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).

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).

June means it’s time for the Supreme Court to render rulings on the biggest and most controversial cases of the term. This year, the court has two significant abortion-related cases: one involving the abortion pill mifepristone and the other regarding the conflict between a federal emergency care law and Idaho’s near-total abortion ban.

Also awaiting resolution is a case that could dramatically change how the federal government makes health care (and all other types of) policies by potentially limiting agencies’ authority in interpreting the details of laws through regulations. Rules stemming from the Affordable Care Act and other legislation could be affected.

In this special episode of “What the Health?”, Laurie Sobel, an associate director for women’s health policy at 蘑菇影院, joins host Julie Rovner for a refresher on the cases, and a preview of how the justices might rule on them.听

The cases highlighted in this episode:

• and , about how much discretion federal agencies should have in interpreting laws passed by Congress.
• , about whether the FDA exceeded its authority in relaxing restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone.
• and , about whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requirement for hospitals participating in Medicare to provide needed medical care overrides Idaho’s near-total abortion ban in emergency cases.

• 蘑菇影院 Health News' 'What the Health?': Abortion 鈥� Again 鈥� At the Supreme Court Apr 24, 2024
• 蘑菇影院 Health News' 'What the Health?': The Supreme Court and the Abortion Pill Mar 28, 2024
• 蘑菇影院 Health News' 'What the Health?': Health Enters the Presidential Race Jan 25, 2024
• 蘑菇影院 Health News' 'What the Health?': The Supreme Court vs. the Bureaucracy Jan 18, 2024

Where to find Supreme Court opinions as they are announced:

• The Supreme Court’s
• 听罢丑别 (not an official government website but run by lawyers and journalists)

[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 ato 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. We’re taping this week on Wednesday, May 29, at 1 p.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.

Because it’s a holiday week and health news is a little bit slow, we’re going to do something a little different. It’s about to be June, and that means the Supreme Court is going to issue opinions in some of the biggest cases argued this past term, including two abortion-related cases and one that could literally disrupt the way the entire federal government operates. I’m not sure I remember all the details of these cases, even though we have talked about them all on the podcast. So I’ve asked someone here to remind us what they’re about and give us a preview of how the court might rule in some of them. Laurie Sobel is associate director for women’s health policy here at 蘑菇影院, and one of our top in-house legal experts. Laurie, welcome to “What the Health?” Thanks for joining us.

Laurie Sobel: Hi, Julie. It’s great to be here.

Rovner: So I thought we’d take the cases in the order they were argued before the court, although I know that’s not necessarily the order that we will see the opinions issued in. First up: In January, the justices heard arguments in two cases about, of all things, herring fishing. and . But these cases are about a lot more than herring and could affect a lot more than the Department of Commerce, right?

Sobel: Absolutely. These cases are about what’s called the Chevron doctrine [deference], which requires courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a law when the law is silent or ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable.

Rovner: And what would an example of that be?

Sobel: Oh, there’s many, many examples. Essentially, Congress doesn’t fill in the details of many laws, and they rely on agencies to fill in those details, assuming that the agency has the expertise to figure out what those details might be. And also, many times the details change as new scientific evidence becomes available or there’s changed circumstances, or there’s a pandemic or something in which the agency needs to respond to.

Rovner: This is basically the entire federal regulatory process we’re talking about here, right?

Sobel: That’s correct.

Rovner: And in health care, there’s a lot of places that regulation affects.

Sobel: Absolutely. So Congress relies on the agencies to implement laws, the ACA [Affordable Care Act], Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance Program]. So there’s a lot in health care. In addition, Title X is regulated by the Office of Population Affairs, and those also have regulations. So overturning Chevron would make it very difficult for Congress to continue to rely on agencies to fill in these gaps and to react to real-time situations.

Rovner: And there’s private entities that get regulated, are freaked out by the possibility that they won’t be able to rely on the agencies either.

Sobel: Absolutely. So everything from payment rates to providers and hospitals to negotiating prescription drug prices for the Medicare program. The ACA, I think, has probably more regulations than most laws. And relationship 鈥� we’ll talk about the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] in the next case, but the FDA also sets out regulations as does CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], and we really rely on those agencies to have the scientific expertise to react to the situation. So if Congress has to either fill in all the gaps, which is by most people’s assessment impossible, it might really stall how things get implemented and/or create a whole lot of new litigation.

Rovner: And I would say it would give courts a whole lot more authority than they have now, right?

Sobel: Certainly. So right now, the rule is that the agency’s interpretation stands as long as the law is ambiguous or silent and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. This would give that power back to the courts to then guess what Congress meant or to interpret what Congress meant.

Rovner: Somebody I was talking to about this case suggested that, I hadn’t really thought about before, that if Chevron were to get struck down, that those who had sued over regulations and lost might be able to go back and reopen those cases. I mean, it could just be a flood of litigation.

Sobel: Absolutely. And that came up during oral argument about what would that mean for all the settled cases. And both sides offered different interpretations with the solicitor general arguing that it would really open up this can of worms to tons of litigation, and the plaintiffs essentially saying, “No, no, no, we could let those all stand and just going forward, the Chevron deference would be undone.” And there were some hints that maybe some compromises like that between the justices as they were talking.

Rovner: Exactly. You’re anticipating my next question, which is did we get any hints from the oral arguments about where they might be going with this case? It’s hard to imagine them just completely overturning Chevron.

Sobel: It is hard to imagine, but there are some justices that have been known to wanting to overturn Chevron for quite some time. So in that category I would put Justices [Clarence] Thomas and [Samuel] Alito, as well as [Neil] Gorsuch, as justices that have really been critical of the Chevron deference. Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh highlighted that the rules change when administrations change, and so he tried to counter the argument that there’s a reliance on Chevron for stability. He said, “Wait, wait, wait a minute. Every time there’s a new president, the rules change. So what kind of stability is that?”

Chief Justice [John] Roberts and [Justice Amy Coney] Barrett were really harder to read, and that might be where the decision relies on, where they come out and whether or not they’re able to forge a compromise with the three liberal justices who indicated support for keeping Chevron; both because of precedent, as well as they pointed out examples where they said, “We’re not subject matter experts here. We don’t want to be making these decisions.” Justice [Elena] Kagan was talking about AI and how that would change, and “we really don’t want to be in the position of Justice Kagan figuring out how that should be regulated.”

Rovner: Well, that seems to be an excellent segue to the next case, which is an abortion case concerning the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone. The case, which was argued in March, is called . Let’s start, because it’s about to become important, with what is the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine? And what did their members have against the abortion pill?

Sobel: Well, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is a newly formed anti-abortion advocacy coalition. It was formed specifically for this litigation. And they contend that they have members, which are doctors and organizations and associations, in Texas and around the country, who have treated and will continue to treat people who have experienced a complication from medication abortion. So to be clear, none of their members prescribe mifepristone. They don’t believe in abortion. They don’t want to have anything to do with abortion. But their contention is that they are injured based upon having to divert their time and resources away from their regular patients when they have to treat somebody who has had a side effect from mifepristone. Similarly, the association and organizations contend that they’ve had to divert their time to educate people about the dangers of medication abortion.

Rovner: So those are the plaintiffs. And, as you mentioned, some of them are in Texas and they sued in Texas very specifically to get a certain judge, right?

Sobel: Yes, to get Judge [Matthew] Kacsmaryk, who is known for being friendly to these types of cases.

Rovner: So Judge Kacsmaryk, who as you say, is known to be friendly to these types of cases, originally ruled that mifepristone’s entire approval should be rescinded. It was approved in the year 2000, so it’s been on the market for quite a long time. But that’s actually not what’s on the table at the moment before the justices. Explain how we got there.

Sobel: So that decision was then appealed to the 5th Circuit, and the 5th Circuit said, “We’re not going to roll back the original approval of mifepristone to the year 2000, but instead we’ll roll back the requirements to 2011 and say that those are the rules that should be enforced, and that the FDA exceeded their authority in changing the rules since 2011.”

Rovner: And some of those changed rules basically made it easier to get, and you could use it a little bit later into pregnancy because it was found to be safe, right?

Sobel: Exactly. So what those new rules have done is said that you can use it up to 10 weeks instead of seven weeks, that you don’t have to be in person to receive it. So the newest rules have opened up the possibility of using it for telehealth abortion, and also for pharmacists prescribing it. And so if the Supreme Court were to affirm the 5th Circuit’s decision, that would eliminate these new protocols the FDA has established in removing the in-person dispensing requirement, permitting telehealth abortions, and establishing the process for pharmacies to become certified to dispense mifepristone. In addition, it would roll back the gestational ages you just said, from 10 weeks to seven weeks, which is significant because, according to the CDC data, more than 4 in 10 medication abortions occur at seven weeks or later.

Rovner: I was going to say, and yeah, this could be super disruptive. I mean medication abortion is now more than half of all abortions in this country.

Sobel: Oh, it’s two-thirds.

Rovner: So without banning it, making it harder to get could have a big impact.

