Biden Administration Archives - 麻豆女优 Health News /tag/biden-administration/ 麻豆女优 Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of 麻豆女优. Wed, 22 Apr 2026 19:05:31 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Biden Administration Archives - 麻豆女优 Health News /tag/biden-administration/ 32 32 161476233 She Owed Her Insurer a Nickel, So It Canceled Her Coverage /health-care-costs/insurer-missed-payments-dropped-coverage-florida-bill-of-the-month-march-2026/ Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2174972 Last summer, Lorena Alvarado Hill received a series of unexpected medical bills.

A teacher’s aide in Melbourne, Florida, Hill is a single mom who works shifts at J.Crew on the weekends to send her daughter to college. Hill and her mother, who lives with her, had been enrolled in an insurance plan through HealthFirst.

Hill paid nothing toward the premiums for the government-subsidized plan, which previously had covered her scans and other appointments.

Then the bills came.

Hill was on the hook for a $2,966.93 MRI, as well as more than half a dozen doctor visits costing about $200 or $300 each. Without that kind of money on hand, Hill said, she put a few of the bills on payment plans and tried to figure out what had gone wrong.

She discovered, to her surprise, that her insurance had been canceled for “non-payment of premiums.”

The Medical Service

A health insurance plan purchased through the Affordable Care Act federal exchange, healthcare.gov.

The Bill

A monthly premium bill for 1 cent, which in the following months increased incrementally to 5 cents.

The Billing Problem: Small Bill, Big Consequences

Premium subsidies for ACA plans are automatically recalculated every time coverage is changed because of a life event, such as marriage, a change of job, or a child turning 26. In June, Hill removed her mother from the family’s group plan because she turned 65 and became eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

The change triggered a recalculation of Hill’s monthly premium contribution, increasing it from $0 to 1 cent. She said she thought the amount was so small that she couldn’t pay it with her credit card.

Hill acknowledged she had received some bills that noted, “You may lose your health insurance coverage because you did not pay your monthly health insurance premium.”

But she said that her doctors collected the usual copayments during subsequent visits and that her insurance broker told her not to worry, reassuring her that the plan was “active.” Hill figured the 1-cent monthly premium was probably a rounding error that couldn’t result in termination, she said.

On Nov. 22, she got a letter marked “Important: Your health insurance coverage is ending.” It listed the last day of coverage as July 31, nearly four months before.

“I panicked,” Hill said. “I didn’t sleep that night.”

Lorena Alvarado Hill sits on the edge of her couch. A mural painting is seen on the wall behind her.
On Nov. 22, 2025, Hill got a letter informing her that her health insurance had been canceled 鈥 listing the last day of coverage as July 31. The terminated policy left her on the hook for thousands of dollars in bills. “I didn’t sleep that night,” she said. (Michelle Bruzzese for 麻豆女优 Health News)

She made an appointment the next day with her broker, who called HealthFirst for clarification. The news was even worse: Not only had her insurance been canceled, but the 5-cent bill could be sent to a collection agency.

Hill takes out loans to pay her daughter’s college expenses. “I couldn’t have my credit ruined,” she said.

Others have lost their coverage over owing small amounts, said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “This woman’s situation is not so unusual with the enhanced subsidies,” she said.

The American Rescue Plan, passed in 2021, increased the amount of government assistance available to ACA plan holders. Those enhanced subsidies, which Congress let expire at the end of last year, meant enrollees with lower incomes had to pay little or nothing toward their premiums.

The Biden administration found that, in 2023, about 81,000 subsidized ACA insurance policies were terminated because the enrollee owed $5 or less. Nearly 103,000 more were canceled for owing less than $10.

To prevent that kind of coverage loss, most likely hitting people with little income, Biden administration health officials to allow ACA enrollees to retain coverage if they owed less than $10, or less than 95% of premium costs.

Insurers were required to keep insurance active for a 90-day “grace period” to give enrollees time to respond. That’s why Hill’s doctors initially took her copayments and sent no bill, as if nothing had changed.

That Biden administration “flexibility” rule took effect Jan. 15, 2025, though not every insurer opted to offer leniency to those owing small amounts.

The Trump administration removed the rule on Aug. 25, eliminating the protection entirely in the name of combating fraud and abuse.

The Resolution

Alarmed by the cancellation, the thousands of dollars in bills, and the threat of collections over 5 cents, Hill researched insurance law and fought back.

She filed a complaint in December with HealthFirst and the Florida Department of Financial Services asking for a write-off of her 5-cent balance and retroactive restoration of her policy, citing state and federal laws that seemed to apply to her situation.

In particular, she wrote, “creditors are not required to collect, and consumers are not required to pay, credit-card balances of $1.00 or less,” adding that “all major insurers and payment processors in Florida follow a 1-cent write-off policy.”

She noted that HealthFirst’s policy was to respond to complaints in 30 days.

Thirty days came and went, but Hill said she heard nothing in response 鈥 and new bills from her canceled policy kept coming.

Despite her frustration, Hill said, all her doctors were contracted with HealthFirst, so she reenrolled for 2026.

Lance Skelly, a spokesperson for HealthFirst, initially said the case “is still in the appeals/grievance process.” In a follow-up email, he said HealthFirst had in canceling Hill’s policy.

“Stepping back from what’s legal, this is just ridiculous,” Corlette said.

Weeks after a reporter’s query to the insurer, Hill said she looked at her billing statements for all the medical services she received in 2025 and was pleasantly surprised that the balances owed had been adjusted to $0.

But she said she would also like HealthFirst to cover what she had paid and still owed toward the bills she’d put on payment plans.

Lorena Alvarado Hill stands for a portrait indoors. She is looking out the window.
Hill and her mother were enrolled together in a health plan purchased through the federal Affordable Care Act exchange. Hill removed her mother from the plan when she became eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, but the change triggered a recalculation of her monthly premium contribution, increasing it from $0 to 1 cent. She said the amount was so small that she couldn’t figure out how to pay for it with her credit card. (Michelle Bruzzese for 麻豆女优 Health News)

The Takeaway

Even small bills can have major consequences.

With the automation of more health billing decisions, irrational results have become increasingly common.

“One cent?!” Hill said. “No human would do this!”

It can be tempting to dismiss the notice of a tiny debt, but it’s important to take it seriously. Contact the insurer and get a human involved.

And while insurance policies have grace periods allowing coverage to remain in place if you miss a payment, some are not very long. For subsidized ACA marketplace plans, the period is 90 days, but others last just 30 or 45.

Missing one payment can mean losing coverage. So it’s important to keep a close eye on premiums to make sure they’re paid.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by 麻豆女优 Health News and  that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/insurer-missed-payments-dropped-coverage-florida-bill-of-the-month-march-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2174972&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2174972
鈥楾hey Tricked Me鈥: A Father Was Chained After He Went to ICE To Reunite With His Kids /courts/trump-deportation-immigration-unaccompanied-children-bait-parent-arrests-hhs/ Tue, 24 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000 Carlos arrived at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in New Mexico in December, believing he was one step closer to reuniting with his children. By that point, his 14-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter had been in a federal shelter in Texas for nearly a year after crossing the border to be with him.

“I feel like I’m suffocating inside this shelter, trapped with no way out,” Carlos’ son said, according to one of the teens’ attorneys, when asked to describe how he felt after months at the Houston-area facility. “Every day, the same routine. Every day, feeling stuck. It makes me feel hopeless and terrified.”

During daily video calls, Carlos, who had temporary protected status, urged the siblings to be patient, to trust the process. Federal officials had vetted Carlos before he could be granted custody and told him his case was complete. He believed he would soon be back with his children, who, like him, had sought refuge from political violence in Venezuela.  

An immigration officer called Carlos on a Friday and asked him to attend a meeting at an ICE office the following Monday to discuss reunification with his children. Once Carlos arrived, officers tried to force him to sign documents he said he didn’t understand. When he refused, they stripped off his clothes, seized his ID and belongings, and chained him by the neck, waist, and legs.

“They tricked me,” Carlos said in a phone call from an immigration detention center in El Paso, Texas, where he was held for several months. “They used my children to grab me,” he said.  

In reporting on the family’s story, 麻豆女优 Health News reviewed court documents, spoke with the family’s immigration attorneys, interviewed Carlos, and reviewed statements from his children, translated from Spanish. Carlos is a pseudonym, being used at the request of attorneys concerned that speaking out could jeopardize Carlos’ immigration case or further delay his reunion with his family.

Using Children to Arrest Parents

Since 2003, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement has cared for immigrant children under 18 who arrive in the country without their parents, often fleeing violence, abuse, or trafficking. The office, which in February had more than 2,300 children in shelters or with foster families across the country, is supposed to promptly release them to vetted caregivers, typically parents or other family members already living in the country.

Congress placed this responsibility with the health agency over 20 years ago to prioritize the well-being of unaccompanied children and separate their care from immigration enforcement priorities.

Now the second Trump administration is using migrant children held by the resettlement office to lure their parents, such as Carlos, whether or not they have a criminal record. A 麻豆女优 Health News investigation found the resettlement office, , coordinates with the Department of Homeland Security to arrest people seeking custody of migrant children.

Arrest documents show Homeland Security Investigations, the arm of the agency that normally focuses on organized criminals and traffickers, will interview parents or other caregivers then arrest them if they are in the country illegally. Before Donald Trump returned to the White House, the resettlement office prohibited data sharing and collaboration with immigration enforcement, and it did not deny caregivers custody of children solely because of their immigration status. Those last year.

It’s unclear exactly how many caregivers have been baited into arrest. LAist indicating more than 100 have been arrested while trying to get their kids out of detention, but 麻豆女优 Health News could not independently verify that number with federal agencies.

Since February, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, and Justice Department have not responded to questions about caregiver arrests. Prior to leaving DHS last month, Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the administration protects children from being released to people who shouldn’t care for them. Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, referred questions related to immigration enforcement to DHS.

At the same time, the resettlement office has that make it harder for caregivers to gain custody of unaccompanied children. These include narrowing the range of accepted documents, requiring fingerprint-based background checks for every adult in the home and backup caregivers, and requiring in-person appointments to verify identification documents, sometimes with ICE agents present. The requirements keep “children safe from traffickers and other bad, dangerous people,” Nixon said.

As of January, the agency had detained at least 300 children already placed with vetted sponsors and asked their caregivers to reapply, according to the National Center for Youth Law and the Democracy Forward Foundation. The advocacy groups filed calling these actions “a quieter, new form of family separation.” 

Reverse Separation

Dulce, a Guatemalan mother in Virginia, said her 8-year-old son was sent to a government shelter after he was detained during a traffic stop last summer while visiting family members in a different state.

At first, Dulce expected to get her son back within days — she had passed the government’s sponsorship requirements in 2024 and was reunited with him three weeks after he first crossed the border. But resettlement agency officials asked her to repeat the entire process and resubmit documents, Dulce said. It took eight months to get him back.

Dulce is a pseudonym being used at her request because she fears speaking out could get her deported.

At one point, Dulce was told to attend an interview at an ICE office to show her identification as part of the process of reuniting with her son. She refused out of fear that she too might be detained, because she doesn’t have legal status. She believes ICE agents visited her home at one point.

“I stopped going home,” Dulce said. “I lived with some of my friends for days.”

Even though she lived just 45 minutes away, Dulce was allowed to visit her son only twice a month.

Until recently, most unaccompanied children landed in government custody after being detained at the border. But border crossings started to fall in 2024, and the number of people coming to the U.S. has dropped precipitously in President Trump’s second term.

Now, hundreds of kids have been taken to government shelters after being swept up inside the country, often during immigration raids or traffic stops, according to the advocates’ lawsuit. Many were already living with relatives, including guardians already vetted by the resettlement agency.

Releases have grinded nearly to a halt. According to the resettlement office, children in its custody stayed in government shelters or foster care for an average of one month in 2024. As of February, that had jumped to more than half a year.

Children Face Longer Stays in Resettlement Shelters or Foster Care (Line chart)

When children do get released, it’s often only after their attorneys file a lawsuit in federal court challenging their detention as unconstitutional.

Authorities released Dulce’s son to her in February after the boy’s attorneys filed such a petition. Dulce said she’s relieved to have him back but still anxious that ICE could show up at their house.

Immigrants at Risk

During Trump’s first term, his administration was criticized for of children who had been released from custody. President Joe Biden was blamed for how his administration processed a surge of unaccompanied children that peaked in 2021 with about 22,000 in the resettlement office’s custody. Though most children were placed with legitimate sponsors, some were placed with people who hadn’t cleared , putting them at risk of .

The Trump administration says it is checking on those , and the Justice Department has prosecuted . On March 1, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who is set to leave her role at the , touted a , including the resettlement office, that DHS said had tracked down 145,000 unaccompanied children who had been placed with caregivers during Biden’s term.

Yet internal HHS reports about that initiative obtained by 麻豆女优 Health News show that nearly 11,800 of those migrant children and nearly 500 of their caregivers were arrested as of Jan. 29. Only 125 of those migrant children and 55 of those caregivers were arrested for alleged criminal activity, suggesting the majority were for immigration violations.

HHS referred questions about the figures in the reports to DHS, which did not respond to requests for comment about the data. However, Michelle Brané, who was a DHS official in the Biden administration, said the figures show that most of the arrests were to detain and deport migrants. Previously, the administration targeted parents and caregivers who had paid for children to cross the border, trying to levy smuggling charges against them.

“They have really dropped that pretense in a lot of ways, and they are going for anyone openly,” Brané said. “These numbers clearly reflect that this is not about public safety or about safety of the children.”

Case on Hold

Carlos left Venezuela in 2022 because of death threats and, like thousands of others fleeing that country, was granted what’s called temporary protected status under the Biden administration. That protection for most Venezuelans by the Trump administration.

In January 2025, days before Trump was sworn in for his second term, Carlos’ children crossed the border from Mexico to the U.S., turned themselves over to border authorities, and were immediately placed in the resettlement agency’s custody. Carlos spent months submitting paperwork to reunite with them. He said he’s their only parent, because their mother left when they were toddlers.  

Officials visited his home twice and determined he was fit to care for them, according to court documents petitioning for his release from detention. He passed DNA testing, proving he’s the biological father, one of his attorneys said. His arrest documents show he has “no criminal history.” In July, Carlos was told his reunification case was complete and being sent for approval. But then, with little explanation, the case was put on hold.

Before his arrest by ICE, Carlos said, he drove 14 hours each way from his home to visit his children. Once there, he could see them for only one hour. When he was in detention, he said, he spoke to them about every two weeks in quick, monitored phone calls.

He’s trying to stay hopeful, but it’s hard.

According to documents completed by ICE officers during his arrest and submitted in his court case, Carlos was arrested under an initiative called Operation Guardian Trace, which requires immigration officers to detain potential caregivers if they are in the country without legal authorization and recommend that they be deported.

“This operation is designed to force parents to make an impossible choice between reuniting with their children and seeking safety,” said one of Carlos’ attorneys, Chiqui Sanchez Kennedy of the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, a nonprofit that helps low-income immigrants.

‘I’m Going to Wait’

In March, a federal judge said officials had unlawfully detained Carlos and he was released on bond.

But his children still face an uncertain future for now. Government shelters often lack sufficient resources, , and social workers say lengthy stays in these facilities can result in additional trauma.

“Not only is it bad, full stop, but the longer you’re there, the worse it gets,” said Jonathan Beier, associate director of research and evaluation for the Acacia Center for Justice’s Unaccompanied Children Program, which coordinates legal services for unaccompanied minors.

Carlos’ children could also be sent back to the country they fled. Because of his detention, Carlos will have to redo much of the process to reunite with them, according to an attorney for the children, Alexa Sendukas, also with the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project.

In statements shared through Sendukas, Carlos’ daughter said she no longer wants to be around others and spends most of the time in her room. His son, now 15, described having panic attacks and feeling that he’s missing out on life, whether it’s the opportunities he longs for — to learn English, to study science — or watching basketball with his family.

An adult woman holds up a drawing of Disney's Rapunzel.
An attorney holds up a drawing of Rapunzel by Carlos’ daughter, who said she spends most of her time in her room, feeling isolated like the “Tangled” movie character. (Abigail Gonsoulin)

“I remember when I first arrived at this shelter, I was so hopeful and had faith that I would be reunited with my dad soon,” he said.

Carlos’ daughter spent the day crying in bed when the siblings learned their father had been detained. For days, they didn’t know where he was. Now, they fear the only way out is through adoption or foster care.

“I am afraid,” she said. “I’m going to wait for my dad forever.”

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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/courts/trump-deportation-immigration-unaccompanied-children-bait-parent-arrests-hhs/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2171527&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2171527
As Health Companies Get Bigger, So Do the Bills. It鈥檚 Unclear if Trump鈥檚 Team Will Intervene. /health-care-costs/health-system-mergers-higher-prices-trump-regulators-hospitals-insurers/ Mon, 10 Nov 2025 10:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2104256 A cancer patient might live in a town with four oncology groups, but only one accepts his insurance 鈥 the one owned by his insurer. A young couple could see huge bills after their child is born, because their insurer agreed to the health system’s rates in exchange for a contract with obstetricians across the country. A woman might have to pay a big sum she can’t afford for basic lab tests at a hospital 鈥 inflated rates her insurer accepted so its customers have access to the system’s children’s hospital elsewhere in the state.

And even well-insured patients receive unaffordable bills in this era of high-deductible health plans, narrow insurance networks, and 20% cost sharing.

Health systems, doctor groups, and insurers are merging and coalescing into ever-bigger giants. While these mergers are good for business, studies show the escalating consolidation in health care is driving up prices, harming patient outcomes, and decreasing choice for people who need care. A recent study found that six years after hospitals acquired other hospitals, they had by 12.9%, with hospitals that engaged in multiple acquisitions raising their prices by 16.3%.

These new deals are “mutually enforced monopolization,” said Barak Richman, the Alexander Hamilton professor of business law at George Washington University. “It’s not competition. It’s more like collusion. They don’t care about price.”

Those market factors contributed to a landscape where a dose of the antiviral Paxlovid given in a hospital ; magnetic resonance imaging ; and joint replacements .

President Donald Trump has talked about the burden of health care costs since his first campaign, but he has signaled that his administration’s regulators are less inclined than his predecessor’s to intervene in health mergers.

This summer, President Joe Biden’s that all federal agencies make sure markets remain competitive, reversing course from Biden’s more expansive interpretation of antitrust law. And in a scathing statement upon taking over the Federal Trade Commission, Trump-appointed chair Andrew Ferguson , implying that she had overstepped the agency’s legal authority, as well as criticizing what he called her “clumsy” and “breathless” rhetoric and her focus on the incursion of private equity into health care.

What this will mean in practice is unclear.

In an interview with 麻豆女优 Health News, Daniel Guarnera, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said that the leadership at the FTC and the Justice Department has endorsed guidelines issued by the Biden administration, which he characterized as a “framing device” for companies contemplating a merger.

The expanded , issued in 2023, focused for the first time on a wide variety of new types of anti-competitive practices that had become common in health care, such as hospitals and private equity firms buying doctors’ practices and insurers owning what are known as specialty pharmacies to dispense complicated and often expensive drugs.

Guarnera noted that regulators’ strongest enforcement tool is convincing a judge that mergers violate the Clayton Antitrust Act, a statute that is the foundation of antitrust law. But administrations can interpret this statute differently, and it’s unclear what cases the Trump administration’s FTC will choose to bring.

“The Biden administration tried to be more innovative,” said a professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University’s School of Public Health. “The Trump administration has signaled a more traditional approach 鈥 that it’s unwilling to push the envelope.”

In the battle for profits between insurers and providers, each side insists it needs to grow bigger to hold sway in the negotiations that determine health care prices. But evidence shows the prices that make sense in industry-level dealmaking have little to do with the actual value of the services involved. Instead, they’re merely a data point in large-scale calculations that, at best, reflect the power balance between opposing parties.

Under Trump, the FTC has already sued to block two mergers of medical-device makers and has continued the Biden administration’s challenges of individual drug patents.

“Helping improve the health care system though ensuring that there is more and better competition are very, very high priorities for us at the FTC,” Guarnera said, noting that health care has “enormous effects on both Americans’ pocketbooks as well as well-being.”

But it is far more difficult to take on the more massive entities, and though the number of new mergers dipped as companies navigated the uncertain effects of tariffs and interest rates, consolidation continues.

A recent identified “28 large health systems growing bigger,” noting, “This is not an exhaustive list.”

For example, in May, Northwell Health of New York Connecticut’s Nuvance to become a 28-hospital behemoth with over 1,000 outpatient clinics. That was a more traditional merger, where hospitals in the same region joined to extend their reach and increase their market power.

Meanwhile, companies are creating powerhouses not previously seen in health care, by racking up smaller purchases that aren’t expensive enough to trigger federal review. They include what are known as vertical mergers, which combine companies that provide different functions in the same industry 鈥 most commonly, hospital systems or insurers buying doctors’ practices or specialty pharmacies.

For instance, UnitedHealth Group, the , now owns health insurance plans; physician practices and other providers; data and analytics services; payment processors; a pharmacy benefits manager; and pharmacies themselves. Jonathan Kanter, the competition czar in Biden’s Justice Department, has likened the UnitedHealth amalgamation to Amazon.

Likewise, hospital systems and private companies 鈥 often private equity firms 鈥 are increasingly expanding their reach to different regions, gobbling up hospitals, medical practices, and surgery centers. This kind of consolidation, known as a , allows companies to accumulate huge collections of doctors 鈥 and significant market power 鈥 across the country in particular specialties, such as gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pediatrics, or obstetrics.

Research shows a change in ownership means a change in prices. While pediatrics and obstetrics have traditionally been poorly paid specialties, for instance, they represent a land of opportunity to investors because parents are willing to pay more when it comes to care for their kids.

It used to be relatively simple for regulators to discern when a hospital that merged with its nearby competitor gained monopoly power, rendering it anti-competitive and driving up prices. Health researchers say these new, more complicated types of deals, creating a more complex interplay between insurers and medical providers, have made that tipping point to define.

In health care, even more traditional, vertical consolidation can be problematic, Richman said. “Economic theory says it could be innocuous, like a suit manufacturer opening a store, even though studies show in health care it’s dangerous 鈥 higher prices, poorer quality, less choice,” he said.

For example, patients who have Cigna health plans and need an array of more expensive, often injectable prescriptions must use Accredo, the specialty pharmacy in 2018, even though a different pharmacy may have a better price.

Economists have developed computer modeling to predict when patients will experience higher prices and less choice because of these new types of consolidation. But judges who could nix the transactions are so far “not convinced,” said Daniel Arnold, a health economist at Brown’s School of Public Health.

Experts such as Fuse Brown say new laws and enforcement tools are needed.

“The old laws,” she said, “are just not calibrated to the complexity and novel types of mergers.”

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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/health-system-mergers-higher-prices-trump-regulators-hospitals-insurers/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2104256&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2104256
Guns, Race, and Profit: The Pain of America鈥檚 Other Epidemic /public-health/bogalusa-louisiana-gun-violence-firearm-industry-black-communities-discrimination/ Tue, 19 Aug 2025 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2068804 BOGALUSA, La. 鈥 Less than a mile from a century-old mill that sustained generations in this small town north of New Orleans, 19-year-old Tajdryn Forbes was shot to death near his mother’s house.

She found Forbes face down in the street in August 2023, two weeks before he had planned to move away from the empty storefronts, boarded-up houses, and poverty that make this one of the most troubled places in the nation.

Naketra Guy thought about how her son overcame losing his father at age 4 and was the glue of the family. She called him “humble” and “respectful,” a leader in the community and on the football field, where he shined.

Yet he could not outrun the grim statistics of his hometown. Bogalusa posts some of the worst health outcomes and poverty in Louisiana, a state that routinely ranks among the worst nationally in both. And Bogalusa has endured another indicator of poor public health: high levels of gun violence.

Since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, gun violence has shattered any sense of peace or progress here. Louisiana suffers the nation’s second-highest firearm 鈥 and Bogalusa, a predominantly Black community with 10,000 residents, has seen dozens of shootings and a violent crime rate approaching twice the national average.

A nearby team refused to play football at Bogalusa High School in fall 2022, .

A photo of boarded-up buildings in Bogalusa.
Boarded-up buildings in downtown Bogalusa, Louisiana. Once known as “the Magic City” because of its giant mill and fast growth, the town now struggles with empty storefronts and blight. (Fred Clasen-Kelly/麻豆女优 Health News)

Bogalusa’s mayor, Tyrin Truong, was elected in 2022 at age 23 on his promises to fix entrenched challenges: few youth programs and good jobs, and perpetual crime and blight.

“I ran for mayor because I got sick of seeing our city painted as mini-New Orleans,” he said, “due to the high levels of youth gun violence.”

In January, the Louisiana State Police , accusing him of soliciting a prostitute and participating in a drug trafficking ring that allegedly used illicit proceeds to buy firearms. He has . “I still haven’t been formally arraigned,” he told 麻豆女优 Health News in late July, “and I haven’t been charged with anything.”

