morris, a 38-year-old Pasadena resident, was shocked by a bill she received for an outpatient procedure last July at the University of Southern California’s Keck Hospital, following a miscarriage. The procedure lasted all of 30 minutes, Morris says, and when she received a bill from the doctor for slightly over $700, she paid it. But then a bill from the hospital arrived, totaling nearly $9,000, and her share was over $4,600.

Morris called the Keck billing office multiple times asking for an itemization of the charges but got nowhere. “I got a robotic answer, 鈥榊ou have a high-deductible plan,’” she says. “But I should still receive a bill within reason for what was done.” She has refused to pay that bill and expects to hear soon from a collection agency.

The road to more affordable health care will be long and chock-full of big challenges and unforeseen events that could alter the landscape and require considerable flexibility.

Some flexibility is built in. For one thing, the state cap on spending increases may not apply to health care institutions, industry segments, or geographic regions that can show their circumstances justify higher spending 鈥� for example, older, sicker patients or sharp increases in the cost of labor.

For those that exceed the limit without such justification, the first step will be a performance improvement plan. If that doesn’t work, at some point 鈥� yet to be determined 鈥� the affordability office can levy financial penalties up to the full amount by which an organization exceeds the target. But that is unlikely to happen until at least 2030, given the time lag of data collection, followed by conversations with those who exceed the target, and potential improvement plans.

In California, officials, consumer advocates, and health care experts say engagement among all the players, informed by robust and institution-specific data on cost trends, will yield greater transparency and, ultimately, accountability.

Richard Kronick, a public health professor at the University of California-San Diego and a member of the affordability board, notes there is scant public data about cost trends at specific health care institutions. However, “we will know that in the future,” he says, “and I think that knowing it and having that information in the public will put some pressure on those organizations.”

This article was produced by 蘑菇影院 Health News, which publishes , an editorially independent service of the .听

蘑菇影院 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 蘑菇影院鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

One of them was the son of Ashley Eades. Her family lost their Medicaid coverage in the “unwinding” of protections that had barred states from dropping people for years during the covid pandemic.

Many families, including Ashley’s, still qualify for Medicaid but lost it for “procedural reasons.” Basically, missing paperwork.

The unwinding process has been messy.

In this episode, host Dan Weissmann talks with Ashley about the months she spent fighting to get her son reenrolled in 2023 to get an on-the-ground look at how the unwinding is affecting families.

Then, Dan hears from staff at the , of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, and 蘑菇影院 Health News correspondent Brett Kelman, who has been covering Medicaid in Tennessee for years.

Credits

Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Dan: Hey there. You know what we have NEVER talked about on this show? Medicaid. The big, federally-funded health insurance program for folks with lower incomes. And I did not realize: That’s been a huge omission. Because it turns out, Medicaid covers a TON of people. Like about a quarter of all Americans. And about forty percent of all children. That’s four out of every ten kids in this country who are insured by Medicaid.听

And this is the perfect time to look at Medicaid because– well: tens of millions of people are losing their Medicaid coverage right now. It seems like a lot of these people? Well, a lot of them may actually still qualify for Medicaid.听

This is all kind of a “Back to the Future” moment, which started when COVID hit: The feds essentially hit pause on a thing that used to happen every year– requiring people on Medicaid to re-enroll, to re-establish whether they were eligible. And back then, tons of people got dropped every year, even though a lot of them probably still qualified.听

The pause lasted through the COVID “public health emergency,” which ended in spring 2023. Since then, states have been un-pausing: Doing years and years of re-enrollments– and un-enrollments– all at once. People call it the “unwinding.” And it’s been messy. And, another thing I’ve been learning: Medicaid operates really differently from one state to another. It even has different names. In California, it’s called Medi-Cal. In Wisconsin, it’s BadgerCare. And this unwinding can look completely different from one state to the next.

We’re gonna look mostly at one state– Tennessee, where the program is called TennCare. And in some ways, according to the numbers on the unwinding, TennCare is鈥� kinda average.听

But the problems some people have had, trying to keep from getting kicked off TennCare? Before this unwinding and during it? They sound pretty bad. We’re gonna hear from one of those people– a mom named Ashley Eades.听

Ashley Eades: Yeah. TennCare. Put me through the wringer, I tell you what.听

Dan: We’ll hear how Ashley spent months fighting to keep her son Lucas from getting kicked off TennCare. And we’ll hear from some folks who can help us put her story in perspective. Including folks who helped Ashley ultimately win her fight. Folks who are fighting– in Tennessee and around the country– to keep programs like TennCare from putting people like Ashley through the wringer.听

This is An Arm and a Leg– a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So the job we’ve chosen around here is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life, and to bring you a show that’s entertaining, empowering, and useful. Ashley Eades is a single mom in Nashville. She works in the kitchen at Red’s Hot Chicken, near Vanderbilt University.听

Ashley Eades: We’re just like every other person in Nashville trying to say they got the best hot chicken.听

Dan: Ashley buys her insurance from the Obamacare marketplace, but her son Lucas– he’s 12 鈥� is on TennCare. In April 2023, Ashley got a notice from TennCare saying, “It’s time to renew your coverage!” Meaning Lucas’s coverage. Meaning, welcome to the unwinding! When I talk with Ashley, she uses one word about a half-dozen times:听

Ashley Eades: it just was a nightmare. It was a nightmare. So that was the nightmare. A terrible nightmare you can’t wake up from. Oh my god, that was a nightmare.听

Dan: So: After Ashley filled out the renewal packet, she got another notice, saying “We need more information from you.” TennCare wanted proof of “unearned income”– like bank statements, or a letter saying she was entitled to something like workers compensation– or a court-ordered payment. But Ashley didn’t have any unearned income. Lucas’s dad was supposed to pay child support, but– as Ashley later wrote to state officials– he didn’t have regular employment so couldn’t pay.听

Ashley says she called TennCare for advice and got told, “Never mind. There’s nothing to send, so you don’t have to send us anything.” Which turned out to be wrong. A few weeks later, in May, TennCare sent Ashley a letter saying “Why your coverage is ending.”听

It gave two reasons: First, it said “We sent you a letter asking for more facts鈥� but you did not send us what we needed.” It also said “We’ve learned that you have other insurance” for Lucas. But she didn’t. And not having insurance for Lucas was going to be an immediate problem. He got diagnosed with epilepsy a few years ago, and he needed ongoing treatment.听

Ashley Eades: he was on three different medications. I mean, that alone would cost me about $1,500 a month with no health insurance. And this is anti-seizure medication. Like we can’t just stop it听

Dan: Yeah. Ashley says she did everything she could think of: mailed in paper forms, submitted information online, and made a lot of phone calls.

Ashley Eades: like back and forth on the phone with people I don’t even know who Italked to, just dozens and dozens of people I talked to. And every single time it was go through the same story over and over and over and over and over again and just get transferred Put on holds, you know disconnected yelled at, told I’m wrong like听

Dan: It went on for months. She reapplied. She was approved. Then she was un-approved. She appealed. The appeal was denied. Then, in July, the full nightmare: Lucas ended up in the emergency room after a seizure. While he was officially uninsured.听

Ashley Eades: I just didn’t know what to do. Like, I was shutting down mentally.听

Dan: And then, out of nowhere, a relative mentioned that a nonprofit called the Tennessee Justice Center had helped *her* out with a TennCare application. Ashley called the group right away.听

Ashley Eades: and I’m not a spiritual person, but they were like a fudging godsend. You know what I mean? Like, it was amazing

听Dan: A client advocate named Luke Mukundan looked at all of TennCare’s letters to Ashley and confirmed one thing right away: Ashley wasn’t wrong to be confused.听

Ashley Eades: He’s like going through all of these letters and he’s like, it doesn’t even make sense听

Dan: Later I talked with Luke, on kind of a lousy Zoom connection. But he said to me: This was confusing, even to him.听

Luke Mukundan: she was providing the information that they asked for, um,听

Dan: But they kept asking the same questions. And they kept saying that her son had some other insurance.听

Luke Mukundan: when I knew and she knew that wasn’t the case

Dan: Luke’s boss at the Tennessee Justice Center, Diana Gallaher, told me she wasn’t surprised that Ashley got confused by that early question about un-earned income. She says the process can be really confusing.听

Diana Gallaher: Heck, I get confused. I still, I’ll look at a question and say, you know, wait, what are they asking? How do I answer this one?听

Dan: And you’ve been doing this for a while, right?听

Diana Gallaher: Oh, yeah. Yeah.听

Dan: How long have you been doing this?听

Diana Gallaher: Since 2003, 2004.听

Dan: More than twenty years. Of course, Ashley’s been going through this process at an especially rough time: The unwinding. When so many people were going through this process at once.听

For instance, Luke and Diana say the help lines at TennCare were super-jammed– like, it wasn’t unusual to spend 45 minutes or an hour on hold.听

By the time Ashley found the Tennessee Justice Center, it was August. She’d been fighting alone for months. Luke helped Ashley with a new appeal. And on September 22, TennCare sent Ashley an update. Her son is approved. “You qualify for the same coverage you had before,” it says. “And you’ll have no break in coverage.”听

So Ashley’s “nightmare” was one person’s experience of the unwinding. But it’s not a one-off: According to reports from 蘑菇影院 and Georgetown University, more than two-thirds of the people who lost Medicaid in the last year were disenrolled, like Ashley, for what are called “procedural reasons.” Missing paperwork.

Now, some of those people who got dropped for “procedural reasons” probably didn’t even try to renew Medicaid because they didn’t need it anymore. They had new jobs that came with insurance.

