�鶹Ů��

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for �鶹Ů�� Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 15, at 9:30 a.m. As always, and particularly this week, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And my �鶹Ů�� Health News colleague Julie Appleby. 

Julie Appleby: Hi. 

Rovner: No interview this week because so much news, so we will get straight to it. So, quiet week, huh? Just kidding. The House Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce committees completed all-nighter markups on their portions of President [Donald] Trump’s “one big, beautiful” reconciliation bill. And in fact, Ways and Means is officially calling it the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” in its summary of the measure. 

We will start with Energy and Commerce, which after a 26-hour marathon, one hour short of the record it set in 2017, voted out its part of the bill Wednesday afternoon, including an estimated $715 billion in reductions to health programs, mostly Medicaid, over the next 10 years. Now, the final committee bill does not include the threatened cuts to the 90% match for the Affordable Care Act expansion population, nor does it include the per capita cap for that population. 

Nonetheless, it would represent the biggest cut to Medicaid in the program’s 60-year history. Guys, tell us some of the things that it would do instead to get to that $715 billion amount. 

Kenen: The 715 includes some ACA cuts as well. It’s not 100% Medicaid, but it’s largely Medicaid. The biggest one is the one that we knew was almost inevitable given the current Congress, which is work requirements. It is something the Republicans have wanted a long time. In the prior administration, a few states did pass them. Arkansas got going with them. The courts stopped it. 

The Medicaid statute is pretty clear that it’s about health, not about health for working people. The courts today are different. If I had to guess, I would guess there will be a legal battle and that the courts are likely to uphold work requirements. 

Rovner: We’ll talk more about work requirements in a minute. But what else is in the bill? 

Kenen: There’s lots of extra layers of verification. Supposedly, it’s about fraud. We can get to the Kennedy testimony later, but there were some assertions that did not add up for me. The biggest thing is work requirements, and there’s other things that will make it harder to maintain coverage, that it’s not that tou’re getting kicked off, per se. And there are also some copays. There are some copays for the upper rank. There’s been a lot of information this week. And if I get any details wrong, because we’ve all had to absorb a lot in 48 hours, someone correct me. But my recollection was a $35 copay for certain treatments for the people who are on the higher end of the income. 

Rovner: Right, meaning over 100% of poverty— 

Kenen: Right. 

Rovner: —but still under the level required to qualify for Medicaid. 

Appleby: Right. It would require states actually to impose these cost sharings of up to $35 per service. Although they’re excluding some things like primary care, emergency stuff, that kind of thing, for people in that 100% of poverty to 138% of poverty, and there’s also an upper limit of 5% of the family’s income. But that’s a lot for people in that category. 

Rovner: And we know, there is an enormous body of research that says when you put copays on services, people get fewer of them. And it’s not like people who are just scraping by have a lot of extra money to spend. So we know that one of the ways that they’ll save money is that people won’t get services, presumably needed services. 

Kenen: Although the primary care exemption is important, because primary care, which also usually includes pediatricians, are considered primary care, can deal with a lot of diseases that you don’t always need to see a specialist. I’m not saying it’s a good idea. I’m just saying in terms of an incentive to get basic care, keeping primary care free is an important distinction. 

Rovner: Well, I do want to talk a little bit about that work requirement, which Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Jake Auchincloss called not a work requirement but a paperwork requirement. Once more, for those who haven’t heard us explain this 100 times, it’s not just people who don’t work who lose coverage because of this. I see you nodding, Alice. Please explain this again. 

Ollstein: Yes. So Democrats really hammered over the course of this 26-hour hearing that the only states that have made a foray in this direction so far, Arkansas and Georgia, have seen that these work requirements do not boost employment. They kick people off who should have been eligible because they can’t navigate, like you said, the paperwork. And so it was really striking, over this hearing, where — I watched from 8 a.m. Wednesday to 2 p.m. Wednesday — and during that whole time, every single amendment vote was party-line. Nobody crossed in either direction. So this was really a political exercise in Democrats because they were not able to convince Republicans to change or soften the bill at all. They really focused on branding it, branding it as punishing the poor and threatening their health care. 

