Katheryn Houghton reads the week’s news: Many Americans say it’s hard to pay for the dentist, but putting off care also has its costs. Plus, for some patients, Medicare will start covering GLP-1 drugs for weight loss this year.

April 9

Zach Dyer reads the week’s news: Rising health costs have some middle-aged adults skipping the doctor until Medicare will pick up the tab. Plus, there’s little evidence that immigrants without legal status are using Medicaid, despite White House claims.

April 2

Arielle Zionts reads the week’s news: Scientists say staff losses at the National Institutes of Health could lead to fewer medical breakthroughs. Plus, doctors worry they’ll see more kids with potentially deadly complications from measles, as cases surge.

March 26

Jackie Fortiér reads the week’s news: Consumers know which party they blame after Congress failed to extend enhanced Obamacare subsidies. Plus, updated standards say seniors should aim for even lower blood pressure readings.

March 19

Sam Whitehead reads the week’s news: Amid federal spending cuts and suspicion of fluoride, tooth problems are sending more kids to the ER. Plus, patients look to health savings accounts to deal with rising medical costs.

March 12

Katheryn Houghton reads the week’s news: Looming Medicaid cuts could mean states stop covering dental care for adults, and a growing number of U.S. nurses are moving to Canada.

March 5

Zach Dyer reads the week’s news: The Trump administration is calling for sharp restrictions on direct-to-consumer drug ads, and for some people facing skyrocketing health insurance costs, becoming eligible for Medicare because of a new diagnosis is a terrible irony.

Feb. 26

Sam Whitehead reads the week’s news: Some places are bringing back house calls to try to fight maternal and infant mortality, and almost all Americans benefit from health care subsidies in different forms.

Feb. 19

Arielle听Zionts听reads the week’s news:听Some health systems are using AI听tools to help patients听get primary care, and the Trump administration’s new data-sharing rules make going to the hospital more dangerous for people without legal status.

Feb. 12

Jackie Fortiér reads the week’s news: Moves by the Trump administration have slowed cancer research, and more of America’s doctors are working into their golden years.

Feb. 5

Katheryn Houghton reads the week’s news: American farmers are being hit hard by the end of extra Obamacare subsidies, and hospitals are starting their own Medicare Advantage plans.

Jan. 29

Zach Dyer reads this week’s news: An expensive new gene therapy that can potentially cure people with sickle cell disease will be covered by Medicaid, but only when it works for patients. Plus, community health centers are preparing to help care for millions more uninsured people.

Jan. 22

Arielle听Zionts听reads the week’s news:听Some states are cutting public funding for听a type of autism therapy, and older adults are more likely than younger ones听to stop taking GLP-1 drugs听such as听Ozempic.听

Jan. 15

Jackie Fortiér reads the week’s news: Parents are confused by an overhaul of U.S. childhood immunization guidelines, and while people 65 and older make up the fastest-growing homeless population in the country, traditional homeless shelters often can’t accommodate them.

Jan. 8

Zach Dyer reads the week’s news:听Instead of extending听extra听Affordable Care Act subsidies that would keep monthly premiums more affordable, some Republicans are pushing health savings accounts. Plus,听people seeking cheaper听health insurance options outside the ACA marketplaces听may听find some, but they听come with downsides.听

Jan. 1

Katheryn Houghton reads the听week’s news: AI voices听can help patients who have had听their voice boxes removed听sound like themselves again, and many state-run psychiatric hospitals听don’t听have enough beds to treat patients unless听they’ve听been charged with a crime.

The 麻豆女优 Health News Minute is available every Thursday on CBS News Radio.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The lawsuit, settled on confidential terms last year, blamed not only the managers of City Creek Post-Acute and Assisted Living but also the building’s owner, a real estate investment trust, or REIT.

In the year Darby died, City Creek paid CareTrust REIT more than $1 million in rent, while the Sacramento, California, nursing home ran a deficit, court records show.

Federal tax rules ban REITs from running health care facilities, but CareTrust was not an absentee landlord either, according to internal records filed in the case. It chose the nursing home’s management company and required through the lease that the home keep at least 80% of beds occupied. CareTrust granularly tracked how well the home kept to its financial plan, down to the money spent monthly on nurses and food, the records said. And the documents showed that the real estate company kept tabs on government safety inspection findings and Medicare quality ratings.

Both CareTrust and the nursing home operator denied liability for Darby’s death. CareTrust officials said in court papers that it is not involved in day-to-day nursing home decisions or patient care, and that it monitors facilities to ensure nothing jeopardizes rent payments. In a written statement, CareTrust Corporate Counsel Joseph Layne told 麻豆女优 Health News: “We are the property owners, not the operators.”

Landlords With Influence

Over the past decade, real estate investment trusts have bought thousands of buildings that house nursing homes, hospitals, assisted living facilities, and medical offices. A 麻豆女优 Health News examination of court filings and corporate records shows that these landlords have more influence than the health care facilities publicly acknowledge.

The documents reveal REITs often select the management who oversee the operations and leave them in place even when they are aware of threadbare staffing, floundering governance, repeated safety violations, or other problems that hamper quality of care. A California jury in March awarded $92 million in punitive damages against a former REIT over the death of a 100-year-old resident with dementia who froze to death outside her assisted living facility.

“The REITs are in charge,” said Laraclay Parker, one of the lawyers who represent Darby’s daughter.

Absence of Oversight

Despite their ubiquity, REITs remain invisible to state and federal health regulators. Hospitals and nursing homes are not required to disclose rent payments or landlord identities in the annual reports they submit to Medicare.

Under President Donald Trump, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services a Biden-era requirement that nursing homes . Catherine Howden, a CMS spokesperson, said in a statement that the agency does not regulate facilities based on their tax status or corporate form and instead focuses on the quality of the care they provide.

REITs now of the nation’s senior housing, which includes assisted living, memory care, and independent living, according to an industry analysis. REITs also hold investments in nursing homes. Publicly traded REITs that focus on health care are now worth nearly a quarter of a trillion dollars, according to Nareit, an industry association.

While one research study found REIT investments were associated with , another concluded that after being bought by REITs, nursing homes frequently with less skilled nurses and aides. A concluded that health inspection results were worse after REIT investment.

Researchers also found that investor-owned hospital chains that sold buildings to REITs were or go bankrupt, with Steward Health Care. Often, private equity investors kept the sale proceeds as profits while the hospitals were burdened with new rent costs. “There were no improvements in clinical outcomes,” said Thomas Tsai, an associate professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

REITs are required to distribute most of their income and don’t have to pay the 21% federal corporate income tax on it. There is a catch: A REIT that “directly or indirectly operates or manages” a health care facility for five years. Typically, a REIT leases the property to another company that runs the nursing home or assisted living facility and maintains its tax break. Nareit said health care REITs distributed more than $7 billion in dividends in 2024.

Michael Stroyeck, head of health care analysis at Green Street, a real estate research company, said “there’s definitely a symbiotic relationship” between REITs and facility managers because they have the same goals. He said he has seen REITs replace operators that are having difficulties or go bankrupt.

John Kane, a senior vice president at the American Health Care Association and the National Center for Assisted Living, an industry group that represents nursing homes, said in a statement: “Given government funding often falls short, REITs have been valuable partners in helping to invest in long term care without influencing daily operations.”

Low Staffing at a Chain

Strawberry Fields REIT, which like CareTrust trades on the New York Stock Exchange, owns or controls the buildings of 131 nursing home facilities. The nursing home operations inside 66 of those facilities are owned by Moishe Gubin, Strawberry Fields’ chief executive, and Michael Blisko, one of its directors, according to Strawberry Fields’ for last year.

Gubin and Blisko also jointly own , which manages their nursing homes; Blisko is Infinity’s CEO. On average, Infinity-affiliated nursing homes provided an hour and a quarter less nursing care per resident per day than the national average of four hours, a 麻豆女优 Health News analysis of federal records found.

Infinity and several of its nursing homes have recently settled 30 death and injury lawsuits in Cook County, Illinois, totaling more than $4 million, said Margaret Battersby Black, a Chicago lawyer. A jury last year awarded $12 million in a lawsuit brought against Infinity and one of its Chicago nursing homes over the 2023 death of Shirley Adams. A retired candy factory worker, Adams died after developing infected bedsores at Lakeview Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, according to the lawsuit.

“She had wounds that no one could explain,” one of her adult children, Leslie Adams, testified at trial. Medicare its lowest quality rating, one star out of five.

Paul Connery, a lawyer for Adams’ family, said they are still trying to collect on the judgment against the nursing home and management company, which now totals $17 million with interest and attorney fees.

“If I get caught speeding and I went to court, they issue me a ticket and I’ve got a fine to pay,” Adams said in an interview. “How are they able to still continue to move on with business like nothing has happened?”

In a phone interview and an email, Gubin said Strawberry Fields, Infinity, and the nursing homes are all legally distinct and that he has not played an active role in Infinity in more than a decade. He said nursing homes get sued all the time but that the verdict against Lakeview is so large that it will force the home to declare bankruptcy or shut down.

“The whole thing is unfortunate,” Gubin said by phone. “For 15 years they were a perfectly good guardian” and “a well-run building,” he said. “You wouldn’t think it was fair to be judged on your worst day.”

Blisko and an Infinity lawyer did not respond to requests for comment.

Strawberry Fields, which owns 10 assisted living facilities and two long-term care hospitals in addition to the nursing homes, earned net income last year of from $155 million in rent, a 21% profit margin, securities filings show. Gubin said those weren’t excessive returns.

A $110 Million Verdict

Traditionally, REIT leases make the operating companies responsible for paying property taxes, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs. In 2008, Congress gave health care REITs a new option to make money: On top of collecting rents, they could set up subsidiaries and take profits directly from health care businesses. They still must have independent management overseeing care decisions. Many REITs have embraced the role even though the subsidiaries must pay corporate taxes and risk losing money if the businesses do poorly.

Colony Capital was a REIT that through layers of shell corporations owned both the building and the operation of Greenhaven Estates, a Sacramento assisted living and memory care facility. In 2018 Greenhaven paid Colony $1.4 million in rent, nearly a third of its $4.5 million in revenue that year, according to financial records filed in court.

Greenhaven also was on the verge of losing its license, according to a revocation notice filed in November 2018 by the California Department of Social Services. Greenhaven had racked up years of health violations, including from letting untrained workers administer medications, lacking enough employees to care for people with dementia, and neglecting a resident who smeared feces over his body, bed, floor, and bathroom, the notice said.

In February 2019, a few weeks after celebrating her 100th birthday, Mildred Hernandez, a resident with Alzheimer’s, wandered out of Greenhaven in the middle of the night. Her assisted living wing had no exit door alarms even though it housed several residents with dementia, court records showed. Berta Lepe, one of Greenhaven’s caregivers, found Hernandez under a bush, wearing only a shirt and underwear. The temperature was in the 30s.

“She was talking, but I couldn’t understand what she was saying,” Lepe testified at trial over a lawsuit from Hernandez’s family. Hernandez died of hypothermia a few hours later, according to her death certificate.

Frontier Management, the company that Colony had hired to manage Greenhaven, denied liability and settled the lawsuit on undisclosed terms.

Since the lawsuit, Colony has changed its name to DigitalBridge, which no longer owns Greenhaven and gave up its REIT status. At trial earlier this year, DigitalBridge said resident care was the responsibility of Frontier and that Colony “encouraged” Frontier to address problems. Richard Welch, a former Colony executive, testified that replacing management is disruptive. “I viewed it as a last resort,” he said.

In March, a jury awarded Hernandez’s family $110 million: $10 million in compensatory damages, $92 million in punitive damages against DigitalBridge, and $8 million in punitive damages against Formation Capital, an asset management company.

“REIT money is very detached from knowing about or caring about patient or resident outcomes, because it’s not in their business model,” Ed Dudensing, a lawyer for the family, said in an interview. “Their allegiance is to their investors.”

DigitalBridge has asked the judge to delay finalizing the judgment while its legal challenges to the lawsuit and the verdict are evaluated. A DigitalBridge attorney and a corporate spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment, a Formation attorney declined comment, and a Frontier attorney and a spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

鈥榃et From Head to Toe’

When CareTrust bought City Creek Post-Acute and Assisted Living in 2019, the Sacramento nursing home where Pearlene Darby lived had a one-star Medicare rating and was losing money. CareTrust leased the building to a management company called Kalesta Healthcare Group based on the business plan Kalesta submitted.

While CareTrust was not the operator, it held periodic phone calls with Kalesta, which provided “a full update of what’s happening at the facility,” including changes in leadership, financial progress, and health inspection survey results, according to deposition testimony by Ryan Williams, a Kalesta co-founder.