But we know those folks are in a minority. Researchers at 蘑菇影院– the parent group of our journalist pals at 蘑菇影院 Health News– did a survey of folks who got dropped from Medicaid. Most of them– seventy percent– ended up either uninsured or, the biggest group, back on Medicaid. And again, more than two-thirds of the folks who got dropped were cut for “procedural reasons”– paperwork. Like Ashley’s son Lucas.听

So, when a lot of people can’t renew their Medicaid for “procedural” reasons, it seems worth looking at that procedure. And what’s happening in the unwinding isn’t actually a new phenomenon. It’s just un-pausing an old procedure– a system that always had these problems. And that’s really clear in Tennessee, because people in Tennessee have been documenting– and fighting– these problems for a long time.听

Next up: Taking TennCare to court.听

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of Public Road Productions and 蘑菇影院 Health News. The folks at 蘑菇影院 health news are amazing journalists– and in fact, we’re about to hear from one of them, right now.听

Brett Kelman: My name is Brett Kelman.听

Dan: Brett’s an enterprise correspondent with 蘑菇影院 Health News听

Brett Kelman: And I report from the city of Nashville, where I have lived for about seven years.听

Dan: Brett came to Nashville initially to cover health care for the local daily, the Tennessean. Which meant he heard about Medicaid– about people losing medicaid– a lot.听

Brett Kelman: You hear two versions of the same story. You hear patients who get to the doctor’s office and suddenly discover they don’t have Medicaid when they used to, and they thought they still did. And then you hear the other side of that coin. You hear doctors, particularly a lot of pediatricians, where their patients get to their office and then discover in their waiting rooms they don’t have Medicaid.听

Dan: And by the way– you noticed how Brett said he heard especially from pediatricians about this issue in Tennessee. That’s because Tennessee is one of the states that never expanded Medicaid after the Affordable Care Act took effect. In those states, Medicaid still covers a lot of kids but a lot fewer adults than other states. Docs treating patients with Medicaid– a lot of them are gonna be pediatricians.听

So, Brett’s hearing all of this seven years ago– the before-time. Before the unwinding. Before COVID. People kept losing Medicaid and not knowing about it until they got to the doctor’s office. And Brett wanted to know: how did that happen? He and a colleague ended up doing a huge investigation. And came back with a clear finding:听

Brett Kelman: Most of the time, when people lose their Medicaid in Tennessee, it is not because the state looked at their finances and determined they aren’t qualified. Paperwork problems are the primary reason that people lose Medicaid coverage in Tennessee.听

Dan: Brett and his reporting partner used a public-records request to get a database with the form letters sent to about three hundred thousand people who needed to renew their Medicaid coverage.听

Brett Kelman: And what we determined was that, you know, 200,000 plus children, had been sent a form letter saying that they were going to lose their Medicaid in Tennessee, again, not because the state determined they were ineligible, but because they couldn’t tell.听

Dan: About two thirds of people in that database got kicked off Medicaid for “procedural reasons”– paperwork issues. This is years before the current “unwinding” but that two-thirds number, it’s pretty similar to what we’re seeing today.

Brett Kelman: And, you know, that raises a lot of questions about if we’re doing the system correctly, because do we really want to take health care away from a family who is low income? Because somebody messed up a form or a form got lost in the mail.听

Dan: Around the time Brett published that story in 2019, the Lester family found out that they had lost their Medicaid– because a form had gotten lost in the mail. It took them three years to get it back. Brett met them at the end of that adventure听

Brett Kelman: they were a rural Tennessee family, a couple of rambunctious boys who seemed to injure themselves constantly. And honestly, I saw him almost get hurt while I was there doing the interview. One of the young boys had. Climbed up to the top of a cat tower. And I believe jumped off as I was interviewing his parents and I could see the insurance, I could see the medical claims racking up before my eyes.听

Dan: In 2019, one of the boys had broken his wrist jumping off the front porch. And when the Lesters took him to the doctor, that’s when they learned they’d been cut from Medicaid. Over the next three years, they racked up more than a hundred thousand dollars in medical debt– dealing with COVID, with more injuries, with the birth of another child. Finally, the Tennessee Justice Center helped them get Medicaid back– and figure out what had gone wrong.听

Brett Kelman: And when it all came down to it, we eventually determined that this paperwork that their health insurance hinged on, the health insurance that they were entitled to, they had lost it because the state had mailed that paperwork to the wrong place.听

Dan: Oh, and where had the state been mailing that paperwork to? A horse pasture.听

Brett Kelman: It wasn’t far from their house, but there was certainly no one receiving mail there听

Dan: Was there like a mailbox for the horses? Like where did they, where did it even go? Get left.听

Brett Kelman: I don’t remember if there was a mailbox for the horses. I don’t think so. I mean, if you think about this chain of events, they were sent paperwork they were supposed to fill out and return to keep their health insurance, but it went to the horse pasture, so they didn’t fill it out. Then they were sent a letter saying, Hey, you never filled out that paperwork. We’re gonna take your health insurance away. But it went to the horse pasture, so they didn’t fix it, and then they were sent paperwork saying, we’ve cut off your health insurance. You won’t have health insurance as of this date But it was sent to the horse pasture, so they didn’t know about it.听

Dan: And their three-year fight to get Medicaid back took place AFTER Brett published his initial story. So, some things, it seemed, hadn’t changed a whole lot. But one thing had happened: In 2020, the Tennessee Justice Center had filed a class-action lawsuit, demanding that TennCare re-enroll about a hundred thousand people who had gotten cut off– the lawsuit alleges, without due process. Here’s Brett’s take:听

Brett Kelman: And yes, I recognize that there could just have a Medicaid recipient who is not on top of this and ignores the paperwork and lets it rot in a pile of mail on their kitchen counter. I have some mail like that. I’m not going to pretend like I have never done this, but how do you tell the difference between that person and somebody who never got this paperwork that their child’s health care hinges upon?听

Dan: This exact question comes up in the lawsuit. In a filing, the state’s lawyers say TennCare does not owe a hearing to anybody who says they just didn’t get paperwork. “The simple reason for this policy is that it is well known that mail is ordinarily delivered as addressed, TennCare enrollees have a responsibility to keep the program apprised of address changes (as explained to them in TennCare’s notices), and it is exceedingly common for individuals who have missed a deadline to claim they did not receive notice.”听

Class action lawsuits move slowly. This one, filed more than four years ago, only went to trial recently. A judge’s decision is 鈥� pending. In a post-trial filing, the Tennessee Justice Center tells the stories of 17 people cut off from Medicaid allegedly due to errors by TennCare.听

In TennCare’s filings, the state’s lawyers say, in effect: None of this proves there’s a systemic problem. And as a couple people have said to me: You don’t have to set out to build a bad system. If you don’t take care to build a good one, your system will definitely have problems.

听We sent TennCare a long note about what we’ve been learning: About Brett Kelman’s reporting, about the class-action lawsuit, and about what happened to Ashley Eades. We asked them for any comment– or to let us know if they thought we’d gotten anything wrong. We haven’t heard back from them.听

So, let’s zoom out a little bit to look at how these systems are working across 50 states. The person to talk to here is Joan Alker. She’s a professor at Georgetown, and she runs the university’s Center for Children and Families.听

Joan Alker: Yeah, Medicaid really is my jam. I have been working on Medicaid issues for about 25 years now, which is a little frightening.听

Dan: So of course she and her colleagues have been tracking how all 50 states have been dealing with the unwinding, compiling all kinds of data. When we talked, they’d just updated a ticker showing how many kids have been dropped in each state.听

Joan Alker: We just hit 5 million net child Medicaid decline just today. Um, so that’s very troubling.听

Dan: And according to Joan Alker’s report, kids were even more likely to be dropped for “procedural reasons”– paperwork issues– than adults.听

Joan Alker: Most of these children are probably still eligible for Medicaid and many of them won’t have another source of coverage. And that’s what I worry a lot about.听

Dan: But it varies a TON. A couple states– Maine and Rhode Island– actually have MORE kids enrolled than when the unwinding started. A half-dozen others have dropped very few kids.听

Joan Alker: But then we had some states that went out really assertively and aggressively to, um, to To have fewer people enrolled in Medicaid听

Dan: Her numbers show that Texas is a standout. They’ve got one point three million fewer kids enrolled in Medicaid than they did before the unwinding鈥� Tennessee– with all the problems documented by Brett Kelman and the Tennessee Justice Center– is kind of around the middle of the pack.听

Joan Alker: Unfortunately, this is the norm. Right? When you look at the number of disenrollments nationwide, the average for procedural red tape reasons is 70%. Only 30 percent of those people losing Medicaid nationwide have lost it because they’ve clearly been determined to be ineligible.听

Dan: Obviously, Joan Alker is not happy about this. But she is also not hopeless! The unwinding has been an example of what happens– what can happen– when you require people to renew their enrollment every year. But now some states are experimenting with 鈥� not requiring that anymore, at least not for young kids.听

Joan Alker: 鈥ecause we know so many of them are going to remain eligible. They’re cheap to insure. They’re not where the money is being spent in our healthcare system. But they need regular care.听

Dan: Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico now keep kids enrolled through age six. Another seven states are aiming to do the same.听

Joan Alker: This is an idea that we’ve been promoting for like 15 years and we were kind of crying out in the wilderness for a long time, but it’s breaking through now听

Dan: I’m not gonna lie. There’s a ton that’s not gonna get fixed with Medicaid anytime soon. We don’t know yet how the judge in the Tennessee Justice Center’s class-action lawsuit is gonna rule. But seeing these fights, it reminds me of something I’ve said before on this show: We are not gonna win them all. But we don’t have to lose them all either.