Every year tens of thousands of Americans 鈥 鈥 are killed by gun violence on the scale of a public health epidemic.

Many thousands more are left to recover from severe injuries, crushing medical debt, and the mental health toll of losing loved ones.

Most headlines focus on America’s urban centers, but the numbers also reflect the growth of gun violence in places like Bogalusa, a pinprick of a town 75 miles north of New Orleans. In 2020, the gun violence death rate for rural communities than in large metropolitan areas, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Firearms are the No. 1 killer of children in the U.S., and no group suffers more than . More Black boys and men ages 15 to 24 in 2023 than from the next 15 leading causes of deaths combined. Though overall U.S. homicides after the pandemic ended, adolescent gun deaths climbed even higher in the years after, according to , an associate professor in the School of Public Health at Boston University.

“It has all the markers of an epidemic. It is a major driver of death and disability,” Jay said. “Gun violence does not get the attention it deserves. It is underrecognized because it disproportionately impacts Black and brown people.”

Rather than bolstering efforts to save lives, federal, state, and local government officials have undermined them. 麻豆女优 Health News undertook an examination of gun violence since the pandemic, a period when firearm death rates surged. Reporters reviewed government reports and academic research and interviewed dozens of health policy experts, activists, and victims or their relatives. They reviewed corporate earnings reports from gun manufacturers and to politicians.

In polling published in 2023 by 麻豆女优, said they or a family member had been impacted by gun violence such as by seeing a shooting or being threatened, injured, or killed with a gun.

American politicians and regulators have put in place laws and practices that have helped enrich firearm and ammunition manufacturers 鈥 which tout 鈥 even as already damaged by white flight, systemic disinvestment, and other forms of racial discrimination.

President Donald Trump championed gun rights on the campaign trail and has from the National Rifle Association, , “No one will lay a finger on your firearms.” His administration has rolled back efforts under President Joe Biden to address the rise in gun violence.

Emboldened in his second term, Trump to in schools, weaken federal oversight of the gun industry, override state and local gun laws, permit sales , and cut funding for violence intervention.

Trump to review all Biden administration actions that “purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

The Biden administration said “” during the pandemic took its greatest toll on racially segregated and high-poverty neighborhoods.

Black youths in four major cities were as white ones to experience a firearm assault, research showed. Gun suicides reached an all-time high, and for the first time the firearm suicide rate among older Black teens surpassed that of older white teens.

In Bogalusa, the pandemic gun violence spread fear. Among the victims killed were a 15-year-old attending a birthday party and a 24-year-old nationally known musician. Thirteen people were injured at a memorial for a man who himself had been shot. Residents said neighbors stopped sitting in their yards because of stray bullets.

Researchers say communities like Bogalusa endure a collective trauma that shatters their sense of safety. Two years after , his mother says that when she leaves home her surviving children worry that she, too, might get shot.

Repercussions from the surge will last years, researchers said: Exposure to shootings increases risk for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, suicide, depression, substance abuse, and poor school performance for survivors and those who live near them.

“We saw gun violence exposure go up for every group of children except white children, in the cities we studied,” Jay said. “Limits on government funding into gun violence research may stop us from ever knowing exactly why.”

Politics of Pain

The year before Forbes died in Bogalusa, Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, considered the in decades.

In a matter of months, Trump has systematically dismantled key provisions.

Efforts to regulate guns have long proven ineffective against the power of political and business interests that fill the streets with weapons. In 2020, the number of guns manufactured annually in the U.S. hit 11.3 million, more than double a decade earlier, according to . In 2022, the United States had nearly 78,000 , more than its combined number of McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and Subway locations, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, an advocacy group.

A photo of a gun on the counter at a gun shop in Maryland.
A customer looks at a handgun at a gun shop in Capitol Heights, Maryland, in 2023. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

The Biden administration it would attempt to reduce gun violence by adopting a “zero tolerance” policy toward firearm dealers who committed violations such as failing to run a required background check or selling to someone prohibited from buying a gun.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, which licenses gun dealers, has the authority to enforce laws meant to prevent illegal gun sales. In issuing an executive order, the Trump administration , under Biden, the agency targeted “mom-and-pop shop small businesses who made innocent paperwork errors.”

From October 2010 to February 2022, the agency conducted more than 111,000 inspections, recommending revocation of a dealer’s license only 589 times, about 0.5% of cases, an inspector general’s report said. Even when it cited serious violations, the ATF rarely shut dealers down.

ATF leaders that recommendations for license revocations increased after Biden’s zero-tolerance policy was implemented. In April, the Trump administration .

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy last year declared firearm violence a public health crisis. Within weeks of Trump’s inauguration, the advisory. Of the 15 leading U.S. causes of death, firearm injuries received less research funding from the National Institutes of Health for each person who died than all but poisoning and falls, according to in 2024 by Brady, an anti-gun violence organization. that funding, too.

Trump’s Department of Justice abruptly cut 373 grants in April for projects worth about $820 million, with a large share from gun violence intervention.

“We are going to lose a generation of community violence prevention folks,” said Volkan Topalli, a gun violence researcher at Georgia State University. “People are going to die, I’m sorry to say, but that is the bleak truth of this.”

Asked about its policies, the White House did not address questions about public health considerations around gun violence.

“Illegal violence of any sort is a crime issue, and President Trump has been clear since Day One that he is committed to Making America Safe Again by empowering law enforcement to uphold law and order,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.

A photo of President Trump speaking at a podium after being sworn in.
President Donald Trump gives his inaugural address after being sworn in on Jan. 20. (Rosa Pineda/U.S. Senate)

Trump administration officials “want safer streets and less violence,” Topalli said. “They are hurting their cause.”

Garen Wintemute, an emergency medicine professor who directs the violence prevention program at the University of California-Davis, was among the first in the nation to consider guns and violence as a public health issue. He said race plays a significant role in perceptions about gun violence.

“People look at the demographic risk for firearm homicide and depending on the demographics of the people in the audience, I can see the transformation in their faces,” Wintemute said. “It’s like they’re saying, 鈥楴ot my people, not my problem.’”

Eroding Gun Restrictions

Trump’s incursions against public health efforts to contain gun violence are backed by lobbying power.

Firearm industry advocacy groups made millions of dollars in political donations in recent years, mostly to conservative causes and Republican candidates. That includes $1.4 million to Trump, , which tracks campaign finance data.

The assassination of civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. helped lead to the passage of the federal , which imposed stricter licensing rules and outlawed the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons.

While it remains the law of the land, over time, federal and state government actions have significantly weakened its protections.

Most states now concealed weapons without a permit or background check, even though the practice can increase the risk of firearm homicides.

In Louisiana, Democratic former Gov. John Bel Edwards, in office from 2016 to 2024, that would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms without a permit.

Elected in 2023, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry to allow any person over age 18 to conceal-carry without a permit.

The Trump administration has created his executive order to end most gun regulations and which would allow more people with criminal convictions, including for domestic abuse, to own guns.

Figures vary, but some researchers estimate as many as 500 million guns circulate in the U.S. Sales reached during the pandemic and publicly traded firearm and ammunition companies saw .

Donald Trump Jr. this summer of GrabAGun, an online gun retailer that went public in July under the stock ticker PEW. In a , the company, which markets guns to people ages 18 to 44, cited “ organizations that oppose sales of firearms and ammunition” as threats to its sales growth.

A photo of Donald Trump Jr. at the New York Stock Exchange. He smiles, facing to the left, holding his left hand up in a finger gun pose.
Donald Trump Jr. is a board member of GrabAGun, an online gun store that went public on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker PEW. (Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Dave Workman, a gun rights advocate with the , said firearms are not to blame for the surge in pandemic shootings.

“Bad guys are going to do what bad guys are going to do regardless of the law,” Workman said. “Taking away gun rights is not going to reduce crime.”

David Yamane, a Wake Forest University sociology professor and national authority on guns, said the U.S. firearm debate is complex and the industry is often “painted with too broad a brush.”

Most guns will never be used to kill anyone, he said. Americans tend to buy more guns during times of unrest, Yamane added: “It’s part of the American tradition. Guns are seen as a legitimate tool for defending yourself.”

鈥楢 Low Level of Hope’

Once called “,” Bogalusa has become a grim symbol of deindustrialization.

Bogalusa emerged as Black people formed their own communities in the time of Jim Crow racial segregation at the turn of the 20th century.

Racism concentrated Black people in neighborhoods that , reflected in high rates of cancer, asthma, chronic stress, preterm births, pregnancy-related complications 鈥 and, over recent decades, .

Thousands flocked to Bogalusa after the Great Southern Lumber Company built one of the world’s biggest sawmills, establishing Bogalusa as a company town. Racial tensions .

An archival photo of a Black man holding up replica KKK robes at a protest.
Racial tensions followed the growth of Bogalusa in the 20th century. Charles Sims, a leader in the Deacons for Defense and Justice, a civil rights group, holds up replicas of Ku Klux Klan attire in Bogalusa in 1966. (Bettmann/Getty Images)

Members of the local gained national attention in the 1960s for protecting civil rights organizers from the Ku Klux Klan, that burned houses and churches, terrorizing and killing Black people.

As the mill changed hands over the decades, Bogalusa’s fortunes slid. In the mid-20th century, the population surpassed 20,000, but it is now about half that.

International Paper, based in Tennessee, runs the mill as a containerboard factory, employing about 650 people. In 2021, the state announced incentives for the company that included a $500,000 tax break, saying the move would help bring “prosperity.”

A photo of the exterior of a large mill. Smoke or steam billows out of one of a cooling tower.
International Paper, a Fortune 500 company, operates a containerboard mill in Bogalusa that was once one of the largest sawmills in the world. (Fred Clasen-Kelly/麻豆女优 Health News)
A photo of a storefront window with large "Store closing" signs.
A few blocks from the containerboard mill, the main drag in Bogalusa is littered with empty storefronts and boarded-up buildings. (Fred Clasen-Kelly/麻豆女优 Health News)

Businesses remain boarded up along the main drag. Houses still bear damage from Hurricane Katrina, and many streets are eerily quiet.

Nearly 1 in 3 people in Bogalusa live in poverty 鈥 2陆 times the national average.

Bogalusa’s violent gun crime rate people in 2022, higher than Louisiana’s and 1.7 times the national one, according to the nonprofit Equal Justice USA, citing FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data.

In many rural towns across the South, “there is a level of desperation that is more apparent” than in other parts of the U.S., said , a of social justice and public policy.

“They don’t have the same infrastructure to have robust social services. People are like, 鈥榃hat are my life chances?’” Shaefer said. “People feel like there is nothing that can be done. There is a low level of hope.”

An archival photo of a civil rights protest in Bogalusa in 1965. A group of Black men walk in a protest. The man on the left side of the photo holds a sign that reads, "We don't buy where we can't work."
Bogalusa emerged as a battleground for civil rights in the 1960s. James Farmer (far right), national director of the Congress of Racial Equality, walks in a Bogalusa protest in 1965. (Bettmann/Getty Images)

Missed Opportunities

Mayor Truong lamented the violence in Bogalusa after Forbes was killed, , “When are we as a community going to come together and decide enough is enough?”

The federal government had offered one path forward.

The Biden administration provided billions of dollars to local governments through the American Rescue Plan Act during the pandemic. Biden urged them to deploy money to community violence intervention programs, shown to by as much as 60%.

A handful of cities seized the opportunity, but most did not. Bogalusa has received since 2021. None appears to have gone toward violence prevention.

A photo of an abandoned house overgrown with shrubbery. A lone shopping cart is in front of it.
Abandoned houses dot parts of Bogalusa. Mayor Tyrin Truong, who was elected in 2022 at age 23, has promised to reduce crime and blight that plague parts of this community 75 miles north of New Orleans. (Fred Clasen-Kelly/麻豆女优 Health News)

The Louisiana legislative auditor, Michael Waguespack, found that Bogalusa used nearly $500,000 for employee bonuses, which his report said may have violated state law. In some cases, says, payments were not tied to work performed.

Bogalusa officials did not respond to a public records request from 麻豆女优 Health News seeking detailed information about its ARPA money.

Former Mayor Wendy O’Quin-Perrette, who served from 2015 through early 2023, told Waguespack that the city used ARPA money to improve streets and pay the bonuses. “We would not have done it without being sure it was allowed,” she said.

O’Quin-Perrette did not respond to requests for comment.

In a to Waguespack, O’Quin-Perrette’s successor, Truong, wrote that Bogalusa officials didn’t know how the federal money was spent. When he took office, Truong alleged, officials discovered “tens of thousands of dollars of checks and cash” stashed “in various drawers and on desks” in city offices.

Truong defended his stewardship of ARPA funds, saying that about $1 million remained when he assumed office but that the money was needed for more urgent sewer infrastructure repairs. “I wish we could have invested more, invested any money in gun violence prevention efforts,” he said.

In an interview, Truong said the city has been “intentional” about bringing down gun violence, including through a summer jobs program. He pointed to statistics that show homicides decreased from nine in 2022 to two in 2024. “If you keep them busy, they won’t have time to do anything else,” he said.

Asked about his January arrest, Truong said he has political enemies.

“I’m the only Democrat in a very red part of the state, and, you know, I’ve made a lot of changes at City Hall, and that ticks people off,” Truong told 麻豆女优 Health News. He said that he ended long-standing city contracts with local businesspeople. “When you’re shaking up power structures, you become a target.”

Josie Alexander, for , said city officials missed an opportunity when they didn’t use ARPA funds for gun violence prevention. “The sad thing is people here can now see that money was coming in,” she said. “But it just wasn’t used the way it needed to be.”

鈥楾oo Much Trouble Here’

Truong said the city is still reeling from the . He said he was at Bogalusa High School’s homecoming football game in 2022 when one teen shot another. Shots rang out, Truong said, and he grabbed his 3-month-old son and “laid in the bleachers.”

“It’s not a foreign topic to hardly anybody in town, whether you’ve heard the gunshots in the distance, whether you have attended a funeral of somebody who passed due to gun violence,” he said. Many still grapple with trauma.

In December 2022, Khlilia Daniels said, she hosted a birthday party for her teenage niece, praying no one would bring a gun.

The hosts checked guests for weapons, she said.

Yet gunfire erupted, Daniels said. Three teens were shot, including , who died, according to police.

“When someone you know is killed, you never forget,” said Daniels, 32, who held Taylor until emergency responders arrived.

A photo of a Black woman standing outside in Bogalusa, Louisiana.
Khlilia Daniels tried to help save a 15-year-old boy who was fatally shot in Bogalusa in December 2022 at a birthday party for her niece. “When someone you know is killed, you never forget,” she says. (Fred Clasen-Kelly/麻豆女优 Health News)

Tajdryn Forbes was planning his future when he , likely because of a dispute that started on social media over lyrics in a rap song, Guy said.

In a in January, Bogalusa police said they had arrested someone in connection with Forbes’ killing. Authorities had the arrest of a teen in connection with the homicide.

Forbes had been a high school football standout, like his late father, Charles Forbes Jr., who played semipro. When Forbes scored a touchdown, he would look to the sky to honor his dad.

The school praised Forbes for his senior baseball season in : “This young man makes a difference on our campus and on the field with his strong character.”

When hopes for a college football scholarship did not pan out, Forbes worked as a deckhand for a marine transportation company. He saved money, looking forward to moving to Slidell, a suburb of New Orleans.

“He would always say, 鈥楾here’s too much trouble here’” in Bogalusa, Guy recalled.

A photo of Tajdryn Forbes posing with a football and his helmet.
Tajdryn Forbes had been a high school football standout, like his late father, Charles Forbes Jr., who played semipro. When Forbes scored a touchdown, he would look to the sky to honor his dad. (Kevin Magee)
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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/bogalusa-louisiana-gun-violence-firearm-industry-black-communities-discrimination/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2068804&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2068804
Immigrant Kids Detained in 鈥楿nsafe and Unsanitary鈥 Sites as Trump Team Seeks To End Protections /mental-health/immigration-detention-children-monitoring-flores-settlement-agreement/ Wed, 30 Jul 2025 09:00:00 +0000 A child developed a rash after he was prevented from changing his underwear for four days. A little boy, bored and overcome with despair, began hitting himself in the head. A child with autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was forced to go without his medication, despite his mother’s pleas.

“I heard one officer say about us 鈥榯hey smell like sh–,’” one detained person recounted in a federal court filing. “And another officer responded, 鈥楾hey are sh–.’”

Attorneys for immigrant children collected these stories, and more, from youth and families detained in what they called “prison-like” settings across the U.S. from March through June, even as the Trump administration has requested a federal district court judge terminate existing protections that mandate basic rights and services 鈥 including safe and sanitary conditions 鈥 for children held by the government.

The administration argues that the protections mandated under what is known as the Flores Settlement Agreement encourage immigration and interfere with its ability to establish immigration policy. U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee, who is in California, is expected to issue a ruling on the request after an Aug. 8 hearing.

With the agreement in place, children are being held in “unsafe and unsanitary” U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities such as tents, airports, and offices for up to several weeks despite the agency’s written policy saying people generally should not be held in its custody longer than , according to the from immigrants’ attorneys. In the U.S. Department of Justice’s May request to terminate the Flores consent decree, the attorneys demanded more monitoring for children in immigration detention.

“The biggest fear is that without Flores, we will lose a crucial line of transparency and accountability,” said , executive director of the California-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law. “Then you have a perfect storm for the abuse of individuals, the violation of their rights, and the kind of treatment that this country doesn’t stand for.”

The has set minimum standards and oversight for detained immigrant children since 1997, when it brought an end to a decade-long lawsuit filed on behalf of unaccompanied immigrant minors who had been subjected to poor treatment in unsafe and unsanitary conditions without access to medical care. It is named for Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old from El Salvador who was taken into U.S. custody in the mid-1980s, subjected to strip searches, and housed alongside unrelated men.

The agreement established national standards for the protection of immigrant children detained by federal authorities, with requirements for safe and sanitary detention facilities, access to clean water, appropriate food, clothing, bedding, recreational and educational opportunities, sanitation, plus appropriate medical and mental health care. Children in immigrant detention range from infants to teens.

In 2015, Gee ruled that the agreement includes children accompanied by adults.

The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, which includes both the Customs and Border Protection agency and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declined to respond on the record to questions about the administration’s intent to end the Flores agreement or about the conditions in which kids are detained. In a , government attorneys argued, among other points, that the agreement improperly directs immigration decisions to the courts, not the White House. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi also that the Flores agreement has “incentivized illegal immigration,” and that Congress and federal agencies have resolved the problems Flores was designed to fix.

ICE detention facilities have the “highest standards,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email to 麻豆女优 Health News. “They are safe, clean, and hold illegal aliens who are awaiting final removal proceedings.”

Immigration lawyers and researchers have on the idea that the Flores agreement encourages migration, arguing that the conditions in people’s homelands are driving them to move.

Trump is not the first president to seek to modify, or end, the agreement.

In 2016, President Barack Obama’s administration unsuccessfully sought to exempt accompanied minors from the Flores agreement, arguing that an influx of immigrants from Central America had overwhelmed the system.

In 2019, following a , the first Trump administration announced it would replace Flores with new regulations to expand family detention and eliminate detention time limits. The courts rejected that plan, too.

In 2024, President Joe Biden’s administration successfully requested to remove the Department of Health and Human Services from the agreement after the Office of Refugee Resettlement incorporated some Flores standards into agency regulations.

Allegations of unsafe conditions under the agreement also predate this latest immigration crackdown under Trump. One court filing from 2019 said that attorneys visiting two Texas detention centers found at least 250 infants, children, and teens, some of whom had been held at the facility for nearly a month. “Children were filthy and wearing clothes covered in bodily fluids, including urine,” the filing said.

Seven children are while in federal custody from 2018 to 2019, according to media reports.

And in 2023, 8-year-old Anadith Danay Reyes Alvarez became while in Customs and Border Protection custody in Texas for nine days. Her parents had turned over medical records detailing the girl’s medical history, including diagnoses of sickle cell disease and congenital heart disease, upon their detention. Yet her mother’s repeated pleas for emergency medical care were ignored.

Her family filed a in May.

Advocates attributed the deaths partly to prolonged detention in increasingly crowded facilities and delayed medical care. Officials have said they and in the wake of the deaths.

But with the Trump administration’s unprecedented push to detain and deport migrants 鈥 including families 鈥 the threat to the health of children caught up in those sweeps is alarming child advocates.

“Very rarely do you have spikes in populations of detained folk that you don’t see a drastic decrease in the quality of their medical care,” said Daniel Hatoum, a senior supervising attorney at the , one of the groups that filed the wrongful death claim for Anadith’s family.

Recent reports from court-appointed monitors cite continued ; temperature extremes; recreational opportunities; and clothing; and an inability to dim lights to sleep.

Terminating the Flores agreement would remove all outside oversight of immigration detention facilities by court-ordered monitors and attorneys. The public would have to depend on the government for transparency about the conditions in which children are held.

“Our system requires that there be some oversight for government, not just the Department of Homeland Security, but in general,” Hatoum said. “We know that. So, I do not believe that DHS could police itself.”

In the months after Trump took office and the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency began cuts, DHS’ Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, which were intended to add a layer of oversight. After a lawsuit, the Trump administration , but it is unclear how those offices have been affected by shifts in policy and cuts in staffing.

Leecia Welch, an attorney with the legal advocacy group , said the Flores agreement itself, or efforts to hold the government responsible for abiding by its requirements, are not rooted in partisan politics. She said she raised concerns about conditions during Biden’s administration, too.

“These are not political issues for me,” Welch said. “How does our country want to treat children? That’s it. It’s very simple. I’m not going to take it easy on any administration where children are being harmed in their 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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/mental-health/immigration-detention-children-monitoring-flores-settlement-agreement/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2065748&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2065748
Trump Voters Wanted Relief From Medical Bills. For Millions, the Bills Are About To Get Bigger. /health-care-costs/medical-debt-trump-policies-little-relief/ Fri, 25 Jul 2025 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2065016 President Donald Trump rode to reelection last fall on voter concerns about prices. But as his administration pares back federal rules and programs designed to protect patients from the high cost of health care, Trump risks pushing more Americans into debt, further straining family budgets already stressed by medical bills.

Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed this month, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident.

At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in.

Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients’ bills, as well. New federal guidelines for covid-19 vaccines, for example, will to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket.

The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees.

And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. This month, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports.

That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates.

“For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,” said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “The Trump administration is just throwing them off.”

White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration’s health care policies will affect Americans’ medical bills.

The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. “You won’t even notice it,” at the White House after the bill signing July 4. “Just waste, fraud, and abuse.”

But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans’ financial security.

“These changes will hit our communities hard,” said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty.

Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. “When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,” she said. “Medical debt wrecks people’s lives.”

For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network. “People will not seek out the treatment they need,” she said.

Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, and “expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.”

Polls suggest voters were looking for relief.

About 6 in 10 adults 鈥 Democrats and Republicans 鈥 say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to , outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. are burdened by some kind of health care debt.

Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block.

Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Caswell and other , for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers’ credit scores in states that implemented the expansion.

“We’ve seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people’s financial well-being,” Caswell said.

Trump’s tax law 鈥 which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts 鈥 is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade, the office calculated.

The number of uninsured could spike further if Trump and his congressional allies don’t renew additional federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income Americans who buy health coverage on state insurance marketplaces.

This aid 鈥 enacted under former President Joe Biden 鈥 lowers insurance premiums and reduces medical bills enrollees face when they go to the doctor or the hospital. But unless congressional Republicans act, those subsidies will expire later this year, leaving many with bigger bills.

Federal debt regulations developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration would have protected these people and others if they couldn’t pay their medical bills.

The agency issued rules in January that would have removed medical debts from consumer credit reports. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people.

But the Trump administration chose not to defend the new regulations when they were challenged in court by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued the federal agency had exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped.

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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/medical-debt-trump-policies-little-relief/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2065016&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2065016
Trump鈥檚 鈥極ne Big Beautiful Bill鈥 Lands in Senate. Our 400th Episode! /podcast/what-the-health-episode-400-big-beautiful-bill-senate-june-5-2025/ Thu, 05 Jun 2025 18:30:00 +0000 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner 麻豆女优 Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 麻豆女优 Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

After narrowly passing in the House in May, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has now arrived in the Senate, where Republicans are struggling to decide whether to pass it, change it, or 鈥 as Elon Musk, who recently stepped back from advising Trump, is demanding 鈥 kill it. 