According to a state inspection report, in 2020, the year Darby died, City Creek left a resident in soiled linens “wet from head to toe lying in bed” for more than eight hours. During a different visit, a health inspector cited the home after watching a nurse put a dirty diaper back onto a resident after caring for a wound. “It was just a small stool and it is far from where the wound is,” the nurse told the inspector, according to the report.

James Callister, CareTrust’s chief investment officer, said in his deposition that CareTrust officials “review results of regulatory surveys provided to us by the tenant. We review the five-star rating.” He said, “We evaluate results of care, but we do not evaluate types of care given or how or when, no.”

Darby had been living in City Creek since 2011 after a stroke left her in a wheelchair. She needed help getting in and out of bed. From September through November 2020, Darby lost 30 pounds, her family’s lawsuit alleged. During those months, employees dropped her three times as one worker rather than the required two operated the mechanical lift, the lawsuit said.

The suit alleged City Creek failed to reposition her every two hours in bed or her wheelchair, which is the clinical standard for people at risk of bedsores, and to promptly order devices to protect her skin.

In November, the nursing home sent Darby to the hospital. A blood test found bacteria had entered her bloodstream from her feces’ touching open skin wounds, according to the lawsuit. The hospital diagnosed her with sepsis. A surgeon said she needed an operation to redirect fecal waste from her intestines but concluded she wasn’t medically stable enough for surgery, the suit said.

Darby began receiving comfort care measures and was sent back to City Creek. She died two weeks later. In court filings, CareTrust and Kalesta denied the allegations.

In a phone interview, Williams, the Kalesta co-founder, said Darby’s death occurred during the most challenging point of the covid pandemic, when California rules required any nurses testing positive for the virus to be sent home and nurses were quitting out of fear for their health. “It was the most herculean of professional efforts to secure enough staff,” he said.

While expressing sympathy for Darby and her family, he said it was “unconscionable” that personal injury lawyers sued nursing homes over care failures during “the worst of times.”

In court, CareTrust petitioned Judge Richard Miadich to dismiss it from the lawsuit before trial. “This case does not concern a property condition,” CareTrust’s lawyers wrote. “CareTrust is simply a landlord.” But the judge ruled last year a jury should decide whether CareTrust “exercised actual control over City Creek.”

The case was settled out of court a few months later. All parties declined to reveal the settlement terms.

A 67% Profit

As recently as November 2023 鈥� four years after its acquisition 鈥� City Creek earned one star from Medicare. It was cited for failing to have the minimum nursing home staffing required by California law during five of 24 randomly selected days in 2022, according to an inspection report. Williams said in the interview that Kalesta had increased spending on nursing over the course of its ownership, including boosting wages, but that it takes a year or two to turn around a troubled nursing home. He said the home’s star rating in 2023 was dragged down by its poor inspection history from before Kalesta took over.

City Creek’s rating has climbed in the past two years, and it now has the top overall rating of five, according to Medicare. Medicare rates City Creek’s current staffing levels as average. That’s better than most nursing homes in more than 200 buildings CareTrust bought before 2025, according to a 麻豆女优 Health News analysis of federal data. On average, CareTrust nursing homes provided a half hour less nursing care per resident per day than the national average of four hours.

In its statement to 麻豆女优 Health News, CareTrust’s counsel Layne said the REIT worked to “identify quality operators as tenants,” and that the homes the REIT rents out have more nurses and aides than the minimum required for nursing homes by their state governments. “The operators are licensed by state regulators and retain sole responsibility for operations,” the statement said.

CareTrust, which now owns more than 500 senior housing and nursing home buildings, reported net income last year of $320 million from in rents and other revenue 鈥� a 67% profit margin. By comparison, HCA Healthcare, one of the nation’s largest for-profit hospital and health care chains, for last year.

Lesley Ann Clement, one of Darby’s lawyers, said cases like hers show the nursing home industry is wrong to complain it lacks financial resources for more staffing.

“There’s plenty of money,” Clement said. “They’re just not spending it on patient care.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

A lot of people choose their health insurance the way they shop for a flight 鈥� sort by the lowest price and click “buy.” But what looks like a bargain upfront can come with costly consequences later.

After some federal financial aid expired, many Americans found that high-deductible health plans were the only option they could afford.

In a new episode of NPR’s Life Kit podcast, 麻豆女优 Health News reporter Jackie Fortiér and podcast host Marielle Segarra discuss what these plans are, and why they can feel so confusing. Imagine paying $100 out-of-pocket for a routine doctor visit that used to cost you $20. Imagine shouldering thousands of dollars in bills before your insurance pays a cent.

Still, for some people 鈥� especially those who rarely need medical care 鈥� high-deductible plans work. Listen to the episode to explore how timing your care and taking advantage of free preventive services can help you make the most of your coverage.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Office of Personnel Management 65 insurance companies to provide monthly reports with detailed medical and pharmaceutical claims data of more than 8 million people enrolled in federal health plans, 麻豆女优 Health News reported earlier this month. The request, which could dramatically expand the personally identifiable medical information OPM can access, alarmed health ethicists, insurance company executives, and privacy advocates.

Now, OPM Director Scott Kupor has two letters on his desk 鈥� one from 16 U.S. senators and another led by Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee 鈥� asking him to drop the agency’s proposal.

“The collection of broad, personally identifiable data regarding medical care and treatment raises concerns that OPM could target certain federal employees seeking vital health care services that the Administration disagrees with on political grounds,” the Democratic House members , citing 麻豆女优 Health News.

The letters from congressional Democrats alone are unlikely to reverse OPM’s plans. Republicans 鈥� who control Congress and, ultimately, any oversight activities 鈥� have not weighed in on OPM’s notice.

OPM did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letters. The agency, which said in its notice that it will use the data for oversight and to manage the federal health plans, has not publicly addressed written concerns about its proposal.

The notice, posted and sent to insurers in December, states that insurers are legally permitted to disclose “protected health information” to OPM and does not provide instructions to redact identifying information, such as names or diagnoses, from the claims.

That data could be used to implement cost-saving measures, health policy experts told 麻豆女优 Health News earlier this month. But it would also give the Trump administration 鈥� which has laid off or fired tens of thousands of federal workers 鈥� access to a vast trove of personal information.

In the letters, Democratic lawmakers lay out a number of concerns about potential consequences of OPM’s obtaining detailed medical claims for millions of federal workers.

The 鈥� led by Adam Schiff of California and Mark Warner of Virginia 鈥� argues that OPM is not equipped to safeguard such sensitive data and that the administration could share the records across government agencies, as it has done with personal information on millions of Medicaid enrollees.

They also assert that the agency does not have a legal right to the data and that insurers’ sharing the information with OPM would “violate the core principles of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.” HIPAA requires certain organizations that maintain identifiable health information 鈥� such as hospitals and insurers 鈥� to protect it from being disclosed without patient consent. The proposal, the senators warn, threatens patients’ relationships with their clinicians, especially “sensitive disclosures regarding mental health, chronic illness, or other deeply personal conditions.”

“For these reasons, we strongly urge you to cease any further consideration of this proposal,” states the letter, which was sent to Kupor on April 19.

The American Federation of Government Employees, the largest union for federal employees, to 麻豆女优 Health News’ reporting. The union noted in a statement from its national president, Everett Kelley, that OPM’s proposal “comes in the context of coordinated attacks on federal employees and repeated stretching of the legal boundaries for sharing sensitive personal data across government agencies.

“The question of what this administration intends to do with eight million Americans’ most private health information is not academic,” the AFGE statement read. “It is urgent.”

In an emailed statement, Kelley applauded the congressional letters.

“We are pleased that Democratic lawmakers on the Hill are just as outraged as we are over this administration’s blatant attempt to breach the privacy of millions of Americans across the country,” Kelley wrote. “We share their concerns regarding potential misuse of the information to continue illegally targeting workers and their demand for OPM to withdraw this proposal.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But physicians, dentists, ambulance companies, and other health care providers are still taking their patients to court, a Connecticut Mirror-麻豆女优 Health News investigation of state legal records shows.

Lawsuits by doctors and other nonhospital providers now dominate health care collections in Connecticut, the records show, accounting for more than 80% of cases filed against patients and their families in 2024.

That’s a major reversal from just five years earlier, when hospital system lawsuits made up three-quarters of health-related collection cases in the state’s courts.

The shift is moving medical debt collections into a less regulated realm. Most hospitals, because they are tax-exempt nonprofits, must make financial aid available to low-income patients and follow federal regulations that limit aggressive collection activities. Other medical providers, such as private medical groups, are generally exempt from these rules.

The lawsuits are typically over bills of less than $3,000, but the impact on patients can be devastating. Lawsuits are among the most ruinous byproducts of a health care debt problem that burdens an estimated 100 million people in the U.S.

Lawsuits can lead to garnished wages, liens on homes, and hundreds of dollars of added debt from interest and court fees. They also pile additional financial strains on struggling families, prevent patients from getting needed care, and sap trust in medical providers.

“It’s really messed up,” said Allie Cass-Wilson, a nurse in Bristol, Connecticut, who was sued over a $1,972 debt by an OB-GYN practice where she’d been a patient years earlier. “How can they do that to people?” She did not contest the lawsuit, court records show.

Cass-Wilson, who is 36 and lives in a small apartment just off an expressway on-ramp, said she learned of the outstanding debt only when she was sued. When she tried making an appointment, she said, she was told her doctor wouldn’t see her. “They said I was blacklisted,” Cass-Wilson said. “I was so confused. I couldn’t believe that my medical provider let my care be interrupted like this.”

Cass-Wilson ultimately sought medical care elsewhere.

Radiologists, Dentists, Ambulances

Overall, CT Mirror and 麻豆女优 Health News identified more than 16,000 health care-related debt cases in Connecticut courts from 2019 to 2024. The database was assembled from online court records with the help of January Advisors, a data science consulting firm that helped extract and sort the data.

Over the six-year period, most of Connecticut’s more than 25,000 did not pursue patients in court for outstanding balances.

But records show that more than 400 medical providers, including several hospital systems, sued their patients. Among those filing lawsuits were radiologists, anesthesiologists, eye doctors, podiatrists, allergists, and pediatricians.

Dentists, periodontists, and other dental providers filed more than 1,000 lawsuits against patients. And ambulance companies sued more than 140 people.

Med-Aid, a company based outside New Haven, Connecticut, that provides orthopedic braces and other medical supplies to patients, sued more than 400 people, the court records show. The company’s president, Frank Dilieto, did not respond to repeated interview requests.

Cass-Wilson was sued by Briar Rose Network in Bristol, Connecticut, a member of a large network of OB-GYN practices across Connecticut called Physicians for Women’s Health. The network’s members sued close to 100 patients in 2024, records show.

Paula Greenberg, CEO of Women’s Health Connecticut, a private equity-backed company affiliated with Physicians for Women’s Health that manages business operations for the network, said the lawsuits represent a small fraction of the more than 300,000 patients the network sees every year.

“This is an organization committed to patients,” Greenberg said. She noted that the group offers options to help patients pay, including installment plans and financial aid.

Geoffrey Manton, president of Naugatuck Valley Radiological Associates, said his practice also will work with people who say they can’t pay. But, he said, patients sometimes stop responding to their bills.

“Hiding from your problems isn’t going to solve them,” Manton said. “If we didn’t take any action, there could be that person that is in that late-model Mercedes that just chooses not to pay any bills.” The group sued more than 125 patients from 2019 to 2024, according to the court records.

Many medical providers say that aggressive collections stem from the growing prevalence of high-deductible health plans that leave patients with thousands of dollars of bills before their coverage kicks in.

Greenberg and Manton said each of their physician groups must collect. “This is a business,” Greenberg said. “We have to look at our operating costs.”

Critics of medical collection lawsuits note that the patients are typically sued over relatively small debts that are likely to have little impact on multimillion-dollar medical practices.

The average patient debt that members of Physicians for Women’s Health sued over in 2024 was less than $1,100, court records show. The physician group’s annual revenues are typically in the tens of millions of dollars, according to Greenberg.

Even relatively small debts 鈥� which often include interest 鈥� can place substantial burdens on families struggling to keep up with their bills, especially while dealing with a serious illness, patient advocates say.

“We don’t have a realistic choice in using health care,” said Lisa Freeman, who heads the Connecticut Center for Patient Safety and has advocated for patients struggling with medical bills. “To then get sued for it, when people have less and less funds available for anything extra, that’s very disheartening.”

A Stroke, Then a Lawsuit

Matthew Millman, 54, lost his job as an IT support worker after having a stroke. Then Meriden Imaging Center sued him over an $1,891 bill.

Millman and his wife said they tried to explain their financial situation to the center, which is affiliated with Midstate Radiology Associates, a large physician group that operates imaging centers and doctors’ offices across Connecticut.