Sobel: Oh, absolutely. Medication abortion now accounts for nearly two-thirds of all abortions, and telehealth abortions have become very common, from the latest data that we have from WeCount, 1 in 5 abortions was provided via telehealth in December of 2023. So that’s one in all abortions, not one in medication abortions. So that’s quite a big number.

Rovner: Now, this case, even though it could be very disruptive to abortion, is about a whole lot more than abortion. Drugmakers in general seem pretty concerned by the idea of judges making scientific decisions that overrule the FDA. This hearkens back to the last case we talked about, right?

Sobel: Oh, absolutely. So this is the first case to ask the Supreme Court to overrule an FDA decision that a drug is safe and effective. So the outcome of this case could really have very far-reaching implications for the FDA’s authority to continue to regulate not only mifepristone, but a wide range of other drugs. And most likely the other drugs that are perceived to be controversial 鈥� gender-affirming care or PrEP 鈥� those are the drugs that are most likely to be litigated if this door is opened.

Rovner: And I know that there’s nothing that makes drugmakers 鈥� I mean, patent issues and drugmakers and court issues are hard enough, the idea that they could be granted approval by the FDA and then somebody could just come in and sue and make that go away.

Sobel: Oh, absolutely. This got the attention of the entire industry. There were many, many amicus briefs that were filed.

Rovner: So normally you can’t really tell from the oral arguments, as we said, how the justices are leaning. But in this case, the justices seemed fairly transparent about where we think they’re going to go. What are we expecting here?

Sobel: Yes. I mean, as I said before, it’s always dangerous to read the tea leaves too much, but this did seem more transparent than most, and that most justices seemed not convinced that the plaintiffs in this case have legal standing, which requires that you have an injury and that injury can be addressed by what the court decides. So even assuming that the plaintiffs have an injury, the question is what would happen if we roll back the rules that the FDA has back to 2011? Does that make it more or less likely that these plaintiffs would see people with side effects of mifepristone? It’s not really clear. In addition, many of the justices, including Justice Barrett, really pushed back on the lawyer representing the Alliance for where in the doctors’ affidavits it said they were actually participating in something they objected to. Notably, not really about necessarily this case, but about what might come up in the future, both Justice Thomas and Alito did bring up the Comstock Act and signaled that they would uphold the enforcement of the Comstock Act, pretty much inviting a future case or a future administration to enforce the Comstock Act.

Rovner: As much as we’ve talked about it, remind us again what the Comstock Act is.

Sobel: Sure. So it’s a law from 1873, which was an anti-obscenity law, and as part of it, it banned the mailing of any drug or device or instrument that could be used for abortion.

Rovner: Well, I guess during the entirety of Roe [v. Wade], it was irrelevant, right? Because abortion was legal,

Sobel: Right. And it’s been dormant. I mean, we can’t find any enforcement in any modern era.

Rovner: Yes, so it goes back a long ways, but it’s top of mind for a lot of people.

All right, moving on to our last case. On April 24, the court heard and , both of which challenged the federal government’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, EMTALA, to override Idaho’s near-complete abortion ban, at least in medical emergencies. Let’s start by explaining what EMTALA is and how it relates to abortion?

Sobel: Sure. So EMTALA requires hospitals that participate in Medicare, which is pretty much every acute hospital, to provide stabilizing treatment within the hospital’s capability when there’s an emergency medical condition, which includes when the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to place the health of the individual in serious jeopardy or serious impairments of bodily functions. So it was really intended as an anti-dumping law initially so that people who were uninsured weren’t just transferred or sent away to another hospital because they didn’t have the capacity to pay.

Idaho’s abortion ban only has an exception for life. It doesn’t have an exception to preserve the health of the pregnant person. And so the Biden administration sued Idaho and said this law then, essentially, puts these hospitals that have this requirement, because they accept Medicare payments, to stabilize patients. And when that care includes abortion care, they’re required to provide that under federal law. So the question is, does the EMTALA preempt the Idaho abortion ban?

It’s clear from the oral argument that Idaho’s position is that there is no conflict because they read into the EMTALA law that “within the hospital’s capability” includes the laws of Idaho and that Idaho gets to set the standard of care, and that that’s up to states, not up to the federal government. Whereas the federal government, the Biden administration’s position, is that, no, EMTALA specifically was an antidumping law, and that includes stabilizing all patients regardless of the care. And we don’t have to say including abortion in order for it to include abortion, it includes all care that’s required to stabilize patients.

Rovner: Of course, a lot of anti-abortion activists will say that the only time abortion is medically necessary is when it threatens life and that would be covered. But we’re seeing that that’s not necessarily the case, right? I mean, we’re seeing individual instances of this these days.

Sobel: Yeah. I mean, we know from Idaho that many patients have been helicoptered out of the state into nearby states that also have some abortion restrictions but just aren’t as restrictive as Idaho is, because they’re going to become septic or they’re going to lose kidney function, or they’re going to lose their reproductive organs. So they’re not in danger of losing their life immediately, but they’re in danger of losing serious bodily functions.

The other question that came up during oral argument was about just how imminent the life needs to be. And this comes down to how this is putting doctors in a pretty uncomfortable place. So yes, the doctors are permitted to provide abortion care in Idaho when they can certify in good faith that without the abortion care, the person’s life is endangered. But they’re concerned that, after the fact, attorneys for the state could come back and say, “Oh, wait a minute, that wasn’t your really good-faith decision and we’re going to prosecute you and we’re going to bring in our own expert.” And the question is really, how much should doctors have on the line? It’s a criminal statute, so there’s jail time involved. Of course, there’s a loss of license. And so how far out should doctors be required to go? And this is, again, it’s making people really uncomfortable, and there are anecdotes of people leaving the state because of this and not feeling comfortable practicing there.

Rovner: More than anecdotes of people leaving the state, there are people who come forward and said they’re leaving the state. And as a result, some hospitals are having to shut down their OB services. I mean, because when the doctors, OB-GYNs who are leaving, so in the ironic position of people who are having babies not being able to find someone who can deliver their baby at the same time.

Sobel: Right, right.

Rovner: That’s obviously one ramification within Idaho, but there could be ramifications outside just on the idea: Isn’t federal law supposed to trump state law? Isn’t that sort of a basic foundation of how we work?

Sobel: Yes. The supremacy clause is pretty basic when you go to law school. So yes. And I think how they word this decision will be very interesting to see because it’s a question of, is there a conflict or is there not? And the attorneys for Idaho were basically suggesting that there’s no conflict. So you don’t even need to say that there’s a preemption. You just have to find that there’s no conflict between Idaho law and EMTALA.

However they rule, if they rule for Idaho and say that you’re allowed to continue having this abortion ban that only has a life exception with no health exception, immediately, there’s four additional states with abortion bans that do not make exceptions for health as well. And those states are Arkansas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Dakota. So in those states, like Idaho, a hospital cannot legally provide an abortion as stabilizing treatment when a person presents with a health endangerment and not a life endangerment. And so again, those risks can include sepsis, kidney failure, loss of fertility, they’re serious risks, even though they may not be life-threatening at the moment.

And even in the states that do have exceptions for health, we have seen that those exceptions are often very narrow and vague and hard to be implemented in real time. So pregnant people can still be denied emergency abortion care that’s needed to preserve their health, even in states that have a health exception. And if EMTALA doesn’t act as a backstop to say, “But wait, hospital, you’re violating this federal law,” then people are stuck with the state law that is narrow and vague.

Rovner: So I mean, overturning Roe, the justices says, “Oh, great, we won’t have to deal with abortion anymore. It’s all about the states.” But as we can see, it’s not all about the states. The Supreme Court is going to have to continue to deal with this issue.

Sobel: Right. Definitely.

Rovner: All right, well, finally, just a couple of housekeeping issues. We don’t actually know when these decisions will come, right? People who don’t follow the court on a regular basis often think that opinions are scheduled the same way oral arguments are, but it’s always a surprise.

Sobel: Unfortunately, they are not. Right now, the court lists their decision days on their website, which is on their calendar. Right now Thursdays seem to be the popular day, they have Thursdays through June listed. They most likely will add more decision days. On decision days, they start posting decisions at 10 a.m. Eastern Time, and you can follow along either on the or many people go to , which also has a live blog that interprets some of what’s happening for people who are new to the court.

Rovner: And I will put both of those links in the show notes. Laurie Sobel, this has been so helpful. Thank you so much for joining us.

Sobel: Thank you for having me, Julie.

Rovner: OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our fill-in editor this week, Rebecca Adams. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X . We will be back in your feed next week with the news. 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).

“We want the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to hold these brokers criminally responsible for ripping people off this way,” he told 蘑菇影院 Health News.

In a sharply worded letter sent to CMS Administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the Oregon Democrat expressed “outrage” over the practice, which nets unscrupulous agents commission payments while leaving consumers with a potential host of problems, from losing access to their regular doctors or treatments to higher deductibles and even owing taxes.