Adding fuel to the fire, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill as written would increase the number of Americans without health insurance by nearly 11 million over the next decade. That number would grow to approximately 16 million should Republicans also not extend additional subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, which expire at year’s end. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 麻豆女优 Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann photo
Jessie Hellmann CQ Roll Call
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico
Lauren Weber photo
Lauren Weber The Washington Post

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Even before the CBO released estimates of how many Americans stand to lose health coverage under the House-passed budget reconciliation bill, Republicans in Washington were casting doubt on the nonpartisan office’s findings 鈥 as they did during their 2017 Affordable Care Act repeal effort.
  • Responding to concerns about proposed Medicaid cuts, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican, this week stood behind her controversial rejoinder at a town hall that “we’re all going to die.” The remark and its public response illuminated the problematic politics Republicans face in reducing benefits on which their constituents rely 鈥 and may foreshadow campaign fights to come.
  • Journalists revealed that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s report on children’s health may have been generated at least in part by artificial intelligence. The telltale signs in the report of what are called “AI hallucinations” included citations to scientific studies that don’t exist and a garbled interpretation of the findings of other research, raising further questions about the validity of the report’s recommendations.
  • And the Trump administration this week revoked Biden-era guidance on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Regardless, the underlying law instructing hospitals to care for those experiencing pregnancy emergencies still applies.

Also this week, Rovner interviews 麻豆女优 Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest “” feature, about a Medicaid patient who had an emergency in another state and the big bill he got for his troubles. If you have an infuriating, outrageous, or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, .

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

Julie Rovner: 麻豆女优 Health News’ “,” by Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts.

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

Lauren Weber: The New York Times’ “” by Emily Badger and Margot Sanger-Katz.

Jessie Hellmann: The New York Times’ “,” by Isabelle Taft.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • NOTUS.org’s “,” by Emily Kennard and Margaret Manto.
  • The Washington Post’s “,” by Lauren Weber and Caitlin Gilbert.
click to open the transcript Transcript: Trump’s 鈥極ne Big Beautiful Bill’ Lands in Senate. Our 400th Episode!

[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 麻豆女优 Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 5, at 10 a.m. As always, 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: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the 麻豆女优 Health News “Bill of the Month,” about a Medicaid patient who had a medical emergency out of state and got a really big bill to boot. But first the news. And buckle up 鈥 there is a lot of it. 

We’ll start on Capitol Hill, where the Senate is back this week and turning its attention to that “Big Beautiful” budget reconciliation bill passed by the House last month, and we’ll get to the fights over it in a moment. But first, the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday finished its analysis of the House-passed bill, and the final verdict is in. It would reduce federal health care spending by more than a trillion dollars, with a T, over the next decade. That’s largely from Medicaid but also significantly from the Affordable Care Act. And in a separate letter from CBO Wednesday afternoon, analysts projected that 10.9 million more people would be uninsured over the next decade as a result of the bill’s provisions. 

Additionally, 5.1 million more people would lose ACA coverage as a result of the bill, in combination with letting the Biden-era enhanced subsidies expire, for a grand total of 16 million more people uninsured as a result of Congress’ action and inaction. I don’t expect that number is going to help this bill get passed in the Senate, will it? 

Ollstein: We’re seeing a lot of what we saw during the Obamacare repeal fight in that, even before this report came out, Republicans were working to discredit the CBO in the eyes of the public and sow the seeds of mistrust ahead of time so that these pretty damaging numbers wouldn’t derail the effort. They did in that case, among other things. And so they could now, despite their protestations. 

But I think they’re saying a combination of true things about the CBO, like it’s based on guesses and estimates and models and you have to predict what human behavior is going to be. Are people going to just drop coverage altogether? Are they going to do this? Are they going to do that? But these are the experts we have. This is the nonpartisan body that Congress has chosen to rely on, so you’re not really seeing them present their own credible sources and data. They’re more just saying, Don’t believe these guys. 

Rovner: Yeah, and some of these things we know. We’ve seen. We’ve talked about the work requirement a million times, that when you have work requirements in Medicaid, the people who lose coverage are not people who refuse to work. It’s people who can’t navigate the bureaucracy. And when premiums go up, which they will for the Affordable Care Act, not just because they’re letting these extra subsidies expire but because they’re going back to the way premiums were calculated before 2017. The more expensive premiums get, the fewer people sign up. So it’s not exactly rocket science figuring out that you’re going to have a lot more people without health insurance as a result of this. 

Ollstein: Honestly, it seems from the reactions so far that Republicans on the Hill are more impacted by the CBO’s deficit increase estimates than they are by the number of uninsured-people increase estimates. 

Rovner: And that frankly feels a little more inexplicable to me that the Republicans are just saying, This won’t add to the deficit. And the CBO 鈥 it’s arithmetic. It’s not higher math. It’s like if you cut taxes this much so there’s less money coming in, there’s going to be less money and a bigger deficit. I’m not a math person, but I can do that part, at least in my head. 

Jessie, you’re on the Hill. What are you seeing over in the Senate? We don’t even have really a schedule for how this is going to go yet, right? We don’t know if the committees are going to do work, if they’re just going to plunk the House bill on the floor and amend it. It’s all sort of a big question mark. 

Hellmann: Yeah, we don’t have text yet from any of the committees that have health jurisdiction. There’s been a few bills from other committees, but obviously Senate Finance has a monumental task ahead of them. They are the ones that have jurisdiction over Medicaid. Their members said that they have met dozens of times already to work out the details. The members of the Finance Committee were at the White House yesterday with President [Donald] Trump to talk about the bill. 

It doesn’t seem like they got into the nitty-gritty policy details. And the message from the president seemed to mostly be, like, Just pass this bill and don’t make any major changes to it. Which is a tall order, I think, for some of the members like [Sens.] Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, and even a few others that are starting to come out and raise concerns about some of the changes that the House made, like to the way that states finance their share of Medicaid spending through the provider tax. 

Lisa Murkowski has raised concerns about how soon the work requirements would take effect, because, she was saying, Alaska doesn’t have the infrastructure right now and that would take a little bit to work out. So there are clearly still a lot of details that need to be worked out. 

Rovner: Well, I would note that Senate Republicans were already having trouble communicating about this bill even before these latest CBO numbers came out. At a town hall meeting last weekend in Iowa, where nearly 1 in 5 residents are on Medicaid, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst had an unfortunate reaction to a heckler in the audience, and, rather than apologize 鈥 well, here’s what she posted on Instagram. 

Sen. Joni Ernst: Hello, everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall. See, I was in the process of answering a question that had been asked by an audience member when a woman who was extremely distraught screamed out from the back corner of the auditorium, “People are going to die!” And I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth. 

So I apologize. And I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 

Rovner: And what you can’t see, just to add some emphasis, Ernst recorded this message in a cemetery with tombstones visible behind her. I know it is early in this debate, but I feel like we might look back on this moment later like [Sen. John] McCain’s famous thumbs-down in the 2017 repeal-and-replace debate. Or is it too soon? Lauren. 

Weber: For all the messaging they’ve tried to do around Medicaid cuts, for all the messaging, We’re all going to die I cannot imagine was on the list of approved talking points. And at the end of the day, I think it gets at how uncomfortable it is to face the reality of your constituents saying, I no longer have health care. This has been true since the beginning of time. Once you roll out an entitlement program, it’s very difficult to roll it back. 

So I think that this is just a preview of how poorly this will go for elected officials, because there will be plenty of people thrown off of Medicaid who are also Republicans. That could come back to bite them in the midterms and in general, I think, could lead 鈥 combine it with the anti-DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] fervor鈥 I think you could have a real recipe for quite the feedback. 

Rovner: Yes, and we’re going to talk about DOGE in a second. As we all now know, Elon Musk’s time as a government employee has come to an end, and we’ll talk about his legacy in a minute. But on his way out the door, he let loose a barrage of criticism of the bill, calling it, among other things, a, quote “disgusting abomination” that will saddle Americans with, quote, “crushingly unsustainable debt.” 

So basically we have a handful of Republicans threatening to oppose the bill because it adds to the deficit, another handful of Republicans worried about the health cuts 鈥 and then what? Any ideas how this battle plays out. I think in the House they managed to get it through by just saying, Keep the ball rolling and send it to the Senate. Now the Senate, it’s going to be harder, I think, for the Senate to say, Oh, we’ll keep the ball rolling and send it back to the House. 

Ollstein: Well, and to jump off Lauren’s point, I think the political blowback is really going to be because this is insult on top of injury in terms of not only are people going to lose Medicaid, Republicans, if this passes, but they’re being told that the only people who are going to lose Medicaid are undocumented immigrants and the undeserving. So not only do you lose Medicaid because of choices made by the people you elected, but then they turn around and imply or directly say you never deserved it in the first place. That’s pretty tough. 

Rovner: And we’re all going to die. 

Ollstein: And we’re all going to die. 

Weber: Just to add onto this, I do think it’s important to note that work requirements poll very popularly among the American people. A majority of Americans here “work requirements” and say, Gee, that sounds like a commonsense solution. What the reality that we’ve talked about in this podcast many, many times is, that it ends up kicking off people for bureaucratic reasons. It’s a way to reduce the rolls. It doesn’t necessarily encourage work. 

But to the average bear, it sounds great. Yes, absolutely. Why wouldn’t we want more people working? So I do think there is some messaging there, but at the end of the day, like Alice said, like I pointed out, they have not figured out the messaging enough, and it is going to add insult to injury to imply to some of these folks that they did not deserve their health care. 

Ollstein: And what’s really baffling is they are running around saying that Medicaid is going to people who should never have been on the program in the first place, able-bodied people without children who are not too young and not too old, sort of implying that these people are enrolling against the wishes of the program’s creators. 

But Congress explicitly voted for these people to be eligible for the program. And then after the Supreme Court made it optional, all of these states, most states, voted either by a direct popular vote or through the legislature to extend Medicaid to this population. And now they’re turning around and saying they were never supposed to be on it in the first place. We didn’t get here by accident or fraud. 

Rovner: Or by executive order. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, even before the Senate digs in, there’s still a lot of stuff that got packed into that House bill, some of it at the last minute that most people still aren’t aware of. And I’m not talking about [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene and AI, although that, too, among other things. And shout out here to our podcast panelist . The bill would reduce the amount of money medical students could borrow, threatening the ability of people to train to become doctors, even while the nation is already suffering a doctor shortage. 

It would also make it harder for medical residents to pay their loans back and do a variety of other things. The idea behind this is apparently to force medical schools to lower their tuition, which would be nice, but this feels like a very indirect way of doing it. 

Weber: I just don’t think it’s very popular in an era in which we’re constantly talking about physician shortages and encouraging folks that are from minority communities or underserved communities to become primary care physicians or infectious disease physicians, to go to the communities that need them, that reflect them, to then say, Look, we’re going to cut your loans. And what that’s going to do 鈥 short of RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.], who has toyed with playing with the code. So who knows? We could see. 

But as the current structure stands, here’s the deal: You have a lot of medical debt. You are incentivized to go into a more lucrative specialty. That means that you’re not going into primary care. You’re not going into infectious disease care. You’re not going to rural America, because they can’t pay you what it costs to repay all of your loans. So, I do think 鈥 and, it was interesting. I think spoke to some of the folks from the study that said that this could change it. That study was based off of metrics from 2006, and for some reason they were like, The financial private pay loans are not really going to cut it today. 

I find it hard to believe this won’t get fixed, to be quite honest, just because I think hating on medical students is usually a losing battle in the current system. But who knows? 

Rovner: And hospitals have a lot of clout. 

Weber: Yeah. 

Rovner: Although there’s a lot of things in this bill that they would like to fix. And, I don’t know. Maybe鈥 

Weber: Well, and hospitals have a lot of financial incentive, because essentially they make medical residents indentured servants. So, yeah, they also would like them to have less loans. 

Rovner: As I mentioned earlier, Elon Musk has decamped from DOGE, but in his wake is a lot of disruption at the Department of Health and Human Services and not necessarily a lot of savings. Thousands of federal workers are still in limbo on administrative leave, to possibly be reinstated or possibly not, with no one doing their jobs in the meantime. Those who are still there are finding their hands tied by a raft of new rules, including the need to get a political-appointee sign-off for even the most routine tasks. 

And around the country, thousands of scientific grants and contracts have been summarily frozen or terminated for no stated cause, as the administration seeks to punish universities for a raft of supposed crimes that have nothing to do with what’s being studied. I know that it just happened, but how is DOGE going to be remembered? I imagine not for all of the efficiencies that it has wrung out of the health care system. 

Ollstein: Well, one, I wouldn’t be so sure things are over, either between Elon and the Trump administration or what the amorphous blob that is DOGE. I think that the overall slash-and-burn of government is going to continue in some form. They are trying to formalize it by sending a bill to Congress to make these cuts, that they already made without Congress’ permission, official. We’ll see where that goes, but I think that it’s not an ending. It’s just morphing into whatever its next iteration is. 

Rovner: I would note that the first rescission request that the administration has sent up formally includes getting rid of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] and PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] and public broadcasting, which seems unlikely to garner a majority in both houses. 

Ollstein: Except, like I said, this is asking them to rubber-stamp something they’re already trying to do without them. Congress doesn’t like its power being infringed on, especially appropriators. They guard that power very jealously. Now, we have seen them a little quieter in this administration than maybe you would’ve thought, but I think there are some who, even if they agree on the substance of the cuts, might object to the process and just being asked to rubber-stamp it after the fact. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy continues to try to remake what’s left of HHS, although his big reorganization is currently blocked by a federal judge. And it turns out that his big MAHA, “Make America Healthy Again,” report may have been at least in part written by AI, which apparently became obvious when the folks at decided to do something that was never on my reporting bingo card, which is to check the footnotes in the report to see if they were real, which apparently many are not. Then, Lauren, you and your colleagues . So tell us about that. 

Weber: Yeah. NOTUS did a great job. They went through all the footnotes to find out that several of the studies didn’t exist, and my colleagues and I saw that and said, Hm, let’s look a little closer at these footnotes and see. And what we were able to do in speaking with AI experts is find telltale signs of AI. It’s basically a sign of artificial intelligence when things are hallucinated 鈥 which is what they call it 鈥 which is when it sounds right but isn’t completely factual, which is one of the dangers of using AI. 

And it appears that some of AI was used in the footnotes of this MAHA report, again, to, as NOTUS pointed out, create studies that don’t exist. It also kind of garbled some of the science on the other pieces of this. We found something called “oaicite,” which is a marker of OpenAI system, throughout the report. And at the end of the day, it casts a lot of questions on the report as a whole and: How exactly did it get made? What is the science behind this report? 

And even before anyone found any of these footnotes of any of this, a fair amount of these studies that this report cites to back up its thesis are a stretch. Even putting aside the fake studies and the garbled studies, I think it’s important to also note that a lot of the studies the report cites, a lot of what Kennedy does, take it a lot further than what they actually say. 

Rovner: So, this is all going well. Meanwhile, there is continuing confusion in vaccine land after Secretary Kennedy, flanked by FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Commissioner Marty Makary and NIH [National Institutes of Health] Director Jay Bhattacharya, announced in a video on X that the department would no longer recommend covid vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, sidestepping the expert advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its advisory committee of experts. 

The HHS officials say people who may still be at risk can discuss whether to get the vaccine with their doctors, but if the vaccines are no longer on the recommended list, then insurance is less likely to cover them and medical facilities are less likely to stock them. Paging Sen. [Bill] Cassidy, who still, as far as I can tell, hasn’t said anything about the secretary’s violation of his promise to the senator during his confirmation hearings that he wouldn’t mess with the vaccine schedule. Have we heard a peep from Sen. Cassidy about any of this? 

Ollstein: I have not, but a lot of the medical field has been very vocal and very upset. I was actually at the annual conference of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists when this news broke, and they were just so confused and so upset. They had seen pregnant patients die of covid before the vaccines were available, or because there was so much misinformation and mistrust about the vaccines’ safety for pregnant people that a lot of people avoided it, and really suffered the consequences of avoiding it. 

A lot of the issue was that there were not good studies of the vaccine in pregnant people at the beginning of the rollout. There have since been, and those studies have since shown that it is safe and effective for pregnant people. But it was, in a lot of people’s minds, too late, because they already got it in their head that it was unsafe or untested. So the OB-GYNs at this conference were really, really worried about this. 

Rovner: And, confusingly, the CDC on its website amended its recommendations to leave children recommended but not pregnant women, which is kind of the opposite of, I think, what most of the medical experts were recommending. Jessie, you were about to add something. 

Hellmann: I just feel like the confusion is the point. I think Kennedy has made it a pattern now to get out ahead of an official agency decision and kind of set the narrative, even if it is completely opposite of what his agencies are recommending or are stating. He’s done this with a report that the CDC came out with autism, when he said rising autism cases aren’t because of more recognition and the CDC report said it’s a large part because of more recognition. 

He’s done this with food dyes. He said, We’re banning food dyes. And then it turns out they just asked manufacturers to stop putting food dyes into it. So I think it’s part of, he’s this figurehead of the agency and he likes to get out in front of it and just state something as fact, and that is what people are going to remember, not something on a CDC webpage that most people aren’t going to be able to find. 

Rovner: Yeah, it sounds like President Trump. It’s like, saying it is more important than doing it, in a lot of cases. So of course there’s abortion news this week, too. The Trump administration on Tuesday reversed the Biden administration guidance regarding EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Biden officials, in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade three years ago, had reminded hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid, which is all of them, basically, that the requirement to provide emergency care includes abortion when warranted, regardless of state bans. Now, Alice, this wasn’t really unexpected. In fact, it’s happening later than I think a lot of people expected it to happen. How much impact is it going to have, beyond a giant barrage of press releases from both sides in the abortion debate? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so, OK, it’s important for people to remember that what the Biden administration, the guidance they put out was just sort of an interpretation of the underlying law. So the underlying law isn’t changing. The Biden administration was just saying: We are stressing that the underlying law means in the abortion context, in the post-Dobbs context, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, that hospitals cannot turn away a pregnant woman who’s having a medical crisis. And if the necessary treatment to save her life or stabilize her is an abortion, then that’s what they have to do, regardless of the laws in the state. 

In a sense, nothing’s changed, because EMTALA itself is still in place, but it does send a signal that could make hospitals feel more comfortable turning people away or denying treatment, since the government is signaling that they don’t consider that a violation. Now, I will say, you’re totally right that this was expected. In the big lawsuit over this that is playing out now in Idaho, one of the state’s hospitals intervened as a plaintiff, basically in anticipation of this happening, saying, The Trump administration might not defend EMTALA in the abortion context, so we’re going to do it for them, basically, to keep this case alive. 

Rovner: And I would point out that ProPublica just won a Pulitzer for detailing the women who were turned away and then died because they were having pregnancy complications. So we do know that this is happening. Interestingly, the day before the administration’s announcement, the put out a new, quote, “practice advisory” on the treatment of preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes, which is one of the more common late-pregnancy complications that result in abortion, because of the risk of infection to the pregnant person. 

Reading from that guidance, quote, “the Practice Advisory affirms that ob-gyns and other clinicians must be able to intervene and, in cases of previable and periviable PPROM” 鈥 that’s the premature rupture of membranes 鈥 “provide abortion care before the patient becomes critically ill.” Meanwhile, this statement came out Wednesday from the , quote, ,“Regardless of variances in the regulatory landscape from one administration to another, emergency physicians remain committed not just by law, but by their professional oath, to provide this care.” 

So on the one hand, professional organizations are speaking out more strongly than I think we’ve seen them do it before, but they’re not the ones that are in the emergency room facing potential jail time for, Do I obey the federal law or do I obey the state ban? 

Ollstein: And when I talk to doctors who are grappling with this, they say that even with the Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA, that didn’t solve the problem for them. It was some measure of protection and confidence. But still, exactly like you said, they’re still caught in between seemingly conflicting state and federal law. And really a lot of them, based on what they told me, were saying that the threat of the state law is more severe. It’s more immediate. 

It means being charged with a felony, being charged with a crime if they do provide the abortion, versus it’s a federal penalty, it’s not on the doctor itself. It’s on the institution. And it may or may not happen at some point. So when you have criminal charges on one side and maybe some federal regulation or an investigation on the other side, what are you going to choose? 

Rovner: And it’s hard to imagine this administration doing a lot of these investigations. They seem to be turning to other things. Well, we will watch this space, and obviously this is all still playing out in court. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we could squeeze in. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Arielle Zionts, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast 麻豆女优 Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest 麻豆女优 Health News “.” Arielle, welcome back. 

Arielle Zionts: Hi. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient has Medicaid as his health insurance, and he left his home state of Florida to visit family in South Dakota for the holidays, where he had a medical emergency. Tell us who he is and what happened that landed him in the hospital. 

Zionts: Sure. So I spoke with Hans Wirt. He was visiting family in the Black Hills. That’s where Mount Rushmore is and its beautiful outdoors. He was at a water park, following his son up and down the stairs and getting kind of winded. And at first he thought it might just be the elevation difference, because in Florida it’s like 33 feet above sea level. Here it’s above 3,000 in Rapid City. 

But then they got him back to the hotel room and he was getting a lot worse, his breathing, and then he turned pale. And his 12-year-old son is the one who called 911. And medics were like, Yep, you’re having a heart attack. And they took him to the hospital in town, and that is the only place to go. There’s just one hospital with an ER in Rapid City. 

Rovner: So the good news is that he was ultimately OK, but the bad news is that the hospital tried to stick them with the bill. How big was it? 

Zionts: It was nearly $78,000. 

Rovner: Wow. So let’s back up a bit. How did Mr. Wirt come to be on Medicaid? 

Zionts: Yeah. So it is significant that he is from Florida, because that is one of the 10 states that has not opted in to expand Medicaid. So in Florida, if you’re an adult, you can’t just be low-income. You have to also be disabled or caring for a minor child. And Hans says that’s his case. He works part time at a family business, but he also cares for his 12-year-old son, who is also on Medicaid. 

Rovner: So Medicaid patients, as we know, are not supposed to be charged even small copays for care in most cases. Is that still the case when they get care in other states? 

Zionts: So Medicaid will not pay for patient care if they are getting more of an elective or non-medically necessary kind of optional procedure or care in another state. But there are several exceptions, and one of the exceptions is if they have an emergency in another state. So federal law says that state Medicaid programs have to reimburse those hospitals if it was for emergency care. 

Rovner: And presumably a heart attack is an emergency. 

Zionts: Yes. 

Rovner: So why did the hospital try to bill him anyway? They should have billed Florida Medicaid, right? 

Zionts: So what’s interesting is while there’s a law that says the Medicaid program has to reimburse the hospital, there’s no law saying the hospital has to send the bill to Medicaid. And that was really interesting to learn. In this case, the hospital, it’s called Monument Health, and they said they only bill plans in South Dakota and four of our bordering states. So basically they said for them to bill for the Medicaid, they would have to enroll. 

And they say they don’t do that in every state, because there is a separate application process for each state. And their spokesperson described it as a burdensome process. So in this case, they billed Hans instead. 

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? He presumably didn’t have $78,000 to spare. 

Zionts: Correct. Yeah. And he had told them that, and he said they only offered, Hey, you can set up a payment plan. But that would’ve still been really expensive, the monthly payments. So he reached out to 麻豆女优 Health News, and I had sent my questions to the hospital, and then a few days later I get a text from Hans and he says, Hey, my balance is at zero now. He and I both eventually learned that that’s because the hospital paid for his care through a program called Charity Care. 

All nonprofit hospitals are required to have this program, which provides free or very discounted pricing for patients who are uninsured or very underinsured. And the hospital said that they screen everyone for this program before sending them to collections. But what that meant is that for months, Hans was under the impression that he was getting this bill. And he was, got a notice saying, This is your last warning before we send you to collection. 

Rovner: So, maybe they would’ve done it anyway, or maybe you gave them a nudge. 

Zionts: They say they would’ve done it anyways. 

Rovner: OK. So what’s the takeaway here? It can’t be that if you have Medicaid, you can’t travel to another state to visit family at Christmas. 

Zionts: Right. So Hans made that same joke. He said, quote, “If I get sick and have a heart attack, I have to be sure that I do that here in Florida now instead of some other state.” Obviously, he’s kidding. You can’t control when you have an emergency. So the takeaway is that you do risk being billed and that if you don’t know how to advocate yourself, you might get sent to collections. But I also learned that there’s things that you can do. 

So you could file a complaint with your state Medicaid program, and also, if you have a managed-care program, and they might have 鈥 you should ask for a caseworker, like, Hey, can you communicate with the hospital? Or you can contact an attorney. There’s free legal-aid ones. An attorney I spoke with said that she would’ve immediately sent a letter to the hospital saying, Look, you need to either register with Florida Medicaid and submit it. If not, you need to offer the Charity Care. So that’s the advice. 

Rovner: So, basically, be ready to advocate for yourself. 

Zionts: Yes. 

Rovner: OK. Arielle Zionts, thank you so much. 

Zionts: Thank you. 

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

Hellmann: My story is from The New York Times. It’s called “,” which I don’t know how I feel about that headline, but the story was really interesting. It’s about how police departments are using DNA technology to find the mothers of infants that had been found dead years and years ago. And it gets a little bit into just the complicated situation. 