“It was very frustrating,” said Millman, who lives in an aging apartment owned by his wife’s family in New Britain. Millman, his wife, and their teenage daughter are barely getting by on his two part-time jobs 鈥� one bagging groceries, the other helping homebound seniors. Together, the jobs pay about $1,500 a month, he said.

The imaging center, after winning the collection case against Millman, tried to garnish his wages, though that was unsuccessful because Millman had lost his IT job.

“It’s all about money,” Millman said, shaking his head. “If you are trained in helping somebody with their health, it shouldn’t be about the money first. It should be about their health.”

Court records show that Midstate Radiology, Meriden Imaging Center and affiliates filed more than 1,000 collection lawsuits against patients from 2019 to 2024, making them听the most litigious nonhospital providers in the state. As is common in medical debt lawsuits, the plaintiffs prevailed in most cases, records show.

Midstate president Gary Dee, a radiologist, didn’t respond to emails and messages left at his West Hartford office.

Across town from Millman’s apartment in New Britain, Joseph Lentz lives in a cramped apartment with his wife and daughter. He used to oversee operations at a Boy Scout camp but is now unemployed. Lentz lost his job during the pandemic. The family home went into foreclosure, he said.

In 2023, Orthopedic Associates of Hartford sued Lentz over a $3,644 bill the practice said he owed after having shoulder surgery in 2018.

“I’d pay it if I could, I guess,” said Lentz, 59. “But I don’t even know where next month’s rent is coming from. I’m trying to climb out as best I can. I guess this is just one more thing to shovel in.”

The orthopedic group filed more than 580 lawsuits against patients from 2019 to 2024, prevailing in most, records show.

The medical group declined interview requests. But chief executive David Mudano said in a statement: "As an independent physician practice, we strive to balance compassion for patients with the financial responsibility required to sustain our practice.”

Old Debts and Disputed Claims

Lentz, who did not contest the lawsuit, said he has no reason to doubt he owes the debt. But in many cases reviewed by CT Mirror and 麻豆女优 Health News and in interviews, patients being sued questioned the accuracy of their medical bills, citing care they thought health insurance should have covered or, in some cases, bills for services they never received.

This reflects with aggressive collection tactics like lawsuits when disputes over the accuracy of medical bills and delayed or denied insurance claims are so widespread in American health care.

A by the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau found that nearly half of the medical debt complaints fielded by the agency involved bills that consumers said were erroneous in some way or that consumers said they’d already paid.

“We know people are billed incorrectly,” said Lester Bird, who studies debt collection lawsuits at the nonprofit Pew Charitable Trusts. Bird noted that courts are ill equipped to sort through disputed medical charges or insurance claims, especially when there is little documentation in most debt collection lawsuits.

“It’s complicated before it gets to the courts,” Bird said, “and it’s very complicated when it gets into the courts.”

This can create headaches for physicians and other providers. But billing problems ultimately affect patients and their families most, said Connecticut state Sen. Saud Anwar, a Democrat who is also a physician. “Patients are left to deal with it.”

Andrew Skolnick, an attorney in Milford, outside New Haven, was sued in 2023 by an imaging center where his wife had received services in 2020.

Skolnick said that when the couple, who were covered through his job-based insurance, originally received the bill from Diagnostic Imaging of Milford, he tried to tell the imaging center it had submitted the claim to the wrong insurance plan, but he said they wouldn’t speak with him.

The center later filed the lawsuit, alleging he owed more than $2,000, plus almost $300 in interest.

Despite interview requests, officials at Diagnostic Imaging of Milford did not comment for this article.

Unlike most patients who are sued, Skolnick had the resources and expertise to contest the suit. He said he offered to pay what would have been his responsibility under the plan if the imaging center had filed his claim correctly. He ultimately settled for $1,700, court records show.

“It wasn’t a tremendous amount, but I knew that they had made a mistake,” Skolnick said. “The system is not working.”

More Protections?

Anwar, the state lawmaker and physician, expressed concern that lawsuits undermine patients’ faith in their doctors.

“It’s a sacred relationship,” he said. “If your physician, who is taking care of you, is suing you for money, that’s a problem.

Many hospitals, facing bad publicity from suing patients, have stopped taking patients to court over unpaid bills. Hospital collection lawsuits identified by CT Mirror and 麻豆女优 Health News in Connecticut court records plunged from more than 4,900 in 2019 to fewer than 300 in 2024.

Also, in recent years, several states, including Connecticut, have expanded protections for patients with bills they can’t pay.

Connecticut now from consumer credit reports, and legislators are pushing to get hospitals to provide more financial aid to patients. Other states have restricted the use of wage garnishment and property liens to collect medical debt.

But state efforts to rein in aggressive medical debt collections have mostly focused on hospitals. That may need to change, said Connecticut state Sen. Matt Lesser, a Democrat who co-chairs the legislature’s Human Services Committee.

He is a key backer of a bill that would bar hospitals from billing patients who receive public benefits like food assistance or who make less than twice the federal poverty level, about $32,000 for an individual.

The restriction would not apply to bills from physicians and other nonhospital providers, however. “We may have to go bigger if that’s where the heart of the matter is,” Lesser said.

Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont, a Democrat who spearheaded an initiative to for more than 150,000 state residents, also expressed concern about physicians suing the people in their care.

“Everyone should do the right thing by patients,” he said.

This article was produced in partnership with , a statewide nonprofit newsroom that covers public policy and politics.

How We Did It: Analyzing Connecticut Health Care Debt Collection Lawsuits

How often do health care providers sue patients over unpaid bills?

In most states, that’s nearly impossible to answer because courts don’t typically identify which debt collection lawsuits involve a medical debt versus other kinds of debt, such as rent, credit cards, or cellphone bills.

But Connecticut is different. Debt collection cases filed in small-claims court for unpaid medical or dental bills must be classified as health care debt. We worked with the data science consulting firm January Advisors to pull these cases from the Connecticut court database and analyze them. (January Advisors has worked with nonprofits and researchers across the country to collect debt collection data from state courts. The firm did not have any editorial input in our project.)

We started with health care collection cases filed in small-claims court from 2019 to 2024. But this covered only cases involving debts smaller than $5,000. We also wanted to know about cases in which providers sued for bills exceeding $5,000. Connecticut courts don’t assign a “medical” category for large-claim cases. So we pulled all large-claim records for any plaintiff 鈥� hospital or nonhospital provider 鈥� that appeared in medical small-claims cases. We also included cases with plaintiffs that didn’t appear in that dataset but had common medical terminology in their names, like “hospital” or “DDS.”

We then went through each case manually to confirm that the plaintiff was a medical or dental provider. We determined whether the provider was part of a larger hospital or physician group. And we categorized each plaintiff by a provider type (e.g., hospital system, dental, physician group).

In some cases, the data we pulled was incomplete, so we looked up the court records online and manually entered the information into our database. The Connecticut Judicial Department purges case records from its online portal after a certain amount of time. In those cases, we asked the agency to provide summonses and claims so we could manually enter the case information into our database.

We removed cases with out-of-state defendants or out-of-state plaintiffs and any cases in which missing records made it difficult to confirm information about the provider.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

An Arm and a Leg host Dan Weissmann traces Engelberg’s story back more than 50 years, from a scrappy childhood on the Atlantic City boardwalk to watching President Ronald Reagan sign his bill into law at the . Today, Engelberg advocates for policy changes he believes will enable more generic drugs to reach the market faster.听

Credits

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

Dan:听Hey there–

We are kicking off a new series here 鈥� We’re calling it An Arm and a Leg 101.

We’ve spent years of reporting on two huge questions: Why does health care cost so freaking much? And what can we maybe do about it?

We’ve been chasing answers one story, one question at a time.

Now, we’re pulling together some of what we’ve learned. Digging a little deeper, going a little broader.

Starting with why so many drugs cost so much.

One of the first questions I ever asked 鈥� one of our first stories 鈥� was: How can insulin be so expensive? Wasn’t it discovered in the early 20th century? Shouldn’t it be a generic drug by now?

You know, cheap?听

And part of the answer I got was: Insulin has been transformed since the early 20th century. A lot.

A medical researcher named Jing Luo told me: Today’s insulins are a long way from what we had a hundred years ago.

Jing Luo:听They’ve been really modified at a molecular level. It’s cool stuff. It’s super cool stuff. And you know, there are multiple Nobel prizes in physiology and medicine that have made this happen.

Dan:听And all that super-cool stuff, those amazing discoveries, got patented.

Meaning: The patent-holders– the pharma companies 鈥� got a monopoly on those amazing discoveries.

The pharma companies claimed patents 鈥� and monopolies– on a听bunch of other things听too. Not all of them amazing.

But each new patent can mean another delay for a generic version coming to market.

Jing Luo:听Companies can stack dozens of patents on top of each other to try to thwart generic competition because they can say, look, we’ve got three patents on the active ingredient. We’ve got patents on the medical uses of the active ingredient. We’ve got patents on the non-active excipient associated with this ingredient. We’ve got multiple patents on the devices, and so you who are trying to enter this space will sue you for patent infringement on all of them.

Dan:听A patent guarantees you at least a 20-year monopoly. Drugs can generally get an extra five.听

And these extra patents 鈥� secondary patents –can keep you protected LONGER. If you don’t file them at the same time as the original:听

To talk about a drug that’s in the news right now. The original patent on the active ingredient in Wegovy and Ozempic actually expired this year.. The extra five years extends it to the early 2030s.听

But dozens of extra patents 鈥� secondary patents, filed later 鈥� mean听that here in the U.S.,听we might not see cheaper generic versions until 2042. Or later.

And as Jing Luo told me: This strategy isn’t a secret. It’s an industry cornerstone.听

Jing Luo:听When you listen to these like CEOs of pharma companies being interviewed at CNBC, you know, they’d be like, well, what about generic competition for this product? And they’ll just keep saying, no, no, no. We’ve got this really robust patent portfolio. We can withstand any challenge. We’re gonna tie this up in courts forever and don’t worry about it.We’re gonna continue this gravy boat for a long, long time. That’s the way they reinsure investors.

Dan:听A robust patent portfolio. ?Or what researchers and advocates call a patent thicket.

They say quality matters less than quantity.听

The numbers are wild.听

, the 10 best-selling drugs for 2021 鈥� drugs for cancer, HIV, arthritis 鈥� were protected by a combined total of seven hundred and forty-two patents. With hundreds more “pending.”

When these add-on patents get challenged in court, they actually get tossed out more often than primary patents..

But lawsuits cost money. A robust patent portfolio 鈥� a patent thicket 鈥� means generic companies would need to be ready to file a LOT of them.

So, we wanted to know: How did all this happen? How did these games get started?

It turns out, there is one guy who can tell you the story from the beginning, for better and for worse. Who helped shape it. Made millions of dollars from it. Saw its flaws. And has spent most of the last 30 years trying to fix them. Hie’s a lawyer named Al Engelberg, and he’s 86 years old.

Alfred Engelberg:听I tell people all the time, I live in a world, a pharma world where half the people think I’m dead and the other half wish I was.听听

Dan:听Al Engelberg’s story is the story听 of generic drugs in America. And it’s a wild ride.听

This is An Arm and a Leg 鈥� a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So the job we’ve chosen here is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life, and bring you something entertaining, empowering, and useful.

?Al Engelberg’s parents fled Nazi Germany in the late 1930s.

He was born here, less than a year after they arrived. They had nothing.

And听 here’s where they made their new life.听

Retro news reel:听We are flying over a well-known eastern city. That is remarkable because manufacturing is almost non-existent. A city whose principle business is the entertainment of millions. Atlantic city, often called the vacation capital of the nation

Dan:听Al likes to say he learned most of what he knows about practicing law on the Atlantic City boardwalk, by the time he was 16.听

Alfred Engelberg:听We grew up very, very fast there. I started working when I was about nine or 10 and, and there were lots of opportunities on the boardwalk.听

Dan:听His first “job” was crawling around under the boardwalk, looking for loose change.

Alfred Engelberg:听But I went on to work at hotdog stands and at an illegal bingo game for the local mob.

Dan:听And in every job, Atlantic City drove home its major lesson: Cheating 鈥� hustling 鈥� is something you’ve gotta expect.听

At this illegal bingo parlor, Al’s job was walking between tables, doling out bingo cards for a dime apiece. The bosses hired college kids to walk behind kids like Al, to keep him honest.

Alfred Engelberg:听I mean, these guys are running an illegal game, but they still need to count, and they still inherently don’t trust anybody.听

Dan:听Which was correct. Al says the college kids had their own hustle: They’d have him set aside a dollar or two before turning in his dimes 鈥� split that dollar with him fifty-fifty 鈥� and tell the bosses Al’s count was fine.