And so they were pointing to what happened in Arkansas, what happened in Georgia, where the work requirements really were successful in only that they cut people from the rolls and saved the states money, not successful in helping people find work or helping people get coverage. They also made an effort to brand the copays issue. I heard Democrats calling it a “sick tax.” We’ll see if that phrase sticks around throughout this process. 

Rovner: So kind of in an interesting twist, the work requirements in the bill don’t become mandatory until the year 2029. That suggests to me that those who voted for this don’t really want it to take effect, but they do want to be able to count the savings to pay for other things in the bill. And then, cherry on top of the sundae, if Democrats want to repeal the work requirements later, they would have to find a way to pay for them, because the savings would get built into the budget baseline. Or is that just me being cynical because I’ve only had like five hours of sleep this week? 

Kenen: Well, there are two important dates between now and 2029. One is the 2026 off-year elections, the House elections and some Senate, and then 2028 is the presidential. So there’s several things that have changed politically about Medicaid in recent years, which we can talk to and which I’ve written about quite extensively. One of them is that a lot of people who are Trump’s base are now on Medicaid and particularly that expansion population, and nobody likes having their health care taken away from them, particularly if it’s free or very, very heavily subsidized in the lower ranks of the exchanges. 

So if you’re going to kick your own voters off of their health care, you’re probably more likely to want to do it after they voted for you again. It is not uniquely cynical. We have seen both parties do similar things over the years, either for budgetary game-playing or for political things. It’s quite notable that this goes into effect in 2029. 

Ollstein: It’s just interesting that this is getting criticized from both sides. So Democrats are upset that Republicans want to reap the nominal savings but not have to look like the bad guy. And conservative Republicans are upset that this doesn’t kick in sooner, because they want stricter work requirements even sooner to cut the program even more. So it’s pleasing few. 

Rovner: Well, as Joanne alluded to, it’s not just Medicaid. This bill is also a bit of a stealth assault on the Affordable Care Act, too. Right, Julie? We haven’t talked about it a lot, but this administration seems to be working very hard to make the ACA a lot less effective. And the combination of reductions in Medicaid and changes to the ACA will mean lots more people will be uninsured if this bill becomes law in its current form. Yes? 

Appleby: There are a lot of moving parts to this. So yeah, let’s back up just briefly and look at March, when the Trump administration did propose their first major rule affecting the Affordable Care Act, and it’s called the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Marketplace Integrity … it’s a long-name rule. Anyway, it does a bunch of things. For one, it shortens the open enrollment period by about a month. So open enrollment would end on Dec. 15. And notably, this would apply to all states that run their own state-based marketplaces, as well as the federal marketplace. So there’s 16 plus D.C. that do that. So they would all also be tied to this. So that’s one of the things that the rule would do if it’s finalized in its form. 

It would also end a special enrollment period that allows low-income people to essentially enroll anytime during the year. And people who are automatically reenrolled in a zero-premium plan would instead be charged a $5 premium for reenrollment in that same plan until they confirm their eligibility. Now, the Trump administration says that a lot of these rules are in part to try to combat what they say is fraud and waste, and they point to situations where people are being enrolled without their permission or switched to different plans, generally these zero-premium plans, by unscrupulous brokers who are trying to get commissions. 

We’ve written a lot about that over the past year. So they’re saying that, Oh, we need to do this so that people know they’ve been enrolled. The special enrollment period for low-income people they thought was part of that. That’s disputed by a number of places. And some of the states have pushed back on this, too, and said, Hey, we don’t have this problem with fraud, so why would this now apply to us? Why would the special enrollment period, the shortened enrollment period, etc., etc.? 

So those are things in the proposed rule. And the proposed rule acknowledges that it would reduce enrollment by about up to 2 million people in 2026, with coverage losses concentrated in a bunch of states like Alabama, Florida, Georgia, etc. So that’s the proposed rule. And then if you look at the House bill, like, for example, Energy and Commerce, these would codify some of those proposals from that ACA rule. So it would make it harder for a future president to change the rule and that kind of thing. 