Some of these women have gone on to have families. They have successful careers. And now some of them are being charged with murder, and some who have been approached about this have unfortunately died by suicide. And it just gets into the ethics of the issue and what police and doctors, families, should be considering about the context around some of these situations, about what the circumstances were, in some cases, 40 years ago and what should be done with that. 

Rovner: Really thought-provoking story. Lauren. 

Weber: With credit to Julie, too, because she brought this up again, was brought back to a classic from The New York Times back in 2020, which is called “” And here are the questions: I will read them for the group. 

Rovner: And I will point out that this is once again relevant. That’s why it was brought back. 

Weber: It’s once again relevant, and one of them is, “Do you have paper mail you plan to read that has been unopened for more than a week?” Yes. I’m looking at paper mail on my desk. “Have you forgotten to pay a utility bill on time?” If I didn’t set up auto pay, I probably would forget to pay a utility bill on time. “Have you received a government document in the mail that you did not understand?” Many times. “Have you missed a doctor’s appointment because you forgot you scheduled it or something came up?” 

These are the basic facts that can derail someone from having access to health care or saddle them, because they lose access to health care and don’t realize it, with massive hospital bills. And this is a lot of what we could see in the coming months if some of these Medicaid changes come through. And I just, I think I would challenge a lot of people to think seriously about how much mail they leave unopened and what that could mean for them, especially if you are living in different homes, if you are moving frequently, etc. This paperwork burden is something to definitely be considered. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think we should sort of refloat this every time we have another one of these debates. Alice. 

Ollstein: So I wanted to recommend something I wrote [“”]. It was my last story before taking some time off this summer. It is about the intersection of Trump’s immigration policies and our health care system. And so this is jumping off the Supreme Court allowing the Trump administration to strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Again, these are people who came legally through a designated program, and they are being made undocumented by the Trump administration, with the Supreme Court’s blessing. And tens of thousands of them are health care workers. 

And so I visited an elder care facility in Northern Virginia that was set to lose 65 staff members, and I talked to the residents and the other workers about how this would affect them, and the owner. And it was just a microcosm of the damage this could have on our health sector more broadly. Elder care is especially immigrant-heavy in its workforce, and everyone there was saying there just are not the people to replace these folks. 

And not only is that the case right now, but as the baby boomer generation ages and requires care, the shortages we see now are going to be nothing compared to what we could see down the road. With the lower birth rates here, we’re just not producing enough workers to do these jobs. The piece also looks into how public health and management of infectious diseases is also being worsened by these immigration raids and crackdowns and deportations. So, would love people to take a look. 

Rovner: I’m so glad you did this story, because it’s something that I keep running up and down screaming. And you can tell us why you’re taking some time off this summer, Alice. 

Ollstein: I’m writing a book. Hopefully it will be out next year, and I can’t wait to tell everyone more about it. 

Rovner: Excellent. All right. My extra credit this week is from my 麻豆女优 Health News colleagues Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts, who you just heard talking about her “Bill of the Month,” and it’s called “.” And that sums it up pretty well. The HHS secretary had a splashy photo op earlier this year out west, where he promised to prioritize Native American health. But while he did spare the Indian Health Service from personnel cuts, it turns out that the Native American population is also served by dozens of other HHS programs that were cut, some of them dramatically, everything from home energy assistance to programs that improve access to healthy food, to preventing overdoses. The Native community has been disproportionately hurt by the purging of DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, because Native populations have systematically been subjected to unequal treatment over many generations. It’s a really good if somewhat infuriating story. 

OK. That is this week’s show. Before we go, if you will indulge me for a minute, this is our 400th episode of “What the Health?” We launched in 2017 during that year’s repeal-and-replace debate. I want to thank all of my panelists, current and former, for teaching me something new every single week. And everyone here at 麻豆女优 Health News who makes this podcast possible. That includes not only my chief partners in crime, Francis Ying and Emmarie Huetteman, but also the copy desk and social media and web teams who do all the behind-the-scenes work that brings our podcast to you every week. And of course, big thanks to you, the listeners, who have stuck with us all these years. 

I won’t promise you 400 more episodes, but I will keep doing this as long as you keep wanting it. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks these days? Jessie? 

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann and , and . 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: I’m on X and on , shockingly, now. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: on Bluesky and on X. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts, .

And subscribe to 麻豆女优 Health News’ “What the Health?” 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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-episode-400-big-beautiful-bill-senate-june-5-2025/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2044702&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2044702
Future of Cancer Coverage for Women Federal Firefighters Uncertain Under Trump /insurance/firefighters-wildfires-women-cancer-toxic-coverage-trump-labor-department/ Fri, 28 Feb 2025 10:00:00 +0000 It took nearly three years to win presumptive workers’ compensation coverage for breast, cervical, and other cancers that firefighters who work for federal agencies may develop because of hazardous exposures on the job.

Now, just weeks after the Labor Department added coverage for those illnesses, firefighters worry the gains may be in jeopardy after the Trump administration deleted information about the expansion of coverage for cancers that mostly affect women and transgender firefighters from a federal webpage and ducked questions about whether it will uphold the policy change made in the waning days of the Biden administration.

“It’s really important to continue to focus on ensuring that those who devote their lives to protecting the public and communities continue to receive coverage through the special claims unit,” said Pete Dutchick, a federal firefighter and volunteer with the advocacy group Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.

The Labor Department’s special claims unit, , processes all federal firefighter claims and provides a streamlined path for those with covered conditions. Wildland firefighters and advocacy groups representing them celebrated that year when federal officials moved to expedite workers’ compensation coverage of cancers tied to their jobs. It was recognition that the dangers of battling wildfires extend long after a blaze is extinguished.

The list of cancers federal officials tagged for streamlined claims processes through the Labor Department’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs included esophageal, colorectal, prostate, testicular, kidney, bladder, brain, lung, thyroid, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia, mesothelioma, and melanoma.

But that initial jubilation soured when it became clear that breast, ovarian, cervical, and uterine cancers were excluded, creating a coverage gap for more than 2,700 people, or about 16% of the more than 17,000 federal wildland firefighters working for the Forest Service and the Interior Department. These are firefighters who are dispatched to federal lands, like in national forests and national parks, and sometimes , as they did when fires swept into Los Angeles in January.

“At first glance, we were ecstatic,” Dutchick said. “And then we’re like, 鈥榃ell, where are the female cancers?’”

Dutchick, who has an 8-year-old daughter, was upset. “I certainly want her to have equal protections when it comes to health if she chooses to get into a field of public service,” he said.

Then this year, as the Biden administration wound toward a close, federal officials addressed the exclusion, adding the cancers to the list in a last-minute change before Donald Trump took office.

“This policy change acknowledges the unique occupational hazards faced by women firefighters and ensures they receive the care and support they deserve,” Christopher Godfrey, the now-former director of the workers’ compensation office, said in a Jan. 6 statement on the Labor Department’s website.

In a statement to 麻豆女优 Health News four days later, Godfrey said the policy change resulted in immediate action for firefighters with new claims.

But in the early days of the Trump administration, the January press release announcing the cancer coverage expansion was deleted from the Labor Department website. When asked whether claims were still being processed for the four recently added cancers, a spokesperson for the workers’ compensation office, Frances Alonzo, told 麻豆女优 Health News, “We do not have any additional updates regarding your inquiry.”

Formalizing the policy change through rulemaking will take months and support from Congress.

Kaleena Lynde is among a generation of women firefighters who developed cancer before streamlined coverage for workers’ compensation claims existed. In 2006, Lynde, then 22, was diagnosed with small cell ovarian cancer during her third fire season on the Shasta Lake Hotshots, an elite crew of firefighters in Northern California. Doctors removed a 5.4-pound tumor almost immediately that year. She’s now cancer-free, but only after multiple surgeries, chemotherapy, and an additional cervical cancer diagnosis three years later. Lynde has since gone on to work various jobs for the Forest Service, including 16 years at Eldorado National Forest doing fire investigation, fire prevention, and dispatch center jobs. She now coordinates wildfire apprenticeships for the agency’s Pacific Southwest region.

A friend recently sent her a link to the , a database tracking the prevalence of diseases among all firefighters, both structural and wildland. It made Lynde wonder 鈥 could her cancers be connected to her work on the fire line?

“I just thought I had bad luck,” Lynde said.

Seeking to fix the omission, more than 15 wildland firefighter advocacy groups, representing Hotshot crews, smokejumpers, and others, signed a September letter to Julie Su, the acting labor secretary at the time. They pointed out that other countries, , already included presumptive coverage for cervical, ovarian, uterine, and breast cancers.

The Labor Department implemented that eased the requirements for covering wildland firefighters’ cancer-related workers’ compensation claims in April 2022 through a Federal Employees’ Compensation Act bulletin. The rules were codified in December 2022 when President Joe Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act.

To qualify, firefighters must have worked for at least five years and be diagnosed within 10 years of their last exposure. Those with unlisted cancers could still file claims through a special unit but wouldn’t receive the same streamlined adjudication for compensation. By September 2024, the workers’ compensation office had received 91 claims for qualifying cancers and heart and lung conditions. Of those, 89 were adjudicated through the special claims process and 84, or 94%, were accepted. Godfrey said that prior to the legislation, only 29% of occupational disease claims for firefighters were accepted.

Rachel Granberg, a wildland firefighter in Washington state, said streamlined processing and reimbursements are important. “It really gives people more bandwidth to worry about how they’re going to manage their life after a cancer diagnosis, rather than just fighting for basic health care.”

Too often firefighters end up crowdsourcing for financial support after cancer diagnoses, she said.

George Broyles, retired firefighter and Forest Service researcher, said that health risks are too often seen as part of the job. “Hazard pay is not going to stop cancer,” he said. Broyles wants federal firefighting agencies to be honest about cancer risks when hiring young workers and then educate them on ways to protect themselves.

The recent policy change meant claims for federal wildland firefighters with ovarian, breast, or uterine cancer were immediately directed to the special claims unit and expedited processing.

The Labor Department’s decision to change course and expand presumptive coverage to female reproductive cancers was sudden. In December, the agency released a statement to 麻豆女优 Health News saying such a change was unwarranted.

Three weeks later 鈥 without pointing to any new published research 鈥 the agency changed course, citing additional consultation with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and with Steven Moffatt, a doctor who specializes in firefighter illnesses. The agency conducts periodic reviews to consider adding new conditions to its coverage.

The Labor Department’s initial exclusion of female reproductive cancers illuminated the repercussions of research on wildland firefighter health in which women are understudied. that only three out of 20 studies evaluated women firefighters’ cancer risk.

But research has confirmed for years that firefighters are exposed to toxic dangers. A Florida firefighters for almost 20 years in the 1980s and 1990s found that firefighting increases the overall cancer risk in female firefighters. In 2022, the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a cancer-causing occupation.

Recent research contributed to the agency’s inclusion of female reproductive cancers, Godfrey said. In 2023, a link between perfluorononanoic acid, a type of PFAS, and uterine cancer. PFAS, which stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a category of chemicals that in the protective gear worn by wildland firefighters. has also linked PFAS exposure to an increase in melanoma. in September identified 12 chemicals that firefighters are exposed to on the job linked to breast cancer.

But now, it’s unclear whether the Trump administration will roll back the new coverage, leaving some federal firefighters unsure whether exposures on the job will leave them scrambling for 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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/firefighters-wildfires-women-cancer-toxic-coverage-trump-labor-department/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=1989123&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
1989123
Biden Rule Cleared Hurdles to Lifesaving HIV Drug, but in Georgia Barriers Remain /public-health/prep-hiv-drug-biden-rule-access-georgia-barriers-remain/ Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:00:00 +0000 ATLANTA — Latonia Wilkins knows she needs to be on PrEP due to her non-monogamous lifestyle. But the 52-year-old Atlanta mother has faced repeated challenges getting the lifesaving drug that can prevent new HIV infections.

Years ago, Wilkins was dating a man newly diagnosed with HIV and went to get tested, she said, but was not offered PrEP.

Since then, Wilkins said, doctors either have told her she doesn’t need the drug or were reluctant to prescribe it. Her insurance through work would not cover a long-acting injectable form that tends to have better results than the original pill form. Getting to appointments across Atlanta for the pills was a challenge. She is now enrolled in a drug trial for a promising PrEP injection but worries about future access and cost.

Preexposure prophylaxis, known as PrEP, reduces the risk of new HIV infections through sex by 99% and among injectable drug users , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among states, Georgia has the of new HIV infections, but residents — especially women and Black patients like Wilkins — are often not getting PrEP, data shows.

A rule enacted by the Biden administration that took effect for many Affordable Care Act plans on Jan. 1 should make it easier for people like Wilkins to get long-acting PrEP injectable drugs.

A new Trump administration adds an X factor to this and other federal health programs. On Jan. 27, the White House announced a federal funding freeze, which sent shudders through health agencies and nonprofits. By Jan. 29, it had reversed the order.

Federal initiatives like the and HIV prevention funding seemed to be affected — and “blocking access to PrEP would have deadly consequences,” said Wayne Turner, a senior attorney at the National Health Law Program.

Georgia has big in PrEP uptake, said Patrick Sullivan, who is an epidemiology professor at Emory University and leads AIDSVu and PrEPVu, which track HIV data and access to the drug — work that is backed by Gilead Sciences, a PrEP drug manufacturer.

Public health experts use what’s called a “PrEP-to-need ratio” to measure how many people at risk of HIV are getting the drug. A higher number is better. In Georgia for 2023, the statewide ratio was 6, while it was nearly 167 in Vermont, .

In Georgia and Nationwide, Those Who Need PrEP Aren’t Getting It

While the ratio for white people in Georgia was roughly 22, it was about 3 for Black people and just over 3 for Hispanic people. And while it was 7 for men, it was just over 2 for women.

“Black people generally are underserved by PrEP, and women are underserved by PrEP relative to men,” Sullivan said.

Increasing PrEP uptake would help the state cut its new HIV diagnoses, said Dylan Baker, associate medical director at Grady Health’s HIV Prevention Program.

Georgia’s rate of new HIV diagnoses was 27 per 100,000 in 2022, according to the most recent available data. That’s second only to Washington, D.C., and more than double the national rate of 13 per 100,000. That amounts to about 2,500 new cases diagnosed in Georgia in a year.

Globally about 3.5 million people used PrEP in 2023, up from 200,000 in 2017 but short of the United Nations’ 2025 target of 21.2 million people, by the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS.

PrEP users in Atlanta report many challenges in getting the drug, including cost, medical providers who don’t prescribe it, stigma, a lack of inclusive marketing, and transportation. Wilkins said she has run up against all of those.

“Here I am telling you that I’m here to get tested because I have come into contact with someone who was living with HIV, and we had a sexual relationship, and you’re not even mentioning PrEP to me,” Wilkins said. “That was a disservice.”

Insurers Now Required To Cover PrEP

Cost has long been a barrier. The Biden administration last fall requiring most insurers to cover the full cost of all forms of PrEP, without prior authorization, along with certain lab work and other services. This includes pills as well as Apretude, an injection given every two months.

That means insured PrEP users should not face , said Carl Schmid, executive director of the , which lobbied for the rule.

It applies to those on the federal marketplace plans and most large private health plans. A similar rule exists for Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans.

Schmid said he does not think the Trump administration will repeal the rule, but he is concerned the U.S. Supreme Court could end coverage for preventive services, including PrEP, when it issues a decision in , anticipated this summer.

The rule will not help the uninsured. In Georgia, which did not expand Medicaid under the ACA, about are uninsured.

“The cost is also a struggle, especially given different people are part of the gig economy, a lot of folks don’t always have access to health insurance,” said Maximillian Boykin, an Atlanta PrEP user.

Expanding Medicaid would help. States that have done so, Sullivan said, “have higher levels of PrEP uptake.”

Winning the PrEP Lottery

Since getting on PrEP in 2019, Wilkins has encountered two doctors who did not want to prescribe it.

One female OB-GYN told her “‘Girl, at our age, we should know better.’” Wilkins said , telling her that such comments are stigmatizing.

When Wilkins moved, she looked for a nearby primary care provider so she would not have to pay for transportation to get PrEP.

But the doctor she found, Wilkins said, told her to find an infectious disease specialist for PrEP.

“‘You’re not treating an infectious disease,’ I say. ‘This is preventive care,’” Wilkins recalled.

Wilkins’ fortunes turned when she was selected to join a study for a twice-yearly injectable form of PrEP.

A photo of Latonia Wilkins posing next to a Southern AIDS Coalition banner at an event.
Latonia Wilkins, an Atlanta mother, has faced several challenges accessing PrEP, an HIV prevention drug. (Darriyhan Edmond)

Lenacapavir, already approved for HIV treatment, showed promising results for HIV prevention in . Wilkins is part of a trial in Atlanta including about 250 cisgender women nationally who have sex with men.

It’s much better than a daily pill or even a shot once every two months, Wilkins said.

She hopes to stay on the drug, but the U.S. list price for lenacapavir as an HIV treatment averages about $40,000 a year.

Gilead last year announced it signed royalty-free licensing agreements with six manufacturers to make generic lenacapavir for 120 primarily low- and lower-middle-income countries.

It’s not clear where it falls with the Biden rule. “We believe it should be covered,” Schmid said, “but want the federal government to state that clearly.”

For many patients, challenges remain. Most people are willing to travel about 30 minutes for routine health care, Sullivan said, but in cities like Atlanta, those relying on public transportation may face longer commutes to PrEP providers. Some who need PrEP have unstable housing without firm mailing addresses.

Privacy is another concern. “Everybody should be able to find a place that’s comfortable,” Sullivan said. “More of that can go on in primary health care.”

Others agree that public health messaging around PrEP services should target more diverse audiences. Dázon Dixon Diallo is the founder of , an HIV, sexual, and reproductive health organization focused on Black women in the Southeast.

“You’re not going to get to us by giving us a 3-second cameo in a commercial about PrEP,” she said. “There’s no story in there for me, right?”

Healthbeat is a nonprofit newsroom covering public health published by and . Sign up for its newsletters .

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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/prep-hiv-drug-biden-rule-access-georgia-barriers-remain/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=1981428&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
1981428
Creating Chaos at HHS /podcast/what-the-health-381-trump-executive-orders-hhs-chaos-january-23-2025/ Thu, 23 Jan 2025 20:30:00 +0000 /?p=1974307&post_type=podcast&preview_id=1974307 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner 麻豆女优 Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 麻豆女优 Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

The second Trump presidency launched with a bang at the Department of Health and Human Services, where a traditional pause on public communications was expanded to an effective stoppage of scientific work, as health agencies were ordered to cancel meetings, travel, and efforts on outside publications. It is unclear how long the order will stay in effect; President Donald Trump’s nominee to run the department, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., won’t go before Senate committees for his confirmation hearings until the end of the month. 

Meanwhile, starting on his first day in office, the new president issued a raft of executive orders aimed at reversing Biden administration policy 鈥 but, notably, none directly addressing abortion, which has been a traditional focus every time the White House changes parties. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 麻豆女优 Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico
Rachel Roubein photo
Rachel Roubein The Washington Post
Rachel Cohrs Zhang photo
Rachel Cohrs Zhang Stat News

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • The Trump administration took a very firm grip on federal agencies this week, sowing uncertainty with blanket cancellations of upcoming meetings and travel 鈥 as well as by implementing a broad pause on external communications. The cancellations reached deep into agencies’ core functions, affecting, for instance, meetings to review grant applications for federally funded research.
  • Kennedy’s confirmation hearings to be Health and Human Services secretary are scheduled for Jan. 29 and 30. Yet questions remain about his nomination, including more recent revelations about conflicts of interest 鈥 such as his financial stake in ongoing litigation with Merck & Co. related to the HPV vaccine.
  • Trump issued a slew of executive orders this week. (It is worth noting that executive orders largely instruct federal agencies to start making a change, rather than constituting the change themselves.) Of note on health, Trump’s orders instructed the removal of the U.S. from the World Health Organization; revoked a Biden administration order to reduce drug prices; and laid the groundwork to undermine health care for transgender people. Notably, though, none of the orders directly addressed abortion.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Rodney Whitlock, a consultant with McDermott+ and an adjunct faculty member at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. Whitlock is a former House and Senate staffer and provides a primer on how Congress’ convoluted budget reconciliation process is supposed to work.

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

Julie Rovner: CNN’s “,” by Brenda Goodman.  

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “,” by Caroline Kitchener.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: The Washington Post’s “,” by Fenit Nirappil.  

Alice Ollstein: The Los Angeles Times’ “” by Karen Garcia and Tony Briscoe. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • The Texas Tribune’s “,” by Eleanor Klibanoff.
Click to open the transcript u003cstrongu003eTranscript: Creating Chaos at HHSu003c/strongu003e

[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 麻豆女优 Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 23, at 10 a.m. As always, and particularly today, 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 Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: And Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

Rachel Roubein: Hi. 

Rovner: I’ll do my best to keep the Rachels straight. Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with longtime Hill staffer Rodney Whitlock, who will help explain budget reconciliation, which is the process by which congressional Republicans are going to try to enact most of President [Donald] Trump’s health agenda later this year. But first, the news 鈥 and it is breaking fast, as I said. 

President Donald Trump was sworn in at noon on Monday and as predicted hit the ground running with a sheaf of executive orders. Many of those have to do with health policy, and we’ll get to them in a moment. But first today, it appears the new administration is taking the tightest hold ever on the workings of the sprawling Department of Health and Human Services, creating chaos, whether on purpose or not. 

Now, every new administration puts a moratorium on what it tells the public as new political appointees integrate themselves into the everyday workings of agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration. But this administration has gone considerably further than ever before, literally grinding to a halt long-scheduled scientific meetings, scientific journal publications including CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, and canceling travel until further notice and basically any communication with the outside world. 

What do we know about what’s happening here? Is this just the sort of government-wide external communication stoppage, or does it have to do with the administration trying to get rid of efforts at diversity, equity, and inclusion? 

Roubein: My colleagues at The Post, Dan Diamond, Lena Sun, and I dug into this on Tuesday and also Wednesday and continuing this morning, and basically our sense of it kind of early on Tuesday was that Stefanie Spear, an HHS deputy chief of staff, key [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] ally, had instructed agency staff Tuesday morning to do this pause on external communications. There was then later a memo that outlined it. In general, we talked to nearly a dozen people, and some of them acknowledged that, yes, it’s expected, some review during a presidential transition so that the new incoming team can understand the vast flow of info to health agencies. But they also said they were confused by the pause’s scope, and as you mentioned, yesterday there were council meetings, travel, etc., paused, then compounded on some of that confusion. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, basic things like study sections, which is when they review grants. I mean, this is basically stopping a $47 billion agency, the NIH I’m talking about now, in its tracks. 

Ollstein: I think that if this continues, you’re going to see a lot of pressure on members of Congress. Even a lot of conservative Republican members of Congress have been very protective of funding for scientific research because of how many jobs it supports in their districts. I mean, we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not more, around the country that are contingent upon this federal funding continuing to flow. 

So I think I’m already starting to see within the scientific community calls for reaching out to members of Congress talking about how much of this investment flows to their district specifically. So we’ll see if that resonates, if these members of Congress are willing to stand up to the Trump administration on things like this. We just don’t know yet. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean this is every research university, every research institution in the country, effectively. Again, we don’t know how long it will last. Some of it I think goes through Feb. 1, but some of it is still open-ended. 

It’s still unclear when those political appointees are actually going to get to HHS, at least at the top. The Senate Finance Committee has finally set a date for a confirmation hearing for Secretary-designate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It’ll be next Wednesday, Jan. 29. The courtesy hearing at the Senate HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee is tentatively scheduled for the next day 鈥 only the Finance Committee actually votes on this nomination. But that nomination remains in a bit of trouble, yes? 

Cohrs Zhang: I don’t know that it’s in any more trouble this week than it was last week or last month. I think there have been more active advertising and outreach by groups that are concerned about his nomination, certainly in the public sphere. But again, these are largely Democratic-backed groups. We have seen Mike Pence’s organization doing some advertising around RFK Jr.’s lack of a鈥 

Rovner: His lack of a pro-life. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, lack of a pro-life record. But I think as we’ve been in the hallways and talked to senators who are generally very concerned about abortion and reproductive rights and those kind of issues, they have not voiced concern about his nomination. They have met with him. They’ve had generally positive things to say. And again, I think part of it’s that they don’t want to get out ahead of themselves before these hearings. But I think there are certainly some Republican senators who do remain concerned about his views on vaccines and public health and just some of the levers that he could use on that front. And so it’s not a sure bet by any means, but I don’t know that there’s been a substantial change in the past week as to whether he gets confirmed or not. 

Rovner: One thing we did see this week were the financial disclosures, which include some interesting things. Alice, is that what you wanted to talk about? 

Ollstein: No, I鈥 

Rovner: Or, no, you want to mention something else? 

Ollstein: Yeah, quickly just to highlight something Rachel said, that we really have not seen widespread organized opposition to Kennedy coming from the anti-abortion movement. Mike Pence’s group is kind of out on a limb by themselves on this one. You have not seen the other big groups join them in opposing his nomination. And even though some of them do share concerns privately, they’re taking a wait-and-see approach. They want to see what he says at his hearing, like Rachel mentioned. He’s been telling Republican members of Congress what they want to hear on the abortion front, promising to do X-Y-Z to impose restrictions through different HHS policies. 