Noting that tens of thousands of Americans have been victimized, Wyden called on regulators to step up enforcement and be more proactive in notifying potentially affected consumers. He vowed to introduce legislation that would make participating in such schemes subject to criminal penalties.

“CMS must do more and you must do it now,” he wrote in his letter.

Complaints about such unauthorized enrollment schemes have grown in recent months. 蘑菇影院 Health News has reported that unscrupulous brokers or agents can easily access policyholder information to change their coverage through private commercial platforms integrated with the federal Obamacare marketplace, healthcare.gov, which serves 32 states.

The challenge for federal regulators is to thwart the activity without reducing enrollment 鈥� a top priority for President Joe Biden’s administration.

CMS, which oversees the federal website, said it’s working on regulatory and technological fixes and can suspend or terminate problem agents’ access to healthcare.gov.

The agency will respond directly to Wyden, said Jeff Wu, acting director of CMS’ Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, in a written statement. He further noted that the agency is “consistently evaluating opportunities to identify and resolve issues sooner, including through outreach, technical assistance, and compliance actions.”

Ronnell Nolan, president and CEO of , whose group has been outspoken about the need for regulators to do more, welcomed Wyden’s involvement and the potential for criminal penalties for perpetrators.

“It’s a crime when a person’s insurance is taken from them when they’re in the middle of cancer treatment or on a transplant list and they’re put in a predicament where they might lose their life because of the fraudulent activity,” she said.

After initially declining to quantify the problem, CMS saying it had received more than 90,000 complaints in the first quarter of 2024 about unauthorized enrollments and plan switches. While the number of complaints represents a small percentage of the more than 16 million enrollments processed through healthcare.gov for this year’s coverage, it may understate the breadth of the problem, as complaints likely don’t reflect the magnitude of cases.

Although Wyden lauded CMS’ efforts to fix problems already encountered by consumers, he said in his letter that the agency needs to be more proactive about preventing them.

He urged regulators to contact potentially affected consumers instead of waiting to investigate only after a policyholder files a complaint, which sometimes doesn’t occur until weeks or months after a plan is switched.

It can be difficult for victims to recognize the changes. Rogue agents don’t obtain their consent, and many are signed up for plans that have no monthly premiums, so they don’t get a bill. Other consumers unknowingly enroll when they respond to misleading marketing promising gift cards, “government subsidies,” or other financial help.

Rather than wait for a consumer to complain, regulators could reach out directly when they see a policy submitted or changed by a broker or agency that has been found to be fraudulently enrolling others, Wyden wrote.

Wyden also said CMS should use its authority to impose civil penalties, up to $250,000, against “brokers who submit fraudulent enrollments.”

“I am disappointed these penalties have not yet been used to hold bad actors accountable,” he wrote.

Finally, he wants the agency to review private-sector platforms used by agents and brokers to enroll consumers in ACA plans. Those private companies are not used by 18 states and the District of Columbia, which run their own ACA marketplaces. The state-run marketplaces impose additional layers of identity-proofing and other security measures and have reported far fewer problems with unauthorized enrollment.

Dozens of private “enhanced direct enrollment” to integrate with healthcare.gov. Their involvement was expanded during the Trump administration, which also sharply reduced funding for nonprofits to help with outreach and enrollment.

The platforms were designed to be simpler to use than healthcare.gov. But they have drawn criticism from agents, who say the private websites make it too easy for unscrupulous brokers or others to access policyholder information and make changes. Currently, more than half of federal marketplace enrollments are assisted by agents or brokers, and most act legitimately, regulators and others say.

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).

On the main floor of a former Catholic church in Bolivar, Pennsylvania, Botteicher runs a flower shop and cafe.

In the former church’s basement, she also operates a nonprofit organization focused on helping people caught up in the drug epidemic get back on their feet.

The nonprofit, , sits in a rural pocket of the Allegheny Mountains east of Pittsburgh. Her organization’s home county of Westmoreland has seen roughly drug overdose deaths each year for the past several years, the majority involving fentanyl.

Thousands more residents in the region have been touched by the scourge of addiction, which is where Botteicher comes in.

She helps people find housing, jobs, and health care, and works with families by running support groups and explaining that substance use disorder is a disease, not a moral failing.

But she has also talked publicly about how she has made to people who use drugs.

“When that person comes in the door,” she said, “if they are covered with abscesses because they have been using needles that are dirty, or they’ve been sharing needles 鈥� maybe they’ve got hep C 鈥� we see that as, 鈥極K, this is our first step.’”

associated with syringe exchange services. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says these programs infections, and that new users of the programs are more likely to enter drug treatment and more likely to stop using drugs than nonparticipants.

This harm-reduction strategy is supported by leading health groups, such as the , the , and the .

But providing clean syringes could put Botteicher in legal danger. Under Pennsylvania law, it’s a misdemeanor to distribute drug paraphernalia. The includes hypodermic syringes, needles, and other objects used for injecting banned drugs. Pennsylvania is one of 12 states that do not implicitly or explicitly authorize syringe services programs through statute or regulation, according to a . A few of those states, but not Pennsylvania, either don’t have a state drug paraphernalia law or don’t include syringes in it.

Those working on the front lines of the opioid epidemic, like Botteicher, say a reexamination of Pennsylvania’s law is long overdue.

There’s an urgency to the issue as well: Billions of dollars have into Pennsylvania and other states from legal settlements with companies over their role in the opioid epidemic, and syringe services are among the eligible interventions that could be supported by that money.

The opioid settlements reached between drug companies and distributors and a coalition of state attorneys general included a list of the money. Expanding syringe services is listed as one of the core strategies.

But in Pennsylvania, where 5,158 people died from a drug overdose in 2022, the state’s drug paraphernalia law stands in the way.

Concerns over Botteicher’s work with syringe services recently led Westmoreland County officials to in opioid settlement funds they had previously approved for her organization. County Commissioner Douglas Chew defended the decision by saying the county “is very risk averse.”

Botteicher said her organization had planned to use the money to hire additional recovery specialists, not on syringes. Supporters of syringe services point to the cancellation of funding as evidence of the need to change state law, especially given the recommendations of settlement documents.

“It’s just a huge inconsistency,” said Zoe Soslow, who leads overdose prevention work in Pennsylvania for the public health organization . “It’s causing a lot of confusion.”

Though sterile syringes without a prescription, handing out free ones to make drug use safer is generally considered illegal 鈥� or at least in a legal gray area 鈥� in most of the state. In Pennsylvania’s two largest cities, and , officials have used local health powers to provide legal protection to people who operate syringe services programs.

Even so, in Philadelphia, Mayor Cherelle Parker, who took office in January, has she opposes using opioid settlement money, or any city funds, to pay for the distribution of clean needles, The Philadelphia Inquirer has reported. Parker’s position signals a in that city’s approach to the opioid epidemic.

On the other side of the state, opioid settlement funds have had a big effect for , a harm reduction organization. spending or committing $325,000 in settlement money as of the end of last year to support the organization’s work with sterile syringes and other supplies for safer drug use.

“It was absolutely incredible to not have to fundraise every single dollar for the supplies that go out,” said Prevention Point’s executive director, . “It takes a lot of energy. It pulls away from actual delivery of services when you’re constantly having to find out, 鈥楧o we have enough money to even purchase the supplies that we want to distribute?’”

In parts of Pennsylvania that lack these legal protections, people sometimes operate underground syringe programs.

The Pennsylvania law banning drug paraphernalia was never intended to apply to syringe services, according to , director of the at Temple University. But there have not been court cases in Pennsylvania to clarify the issue, and the failure of the legislature to act creates a chilling effect, he said.

Carla Sofronski, executive director of the , said she was not aware of anyone having faced criminal charges for operating syringe services in the state, but she noted the threat hangs over people who do and that they are taking a “great risk.”

In 2016, the 鈥� Cambria, Crawford, and Luzerne 鈥� among 220 counties nationwide in an assessment of communities potentially vulnerable to the rapid spread of HIV and to new or continuing high rates of hepatitis C infections among people who inject drugs.

Kate Favata, a resident of Luzerne County, said she started using heroin in her late teens and wouldn’t be alive today if it weren’t for the support and community she found at a syringe services program in Philadelphia.

“It kind of just made me feel like I was in a safe space. And I don’t really know if there was like a come-to-God moment or come-to-Jesus moment,” she said. “I just wanted better.”

Favata is now in long-term recovery and works for a program.

At clinics in Cambria and Somerset Counties, provides free or low-cost medical care. Despite the legal risk, the organization has operated a syringe program for several years, while also testing patients for infectious diseases, distributing overdose reversal medication, and offering recovery options.

Rosalie Danchanko, Highlands Health’s executive director, said she hopes opioid settlement money can eventually support her organization.

“Why shouldn’t that wealth be spread around for all organizations that are working with people affected by the opioid problem?” she asked.

In February, in Pennsylvania was approved by a committee and has moved forward. The administration of Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, supports the legislation. But it faces an uncertain future in the full legislature, in which Democrats have a narrow majority in the House and Republicans control the Senate.