By the way, a little news about Ashley Eades– our mom in Nashville, who fought to keep her son on TennCare.听

Ashley Eades: Last year, I started going back to school, and I’m going to school full time, and I’m working full听

Dan: Oh my gosh!听

Dan: And she’s home-schooling Lucas.听

Ashley Eades: I was like, “we’re going to go to school together, buddy.” Like, we share a desk, you know, and he’s like in class and I’m in class.听

Dan: Wow听

Ashley Eades: I had to get creative. um, so, yeah, I’m like, working this really crappy, stinky job and going to school听

Dan: And it’s working out.听

Ashley Eades: I, um, made Dean’s List this semester, like got straight A’s.听

Dan: Yeah!听

Dan: Ashley wants to go to Medical school. I thought you’d want to know.听

Before we go, I just want to say THANK YOU. In our last episode, we asked you to help us understand sneaky facility fees, by sending your own medical bills, and you have been coming through in a big way. We’ve heard from more than 30 people at this point. Some of you have been annoyed by these fees for years– a couple of you have told us about driving 30 or 40 miles across town, hoping to avoid them. And we’ve been hearing from folks inside the medical billing world, offering us some deeper insight. And I could not be pleased-er. Thank you so much!听

If you’ve got a bill to share, it’s not too late to pitch in, at arm-and-a-leg-show, dot com, slash FEES. I’ll catch you in a few weeks. Till then, take care of yourself.听

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta, and edited by Ellen Weiss. Thanks this time to Phil Galewitz of 蘑菇影院 Health News, Andy Schneider of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, and Gordon Bonnyman of the Tennessee Justice Center for sharing their expertise with us. Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Weiner and blue dot sessions. Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. Gabe Bullard is our brand-new engagement editor. Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. Sarah Ballama is our operations manager.听

And Armand a Leg is produced in partnership with 蘑菇影院 Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about healthcare in America and a core program at 蘑菇影院, an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at 蘑菇影院 Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show.听

And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN. org. Finally, thanks to everybody who supports this show financially– you can join in any time at arm and a leg show dot com, slash, support– thanks for pitching in if you can, and thanks for listening.

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of 蘑菇影院 Health News and Public Road Productions.

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,”听. You can also听follow the show on听听and听the . And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers听.

To hear all 蘑菇影院 Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” on , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

蘑菇影院 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 蘑菇影院鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Customers often don’t discover the changes until they’re denied medical coverage or get stuck with a bill for ACA tax credits they have to repay.

Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said he’ll propose legislation to allow the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to hold fraudulent brokers “criminally responsible” for their actions. The agency, which oversees the ACA exchanges, can fine individuals up to $250,000 for submitting false information in an application for a health plan, but it hasn’t done so, Wyden said.

“I am disappointed these penalties have not yet been used to hold bad actors accountable,” Wyden wrote last week in a sharply worded letter to CMS Chief Chiquita Brooks-LaSure.

Jimmy Patronis, who oversees agencies including insurance regulators as Florida’s chief financial officer, called on Congress to push CMS to require two-factor authentication on and related platforms that agents use to sign people up for coverage. According to Patronis, the state has into problem enrollments.

“It’s far easier to prevent fraud from occurring in the first place than it is to ask state regulators to chase down these bad actors after the fact,” Patronis wrote.

The problem appears concentrated among the 32 states using the federal marketplace 鈥� 鈥� because, brokers say, it’s too easy for rogue agents to access policyholder information. All they need is a name, date of birth and state.

States that run their own insurance markets generally have additional security requirements.

CMS tallied 90,000 complaints about unauthorized sign-ups or plan switching in just the first quarter of 2024, out of more than 16 million enrollments.

Jeff Wu, acting director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at CMS, has said his agency is preparing regulatory and technological fixes, investigating brokers and working to restore consumers to chosen plans.

But even with Wyden’s legislation on the way, Congress looks unlikely to act. Lawmakers are in the middle of an election year in which President Biden is trying to win votes for bolstering enrollment in ACA plans while knocking his opponent, former president Donald Trump, for his unsuccessful attempt to repeal the law.

Sabrina Corlette, who follows the ACA market as co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University, said the feds can do more, including coordinating better with state investigations.

But states like Florida should also regulate the marketplaces, she said.

“If there’s a lot of bad brokers in Florida, then Florida needs to look inward and maybe do a better job of policing brokers,” she said.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

蘑菇影院 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 蘑菇影院鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Cox, 40, qualified for an Affordable Care Act marketplace plan with no monthly premium due to her relatively low income. And after she cut her hand severely, the 35 stitches she received in the ER led to an out-of-pocket expense of about $300, she said.

“I can’t imagine what the ER visit would have cost if I was uninsured,” she said.

Cox is among 1.3 million people enrolled in health coverage this year through the ACA marketplace in Georgia, which has seen a 181% increase in enrollment since 2020.

Many people with low incomes have been drawn to plans offering $0 premiums and low out-of-pocket costs, which have become increasingly common because of the enhanced federal subsidies introduced by President Joe Biden.

Southern states have seen the biggest enrollment bump of any region. Ten of the 15 states that more than doubled their marketplace numbers from 2020 to 2024 are in the South, according to a . And the five states with the largest increases in enrollment 鈥� Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina, all in the South 鈥� have yet to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, driving many residents to the premium-free health plans.

But with the federal incentives introduced by the Biden administration set to expire at the end of 2025, and the possibility of a second Donald Trump presidency, the South could be on track to see a significant dip in ACA enrollment, policy analysts say.

“Georgia and the Southern states generally have lower per-capita income and higher uninsured rates,” said Gideon Lukens, a senior fellow and the director of research and data analysis for the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan, Washington, D.C.-based research organization. If the enhanced subsidies go away, he said, the South, especially states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, will likely feel a bigger effect than other states. “There’s no other safety net” for many people losing coverage in non-expansion states, Lukens said.

When Cox was enrolling in Obamacare last fall, she qualified for premium tax credits that were added to two major congressional legislative packages: the American Rescue Plan Act in 2021, and the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. Those incentives 鈥� which gave rise to many plans with no premiums and low out-of-pocket costs 鈥� have helped power this year’s record . The extra subsidies were added to the already existing subsidies for marketplace coverage.

The states that didn’t expand Medicaid and have high uninsured rates “got most of the free plans,” said Cynthia Cox, a 蘑菇影院 vice president who directs the health policy nonprofit’s program on the ACA. Zero-premium plans existed before the new subsidies, she added, but they generally came with high deductibles that potentially would lead to higher costs for consumers.

A Trump presidency could jeopardize those extra subsidies. Brian Blase, a former Trump administration official who advised him on health care policy, said that eliminating the extra subsidies would bring the marketplace back to the ACA’s original intent.

“It’s not sustainable or wise to have fully taxpayer-subsidized coverage,” said Blase, who is now president of the Paragon Health Institute, a health policy research firm. People would still qualify for discounts, he said, but they wouldn’t be as generous.

Karoline Leavitt, a spokesperson for Trump, did not answer a reporter’s questions on the future of the enhanced subsidies under a new Trump administration. Despite his comments at the end of last year that he is “” to Obamacare, Leavitt said Trump is not campaigning to terminate the Affordable Care Act.

“He is running to make health care actually affordable, in addition to bringing down inflation, cutting taxes, and reducing regulations to put more money back in the pockets of all Americans,” she said.

While views on Obamacare may be divided, the wide support for subsidies crosses political lines, according to a released in May.

About 7 in 10 voters support the extension of enhanced federal financial assistance for people who purchase ACA marketplace coverage, the poll found. That support included 90% of Democrats, 73% of independents, and 57% of Republicans surveyed.

The enhanced assistance also allowed many people with incomes higher than 400% of the poverty level, or $58,320 for an individual in 2023, to get tax credits for coverage for the first time.

Besides the financial incentives, other reasons cited for the explosion in ACA enrollment include the end of continuous Medicaid coverage protections related to the covid public health emergency. About a year ago, states started redetermining eligibility, known as the “unwinding.”

of those who lost Medicaid coverage moved to the ACA marketplace, said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families.

In Georgia, Republican political leaders haven’t talked much about the effect of the Biden administration’s premium incentives on enrollment increases.

Instead, Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp, among others, has , an online portal that links consumers directly to the ACA marketplace’s website or to an agent or broker. That agent link can create a more personal connection, said Bryce Rawson, a spokesperson for the state’s insurance department, which runs the portal. Employees from the agency and from consulting firms helped market the no-premium plans throughout the state, he said.

Yet Georgia Access didn’t become fully operational until last fall, during open enrollment for the marketplace. Republicans also credit a reinsurance waiver that, according to Rawson, increased the number of health insurers offering marketplace coverage in the state, leading to more competition.

Reinsurance is likely not a major reason for a state’s increased Obamacare enrollment, said Georgetown’s Park. And a found that Georgia’s reinsurance program had the unintended consequences of increasing the minimum cost of subsidized ACA coverage and reducing enrollment among individuals at a certain income level, .

The state’s insurance department said the study “does not accurately reflect the overall benefits the reinsurance program has brought to Georgia consumers.”

When asked whether the governor would support renewal of the enhanced subsidies, Garrison Douglas, Kemp’s spokesperson, said the matter is up to Congress to decide.

Another reason for the soaring ACA enrollment is the 2023 fix to the “family glitch” that had prevented dependents of workers who were offered unaffordable family coverage by employers from getting marketplace subsidies.