So a lot of people in the anti-abortion movement see Kennedy as someone who can be reached and influenced and isn’t a hardcore abortion rights advocate. And his record is all over the place. He’s basically taken every position possible. So it’s鈥 

Rovner: Like Trump. 

Ollstein: Yeah, honestly, a lot of fluidity there. And so it becomes sort of a Rorschach test where people point to the part that they want to make an argument about. 

Rovner: Any impact from some of these financial disclosures about the fact that he continues to get money from a lawsuit against Merck’s HPV vaccine, among other things? I mean, so he’s got a vested interest in that lawsuit going forward at the same time he’ll be in charge of the FDA. 

Cohrs Zhang: I think from just the feedback that we’ve heard, these agreements are very convoluted, they’re complicated, and I think that this is kind of a case that we haven’t really seen before. I think this was kind of the first disclosure of how he could try to get around some of these conflicts that he obviously has. And I think he is going to divest in a large number of those things. And the people that I’ve talked to who have served in prior administrations who are lawyers say he may have to recuse himself from some of these issues. But the ethics agreement, the wording was pretty vague. I do expect certainly some members of the Senate committees that he’s going to be appearing before to ask potentially for commitments on some of these ethical issues or to explain his position a little bit more. 

But I think what we’re seeing with the Merck and HPV vaccine is where he’s involved in referring clients to the law firm, and that’s going to stop going forward. He’ll have to divest from any case that involves United States government directly or these vaccine programs directly. But that lawsuit itself is kind of a post-program lawsuit where people have gone through, they’ve claim they’ve been injured, they’ve gone through the government program already, they’ve received their decision, and now they’re taking it further into court. So it certainly is going to be a live issue, absolutely expected to come up. But in terms of actually operating a very large agency, this Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a, relatively, a very small part of what they do. 

Rovner: All right, well, back in the White House, as I mentioned, the new president’s executive orders issued Monday covered everything from immigration, to renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, to ordering federal workers back to the office, to pulling the U.S. out of the World Health Organization. 

Now, most of these orders don’t carry the force of law. They direct federal agencies to start the process of carrying out these changes, and most could and will, and some already are, being challenged in court. But they certainly signal a dramatic change of direction the Trump administration intends to take. Let’s start with drug prices. This is an issue that Trump has been 鈥 another issue Trump has been 鈥 all over the place on. He revoked [President Joe] Biden’s executive order to have HHS look at ways to reduce out-of-pocket drug spending. That doesn’t really do anything, but does it suggest anything about whether the new administration will pursue the next round of Medicare drug price negotiations on the 15 drugs that the Biden administration named just, oh, what, a week or two ago? 

Roubein: The Biden administration, they put out very clearly, right before the change of administration, their Medicare drug negotiation list. And on a call with reporters, a lot of people asked, OK, do you expect the Trump administration to change these drugs that you have listed? And their belief is that it was pretty firm in statute the data that they needed to look at, and they didn’t expect an actual change in those drugs, which include the major weight loss drugs. So people had been really highly anticipating this second round. 

Rovner: At least Ozempic and Wegovy, that one, not all of the weight loss drugs. I don’t think I realized until I started getting into this that even if the administration doesn’t pursue the negotiations, there would still be caps on the prices of these drugs, right? I mean, that’s written into the statute. 

Cohrs Zhang: The statutory deadlines are pretty nonnegotiable. I guess there could be some lawsuits against HHS maybe for not implementing the program on schedule, but it is pretty formulaic for how these steps have to happen. I don’t know that the caps automatically go into effect if the negotiation process isn’t happening. We are kind of in uncharted territory here, testing the boundaries of the program. But I don’t know that the CMMI [Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation] demonstrations that we saw, I wouldn’t read that as an indicator of how they plan to proceed on negotiation, given it’s kind of like a win handed to Trump on a silver platter. So I think we’ll have to watch and stay tuned. 

Rovner: I mean, that’s sort of the mysterious part of all of this is that a lot of things that were set in motion by the Biden administration that haven’t happened yet and will happen seemed to be something that Trump could just say, “Hey, look, it happened on my watch, therefore I get credit for it.” Rachel, you’re nodding. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yes, absolutely. We’ve seen this 鈥 the Biden administration with surprise billing laws, too. That was passed under Trump and kind of was more implemented through Biden. So it’s not unheard of. This strategy happens every time. 

Rovner: Well, on the Affordable Care Act, Trump is effectively ordering the rollback of some of the things that the Biden administration did to increase enrollment, like boost outreach and lengthen enrollment periods. What else are we expecting on the ACA front, or at least administratively? I know that the big legislative push is going to be on whether or not to extend the additional subsidies that were created under the Biden administration. But do we think that Trump’s going to launch another effort, broadside, on the Affordable Care Act to make it not work, or might he just let it go this time? 

Ollstein: I think that this past week has shown that health care is not a priority for this administration. So yes, they are moving to try to roll back a lot of Biden initiatives on this front, but they aren’t really proposing anything new or anything very sweeping. And so I think, like we saw in his first administration, there is a lot they could do administratively to sort of chip away at it and make it less successful in various ways. But I think also the longer the law is in place, the more baked into the health care system it is, the more popular it’s become, the more people who are enrolled. Way more people are enrolled now, and particularly in red states, than were enrolled when he first took a whack at it in 2017. And so I think the sort of, like you said, broadside will be more difficult this time around and doesn’t seem to be on the front burner anyway. 

Roubein: I think for some of this past is prologue when obviously in 2017 Republicans did not repeal the ACA, and then the Trump administration through regulation, which took time, tried to put their stamp on it, like with changing rules to make short-term health plans more accessible. So that all is longer and it’s kind of more in the weeds, but I think that’s what we should look out for. And then the other big thing being if Congress, a Republican-controlled Congress, extends the Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies, that’ll be a big fight for 2025. 

Rovner: And of course if they go after Medicaid, which people keep forgetting is a big piece of the Affordable Care Act, was the expansion of Medicaid. Rachel C., you wanted to say something. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yes, I just wanted to flag that Theo Merkel, who worked in the last White House and worked on a lot of these ACA rules and plans and thinks in a very sophisticated way about health care from a conservative perspective, is going back to the White House. So I think we may see some of these efforts that may not capture headlines in the same way and they may be kind of wonky, but they definitely can have a measurable effect on price transparency, on the ACA, on some of the way that these markets work. So I wouldn’t expect it to be something that Trump is talking about from a podium, but I think behind the scenes I am expecting some creative thinking on these things. 

Rovner: So speaking of things that Trump has not made a priority, he has not done anything explicitly about abortion with these executive orders. That’s a little bit surprising. And he’ll actually be in California touring the fire damage on Friday when the annual March for Life comes to D.C. And we will talk more about abortion and reproductive health shortly. But one of the executive orders, called, quote, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” could have some pretty far-reaching consequences. Right, Alice? 

Ollstein: Yes, absolutely. So the order is very sweeping, and it’s basically getting rid of any federal recognition of trans or nonbinary people on all fronts. And so this will impact what documents people are able to get. It will influence what services they’ll be able to access in terms of shelters that are gender-segregated. People who are incarcerated, if they’re federally incarcerated, this gets rid of their right to gender-affirming care while incarcerated, so it’s sort of forcibly detransitioning people essentially who are in custody. Yeah, I think that this is sort of going under the radar but is going to be one of the most impactful orders they’ve done so far. 

Going back to the abortion front just for a second, I, too, thought it was very notable that they had nearly 80 Biden regulations on a list on Day 1 they were getting rid of and not a single one pertained to abortion. And I’ve been hearing from the anti-abortion community a lot of frustration and hope that he’ll still do some of these things, but he’s been the first Republican president in decades and decades to not do some of these things on Day 1 or Day 2, things like the Mexico City policy, changing the Title X program domestically. So I’m hearing from anti-abortion activists. They’re sort of asking each other How patient should we be? or How much should we push back and criticize being sort of left off the agenda? 

Rovner: Some sharp-eyed analysts also noted that the language of the executive order defines male and female as starting at conception, which in addition to being biologically not quite accurate 鈥 you cannot differentiate embryos as male or female until they are several weeks old 鈥 it also introduced the concept of personhood into the federal lexicon. Or is that reading too much into it? 

Ollstein: Yeah, I did see a lot of jokes about how under federal law everyone is a woman now because of defining sex at conception rather than at birth. I mean, we see tons of medically inaccurate language in tons of laws all the time. So it is unclear whether this is a personhood gambit or just a misunderstanding. I think obviously this is going to be challenged in court, and I’m curious if either the challengers or judges zero in on that sort of personhood-y language and try to make anything of it. 

Rovner: Well, there are a lot of judges that would like to create personhood, so I guess it depends where these things end up in court. 

Moving on to reproductive health. As I mentioned earlier, President Trump has so far been pretty mum on this issue, but the new Congress has not. Both the House and the Senate have teed up something called the Born-Alive Child Protection Act, which basically restates law that a baby born alive should receive needed medical care and that infanticide is illegal. The Senate voted yesterday, Wednesday, which was also the 52nd anniversary of the now-defunct Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, and it failed to get the 60 votes needed to block a filibuster. So it’s not going to become law, at least not right now. But passing the bill was never the actual point of this exercise, right? 

Ollstein: Well, what’s fascinating is 鈥 so they’ve taken messaging votes on this exact bill multiple times before. What’s fascinating to me is that given that it is more or less a messaging vote, why they chose this policy rather than something more sweeping that the anti-abortion people would like to see, like a gestational ban or restrictions on abortion pills. This is seen as sort of the lowest rung. It is important for the anti-abortion movement and they’re touting the vote, but it is a lower ambition than some of the bills we’ve seen Congress take up in the past. 

I think it is interesting that we’re not going to get a chance to see how Trump would deal with this if it passed. I think there’s going to be a lot of interesting tensions around his promise on the campaign trail to not meddle in abortion from the federal level, whereas Congress could send him things that do that and he’ll have to make a decision either way. 

Roubein: We kind of saw the same playbook in 2023 when Republicans controlled the House and there was thinking, because that was the first year after Roe v. Wade had been overturned, that maybe they would bring up something like a 15-week ban and there was talk of that, and then they ended up not doing that and bringing up this legislation that is being voted on. And that’s been a signal to many that this is not something Republicans want to take a vote on, which is a ban it at a certain point in pregnancy. 

Rovner: Well, and I think this low-hanging fruit shows what we’ve known for a long time, which is that neither side has a filibuster-proof majority on anything that has to do with abortion, either for abortion rights or against them. I mean, this is why all the people who were complaining that the Democratic Congress should try to pass some kind of assurance of abortion rights, codify Roe v. Wade, there have never been the votes for that. 

Cohrs Zhang: They did try, and it fell short. 

Rovner: They did try, yes. They did try, and it didn’t happen, because neither side has the votes and neither side has actually had the votes since Roe v. Wade passed. In the early 1980s, the Republican Senate under President [Ronald] Reagan tried to pass constitutional amendments. They didn’t have the votes for that, either. Both sides have sort of struggled with this for decades now, and I think it looks like the struggle will continue. 

Well, speaking of the struggle continuing, in news you might’ve missed, just before leaving office last week, President Biden issued a statement recognizing the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Talk about things from the 1980s. This is actually from the 1970s. This is a very long-running saga, since Virginia became the 38th state to vote to ratify the amendment in 2020. Now, Biden recognizing the amendment as law is a big deal, but not the deal that would actually make it happen, right? Or is it now a part of the Constitution? What do we know about the status of the Equal Rights Amendment? 

Ollstein: So what President Biden did doesn’t have any immediate effect. It will have to be litigated, basically. He’s putting out his theory that it is part of the Constitution, but it will take people suing under it and citing it to force courts to determine whether or not they agree. And I’ve been hearing a lot of frustration from progressives that he didn’t kick off this entire process years earlier. He could have had his solicitor general out in court arguing for this. And we know how long these court battles take, years and years and years. And so there’s a lot of frustration that he didn’t kick off that process sooner so that people could have an answer by this point, potentially. 

I talked to some folks in the White House behind the scenes who were saying: Look, the president’s view on this has had to evolve. It was influenced by the American Bar Association coming out with a statement saying they view it as ratified. They were explaining that Biden was always a supporter of the ERA but wasn’t sort of clear on what he could do and what the status of the law is. And so it is interesting that you have, in the wake of this announcement, folks on both the left and the right saying: This is theater. This doesn’t really do anything. 

Rovner: I guess what would’ve done something is, I think, that the national archivist has to publish it, which is what makes it an amendment to the Constitution, what marks it as ratified. 

Ollstein: Yes, but you have鈥 

Rovner: The archivist said she can’t do that, because the Justice Department has an opinion that Virginia happened too late. I mean, that’s what the fight is about. Has it, quote-unquote, “expired,” or because the period that was supposed to end was only in the preamble and not in the language of the amendment, does the amendment stand? And that’s the legal fight, right? 

Ollstein: Right. And so you have folks like Sen. [Kirsten] Gillibrand who’ve been really out in front on this saying that that is a mere technicality. The archivist works for the president. The president did her job for her was the line I was getting. And the archivist taking that particular action doesn’t really matter. It’s sort of just a technicality. Other people disagree and say that because she didn’t take that step, none of this means anything. And so, again, this will have to be hashed out in court over years, likely. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, the reason we’re talking about this in the sort of reproductive section of the podcast is that if the Equal Rights Amendment were actually part of the Constitution, it would basically create a constitutional right to abortion, yes? 

Ollstein: That is what some people argue. Again, this’ll be fought over in court for years to come. But the basic argument is, yes, if there is an amendment in the Constitution for women’s equality under law, then, some people argue, being denied the right to access abortion when men are not denied the right to access their health care services, that is an actionable discrimination. And one thing that’s interesting to me is that both progressives and conservatives view the ERA this way, and you had anti-abortion groups waging years-long campaigns against it, citing the potential for its use to expand abortion access. 

Rovner: Wow. All right, so while we are on the subject of the Supreme Court, down in Texas, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, he of the controversial case aimed at canceling the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, has officially revived the case after the Supreme Court ruled its original plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue. Now the case will be carried forward by attorneys general of three conservative states. Now what happens? 

Roubein: This case would be prohibiting telehealth prescriptions for mifepristone, changing when people can use mifepristone in pregnancy from the current 10 weeks to the previous seven weeks. This would not be revoking the original approval in 2000 of mifepristone. 

Rovner: Which is what Judge Kacsmaryk originally said they could do and was overruled by 鈥 even the conservative 5th Circuit said, Yeah, maybe you can roll back the expansion of availability, but you can’t cancel the actual approval, although we will wait to see what the Trump administration would get, somebody installed at the FDA decides to do on that score. 

Also in Texas this week, Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick I guess unexpectedly called for the state to amend its abortion ban to make clear that women with life-endangering pregnancy complications can have an abortion if needed. Alice, this has been the subject not just of debate but of a lawsuit that went to the Texas Supreme Court. How big a break is this with a leading Texas Republican? And could something actually happen during this year’s legislative session? 

Ollstein: So I mean, looking across the country, we have seen here and there Republicans coming out and saying that, The law we passed banning abortion is having consequences we did not intend. And so some have moved to add more exceptions, singling out things like ectopic pregnancies. Some have changed how people can be prosecuted under these bans, moving from affirmative defense, where we prosecute a doctor and then the doctor can exonerate themself after the fact, to having a real exception for certain medical instances. 

But we’ve seen in a lot of states, even when prominent Republicans come out and say, We need to do something 鈥 people are dying, we’ve seen things not happen and a real resistance to changing these laws from lawmakers, from anti-abortion organizations that are very influential in these different states. And so I am not sure that this is necessarily a huge breakthrough, just based on what we’ve seen in other states, because we’re also seeing at the same time calls for making a lot of these laws even stricter. And so we’re seeing both. We’re seeing both people calling for exceptions and loosening some things, and we’re seeing calls for tightening some things as well. 

Rovner: The fight rages on. Well, finally this week I want to note , who was a longtime leader in the abortion rights movement, including a dozen years as head of Planned Parenthood. She was a daughter of the late Texas governor Ann Richards and the mother of former press secretary to then-Sen. Kamala Harris, Lily Adams. Even during her fight against an aggressive brain cancer, Cecile continued to try to work to advance the cause of reproductive health for women. She was respected, I think, by both sides. 

All right, that is the news for this week. Before we get to our interview, I have a quick correction. Last week I got the first name wrong of the new governor of West Virginia, which is doubly embarrassing because I have known him for more than two decades. It’s Patrick Morrisey. All right, now we will play my interview with Rodney Whitlock, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Rodney Whitlock. Rodney, who has worked as a senior staffer in both the House and the Senate, is a veteran of many, many pieces of health legislation, both large and small. He’s currently vice president at McDermott Plus, a D.C. health policy consulting firm, and one of the people I still turn to when I get confused about some piece of congressional minutia. He’s also played “What the Health?” host at various live events around Washington and done it very well. Rodney, thank you for being here as a guest. 

Rodney Whitlock: It is absolutely a pleasure to be with you, friend. I am looking forward to it. 

Rovner: So I have asked you to come help me explain as briefly as we can the congressional budget process and budget reconciliation, in particular. President Trump and congressional leaders keep talking about a, quote, “big, beautiful bill” or possibly two “big, beautiful bills” into which they would like to pour most of the president’s agenda. But there’s an entire process to go through before we get there. So let’s start at the beginning. What’s the annual budget resolution? How does it work, and why do we need it? 

Whitlock: Well, that’s an interesting question, since we haven’t had one around here forever. It’s like we have to go, “Oh, what is that again?” All right. So where we start is this, that Congress has the ability through the budget resolution process to create instructions, we call them reconciliation instructions, that allows them to make significant changes without facing a filibuster in the Senate. And so the annual budget resolution process, which produces the appropriations, etc., we’ve gotten to the point that we barely pay attention to when that occurs, because it’s not really an enforceable, or something you used to watch when you and I were much younger, as the regular process, what we would have called regular order. It only becomes interesting when they say, OK, but now we’re going to do it and we’re going to do it in unified government through budget reconciliation, which means now we’re playing with majority rules in both bodies, which allows for them to make significant changes, as we saw in ’21-’22 when Democrats are in control. Republicans tried in 2017. Democrats succeeded through the ACA in 2009-’10. So that’s where we are. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, the budget resolution is supposed to set the terms of spending both in the annual spending bills, the appropriations, and in spending that is not subject to annual appropriations, because it’s mandatory and it goes on unless Congress does something to stop it. So you don’t really need a budget resolution to do the spending bills, even though they’re supposed to set what we call the top line, the overall number, which is why the spending bills happen no matter what. But you do need a budget resolution to do reconciliation, right? 

Whitlock: That is correct. Because that allows the Senate 鈥 listen, the House has to do their job. I don’t mean to be disrespectful of the place I spent 10 years in, but I spent 11 years in the other place, so I can be disrespectful to a degree. The House, they have to do their part of it, but the game, the rules, why it matters is all about the Senate. 

Rovner: So what typically goes into a reconciliation bill as opposed to what goes into the annual spending bills? I think that’s where people get really confused. 

Whitlock: Sure. It’s especially relevant for mandatory programs and the ability to be able to make changes to mandatory programs through this special process that avoids the use of the filibuster. Generally the spending bills, at the end of the day, they come up with some agreement, although we’re still waiting for this fiscal year’s agreement, that is generally related to the appropriations bills. It doesn’t get into the mandatory side, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, where there’s a lot of money. And so if you want to do things there鈥 

Rovner: And the spending bills are not allowed to get into the mandatory side. 

Whitlock: They’re not supposed to get into them. You and I are having this wonderful conversation where we’re talking about, OK, this is how it’s supposed to happen, and then we step back and go, OK, now this is how it actually happens. So they’re not supposed to, authorizing on appropriations, blah, blah, blah. You’re not supposed to do that. But then we end up with 5,800-page bills, going, There’s a lot in here beyond just simple appropriations. So, yes, that “supposed to” thing. 

Rovner: They’re not really in the bill. They’re just catching a ride on the bill. 

Whitlock: Exactly. 

Rovner: So you’ve sort of explained why health is always a big part of a budget reconciliation bill. Because of those big programs or because it’s so much money or both? 

Whitlock: It is both. We have three monstrous mandatory programs that take up a huge chunk of our spend: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Why do we end up talking about health care? Medicare and Medicaid. And because Social Security by statute is not allowed to be used, is not allowed to be touched through reconciliation. And so that leaves you Medicare, Medicaid 鈥 health care. 

Rovner: And taxes of course, which is the big thing that gets changed through reconciliation, which they don’t have to use reconciliation for, but they do because it can’t be filibustered in the Senate, right? 

Whitlock: Correct. And the directional can vary based on who’s in charge. You can use reconciliation to increase taxes. You can use reconciliation to decrease taxes within the rules of reconciliation. 

Rovner: And those are within the parameters of the budget resolution. 

Whitlock: Correct. Which is set by the Budget Committee then goes to each floor for a vote, must be unified, must give specific instructions with specific amounts to specific committees, and each then must meet those or the whole thing falls. 

Rovner: That’s right. 

Whitlock: And so that’s why the budget resolution and that process is really important. 

Rovner: And that’s Step 1, right? Which is really three steps. House has to do a budget resolution, Senate has to do a budget resolution, and then they have to agree on a final budget resolution. 

Whitlock: Correct. And what they’re trying to do is avoid that third step by having the same one pass through both bodies, preclearance, etc., of trying to make sure they don’t have to do it twice. But certainly that’s part of the challenge they face is figuring out, and as you started in the conversation, which is: How are they going to do it? How are they setting it up? Very complicated stuff, to say the least. 

Rovner: So under regular order, you get the budget resolution. It has reconciliation instructions. It sends the committees with jurisdiction over those programs off to meet those instructions, which may, say, add several billion dollars or cut several billion dollars or do some specific things. And then that all gets bundled together and sent to each floor. Right? Do I have it right so far? 

Whitlock: That’s correct. It’s each committee has to deliver. In the House, again, doesn’t matter as much. They have to do theirs, and they want to get as close as possible. But at the end of the day, the House doesn’t have to worry about the Byrd Rule. It’s only in the Senate where the Byrd Rule has teeth and really matters. And that determines what is or is not eligible to be in a reconciliation bill. So the House will go through their process, and the House is going to try as much as they possibly can. And the House has a very vested interest. The House doesn’t want to be told by the folks in the Senate, having worked in both bodies I can speak to that, which is the House does not want to be told, Well, that’s cute of you, but you can’t do that, because the Byrd Rule. They want to do as much as they can with their own authority, not have to dance to the tune being sung by the Senate. 

Rovner: And explain what the Byrd Rule is, please. 

Whitlock: I was wondering when we were going to get to that. OK, the Byrd Rule. Essentially what happened was is that Sen. [Robert] Byrd, who was a longtime senator from West Virginia, scion of the process, he cared very much about how things were going in terms of reconciliation and how it was being used. 

In 1985, the Senate adopted a rule that basically allows you to continue with the reconciliation, but it limits how it can be used. It’s referred to as the Byrd Rule, and it was because Sen. Byrd himself felt like it was being abused. It was not being used for its intended purpose. It was being used to accomplish policy outside of that. So a rule was adopted as a six-part test, which then allows for a restriction on what you can do and a limitation on how it could be in, what meets the test. 

Rovner: Who decides what’s in or out? I mean, basically there has to be a referee to say you can put this in reconciliation or you can’t. 

Whitlock: All right, so this is complicated, but it is 鈥 effectively the way the process works is that these six-part tests, if you write a provision that goes in the reconciliation bill, down to the sentence, that it can be challenged. The technical way the challenge works is a member will stand up on the Senate floor and say, I object under the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, that under Section whatever whatever whatever, that this provision in Title X, Section A, of whatever bill, of the reconciliation bill, violates the Byrd Rule. Then the president pro tempore, whoever’s standing up there, my former boss, Sen. [Chuck] Grassley, or whoever is there, then says yes or no it does 鈥 does or does not. Then the Senate, if there’s an objection, has to vote. 

Now, what’s critical is to override the ruling of the chair requires 60 votes. So in a tightly controlled Senate, 53-47, which is where we are, there’s no chance it’s being overridden. Now, the step I left out there, which is important: Who actually says that? It is the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who’s been there for the better part of 15 years. And it’s her job to listen to both sides make their arguments and determine prior to that moment where that member stands up, because they know it’s coming, which direction she would rule. She then turns to the president pro tempore and says, This is what the ruling is. The president pro tempore or the vice president repeats that. And that’s how the process goes. 

Rovner: In theory. 