Alfred Engelberg:听And everybody knowing that the counts were wildly inaccurate anyway 鈥榗ause the little old ladies were, were stealing cards. Everybody in the room had their own thing going, you know, from the customers on.

Dan:听After Al made it out of Atlantic City, his unique on-the-job education continued. He studied chemical engineering at Drexel, then took a job as a patent examiner while going to law school at night.

And at that job, he learned: The patent system was ripe for hustling.

Partly because most of his colleagues weren’t necessarily giving the job their all.听

Like him, most patent examiners were working their way through law school. And they were sneaking time to study on the job.

Alfred Engelberg:听We used to be able to cut our notes down so they fit in these file drawers with the patents. And we would be reading your notes and if your boss came by, you would just drop a patent on top of the notes.

Dan:听You could say it was Atlantic City all over again. Everybody in the job is sneaking something for themselves 鈥� in this case, time.

And Al Engelberg could see that, even if his colleagues gave it their all, they were too green to do their job well.听

A patent examiner’s job 鈥� deciding whether a proposed invention deserves a monopoly (which at that time was 17 years) 鈥� means deciding whether the idea for that invention would be obvious to “a person of ordinary skill in that field.”

Alfred Engelberg:听And most of the examiners had never worked in that field and had absolutely no idea. And this is the big leagues. You’re granting somebody a monopoly for 17 years, and it seemed ridiculous on its face.

Dan:听Al cut his own path at the patent office. He’d worked his way through engineering school, in manufacturing plants, he saw what people of ordinary skill in that field solve problems every day. So he specialized in examining patents he actually knew something about.

That got him promoted, then it got him recruited by a corporate lawyer.. After the company paid his way through the rest of law school, he jumped to the Justice Department.听

He was ambitious– he wanted experience junior lawyers don’t usually get 鈥� like trying cases of his own.

After a few years doing just that, he took a job with a small law firm in New York City in 1968.

Alfred Engelberg:听I came to New York to private practice at the age of 30 and I was ready to go. I mean, I was ready to, to tear the world apart and I did.

Dan:听Patents were still a specialty. Then, in 1973, he gets a call that leads to his first generic drug case.

Generic drugs were not a hot market at the time.

Alfred Engelberg:听?The generic drug industry in 1970s was essentially, a half a dozen, privately owned family businesses, mostly in the metropolitan New York area. And most of the drugs that they were selling were drugs that were approved before 1962.听

Dan:听Yeah. 1962 is when the FDA made it harder to get a new drug approved 鈥� you had to go through long clinical trials to show that your drug was safe and effective.听

Even if your drug was a generic version of an existing drug. Those little companies didn’t have the capital to run those trials, so they were stuck selling those old drugs.

Not much of a business. Maybe 20 percent of prescriptions were for generic drugs.

So when Al Engelberg got a call for his first generic drug case, that was the context. And the case itself did not sound promising. For one thing:

Alfred Engelberg:听The call wasn’t even from the client. It was from a bank. The client was bankrupt.听

Dan:听The client was bankrupt.听This bankrupt client, Premo Pharmaceuticals, was getting sued for patent infringement. The bank was willing to put up ten thousand dollars for a defense. Nowhere near enough to actually try a case. Oh, and鈥�

Alfred Engelberg:听From what they told me, the information they gave me, we didn’t have a very good defense.

Dan:听But Al Engelberg saw an opening. He could see that his opponents have weaknesses too.

Alfred Engelberg:听The patent owners were in a very strange position. If they won, they got nothing because we were already bankrupt. Two, they were gonna have to spend the legal fees to win.

Dan:听Win against a young lawyer named Al Engelberg who already had a rep as a tough opponent. So they could lose.

Alfred Engelberg:听And if they lost, they would lose millions and millions of dollars in business because there wouldn’t be a patent. And they’d have competition from generic drugs.

Dan:听And meanwhile, Al Engelberg is also sizing up the judge.听He knows the guy doesn’t love patents.

So Al shows up to the first conference and he bluffs.听

Alfred Engelberg:听I said to the judge, oh, your Honor, you know, it’s another one of those patents. They’re all invalid. And I said, we don’t need very much discovery. We’re, we’ll be ready to go to trial in a few months. Just set a trial date.

Dan:听The other side walks out beside themselves.

And within a couple of weeks they call Al to say: Hey, how about this? You guys just acknowledge our patent is OK, and we’ll give you the money we would’ve spent litigating. Call it 400,000 bucks?

Alfred Engelberg:听I called the client and said, how’s $400,000? He said, are you kidding?

Dan:听They didn’t just get out of trouble 鈥� they got out of bankruptcy, with $400,000 in their pockets. Because Al Engelberg knew how to size up a situation.听听听

Alfred Engelberg:听You don’t learn that in law school.听That’s not what they teach.

Dan:听Word gets听 around about that case, and pretty soon everybody in the generic drug world is calling him.

It’s a small world, but by the end of the 1970s, there may be room for it to start getting bigger.听

People are starting to notice: Drugs are expensive. Maybe there should be more cheap generics.听

Some generic drug companies form an association and start lobbying: Make it easier to get generic drugs to market without having to go through all those trials.

The brand-name drugmakers push back: They say it takes so long to run the trials and get their drugs approved, they don’t get enough time to make money before those patents expire.

In 1983, Democratic Representative Henry Waxman steps in to broker a compromise, with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch.

And Mr. Engelberg goes to Washington. To run strategy for the generic drugmakers.听

Alfred Engelberg:听In a lot of ways , that’s where my Atlantic City training really helped me at the end of the day

Dan:听There were a lot of people, with a lot of interests. A lot of angles. ?He starts commuting from New York to Washington DC a couple times a week 鈥� for months and months, more than a year.

And Al Engelberg says: This time, it wasn’t just about winning a case.

Alfred Engelberg:听I was in the back of a cab the way I remember, with the senior partner of the law firm.听And he says to me, why are you breaking your ass going to Washington two or three times? Why don’t you send an associate? You know, it’s just like, it’s just another case. And I said. I said, are you kidding? I said, you know, how many lawyers ever get to do what I’m doing right now?听To be at the table influencing what may be a major law that’s gonna have major consequences is, is like something I never thought my whole life I’d be doing.

Dan:听A kid from Atlantic City was exactly the right person to try to balance all the angles, negotiate a compromise. It took more than a year. It almost didn’t happen. But then it did. Congress passed the bill, and President Ronald Reagan got in front of cameras to sign it.

Ronald Reagan:听Let me turn my attention to the real reason we’re here this afternoon, signing into law the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984.听

Dan:听better known as Hatch-Waxman.

Hatch Waxman had three basic components:

One: Brand drugmakers got a few extra years on their patents.

Two: Generic drugmakers got a pathway to get FDA approval.

And three –The new law laid out rules for a generic drugmaker when they wanted to CHALLENGE an existing patent.听

Negotiating that third part was the part where Al Engelberg’s education on the Atlantic City boardwalk, and the U.S. patent office, and the generic drug industry came together: The result would make him millions and millions of dollars 鈥� and blow a giant hole into the grand bargain he had worked so hard to bring about.

That’s coming right up.

This episode of An arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with 麻豆女优 Health News. That’s a nonprofit newsroom covering health issues in America. The folks at 麻豆女优 Health News are amazing journalists 鈥� their work wins all kinds of awards, every year. We are honored to work with them.

So. The brand-name drug makers and the generic drug makers struck a deal. That deal was good for them. Both sides got something big out of it. The public was supposed to get something out of it too.

And, to be fair, we did: Remember, back then, maybe one out of five prescriptions was for a generic drug. Now it’s nine out of ten.

But we pay more than ever for drugs. Mostly for branded, patent-protected drugs. And the biggest, most-important, most profitable drugs get locked behind patent thickets.

How did that happen?听

Well, to understand that, it helps to know what Al Engelberg got out of the whole bargain.

Al had been there at the bargaining table, on behalf of the generics.听

One day, during those negotiations, he was in the office with Henry Waxman’s lead counsel, a guy named Bill Corr, when Corr got a call from someone on the other side.

Corr starts pointing at the phone, pointing to Al 鈥� indicating: This guy is talking about you.

When Corr gets off the phone he says: That guy’s not sure about this deal where bad patents could be challenged. He’s suspicious about where you might take this. Like, are you just gonna set up a bounty-hunting operation, to get patents declared invalid?

And Corr said, Al, would you do that?听

Alfred Engelberg:听And I said, you know, Bill, until this moment, I’ve never given it any thought, but it’s a hell of a good idea. Maybe I’ll look at it.听

Dan:听And he did. Starting almost as soon as Hatch-Waxman became law.

Alfred Engelberg:听And听we sat in the rose garden, September 23rd, 1984, watched Reagan sign the bill. And in December of that year, I sat down at my kitchen table with a yellow pad and I laid out a strategy.

Dan:听If you were gonna set up a bounty-hunting operation, how would you do it?

Al Engelberg knew a lot of patents were garbage. Knew it from his time in the patent office, knew it from practicing law. And he knew听how much money a successful patent challenge could be worth.

The way Hatch-Waxman worked: If a generic drug company challenged a patent and won, they would get six months before any OTHER generic drugmakers could get a crack at the market.

So their only competition would be the brand. If a pill cost two cents to make, and the brand was selling for a dollar a pill 鈥� that’s 98 cents of profit for every pill.

You’re the only competitor? You could charge 75 cents a pill and get 73 cents of profit. On a hit drug, you could make millions and millions 鈥� just in those six months.听

Al’s idea was this: Partner up with a generic drugmaker. Go find cases– drugs with weak patents. Win ’em.听

And split those millions in potential profits fifty-fifty.听

Al pitched a generic drugmaker 鈥� they were ready to go 鈥� and brought the deal to his law firm. .

Alfred Engelberg:听As it turned out, my partners weren’t interested in having me do this. They tried to talk me out of it.

Dan:听But they couldn’t. So he left. Went out on his own.听All on his own.

Alfred Engelberg:听I never hired a single soul, not even a secretary. And I couldn’t type. I still can’t type.

Dan:听But he hunted and pecked his way through brief after brief. He bought an early portable computer 鈥� it weighed thirty pounds 鈥� and lugged it around in the back of his car. For ten years.

Alfred Engelberg:听It was stupid. I almost killed myself. But, it worked out okay.

Dan:听Yeah. Turns out Al was really good at finding the problems with drug patents.

In one of his first cases, Al Engelberg personally made more than 70 million dollars. Others settled: A few million here, a few million there– it adds up.

And then鈥�

Alfred Engelberg:听It got to be the mid nineties, and I was working on a case called Buspar.听

Dan:听The Buspar case ended up a big winner for Al Engelberg and his generic drug partners.听

But it听had consequences that went听way beyond a single case.听And led to big losses for the public..听Here’s how it went.听听

Alfred Engelberg:听Buspar was an anti-anxiety drug. And by all accounts not a very good one.

Dan:听But Bristol Meyers Squibb invested in big advertising and marketing campaigns.

Speaker 5:听I feel anxious. I can’t concentrate.听

Speaker 6:听I’m so irritable. If you. You suffer from excessive worry. It can feel like a mountain of anxiety.听

Speaker 5:听I’ll never get it all done. I’m overwhelmed.听

Speaker 6:听But a prescription medication called buspar can help.

Dan:听And all that marketing did its job. By the mid-1990s, Buspar was making more than 200 million dollars a year for Bristol.

Alfred Engelberg:听The only problem for them was that the drug was not new.听

Dan:听The active ingredient was well-known in medical literature as a tranquilizer. Nobody had bothered to market it.

So Bristol Myers Squibb filed a patent on it, claiming it had discovered a new use for this well-known tranquilizer: Treating anxiety.

Al Engelberg says when he read the patent application, he could barely believe it: What do tranquilizers do if not鈥� treat anxiety?

It’s like saying: There’s this stuff called sugar. We’re gonna take out a patent on using it as a sweetener.

This looked like a case for a guy from Atlantic City.听

Alfred Engelberg:听I did something that lawyers don’t. That’s just the way I was built.听

I filed a motion with the court and basically said, we don’t need any evidence.

You just have to read the patent. If you believe it’s true, the patent’s invalid. Just, you know, all you need is a dictionary basically.

Dan:听Al says Bristol was eager to settle.听

Alfred Engelberg:听We get into a settlement discussion and we keep saying, no, no, no, no.

Dan:听Al’s partners had done the math: They figured they stood to make a hundred million dollars or more once they won. So when the other side offered 25 million, no was the easy answer.

Alfred Engelberg:听We said, why are we gonna take this? You know, it’s crazy. There’s a reward here we know what it is. We’re gonna get it eventually.