One of the bill’s , state hasn’t always supported syringe services. But the Republican from western Pennsylvania said that since his brother died from a drug overdose in 2014, he has come to better understand the nature of addiction.

In the , nearly all of Struzzi’s Republican colleagues opposed the bill. State Rep. said authorizing the “very instrumentality of abuse” crossed a line for him and “would be enabling an evil.”

After the vote, Struzzi said he wanted to build more bipartisan support. He noted that some of his own skepticism about the programs eased only after he visited Prevention Point Pittsburgh and saw how workers do more than just hand out syringes. These types of programs connect people to resources 鈥� overdose reversal medication, wound care, substance use treatment 鈥� that can save lives and lead to recovery.

“A lot of these people are 鈥� desperate. They’re alone. They’re afraid. And these programs bring them into someone who cares,” Struzzi said. “And that, to me, is a step in the right direction.”

At her nonprofit in western Pennsylvania, Botteicher is hoping lawmakers take action.

“If it’s something that’s going to help someone, then why is it illegal?” she said. “It just doesn’t make any sense to me.”

This story was co-reported by and an independent, nonpartisan, and nonprofit newsroom producing investigative and public-service journalism that holds power to account and drives positive change in Pennsylvania.

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).

According to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, two such call centers paid tens of thousands of dollars a day to buy names of people who responded to misleading advertisements touting free government “subsidies” and other rewards. In turn, sales agents used the information to either enroll them in ACA plans or switch their existing policies without their consent.

As a result, the lawsuit alleges, consumers lost access to their doctors or medications and faced financial costs, such as owing money toward medical care or having to repay tax credits that were paid toward the unauthorized coverage.

Some consumers were switched multiple times or had duplicative policies.

“We allege there was a plan that targeted the poorest of Americans into enrolling in health insurance through deceptive ads and unauthorized switching,” to gain compensation for the sign-ups or capture the commissions that would have been paid to legitimate insurance agents, said Jason Doss, one of two lawyers who filed the case following a four-month investigation.

Doss and Jason Kellogg, the other lawyer on the case, which was filed on behalf of several affected policyholders and agents, are seeking class action status.

蘑菇影院 Health News has in recent weeks reported on similar concerns raised by consumers and insurance agents.

Named as defendants are TrueCoverage and Enhance Health, which operate insurance call centers in Florida and other states; Speridian Technologies, a New Mexico-based limited liability company that owns and controls TrueCoverage; and Number One Prospecting, doing business as Minerva Marketing, which is also a lead-generating company. The lawsuit also names two people: Brandon Bowsky, founder and CEO of Minerva; and Matthew Herman, CEO of Enhance Health. Attempts to reach the companies for comment were unsuccessful.

According to the lawsuit, the call centers had access to policyholder accounts through “enhanced direct enrollment” platforms, including one called Benefitalign, owned by Speridian.

Such private sector platforms, which by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, streamline enrollment by integrating with the federal ACA marketplace, called healthcare.gov. The ones included in this case were not open to the public, but only to those call center agencies granted permission by the platforms.

One of the plaintiffs, Texas resident Conswallo Turner, signed up for ACA coverage in December through an agent she knew, and expected it to go into effect on Jan. 1, according to the lawsuit. Not long after, Turner saw an ad on Facebook promising a monthly cash card to help with household expenses.

She called the number on the ad and provided her name, date of birth, and state, the lawsuit says. Armed with that information, sales agents then changed her ACA coverage and the agent listed on it five times in just a few weeks, dropping coverage of her son along with way, all without her consent.

She ended up with a higher-deductible plan along with medical bills for her now-uninsured son, the lawsuit alleges. Her actual agent also lost the commission.

The lawsuit contains similar stories from other plaintiffs.

The routine worked, it alleges, by collecting names of people responding to online and social media ads claiming to offer monthly subsidies to help with rent or groceries. Those calls were recorded, the suit alleges, and the callers’ information obtained by TrueCoverage and Enhance Health.

The companies knew people were calling on the promise “of cash benefits that do not exist,” the lawsuit said. Instead, call center agents were encouraged to be “vague” about the money mentioned in the ads, which was actually the subsidies paid by the government to insurers toward the ACA plans.

The effort targeted people with low enough incomes to qualify for large subsidies that fully offset the monthly cost of their premium, the lawsuit alleges. The push began after March 2022, when a special enrollment period for low-income people became available, opening up a year-round opportunity to enroll in an ACA plan.

The suit asserts that those involved did not meet the privacy and security rules required for participation in the ACA marketplace. The lawsuit also alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, .

“Health insurance is important for people to have, but it’s also important to be sold properly,” said Doss, who said both consumers and legitimate agents can suffer when it’s not.

“It’s not a victimless crime to get zero-dollar health insurance if you don’t qualify for it and it ends up causing you tax or other problems down the road,” he said. “Unfortunately, there’s so much fraud that legitimate agents who are really trying to help people are also being pushed out.”

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).

Florida this week became a major focus for advocates on both main sides of the abortion debate. The Florida Supreme Court simultaneously ruled that the state’s 15-week ban, passed in 2022, can take effect immediately before a more sweeping, six-week ban replaces it in May and that voters can decide in November whether to create a state right to abortion.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden, gearing up for the general election campaign, is highlighting his administration’s health accomplishments, including drug price negotiations for Medicare.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 蘑菇影院 Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University schools of nursing and public health, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Florida Supreme Court’s decisions this week will affect abortion access not only in the state, but also throughout the region. Florida’s six-week ban, which takes effect on May 1, would leave North Carolina and Virginia as the only remaining Southern states offering the procedure beyond that point in pregnancy 鈥� and, in North Carolina, abortion is banned at 12 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period.
• Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, six states have voted on their own constitutional amendments related to abortion access. In every case, the side favoring abortion rights has won. But Florida’s measure this fall will appear on the ballot with the presidential race. Could the two contests, waged side by side, boost turnout and influence the results?
• Former President Donald Trump made many attempts during his term to undermine the Affordable Care Act, and this week the Biden administration reversed another one of those lingering attempts. Under a new regulation, the use of short-term insurance plans will be limited to four months 鈥� down from 36 months under Trump. The plans, which Biden officials call “junk plans” due to their limited benefits, will also be required to provide clearer explanations of coverage to consumers.
• In other Biden administration news, March has come and gone without the release of an anticipated ban on menthol flavoring in tobacco, and anti-tobacco groups are suing to force administration officials to finish the job. Menthol cigarettes are particularly popular in the Black community, and 鈥� like Trump’s decision as president to punt a ban on vaping to avoid alienating voters in 2020 鈥� the Biden administration may be loath to raise the issue this year. Activists say, however, that it may be at the expense of Black lives.
• “This Week in Medical Misinformation” looks at an article from PolitiFact about the health misinformation that persists even with the pandemic mostly in the rearview mirror.

Also this week, Rovner interviews health care analyst Jeff Goldsmith about the growing size and influence of UnitedHealth Group in the wake of the Change Healthcare hack.

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

Julie Rovner: Politico’s “,” by Megan Messerly and Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Tami Luhby: The Washington Post’s “,” by Dan Diamond.

Lauren Weber: The Washington Post’s “,” by Lena H. Sun and Rachel Roubein.听听

Joanne Kenen: The 19th’s “,” by Kate Martin, APM Reports.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• 蘑菇影院 Health News’ “ACA Plans Are Being Switched Without Enrollees’ OK,” by Julie Appleby.
• 蘑菇影院 Health News’ “Your Doctor or Your Insurer? Little-Known Rules May Ease the Choice in Medicare Advantage,” by Susan Jaffe.
• Health Affairs’ “” by Jeff C. Goldsmith.
• The Health Care Blog’s “,” by Jeff Goldsmith.

蘑菇影院 Health News’ 鈥榃hat the Health?’Episode Title: Florida Limits Abortion 鈥� For NowEpisode Number: 341Published: April 4, 2024

[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

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, April 4, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Tami Luhby of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Good morning.

Rovner: Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University Schools of Nursing and Public Health and Politico magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Lauren Weber, the Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have an interview with Health Policy Analyst and Consultant Jeff Goldsmith about the continuing fallout from the Change Healthcare hack. But first, this week’s news. One of these weeks, we won’t have to lead with abortion news, but this is not that week. On Monday, the Florida Supreme Court ruled separately, but at the same time, that state voters could decide this November whether to make a right to abortion part of the state’s constitution and that the state’s constitution currently does not guarantee that right.

So the state’s 15-week abortion ban signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in April of 2022 can take immediate effect. But wait, there’s more. First, the decision on the 15-week ban overruled years of precedent that Florida’s Constitution did, in fact, protect the right to abortion. And second, allowing the 15-week ban to take effect automatically triggers an even more sweeping six-week ban that Gov. DeSantis signed in 2023. That will take effect May 1. That’s the one he signed in the middle of the night without an audience people may remember. And this is going to affect far more people than just the population of Florida, right?