States that have run their own marketplaces, though, generally have not seen the same level of enrollment increases. Those 18 states, plus the District of Columbia, have expanded Medicaid. Georgia will join the list of states running their own exchanges this fall, making it the only state to operate one that has not expanded Medicaid.

The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services credits a national marketing campaign and more federal funding for navigators, the insurance counselors who provide education about marketplace health coverage and free help with enrollment.

That level of financial support for navigators may be in jeopardy if Trump returns to the White House.

The Biden administration injected nearly $100 million in funding for navigators in the enrollment period for coverage this year. The Trump administration, on the other hand, for navigators from 2018 to 2020.

The marketplace is usually “a transitional place” for people coming in and out of coverage, 蘑菇影院’s Cox said. “That marketing and outreach is pretty essential to help people literally navigate the process.”

蘑菇影院 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 蘑菇影院鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

With abortion shaping up as a key issue for the November elections, the movement that united to overturn Roe v. Wade is divided over going further, faster 鈥� including by punishing those who have abortions and banning contraception or IVF. Politicians who oppose abortion are already experiencing backlash in some states.

Meanwhile, bad actors are bilking the health system in various new ways, from switching people’s insurance plans without their consent to pocket additional commissions, to hacking the records of major health systems and demanding millions of dollars in ransom.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 蘑菇影院 Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• It appears that abortion opponents are learning it’s a lot easier to agree on what you’re against than for. Now that the constitutional right to an abortion has been overturned, political leaders are contending with vocal groups that want to push further 鈥� such as by banning access to IVF or contraception.
• A Louisiana bill designating abortion pills as controlled substances targets people in the state, where abortion is banned, who are finding ways to get the drug. And abortion providers in Kansas are suing over a new law that requires patients to report their reasons for having an abortion. Such state laws have a cumulative chilling effect on abortion access.
• Some Republican lawmakers seem to be trying to dodge voter dissatisfaction with abortion restrictions in this election year. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama introduced legislation to protect IVF by pulling Medicaid funding from states that ban the fertility procedure 鈥� but it has holes. And Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland declared he is pro-choice, even though he mostly dodged the issue during his eight years as governor.
• Former President Donald Trump is in the news again for comments that seemed to leave the door open to restrictions on contraception 鈥� which may be the case, though he is known to make such vague policy suggestions. Trump’s policies as president did restrict access to contraception, and his allies have proposed going further.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Shefali Luthra of The 19th about her new book on abortion in post-Roe America, “Undue Burden.”

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

Julie Rovner: The 19th’s “,” by Shefali Luthra and Chabeli Carrazana.听

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “,” by Eric Boodman.听听

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “,” by Joel Achenbach and Mark Johnson.听听

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “,” by Sharon Lerner; and The Guardian’s “,” by Damian Carrington.听

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• NPR’s “,” by Sarah McCammon.
• 蘑菇影院 Health News’ “Biden Leans Into Health Care, Asking Voters To Trust Him Over Trump,” by Phil Galewitz.
• 蘑菇影院 Health News’ “Exclusive: Senator Urges Biden Administration To Thwart Fraudulent Obamacare Enrollments,” by Julie Appleby.
• 蘑菇影院 Health News’ “KHN’s 鈥榃hat the Health?’: Un-Trumping the ACA,” featuring an interview with journalist Marshall Allen.

[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.]听

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands. This is not a movie trailer, and it’s not a political ad, but it is a call to action. I’m Mila Atmos, and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast Future Hindsight, we take big ideas about civic life and democracy and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday, we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power and your power to change the status quo. Find us at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 蘑菇影院 Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 23, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. We are joined today via a video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi, thanks for having me.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with podcast panelist Shefali Luthra of The 19th. Shefali’s new book about abortion in the post-Roe [v. Wade] world, called “Undue Burden,” is out this week. But first, this week’s news. We’re going to start with abortion this week with a topic I’m calling “Abolitionists in Ascendance,” and a shoutout here to NPR’s on this that we will link to in the show notes. It seems that while Republican politicians, at least at the federal level, are kind of going to ground on this issue, and we’ll talk more about that in a bit, those who would take the ban to the furthest by prosecuting women, and/or banning IVF and contraception, are raising their voices. How much of a split does this portend for what, until the overturn of Roe, had been a pretty unified movement? I mean they were all unified in “Let’s overturn Roe,” and now that Roe has gone, boy are they dividing.

Ollstein: Yeah, it’s a lot easier to agree on what you’re against than on what you’re for. We wrote about the split on IVF specifically a bit ago, and it is really interesting. A lot of anti-abortion advocates are disappointed in the Republican response and the Republican rush to say, “No, let’s leave IVF totally alone” because these groups think, some think it some should be banned, some think that there should be a lot of restrictions on the way it’s currently practiced. So not a total ban, but things like you can only produce a certain number of embryos, you can only implant a certain number of embryos, you can only create the ones you intend to implant, and so that would completely upend the way IVF is currently practiced in the U.S.

So, we know the anti-abortion movement is good at playing the long game, and so some of them have told me that they see this kind of like the campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade. They understand that Republicans are reacting for political reasons right now, and they are confident in winning them over for restrictions in the long term.

Rovner: I’ve been fascinated by, I would say, by things like Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life [of America] who’s been sort of the far-right fringe of the anti-abortion movement looking like she’s the moderate now with some of these people, and their discussions of “We should charge women with murder and have the death penalty if necessary.” Sorry, Rachel, you want to say something?

Roubein: This is something that Republicans, they don’t want to be asked about this on the campaign. The more hard-line abolitionist movement is something more mainstream groups have been taking a lot of pains to distance themselves and say that we don’t prosecute women, and essentially nobody wants to talk about this ahead of 2024. GOP doesn’t want to be seen as that party that’s going after that.

Kenen: And the divisions existed when Roe was still the law of the land, and we would all write about the divisions and what they were pushing for, and it was partly strategic. How far do you push? Do you push for legislation? Do you push for the courts? Do you push for 20 weeks for fetal pain? But it was like rape exceptions and under what terms and things like that. So it was sort of much later in pregnancy, and with more restrictions, and the fight was about exactly where do you draw that line. This abolition of all abortion under all circumstances, or personhood, only a couple of years ago, were the fringe. Personhood was sort of like, “Oh, they’re out there, no one will go for that.” And now I don’t think it’s the dominant voice. I don’t think we yet know what their dominant voice is, but it’s a player in this conversation.

At the same time, on the other side, the pro-abortion rights people, there’s polls showing us this many Americans support abortion, but it’s subtler too. Even if people support abortion rights, it doesn’t mean that they’re not, some subset are in favor of some restrictions, or where that’s going to settle. Right now, a 15-week ban, which would’ve seemed draconian a year or two ago, now seems like the moderate position. It has not shaken out, and 鈥�

Rovner: Well, let’s talk 鈥�

Kenen: It’s not going to shake out for some time.

Rovner: Let’s talk about a few specifics. The Louisiana State Legislature on Tuesday approved a bill that would put the drugs used in medication abortion, mifepristone and misoprostol, on the state’s list of controlled substances. This has gotten a lot of publicity. I’m wondering what the actual effect might be here though since abortion is already banned in Louisiana. Obviously, these drugs are used for other things, but they wouldn’t be unavailable. They would just be put in this category of dangerous drugs.

Ollstein: So, officials know that people in banned states, including Louisiana, are obtaining abortion pills from out of state, whether through telehealth from states with shield laws or through these gray-area groups overseas that are mailing pills to anyone no matter what state they live in or what restrictions are in place. So I think because it would be very difficult to actually enforce this law, short of going through people’s homes and their mail, this is just one more layer of a chilling effect and making people afraid to seek out those mail order services.

Rovner: So it’s more, again, for the appearance of it than the actuality of it.

Ollstein: It also sets up another state versus federal law clash, potentially. We’ve seen this playing out in courts in West Virginia and in North Carolina, basically. Can states restrict or even completely ban a medication that the FDA says is safe and effective? And that question is percolating in a few different courts right now.

Rovner: Including sort of the Supreme Court. We’re still waiting for their abortion pill decision that we expect now next month. Meanwhile, in Kansas, where voters approved a big abortion rights referendum in 2022 鈥� remember, it was the first one of those 鈥� abortion providers are suing to stop a new state law enacted over the governor’s veto that would require them to report to the state women’s reasons for having an abortion. Now it’s not that hard to see how that information could be misused by people with other kinds of intents, right?

Ollstein: Well, it also brings up right to free speech issues, compelled speech. I think I’ve seen this pop up in abortion lawsuits even before Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization], this very issue because there have been instances where either doctors are required to give information that they say that they believe is medically inaccurate. That’s an issue in several states right now. And then this demanding information from patients. A lot of clinics that I’ve spoken to are so afraid of subpoenas from officials in-state, from out of state, that they intentionally don’t ask patients for certain kinds of data even though it would really help medically or organizationally for them to have that data. But they’re so afraid of it being seized, they figure well, they can’t seize it if they’re 鈥� doesn’t exist in the first place. And so I think this kind of law is in direct conflict with that.

Roubein: It also gets at the question of medical privacy that we’ve been seeing in the Biden administration’s efforts over HIPAA and protecting patients’ records and making it harder for state officials to attempt to seize.

Rovner: Yeah, this is clearly going to be a struggle in a lot of states where voters versus Republican legislatures, and we will sort of see how that all plays out. So even while this is going on in a bunch of the states, a lot of Republicans, including some who have been and remain strongly anti-abortion, are doing what I’m calling ducking-and-covering on a lot of these issues. Case in point, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt this week introduced a bill they say would protect IVF, which is kind of ironic given that both of them voted against a bill to protect IVF back in, checking notes, February. What’s the difference here? What are these guys trying to do?