Dan:听Al sits down with a lawyer from the other side, a guy he knows, explains how he sees the math.

And soon the other side comes through with a much bigger offer: 72 million dollars – almost three times as much.听

Alfred Engelberg:听And I’m sitting there like, what are you crazy? But then think about it from their point of view.听

Dan:听Paying 72 million dollars is nothing, compared to what Bristol stands to gain if this lawsuit goes away.听

With their monopoly, Bristol Meyer Squibb is making more than 200 million dollars a year on Buspar. And unless somebody else lines up to do what Al Engelberg had done, expect to keep that monopoly for years.

Charging whatever they want. Two dollars a pill, three dollars a pill. Which Al Engelberg says is exactly what happened.

In fact, they kept that monopoly for like five years.听

Alfred Engelberg:听As it turned out, nobody came behind us. And so, they had that monopoly until 2000. So they got five years of 2 billion, in gross profits.听

Dan: They made out.

Alfred Engelberg:听 For the cost of $75 million. And you know, the public got screwed ’cause they are continuing to pay, you know, $2 a pill or $3 a pill for a drug that eventually ends up being available for 20 or 30 cents. Um, so that’s, that’s how it works.

Dan:听That’s how it works. The branded company and the generic company both make out great. Cheaper generic versions of a drug get delayed.听

That amazing payday for Al Engelberg and his partners at the generic drug company turned into a model a template for the kind of deal that every generic drug company would want in on.

It got a nickname: Pay for delay.

Alfred Engelberg:听That spread through the industry like wildfire, those numbers, you know, you don’t make those numbers half a cent at a time on, on pills,

Dan:听Lawsuits were way more profitable.

But Al Engelberg wasn’t filing them.

A year or so after the Buspar case settled, sparking the Pay for Delay gold rush, he retired. He had plenty of money and nothing to prove.

And in retirement, he started evaluating what he’d accomplished, for better and for worse.

For better, generic drugs had more than doubled their share of the market since Hatch-Waxman took effect.

For worse, he could see two places where 鈥� despite all of his Atlantic City training 鈥� he had missed a couple of angles in negotiating Hatch-Waxman.听

One was: this whole pay-for-delay scheme. Turned out, in balancing incentives for brands and generic makers, he’d left open this perverse incentive that left the public out.听

And the second was a loophole听 that Hatch-Waxman had left open.:听

It created a process where players like Al and his generic partners could challenge patents on drugs like Buspar, that they thought didn’t deserve protected monopolies. It removed some friction for those attacks.听

The drug companies developed a way to add more friction:听 stacking extra patents 鈥� secondary patents 鈥� on every drug.

Developing patent thickets.

Even if a secondary patent is trivial听 鈥� and lots of them do get tossed out 鈥� challenging it means a court fight. And that costs money.

Alfred Engelberg:听It caused the big drug companies to just get more and more patents. Because why not? You know, there was nothing standing in the way.

Dan:听I mean, nobody knows better than Al Engelberg: Patent examiners don’t exactly stand in the way.听

And those patent thickets and pay for delay, they feed on each other.听

Alfred Engelberg:听The economics of the business, caused these kinds of settlements to reach epic proportions. So the generic companies would, challenge these secondary patents and, the drug companies would pay them off.

Dan:听In 1999 he published an article in a scholarly journal arguing that Hatch-Waxman needed a reboot. Even the six-month head start for a successful challenge could probably go.听

And ever since 鈥� for more than twenty-five years 鈥� he’s poured millions of dollars into efforts to tighten the rules. Funding research. A public-information campaign from Consumer Reports. Even a center for IP law at his alma mater, NYU.

It hasn’t always gone his way.听

Pay for delay has gotten much bigger since Al Engelberg wrote his first article calling for reform: He wrote in 1999 that about two dozen patent challenges had been filed.

Now he estimates that number at twelve thousand.

Alfred Engelberg:听I can’t tell you how many tens of billions of dollars in legal fees that is. It’s one of the fastest growing and and steadiest industries for big law.

Dan:听A Hatch-Waxman litigation forum on LinkedIn has more than fourteen thousand members.

And Hatch-Waxman doesn’t cover many of today’s the top-selling drugs– the biggest moneymakers. They belong to a class called “biologics.”

That includes famously-expensive rheumatoid arthritis drugs like Humira and Enbrel 鈥� and insulin.听

Biologics weren’t a category forty years ago when Hatch-Waxman got negotiated. Congress passed a new law to deal with them in 2010 鈥� ?the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.

Al Engelberg is not a fan of that law.

Alfred Engelberg:听Whatever mistakes were made in Hatch Waxman, they were multiplied by 10 and deliberately in the biologics law

Dan:听He says the all but encourages patent thickets. And doesn’t provide a pathway to challenge them.

He says it reminds him of some of his early days practicing law.

Alfred Engelberg:听Back in the seventies, we used to have small startup clients in the computer field, and they would get letters from IBM. It says, we are ready to inform you that you may be infringing one or more of the following patents. And there was a 10 page list of patents attached.听And the startup would come to us and say, you know, what should we do? And we would say, find another line of work, you know, what are you gonna do?

Dan:听But he has not given up. In 2025, he published a book: Breaking the Medicine Monopolies.

It tells the story of his career 鈥� and lays out his prescriptions for fixing the problem.

He doesn’t JUST focus on plugging the holes in Hatch-Waxman and the biologics law.

Alfred Engelberg:听You know, we don’t actually need a generic drug industry. We need generic drug pricing.听

Dan:听He’s got proposals for an increased government role in negotiating and regulating prices 鈥� and more than that.

He argues that a 1980 law allows the government to commisssion generic versions of drugs that were developed using public research dollars.

He also says the FDA rules that protect secondary patents on drugs 鈥� that allow patent thicketing 鈥� are based on a completely wrong interpretation of Hatch-Waxman.

And tells us he’s working up a challenge, with help from AI tools like Claude.听

He’s 86 years old. And he doesn’t seem inclined to stop.

Alfred Engelberg:听It so changed my life and I did so well by it, I thought, how can I not take on this problem? Who’s gonna do it if I don’t do it?

Dan:听He’s got the time. Money’s no object. And he knows the territory as well as anybody. He helped create it.听

Alfred Engelberg:听So it’s, it’s my obligation really. It’s that sort of Jewish guilt. What can I tell you? I’m paying back for the bingo game.

Dan:听So we’ve gone back more than fifty years on the question: Why aren’t there more generic drugs? We’ve learned why we’ve got the ones we have, and what stands in the way of getting more.

And that is just in time. Because this spring the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could restrict the generic drug pipeline even further. It could have major implications.

And understanding what they are requires all of the 101 we’ve covered here. We’ll have that story for you in a few weeks. Til then, take care of yourself.听

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by Emily Pisacreta, with help from Dan Weissmann鈥� and edited by Ellen Weiss.听

Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard.

Our music is by Dave Weiner and Blue Dot Sessions.听

Claire Davenport is our engagement producer.

Sarah Ballema is our Operations Manager. Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations.听

This series 鈥� An Arm and a Leg 101 鈥� is made possible in part by support from Arnold Ventures.听

An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with 麻豆女优 Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about health issues in America and a core program at 麻豆女优, an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

听Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at 麻豆女优 Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show.

An Arm and a Leg is distributed by KUOW, Seattle’s NPR news station.

And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor.

They allow us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN.org.

Finally, thank you to everybody who supports this show financially.

You can join in any time at arm and a leg show, dot com, slash: support.

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of 麻豆女优 Health News and Public Road Productions.

For more from the team at “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to its weekly newsletter,听. You can also follow the show on听,听,听, and听. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to听.

To hear all 麻豆女优 Health News podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

• Read Wells’ “Urgent Care Clinics Move To Fill Abortion Care Gaps in Rural Areas.”

麻豆女优 Health News Montana correspondent Katheryn Houghton discussed doula Medicaid reimbursements on Montana Public Radio on April 9.

• Read Houghton’s “This Northern Cheyenne Doula Was About To Start Getting Paid 鈥� Then Medicaid Cuts Hit.”

麻豆女优 Health News contributor Michelle Andrews discussed farm bureau health plans on The Yonder Report on April 8.

• Read Andrews’ “Farm Bureau Health Plans Beat the ACA on Prices With an Age-Old Tactic: Rejecting Sick People.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Le gustan especialmente las aplicaciones para recibir comentarios y apoyo, aunque a veces lo regañan o hacen que se pelee con su ex esposa. “Me dan ganas de compartir más”, dijo Lahey. “No me importa la percepción que tengan de mí”.

Hay muchas personas como Lahey.

La demanda de atención de salud mental ha aumentado. Los días de mala salud mental reportados por las personas subieron 25% desde la década de 1990, que analizó datos de encuestas. De acuerdo con los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC), las tasas de suicidio en 2022 , algo que no se veía en casi 80 años.

Muchos pacientes consideran muy atractivo un terapeuta no humano impulsado por inteligencia artificial, incluso más atractivo que una persona en un sillón reclinable y con actitud severa. abundan de personas que piden un terapeuta que “no esté contando el tiempo”, que juzgue menos o que simplemente sea más barato.

La mayoría de las personas que necesitan atención no la reciben, dijo Tom Insel, ex director del Instituto Nacional de Salud Mental (NIMH), citando investigaciones de esa agencia. De los que sí reciben atención, el 40% obtiene una atención “mínimamente aceptable”.

“Hay una enorme necesidad de terapia de alta calidad”, dijo. “Vivimos en un mundo en el que la situación actual es realmente pésima, usando un término científico”.

Insel dijo que ingenieros de OpenAI le comentaron, el otoño pasado, que entre 5% y 10% de la base de usuarios de la empresa, que entonces era de aproximadamente 800 millones, depende de ChatGPT para apoyo en salud mental.

Las encuestas sugieren que estos chatbots de IA pueden ser aún más populares entre los adultos jóvenes. Una encuesta de 麻豆女优 encontró que 3 de cada 10 personas de 18 a 29 años para pedir consejos sobre salud mental o emocional en el último año. Los adultos sin seguro médico tenían aproximadamente el doble de probabilidad que quienes sí tenían seguro de reportar uso de herramientas de IA. Y casi un 60% de los adultos que usaron un chatbot para salud mental no consultaron después a un profesional humano.

La aplicación te llevará al diván

Una creciente industria de aplicaciones ofrece terapeutas de IA con avatares parecidos a humanos, a menudo poco realistas y muy atractivos, que sirven como espacio de desahogo para personas con ansiedad, depresión y otras condiciones.

麻豆女优 Health News identificó unas 45 aplicaciones de terapia con IA en la App Store de Apple en marzo. Aunque muchas cobran precios altos por sus servicios 鈥攗na ofrecía un plan anual de $690鈥�, por lo general siguen siendo más baratas que la terapia conversacional, que puede costar cientos de dólares por hora sin cobertura.

En la App Store, “therapy” suele usarse como término de mercadeo, con letras pequeñas que aclaran que las aplicaciones no pueden diagnosticar ni tratar enfermedades. Una aplicación llamada OhSofia! AI Therapy Chat tenía cientos de miles de descargas, dijo en diciembre Anton Ilin, fundador de OhSofia!

“La gente busca terapia”, afirmó Ilin. Por un lado, el nombre del producto ; por otro, su advierte que “no ofrece consejo médico, diagnóstico, tratamiento ni intervención en crisis y no sustituye servicios profesionales de salud”. Los ejecutivos no creen que eso cause confusión, ya que la aplicación incluye advertencias.

Las aplicaciones prometen grandes resultados sin ningún tipo de respaldo. “ayuda inmediata durante ataques de pánico”. que fue “probada como efectiva por investigadores” y que ofrece alivio 2,3 veces más rápido para ansiedad y estrés. (No dice comparado con qué).

Existen pocas barreras legislativas o regulatorias sobre cómo los desarrolladores describen sus productos, o incluso sobre si son seguros o eficaces, dijo Vaile Wright, directora de la oficina de innovación en atención médica de la Asociación americana de Psicología (APA). Ni siquiera se aplican las protecciones federales de privacidad del paciente, señaló.

“La terapia no es un término legalmente protegido”, dijo Wright. “Así que, básicamente, cualquiera puede decir que ofrece terapia”.

Muchas de las aplicaciones “se presentan como más de lo que son”, dijo John Torous, psiquiatra e informático clínico del Centro Médico Beth Israel Deaconess. “Engañar a las personas haciéndoles creer que recibieron tratamiento cuando en realidad no lo recibieron tiene muchas consecuencias negativas”, entre ellas retrasar la atención real, agregó.

Estados como Nevada, Illinois y California intentan ordenar el caos regulatorio y aprobaron leyes que prohíben a las aplicaciones describir a sus chatbots como terapeutas de IA.