Kenen: The whole South. This is it. If you count the South as North Carolina and what we think of as the South, North Carolina is the only state that still has legal abortion, and that is only up to 12 weeks. And there are some conditions and hurdles, but you can still get an abortion in North Carolina.

But to get from a place, people were going to Florida, it’s easier to get from Alabama to Florida than it is from Alabama to even Charlotte. I think I read it’s a 17-hour drive from Florida or something like that. I don’t remember. It’s long. So it’s not just people who live within Florida, but people who live in 11 or 12 states in the American South have far fewer options.

Rovner: And even though the Florida ban feels less than a complete ban because it allows abortions up to six weeks, the fine print actually makes this one of the most restrictive bans in the country. It looks, in effect, like most people won’t be able to get abortions in Florida at all.

Weber: I would say that’s right, Julie. And just to reiterate what Joanne said, 80,000 women get abortions in Florida every year. That’s about one in 12 women in America that get abortions per year, and they will no longer have that kind of access because, at six weeks, a lot of women don’t know they’re pregnant. So, I mean, that’s a very restrictive abortion ban.

Rovner: Remember that six weeks isn’t really six weeks of having been pregnant. Six weeks is six weeks since your last menstrual period, which can be as little as two weeks in some cases.

Kenen: And I also think that even if you do know within six weeks, getting an appointment, given how few places there are in the entire South, even if you know and you get on the phone right away, can you get an appointment before your six weeks is an additional challenge because access is really limited 鈥�

Rovner: Right.

Kenen: 鈥� intentionally.

Rovner: Yes, and we’ve seen this with other six-week bans. We should point out that some people consider Virginia the South still, and you can go to Virginia, but that’s basically the last place that a good chunk of the country, geographically, if not population-wise, would need to turn to in order to get an abortion.

Well, if that’s not all confusing enough, even if voters do approve the ballot measure in November, the Florida Supreme Court suggested it could still strike down a right to abortion based on a majority of justices findings that the state’s constitution could include personhood rights for fetuses.

I’m having trouble wrapping my head around why the justices would allow a vote whose results they might then overturn. But I guess this is part of the continuing evolution, if you will, to use that word, of this concept of personhood for fetuses and embryos, and what has us talking about IVF, right?

Weber: Yeah, absolutely. I think, as many conservative Christian groups will say, this is the natural line that pro-life is. I mean, they argue, and while they’re pushing this view is not necessarily held by the majority of constituents, but this is their argument that a fetus, an embryo, such as one that could be used in IVF, is a person.

And so, I mean, I think that’s kind of the natural conclusion of pro-life ideology as we’re seeing it right now. And I think it will have a lot of political effects going forward because that IVF is obviously much more popular than abortion. I think we’ll see a lot of voting firepower potentially used on that.

Rovner: Well, I’m so glad you said that because I want to turn to politics. Some Democrats are suggesting that this could boost turnout for Democrats and help, if not put Florida in play for president, maybe the Democrat running to unseat Senator Rick Scott, the Republican.

On the other hand, while abortion ballot questions have done very well around the country, as we know, even in states redder than Florida, there is evidence that some Republicans vote for abortion rights measures and then turn around and vote at the same time for Republicans who would then vote to overturn them.

There are in fact Florida abortion rights advocates who don’t want Democrats to make this issue partisan because they want Republicans to come and vote for the ballot measure, which needs a 60% majority to pass, even if those Republicans then go on to vote for other Republicans. So, who really is helped by this entire mess, or is it impossible to tell at this point?

Weber: I think it’s impossible to tell, but I do think what is complicating is we haven’t seen the presidential race thrown into these abortion ballots. I mean, what we’re looking at is two candidates who potentially are facing a lot of low turnout due to lack of enthusiasm in their bases for both of them. And I am curious if the abortion ballot measures could have much more of an impact on the presidential race than maybe some of these other lower-office races that we’ve seen. I think that’s the main question that I guess we’ll see in November.

Rovner: As we have spoken about many times, President Biden is not super comfortable talking about this issue. He’s an 81-year-old Catholic. It does not come naturally to him to be in favor of abortion rights, which he now is. But Vice President Harris has been sent out. She’s sort of become the standard-bearer for this administration on reproductive health issues, and she’s been very active. And Joanne, you wanted to say something?

Kenen: There are a couple of points. In addition to the abortion ballot initiative. There’s also a marijuana legalization. I think we will see higher turnout and particularly among younger people who have been pretty disaffected this election. So that’s one, whether it affects the presidential race, whether it affects the Senate race. I mean, just as Democrats feel really strong about abortion, Republicans feel really strong about immigration. We don’t know what’s going to happen in November, but I do think this boosts turnout. The second thing to remember, though, is in terms of abortion ballot initiatives have passed every time they’ve come up since the fall of Roe [v. Wade].

This is a 60% threshold, and I do not believe that any state has reached that. I think the highest was about 57%. So even though it may get well over 50, it could get 59.9, the Florida ballot initiative needs 60%. That is a tall order. So you might end up seeing a big turnout, a big pro-abortion rights vote, maybe a big legal weed vote, and the abortion measure could still fail. But I do think it definitely changes the dynamics of Florida from the presidential race on down the ballot. I do think it is a different race than we would’ve seen beforehand.

Rovner: And I will point out, since she didn’t, that Joanne has spent time covering Florida and covering the politics in Florida. So you know where of you speak on this.

Kenen: Well, I lived there for a while, though it was a while ago. The state has, in fact, changed like everything else, including me, right? But I’m somewhat familiar with Florida. I was just there a few weeks ago in fact.

Rovner: And I want to underscore something that Lauren said, which is that we’ve seen all of these ballot measures since Roe was overturned, but we have not seen these ballot measures stacked on top of the presidential race. So I think that will be interesting to watch as we go forward this year.

Well, back here in D.C., the Biden administration issued a long-awaited rule reigning in the use of those short-term health plans that Democrats like to call junk insurance and that President Trump had expanded when he was in office. Tami, what is the new rule, and what will it do?

Luhby: Well, it’s actually curtailing the short-term plans and pretty much reversing the Trump administration rule. So it’s the latest move by the president to contrast his approach to health care with that of former President Donald Trump. Trump extended the duration of the short-term health insurance plans to just under a year and allowed them to be renewed for a total of 36 months. And it was seen as an effort to weaken the Affordable Care Act, draw out younger people, make it more difficult for the marketplace, probably send the older, sicker people there, which would raise premiums, basically cause more chaos in the marketplace.

Rovner: Yeah. And remind us why these plans can be problematic.

Luhby: I will tell you that the short-term plans do not have to adhere to Obamacare’s consumer protections, which is the big difference. For instance, they’re not required to provide comprehensive coverage, and they can discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, charge them more, deny them, et cetera. As I’d said, the Trump administration heralded them as a cheaper alternative because since they can underwrite, they have typically cheaper premiums. But they also have very limited benefits, or they can have limited benefits depending on the patient or the consumer.

So the Biden rule, which was proposed last month as a series of actions aimed at lowering health care costs, limits the duration of new sales of these controversial plans to three months, with the option of renewal for a maximum of four months. So it’s going on these new plans from 36 months potentially to four months, which was the original idea of these plans because originally they were thought to be for people who might be switching jobs or have a temporary lapse in coverage. They were not intended to be a substitute for full insurance. And it also requires, notably, that the plans provide consumers with a clear explanation of their benefits and inform them of how to find more comprehensive coverage.

Rovner: And obviously this will continue to be controversial, but I think the Democrats, in general, who support the Affordable Care Act feel pretty strongly that this is something that’s going to help them. And as we talked about, we’re not sure yet how the administration is going to play the abortion issue in the campaign, but it is pretty clear that they are doubling down on health care.

One problem for the administration, as we have talked about, is that particularly on really popular things like Medicare drug price negotiations, lots of the public has no idea that that’s happened or if it’s happened that it’s because the Democrats did it. So, in part of an effort to overcome that, Biden invited Bernie Sanders to the White House this week. What was that about?

Luhby: Well, that’s my extra credit. Would you like me to discuss that now?

Rovner: Sure, let’s do that now.

Luhby: OK. So my extra credit is a Washington Post story titled “,” by Dan Diamond. And I have to admit, I hope I can do that here, that I am a fangirl of Dan Diamond’s stories, and even more so now because apparently, the Biden administration gave Dan a heads-up in advance, that since he published a pretty in-depth story an hour before the embargo lifted for the rest of us who were only given a few tidbits of information about what this meeting or what this speech was going to be about at the uncharacteristically late hour of 8:30 at night.

So Dan’s story looked at how the two former rivals, Joe Biden and [Sen.] Bernie Sanders, who were rivals in the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, how they had very different views on how the nation’s health care system should operate and Dan’s story looked at how they were uniting to improve awareness of Biden’s efforts to lower drug prices and improve his chances in November. Biden invited Sanders to the White House to discuss the administration’s actions on drug prices, including the latest effort to reduce the out-of-pocket cost of inhalers, which really hasn’t gotten a lot of press.