Kenen: Theirs is narrower. They say that the original bill, which was a Democratic bill, was larded with abortion rights kinds of things. I have not read the entire bill, I just read the summary of it. And in this one, if a state restricts someone who had 鈥� someone feel free to correct me if I am missing something here because I don’t have deep knowledge of this bill 鈥� but if a state does not protect IVF, they would lose their Medicaid payment. And I was not clear whether that meant every penny of Medicaid, including nursing homes, or if it’s a subsection of Medicaid, because it seems like a big can of worms.

Ollstein: Yeah, so the key difference in these bills is the word ban. The Republican bill says that if states ban IVF, then these penalties kick in for Medicaid, but they say that there can be “health and safety regulations,” and so that is very open to interpretation. That can include the things we talked about before about you can only produce a certain number of embryos, you can only implant a certain number of embryos, and you can’t discard them. And so even what Alabama did was not an outright ban. So even something like that that cut off services for lots of people wouldn’t be considered a ban under this Republican bill. So I think there’s sort of a semantic game going on here where restrictions would still be allowed if they were short of a blanket ban, whereas the democratic bill would also prevent restrictions.

Rovner: Well, and along those exact same lines, in Maryland, former two-term Republican governor Larry Hogan, who’s managed to dodge the abortion issue in his primary run to become the Senate nominee, now that he is the Republican candidate for the open Senate seat, has declared himself, his words, “pro-choice,” and says he would vote to restore Roe in the Senate if given the opportunity. But as I recall, and I live in Maryland, he vetoed a couple of bills to expand abortion rights in very blue Maryland. Is he going to be able to have this both ways? He seems to be doing the [Sen.] Susan Collins script where he gets to say he’s pro-choice, but he doesn’t necessarily have to vote for abortion rights bills.

Kenen: Hogan is a very popular moderate Republican governor in a Democratic state. He is a strong Senate candidate. His opponent, a Democrat, Angela Alsobrooks, has a stronger abortion rights record. I don’t think that’s going to be the decisive issue in Maryland. I think it may help him a little bit, but I think in Maryland, if the Senate was 55-45, a lot of Democrats like Hogan and might want another moderate Republican in the Senate. But given that this is going to be about control of the Senate, abortion will be a factor, I don’t think abortion is going to be the dominant factor in this particular race.

If she were to win and there’s two black women, I mean that would be the first time that two black women ever served in the Senate at once, and I think they would only be number three and number four in history. So race and Affirmative Action will be factors, but I think that Democrats who might otherwise lean toward him, because he was considered a good governor. He was well-liked. This is a 50-50ish Senate, and that’s the deciding thing for anyone who pays attention, which of course is a whole other can of worms because nobody really pays attention. They just do things.

Roubein: I think it’s also worth noting this tact to the left comes as Maryland voters will be voting on an abortion rights ballot measure in 2024. So that all sort of in context, we’ve seen what’s happened with the other abortion measures, abortion rights have won, so.

Rovner: And Maryland is a really blue state, so one would expect it 鈥�

Kenen: There’s no question that the Maryland 鈥�

Rovner: Yeah.

Kenen: I mean, and all of us would fall flat on our faces if the abortion measure fails in Maryland. But I believe this is the first one on the ballot alongside a presidential election, and some of them have been in special elections. It’s unclear the correlation between, you can vote for a Republican candidate and still vote for a pro-abortion rights initiative. We will learn a lot more about how that split happens in November. I mean, is Kansas going to go for Biden? Unlikely. But Kansas went really strong for abortion rights. If you’re not a single-issue voter, you can, in fact, have it both ways.

Rovner: Yes, and we are already seeing that in the polls. Well, of course then there is the king of trying to have it both ways: former President Trump. He is either considering restrictions on contraception, as he told an interviewer earlier this week, promising a proposal soon, or he will, all caps, as he put on Truth Social, never advocate imposing restrictions on birth control. So which is it?

Ollstein: So this came out of Trump’s verbal tick of saying “We’ll have a plan in a few weeks,” which he says about everything. But in this context it made it sound like he was leaving the door open to restrictions on contraception, which very well might be the case. So what my colleague and I wrote about is he says he would never restrict contraception. A lot of things he did in his first administration did restrict access to contraception. It was not a ban. Again, we’re getting back into the semantics of ban. It was not a ban, but his Title X rule led to a drop in hundreds of thousands of people accessing contraception. He allowed more kinds of employers to refuse to cover their employees’ contraception on their health plans, and the plans his allies are creating in this Project 2025 blueprint would reimpose those restrictions and go even further in different ways that would have the effect of restricting access to contraception. And so I think this is a good instance of look at what people do, not what they say.

Rovner: So now that we’re on the subject of campaign 2024, President Biden’s campaign launched a $14 million ad buy this week that includes the warning that if Trump becomes president again he’ll try to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Maybe health care will be an issue in this election after all? I don’t have a rooting interest one way or the other. I’m just curious to see how much of an issue health will be beyond reproductive rights.

Kenen: Well, as Alice just pointed out, Trump’s promised plans often do not materialize, and we are still waiting to see his replacement plan eight years later. I think he’s being told to sort of go slow on this. I mean, not that you can control what Trump says, but he didn’t run on health care until the end, in 2016. It was a close race, and he ran against Hillary Clinton, and it was the last 10 or so days that he really came down hard because it was right when ACA enrollment was about to begin and premiums came in and they were high. He pivoted. So is this going to be a health care election from day one? And I’m putting abortion aside for one second in terms of my definition of health care for this particular segment. Is it going to be a health care election in terms of ACA, Medicare, Medicaid? At this point, probably not. But is it going to emerge at various times by one or the other side in politically opportune ways? I would be surprised if Biden’s not raising it. The ACA is thriving under Biden.

Rovner: Well, he is. That’s the whole point. He just took out a $14 million ad buy.

Kenen: Right. But again, we don’t know. Is it a health care election or is it a couple ads? We don’t know. So yes, it’s going to be a health care election because all elections are health care elections. How much it’s defined by health care compared to immigration? No, at this point, that’s not what we’re expecting. Compared to the economy? No, at this point. But is it an issue for some voters? Yes. Is it going to be an issue more prominently depending on how other things play out? It’ll have its peaks. We just don’t know how consistent it’ll be.

Roubein: Biden would love to run on the Inflation Reduction Act and politically popular policies like allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. One of the problems of that is polls, including from 蘑菇影院, has shown that the majority of voters don’t know about that. And some of these policies, the big ones, have not even gone into effect. CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] is going through the negotiation process, but that’s not going to hit people’s pocketbooks until after the election.

Kenen: The cliff for the ACA subsidies, which is in 2025, I mean I would imagine Democrats will be campaigning on, “We will extend the subsidies,” and again, in some places more than others, but that’s a time-sensitive big thing happening next year.

Rovner: But talk about an issue that people have no idea that’s coming. Well, meanwhile, for Trump, reproductive health isn’t the only issue where he’s doing a not-so-delicate dance. Apparently worried about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stealing anti-vax [vaccine] votes from him, Trump is now calling RFK Jr. a fake anti-vaxxer. Except I’m old enough to remember when Trump bragged repeatedly about how fast his administration developed and brought the covid vaccine to market. That used to be one of his big selling points. Now he’s trying to be anti-vax, too?

Kenen: Not only did he brag about bringing it to the market. The way he used to talk about it, it was like he was there in his lab coat inventing it. Operation Warp Speed was a success. It got vaccines out in record time, way beyond what many people expected. Democrats gave him credit for that one policy in health care. He got a vaccine out and available in less than a year, and he got vaccinated and boasted about being vaccinated. He was open about it. Now we don’t know if he’s been boosted. He really backed off. As soon as somebody booed him, and it wasn’t a lot of boos, at one rally when he talked about vaccination and he got pushed back, that was the end.

Rovner: So, yeah, so I expect that to sort of continue on this election season, too.

Kenen: But we don’t expect RFK to flip.

Rovner: No, we do not. Right. Well, moving on to this weekend’s “Cyber Hacks,” a new feature, the fallout continues from the hack of Ascension [health care company]. That’s the Catholic hospital system with facilities in 19 states. In Michigan, patients have been unable to use hospital pharmacies and their doctors have been unable to send electronic prescriptions, so they’re having to write them out by hand. And in Indiana orders for tests and test results are being delayed by as much as a day for hospital patients. Not a great thing.

And just in time, or maybe a little late, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the newly created ARPA-H [Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health] that we have talked about, this week announced the launch of a new program to help hospitals make security patches and updates to their systems without taking them offline, which is obviously a major reason so many of these systems are so vulnerable to cyberhacking.

Of course, this announcement from HHS is just to solicit ideas for grants to help make that happen. So it’s going to be a while before we get any of these security changes. I’m wondering, how many systems are going to try to build a lot more redundancy into them? In the meantime, are we hearing anything about what they can do in the short term? It feels like the entire health care system is kind of a sitting duck for this group of cyberhackers who think they can get in easily and get ransom.

Kenen: There’s a reason they think that.

Rovner: They can.