“Es una profesión. Los profesionales estudian. Obtienen una licencia para ejercer”, afirmó Jovan Jackson, legislador de Nevada y coautor de una ley que prohíbe a las aplicaciones presentarse como profesionales de salud mental.

Detrás de la publicidad, investigadores externos y representantes de las propias empresas han declarado ante la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA) y el Congreso que existe poca evidencia que respalde la eficacia de estos productos. Los estudios disponibles ofrecen , y algunas que los chatbots enfocados en acompañamiento son “consistentemente malos” para manejar crisis.

“Cuando se trata de chatbots, no tenemos buena evidencia de que funcionen”, dijo Charlotte Blease, profesora de la Universidad de Uppsala, en Suecia, especializada en diseño de ensayos para productos digitales de salud.

La falta de ensayos clínicos de “buena calidad” se debe a que la FDA no ha dado recomendaciones sobre cómo probar estos productos, señaló. “La FDA no ofrece orientación rigurosa sobre cuáles deberían ser los estándares”.

Emily Hilliard, vocera del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos, respondió que “la seguridad del paciente es la máxima prioridad de la FDA” y que los productos basados en IA están sujetos a regulaciones que exigen demostrar una “garantía razonable de seguridad y eficacia antes de que puedan comercializarse en Estados Unidos”

Aplicaciones persuasivas

Preston Roche, médico residente en psiquiatría y , recibe muchas preguntas sobre si la IA es una buena terapeuta. Tras probar ChatGPT, dijo que al principio quedó “impresionado” porque podía usar técnicas de para ayudarlo a poner pensamientos negativos “a prueba”.

Pero Roche dijo que después de ver publicaciones sobre personas que desarrollaron psicosis o fueron alentadas a tomar decisiones dañinas, se desilusionó. Concluyó que los bots son complacientes.

“Cuando miro de forma global las responsabilidades de un terapeuta, simplemente fracasó por completo”, dijo.

Esa complacencia 鈥攍a tendencia de aplicaciones basadas en grandes modelos de lenguaje a empatizar, halagar o reforzar ideas erróneas de la persona usuaria鈥� está incorporada en el diseño de estas aplicaciones, según expertos en salud digital.

“Los modelos fueron desarrollados para responder una pregunta o instrucción que le haces y darte lo que buscas”, dijo Insel, exdirector del NIMH, “y son muy buenos básicamente para confirmar lo que sientes y brindar apoyo psicológico, como un buen amigo”.

Pero eso no es lo que hace un buen terapeuta. “El objetivo de la psicoterapia es, sobre todo, hacer que enfrentes las cosas que has estado evitando”, señaló.

Aunque las encuestas sugieren que muchos usuarios están satisfechos con lo que obtienen de ChatGPT y otras aplicaciones, ha habido sobre el servicio o aliento para autolesionarse.

Y de o se han presentado contra OpenAI después de que usuarios de ChatGPT murieran por suicidio o fueran hospitalizados. En la mayoría de esos casos, los demandantes alegan que comenzaron usando las aplicaciones con otro fin 鈥攃omo tareas escolares鈥� antes de confiarles asuntos personales. Estos casos se están consolidando en

Google y la startup Character.ai 鈥攆inanciada por Google y creadora de “avatares” con personalidades específicas, como atletas, celebridades, compañeros de estudio o terapeutas鈥� están resolviendo otras demandas por muerte injusta,

El director ejecutivo de OpenAI, Sam Altman, ha dicho que hasta podrían hablar sobre suicidio en ChatGPT.

“Hemos visto un problema en el que personas en situaciones psiquiátricas frágiles que usan un modelo como 4o pueden terminar peor”, dijo Altman en una sesión pública de preguntas y respuestas reportada por , refiriéndose a un modelo específico de ChatGPT presentado en 2024. “No creo que esta sea la última vez que enfrentemos desafíos como este con un modelo”.

Un vocero de OpenAI no respondió a solicitudes de comentarios.

La empresa ha dicho que en medidas de protección, como referir a usuarios al 988, la línea nacional de prevención del suicidio. Sin embargo, las demandas contra OpenAI sostienen que las medidas actuales no son suficientes, y algunas investigaciones muestran que . OpenAI sugiriendo lo contrario.

OpenAI y, en una etapa inicial de un caso, presentó varias defensas que van desde negar que su producto causó autolesiones hasta alegar que el demandado usó mal el producto al inducirlo a hablar sobre suicidio. También ha dicho que trabaja para .

Aplicaciones más pequeñas también dependen de OpenAI u otros modelos de IA para impulsar sus productos, dijeron ejecutivos a 麻豆女优 Health News. En entrevistas, fundadores de startups y otros expertos dijeron que les preocupa que si una empresa simplemente incorpora esos modelos en su propio servicio, pueda duplicar fallas de seguridad ya presentes en el producto original.

Riesgos de datos

La revisión de 麻豆女优 Health News de la App Store encontró que las protecciones por edad son mínimas: 15 de las casi cuatro docenas de aplicaciones dicen que pueden ser descargadas por usuarios de 4 años; otras 11 dicen que pueden ser descargadas por personas de 12 años en adelante.

Los estándares de privacidad son opacos. En la App Store, varias aplicaciones se describen como productos que no rastrean datos personales identificables ni los comparten con anunciantes. Pero en sus sitios web, las políticas de privacidad contenían descripciones contrarias, hablando del uso de esos datos y de compartir información con anunciantes como AdMob.

En respuesta a una solicitud de comentarios, Adam Dema, vocero de Apple, a las políticas de la App Store, que prohíben usar datos de salud para publicidad y exigen mostrar información general sobre el uso de datos. Dema no respondió una nueva solicitud sobre cómo Apple hace cumplir esas políticas.

Investigadores y defensores de políticas públicas dijeron que compartir datos psiquiátricos con empresas de redes sociales significa que los pacientes podrían ser perfilados. Podrían ser blanco de empresas de tratamiento de dudosa fiabilidad o recibir precios diferentes por productos según su salud.

麻豆女优 Health News contactó a varios desarrolladores sobre estas discrepancias; dos de los que respondieron dijeron que sus políticas de privacidad habían sido redactadas por error y prometieron cambiarlas para reflejar su postura contra la publicidad. (Un tercero, el equipo de OhSofia!, dijo simplemente que no hace publicidad, aunque la de su aplicación señala que los usuarios “pueden optar por no recibir comunicaciones de mercadeo”).

Un ejecutivo dijo a 麻豆女优 Health News que existe presión comercial para mantener acceso a los datos.

“Mi sensación general es que un modelo por suscripción es mucho, mucho mejor que cualquier tipo de publicidad”, dijo Tim Rubin, fundador de Wellness AI, y agregó que cambiaría la descripción en la política de privacidad de su aplicación.

Según Rubin, un inversionista le aconsejó no renunciar a la publicidad. “Básicamente, eso es lo más valioso de tener una aplicación como esta: esos datos”.

“Creo que todavía estamos al comienzo de lo que será una revolución en la forma en que las personas buscan apoyo psicológico e incluso, en algunos casos, terapia”, dijo Insel. “Y mi preocupación es que simplemente no existe ningún marco para nada de esto”.

Si tú o alguien que conoces pudiera estar experimentando una crisis de salud mental, comunícate con la Línea de Vida para la Prevención del Suicidio y Crisis (988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline) llamando o enviando un mensaje de texto al 988.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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

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

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

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

[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

Mary Agnes Carey: Hello from 麻豆女优 Health News and WAMU radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Mary Agnes Carey, managing editor of 麻豆女优 Health News, filling in for Julie Rovner this week. And as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, April 17, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.听

Today we’re joined via videoconference by Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.听

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody.听

Carey: Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine.听

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.听

Carey: And my 麻豆女优 Health News colleague Emmarie Huetteman.听

Emmarie Huetteman: Hey there.听

Carey: Later in this episode, we’ll play Julie’s interview with immigration attorney Michelle Canero about the impact the Trump administration’s immigration policies are having on the medical workforce. But first, this week’s news 鈥� and there is plenty of it.听

On Thursday, President [Donald] Trump nominated Dr. Erica Schwartz to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Schwartz, a vaccine supporter, served as a deputy surgeon general in President Trump’s first term, and during the coronavirus pandemic she ran the federal government’s drive-through testing program. She’s also a Navy officer and a retired rear admiral in the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service. Her appointment requires Senate confirmation. President Trump also announced other changes to the agency’s top leadership: Sean Slovenski, a health care industry executive, as the agency’s deputy director and chief operating officer; Dr. Jennifer Shuford, health commissioner for Texas, as deputy director and chief medical officer, and Dr. Sara Brenner, who briefly served as acting commissioner of the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], as a senior counselor to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. So we’ve discussed previously on the podcast several times that the CDC has lacked a permanent director for most of the president’s second term. Will Dr. Schwartz, if confirmed, and the other members of this new leadership team make the difference?听

Huetteman: I think that we’ve seen a CDC that’s been in a protracted period of turmoil, and this is going to be an opportunity for maybe a shift in that. Dr. Schwartz would actually be the agency’s fourth leader in a little more than a year, and we’ve talked on the podcast about how naming someone who could fit the bill to lead the CDC was a difficult task facing the Trump administration. They needed someone who could support the MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] agenda while not embracing some of the more anti-vaccine views, and that person needed to be able to win Senate confirmation, which isn’t a given, even with this Republican-controlled Senate.听

Edney: And I think we’ve seen that there have been some people already in the MAHA coalition that have come out and been upset about this pick. So I think what that shows is a calculated decision by the administration to, kind of, as they’ve been doing for this year, is kind of not focus on the vaccine part of Secretary Kennedy’s agenda and to, as Emmarie said, try to get someone that can get through Senate confirmation. We’ve already seen the surgeon general nominee be held up in the Senate because she was not as strong on vaccines as I think some would have liked to see when she had her confirmation hearing.听

Kenen: So this happened late yesterday, and I’ve been traveling this week, but I did have a chance to talk to some public health people about her, and there was sort of this audible sigh of relief. The Senate is a very unpredictable place, and we live in very unpredictable times. At this point, my initial gut reaction is she’s got a pretty good chance of confirmation. The other thing, I think some of the other appointees, there’s a little bit more concern about, but what really matters is who is the face of the CDC, and she would be the face of the CDC. She would be in charge, and people like her. Also, this is an administration that has not had a lot of minorities, and she will be, she’s a Black woman. respected in her field. And that also is going to 鈥� she needs to be able to speak to all Americans about their health, and I think that people welcome that as well, both her credentials and her life experience. So, yeah, I think that MAHA is sort of in this funny moment now, because clearly Kennedy isn’t doing everything that people wanted or expected. And so we’ll sort of see how the 鈥� I think if he had his ideal CDC director, this, we can probably surmise that this would not, she would not be the first on his list. But there’s a certain amount of adaptation going on at the moment. So I think many, many people will be relieved to see somebody get through, confirmed pretty quickly. People can get held up for things that have absolutely nothing to do with the CDC or public health. The Senate has all sorts of peculiarities. But I think there’s probably going to be a desire to get this done pretty quickly.听

Carey: All right. Well, we’ll see what happens, and we will go back to the MAHA folks a little bit later in the podcast. But right now I want to shift to Capitol Hill. Thursday was a very big day on the Hill for HHS Secretary Kennedy. He kicked off a series of appearances before Congress. This week he’s testifying before three House committees before he heads over to the Senate next week. This is the first time that the secretary has visited some of these House panels, and while the purpose of the latest congressional visit is to talk about President Trump’s HHS budget request, this also was the first time that a lot of lawmakers ever had an opportunity to talk to Kennedy, and what they asked him sometimes deviated, maybe quite a bit, from that subject of federal funding. The topics included Medicaid fraud, measles outbreaks, the birth-dose recommendation for the hepatitis B vaccine, peptides, unaccompanied minors, and more 鈥� actually, much more when you look at the hearings from yesterday, and I’m sure that will also happen with today’s session. What stood out to you about Kennedy’s testimony this week?听

Edney: I think it was the mix of questions, and you sort of alluded to this, but they wanted, the members of Congress wanted to talk about so many things. And I feel like in the earlier hearing, which was in the House Ways and Means Committee, that it was, there was a lot of focus in the beginning on fraud, and that sort of surprised me, and then we saw maybe one or two questions on vaccines. And so I thought the mix of questions, the things that members were interested in, were really interesting. And it did 鈥� there were some fiery moments, but for his first time on the Hill in a while, for such a controversial Cabinet member, I thought they were pretty tame.听