Sanders brings his progressive credentials and his two-decade-plus track record of fighting for lower drug prices and, “naming and shaming individual pharmaceutical companies and executives.” He’s known to be pretty outspoken and fiery. So the story’s a good example of policy meets politics in an election year. It relays that most Americans still don’t know about the administration’s efforts despite the numerous speeches, news releases, and officials’ trips around the country, hence the need to tap Sanders, and it also provides a nice walk down memory lane, revisiting the duo’s battles in the 2020 primary as well as some of former President Trump’s drug price efforts.

Rovner: Yeah. And a little peek behind the journalistic curtain. I think we all got this sort of mysterious note from Sanders’ press people the night before saying, “If you’ll agree to our embargo, we’ll tell you about this secret thing that’s going to happen,” followed by an advisory from the White House saying that Bernie Sanders was coming to the White House to talk about drugs. [inaudible 00:13:30] 鈥�

Luhby: Right. And also, uncharacteristically, when I asked for a comment from Sanders directly, they said tomorrow, which is not like Sanders at all.

Kenen: Sanders and Biden were obviously opponents in the primary, but Sanders has really been very supportive of Biden. I think he’s really sort of highlighted the progressive things that Biden has done and stayed quiet about the more centrist things that Biden has done. He’s been a real ally, and he still has a lot of credibility, and I think they sort of like each other in a funny way. You can sort of see it, but that’s their issue.

Luhby: Biden has also been able to do things that other people have not been able to do with the congressional Democrats. Biden has been able to do things that congressional Democrats have tried to for years and have not been able to, and they may not be the extent to which the Democrats would like. If you remember the 2019 Medicare Drug Negotiation bill, I think, was 250 drugs a year. What ended up passing in the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] was 10 drugs and ramping up, but at least it’s something.

Kenen: And it’s more than 20 years in the making. I mean, this goes way, way back.

Luhby: Mm-hmm.

Rovner: And I was going to underscore something that Joanne said earlier about Florida, which is that both sides are trying to gin up their base, and young people are really fond of Bernie Sanders in a lot of the things that he says, and this may be a way that Biden can ironically use the Medicare drug price negotiation issue to stir up his young person base to get them out to vote. So I was interested in the combination.

Kenen: So it’s Bernie Sanders and legal weed.

Rovner: That’s right. It’s Bernie Sanders and legal weed, at least in Florida.

Kenen: I’m not implying anything about Bernie Sanders’ use of it. It’s just the dynamic for the young voters.

Rovner: Yes. Things to draw young people out to the polls in November. Well, while the Biden administration is doing lots of things using its regulatory power, one thing it is not doing, at least not yet, is banning menthol flavoring in tobacco.

This is a regulation that’s now been sitting around for nearly two years and that officials had promised to finalize by the end of March, which of course was last week and which didn’t happen. So now three anti-tobacco groups have sued to try to force the regulation over the finish line. Somebody remind us why banning menthol is so very controversial.

Weber: It’s controversial in part because a lot of industry will say that banning menthol will lead to over-policing in Black communities. The jury is very much out on if that is an accurate representation or part of the cigarette playbook to keep cigarettes on the market. Look, a presidential election year and things to do with smoking is not new.

When I was at 蘑菇影院 Health News with Rachel Bluth back in the day, we wrote a story about how Trump postponed a vape ban to some extent because he was worried about vaping voters. So I mean, I think what you’re seeing is a pretty clear political calculus by the Biden folks to push this off into the new year, but as activists and public health advocates will say, it’s at the expense of, potentially, Black lives.

Rovner: That’s right.

Weber: So banning menthol cigarettes would really鈥� what it would do is statistically save Black Americans who die from, predominantly from smoking these types of cigarettes. So it’s a pretty weighty decision to put off with a political calculus.

Rovner: He’s taking incoming from both sides. I mean, obviously, there are members of the Black community who say, as you point out, this could lead to an unnecessary crackdown on African American smokers who use menthol more statistically than anybody else does. Although, there’s some young people who use it too. On the other hand, you have people representing public health for the Black community saying, “We want you to ban this” because, as you point out, people are dying from smoking-related illnesses by using this product. So it’s a win-win, lose-lose here that is continuing on. We’ll be interested to see what, if the lawsuit can produce anything.

Well, speaking of things that are controversial, we also have Medicare Advantage. The private plan alternative to traditional Medicare now enrolls more than half of those in the program, many who like the extra benefits that often come with the plans and others who feel that they can’t afford traditional Medicare’s premiums and other cost-sharing. Except one reason those extra benefits exist is because the government is overpaying those Medicare Advantage plans. That’s a vestige of Republican plans to discourage enrollment in original Medicare that date back to the early part of this century.

So now taxpayers are footing more of the Medicare bill than they should. This week’s news is that the federal government is effectively trimming back some of those overpayments. And investors in the insurance companies, who make money from the overpayments, are going crazy. This is the subhead on a story from the Wall Street Journal, “Managed care stocks are set to fall due to disappointment with the government’s decision not to revise the 2025 Medicare payment proposal.” How is this ever going to get sorted out? Somebody always is going to be a loser in this game, either the patients or the insurance companies or the taxpayers. Everybody cannot win here.

Luhby: Right. And Humana got hit really hard when the rule came out because it is really focused on Medicare Advantage. So yeah, the insurers were hit, but as everything with the market, it’s not forever.

Rovner: I’m continually puzzled by 鈥� if the payments were equivalent, which was what they were originally supposed to be. Originally, originally back in the 1980s, insurance companies came to Congress and said, “We can provide managed care and Medicare cheaper, so you can pay us 95% of the average that you pay for a fee for service patient. We can make a profit on that.”

Well, that is long since gone. The question is how much more they will make. And as I point out, when they get overpaid, they do have to rebate those back effectively to the patients in terms of higher benefits. And that’s why many of them offer dental coverage and eyeglasses coverage and other types of, quote-unquote, extra benefits that Medicare doesn’t offer.

But also you get this lack of choice, and so we see when people try to leave these plans and go back to traditional Medicare, they can’t, which is only one of the sort of things that I think a lot of people don’t know about how Medicare Advantage works. Another place with an awful lot of small print.

Weber: It’s a lot of small print under a very good marketing name. The name itself implies that you’re making a better choice, but that isn’t necessarily what the small print would say.

Kenen: And there are people who are very satisfied with it and who get great care. I mean, it’s not monolithic. I mean, it is popular. It is growing and growing and growing. It’s partly economic, and there’s some plans that patients like, and there’s word of mouth or that were negotiated as part of union agreements and are actually pretty strong benefits. But they’re also people who are really encountering a lot of trouble with prior authorization, and limited networks, and your doctor’s no longer in it, et cetera, et cetera.

I think that those things, I actually checked with somebody about the provider networks, what we know about who’s dropping out, and I don’t think there’s really up-to-date data, but there is a perception, and you’re hearing it and seeing it online. But they do an incredible amount of marketing, an incredible amount of marketing. And if you’re in it and you like it and you save money and you’re getting great health care, terrific. You’re going to stay in it.

If you’re in it and you don’t like it and you’re not getting great health care and a lot of hassles or you can’t see the right doctors, it’s hard to get out and get back into it depending on what state you’re living 鈥� It’s not monolithic. But I think we might be between the financial pressures from the government and some of the debates about some of these things they’re doing there may be some reconsideration. But they have strong backers in Congress and not just Republicans.

Rovner: Oh, yeah. I mean, and as you point out, more than half of the people in Medicare are now on Medicare Advantage. I did want to sort of highlight my colleague Susan Jaffe, who has a story this week about the fact that patients can’t change plans in the middle of the year, but plans can drop providers in the middle of the year, so people may sign up for a health plan because their doctor or their hospital is in it and then suddenly find out mid-year that their doctor and their hospital is no longer in it.

There are occasionally, if you’re in the middle of treatment, there are opportunities sometimes to change, but often there aren’t. People do end up in these plans, and they can be happy for, basically, until they’re not, that there are trade-offs when you do it. And I think, as we point out, there’s so much marketing, and the marketing somehow doesn’t ever talk about the trade-offs that you make when you go into Medicare Advantage.

Luhby: Well, one also thing is that this is the peak 65 year, where the most baby boomers, and where are they coming from? They’re coming from private commercial insurance, so they’re familiar with it, and they were like, “Oh, OK, that’s seemingly very much like my employer plan. Sure, that sounds great. I know how to deal with that.” So that’s one of the things. And one cudgel that the insurers have is they say, “Oh, government, you’re going reduce our payments. We’re going to reduce the benefits and increase the premiums because we’re not going to have all of that extra government funding.” And that can scare the government because they don’t want the insurers to tell their patients, who are older patients who vote, “Oh, because of the government, we can no longer offer you all of these benefits, or we’ve had to raise your premium because of that.” So we’ll see if they actually do that.

Kenen: Joe Biden took away your gym, right?

Luhby: Exactly.