Whitlock: In theory. We, the Senate have always depended upon everybody following the rules. The president pro tempore does not have to repeat what is said. That’s never happened. That is 鈥 we’ve never had 鈥 there have been challenges. Some have been overridden, some have been upheld, but we’ve never had gamesmanship where the president pro tempore ignores the ruling of the parliamentarian. We’ve had parliamentarians fired over whether or not the majority leader liked the ruling, but we’ve never had the ruling ignored. 

And so we’ll see if Republicans have to use that. We watched it to see if they would do it in ’17. We watched what the Democrats would’ve done in 2009-’10, ’21-’22. To date, everybody’s followed the rules 鈥 barely, but they have. And those rules are the Byrd Rules. 

Rovner: So what is the most important thing to know about the Byrd Rule, which is obviously what dictates what can and can’t be in this bill? 

Whitlock: Yeah. Six-part test, and some of them are very perfunctory: Can’t touch Social Security. Got to be in your jurisdiction. Has to actually save or spend money. The most important one, Rule No. 4, is produces a change and outlays the revenues, which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision. In other words, it’s got to be more about the money than the policy. And that is the very gray-area rule where people will walk into the parliamentarian and say, OK, yeah, there are a lot of pages here, but they’re all critical to be able to achieve the savings. And the other side can say, But not that sentence and not that sentence and not that sentence, and start to pick it apart until it’s Swiss cheese, which was a lot of what happened to Republicans in 2017, such that it barely even works anymore. 

And so the fight over the Byrd Rule is typically right there on 鈥 is it about the spending or is it about the policy? And it’s not black-and-white. It is incredibly gray for us to figure out what is an answer. And it is fought out in front of the parliamentarian, and she makes the ruling. 

Rovner: And so basically, I mean, what has to be remembered is this is supposed to be a budget exercise and not a policy exercise. 

Whitlock: 100%. And that’s why, again, the Affordable Care Act could have never been written under reconciliation. The Medicare Modernization Act, which created Part D, could never have been written under reconciliation, because they were policy bills. And so you can’t do a policy bill in reconciliation. And if you come in thinking, Let me see if I can sneak a policy bill through and call it reconciliation, oh, you are in for a miserable time. Been there, done that. 

Rovner: So I’m not going to ask you to predict what’s going to be in this bill or multiple bills. You can do more than one reconciliation bill per budget resolution, but we’re not going to go there. But I will ask you to handicap how long you think this might take. I mean, it’s hardly going to be the couple-of-weeks, we’re-going-to-have-this-before-the-end-of-the-winter kind of thing. Right? 

Whitlock: Early on I felt like they were heading to a two-step process where they were going to do in the first hundred days, What could we all agree to quickly? Hold hands, get done, boom. Taxes, energy, some immigration stuff, whatever fit in, done. And then came the whole “one big, beautiful bill” concept and: Let’s do it all at once. Let’s try to throw in debt limit. Let’s try to throw in some level of deficit reduction consistent with what we would require under a debt limit agreement. And let’s do it all in one big, beautiful bill. 

Well, the former was quick, the latter is slow. And I think what we are coming to realize, and as somebody who worked both sides but certainly appreciated the Senate position, which was more often than not in my career the median position, that which what could get done, was what the Senate could get the votes for. I think right now the real concept that we’re dealing with here is what you’re going to do, how you’re going to do it, when you’re going to do it, is what the House can get done, given their very tight majority and their members who are willing to say: Nope. Perfect. I’m waiting for perfect. Everything else is my enemy. It doesn’t matter how good it is. It’s my enemy because I’m holding out for perfect. When you’ve got members willing to do that, it’s going to be a very hard slog to get there. 

And so there are things they could have moved quickly on. They’re not doing that. And so because they’ve decided to slow down the process and see if they can put things together, it’s going to take more time, because the more things you put in, the more you have to do education, the more people have to understand, the more work it is. That’s the challenge. 

Rovner: Well, this has been a very useful primer. I hope we can call on you again as the process proceeds. 

Whitlock: I’ll be here for you. I come running any time you call. 

Rovner: Rodney Whitlock, thank you so much. 

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

Cohrs Zhang: My extra credit is in The Washington Post. The headline is “.” And I think it’s just a great case study of what we’re going to see over the next couple of years 鈥 that, sure, there’s going to be so much attention focused on the federal level, focused on Congress, focused on HHS, but the powers of the federal government are limited on public health and some of these issues. I think fluoride and how that’s included in the water supply is a great one. And I think it is just going to be so important to watch how all these issues are playing out in state and local governments as well. 

So I think there’s just going to be this sense that local officials are emboldened by the stances that the Trump administration is taking on some of these issues. And I think it’s just a great way to make practical some of the influences of the rhetoric that we’ve seen so far before top health officials are even in office. So I thought it was really well done, and I think this is going to be a line of coverage to follow. 

Rovner: Local news more important than ever. Alice. 

Ollstein: Yeah, speaking of local news more important than ever, my piece is from the L.A. Times, which has just been doing phenomenal coverage of the fires that have devastated the area. I’m from L.A. The L.A. Times has gone through a lot, but I really want to hold up their incredible coverage of this crisis. 

And the piece I chose is by Karen Garcia and Tony Briscoe, and it’s called “” And it’s just about how even though people are cleared to go back to the often pile of rubble that their houses have become 鈥 and obviously people are very eager to do that and want to search for anything that might have survived of their personal belongings. But this article is really warning people to take precautions when they do that, because the amount of things in the average home nowadays can be so toxic when on fire. And so things like basic cleaning products, things like synthetic fabrics and furniture. So they’re really encouraging people to wear an N95 mask, wear gloves, cover all of your skin, because some of these things can be so dangerous if inhaled or if they touch you. So I think this is a very important thing for folks in that situation to keep in mind. 

Rovner: Yes, the danger is not gone when the fire is out, basically. Rachel R. 

Roubein: My story, it’s in The Washington Post by my colleague Caroline Kitchener. The headline is “.” And the story shows the reach and the scope of how anti-abortion advocates have been trying to pursue ways to stop abortions, but they’ve had trouble finding efforts to fully end the practice with many women receiving pills through mail, through a handful of websites, and they’re trying to devise new strategies. 

So Caroline writes about anti-abortion advocates launching legal efforts to try and stop abortion pills from reaching women in states with bans. And how they’re doing that is increasingly turning to male sex partners of women who decided to end their pregnancies. And she writes about the strategy being filed in a lawsuit last month by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and that this kind of partner-focused approach will become more public next month when Texas’ largest anti-abortion organization is planning to launch ads on Facebook, etc., to reach husbands, boyfriends, sex partners of women who’ve had abortions in Texas. 

Rovner: Wow, it’s quite the eye-opening story. My extra credit this week is from CNN by Brenda Goodman, and it’s called “.” And it’s something I never really thought about, but it seems that feeding your pets, particularly your cats, a raw diet can be as dangerous as you drinking raw milk. Raw diets are popular with lots of pet parents who don’t like processed foods and additives, but the use of raw milk, meat, and eggs can introduce bacteria and viruses like bird flu into your pet and possibly pass pathogens onto you and your family. Just something else to worry about. 

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. We welcome back our ace producer and editor, Frances Ying, this week. Also thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, , and increasingly at Bluesky, . Where are you folks these days? Alice? 

Ollstein: I’m on Bluesky, . 

Rovner: Rachel Roubein. 

Roubein: On X, , or Bluesky, . 

Rovner: Rachel C. 

Cohrs Zhang: I’m still on X, , and also hanging out more on these days. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to 麻豆女优 Health News’ “What the Health?” 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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-381-trump-executive-orders-hhs-chaos-january-23-2025/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=1974307&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
1974307
Biden Administration Archives - 麻豆女优 Health News /tag/biden-administration/ 麻豆女优 Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of 麻豆女优. Wed, 22 Apr 2026 19:05:31 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Biden Administration Archives - 麻豆女优 Health News /tag/biden-administration/ 32 32 161476233 She Owed Her Insurer a Nickel, So It Canceled Her Coverage /health-care-costs/insurer-missed-payments-dropped-coverage-florida-bill-of-the-month-march-2026/ Mon, 30 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2174972 Last summer, Lorena Alvarado Hill received a series of unexpected medical bills.

A teacher’s aide in Melbourne, Florida, Hill is a single mom who works shifts at J.Crew on the weekends to send her daughter to college. Hill and her mother, who lives with her, had been enrolled in an insurance plan through HealthFirst.

Hill paid nothing toward the premiums for the government-subsidized plan, which previously had covered her scans and other appointments.

Then the bills came.

Hill was on the hook for a $2,966.93 MRI, as well as more than half a dozen doctor visits costing about $200 or $300 each. Without that kind of money on hand, Hill said, she put a few of the bills on payment plans and tried to figure out what had gone wrong.

She discovered, to her surprise, that her insurance had been canceled for “non-payment of premiums.”

The Medical Service

A health insurance plan purchased through the Affordable Care Act federal exchange, healthcare.gov.

The Bill

A monthly premium bill for 1 cent, which in the following months increased incrementally to 5 cents.

The Billing Problem: Small Bill, Big Consequences

Premium subsidies for ACA plans are automatically recalculated every time coverage is changed because of a life event, such as marriage, a change of job, or a child turning 26. In June, Hill removed her mother from the family’s group plan because she turned 65 and became eligible for Medicare and Medicaid.

The change triggered a recalculation of Hill’s monthly premium contribution, increasing it from $0 to 1 cent. She said she thought the amount was so small that she couldn’t pay it with her credit card.

Hill acknowledged she had received some bills that noted, “You may lose your health insurance coverage because you did not pay your monthly health insurance premium.”

But she said that her doctors collected the usual copayments during subsequent visits and that her insurance broker told her not to worry, reassuring her that the plan was “active.” Hill figured the 1-cent monthly premium was probably a rounding error that couldn’t result in termination, she said.

On Nov. 22, she got a letter marked “Important: Your health insurance coverage is ending.” It listed the last day of coverage as July 31, nearly four months before.

“I panicked,” Hill said. “I didn’t sleep that night.”

Lorena Alvarado Hill sits on the edge of her couch. A mural painting is seen on the wall behind her.
On Nov. 22, 2025, Hill got a letter informing her that her health insurance had been canceled 鈥 listing the last day of coverage as July 31. The terminated policy left her on the hook for thousands of dollars in bills. “I didn’t sleep that night,” she said. (Michelle Bruzzese for 麻豆女优 Health News)

She made an appointment the next day with her broker, who called HealthFirst for clarification. The news was even worse: Not only had her insurance been canceled, but the 5-cent bill could be sent to a collection agency.

Hill takes out loans to pay her daughter’s college expenses. “I couldn’t have my credit ruined,” she said.

Others have lost their coverage over owing small amounts, said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “This woman’s situation is not so unusual with the enhanced subsidies,” she said.

The American Rescue Plan, passed in 2021, increased the amount of government assistance available to ACA plan holders. Those enhanced subsidies, which Congress let expire at the end of last year, meant enrollees with lower incomes had to pay little or nothing toward their premiums.

The Biden administration found that, in 2023, about 81,000 subsidized ACA insurance policies were terminated because the enrollee owed $5 or less. Nearly 103,000 more were canceled for owing less than $10.

To prevent that kind of coverage loss, most likely hitting people with little income, Biden administration health officials to allow ACA enrollees to retain coverage if they owed less than $10, or less than 95% of premium costs.

Insurers were required to keep insurance active for a 90-day “grace period” to give enrollees time to respond. That’s why Hill’s doctors initially took her copayments and sent no bill, as if nothing had changed.

That Biden administration “flexibility” rule took effect Jan. 15, 2025, though not every insurer opted to offer leniency to those owing small amounts.

The Trump administration removed the rule on Aug. 25, eliminating the protection entirely in the name of combating fraud and abuse.

The Resolution

Alarmed by the cancellation, the thousands of dollars in bills, and the threat of collections over 5 cents, Hill researched insurance law and fought back.

She filed a complaint in December with HealthFirst and the Florida Department of Financial Services asking for a write-off of her 5-cent balance and retroactive restoration of her policy, citing state and federal laws that seemed to apply to her situation.

In particular, she wrote, “creditors are not required to collect, and consumers are not required to pay, credit-card balances of $1.00 or less,” adding that “all major insurers and payment processors in Florida follow a 1-cent write-off policy.”

She noted that HealthFirst’s policy was to respond to complaints in 30 days.

Thirty days came and went, but Hill said she heard nothing in response 鈥 and new bills from her canceled policy kept coming.

Despite her frustration, Hill said, all her doctors were contracted with HealthFirst, so she reenrolled for 2026.

Lance Skelly, a spokesperson for HealthFirst, initially said the case “is still in the appeals/grievance process.” In a follow-up email, he said HealthFirst had in canceling Hill’s policy.

“Stepping back from what’s legal, this is just ridiculous,” Corlette said.

Weeks after a reporter’s query to the insurer, Hill said she looked at her billing statements for all the medical services she received in 2025 and was pleasantly surprised that the balances owed had been adjusted to $0.

But she said she would also like HealthFirst to cover what she had paid and still owed toward the bills she’d put on payment plans.

Lorena Alvarado Hill stands for a portrait indoors. She is looking out the window.
Hill and her mother were enrolled together in a health plan purchased through the federal Affordable Care Act exchange. Hill removed her mother from the plan when she became eligible for Medicare and Medicaid, but the change triggered a recalculation of her monthly premium contribution, increasing it from $0 to 1 cent. She said the amount was so small that she couldn’t figure out how to pay for it with her credit card. (Michelle Bruzzese for 麻豆女优 Health News)

The Takeaway

Even small bills can have major consequences.

With the automation of more health billing decisions, irrational results have become increasingly common.

“One cent?!” Hill said. “No human would do this!”

It can be tempting to dismiss the notice of a tiny debt, but it’s important to take it seriously. Contact the insurer and get a human involved.

And while insurance policies have grace periods allowing coverage to remain in place if you miss a payment, some are not very long. For subsidized ACA marketplace plans, the period is 90 days, but others last just 30 or 45.

Missing one payment can mean losing coverage. So it’s important to keep a close eye on premiums to make sure they’re paid.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by 麻豆女优 Health News and  that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/insurer-missed-payments-dropped-coverage-florida-bill-of-the-month-march-2026/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2174972&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2174972
鈥楾hey Tricked Me鈥: A Father Was Chained After He Went to ICE To Reunite With His Kids /courts/trump-deportation-immigration-unaccompanied-children-bait-parent-arrests-hhs/ Tue, 24 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000 Carlos arrived at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in New Mexico in December, believing he was one step closer to reuniting with his children. By that point, his 14-year-old son and 16-year-old daughter had been in a federal shelter in Texas for nearly a year after crossing the border to be with him.

“I feel like I’m suffocating inside this shelter, trapped with no way out,” Carlos’ son said, according to one of the teens’ attorneys, when asked to describe how he felt after months at the Houston-area facility. “Every day, the same routine. Every day, feeling stuck. It makes me feel hopeless and terrified.”

During daily video calls, Carlos, who had temporary protected status, urged the siblings to be patient, to trust the process. Federal officials had vetted Carlos before he could be granted custody and told him his case was complete. He believed he would soon be back with his children, who, like him, had sought refuge from political violence in Venezuela.  

An immigration officer called Carlos on a Friday and asked him to attend a meeting at an ICE office the following Monday to discuss reunification with his children. Once Carlos arrived, officers tried to force him to sign documents he said he didn’t understand. When he refused, they stripped off his clothes, seized his ID and belongings, and chained him by the neck, waist, and legs.

“They tricked me,” Carlos said in a phone call from an immigration detention center in El Paso, Texas, where he was held for several months. “They used my children to grab me,” he said.  

In reporting on the family’s story, 麻豆女优 Health News reviewed court documents, spoke with the family’s immigration attorneys, interviewed Carlos, and reviewed statements from his children, translated from Spanish. Carlos is a pseudonym, being used at the request of attorneys concerned that speaking out could jeopardize Carlos’ immigration case or further delay his reunion with his family.

Using Children to Arrest Parents

Since 2003, the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement has cared for immigrant children under 18 who arrive in the country without their parents, often fleeing violence, abuse, or trafficking. The office, which in February had more than 2,300 children in shelters or with foster families across the country, is supposed to promptly release them to vetted caregivers, typically parents or other family members already living in the country.

Congress placed this responsibility with the health agency over 20 years ago to prioritize the well-being of unaccompanied children and separate their care from immigration enforcement priorities.

Now the second Trump administration is using migrant children held by the resettlement office to lure their parents, such as Carlos, whether or not they have a criminal record. A 麻豆女优 Health News investigation found the resettlement office, , coordinates with the Department of Homeland Security to arrest people seeking custody of migrant children.

Arrest documents show Homeland Security Investigations, the arm of the agency that normally focuses on organized criminals and traffickers, will interview parents or other caregivers then arrest them if they are in the country illegally. Before Donald Trump returned to the White House, the resettlement office prohibited data sharing and collaboration with immigration enforcement, and it did not deny caregivers custody of children solely because of their immigration status. Those last year.

It’s unclear exactly how many caregivers have been baited into arrest. LAist indicating more than 100 have been arrested while trying to get their kids out of detention, but 麻豆女优 Health News could not independently verify that number with federal agencies.

Since February, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Homeland Security, and Justice Department have not responded to questions about caregiver arrests. Prior to leaving DHS last month, Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the administration protects children from being released to people who shouldn’t care for them. Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesperson, referred questions related to immigration enforcement to DHS.

At the same time, the resettlement office has that make it harder for caregivers to gain custody of unaccompanied children. These include narrowing the range of accepted documents, requiring fingerprint-based background checks for every adult in the home and backup caregivers, and requiring in-person appointments to verify identification documents, sometimes with ICE agents present. The requirements keep “children safe from traffickers and other bad, dangerous people,” Nixon said.

As of January, the agency had detained at least 300 children already placed with vetted sponsors and asked their caregivers to reapply, according to the National Center for Youth Law and the Democracy Forward Foundation. The advocacy groups filed calling these actions “a quieter, new form of family separation.” 

Reverse Separation

Dulce, a Guatemalan mother in Virginia, said her 8-year-old son was sent to a government shelter after he was detained during a traffic stop last summer while visiting family members in a different state.

At first, Dulce expected to get her son back within days — she had passed the government’s sponsorship requirements in 2024 and was reunited with him three weeks after he first crossed the border. But resettlement agency officials asked her to repeat the entire process and resubmit documents, Dulce said. It took eight months to get him back.

Dulce is a pseudonym being used at her request because she fears speaking out could get her deported.

At one point, Dulce was told to attend an interview at an ICE office to show her identification as part of the process of reuniting with her son. She refused out of fear that she too might be detained, because she doesn’t have legal status. She believes ICE agents visited her home at one point.

“I stopped going home,” Dulce said. “I lived with some of my friends for days.”

Even though she lived just 45 minutes away, Dulce was allowed to visit her son only twice a month.

Until recently, most unaccompanied children landed in government custody after being detained at the border. But border crossings started to fall in 2024, and the number of people coming to the U.S. has dropped precipitously in President Trump’s second term.

Now, hundreds of kids have been taken to government shelters after being swept up inside the country, often during immigration raids or traffic stops, according to the advocates’ lawsuit. Many were already living with relatives, including guardians already vetted by the resettlement agency.

Releases have grinded nearly to a halt. According to the resettlement office, children in its custody stayed in government shelters or foster care for an average of one month in 2024. As of February, that had jumped to more than half a year.

Children Face Longer Stays in Resettlement Shelters or Foster Care (Line chart)

When children do get released, it’s often only after their attorneys file a lawsuit in federal court challenging their detention as unconstitutional.

Authorities released Dulce’s son to her in February after the boy’s attorneys filed such a petition. Dulce said she’s relieved to have him back but still anxious that ICE could show up at their house.

Immigrants at Risk

During Trump’s first term, his administration was criticized for of children who had been released from custody. President Joe Biden was blamed for how his administration processed a surge of unaccompanied children that peaked in 2021 with about 22,000 in the resettlement office’s custody. Though most children were placed with legitimate sponsors, some were placed with people who hadn’t cleared , putting them at risk of .

The Trump administration says it is checking on those , and the Justice Department has prosecuted . On March 1, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who is set to leave her role at the , touted a , including the resettlement office, that DHS said had tracked down 145,000 unaccompanied children who had been placed with caregivers during Biden’s term.

Yet internal HHS reports about that initiative obtained by 麻豆女优 Health News show that nearly 11,800 of those migrant children and nearly 500 of their caregivers were arrested as of Jan. 29. Only 125 of those migrant children and 55 of those caregivers were arrested for alleged criminal activity, suggesting the majority were for immigration violations.

HHS referred questions about the figures in the reports to DHS, which did not respond to requests for comment about the data. However, Michelle Brané, who was a DHS official in the Biden administration, said the figures show that most of the arrests were to detain and deport migrants. Previously, the administration targeted parents and caregivers who had paid for children to cross the border, trying to levy smuggling charges against them.

“They have really dropped that pretense in a lot of ways, and they are going for anyone openly,” Brané said. “These numbers clearly reflect that this is not about public safety or about safety of the children.”

Case on Hold

Carlos left Venezuela in 2022 because of death threats and, like thousands of others fleeing that country, was granted what’s called temporary protected status under the Biden administration. That protection for most Venezuelans by the Trump administration.

In January 2025, days before Trump was sworn in for his second term, Carlos’ children crossed the border from Mexico to the U.S., turned themselves over to border authorities, and were immediately placed in the resettlement agency’s custody. Carlos spent months submitting paperwork to reunite with them. He said he’s their only parent, because their mother left when they were toddlers.  

Officials visited his home twice and determined he was fit to care for them, according to court documents petitioning for his release from detention. He passed DNA testing, proving he’s the biological father, one of his attorneys said. His arrest documents show he has “no criminal history.” In July, Carlos was told his reunification case was complete and being sent for approval. But then, with little explanation, the case was put on hold.

Before his arrest by ICE, Carlos said, he drove 14 hours each way from his home to visit his children. Once there, he could see them for only one hour. When he was in detention, he said, he spoke to them about every two weeks in quick, monitored phone calls.

He’s trying to stay hopeful, but it’s hard.

According to documents completed by ICE officers during his arrest and submitted in his court case, Carlos was arrested under an initiative called Operation Guardian Trace, which requires immigration officers to detain potential caregivers if they are in the country without legal authorization and recommend that they be deported.

“This operation is designed to force parents to make an impossible choice between reuniting with their children and seeking safety,” said one of Carlos’ attorneys, Chiqui Sanchez Kennedy of the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, a nonprofit that helps low-income immigrants.

‘I’m Going to Wait’

In March, a federal judge said officials had unlawfully detained Carlos and he was released on bond.

But his children still face an uncertain future for now. Government shelters often lack sufficient resources, , and social workers say lengthy stays in these facilities can result in additional trauma.

“Not only is it bad, full stop, but the longer you’re there, the worse it gets,” said Jonathan Beier, associate director of research and evaluation for the Acacia Center for Justice’s Unaccompanied Children Program, which coordinates legal services for unaccompanied minors.

Carlos’ children could also be sent back to the country they fled. Because of his detention, Carlos will have to redo much of the process to reunite with them, according to an attorney for the children, Alexa Sendukas, also with the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project.

In statements shared through Sendukas, Carlos’ daughter said she no longer wants to be around others and spends most of the time in her room. His son, now 15, described having panic attacks and feeling that he’s missing out on life, whether it’s the opportunities he longs for — to learn English, to study science — or watching basketball with his family.

An adult woman holds up a drawing of Disney's Rapunzel.
An attorney holds up a drawing of Rapunzel by Carlos’ daughter, who said she spends most of her time in her room, feeling isolated like the “Tangled” movie character. (Abigail Gonsoulin)

“I remember when I first arrived at this shelter, I was so hopeful and had faith that I would be reunited with my dad soon,” he said.

Carlos’ daughter spent the day crying in bed when the siblings learned their father had been detained. For days, they didn’t know where he was. Now, they fear the only way out is through adoption or foster care.

“I am afraid,” she said. “I’m going to wait for my dad forever.”

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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/courts/trump-deportation-immigration-unaccompanied-children-bait-parent-arrests-hhs/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2171527&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2171527
As Health Companies Get Bigger, So Do the Bills. It鈥檚 Unclear if Trump鈥檚 Team Will Intervene. /health-care-costs/health-system-mergers-higher-prices-trump-regulators-hospitals-insurers/ Mon, 10 Nov 2025 10:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2104256 A cancer patient might live in a town with four oncology groups, but only one accepts his insurance 鈥 the one owned by his insurer. A young couple could see huge bills after their child is born, because their insurer agreed to the health system’s rates in exchange for a contract with obstetricians across the country. A woman might have to pay a big sum she can’t afford for basic lab tests at a hospital 鈥 inflated rates her insurer accepted so its customers have access to the system’s children’s hospital elsewhere in the state.

And even well-insured patients receive unaffordable bills in this era of high-deductible health plans, narrow insurance networks, and 20% cost sharing.