Roubein: Thinking about hospitals and doctors using this manually, paper-based system and how that’s delaying getting your results and just there’s been these stories about patients. Like the anxiety that that’s understandably causing patients, and we’ll see sort of whether Congress can grapple with this, and there’s not really much legislation that’s going to move, so 鈥�

Kenen: But I was surprised that they were calling on ARPA-H. I mean, that’s supposed to be a biotech- curing-diseases thing, and none of the four of us are cybersecurity experts, and none of us really specialize in covering the electronic side of the digital side of health, but it just seems to me, I just thought that was an odd thing. First of all, some of these are just systems that haven’t been upgraded or individual clinicians who don’t upgrade or don’t do their double authorization. Some of it’s sort of cyberhygiene, and some of it’s obviously like the change thing. They’re really sophisticated criminals, but it’s not something that one would think you can’t get ahead of, right? They’re smart, good-guy technology people. It’s not like the bad guys are the only ones who understand technology. So why are the smart good guys not doing their job? And also, probably, health care systems have to have some kind of security checks on their own members to make sure they are following all the safety rules and some kind of consequences if you’re not, other than being embarrassed.

Rovner: I’ve just been sort of bemused by all of this, how both patients and providers complain loudly and frequently about the frustrations of some of these electronic record systems. And of course, in the places that they’re going down and they’ve had to go back to paper, people are like, “Please give us our electronic systems back.” So it doesn’t take long to get used to some of these things and be sorry when they’re gone, even if it’s only temporarily. It’s obviously been 鈥�

Kenen: But like what Rachel said, if you’re in the hospital, you’re sick, and do your clinicians need your lab results? Yes. I mean some of them are more important than others, and I would hope that hospitals are figuring out how to prioritize. But yeah, this is a crisis. If you’re in the hospital and they don’t know what’s wrong with you and they’re trying to figure out do you have X, Y, or Z, waiting until next week is not really a great idea.

Rovner: But it wasn’t that many years ago that their existence 鈥�

Kenen: Right, no, no, no.

Rovner: 鈥� did not involve 鈥�

Kenen: [inaudible 00:21:28].

Rovner: 鈥� electronic medical record.

Kenen: Right. Right.

Rovner: They knew how to get test results back and forth even if it was sending an intern to go fetch them. Finally, this week, we have some updates on some stories that we’ve talked about in earlier episodes. First, thanks in part to the excellent reporting of my colleague and sometime-pod-panelist Julie Appleby, the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden is demanding that HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] officials do more to rein in rogue insurance brokers who are reaping extra commissions by switching patients’ Affordable Care Act plans without their knowledge, often subjecting them to higher out-of-pocket costs and separating them from the providers that they’ve chosen. Sen. Wyden said he would introduce legislation to make such schemes a crime, but in the meantime he wants Biden officials to do more, given that they have received more than 90,000 complaints in the first quarter of 2024 alone about unauthorized switches and enrollments. Criminals go where the money is, right? You can either cyberhack or you can become a broker and switch people to ACA plans so you can get more commissions.

Kenen: I would think there could be a bipartisan, I mean it’s hard to get anything done in Congress. There’s no must-pass bills in the immediate future that are relevant. And the idea that a broker is secretly doing something that you don’t want them to do and that’s costing you money and making them money. I could see, those 90,000 people are from red and blue states and they vote, it’s going to affect constituents nationwide. Maybe they’ll do something. Maybe the industry can also鈥� There is the National Association 鈥� I forgot the acronym, but there’s a broker’s organization, that there are probably things that they can also do to sanction. States can also do some things to brokers, but whether there’s a national solution or piecemeal, I don’t know, but it’s so outrageous that it’s not a right-left issue.

Rovner: Yes, one would think that there’ll be at least some kind of congressional action built into something 鈥�

Kenen: Something or other, right.

Rovner: 鈥� Congress that manages to do before the end of the year. Well, and in one of those seemingly rare cases where legislation actually does what it was intended to do, the White House this week announced that it has approved more than a million claims under the 2022 PACT Act, which made veterans injured as a result of exposure to burn pits and other toxic substances eligible for VA [Veterans Affairs] disability benefits. On the other hand, the VA is still working its way through another 3 million claims that have been submitted. I feel like even if it’s not very often, sometimes it’s worth noting that there are bipartisan things from Washington, D.C., that actually get passed and actually help the people that they’re supposed to help. It’s kind of sad that this is notable as an exception of something that happened and is working.

Roubein: In sort of the, I guess, Department of Unintended Side Effects here, my colleague Lisa Rein had a really interesting story out this morning that talked about the PACT Act, but basically that despite a federal law that prohibits charging veterans for help in applying for disability benefits, for-profit companies are making millions. She did a review of up to like a hundred unaccredited for-profit companies who have been charging veterans anywhere from like $5,000 to $20,000 for helping file disability claims because 鈥�

Rovner: That’s the theme of this week. Anyplace that there’s a lot of money in health care, there were people who will want to come in and take what’s not theirs. That’s where we will leave the news this week. Now we will play my interview with Shefali Luthra, then we’ll come back with our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome back to the podcast my former colleague and current “What The Health?” panelist Shefali Luthra. You haven’t heard from her in a while because she’s been working on her first book, called “Undue Burden,” that’s out this week. Shefali, great to see you.

Luthra: Thank you so much for having me Julie.

Rovner: So as the title suggests, “Undue Burden” is about the difficulties for both patients and providers in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade. We talk so much about the politics of this issue, and so little about the real people who are affected. Why did you want to take this particular angle?

Luthra: To me, this is what makes this topic so important. Health care and abortion are really critical political issues. They sway elections. They are likely to be very consequential in this coming presidential election. But this matters to us as reporters and to us as people because of the life-or-death stakes and even beyond the life-or-death stakes, the stakes of how you choose to live your life and what it means to be pregnant and to be a parent. These are really difficult stories to tell because of the resources involved. And I wanted to write a book that just got at all of the different reasons why people pursue abortion and why they provide abortion and how that’s changed in the past two years. Because it felt to me like one of the few ways we could really understand just how seismic the implications of overturning Roe has been.

Rovner: And unlike those of us who talk to politicians all the time, you were really on the ground talking to patients and doctors, right?

Luthra: That was really, really important to the book. I spent a lot of time traveling the country, in clinics talking to people who were able to get abortions, who were unable to get abortions, and it was just really compelling for me to see how much access to care had the capacity to change their lives.

Rovner: So what kind of barriers then are we talking about that cropped up? And I guess it wasn’t even just the wake of the overturn of Roe. In Texas we had sort of a yearlong dry run.

Luthra: Exactly, and the book starts before Roe is overturned in Texas when the state enacted SB 8, the six-week abortion ban that effectively cut off access. And the first main character readers meet is this young girl named Tiffany, and she’s a teenager when she becomes pregnant, and she would love to get an abortion. But she is a minor. She lives very far from any abortion provider. She does not know how to self-manage an abortion. She does not know where to find pills. She has no connections into the health care system. She has no independent income. And she absolutely cannot travel anywhere for care. As a result, she has a child before she turns 18. And what this story highlights is that there are just so many barriers to getting an abortion. Many already existed: The incredible cost for procedure not covered by health insurance, the geographic distance, people already had to travel, the extra restrictions on minors.

But the overturning of Roe has amplified these, it is so expensive to get an abortion. It can be difficult to know you’re pregnant, especially if you are not trying to become pregnant. You have a very short time window. You may need to find childcare. You may need to find a car, get time off work, and bring all of these different forces together so that you are able to make a journey that can be days and pay for a trip that can cost thousands of dollars.

Rovner: One of the things that I think surprised me was that states that proclaimed themselves abortion “havens” actually did so little to help their clinics that predictably got swamped by out-of-state patients. Why do you think that was the case, and is it any better now?

Luthra: I think things have certainly changed. We have seen much more action in states, such as Illinois, where we see more people traveling there for care than anywhere else in the country. But it is worth going back to the summer that Roe was overturned. The governor promised to call a special session and put all these resources into making sure that Illinois could be a sanctuary. He never called that special session. And clinics felt like they were hanging out to dry, just waiting to get some support, and in the meanwhile, doing the absolute best they could.

One thing that I think this book really gets at is we are starting to see more efforts from these bluer states, the Illinois, the Californias, the New Yorks, and they talk a lot about wanting to be abortion havens, in part because it’s great politics if you’re a Democrat, but there’s only so much you can do. California has seen also quite a large increase in out-of-state patients. But I’ve spoken to so many people who just cannot conceivably go to California. They can barely go to Illinois. Making that journey when you are young, if you don’t have a lot of money, if you live in South Texas, if you live in Louisiana, it’s just not really feasible. And the places that are set up as these access points just can’t really fill in the gaps that they say they will.

Rovner: As you point out in the book, a lot of this was completely predictable. Was there something in your reporting that actually did surprise you?

Luthra: That’s a great question, and what did surprise me was in part something that we’ve begun to see borne out in the reporting, is there are very effective telemedicine strategies. We have begun to see physicians living in blue states, the New Yorks, Massachusetts, Californias, prescribing and mailing abortion pills to people in states with bans. This is pretty powerful. It has expanded access to a lot of people. What was really striking to me, though, even as I reported about the experiences of patients seeking care, is that while that has done so much to expand access in the face of abortion bans, it isn’t a solution that everyone can use. There were lots of people I met who did not want a medication abortion, who did not feel safe having pills mailed into their homes, or whose pregnancy complications and questions were just too complex to be solved by a virtual consult and then pills being mailed to them to take in the comfort of their house.

Rovner: Aren’t these difficulties exactly what the anti-abortion movement wanted? Didn’t they want clinics so swamped they couldn’t serve everybody who wanted to come, and abortion to be so difficult to get that women would end up carrying their pregnancies to term instead?