Rovner: [inaudible 00:22:11].

Luhby: And your dental benefits. So that’s always the threat that the insurers roll out. That’s the first thing that they say often, but we’ll see what happens. We don’t know yet until the fall, when enrollment starts, what will actually happen?

Rovner: We saw exactly that in the late ’90s after Congress balanced the budget. They took a big whack out of the payments for what was then, I think, called Medicare Plus Choice. It was the previous version of Medicare Advantage, and a lot of the companies just completely dropped out of the program. And a lot of the people, who as Joanne said, had been in those plants had been very happy, threw a fit and came to Congress to complain, and lo and behold, a lot of those payments got increased again. In fact, that was what led to the big increase in payments in 2003 was the huge cut that they made to payments, which drove a lot of the insurers out of the program. So we do know that the insurers will pack up and leave if they’re not paid what they consider to be enough to stay in the program.

Moving on. One of the things that Jeff Goldsmith talks about in this week’s interview is that our health system has become one of deep distrust between patients, providers, and insurers. Speaking of Medicare Advantage. That is sad and dysfunctional, except that sometimes there are good reasons for that distrust. One example comes this week from my 蘑菇影院 Health News colleague Julie Appleby. It seems that unscrupulous insurance brokers are disenrolling people in Obamacare plans from their health plans and putting them in different plans, which is unbeknownst to them until they find their doctor is no longer in their network or their drug isn’t covered.

The brokers who are doing this can earn bigger commissions. But patients can end up not just having to pay for their own medical care but owing the government money because suddenly they’re in plans getting subsidies that don’t match their incomes. It is a big mess. And it seems that the obvious solution, which would be making it harder for agents to access people’s enrollment information so they can switch them, would delay legitimate enrollment. It has to be easy for agents to basically manipulate people’s applications. So how do you guard against bad actors without inconveniencing everyone? This seems to be the question here and the question for Medicare Advantage, Lauren.

Weber: I was going to say, I mean, I think that’s the question Medicare itself has been dealing with for years. I mean, there’s a reason that many federal prosecutors call this a pay-and-chase situation in which there is rampant Medicare fraud. They prioritize the ease of patients accessing care to the disadvantage of some folks, or in this case, the American taxpayer, in this case, actual patients, being swindled.

But I don’t have an answer. I don’t think anyone really has an answer, considering we’re seeing things like the $2 billion catheter fraud that we’ve talked about here. So I think again, this is one of these things where the government’s been left a little flat-footed in trying to protect against bad actors.

Rovner: Yeah, well, the health sector is what a fifth of the economy now, so I guess it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that you have not just bad actors, people who are making a lot of money from doing illegal things and find it to be worth their while and that some of them get caught, but presumably most of them don’t. I guess that’s what happens when you have that much money in one place, you need sort of better watchdogs. All right. Well, finally, this week in medical misinformation comes from PolitiFact in a story called “Four Years After Shelter-in-Place, Covid-19 Misinformation Persists.” That’s an understatement.

That last part was mine. At the top of the list says, “We have discussed before is growing resistance to vaccines in general, not just the covid vaccine,” which is not all that surprising considering how many people now believe fictitious stories about celebrities dropping dead immediately after receiving vaccines. There’s even a movie called “Died Suddenly.” Or that government leaders and the superrich orchestrated the pandemic. That’s another popular story that goes around. Or that Dr. Tony Fauci brought the virus to the United States a year before the pandemic. Lauren, health misinformation is your beat. Is it getting any better now that the pandemic is largely behind us, or is it just continuing unabated?

Weber: No, I would argue it’s possibly getting worse because the trust in institutions is at an all-time low. Social media has allowed for fire hose. I mean, it’s made everything 鈥� it’s made the public square that used to be more limited, all corners of the country.

I would say that misinformation has led to mistrust about basic medical things, including childhood vaccinations, but also other medical treatment and care. And I think you’re really seeing this kind of post-truth world post-covid, this distrust, this misinfo is going to continue for some time. And there’s too much to cover on my beat. There’s constantly stories around the bend, and I don’t expect that improving anytime soon.

Kenen: Every single time a celebrity, not just dies, because it’s always no matter what happens, it’s blamed on the covid vaccine, but also gets sick. I mean, Princess Kate. We don’t know everything about her health, but I mean, all of us know it wasn’t. Whatever it is, it’s not because the covid vaccine. But if you go online, you hear that that’s whatever she has it’s because she’s vaccinated.

And the other thing is it’s fed into this general vaccine mistrust. So when I wrote about the RSV vaccine, which we talked about a few weeks ago, it wasn’t so much that there’s a campaign against the RSV vaccine. There is somewhat of that. But it’s just this massive, “vaccines are bad.” So it’s spilling over into anything with a needle attached is part of this horrible plot to kill us all. So it’s just sort of this miasma of anti-vaccination that’s hovering over a lot of health care.

Rovner: Well, at the risk of getting a little too bleak, that will be the news for this week. Now, we will play my interview with Jeff Goldsmith, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Jeff Goldsmith, one of my favorite big-picture health system analysts. Jeff has been writing of late about the hack and the growing size and influence of its owner, UnitedHealth Group, and what that means for the country’s entire health enterprise. Jeff, thanks for joining us again.

Jeff Goldsmith: You bet.

Rovner: So the lead of your latest piece gives a pretty vivid description of just how big United has become, and I just want to read it. “Years ago, the largest living thing in the world was thought to be the blue whale. Then someone discovered that the largest living thing in the world was actually the 106-acre, 47,000-tree Pando aspen grove in central Utah, which genetic testing revealed to be a single organism.

With its enormous network of underground roots and symbiotic relationship with a vast ecosystem of fungi, that aspen grove is a great metaphor for UnitedHealth Group. United, whose revenues amount to more than 8% of the U.S. health system, is the largest health care enterprise in the world.” Let’s pick up from there for people like me who haven’t been paying as much attention as maybe they should have, and still think that United is mainly a health insurance company. That is not true and hasn’t been for some time, has it?

Goldsmith: The difference between United and a health insurance company is that it also has $226 billion worth of care system revenues in it, some of which are services rendered to United and other, believe it or not, services rendered to United competitors. So, there isn’t anything remotely that size in the health insurance world. That $226 billion is more than double the size of Kaiser. Just to give you an idea of the scale.

Rovner: Which, of course, is the other companies that are both insurers and providers. That’s pretty much the only other really big one, right?

Goldsmith: Yes. I have a graphic in the piece that shows the part, which is the care delivery part of Optum, is just about the same size as Kaiser, but it generates six and a half billion dollars in profit versus Kaiser’s $323 million. So it dwarfs Kaiser in terms of profitability even though it’s about the same size top line.

Rovner: So split it up for people who don’t know. What are sort of the main components that make up UnitedHealth Group?

Goldsmith: Well, there’s a very large health insurance business, $280 billion health insurance business. Then, there is a care system called Optum Health, which is about $95 billion. It has 90,000 affiliated or employed docs, a huge chain of MedExpress urgent care centers, surgery centers, a couple of very large home health care agencies. So that’s the care delivery part of United.

There’s Optum Insight, which is about $19 billion. That’s the part that Change Healthcare was inside of. It’s a business intelligence and corporate services business, and consulting business, that also manages care systems financials. And then, finally, there’s Optum Rx, which is about $116 billion, so a little bit more than half of Optum’s total, and that is a pharmacy benefit management company. Believe it or not, the third-largest one. So there are bigger pharmacy benefits management companies than Optum, but those are the three big pieces.

Rovner: I feel like this is almost as big as a lot of the government health programs, isn’t it?

Goldsmith: Yeah. I mean, I can’t remember top line how big the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] is these days, but it’s VA scale, but it’s in a bunch of little pieces scattered all over the United States. I mean, that’s the big part of all of this. The care system is in at least 30 states. I have a map showing where some of the locations are. That map took me months to find. There isn’t a real registry of what the company owns, but it is a vast enterprise. And they’re great assets, if you’ll pardon a financial term for them.

Some of the finest risk-bearing multispecialty group practices in the United States are a part of Optum: Healthcare Partners based in Los Angeles; The Everett Clinic; the former Fallon Clinic, and Atrius in New England, which are the two finest risk-bearing, multispecialty physician groups in the Northeast. They weren’t dredging the bottom here at all. They got a tremendous number of high-quality groups that they’ve pulled together in the organization. The issue is it really an organization or is it a collection of assets that have been acquired at a very rapid pace over a period of the last 15 years.

Rovner: One of the things that I think the Change Healthcare hack proved for a lot of people is that nobody realized what a significant percentage of claims processing could go through one company. You have to wonder, have regulators, either at the state or federal level, kind of fallen down on this and sort of let this happen so that when somebody hacks into it, half the system seems to go down?

Goldsmith: The federal government challenged the Change acquisition and basically lost in court. They were unable to make the case. They were arguing that Change controlling all of these transactions of not only United but a lot of other insurers gave them access to information that enabled United to have some type of unfair competitive advantage. It was a difficult argument to make that didn’t make it. But the result of the Change acquisition was that about a third of the U.S. health system’s money flowed through one company’s leaky pipes.