Health systems, doctor groups, and insurers are merging and coalescing into ever-bigger giants. While these mergers are good for business, studies show the escalating consolidation in health care is driving up prices, harming patient outcomes, and decreasing choice for people who need care. A recent study found that six years after hospitals acquired other hospitals, they had by 12.9%, with hospitals that engaged in multiple acquisitions raising their prices by 16.3%.

These new deals are “mutually enforced monopolization,” said Barak Richman, the Alexander Hamilton professor of business law at George Washington University. “It’s not competition. It’s more like collusion. They don’t care about price.”

Those market factors contributed to a landscape where a dose of the antiviral Paxlovid given in a hospital ; magnetic resonance imaging ; and joint replacements .

President Donald Trump has talked about the burden of health care costs since his first campaign, but he has signaled that his administration’s regulators are less inclined than his predecessor’s to intervene in health mergers.

This summer, President Joe Biden’s that all federal agencies make sure markets remain competitive, reversing course from Biden’s more expansive interpretation of antitrust law. And in a scathing statement upon taking over the Federal Trade Commission, Trump-appointed chair Andrew Ferguson , implying that she had overstepped the agency’s legal authority, as well as criticizing what he called her “clumsy” and “breathless” rhetoric and her focus on the incursion of private equity into health care.

What this will mean in practice is unclear.

In an interview with 麻豆女优 Health News, Daniel Guarnera, the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, said that the leadership at the FTC and the Justice Department has endorsed guidelines issued by the Biden administration, which he characterized as a “framing device” for companies contemplating a merger.

The expanded , issued in 2023, focused for the first time on a wide variety of new types of anti-competitive practices that had become common in health care, such as hospitals and private equity firms buying doctors’ practices and insurers owning what are known as specialty pharmacies to dispense complicated and often expensive drugs.

Guarnera noted that regulators’ strongest enforcement tool is convincing a judge that mergers violate the Clayton Antitrust Act, a statute that is the foundation of antitrust law. But administrations can interpret this statute differently, and it’s unclear what cases the Trump administration’s FTC will choose to bring.

“The Biden administration tried to be more innovative,” said a professor of health services, policy, and practice at Brown University’s School of Public Health. “The Trump administration has signaled a more traditional approach 鈥 that it’s unwilling to push the envelope.”

In the battle for profits between insurers and providers, each side insists it needs to grow bigger to hold sway in the negotiations that determine health care prices. But evidence shows the prices that make sense in industry-level dealmaking have little to do with the actual value of the services involved. Instead, they’re merely a data point in large-scale calculations that, at best, reflect the power balance between opposing parties.

Under Trump, the FTC has already sued to block two mergers of medical-device makers and has continued the Biden administration’s challenges of individual drug patents.

“Helping improve the health care system though ensuring that there is more and better competition are very, very high priorities for us at the FTC,” Guarnera said, noting that health care has “enormous effects on both Americans’ pocketbooks as well as well-being.”

But it is far more difficult to take on the more massive entities, and though the number of new mergers dipped as companies navigated the uncertain effects of tariffs and interest rates, consolidation continues.

A recent identified “28 large health systems growing bigger,” noting, “This is not an exhaustive list.”

For example, in May, Northwell Health of New York Connecticut’s Nuvance to become a 28-hospital behemoth with over 1,000 outpatient clinics. That was a more traditional merger, where hospitals in the same region joined to extend their reach and increase their market power.

Meanwhile, companies are creating powerhouses not previously seen in health care, by racking up smaller purchases that aren’t expensive enough to trigger federal review. They include what are known as vertical mergers, which combine companies that provide different functions in the same industry 鈥 most commonly, hospital systems or insurers buying doctors’ practices or specialty pharmacies.

For instance, UnitedHealth Group, the , now owns health insurance plans; physician practices and other providers; data and analytics services; payment processors; a pharmacy benefits manager; and pharmacies themselves. Jonathan Kanter, the competition czar in Biden’s Justice Department, has likened the UnitedHealth amalgamation to Amazon.

Likewise, hospital systems and private companies 鈥 often private equity firms 鈥 are increasingly expanding their reach to different regions, gobbling up hospitals, medical practices, and surgery centers. This kind of consolidation, known as a , allows companies to accumulate huge collections of doctors 鈥 and significant market power 鈥 across the country in particular specialties, such as gastroenterology, ophthalmology, pediatrics, or obstetrics.

Research shows a change in ownership means a change in prices. While pediatrics and obstetrics have traditionally been poorly paid specialties, for instance, they represent a land of opportunity to investors because parents are willing to pay more when it comes to care for their kids.

It used to be relatively simple for regulators to discern when a hospital that merged with its nearby competitor gained monopoly power, rendering it anti-competitive and driving up prices. Health researchers say these new, more complicated types of deals, creating a more complex interplay between insurers and medical providers, have made that tipping point to define.

In health care, even more traditional, vertical consolidation can be problematic, Richman said. “Economic theory says it could be innocuous, like a suit manufacturer opening a store, even though studies show in health care it’s dangerous 鈥 higher prices, poorer quality, less choice,” he said.

For example, patients who have Cigna health plans and need an array of more expensive, often injectable prescriptions must use Accredo, the specialty pharmacy in 2018, even though a different pharmacy may have a better price.

Economists have developed computer modeling to predict when patients will experience higher prices and less choice because of these new types of consolidation. But judges who could nix the transactions are so far “not convinced,” said Daniel Arnold, a health economist at Brown’s School of Public Health.

Experts such as Fuse Brown say new laws and enforcement tools are needed.

“The old laws,” she said, “are just not calibrated to the complexity and novel types of mergers.”

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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/health-system-mergers-higher-prices-trump-regulators-hospitals-insurers/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2104256&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2104256
Guns, Race, and Profit: The Pain of America鈥檚 Other Epidemic /public-health/bogalusa-louisiana-gun-violence-firearm-industry-black-communities-discrimination/ Tue, 19 Aug 2025 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2068804 BOGALUSA, La. 鈥 Less than a mile from a century-old mill that sustained generations in this small town north of New Orleans, 19-year-old Tajdryn Forbes was shot to death near his mother’s house.

She found Forbes face down in the street in August 2023, two weeks before he had planned to move away from the empty storefronts, boarded-up houses, and poverty that make this one of the most troubled places in the nation.

Naketra Guy thought about how her son overcame losing his father at age 4 and was the glue of the family. She called him “humble” and “respectful,” a leader in the community and on the football field, where he shined.

Yet he could not outrun the grim statistics of his hometown. Bogalusa posts some of the worst health outcomes and poverty in Louisiana, a state that routinely ranks among the worst nationally in both. And Bogalusa has endured another indicator of poor public health: high levels of gun violence.

Since the beginning of the covid-19 pandemic, gun violence has shattered any sense of peace or progress here. Louisiana suffers the nation’s second-highest firearm 鈥 and Bogalusa, a predominantly Black community with 10,000 residents, has seen dozens of shootings and a violent crime rate approaching twice the national average.

A nearby team refused to play football at Bogalusa High School in fall 2022, .

A photo of boarded-up buildings in Bogalusa.
Boarded-up buildings in downtown Bogalusa, Louisiana. Once known as “the Magic City” because of its giant mill and fast growth, the town now struggles with empty storefronts and blight. (Fred Clasen-Kelly/麻豆女优 Health News)

Bogalusa’s mayor, Tyrin Truong, was elected in 2022 at age 23 on his promises to fix entrenched challenges: few youth programs and good jobs, and perpetual crime and blight.

“I ran for mayor because I got sick of seeing our city painted as mini-New Orleans,” he said, “due to the high levels of youth gun violence.”

In January, the Louisiana State Police , accusing him of soliciting a prostitute and participating in a drug trafficking ring that allegedly used illicit proceeds to buy firearms. He has . “I still haven’t been formally arraigned,” he told 麻豆女优 Health News in late July, “and I haven’t been charged with anything.”

Every year tens of thousands of Americans 鈥 鈥 are killed by gun violence on the scale of a public health epidemic.

Many thousands more are left to recover from severe injuries, crushing medical debt, and the mental health toll of losing loved ones.

Most headlines focus on America’s urban centers, but the numbers also reflect the growth of gun violence in places like Bogalusa, a pinprick of a town 75 miles north of New Orleans. In 2020, the gun violence death rate for rural communities than in large metropolitan areas, according to Johns Hopkins University.

Firearms are the No. 1 killer of children in the U.S., and no group suffers more than . More Black boys and men ages 15 to 24 in 2023 than from the next 15 leading causes of deaths combined. Though overall U.S. homicides after the pandemic ended, adolescent gun deaths climbed even higher in the years after, according to , an associate professor in the School of Public Health at Boston University.

“It has all the markers of an epidemic. It is a major driver of death and disability,” Jay said. “Gun violence does not get the attention it deserves. It is underrecognized because it disproportionately impacts Black and brown people.”

Rather than bolstering efforts to save lives, federal, state, and local government officials have undermined them. 麻豆女优 Health News undertook an examination of gun violence since the pandemic, a period when firearm death rates surged. Reporters reviewed government reports and academic research and interviewed dozens of health policy experts, activists, and victims or their relatives. They reviewed corporate earnings reports from gun manufacturers and to politicians.

In polling published in 2023 by 麻豆女优, said they or a family member had been impacted by gun violence such as by seeing a shooting or being threatened, injured, or killed with a gun.

American politicians and regulators have put in place laws and practices that have helped enrich firearm and ammunition manufacturers 鈥 which tout 鈥 even as already damaged by white flight, systemic disinvestment, and other forms of racial discrimination.

President Donald Trump championed gun rights on the campaign trail and has from the National Rifle Association, , “No one will lay a finger on your firearms.” His administration has rolled back efforts under President Joe Biden to address the rise in gun violence.

Emboldened in his second term, Trump to in schools, weaken federal oversight of the gun industry, override state and local gun laws, permit sales , and cut funding for violence intervention.

Trump to review all Biden administration actions that “purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

The Biden administration said “” during the pandemic took its greatest toll on racially segregated and high-poverty neighborhoods.

Black youths in four major cities were as white ones to experience a firearm assault, research showed. Gun suicides reached an all-time high, and for the first time the firearm suicide rate among older Black teens surpassed that of older white teens.

In Bogalusa, the pandemic gun violence spread fear. Among the victims killed were a 15-year-old attending a birthday party and a 24-year-old nationally known musician. Thirteen people were injured at a memorial for a man who himself had been shot. Residents said neighbors stopped sitting in their yards because of stray bullets.

Researchers say communities like Bogalusa endure a collective trauma that shatters their sense of safety. Two years after , his mother says that when she leaves home her surviving children worry that she, too, might get shot.

Repercussions from the surge will last years, researchers said: Exposure to shootings increases risk for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, suicide, depression, substance abuse, and poor school performance for survivors and those who live near them.

“We saw gun violence exposure go up for every group of children except white children, in the cities we studied,” Jay said. “Limits on government funding into gun violence research may stop us from ever knowing exactly why.”

Politics of Pain

The year before Forbes died in Bogalusa, Biden signed into law the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, considered the in decades.

In a matter of months, Trump has systematically dismantled key provisions.

Efforts to regulate guns have long proven ineffective against the power of political and business interests that fill the streets with weapons. In 2020, the number of guns manufactured annually in the U.S. hit 11.3 million, more than double a decade earlier, according to . In 2022, the United States had nearly 78,000 , more than its combined number of McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and Subway locations, according to Everytown for Gun Safety, an advocacy group.

A photo of a gun on the counter at a gun shop in Maryland.
A customer looks at a handgun at a gun shop in Capitol Heights, Maryland, in 2023. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images)

The Biden administration it would attempt to reduce gun violence by adopting a “zero tolerance” policy toward firearm dealers who committed violations such as failing to run a required background check or selling to someone prohibited from buying a gun.

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or ATF, which licenses gun dealers, has the authority to enforce laws meant to prevent illegal gun sales. In issuing an executive order, the Trump administration , under Biden, the agency targeted “mom-and-pop shop small businesses who made innocent paperwork errors.”

From October 2010 to February 2022, the agency conducted more than 111,000 inspections, recommending revocation of a dealer’s license only 589 times, about 0.5% of cases, an inspector general’s report said. Even when it cited serious violations, the ATF rarely shut dealers down.

ATF leaders that recommendations for license revocations increased after Biden’s zero-tolerance policy was implemented. In April, the Trump administration .

Surgeon General Vivek Murthy last year declared firearm violence a public health crisis. Within weeks of Trump’s inauguration, the advisory. Of the 15 leading U.S. causes of death, firearm injuries received less research funding from the National Institutes of Health for each person who died than all but poisoning and falls, according to in 2024 by Brady, an anti-gun violence organization. that funding, too.

Trump’s Department of Justice abruptly cut 373 grants in April for projects worth about $820 million, with a large share from gun violence intervention.

“We are going to lose a generation of community violence prevention folks,” said Volkan Topalli, a gun violence researcher at Georgia State University. “People are going to die, I’m sorry to say, but that is the bleak truth of this.”

Asked about its policies, the White House did not address questions about public health considerations around gun violence.

“Illegal violence of any sort is a crime issue, and President Trump has been clear since Day One that he is committed to Making America Safe Again by empowering law enforcement to uphold law and order,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said.

A photo of President Trump speaking at a podium after being sworn in.
President Donald Trump gives his inaugural address after being sworn in on Jan. 20. (Rosa Pineda/U.S. Senate)

Trump administration officials “want safer streets and less violence,” Topalli said. “They are hurting their cause.”

Garen Wintemute, an emergency medicine professor who directs the violence prevention program at the University of California-Davis, was among the first in the nation to consider guns and violence as a public health issue. He said race plays a significant role in perceptions about gun violence.

“People look at the demographic risk for firearm homicide and depending on the demographics of the people in the audience, I can see the transformation in their faces,” Wintemute said. “It’s like they’re saying, 鈥楴ot my people, not my problem.’”

Eroding Gun Restrictions

Trump’s incursions against public health efforts to contain gun violence are backed by lobbying power.

Firearm industry advocacy groups made millions of dollars in political donations in recent years, mostly to conservative causes and Republican candidates. That includes $1.4 million to Trump, , which tracks campaign finance data.

The assassination of civil rights icon the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. helped lead to the passage of the federal , which imposed stricter licensing rules and outlawed the sale of firearms and ammunition to felons.

While it remains the law of the land, over time, federal and state government actions have significantly weakened its protections.

Most states now concealed weapons without a permit or background check, even though the practice can increase the risk of firearm homicides.

In Louisiana, Democratic former Gov. John Bel Edwards, in office from 2016 to 2024, that would have allowed people to carry concealed firearms without a permit.

Elected in 2023, Republican Gov. Jeff Landry to allow any person over age 18 to conceal-carry without a permit.

The Trump administration has created his executive order to end most gun regulations and which would allow more people with criminal convictions, including for domestic abuse, to own guns.

Figures vary, but some researchers estimate as many as 500 million guns circulate in the U.S. Sales reached during the pandemic and publicly traded firearm and ammunition companies saw .

Donald Trump Jr. this summer of GrabAGun, an online gun retailer that went public in July under the stock ticker PEW. In a , the company, which markets guns to people ages 18 to 44, cited “ organizations that oppose sales of firearms and ammunition” as threats to its sales growth.

A photo of Donald Trump Jr. at the New York Stock Exchange. He smiles, facing to the left, holding his left hand up in a finger gun pose.
Donald Trump Jr. is a board member of GrabAGun, an online gun store that went public on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker PEW. (Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Dave Workman, a gun rights advocate with the , said firearms are not to blame for the surge in pandemic shootings.

“Bad guys are going to do what bad guys are going to do regardless of the law,” Workman said. “Taking away gun rights is not going to reduce crime.”

David Yamane, a Wake Forest University sociology professor and national authority on guns, said the U.S. firearm debate is complex and the industry is often “painted with too broad a brush.”

Most guns will never be used to kill anyone, he said. Americans tend to buy more guns during times of unrest, Yamane added: “It’s part of the American tradition. Guns are seen as a legitimate tool for defending yourself.”

鈥楢 Low Level of Hope’

Once called “,” Bogalusa has become a grim symbol of deindustrialization.

Bogalusa emerged as Black people formed their own communities in the time of Jim Crow racial segregation at the turn of the 20th century.

Racism concentrated Black people in neighborhoods that , reflected in high rates of cancer, asthma, chronic stress, preterm births, pregnancy-related complications 鈥 and, over recent decades, .

Thousands flocked to Bogalusa after the Great Southern Lumber Company built one of the world’s biggest sawmills, establishing Bogalusa as a company town. Racial tensions .

An archival photo of a Black man holding up replica KKK robes at a protest.
Racial tensions followed the growth of Bogalusa in the 20th century. Charles Sims, a leader in the Deacons for Defense and Justice, a civil rights group, holds up replicas of Ku Klux Klan attire in Bogalusa in 1966. (Bettmann/Getty Images)

Members of the local gained national attention in the 1960s for protecting civil rights organizers from the Ku Klux Klan, that burned houses and churches, terrorizing and killing Black people.

As the mill changed hands over the decades, Bogalusa’s fortunes slid. In the mid-20th century, the population surpassed 20,000, but it is now about half that.

International Paper, based in Tennessee, runs the mill as a containerboard factory, employing about 650 people. In 2021, the state announced incentives for the company that included a $500,000 tax break, saying the move would help bring “prosperity.”

A photo of the exterior of a large mill. Smoke or steam billows out of one of a cooling tower.
International Paper, a Fortune 500 company, operates a containerboard mill in Bogalusa that was once one of the largest sawmills in the world. (Fred Clasen-Kelly/麻豆女优 Health News)
A photo of a storefront window with large "Store closing" signs.
A few blocks from the containerboard mill, the main drag in Bogalusa is littered with empty storefronts and boarded-up buildings. (Fred Clasen-Kelly/麻豆女优 Health News)

Businesses remain boarded up along the main drag. Houses still bear damage from Hurricane Katrina, and many streets are eerily quiet.

Nearly 1 in 3 people in Bogalusa live in poverty 鈥 2陆 times the national average.

Bogalusa’s violent gun crime rate people in 2022, higher than Louisiana’s and 1.7 times the national one, according to the nonprofit Equal Justice USA, citing FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data.

In many rural towns across the South, “there is a level of desperation that is more apparent” than in other parts of the U.S., said , a of social justice and public policy.

“They don’t have the same infrastructure to have robust social services. People are like, 鈥榃hat are my life chances?’” Shaefer said. “People feel like there is nothing that can be done. There is a low level of hope.”

An archival photo of a civil rights protest in Bogalusa in 1965. A group of Black men walk in a protest. The man on the left side of the photo holds a sign that reads, "We don't buy where we can't work."
Bogalusa emerged as a battleground for civil rights in the 1960s. James Farmer (far right), national director of the Congress of Racial Equality, walks in a Bogalusa protest in 1965. (Bettmann/Getty Images)

Missed Opportunities

Mayor Truong lamented the violence in Bogalusa after Forbes was killed, , “When are we as a community going to come together and decide enough is enough?”

The federal government had offered one path forward.

The Biden administration provided billions of dollars to local governments through the American Rescue Plan Act during the pandemic. Biden urged them to deploy money to community violence intervention programs, shown to by as much as 60%.

A handful of cities seized the opportunity, but most did not. Bogalusa has received since 2021. None appears to have gone toward violence prevention.

A photo of an abandoned house overgrown with shrubbery. A lone shopping cart is in front of it.
Abandoned houses dot parts of Bogalusa. Mayor Tyrin Truong, who was elected in 2022 at age 23, has promised to reduce crime and blight that plague parts of this community 75 miles north of New Orleans. (Fred Clasen-Kelly/麻豆女优 Health News)

The Louisiana legislative auditor, Michael Waguespack, found that Bogalusa used nearly $500,000 for employee bonuses, which his report said may have violated state law. In some cases, says, payments were not tied to work performed.

Bogalusa officials did not respond to a public records request from 麻豆女优 Health News seeking detailed information about its ARPA money.

Former Mayor Wendy O’Quin-Perrette, who served from 2015 through early 2023, told Waguespack that the city used ARPA money to improve streets and pay the bonuses. “We would not have done it without being sure it was allowed,” she said.

O’Quin-Perrette did not respond to requests for comment.

In a to Waguespack, O’Quin-Perrette’s successor, Truong, wrote that Bogalusa officials didn’t know how the federal money was spent. When he took office, Truong alleged, officials discovered “tens of thousands of dollars of checks and cash” stashed “in various drawers and on desks” in city offices.

Truong defended his stewardship of ARPA funds, saying that about $1 million remained when he assumed office but that the money was needed for more urgent sewer infrastructure repairs. “I wish we could have invested more, invested any money in gun violence prevention efforts,” he said.

In an interview, Truong said the city has been “intentional” about bringing down gun violence, including through a summer jobs program. He pointed to statistics that show homicides decreased from nine in 2022 to two in 2024. “If you keep them busy, they won’t have time to do anything else,” he said.

Asked about his January arrest, Truong said he has political enemies.

“I’m the only Democrat in a very red part of the state, and, you know, I’ve made a lot of changes at City Hall, and that ticks people off,” Truong told 麻豆女优 Health News. He said that he ended long-standing city contracts with local businesspeople. “When you’re shaking up power structures, you become a target.”

Josie Alexander, for , said city officials missed an opportunity when they didn’t use ARPA funds for gun violence prevention. “The sad thing is people here can now see that money was coming in,” she said. “But it just wasn’t used the way it needed to be.”

鈥楾oo Much Trouble Here’

Truong said the city is still reeling from the . He said he was at Bogalusa High School’s homecoming football game in 2022 when one teen shot another. Shots rang out, Truong said, and he grabbed his 3-month-old son and “laid in the bleachers.”

“It’s not a foreign topic to hardly anybody in town, whether you’ve heard the gunshots in the distance, whether you have attended a funeral of somebody who passed due to gun violence,” he said. Many still grapple with trauma.

In December 2022, Khlilia Daniels said, she hosted a birthday party for her teenage niece, praying no one would bring a gun.

The hosts checked guests for weapons, she said.

Yet gunfire erupted, Daniels said. Three teens were shot, including , who died, according to police.

“When someone you know is killed, you never forget,” said Daniels, 32, who held Taylor until emergency responders arrived.

A photo of a Black woman standing outside in Bogalusa, Louisiana.
Khlilia Daniels tried to help save a 15-year-old boy who was fatally shot in Bogalusa in December 2022 at a birthday party for her niece. “When someone you know is killed, you never forget,” she says. (Fred Clasen-Kelly/麻豆女优 Health News)

Tajdryn Forbes was planning his future when he , likely because of a dispute that started on social media over lyrics in a rap song, Guy said.

In a in January, Bogalusa police said they had arrested someone in connection with Forbes’ killing. Authorities had the arrest of a teen in connection with the homicide.

Forbes had been a high school football standout, like his late father, Charles Forbes Jr., who played semipro. When Forbes scored a touchdown, he would look to the sky to honor his dad.

The school praised Forbes for his senior baseball season in : “This young man makes a difference on our campus and on the field with his strong character.”

When hopes for a college football scholarship did not pan out, Forbes worked as a deckhand for a marine transportation company. He saved money, looking forward to moving to Slidell, a suburb of New Orleans.

“He would always say, 鈥楾here’s too much trouble here’” in Bogalusa, Guy recalled.

A photo of Tajdryn Forbes posing with a football and his helmet.
Tajdryn Forbes had been a high school football standout, like his late father, Charles Forbes Jr., who played semipro. When Forbes scored a touchdown, he would look to the sky to honor his dad. (Kevin Magee)
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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/bogalusa-louisiana-gun-violence-firearm-industry-black-communities-discrimination/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2068804&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2068804
Immigrant Kids Detained in 鈥楿nsafe and Unsanitary鈥 Sites as Trump Team Seeks To End Protections /mental-health/immigration-detention-children-monitoring-flores-settlement-agreement/ Wed, 30 Jul 2025 09:00:00 +0000 A child developed a rash after he was prevented from changing his underwear for four days. A little boy, bored and overcome with despair, began hitting himself in the head. A child with autism and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder was forced to go without his medication, despite his mother’s pleas.

“I heard one officer say about us 鈥榯hey smell like sh–,’” one detained person recounted in a federal court filing. “And another officer responded, 鈥楾hey are sh–.’”

Attorneys for immigrant children collected these stories, and more, from youth and families detained in what they called “prison-like” settings across the U.S. from March through June, even as the Trump administration has requested a federal district court judge terminate existing protections that mandate basic rights and services 鈥 including safe and sanitary conditions 鈥 for children held by the government.

The administration argues that the protections mandated under what is known as the Flores Settlement Agreement encourage immigration and interfere with its ability to establish immigration policy. U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee, who is in California, is expected to issue a ruling on the request after an Aug. 8 hearing.

With the agreement in place, children are being held in “unsafe and unsanitary” U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities such as tents, airports, and offices for up to several weeks despite the agency’s written policy saying people generally should not be held in its custody longer than , according to the from immigrants’ attorneys. In the U.S. Department of Justice’s May request to terminate the Flores consent decree, the attorneys demanded more monitoring for children in immigration detention.