So those things that are codified would be — there’d be more hoops to jump through to verify income, for one thing. That special enrollment period based on income would be barred, and the shorter enrollment period would be in it. And if this goes through, these changes are set to go into effect next year. So a lot of insurers and states would have to scramble to try to get this put in place by then. So that’s just a short thing about what some of the ACA effects would be. 

Rovner: So, it feels like there’s kind of a theme here that’s going to make it harder for people to get on and stay on both the ACA and Medicaid. Is that sort of a fair way to describe this? 

Appleby: Yeah, that’s fair. In the House bills, there are also a lot of things that would bar automatic reenrollment, which a lot of people rely on. People just don’t go back in and sign up for their coverage. They’re automatically reenrolled. The bills differ a little bit. The harshest one would require everybody to sort of verify their income before they can reenroll. There would be a lot more of that. So it would essentially bar reenrollment. And we haven’t even talked about the enhanced tax credits, because that’s also sort of fitting here. 

Rovner: Which was my, yes, my next question. So there’s been a lot of fighting this week about how many people would lose coverage as a result of this bill, and a lot of it is sort of philosophical fighting. We don’t have final CBO [Congressional Budget Office] numbers yet. We may not have them for another week, I am told. But what we do know is one of the things this bill could do but doesn’t do is re-up those additional subsidies that were installed during the Biden administration, during covid, that basically effectively doubled the number of people who enrolled under the marketplaces, right? 

Appleby: It certainly added a lot. Most people who get a subsidy are benefiting from the enhanced subsidies. And remember, these sort of expanded at the lower end and it cut off that cliff at 400% of the poverty level that used to exist where you wouldn’t get a subsidy if you made more than that. So it smoothed all that out. So a lot of people are getting these extra subsidies. 

And a lot of the data I’ve seen have said — I’m looking at an Oliver Wyman report earlier — something like, if these enhanced subsidies are allowed to expire at the end of this year, which they’re poised to do unless Congress acts, that, on average, premiums would go up by about 90%. That will be enough to cause a lot of people not to reenroll. So that’s where we’ve seen some of these estimates of I think it’s around 5 million people may not reenroll as a result of that over time. 

That’s a pretty big number. But like you said, there’s a lot of numbers in the mix, but the enhanced premium subsidies do cost taxpayers. It’s not inexpensive. So if they’re looking for savings, which they are, Congress may decide not to extend them. But at the same time, many people and in a lot of states that are dominated by the GOP and others, people are getting these subsidies, and it would suddenly be a huge hit to many people to have a 90% increase in their premiums, for example. 

Rovner: Yeah, as Joanne said. Which you’re about to say again, right? These are Republican voters now, right? 

Kenen: I think that’s more mixed, the upper income within the ACA. We’ve expected that to go away, because there’s a difference between Congress having to yank something away versus something in the law that expires and they have to proactively renew it. We have always anticipated that enhanced subsidies would decline this year. But I just sort of want to point out, during the first Trump administration, without all this coverage, the uninsurance rate rose in the country. 

And that even before ’29, there are all sorts of things, with shortened enrollment periods, how much outreach they do, there’s lots of things even before 2029 that we can expect a fairly significant erosion of health coverage. Not to what it was in pre-ACA levels — it’s not going to be that extreme, and not all the benefits that those of us with employer-sponsored insurance also get, some things through the ACA. 

So this is not repeal — it’s damage. And it’s more damage than they did in the first Trump administration. All of us would be extremely surprised if there was not a significant drop in the number of insured Americans one, two years from now. 

Rovner: One of the ways conservatives hope to secure the votes for this bill in the House is a provision that would bar Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program. This would certainly be popular in the House. But when it was in the Affordable Care Act repeal bill in 2017, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it couldn’t be included in budget reconciliation, because it is not primarily budgetary. Alice, are House leaders just hoping no one will remember that? 

Ollstein: If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Yes, I think so. And especially because we just got a new CBO estimate of what the budgetary impact of cutting these funds would be. And it’s, like they have found before, it does not save money. It actually costs the government money because people lose access to contraception and don’t have other sources that they can afford to obtain contraception. And it’s a lot more expensive to have a baby on Medicaid than to access contraception. So I think that also contributes to the parliamentarian problem. 