Kenen: Yeah, I watched a fair amount of the morning. I did not see the afternoon, but I read about the afternoon, and I totally agree with Anna’s take. This administration and Kennedy did what this administration has been doing. They blame all problems on [former president Joe] Biden and the prior administration. And to be fair, Democrats, when they’re in power, they, I don’t think they do it quite to this extreme, but Democrats spend, when they have the chance, they blame things on Republicans. So that’s sort of Washington as usual. The emphasis on fraud has been a hallmark of this administration, particularly in health and social services. And you’ve seen, of course, in the way they’ve gone after blue states in particular. And a lot of their justification for the changes in Medicaid that are coming in the coming year are supposedly because of massive fraud and they’re cracking down. It was not dominated by vaccines, and I was watching Kennedy’s face really carefully. When he was asked about the first child to die of measles in Texas last year, and a Democrat asked him could the vaccine have saved her life, and you could sort of see him just, you just sort of watch his facial expressions, and he knew he had to say this, and he came out with the word “possibly,” and, which is a change. And then in the afternoon 鈥� where I did not, as I said, I did not watch the afternoon, but I read about it 鈥� he was much more certain. He was much stronger about the measles vaccine and said it’s, the measles vaccine, is safer than measles, which is a big signal shift there.听

Huetteman: It’s true, although I will point out, though, that he did stand by the decision to remove the recommendation for the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine when he was pressed on that. So it was, I agree it was a softening, I’d say. At least it wasn’t a dramatic turnaround from what he’d said or not said in the past. But for him, it was at least a softening.听

Kenen: In the hepatitis B recommendation, he said that the biggest threat to infection was at, through birth, at, through the mother, and if you test the mother, the baby is not at risk. And that’s partially true, and that is a significant factor to eliminate risk. It doesn’t 鈥� it minimizes risk. It does not eliminate risk. Babies can and have been infected in the first weeks of life in other ways. The recommendation was not to totally eliminate that vaccine. It was to postpone it. But there’s, public health, still believe that, in general, many public health leaders would still say that the vaccine at birth is the better way of doing it.听

Carey: The focus was, theoretically, on the budget request from the administration. Did the secretary shed any light on those priorities or their impacts? I was taken, I think in the afternoon hearing I read about various lawmakers, including Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, who sort of just said: A CDC cut of 30%? We’re not gonna do that. And there were also some Republican members who jumped in to sort of say, I don’t think we’re going to do the cuts you envision. But did the secretary defend them? Did he bring any new clarity to them?听

Edney: I don’t feel like I gained any new clarity on it. I think to bring it back to Budget 101, I guess, is like when the president, when the administration, sends down their budget, I think a lot of people already assume it’s dead on arrival. And maybe even though Kennedy is there to talk about the budget, it does become this broader hearing, because they don’t get him on the Hill that often and people go there to talk about all kinds of things, and I think that he probably knew that he didn’t have to defend it in the same way, because it’s not going to happen.听

Carey: Sure. As they say, the president proposes and Congress disposes. But Joanne, you want to jump in?听

Kenen: Yeah, there’s something significant about this administration, which is Congress has repeatedly authorized more money for various health programs and science programs, and the administration doesn’t spend it, so that there’s a different dynamic. Traditionally, yes, Congress 鈥� the president proposes, Congress legislates, and then people go off and spend money. That’s what people like to do. And in this case, when Congress has, in a bipartisan way, differed with the administration and restored funding, it hasn’t all gone, those dollars haven’t gone out the door. So the entire sort of checks-and-balances system has been askew in terms of funding. I agree with everybody here. I do not think that Congress is going to accept these extreme cuts across the board in health care and health policy, in public health and science and NIH [the National Institutes of Health] and everything, but I don’t know what they’re actually going to spend at the end of the day.听

Carey: Emmarie, you wanted to jump in.听

Huetteman: Yeah, there was one striking exchange to me where the secretary acknowledged he wasn’t happy with the cuts that were proposed. I think those were his words. But he pretty quickly added, and neither is President Trump, and he framed it as a matter of making hard decisions when faced with federal budget shortfalls.听

Carey: All right. Well, we’ll keep watching this as it moves through Congress. Also during yesterday’s House Ways and Means hearing, some Democrats took issue with past statements from Secretary Kennedy and President Trump that linked Tylenol use during pregnancy to autism in children. released this week in JAMA Pediatrics found that the use of Tylenol by women during pregnancy was not associated with autism in their children. This nationwide study from Denmark followed more than one and a half million kids born between 1997 and 2002, including more than 31,000 who were exposed to Tylenol in the womb. in another medical journal examining community water fluoridation exposure from childhood to age 80 found no impact on IQ or brain function. Kennedy has claimed that fluoride in water has led to IQ loss in children. These studies clearly debunk medical claims that have gotten a lot of attention. Will these findings have an impact now?听

Kenen: I think we’ve seen over and over and over again that there are people who are very deeply wedded to certain beliefs, and new science, new research, does not deter them from those beliefs. We also see some people who are sort of in the middle, who are uncertain, and new findings can shift their beliefs, right? And then, of course, there’s a lot of 鈥� these are not new studies. I mean these are new studies but they are not the first of their kind. The reason we’ve been using fluoride for, what, 60 years now in the water. Tylenol has been around a long time. So is it going to change everybody’s belief? No. Is it going to perhaps slow the push to ban fluoridation? Perhaps. But I just don’t think we know, because we’re sort of on these dual-reality tracks regarding a lot of science in this country, where once people sort of buy into disinformation, they’re very, it’s very hard to change 鈥� or misinformation 鈥� it’s hard to change people’s minds.听

Edney: I do think, on the Tylenol front 鈥� I absolutely agree with what Joanne said overall. And I think on the Tylenol front that it’s possible that this study will give pediatricians something to give and talk about with parents that are asking. I think there still is some confusion among some people. It’s not a huge, I don’t think, widespread thing, but I think there are some new parents who are wondering. And if you are able to take this study that is published in 2026 鈥� it just happened, it was after Trump made his statements 鈥� I think maybe that would give them something to talk about with their patients.听

Kenen: I agree with Anna. I think the Tylenol one is easier to change than some of the fluoridation stuff going on, partly because so many of us 鈥� and we should just say, it’s not just the Tylenol, the brand. It’s acetaminophen, which I’ve never pronounced right. I think those of us who have been pregnant, we’ve taken that in our life before and we don’t think of it as a big, dangerous, heavy prescription drug. I think we’ve, it’s something we feel comfortable with. And I think there’s also the counterinformation, which is, a fever in a pregnant woman can, a pregnant person can be dangerous to the fetus. So I think that one’s a little 鈥� and I don’t, also, I don’t think it’s as deep-rooted. The fluoridation stuff goes back decades, and the Tylenol thing is sort of new. And it might be, I’m not sure that the course of these arguments 鈥� I think that Tylenol is easier to counter than some other things, because partly just we do feel safe with it.听

Carey: All right. We’re going to take a quick break. We’ll be right back.听

We’re back and talking about how the Trump administration is managing the voters behind the Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, movement, which helped President Trump win the 2024 election. My colleagues Stephanie Armour and Maia Rosenfeld wrote about the administration’s recent decision to give coke oven plants in the U.S. a one-year exemption from tougher environmental standards. And that was a move that angered some MAHA activists who wondered if the GOP is more beholden to industry than the MAHA agenda. President Trump, HHS Secretary Kennedy, and other top administration officials met recently at the White House with a group of MAHA leaders to calm concerns that the administration is moving too slowly on food policy changes, and they are concerned about the president’s recent support of the pesticide glyphosate. According to press reports, the MAHA folks seem to feel their concerns were heard during that session. But is this ongoing conflict between the president and this key political constituency, will it be one that keeps brewing as the midterm elections approach?听

Edney: Yes, 100%. I think it will continue to brew. I think that meeting was thrown together so quickly that some members of the MAHA movement who were invited couldn’t even make it. So it wasn’t exactly a long-planned, seemingly deep desire to fix everything. But it was, as you’ve said, an effort to kind of hear them out and make them feel heard. No one that I’ve talked to has said everything is fixed now. It’s more of a to-be-determined We will see what the administration will do moving forward, if they will listen to any of our plans 鈥� which we will not share with you, by the way 鈥� to make us happy. And I think that that’s going to continue. There’s a rally planned in front of the Supreme Court on glyphosate later this month where a lot of those people will be, and so I think that they’re upset and they’re stirring up, that concern is only going to get stirred up more.听

Carey: Emmarie.听

Huetteman: It’s a small thing, but our fellow podcast panelist Sheryl Stolberg at The New York Times during this White House meeting where President Trump was meeting with MAHA leaders, one of the leaders made a joke about how this is not a group that’s going to be, quote, “Team Diet Coke,” and the president apparently took that as a cue to press that Diet Coke button he famously has on his desk and summon a server who apparently brought him a Diet Coke. Supporters of MAHA have been clear that they want not just for the Trump administration to promote policies supporting priorities like healthy eating and removing food dyes, but also they want them to rein in or end policies they don’t support. And that weed-killer executive order, that really was a big example of that. The MAHA constituency made it clear that they felt betrayed by that order, and they’re going to have to do some work to walk that back.听

Carey: We’ll also see how, with their concerns about the new CDC director nominee, which they’re already voicing, we’ll see how that plays out.听

Kenen: No, I just think that we are, as we mentioned at the beginning, we’re seeing cracks, right? We’re seeing 鈥� none of us are privy to any conversations that President Trump has had privately with Secretary Kennedy. But his, Secretary Kennedy’s, public statements have been a little different than they were a few months ago. There’s certainly been reports that he’s been told to soft-pedal vaccines and talk about some of the things that there’s more unanimity across ideological and party lines. Healthier food 鈥� there’s debate about how to, whether, there’s debate about how Kennedy defines healthier food. But in general, should we eat healthier? Yes, we should eat healthier. Should our kids get more exercise? Yes, our kids should get more exercise. Do we have too much chronic disease? Yes, we have too much chronic disease. So they’re sort of this, trying to move a little bit more, sort of this sort of top line, very hazier agreement. But at the same time, the people who are sort of really the core of MAHA, as Kennedy has sort of created it or led it, there’s cracks there.听

Carey: All right, we’ll see. We’ll see where that goes. But let’s go ahead and move on to ACA enrollment. A found that 1 in 7 people who signed up for an Affordable Care Act plan failed to pay their first month’s premium. The analysis from Wakely consulting group found that nationally around 14% of those who enrolled in ACA plans didn’t pay their first bill for January coverage. Now we know the elimination of the enhanced ACA tax credits and higher premium costs led to lower enrollment in the ACA exchanges, with sign-ups for 2026 falling to 23 million from 24 million a year ago. But how do you interpret this finding that 14% of enrollees didn’t pay their January premium? Is it a sign of more trouble ahead?听

Edney: I think it could be a sign of more trouble ahead. Some 鈥� what we’re seeing is sticker shock. And there may be some people who are trying to deal with that and won’t be able to as the months go on. And so, yeah, I think it could mean that even more drop out, and that means more people lose coverage and are uninsured.听

Kenen: I think there was sort of a general, initial, misleading sigh of relief when in December, when the enrollment figures, the drop wasn’t as bad as some feared. But at the same time, people said: Wait a minute. This doesn’t really count. Signing up isn’t the same thing as staying covered. The drop in January was significant, we now know. And I agree with Anna. I think we don’t know how many more people will decide they can’t afford it. Or we don’t know whether the big drop is January. Probably a lot of it is, because you get that first bill. But can, will more people drop? Probably. We have no way of knowing how many. And it also depends on the economy, right? If more people lose jobs, right now it’s still pretty, kind of still pretty stable, but we don’t know what’s ahead. We don’t know what’s going to happen with the war. We don’t know many, many, many 鈥� we don’t know anything. So the future is mysterious. I would expect it to drop more. I don’t think, I don’t know whether this is the big drop or February will be just as bad. I suspect January will be the biggest. But who knows? It depends on other outside factors.听

Huetteman: We’re also seeing a drop-off in the kind of coverage that people are choosing. That analysis that you referenced, Mac, showed that there was a 17% drop in silver plan membership, with most of those folks switching to bronze plans, which, in other words, that means they switch to plans that have lower monthly premiums but they have higher deductibles. And that means that when you get sick, you owe more, in some cases much more, before your insurance starts picking up the tab. And I think really what this means is people are more exposed to the high charges for medical services, bigger bills when you get sick. I think that听

Kenen: I think that the Republicans were seen as having pushed back a lot of the health impacts of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill and that it would be after the election. And I and others wrote: No, no, no, no, no. We’re going to see this playing out before the election. This is a really big political red flag, right? This is a lot more people becoming uninsured, which makes other people worried about their insurance and stability. So I think this is definitely going to 鈥� it may not be. There are other things going on in the world. Health care may not be the dominant theme in this year’s election. But yes, this is going to be, the off-year elections are going to be health care elections, like almost every one else has been for鈥斕�

Carey: Oh yeah.听

Kenen: 鈥攕ince the Garden of Eden, right?听

Carey: Absolutely, it’s a perennial. All right, we’ll keep our eye on that. That’s this week’s news. Now we’re going to play Julie’s interview with immigration attorney Michelle can arrow, and then we’ll be back with our extra credits.听

Julie Rovner: I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Michelle Canero. Michelle is an immigration attorney from Miami and a member of the board of Immigrants’ List, a bipartisan political action committee focused on immigration reform. Michelle, thanks for joining us.听

Michelle Canero: Thank you for having me.听

Rovner: So, we’ve talked a lot about immigration policy on this podcast over the past year, but I want to look at the big picture. How important to the U.S. health care system are people who originally come from other countries?听

Canero: I think the statistics speak for themselves. One in three residency positions can’t be filled by American graduates alone. That means 33% of these residency positions are being filled by immigrant workers. Twenty-seven percent of physicians are foreign-born. Twenty percent of hospital workers are immigrants. And, at least in Florida, a large percentage of our home health care workers happen to be immigrants. And we depend on this population heavily in the health care sector.听

Rovner: Now, we talk a lot about the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration, but we talk a little bit less about their sort of messing with the legal immigration system. And there’s a lot going on there, isn’t there?听

Canero: There is. And I think that the campaign talking points were illegal immigration but what we’re actually seeing is a little more sinister. I think that the goal of leadership at the head of DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] and DOS [the State Department], or really Stephen Miller, is pushing something called reverse migration, which is really not about limiting illegal immigration but reducing the immigrant population in the United States. And I think that’s where the real concern is and why you’re seeing these policies that directly affect legal immigrants.听

Rovner: We talk a lot about doctors and nurses and skilled, the top skilled, medical professionals who make up a large chunk of the United States health care workforce. We don’t talk as much about the sort of midlevel professional workers and the support staff. They’re also overwhelmingly immigrant, aren’t they?听

Canero: Yeah, and whether it’s your IT- and technical-knowledge-based workers in hospitals who facilitate all the technology 鈥� we rely on an immigrant workforce for a lot of the technology sector. And then you’ve got research professionals. A lot of clinical researchers, medical researchers, are foreign-born. So it’s not just about the doctors. It’s also the critical staff that keep the hospitals operating. And I’m from Florida. For us, it’s the home health care workers. We have an aging population, and a large percentage of the home health care workers, particularly in Florida, happen to be Haitians on TPS [temporary protected status] or people with asylum work authorizations. And when we lose that, our aging population is left with no resources, because that’s not something AI or technology can fix. You can’t turn someone over in a bed with a robot yet, and we’re probably decades away from that.听

Rovner: So what’s the last year been like for you and your clients?听

Canero: I think it’s a lot of uncertainty. A lot of these policies are percolating, and we’re assuming that they’ll be resolved in litigation, but the damage is being done in real time. So we’re seeing hospitals turning away from hiring foreign workers, because of the H-1B penalty now. The suspension of J-1 processing created backlogs. These visa bans that affect 75 countries on certain visas and 39 countries on others. You’ve got thousands of health care workers that are stuck outside the U.S. So what’s happening, really, is that hospitals and medical providers are just shutting down, and they’re cutting back services, and that means that there are less available services and resources for the same population and the same demand. People are waiting longer for doctor’s appointments. People are finding that they’re not able to get to the specialist that they need to get to in time. And so for us as practitioners, I think, we’re trying to navigate as best we can, but we’re just seeing a lot of people, employers that traditionally would rely on our services, give up and foreign workers looking to go elsewhere.听

Rovner: I noticed during the annual residency match in March that it worked out, I think, fairly well for most graduating medical students. But the big sort of sore thumb that stuck out were international medical graduates. That’s going to impact the pipeline going forward, isn’t it?听

Canero: From what I understand, it takes like seven to 15 years to get to that level, and we just don’t have the student body to meet the demand of residency positions. From my understanding, there’s a gap between American graduates and the demand for residents that’s usually filled by foreign workers. And if we don’t have those foreign workers, those residency positions just don’t get filled. And that becomes more expensive for hospitals, and that transfers to our medical bills.听

Rovner: And people assume that, Oh well this doesn’t impact me. But it really impacts all patients, doesn’t it? And I would think particularly those in rural areas, which are less desirable for U.S.-born and -trained medical professionals and tend to be overrepresented by immigrants.听

Canero: Yeah, I think a lot of the J-1 doctors and H-1B doctors are what facilitate, are working at, our veterans hospitals and our rural medical facilities. And what’s ending up happening is the very same people that this administration touts to support their interests are being forced to travel farther for specialists, right? If there isn’t an endocrinologist in your area, you may have to drive 100 miles to go see that specialist, and you may forgo necessary medical care because of the inconvenience or the cost. And I think that’s hitting at our health.听

Rovner: So you’re on the board of Immigrants’ List, which is working to change things politically. What’s one change that could really make a big difference in what we’re starting to see in terms of immigration and the health care workforce?听

Canero: Well, asking Congress to actually do something. It’s been a problem for decades. So I don’t really know, but I think there’s a couple of things, whether it’s just policymakers supporting our fight against some of these illegal policy changes in courts, organizations supporting us with amicus briefs. For example, there’s a lot of lawsuits challenging these visa bans and these adjudicative holds and the H-1B fine. The more support that the plaintiffs in the litigation get, the more likely we are to resolve that through the court system. And then I hope that there’s enough pressure from hospitals and organizations that have real dollars that impact these elected officials to get them to start seeing, Hey, we need to pass reasonable immigration reform to address some of the loopholes that this administration is using to cause chaos in the system, right? They’re able to do this because we have a gap. We allow them to terminate TPS. We don’t have a structure to ensure that a community that’s been on TPS for 20 years gets grandfathered into some sort of more stable visa. We don’t have a system that precludes the administration from just putting a hold or a visa ban on nationalities. So it’s something that Congress is going to have to step up and do something about.听

Rovner: What worries you most about sort of what’s going on with the immigration system and health care? What keeps you up at night? Obviously you, I know you work on more than just health care.听

Canero: I think my concern is that the American people aren’t seeing what’s happening, or they’re sort of turning a blind eye to it, and by the time it starts to actually impact them and they start asking, Wait, wait, wait. Why is this happening? I don’t understand, it’s going to be too late. Because it’s not hitting their pocket, because it’s not their suffering at this point, they’re not standing up and saying, Hey, this needs to stop, at the level that we need, opposition, to make it stop. And by the time it does hit their pocket and it does affect them directly, I think, it’ll be a little too late. I think people will be scared off from coming here, people that we needed will be gone, and to reverse the system is going to take decades.听

Rovner: Michelle Canero, thanks again.听

Canero: No, you’re very welcome. Thank you for your time.听

Carey: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment, and that’s where we each recognize a story we read this week and we think that you should read it, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll post the links in our show notes. Joanne, why don’t you start us off this week?听

Kenen: Well, this is by Teddy Rosenbluth in The New York Times. The headline is “” This is one of those stories where you know exactly how it’s going to end in the first paragraph, and yet it was so compellingly and beautifully written that you kept reading until the last word. It is, as the headline suggested, a young man who is an expert on AI and cognitive science named Ben Riley discovered that his father had been lying about a controllable, treatable form of leukemia. He had denied treatment, he’d refused treatment, he had ignored his oncologist because he was relying on AI. And as we all know, AI has its up moments and its down moments. And he was getting incorrect information, distrusted the diagnosis, refused treatment, getting sicker and sicker and sicker as the oncologist and the family got increasingly desperate. And the son, Ben Riley, had, like, skills. He knew how to find scientific evidence, and his father just would not believe it. And by the time his father finally consented to treatment, it was too late, and he did die. And his father was a neuroscientist, a retired neuroscientist, but he found a neuroscience rabbit hole.听

Carey: That’s amazing. Anna, what’s your extra credit?听

Edney: Mine, I’m highlighting a story that I wrote in Bloomberg called “.” And this is, I wanted to dive into this policy that the FDA had implemented. The commissioner has long talked about and felt that perimenopausal and menopausal women were not getting access to the treatments that maybe they really needed, because there had been sort of this two-decade-old study that had showed there were some safety issues regarding breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, but the issue being that those studies had looked at older forms of the medication and also at women who were much older than those who might benefit from taking it. And so they, the agency, asked the companies to remove those warning labels, at least the strongest ones. And what we’ve seen, why 鈥� I wanted to dive into the numbers specifically. Bloomberg has some prescription data that was able to help me out here and just look at when this started rising. You could see that the prescriptions started going up around 2021. I feel like a lot of influencers, a lot of celebrities, were talking about this. And then in 2024 to 2025 when the FDA started talking about this, it really just goes, the prescription numbers just go straight up on the scale. And so there were about 32 million prescriptions written last year, which is a huge increase. And I just dove into some of this, some of the companies, what kind of drugs there are out there, and talked to some women who are benefiting but also, because of this pop, experiencing shortages, because the companies aren’t quite keeping up with the products.听

Carey: Wow, that sounds like an outstanding deep dive. Thank you. Emmarie.听

Huetteman: Yeah, my extra credit is from my colleague at 麻豆女优 Health News who covers health technology. That’s Darius Tahir. The headline is “Your New Therapist: Chatty, Leaky, and Hardly Human.” The story looks at the proliferation of AI chatbot apps that offer mental health and emotional support, particularly the ones that market themselves as, quote-unquote, “therapy apps.” Darius counted 45 such apps in Apple’s App Store last month, and he uncovered in some cases that safety and privacy concerns existed, such as minimal age protections. Fifteen of the apps that he looked at said they could be downloaded by users who were only 4 years old. His story also explored the tension between the risks of sharing sensitive data and the interests of app developers and collecting that data for business purposes. It’s a good read. All right,听

Carey: All right. Thanks so much. My extra credit is from Politico, and it’s written by Alice Miranda Olstein, and she’s a frequent guest here on What the Health? The headline is, quote, “,” close quote. The headline kind of says it all. Alice writes that Nebraska is racing to implement Medicaid work requirements by May 1, and that’s eight months ahead of the national deadline that was set by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Nebraska state officials plan to do this without hiring additional staff, even as other health departments in other states prepare to bring in dozens, if not hundreds, of new employees. Alice writes that advocates for people on Medicaid fear that this rush timeline and lack of new staff will cause many problems for Medicaid beneficiaries who are just trying to meet those new work requirements.听

All right. That’s this week’s show. Thank you so much for listening. Thanks, as always, to our editor and panelist Emmarie Huetteman, to this week’s producer and engineer, Taylor Cook, and to my 麻豆女优 colleague Richard Ho, who provided technical assistance. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts, as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us with your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, . Joanne, where can people find you these days?听

Kenen: and , @joannekenen.听

Carey: OK. Anna?听

Edney: and and , @annaedney.听

Carey: And Emmarie.听

Huetteman: You can find me on .听

Carey: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From 麻豆女优 Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The federal government doesn’t track what happens to children after their parents are detained or deported, and state data varies. Independent news reports are scarce and likely undercount the issue. But there’s evidence that in many states some of the children are being placed in foster care.听

In Oregon, for example, there have been at least two cases in which children who were separated from their parents were placed into foster care by the state. Jake Sunderland, press secretary for the state Department of Human Services, said that before last fall, this “simply had never happened before.”听

Separation from a parent can be deeply traumatic for children and lead to a broad range of , including post-traumatic stress disorder. Some states have responded by updating their temporary guardianship laws to help immigrant parents better prepare care for their children in the event of their detention or deportation.

Lawmakers in New Jersey are to allow parents to nominate standby, or temporary, guardians in the event of death, incapacity, or debilitation. The proposal adds separation caused by federal immigration enforcement as another allowable reason.听

Nevada and California passed similar laws last year.听

Yet some parents are hesitant to participate, said Cristian Gonzalez-Perez, an attorney at Make the Road Nevada, a nonprofit that provides resources to immigrant communities. The hesitancy is out of fear that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents could access their personal information and use it to target them for detention or deportation.听

My colleagues Claudia Boyd-Barrett, Renuka Rayasam, and Amanda Seitz reported on a case in which ICE used data from the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement to detain parents under the impression they were reuniting with their children, highlighting the precarious situation for immigrant parents.听

Additionally, ICE detention makes it difficult to reunite parents with their children if they’ve been placed in foster care because reunification often requires court-ordered programs, said Juan Guzman, director of children’s court and guardianship at the Alliance for Children’s Rights, a legal advocacy organization in Los Angeles. Nominating a guardian is one way to ease immigrants’ feelings of helplessness when facing the threat of detention or deportation, Gonzalez-Perez said.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).