Luthra: Yes and no, I would argue. I think you are absolutely right that one of the primary goals of the anti-abortion movement was to make abortion unavailable, to make it harder to acquire, to have more people not get abortions and instead have children. But when I speak to folks in the anti-abortion movement, they are very troubled by how many people are traveling out of state to get care. They see those really long wait times in Kansas, in, until recently, Florida, in Illinois, in New Mexico, as a symptom of something that they need to address, which is that so many people are still finding a way to fight incredible odds to access abortion.

Rovner: Is there one thing that you hope people take away after they’re finished reading this?

Luthra: There are two things that I have spent a lot of time thinking about as I’ve reported this book. The first is just who gets abortions and under what circumstances. And so often in the national press, in national politics, we talk about these really extreme life-or-death cases. We talk about people who became septic and needed an abortion because their water broke early, or we talk about children who have been sexually assaulted and become pregnant. But we don’t talk about most people who get abortions; who are usually mothers, who are usually people of color, who are in their 20s and just know that they can’t be pregnant. I think those are really important stories to tell because they’re the true face of who is most affected by this, and it was important to me that this book include that.

The other thing that I have thought about so often in reporting this and writing this is abortion demands have an unequal impact. That is true if you are poor, if you are a person of color, if you live in a rural area, et cetera. You will in all likelihood see a greater effect. That said, the overturning of Roe v. Wade is so tremendous that it has affected people in every state. It affects you if you can get pregnant. It affects you if you want birth control. It affects you if you require reproductive health care in some form. This is just such a seismic change to our health care system that I really hope people who read this book understand that this is not a niche issue. This is something worthy of our collective attention and concern as journalists and as people.

Rovner: Shefali Luthra, thank you so much for this, and we will see you soon on the panel, right?

Luthra: Absolutely. Thank you, Julie. I’m so glad we got to do this.

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.听Joanne, why don’t you go first this week?

Kenen: This was a pair of articles, a long one and a shorter, related one. There’s an amazingly wonderful piece in ProPublica by Sharon Lerner, and it’s called “.” I’m going to come back and talk about it briefly in a second, but the related story was in The Guardian by Damian Carrington: “.” Now, that was a small study, but there may be a link to the declining sperm count because of these forever chemicals.

The ProPublica story, it was a young woman scientist. She worked for 3M. They kept telling her her results was wrong, her machinery was dirty, over and over and over again until she questioned herself and her findings. She was supposed to be looking at the blood of 3M workers who were, it turned out, the company knew all this already and they were hiding it, and she compared the blood of the 3M workers to non-3M workers, and she found these plastic chemicals in everybody’s blood everywhere, and she was basically gaslit out of her job. She continued to work for 3M, but in a different capacity.

The article’s really scary about the impact for human health. It also has wonderfully interesting little nuggets throughout about how various 3M products were developed, some by accident. Something spilled on somebody’s sneaker and it didn’t stain it, and that’s how we got those sprays for our upholstery. Or somebody needed something to find the pages in their church hymnal, and that’s how we got Post-it notes. It’s a devastating but very readable, and it makes you angry.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like there’s a lot more we’re going to have to say about forever chemicals going forward. Alice.

Ollstein: So I have a pretty depressing story from Stats. It’s called “,” by Eric Boodman. And it is about people with sickle cell, and that is overwhelmingly black women, and they felt pressured to agree to be permanently sterilized when they were going to give birth because of the higher risks. And the doctors said, because we’re already doing a C-section and we’re already doing surgery on you, to not have to do an additional surgery with additional risks, they felt pressured to just sign that they could be sterilized right then and there and came to regret it later and really wanted more children. And so, this is an instance of people feeling coerced, and when people think about pro-choice or the choice debate about reproduction they mostly think about the right to an abortion. But I think that the right to have more children, if you want to, is the other side of that coin.

Rovner: It is. Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit, it’s called “,” by Joel Achenbach and Mark Johnson from The Washington Post. And basically, they kind of took a very science-based look at the 2024 election. They basically called it a crash course in gerontology because former President Donald Trump will be 78 years old. President Biden will be a couple weeks away from turning 82. And obviously that is getting a lot of attention on the campaign trail. They talked to medical and scientific experts who were essentially warning that news reports, political punditry about the candidates’ mental fitness, has essentially been marred by misinformation here about the aging process. One of the things they dived into was these gaffes or what the public sees as senior moments and what experts had told them is, that’s not necessarily a sign of dementia or predictive of cognitive decline. There need to be kind of further clinical evaluation for that. But there have been some calls for just how to kind of standardize and require a certain level of transparency for candidates in terms of disclosing their health information.

Rovner: Yes, which we’ve been talking about for a while, and will continue to. My extra credit this week is from our guest, Shefali Luthra, and her colleague at The 19th Chabeli Carrazana, and it’s called “.” And for all the talk about doctors and other staffers either moving out of or not moving into states with abortion bans, I think less has been written about entire enterprises that often provide far more than just abortion services having to shut down as well. We saw this in Texas in the mid-2010s, when a law that shut down many of the clinics there was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016. But many of those clinics were unable to reopen. They just could not reassemble, basically, their leases and equipment and staff. The same could well happen in states that this November vote to reverse some of those bans. And it’s not just abortion, as we’ve discussed. When these clinics close, it often means less family planning, less STI [sexually transmitted infection] screening and other preventive services as well, so it’s definitely something to continue to watch.

Before we go this week, I want to note the passing of a health policy journalism giant with the death of Marshall Allen. Marshall, who worked tirelessly, first in Las Vegas and more recently at ProPublica, to expose some of the most unfair and infuriating parts of the U.S. health care system, was on the podcast in 2021 to talk about his book, “Never Pay the First Bill, and Other Ways to Fight the Health Care System and Win.” I will post a link to the interview in this week’s show notes. Condolences to Marshall’s friends and family.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, . Joanne, where are you?

Kenen: We’re at Threads .

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: Still on X .

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: On X, .

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

Credits

To hear all our podcasts,听click here.

And subscribe to 蘑菇影院 Health News’ “What the Health?” on听,听,听, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

蘑菇影院 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 蘑菇影院鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But meth is almost as easy to come by as a hazy IPA or locally grown weed.

Quinn Coburn knows the lifestyle well. He has used meth most of his adult life, and has done five stints in jail for dealing . Now 56, Coburn wants to get sober for good, and he says an experimental program through Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, which covers low-income people, is helping.

As part of an innovative approach called “,” Coburn pees in a cup and gets paid for it 鈥� as long as the sample is clean of stimulants.

In the coming fiscal year, the state is expected to allocate $61 million to the experiment, which targets addiction to stimulants such as meth and cocaine. It is part of a broader Medi-Cal initiative , which provides social and behavioral health services, including addiction treatment, to some of the state’s sickest and most vulnerable patients.

Since April 2023, 19 counties have enrolled a total of about 2,700 patients, including Coburn, according to the state Department of Health Care Services.

“It’s that little something that’s holding me accountable,” said Coburn, a former construction worker who has tried repeatedly to kick his habit. He is also motivated to stay clean to fight criminal charges for possession of drugs and firearms, which he vociferously denies.

Coburn received $10 for each clean urine test he provided the first week of the program. Participants get a little more money in successive weeks: $11.50 per test in week two, $13 in week three, up to $26.50 per test.

They can earn as much as . As of mid-May, Coburn had completed 20 weeks and made $521.50.

Participants receive at least six months of additional behavioral health treatment after the urine testing ends.

The state has poured significant into curbing opioid addiction and , but the use of stimulants is also exploding in California. According to the state Department of Health Care Services, the rate of Californians dying from them .

Although the cutting-edge treatment and other drugs, California has prioritized stimulants. To qualify, patients must have moderate to severe stimulant use disorder, which includes symptoms such as strong cravings for the drug and prioritizing it over personal health and well-being.

Substance use experts say incentive programs that reward participants, even in a small way, can have a powerful effect with meth users in particular, and a indicates they can lead to long-term abstinence.

“The way stimulants work on the brain is different than how opiates or alcohol works on the brain,” said John Duff, lead program director at Common Goals, an outpatient drug and alcohol counseling center in Grass Valley, where Coburn receives treatment.

“The reward system in the brain is more activated with amphetamine users, so getting $10 or $20 at a time is more enticing than sitting in group therapy,” Duff said.

Duff acknowledged he was skeptical of the multimillion-dollar price tag for an experimental program. “You’re talking about a lot of money,” he said. “It was a hard sell.”

What convinced him? “People are showing up, consistently. To get off stimulants, it’s proving to be very effective.”

California was the first state to cover this approach as a benefit in its Medicaid program, according to the Department of Health Care Services, though other states have since followed, .

Participants in Nevada County must show up twice a week to provide a urine sample, tapering to once a week for the second half of treatment. Every time the sample is free of stimulants, they get paid via a retail gift card 鈥� even if the sample is positive for other kinds of drugs, including opioids.

Though participants can collect the money after each clean test, many opt for a lump sum after completing the 24-week program, Duff said. They can choose gift cards from companies such as Walmart, Bath & Body Works, Petco, Subway, and Hotels.com.

Charlie Abernathybettis 鈥� Coburn’s substance use disorder counselor, who helps run the program for Nevada County 鈥� said not everyone consistently produces a clean urine test, and he has devised a system to stop people from rigging their results.

For example, he uses blue toilet cleaner to prevent patients from watering down their urine, and has dismantled a spigot on the bathroom faucet to keep them from using warm water for the same purpose.

If participants fail, there are no consequences. They simply don’t get paid that day, and can show up and try again.

“We aren’t going to change behavior by penalizing people for their addiction,” Abernathybettis said, noting the ultimate goal is to transition participants into long-term treatment. “Hopefully you feel comfortable here and I can convince you to sign up for outpatient treatment.”