Rovner: Yes. You can put stuff in reconciliation that costs money, but that was sort of not the intent here. Joanne, you wanted to say something. 

Kenen: And we should point out that this is still at the committee level, right? Is it going to get through the House in this exact form? We can’t be sure yet. Is something going to get through the House at the end of the day? Yes. Yes. But is all of this going to get in? Is this the final draft? Probably not. You have moderates who are still, don’t like some of the things in here, and you have conservatives who think it doesn’t go far enough. 

As we said at the beginning, as far as it does go, it does not go anywhere near as far as the initial, of some of the things that were being discussed, which really would have ended Medicaid as an entitlement. These are big changes. They’re not existential in the same way that a per capita cap or a block grant or blowing up the ACA expansion by changing the rates. There are things they could have done that were far more radical that they don’t have the votes for. And— 

Rovner: But they still can only lose, what, three or four votes and get something through the House. 

Kenen: Right. Right. Because Medicaid is actually quite popular, and people in both parties are covered by it. We still don’t know the pathway, what gets through the House at the end of the day. Something does, right? We all think that they will, somehow or other. Not necessarily by Memorial Day, right? But something at some point will get through the House, and we don’t know exactly what it looks like. 

Rovner: For the record, I’m still shrugging. I think something gets— 

Kenen: And it is a bigger question mark, you know? 

Rovner: Which is my next question. What are the prospects for this bill in the Senate? Do we really believe that the very conservative Missouri Republican Josh Hawley would vote against this? He had a piece in The New York Times this week saying, “.”&�Բ�����;

Kenen: He’s been really consistent. Have we seen politicians do huge flip-flops in our years of covering Congress and politics? Yes. He’s really out there on this. It’s sort of hard to see how he just says, Whoops, I didn’t really mean it. But right now in terms of who’s out there in public, we don’t have a critical mass of people who’ve said they can’t vote for this. But we do know there are provisions in this very extensive bill that some people don’t like. It will go through changes in the Senate. 

I don’t have a grasp and I don’t think any of us have a grasp on exactly what’s going to change. I think work requirements, depending on what bells and whistles are attached, could get through the Senate. There might be changes like making it a state option or redefining certain things with it. I think there probably are 51 votes for a work requirement of some type in the Senate. 

That doesn’t mean the way this has been written survives. And there’s just — these are big cuts. And there’s also, remember, we’re only talking about the health stuff. There’s a lot. There’s energy. There’s all sorts of — this is a big bill. This is a big, historic bill. There’s lots and lots of hurdles. We all remember that the ACA repeal, it took several tries. It was really harder than expected. It finally got through the House, and it did die in the Senate. So this is not the last word. We don’t have to shut the podcast. 

Rovner: Yes, long way to go. All right, moving on. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before not one but two committees on Wednesday: the House labor, HHS Appropriations subcommittee in the morning and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee in the afternoon. And shall we say it didn’t all go swimmingly. Right off the bat, this was the greeting he got from House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut. DeLauro basically saying, Everything you’re doing is illegal. 

Rep. Rosa DeLauro: Mr. Secretary, this administration is recklessly and unlawfully freezing and stealing congressionally appropriated funds from a wide swath of agencies, programs, and services across the government that serve the American people. And recall that this is a violation of the Constitution. 

The power of the purse resides with the Congress. It’s Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7. Yourself and President Trump and Elon Musk are attacking health programs to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. And by promoting quackery, we are endangering the health of the American people with pseudoscience, fearmongering, and misinformation. 

Rovner: If you want to hear more, we did a live recap of the hearings yesterday afternoon. You can find that on . But I want to know what you all took away from the hearings. Joanne, you watched most of them, right? 