And what we’re sort of learning as we learn more about Change is that there were something like a hundred separate programs inside Change, all of which somehow were vulnerable to this hack. And I think that’s one of the things that I think when [Sen.] Ron Wyden and [Sen.] Mark Warner get around to getting some facts about this, they’re going to wonder how did that happen. How could you have that many applications, that loosely tied together, that they were vulnerable to something like this?

And what my spies tell me is that a hacker, and it could have been a single hacker, not a country, but one guy was able to drop down into all of those data silos, vacuum out the data, and then delete the backups, so that United was basically left with no claims trail, no provider directories, nothing, and has had to reconstruct them; panicky reconstruction here in the last six weeks.

Rovner: Which I imagine is what’s taking so long for some of these providers to get back online.

Goldsmith: Julie, the part I don’t understand, is if it is true that that Change was processing a trillion and a half dollars worth of claims a year, a month interruption is $125 billion. That’s $125 billion that didn’t get paid to providers of care after the fact of them rendering the care. So the extent of the damage done by this is difficult to comprehend.

I mean, I have a lot of provider contacts and friends. Some of them, believe it or not, had no Change exposure at all because their main payers didn’t use Change. Some of them, it was all their payers used, and cash flow just ceased, and they had to go to the bank and borrow money to make their payrolls. None of this, for some reason, has made it in its full glory out into the press, and it isn’t that there aren’t incredibly high-quality business reporters in this field. There are.

Rovner: I know. I live in Maryland. I’ve driven over the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. I know what it means. I mean, basically took apart the Baltimore Beltway. I mean, no longer goes in a circle. And I know how big the Port of Baltimore is, and I feel like everybody can understand that because it’s visceral. You can see it. There’s video of the bridge falling down. There isn’t video of somebody hacking into Change Healthcare and stopping a lot of the health system in its tracks.

Goldsmith: The metaphor that occurred to me, as you know, I’m a metaphor junkie, was actually Deepwater Horizon, and of course, we had a camera on that gushing well the whole time. This is like a gusher of red ink, a Deepwater Horizon-sized gusher of red ink that went on for a month. From what I’m able to understand, people are able to file the claims now. How many people have actually been paid for the month or six weeks’ worth of work they’ve done is elusive. And I still don’t have access to really good facts on how much of what they owed people they’ve actually paid.

I do know a lot of my investor analyst friends are waiting for United’s first-quarter financials to drop, which will probably show a four- or five-day drop in their medical loss ratio because of all the claims they were not able to pay, and therefore money was sitting in their coffers earning, what, 5% interest. That’s going to be kind of a festival when the first-quarter financials drop. And, of course, it isn’t just United, Humana, the Elevance, Cigna, all the rest of them. A lot of these folks use Change to process their claims. So there’s going to be a swollen offer here on the health insurance side from a month of not paying their bills.

Rovner: Well, is it the next Standard Oil? Is it going to have to be taken apart at some point?

Goldsmith: Yeah, but I mean, the question is, on what basis? Our health care system is so vast and fragmented, even a generous interpretation of antitrust laws, you’d have trouble finding a case. The Justice Department or FTC [Federal Trade Commission] is going to try again. But I’ll tell you, I think they’ve got their work cut out for them. I think the real issue isn’t anti-competitiveness, it’s a national security issue. If you have a third of the health systems dollars flowing through one company’s leaky pipes, that’s not an antitrust problem. It’s a national security problem, and I think there are some folks in the U.S. Senate that are righteously pissed about this.

There’s a lot of fact-finding that needs to happen here and a lot of work that needs to be done to make this system more secure. And I’ve also argued to make it simpler. Change was processing 15 billion transactions a year. That’s 44 transactions for every man, woman, and child in the country, and that was only a third of them. What are we doing with 100 billion transactions? What’s up with that? It beggars the imagination to believe that we to minutely manage every single one of those transactions. That is just an astonishing waste of money. It’s also an incredible insult to our care system. The assumption that there at any moment, every one of those folks could potentially be ripping us off, and we can’t have that.

Rovner: So we’re spending all of this money to try and not be ripped off for presumably less money.

Goldsmith: Hundreds of billions of dollars, but who’s counting?

Rovner: It’s kind of a depressing picture of what our health system is becoming, but I feel like it is kind of an apt picture for what our health system has become.

Goldsmith: It’s the level of mistrust. The idea that every one of his patients is trying to get a free lunch, and every doctor is trying to pad his income. We’ve built a system based on those twin assumptions. And when you think about them for a minute, they really are appalling assumptions. Most of what motivated me when I had cancer was fear.

I wasn’t trying to get stuff I wasn’t entitled to or didn’t need. I wanted to figure out a way to not be killed by the thing in my throat. And my doctors were motivated by a fear that if they let me go, maybe my heirs would sue them. I guess this idea that we are just helpless pawns of a behaviorist model of incentives, I think the economists ran wild with this thesis. And I think it’s given us a system that doesn’t work for anybody.

Rovner: Is there a way to fix it?

Goldsmith: I think we ought to cut the number of transactions in half. We ought to go and look at how many prior authorizations are really needed. Is this a model we really want to continue with, effectively universal surveillance of every clinical decision? We ought to be paying in bundles. We ought to pay our primary care physicians monthly for every patient that they see that’s a continuing patient and not chisel them over every single thing they do. We ought to pay for complex care in bundles where a cancer treatment is basically one transaction instead of hundreds.

I think we could get a long way to simplifying and reducing the absurd administrative overburden by doing those things. I also think that the idea that we have 1,100 health insurers. United’s the biggest, but it’s not by any means the only health insurer. There’s 1,100 rule sets that determine what data you need in order to pay a claim and whether a claim is justified or not. I think that’s a crazy level of variation. So I think we need to attack the variation. We’ve had health policy conversations about this for years and not done anything, and I think it’s really time to do it.

Rovner: Maybe this will give some incentive to some people to actually do something. Jeff Goldsmith, thank you so much.

Goldsmith: Julie. It’s good talking to you.

Rovner: OK. We are back, and 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. Tami, you’ve already done yours this week. Lauren, why don’t you go next?

Weber: Yeah. I think we’re all keeping an eye on this in this podcast, but the title of this story is “,” which was written by my colleagues, Lena Sun and Rachel Roubein. Also, great pieces by Helen Branswell in the Texas Tribune on this as well.

But, essentially, just so listeners know, there has been a case of human bird flu detected, which is very concerning. As all of us on this podcast know, avian human flu is one of the worst-case scenarios in terms of a pathogen and infectiousness. As of right now, this is only one person. It seems to be isolated. We don’t know. We’ll see how this continues to mutate, but definitely something to keep an eye on for potential threat risk. TBD.

Rovner: Yeah. It is something I think that every health reporter is watching with some concern. Although, as you point out, we really don’t know very much yet. And so far, we have not seen. I think what the experts are watching for is human-to-human transmission, and we haven’t seen that yet.

Kenen: And this person seems to have a mild case, from the limited information we have, which is also a good sign for both that individual and everybody else in terms of spreadability.

Rovner: But we will continue to watch that space. Joanne.

Kenen: Well, you said enough bleak, but I’m afraid this is somewhat bleak. This is a piece by Kate Martin from APM Reports, which is part of American Public Media, and it was published in cooperation with The 19th, and the headline is “.” So there’s a very, very strong sort of everybody points to it as great law in Illinois saying that what kind of care hospitals have to provide to sexual assault victims and what kind of testing and counseling and everything. This whole series of services that legally they must do, and they’re not doing it. Even in cases of children being assaulted, they’re sending people 40 miles away, 80 miles away, 40 miles away. They’re not doing rape kits. They’re not connecting them to the counselors, et cetera. It is a pretty horrifying story. It begins with a story of a 4-year-old because they didn’t do what they were supposed to do. The father was the suspected perpetrator, and because the hospital didn’t do what they should have done he still has joint custody of this little girl.

Rovner: My story this week is from our podcast colleague, Alice [Miranda] Ollstein, and her Politico colleague, Megan Messerly, and it’s called “.” And it’s about the fact that while maybe not trying to outlaw IVF entirely, the anti-abortion movement does want to dramatically change how it’s practiced in the U.S.

For example, they would like to decrease the number of embryos that can be created and transplanted, both of which would likely make the already expensive treatment even more expensive still. Anti-abortion activists also would like to ban pre-implantation genetic testing so that, “Defective embryos can’t be discarded.” Except that couples with genes for deadly diseases often turn to IVF exactly because they don’t want to pass those diseases on to their children, and they would like to test them before they are implanted.

In other words, the anti-abortion movement may or may not be coming for contraception, but it definitely is coming for IVF. OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. 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, , or at Bluesky and at Threads. Tami, where can we find you?

Luhby: I’m at .

Rovner: There you go. Joanne.

Kenen: on X, and on Threads.听

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: on X