Abernathybettis has employed a tough love approach to addiction therapy that has helped keep Coburn sober and accountable since he started in January. “It’s different this time,” Coburn said as he lit a cigarette on a sunny afternoon in April. “I have support now. I know my life is on the line.”

Growing up in the Bay Area, Coburn never quite felt like he fit in. He was adopted at an early age and dropped out of high school. His erratic home life set him on a course of hard drug use and crime, including manufacturing and selling drugs, he said.

“When I first did crank, it made me feel like I was human for the first time. All my phobias about being antisocial left me,” Coburn said, using a street name for meth.

Coburn escaped to the solitude of the mountains, trees, and rivers that define the rural landscape in Grass Valley, but the area was also rife with drugs.

Construction accidents in 2012 left him in excruciating pain 鈥� and unable to work.

Coburn fell deeper into the drug scene, as both a user and a manufacturer. “You wouldn’t believe the market up here for it 鈥� more than you can even imagine,” he said. “It’s not an excuse, but I had no way to make a living.”

Financially strapped, he rented a cheap, converted garage from another local drug dealer, he said. Law enforcement officers raided the house in October, and authorities found a gun and large amounts of fentanyl and heroin. Coburn, who faces up to 30 years in prison, vigorously defends himself, saying the drugs and weapons were not his. “All the other ones I did. Not this one,” he said.

Coburn is also in an outpatient addiction program and is active in Alcoholics Anonymous, sometimes attending multiple meetings a day.

Every week, the small payments from the Medi-Cal experiment feel like small wins, he said.

He is planning to take his $599 as a lump sum and give it to his foster parents, with whom he is living as he fights his criminal charges.

“It’s the least I can do for them letting me stay with them and get better,” Coburn said, choking back tears. “I’m not giving up.”

This article is part of “,” a California Healthline series exploring the impact of the state’s safety-net health program on enrollees.

This article was produced by 蘑菇影院 Health News, which publishes , an editorially independent service of the .听

蘑菇影院 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 蘑菇影院鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

After two years of delays due to the coronavirus pandemic, they set sail in December 2022.

The couple chose a cruise destined for the Bahamas in part because it included a trip to CocoCay, a private island accessible to Royal Caribbean passengers that featured a water park, balloon rides, and an excursion swimming with pigs.

It was on that day on CocoCay when Wasney, 31, started feeling off, he said.

The next morning, as the couple made plans in their cabin for the last full day of the trip, Wasney made a pained noise. Eberlein saw him having a seizure in bed, with blood coming out of his mouth from biting his tongue. She opened their door to find help and happened upon another guest, who roused his wife, an emergency room physician.

Wasney was able to climb into a wheelchair brought by the ship’s medical crew to take him down to the medical facility, where he was given anticonvulsants and fluids and monitored before being released.

Wasney had had seizures in the past, starting about 10 years ago, but it had been a while since his last one. Imaging back then showed no tumors, and doctors concluded he was likely epileptic, he said. He took medicine initially, but after two years without another seizure, he said, his doctors took him off the medicine to avoid liver damage.

Wasney had a second seizure on the ship a few hours later, back in his cabin. This time he stopped breathing, and Eberlein remembered his lips being so purple, they almost looked black. Again, she ran to find help but, in her haste, locked herself out. By the time the ship’s medical team got into the cabin, Wasney was breathing again but had broken blood vessels along his chest and neck that he later said resembled tiger stripes.

Wasney was in the ship’s medical center when he had a third seizure 鈥� a grand mal, which typically causes a loss of consciousness and violent muscle contractions. By then, the ship was close enough to port that Wasney could be evacuated by rescue boat. He was put on a stretcher to be lowered by ropes off the side of the ship, with Eberlein climbing down a rope ladder to join him.

But before they disembarked, the bill came.

The Patient: Vincent Wasney, 31, who was uninsured at the time.

Medical Services: General and enhanced observation, a blood test, anticonvulsant medicine, and a fee for services performed outside the medical facility.

Service Provider: Independence of the Seas Medical Center, the on-ship medical facility on the .

Total Bill: $2,500.22.

What Gives: As , cruise passengers “agree to pay in full” all expenses incurred on board by the end of the cruise, including those related to medical care. In addition, Royal Caribbean “land-based” health insurance plans.

Wasney said he was surprised to learn that, along with other charges like wireless internet, Royal Caribbean required he pay his medical bills before exiting the ship 鈥� even though he was being evacuated urgently.

“Are we being held hostage at this point?” Eberlein remembered asking. “Because, obviously, if he’s had three seizures in 10 hours, it’s an issue.”

Wasney said he has little memory of being on the ship after his first seizure 鈥� seizures often leave victims groggy and disoriented for a few hours afterward.

But he certainly remembers being shown a bill, the bulk of which was the $2,500.22 in medical charges, while waiting for the rescue boat.

Still groggy, Wasney recalled saying he couldn’t afford that and a cruise employee responding: “How much can you pay?”

They drained their bank accounts, including money saved for their next house payment, and maxed out Wasney’s credit card but were still about $1,000 short, he said.

Ultimately, they were allowed to leave the ship. He later learned his card was overdrafted to cover the shortfall, he said.

Royal Caribbean International did not respond to multiple inquiries from 蘑菇影院 Health News.

Once on land, in Florida, Wasney was taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Broward Health Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, where he incurred thousands of dollars more in medical expenses.

He still isn’t entirely sure what caused the seizures.

On the ship he was told it could have been extreme dehydration 鈥� and he said he does remember being extra thirsty on CocoCay. He also has mused whether trying escargot for the first time the night before could have played a role. Eberlein’s mother is convinced the episode was connected to swimming with pigs, he said. And not to be discounted, Eberlein accidentally broke a pocket mirror three days before their trip.

Wasney, who works in a stone shop, was uninsured when they set sail. He said that one month before they embarked on their voyage, he finally felt he could afford the health plan offered through his employer and signed up, but the plan didn’t start until January 2023, after their return.

They also lacked travel insurance. As inexperienced travelers, Wasney said, they thought it was for lost luggage and canceled trips, not unexpected medical expenses. And because the cruise was a gift, they were never prompted to buy coverage, which often happens when tickets are purchased.

The Resolution: Wasney said the couple returned to Saginaw with essentially no money in their bank account, several thousand dollars of medical debt, and no idea how they would cover their mortgage payment. Because he was uninsured at the time of the cruise, Wasney did not try to collect reimbursement for the cruise bill from his new health plan when his coverage began weeks later.

The couple set up payment plans to cover the medical bills for Wasney’s care after leaving the ship: one each with two doctors he saw at Broward Health, who billed separately from the hospital, and one with the ambulance company. He also made payments on a bill with Broward Health itself. Those plans do not charge interest.

But Broward Health said Wasney missed two payments to the hospital, and that bill was ultimately sent to collections.

In a statement, Broward Health spokesperson Nina Levine said Wasney’s bill was reduced by 73% because he was uninsured.

“We do everything in our power to provide the best care with the least financial impact, but also cannot stress enough the importance of taking advantage of private and Affordable Care Act health insurance plans, as well as travel insurance, to lower risks associated with unplanned medical issues,” she said.

The couple was able to make their house payment with $2,690 they raised through a that Wasney set up. Wasney said a lot of that help came from family as well as friends he met playing disc golf, a sport he picked up during the pandemic.

“A bunch of people came through for us,” Wasney said, still moved to tears by the generosity. “But there’s still the hospital bill.”

The Takeaway: Billing practices differ by cruise line, but , chair of the cruise ship medicine section of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said medical charges are typically added to a cruise passenger’s onboard account, which must be paid before leaving the ship. Individuals can then submit receipts to their insurers for possible reimbursement.

More from Bill of the Month

• Sign Here? Financial Agreements May Leave Doctors in the Driver’s Seat Apr 30, 2024
• A Mom’s $97,000 Question: How Was Her Baby’s Air-Ambulance Ride Not Medically Necessary? Mar 25, 2024
• Without Medicare Part B’s Shield, Patient’s Family Owes $81,000 for a Single Air-Ambulance Flight Feb 27, 2024

He recommended that those planning to take a cruise purchase travel insurance that specifically covers their trips. “This will facilitate reimbursement if they do incur charges and potentially cover a costly medical evacuation if needed,” Scott said.

Royal Caribbean passengers who receive onboard care submit their paid bills to their health insurer for possible reimbursement. Many health plans received on cruise ships, however. medically necessary health care services on cruise ships, but not if the ship is more than six hours away from a U.S. port.

Travel insurance can be designed to address , like lost baggage or even transportation and lodging for a loved one to visit if a traveler is hospitalized.

Travel medical insurance, as well as plans that offer “emergency evacuation and repatriation,” are two types that can specifically assist with medical emergencies. Such plans can be purchased individually. Credit cards may offer travel medical insurance among their benefits, as well.

But travel insurance plans come with limitations. For instance, they may not cover care associated with preexisting conditions or what the plans consider “risky” activities, such as rock climbing. Some plans also require that travelers file first with their primary health insurance before seeking reimbursement from travel insurance.

As with other insurance, be sure to read the fine print and understand how reimbursement works.

Wasney said that’s what they plan to do before their next Royal Caribbean cruise. They’d like to go back to the Bahamas on basically the same trip, he said 鈥� there’s a lot about CocoCay they didn’t get to explore.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by 蘑菇影院 Health News and that dissects and explains medical bills. Do you have an interesting medical bill you want to share with us? !

蘑菇影院 Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at 蘑菇影院鈥攁n independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).