Kenen: I watched a lot of it. I did not watch every minute of both hearings, but I watched enough. And I thought that very first exchange with DeLauro was really striking because she kept saying, over and over and over again she kept saying: Congress appropriated this money. You don’t have the right to not spend it. And he kept saying, If you appropriate the money, I will spend it. And she said, We have appropriated the money, and you’re not spending it. And he said, If you appropriate the money … 

And she explained. What a continuing wrestle. It was like this endless — well, it wasn’t endless, but it was repeated when she kept saying, We appropriated it, and he kept saying, Huh? And she actually said the first time sort of under her breath, but the mic picked it up, and then she said it again. She said, “Unbelievable.” She’s not known for understatement, but she said, “Unbelievable.” And then she said it again. “Unbelievable.” So that was sort of — the rest of the day was sort of there. 

Rovner: Yeah. I personally found it refreshing that someone finally called out HHS, saying: You know, there was an appropriations bill that got signed by the president, and you are withholding this money. And this is our province. We get to decide how the money is spent. You don’t get to decide how the money is spent. The other big headline that came out of this hearing was when Kennedy said that, after being raked over the coals again about his vaccine comments, he said, Well, you shouldn’t be taking medical advice from me. And I’m like, isn’t that the job of the HHS secretary? 

Ollstein: It was very clear that, like in the markups of the bill, Democrats, unless Republicans are willing to cross the aisle and join them, are just left sort of railing against what’s happening and not really having any power to impact it. We did see some Republicans expressing some concern about the cuts that have happened. But unless that turns into real oversight action, real legislative action, I just imagine we’re set up for this to happen again where Congress appropriates and the cuts happen anyway. 

Rovner: I was surprised at how much Sen. Cassidy, Sen. Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the HELP Committee, didn’t say. He basically said when he voted for Kennedy’s nomination that he was torn. He believes in vaccines. He’s a practicing doctor. He, Cassidy. And he made Kennedy promise that he wasn’t going to change any of these vaccine rules, which he’s already done. And he’s installed anti-vax people at many levels of HHS. And yet Cassidy was incredibly conciliatory in his opening statement. 

And it was left to Chris Murphy of all people, the firebrand Democrat from Connecticut, to basically be Cassidy’s anger manager. And sort of, he said, “If I were the chairman … my head would be exploding,” which I believe is a line that I’ve been saying for the last several months. What’s happening with Cassidy? Do we know? He can’t be happy with what’s happening here. 

Ollstein: This was well previewed by everything Cassidy has sort of put out publicly since the confirmation hearing. If you track his press releases, they’ve been sort of selectively praising HHS for doing certain things and being silent on the things that we imagine he might not like on the vaccine front. And so that dynamic carried forward right into this hearing, which was the first opportunity for Congress to really grill Kennedy since he’s taken office. 

And so many people have pointed out that Cassidy is up for reelection. He is facing a primary challenge from the right. He wants to align himself with the Trump administration and with the sort of “MAGA [Make America great Again]” movement. And he has pushed back on accusations that his treatment of Kennedy is influenced by that, but people can draw their own conclusions. 

Kenen: I also wanted to point out that Kennedy insisted that he hadn’t fired any scientists, and he made that assertion a few times, which I think the Democrats, their jaws collectively dropped in unison. The cuts to NIH [the National Institutes of Health] have been extreme, in the billions. And in addition to the NIH scientists, there are also the ripple effect of training the next generation of scientists, because of the cuts to universities. 

And also Kennedy, I sort of noticed at one point he was saying something about some universities don’t need this money, but then he mentioned specifically but Maine, where Susan Collins is the chair of the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, and Alabama, where Katie Britt has been, Sen. Katie Britt, has been sort of vocal about this, which is also, people don’t think of or may not realize that University of Alabama is a huge scientific center. 

It is a powerhouse, but it is a state-funded university without such a big environment. Kennedy said: You know what? We’re going to make these cuts. But maybe not Maine and Alabama. It was like — talk about politics. But I think that they were really floored when he said over and over again that no scientists have been let go. 

Rovner: You were right. There was also a lot of sort of ad hoc, If you have a particular problem, why don’t you— 

Kenen: Call my office. 

Rovner: —call my office. Yeah. And we can take care of it. Which seemed just sort of mind-blowing to me. It’s like, this is how we’re making policy now. And somebody, I meant to go back and look at who, somebody in the morning at the House hearing, one of the Democrats, said, Is there a special phone number for Democrats to call your office to see if we can get some of these cuts restored? That literally seems to be how HHS is being run right now. 

Ollstein: And I think it’s reflected across the government. When Elon Musk was more involved directly with the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] stuff, he was reportedly telling Republican senators the same. Oh, if you have an issue, you know, just text me, just call me. And folks who study government pointed out that this smacks of the kind of personalism that has defined some authoritarian governments in the past where things happen more through favors than through normal government processes that are more transparent. 

Kenen: And a phone call from your senator is not how you should be able to get back into a clinical trial. There was also a lot of exchanges about what’s happening to clinical trials and harm to patients, which he was — there was some gaps there. And you’re watching him saying, Oh yeah, I can get her in. Just, you call me tomorrow. Call my office, to Sen. [Patty] Murray. And the state of him asserting that not much has changed and anything we got wrong we’ll fix versus the fact that huge numbers of things have changed that have affected both patients and future patients. 

One of the Democrats said: What’s wrong with researching cancer and Alzheimer’s, particularly if you’re trying to deal with chronic diseases? These are chronic conditions, and we’re gutting research into them. So there was a lot of disconnects. There was some, also— 

Rovner: It’s not just cuts. They are pushing the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Just this week the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] is for kids. These are generally drops, tablets, and lozenges prescribed to kids who live in places that don’t have fluoridated water. 

This move contradicts recommendations from both the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and the U.S. Preventive Health Services Task Force. And RFK was taken to task at the House hearing by Congressman Mike Simpson of Idaho, who’s one of a handful of dentists in the chamber. I have to say I didn’t have eliminating fluoride on my 2025 public health bingo card. 

Ollstein: Yes. And I think that this is raising concerns for a few reasons. One, the public health impact. This goes against decades of research and evidence and the medical community’s consensus. But this also is moving sort of beyond the personal-choice, medical freedom kind of framing that has been used to argue about fluoridating public water. This is taking away a parent’s choice, potentially. If they want these supplements for their kids, they’re not going to be available any longer. And this is exactly what people fear could extend into the vaccine space. It’s not just that it’s going to not have mandates for schools or rules around that, that it won’t even be an option for the people who want it. 

Rovner: All right, well, moving on to abortion, the one piece of potential news out of the Kennedy hearings came in response to a question from the aforementioned Sen. Josh Hawley from Missouri about a new study claiming that the abortion pill mifepristone has way more complications than numerous studies over the past 40 years it’s been in use have found. Alice, tell us about this particular study, which RFK Jr. suggested might prompt the FDA to change the status of the abortion pill. 

Ollstein: So, one, it’s not a study. Even its supporters admit in private that it’s not a study. that a lot of these groups pushing this held recently to talk about how they hoped to use this information to influence government policy. And they noted that because this is something that a conservative think tank just put out themselves, they did not submit it to a medical journal. It did not go through peer review. 

So they said directly that it is not a study in the traditional sense. Still, you have senators and now the secretary of health and human services referring to it as a study and calling for policy changes based on it. So I want people to keep that in mind as this is discussed going forward. These drugs have been available for 25 years now. There have been lots of more rigorous, peer-reviewed studies that have found them to be overwhelmingly safe and effective. 

Some of this new data actually aligns with some of the findings from those previous, more rigorous studies, but their own unique definitions of certain things, calling some things adverse events when the FDA does not consider that to be so, and so medical experts told me, including some from �鶹Ů��, that this has so many red flags that they think it could never have been published in a credible medical journal. 

Rovner: And just to clarify, while we’re talking about different time periods: It’s been available in the U.S. for 25 years. 

Ollstein: Yes. 

Rovner: It’s been available internationally since the 1980s. 

Ollstein: Right. Right. 

Rovner: So, it has been well studied for quite a long time. Well, in other abortion news this week, the Texas Legislature is moving forward with a new piece of anti-abortion legislation that can’t be challenged in court, this one aimed at the abortion pill. Alice, this is like Chapter 2 in Texas trying to figure out how they can ban abortion-related things without anybody challenging the law, right? 

Ollstein: There’s a lot of different moving parts right now. There’s that. There’s the new case that’s also pending in Texas, brought by three GOP states seeking to impose national restrictions on abortion pills. There’s this new review that the FDA is allegedly going to undertake around dispensing rules. And so this has been an overwhelming focus of the anti-abortion movement since even before Dobbs, but especially now. 

They know that the ability of people to get these pills prescribed online, sent by mail, is the primary way that people are getting around state bans, other than travel, which is not always possible for folks. And so there are just efforts going on in state legislatures, in Congress, in the FDA, in state courts and federal courts, all to impose restrictions. 

And so it’s a very throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach. But that has proven very effective for them over the decades. Arguably that’s how we got to where we are now, where abortion is banned in much of the country. So it’s something to take seriously and watch carefully. 

Rovner: And this is Texas trying again with this. Individuals can sue other individuals who they think have used the abortion pill. It does not require the involvement of the state to prosecute, which has not, I don’t think, spread beyond Texas at this point, but it would be Texas’ second bite at this apple. 

Kenen: But the proposed language in that bill is extraordinary. We at the state legislature of Texas is passing a bill and no court has the right to review whether it is constitutional, etc. It seems pretty extreme, right? 

Rovner: Well, this was how Texas did their first ban. 

Kenen: Right. 

Rovner: Remember that the Supreme Court allowed it to stand because they weren’t quite sure what to do with it. 

Kenen: But that was also because they did unique legal things in terms of, they sort of created a legal structure. This, the language is in the bill — and no court can double-check us. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: So, and then what else can they use that for, right? And apparently there are even some Republicans who are a little concerned about that language. And I’m not up on the exact makeup of constitutional views of the entire Texas Legislature. 

Rovner: Yes. We should point out, it hasn’t passed the full legislature yet. 

Kenen: No. It’s proposed. 

Rovner: Just the Texas Senate. It’s passed the Senate. We’re awaiting to see if it will pass the Texas House. All right, well, finally in this incredibly newsy week, just before he left for his overseas trip, President Trump unveiled what he touted as an enormous announcement that turned out to be an executive order basically wishing down drug prices by tying them to other countries’ price-controlled prices. Except this isn’t really going to happen anytime soon. Right, Julie? 

Appleby: Well, it is interesting. It’s this “most favored nations” idea that we would tie drug prices in the United States to what’s paid by other countries where they have much stronger drug negotiation issues. And it’s not clear how it works. So yeah, it’s not clear what the path forward is with that. 

Ollstein: The problem with saying drug prices are coming down is if they do not come down, people might be mad at you for saying they’re coming down. 

Rovner: I would say he did wish down the price of eggs. He said that egg prices were coming down when they weren’t, except now they are, because he had nothing to do with them going up or coming down. It had to do with the bird flu. And so now he can say, See, I got egg prices down. 

Kenen: But they’re still higher than they were when he— 

Rovner: They are still higher than they were. 

Kenen: But they have come down. 

Rovner: But I will say, I was going to say, this is super-clever marketing. This is the one thing that President Trump is really, really good at. He hyped this announcement ahead of time. He actually got headlines insisting that this will really do something. I have had people tell me that they’ve had sort of their grown kids and stuff saying: Oh look, drug prices. He’s going to reduce drug prices. When in fact this is one of those executive orders that just doesn’t really do anything. 

Kenen: We don’t know what’s going to happen to drug prices over the next four years. There’s a law on the books from the Biden administration. In his first administration, I think it might’ve even been a day or two before inauguration, he went on a tear against the drug companies. Remember, he called them killers or something like that. And he also came up with a list of something like 40-odd steps that he could take. And I think half of them had a question mark after them. So he’s been mad at drug prices for a while now. He did not achieve that in the first administration. That’s bipartisan. There’s no Americans who want to pay higher prices for drugs, unless maybe they work for a drug company. People want more— 

Rovner: Right. It’s an 80/20 issue — 80% of people want drug prices down. 

Kenen: Right. 

Rovner: That’s probably more than an 80/20 issue. 

Kenen: There could be some room for bipartisanship on drugs. There’s not a lot of room for bipartisanship, but that’s particularly if he’s not trying to repeal what [President Joe] Biden did, if that stays or gets built on. We don’t know what’s going to happen. But no, you can’t just sign an executive order. It’s not a magic wand. 

Rovner: And I don’t think we’re going to be importing other countries’ price controls anytime soon. I’m going to go on a limb on that one. All right, that is this week’s news. Now it is time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, I want you to go first this week because you have a story that’s directly relevant to something that we talked about in the Medicaid discussion. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So I have this great story from ProPublica [“”] about Medicaid work requirements and about how the small-business owner that Georgia decided to make the face of its program, and they filmed a video of him praising it, even he multiple times lost his coverage, even though he tried to do everything right. He logged his work hours. He signed up for alerts. And just because of bureaucratic things and falling through the cracks, two times he lost his coverage and he had to plead for someone to intervene to get him his benefits back. And he has really soured on all of this, even though he was the face of selling it that the governor used. So I think this is a great example of what could happen as this is debated as a national policy. 

Rovner: And I will say, I learned about this ProPublica story from the markup, where a number of members brought it up. He’s now the poster child for what happens when you have work requirements, even if people are working. Joanne. 

Kenen: There’s a great piece in The Atlantic by Nick Florko called “.” And although it is not in the headline, it’s particularly romaine, which has periodically been in the news as being a source of harmful bacteria. And if you think you can just buy bagged lettuce and wash it yourself and it’ll be safe — no, that doesn’t work, either. 

Basically it goes through like the equivalent of a salad woodchopper and there are all this different lettuce. All this lettuce goes through it. And once one blade gets contaminated, it all gets contaminated. So also, if you are a part of a marriage or one of you likes romaine and the other one would rather have red leaf, this is pretty good ammunition, right? But we should be going back to buying heads of lettuce, washing them yourself. 

And they’re not as safe and sanitary as it sounds, particularly as some issues are going on right now. And of course, we have less public notification and less monitoring and there’s less, less, less of food safety kinds of things coming down the pike at FDA. So it’s even more timely. 

Rovner: It’s a pretty vivid story. Julie. 

Appleby: Thanks. Mine is also, the story I’ve picked is also along the same lines of cuts and what the perhaps unintended consequences were, but the consequences nonetheless. And it’s from the Scientific American. It’s by Andrea Thompson. The headline is “.”&�Բ�����;

And it just talks about the National Weather Service with a lot of interesting facts that I didn’t know for sure, that how the improvements have been made in forecasting, why this is important, and how it’s understaffed, and how these cuts are going to just make things worse. And it talks about it costs the average American, it says, about $4 a year for the National Weather Service. “It’s a cup of coffee,” said one person that’s being quoted. 

And it said the National Weather Service provides an overall benefit of $100 billion to the economy. Aside from the fact that you might want a tornado warning ahead of time, that kind of thing, this is also just really important to quantify the overall value at a time when we are seeing a lot of hurricanes and tornadoes and other climate issues going on. So that would be my pick. 

Kenen: But the Sharpie can just make it move. 

Rovner: Yeah, that’s true. All right, my extra credit this week is what Joanne has dubbed “Theranos for Pets,” though the actual headline in The New York Times is “.” And it’s kind of a scary history-repeats-itself story. Even as Elizabeth Holmes herself remains in jail, having been convicted of fraud over her novel blood-testing company that was really cool but also didn’t work, her partner and the father of her two children, Billy Evans, is raising money for a new blood-testing company. 

He’s called it Haemanthus — I hope I’ve said that right — which is a flower also called the blood lily. And unlike his incarcerated partner, Evans plans to start out by testing the blood of pets, then move to humans. As they say, what could possibly go wrong? 

All right, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer, Francis Yang. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you guys hanging these days? Julie Appleby. 

Appleby: I’m still on X, . 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m only a little . I’m more on and , @joannekenen. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: Mostly on Bluesky, , and still on X, . 

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