“The biggest fear is that without Flores, we will lose a crucial line of transparency and accountability,” said , executive director of the California-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law. “Then you have a perfect storm for the abuse of individuals, the violation of their rights, and the kind of treatment that this country doesn’t stand for.”

The has set minimum standards and oversight for detained immigrant children since 1997, when it brought an end to a decade-long lawsuit filed on behalf of unaccompanied immigrant minors who had been subjected to poor treatment in unsafe and unsanitary conditions without access to medical care. It is named for Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old from El Salvador who was taken into U.S. custody in the mid-1980s, subjected to strip searches, and housed alongside unrelated men.

The agreement established national standards for the protection of immigrant children detained by federal authorities, with requirements for safe and sanitary detention facilities, access to clean water, appropriate food, clothing, bedding, recreational and educational opportunities, sanitation, plus appropriate medical and mental health care. Children in immigrant detention range from infants to teens.

In 2015, Gee ruled that the agreement includes children accompanied by adults.

The Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security, which includes both the Customs and Border Protection agency and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, declined to respond on the record to questions about the administration’s intent to end the Flores agreement or about the conditions in which kids are detained. In a , government attorneys argued, among other points, that the agreement improperly directs immigration decisions to the courts, not the White House. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi also that the Flores agreement has “incentivized illegal immigration,” and that Congress and federal agencies have resolved the problems Flores was designed to fix.

ICE detention facilities have the “highest standards,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said in an email to 麻豆女优 Health News. “They are safe, clean, and hold illegal aliens who are awaiting final removal proceedings.”

Immigration lawyers and researchers have on the idea that the Flores agreement encourages migration, arguing that the conditions in people’s homelands are driving them to move.

Trump is not the first president to seek to modify, or end, the agreement.

In 2016, President Barack Obama’s administration unsuccessfully sought to exempt accompanied minors from the Flores agreement, arguing that an influx of immigrants from Central America had overwhelmed the system.

In 2019, following a , the first Trump administration announced it would replace Flores with new regulations to expand family detention and eliminate detention time limits. The courts rejected that plan, too.

In 2024, President Joe Biden’s administration successfully requested to remove the Department of Health and Human Services from the agreement after the Office of Refugee Resettlement incorporated some Flores standards into agency regulations.

Allegations of unsafe conditions under the agreement also predate this latest immigration crackdown under Trump. One court filing from 2019 said that attorneys visiting two Texas detention centers found at least 250 infants, children, and teens, some of whom had been held at the facility for nearly a month. “Children were filthy and wearing clothes covered in bodily fluids, including urine,” the filing said.

Seven children are while in federal custody from 2018 to 2019, according to media reports.

And in 2023, 8-year-old Anadith Danay Reyes Alvarez became while in Customs and Border Protection custody in Texas for nine days. Her parents had turned over medical records detailing the girl’s medical history, including diagnoses of sickle cell disease and congenital heart disease, upon their detention. Yet her mother’s repeated pleas for emergency medical care were ignored.

Her family filed a in May.

Advocates attributed the deaths partly to prolonged detention in increasingly crowded facilities and delayed medical care. Officials have said they and in the wake of the deaths.

But with the Trump administration’s unprecedented push to detain and deport migrants 鈥 including families 鈥 the threat to the health of children caught up in those sweeps is alarming child advocates.

“Very rarely do you have spikes in populations of detained folk that you don’t see a drastic decrease in the quality of their medical care,” said Daniel Hatoum, a senior supervising attorney at the , one of the groups that filed the wrongful death claim for Anadith’s family.

Recent reports from court-appointed monitors cite continued ; temperature extremes; recreational opportunities; and clothing; and an inability to dim lights to sleep.

Terminating the Flores agreement would remove all outside oversight of immigration detention facilities by court-ordered monitors and attorneys. The public would have to depend on the government for transparency about the conditions in which children are held.

“Our system requires that there be some oversight for government, not just the Department of Homeland Security, but in general,” Hatoum said. “We know that. So, I do not believe that DHS could police itself.”

In the months after Trump took office and the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency began cuts, DHS’ Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman, and the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, which were intended to add a layer of oversight. After a lawsuit, the Trump administration , but it is unclear how those offices have been affected by shifts in policy and cuts in staffing.

Leecia Welch, an attorney with the legal advocacy group , said the Flores agreement itself, or efforts to hold the government responsible for abiding by its requirements, are not rooted in partisan politics. She said she raised concerns about conditions during Biden’s administration, too.

“These are not political issues for me,” Welch said. “How does our country want to treat children? That’s it. It’s very simple. I’m not going to take it easy on any administration where children are being harmed in their 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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/mental-health/immigration-detention-children-monitoring-flores-settlement-agreement/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2065748&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2065748
Trump Voters Wanted Relief From Medical Bills. For Millions, the Bills Are About To Get Bigger. /health-care-costs/medical-debt-trump-policies-little-relief/ Fri, 25 Jul 2025 09:00:00 +0000 /?post_type=article&p=2065016 President Donald Trump rode to reelection last fall on voter concerns about prices. But as his administration pares back federal rules and programs designed to protect patients from the high cost of health care, Trump risks pushing more Americans into debt, further straining family budgets already stressed by medical bills.

Millions of people are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years as a result of the tax cut legislation Trump signed this month, leaving them with fewer protections from large bills if they get sick or suffer an accident.

At the same time, significant increases in health plan premiums on state insurance marketplaces next year will likely push more Americans to either drop coverage or switch to higher-deductible plans that will require them to pay more out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in.

Smaller changes to federal rules are poised to bump up patients’ bills, as well. New federal guidelines for covid-19 vaccines, for example, will to stop covering the shots for millions, so if patients want the protection, some may have to pay out-of-pocket.

The new tax cut legislation will also raise the cost of certain doctor visits, requiring copays of up to $35 for some Medicaid enrollees.

And for those who do end up in debt, there will be fewer protections. This month, the Trump administration secured permission from a federal court to that would have removed medical debt from consumer credit reports.

That puts Americans who cannot pay their medical bills at risk of lower credit scores, hindering their ability to get a loan or forcing them to pay higher interest rates.

“For tens of millions of Americans, balancing the budget is like walking a tightrope,” said Chi Chi Wu, a staff attorney at the National Consumer Law Center. “The Trump administration is just throwing them off.”

White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not respond to questions about how the administration’s health care policies will affect Americans’ medical bills.

The president and his Republican congressional allies have brushed off the health care cuts, including hundreds of billions of dollars in Medicaid retrenchment in the mammoth tax law. “You won’t even notice it,” at the White House after the bill signing July 4. “Just waste, fraud, and abuse.”

But consumer and patient advocates around the country warn that the erosion of federal health care protections since Trump took office in January threatens to significantly undermine Americans’ financial security.

“These changes will hit our communities hard,” said Arika Sánchez, who oversees health care policy at the nonprofit New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty.

Sánchez predicted many more people the center works with will end up with medical debt. “When families get stuck with medical debt, it hurts their credit scores, makes it harder to get a car, a home, or even a job,” she said. “Medical debt wrecks people’s lives.”

For Americans with serious illnesses such as cancer, weakened federal protections from medical debt pose yet one more risk, said Elizabeth Darnall, senior director of federal advocacy at the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network. “People will not seek out the treatment they need,” she said.

Trump promised a rosier future while campaigning last year, and “expand access to new Affordable Healthcare.”

Polls suggest voters were looking for relief.

About 6 in 10 adults 鈥 Democrats and Republicans 鈥 say they are worried about being able to afford health care, according to , outpacing concerns about the cost of food or housing. And medical debt remains a widespread problem: As many as 100 million adults in the U.S. are burdened by some kind of health care debt.

Despite this, key tools that have helped prevent even more Americans from sinking into debt are now on the chopping block.

Medicaid and other government health insurance programs, in particular, have proved to be a powerful economic backstop for low-income patients and their families, said Kyle Caswell, an economist at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C.

Caswell and other , for example, that Medicaid expansion made possible by the 2010 Affordable Care Act led to measurable declines in medical debt and improvements in consumers’ credit scores in states that implemented the expansion.

“We’ve seen that these programs have a meaningful impact on people’s financial well-being,” Caswell said.

Trump’s tax law 鈥 which will slash more than $1 trillion in federal health spending over the next decade, mostly through Medicaid cuts 鈥 is expected to leave 10 million more people without health coverage by 2034, according to the from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The tax cuts, which primarily benefit wealthy Americans, will add $3.4 trillion to U.S. deficits over a decade, the office calculated.

The number of uninsured could spike further if Trump and his congressional allies don’t renew additional federal subsidies for low- and moderate-income Americans who buy health coverage on state insurance marketplaces.

This aid 鈥 enacted under former President Joe Biden 鈥 lowers insurance premiums and reduces medical bills enrollees face when they go to the doctor or the hospital. But unless congressional Republicans act, those subsidies will expire later this year, leaving many with bigger bills.

Federal debt regulations developed by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau under the Biden administration would have protected these people and others if they couldn’t pay their medical bills.

The agency issued rules in January that would have removed medical debts from consumer credit reports. That would have helped an estimated 15 million people.

But the Trump administration chose not to defend the new regulations when they were challenged in court by debt collectors and the credit bureaus, who argued the federal agency had exceeded its authority in issuing the rules. A federal judge in Texas appointed by Trump ruled that the regulation should be scrapped.

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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/health-care-costs/medical-debt-trump-policies-little-relief/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2065016&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2065016
Trump鈥檚 鈥極ne Big Beautiful Bill鈥 Lands in Senate. Our 400th Episode! /podcast/what-the-health-episode-400-big-beautiful-bill-senate-june-5-2025/ Thu, 05 Jun 2025 18:30:00 +0000 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner 麻豆女优 Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 麻豆女优 Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

After narrowly passing in the House in May, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has now arrived in the Senate, where Republicans are struggling to decide whether to pass it, change it, or 鈥 as Elon Musk, who recently stepped back from advising Trump, is demanding 鈥 kill it. 

Adding fuel to the fire, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill as written would increase the number of Americans without health insurance by nearly 11 million over the next decade. That number would grow to approximately 16 million should Republicans also not extend additional subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, which expire at year’s end. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 麻豆女优 Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann photo
Jessie Hellmann CQ Roll Call
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico
Lauren Weber photo
Lauren Weber The Washington Post

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Even before the CBO released estimates of how many Americans stand to lose health coverage under the House-passed budget reconciliation bill, Republicans in Washington were casting doubt on the nonpartisan office’s findings 鈥 as they did during their 2017 Affordable Care Act repeal effort.
  • Responding to concerns about proposed Medicaid cuts, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican, this week stood behind her controversial rejoinder at a town hall that “we’re all going to die.” The remark and its public response illuminated the problematic politics Republicans face in reducing benefits on which their constituents rely 鈥 and may foreshadow campaign fights to come.
  • Journalists revealed that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s report on children’s health may have been generated at least in part by artificial intelligence. The telltale signs in the report of what are called “AI hallucinations” included citations to scientific studies that don’t exist and a garbled interpretation of the findings of other research, raising further questions about the validity of the report’s recommendations.
  • And the Trump administration this week revoked Biden-era guidance on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Regardless, the underlying law instructing hospitals to care for those experiencing pregnancy emergencies still applies.

Also this week, Rovner interviews 麻豆女优 Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest “” feature, about a Medicaid patient who had an emergency in another state and the big bill he got for his troubles. If you have an infuriating, outrageous, or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, .

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

Julie Rovner: 麻豆女优 Health News’ “,” by Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts.

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

Lauren Weber: The New York Times’ “” by Emily Badger and Margot Sanger-Katz.

Jessie Hellmann: The New York Times’ “,” by Isabelle Taft.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • NOTUS.org’s “,” by Emily Kennard and Margaret Manto.
  • The Washington Post’s “,” by Lauren Weber and Caitlin Gilbert.
click to open the transcript Transcript: Trump’s 鈥極ne Big Beautiful Bill’ Lands in Senate. Our 400th Episode!

[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 麻豆女优 Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 5, at 10 a.m. As always, 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: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the 麻豆女优 Health News “Bill of the Month,” about a Medicaid patient who had a medical emergency out of state and got a really big bill to boot. But first the news. And buckle up 鈥 there is a lot of it. 

We’ll start on Capitol Hill, where the Senate is back this week and turning its attention to that “Big Beautiful” budget reconciliation bill passed by the House last month, and we’ll get to the fights over it in a moment. But first, the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday finished its analysis of the House-passed bill, and the final verdict is in. It would reduce federal health care spending by more than a trillion dollars, with a T, over the next decade. That’s largely from Medicaid but also significantly from the Affordable Care Act. And in a separate letter from CBO Wednesday afternoon, analysts projected that 10.9 million more people would be uninsured over the next decade as a result of the bill’s provisions. 

Additionally, 5.1 million more people would lose ACA coverage as a result of the bill, in combination with letting the Biden-era enhanced subsidies expire, for a grand total of 16 million more people uninsured as a result of Congress’ action and inaction. I don’t expect that number is going to help this bill get passed in the Senate, will it? 

Ollstein: We’re seeing a lot of what we saw during the Obamacare repeal fight in that, even before this report came out, Republicans were working to discredit the CBO in the eyes of the public and sow the seeds of mistrust ahead of time so that these pretty damaging numbers wouldn’t derail the effort. They did in that case, among other things. And so they could now, despite their protestations. 

But I think they’re saying a combination of true things about the CBO, like it’s based on guesses and estimates and models and you have to predict what human behavior is going to be. Are people going to just drop coverage altogether? Are they going to do this? Are they going to do that? But these are the experts we have. This is the nonpartisan body that Congress has chosen to rely on, so you’re not really seeing them present their own credible sources and data. They’re more just saying, Don’t believe these guys. 

Rovner: Yeah, and some of these things we know. We’ve seen. We’ve talked about the work requirement a million times, that when you have work requirements in Medicaid, the people who lose coverage are not people who refuse to work. It’s people who can’t navigate the bureaucracy. And when premiums go up, which they will for the Affordable Care Act, not just because they’re letting these extra subsidies expire but because they’re going back to the way premiums were calculated before 2017. The more expensive premiums get, the fewer people sign up. So it’s not exactly rocket science figuring out that you’re going to have a lot more people without health insurance as a result of this. 

Ollstein: Honestly, it seems from the reactions so far that Republicans on the Hill are more impacted by the CBO’s deficit increase estimates than they are by the number of uninsured-people increase estimates. 

Rovner: And that frankly feels a little more inexplicable to me that the Republicans are just saying, This won’t add to the deficit. And the CBO 鈥 it’s arithmetic. It’s not higher math. It’s like if you cut taxes this much so there’s less money coming in, there’s going to be less money and a bigger deficit. I’m not a math person, but I can do that part, at least in my head. 

Jessie, you’re on the Hill. What are you seeing over in the Senate? We don’t even have really a schedule for how this is going to go yet, right? We don’t know if the committees are going to do work, if they’re just going to plunk the House bill on the floor and amend it. It’s all sort of a big question mark. 

Hellmann: Yeah, we don’t have text yet from any of the committees that have health jurisdiction. There’s been a few bills from other committees, but obviously Senate Finance has a monumental task ahead of them. They are the ones that have jurisdiction over Medicaid. Their members said that they have met dozens of times already to work out the details. The members of the Finance Committee were at the White House yesterday with President [Donald] Trump to talk about the bill. 

It doesn’t seem like they got into the nitty-gritty policy details. And the message from the president seemed to mostly be, like, Just pass this bill and don’t make any major changes to it. Which is a tall order, I think, for some of the members like [Sens.] Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, and even a few others that are starting to come out and raise concerns about some of the changes that the House made, like to the way that states finance their share of Medicaid spending through the provider tax. 

Lisa Murkowski has raised concerns about how soon the work requirements would take effect, because, she was saying, Alaska doesn’t have the infrastructure right now and that would take a little bit to work out. So there are clearly still a lot of details that need to be worked out. 

Rovner: Well, I would note that Senate Republicans were already having trouble communicating about this bill even before these latest CBO numbers came out. At a town hall meeting last weekend in Iowa, where nearly 1 in 5 residents are on Medicaid, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst had an unfortunate reaction to a heckler in the audience, and, rather than apologize 鈥 well, here’s what she posted on Instagram. 

Sen. Joni Ernst: Hello, everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall. See, I was in the process of answering a question that had been asked by an audience member when a woman who was extremely distraught screamed out from the back corner of the auditorium, “People are going to die!” And I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth. 

So I apologize. And I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 

Rovner: And what you can’t see, just to add some emphasis, Ernst recorded this message in a cemetery with tombstones visible behind her. I know it is early in this debate, but I feel like we might look back on this moment later like [Sen. John] McCain’s famous thumbs-down in the 2017 repeal-and-replace debate. Or is it too soon? Lauren. 

Weber: For all the messaging they’ve tried to do around Medicaid cuts, for all the messaging, We’re all going to die I cannot imagine was on the list of approved talking points. And at the end of the day, I think it gets at how uncomfortable it is to face the reality of your constituents saying, I no longer have health care. This has been true since the beginning of time. Once you roll out an entitlement program, it’s very difficult to roll it back. 

So I think that this is just a preview of how poorly this will go for elected officials, because there will be plenty of people thrown off of Medicaid who are also Republicans. That could come back to bite them in the midterms and in general, I think, could lead 鈥 combine it with the anti-DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] fervor鈥 I think you could have a real recipe for quite the feedback. 

Rovner: Yes, and we’re going to talk about DOGE in a second. As we all now know, Elon Musk’s time as a government employee has come to an end, and we’ll talk about his legacy in a minute. But on his way out the door, he let loose a barrage of criticism of the bill, calling it, among other things, a, quote “disgusting abomination” that will saddle Americans with, quote, “crushingly unsustainable debt.” 

So basically we have a handful of Republicans threatening to oppose the bill because it adds to the deficit, another handful of Republicans worried about the health cuts 鈥 and then what? Any ideas how this battle plays out. I think in the House they managed to get it through by just saying, Keep the ball rolling and send it to the Senate. Now the Senate, it’s going to be harder, I think, for the Senate to say, Oh, we’ll keep the ball rolling and send it back to the House. 

Ollstein: Well, and to jump off Lauren’s point, I think the political blowback is really going to be because this is insult on top of injury in terms of not only are people going to lose Medicaid, Republicans, if this passes, but they’re being told that the only people who are going to lose Medicaid are undocumented immigrants and the undeserving. So not only do you lose Medicaid because of choices made by the people you elected, but then they turn around and imply or directly say you never deserved it in the first place. That’s pretty tough. 

Rovner: And we’re all going to die. 

Ollstein: And we’re all going to die. 

Weber: Just to add onto this, I do think it’s important to note that work requirements poll very popularly among the American people. A majority of Americans here “work requirements” and say, Gee, that sounds like a commonsense solution. What the reality that we’ve talked about in this podcast many, many times is, that it ends up kicking off people for bureaucratic reasons. It’s a way to reduce the rolls. It doesn’t necessarily encourage work. 

But to the average bear, it sounds great. Yes, absolutely. Why wouldn’t we want more people working? So I do think there is some messaging there, but at the end of the day, like Alice said, like I pointed out, they have not figured out the messaging enough, and it is going to add insult to injury to imply to some of these folks that they did not deserve their health care. 

Ollstein: And what’s really baffling is they are running around saying that Medicaid is going to people who should never have been on the program in the first place, able-bodied people without children who are not too young and not too old, sort of implying that these people are enrolling against the wishes of the program’s creators. 

But Congress explicitly voted for these people to be eligible for the program. And then after the Supreme Court made it optional, all of these states, most states, voted either by a direct popular vote or through the legislature to extend Medicaid to this population. And now they’re turning around and saying they were never supposed to be on it in the first place. We didn’t get here by accident or fraud. 

Rovner: Or by executive order. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, even before the Senate digs in, there’s still a lot of stuff that got packed into that House bill, some of it at the last minute that most people still aren’t aware of. And I’m not talking about [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene and AI, although that, too, among other things. And shout out here to our podcast panelist . The bill would reduce the amount of money medical students could borrow, threatening the ability of people to train to become doctors, even while the nation is already suffering a doctor shortage. 

It would also make it harder for medical residents to pay their loans back and do a variety of other things. The idea behind this is apparently to force medical schools to lower their tuition, which would be nice, but this feels like a very indirect way of doing it. 

Weber: I just don’t think it’s very popular in an era in which we’re constantly talking about physician shortages and encouraging folks that are from minority communities or underserved communities to become primary care physicians or infectious disease physicians, to go to the communities that need them, that reflect them, to then say, Look, we’re going to cut your loans. And what that’s going to do 鈥 short of RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.], who has toyed with playing with the code. So who knows? We could see. 

But as the current structure stands, here’s the deal: You have a lot of medical debt. You are incentivized to go into a more lucrative specialty. That means that you’re not going into primary care. You’re not going into infectious disease care. You’re not going to rural America, because they can’t pay you what it costs to repay all of your loans. So, I do think 鈥 and, it was interesting. I think spoke to some of the folks from the study that said that this could change it. That study was based off of metrics from 2006, and for some reason they were like, The financial private pay loans are not really going to cut it today. 

I find it hard to believe this won’t get fixed, to be quite honest, just because I think hating on medical students is usually a losing battle in the current system. But who knows? 

Rovner: And hospitals have a lot of clout. 

Weber: Yeah. 

Rovner: Although there’s a lot of things in this bill that they would like to fix. And, I don’t know. Maybe鈥 

Weber: Well, and hospitals have a lot of financial incentive, because essentially they make medical residents indentured servants. So, yeah, they also would like them to have less loans. 

Rovner: As I mentioned earlier, Elon Musk has decamped from DOGE, but in his wake is a lot of disruption at the Department of Health and Human Services and not necessarily a lot of savings. Thousands of federal workers are still in limbo on administrative leave, to possibly be reinstated or possibly not, with no one doing their jobs in the meantime. Those who are still there are finding their hands tied by a raft of new rules, including the need to get a political-appointee sign-off for even the most routine tasks. 

And around the country, thousands of scientific grants and contracts have been summarily frozen or terminated for no stated cause, as the administration seeks to punish universities for a raft of supposed crimes that have nothing to do with what’s being studied. I know that it just happened, but how is DOGE going to be remembered? I imagine not for all of the efficiencies that it has wrung out of the health care system. 

Ollstein: Well, one, I wouldn’t be so sure things are over, either between Elon and the Trump administration or what the amorphous blob that is DOGE. I think that the overall slash-and-burn of government is going to continue in some form. They are trying to formalize it by sending a bill to Congress to make these cuts, that they already made without Congress’ permission, official. We’ll see where that goes, but I think that it’s not an ending. It’s just morphing into whatever its next iteration is. 

Rovner: I would note that the first rescission request that the administration has sent up formally includes getting rid of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] and PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] and public broadcasting, which seems unlikely to garner a majority in both houses. 

Ollstein: Except, like I said, this is asking them to rubber-stamp something they’re already trying to do without them. Congress doesn’t like its power being infringed on, especially appropriators. They guard that power very jealously. Now, we have seen them a little quieter in this administration than maybe you would’ve thought, but I think there are some who, even if they agree on the substance of the cuts, might object to the process and just being asked to rubber-stamp it after the fact. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy continues to try to remake what’s left of HHS, although his big reorganization is currently blocked by a federal judge. And it turns out that his big MAHA, “Make America Healthy Again,” report may have been at least in part written by AI, which apparently became obvious when the folks at decided to do something that was never on my reporting bingo card, which is to check the footnotes in the report to see if they were real, which apparently many are not. Then, Lauren, you and your colleagues . So tell us about that. 

Weber: Yeah. NOTUS did a great job. They went through all the footnotes to find out that several of the studies didn’t exist, and my colleagues and I saw that and said, Hm, let’s look a little closer at these footnotes and see. And what we were able to do in speaking with AI experts is find telltale signs of AI. It’s basically a sign of artificial intelligence when things are hallucinated 鈥 which is what they call it 鈥 which is when it sounds right but isn’t completely factual, which is one of the dangers of using AI. 

And it appears that some of AI was used in the footnotes of this MAHA report, again, to, as NOTUS pointed out, create studies that don’t exist. It also kind of garbled some of the science on the other pieces of this. We found something called “oaicite,” which is a marker of OpenAI system, throughout the report. And at the end of the day, it casts a lot of questions on the report as a whole and: How exactly did it get made? What is the science behind this report? 

And even before anyone found any of these footnotes of any of this, a fair amount of these studies that this report cites to back up its thesis are a stretch. Even putting aside the fake studies and the garbled studies, I think it’s important to also note that a lot of the studies the report cites, a lot of what Kennedy does, take it a lot further than what they actually say. 

Rovner: So, this is all going well. Meanwhile, there is continuing confusion in vaccine land after Secretary Kennedy, flanked by FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Commissioner Marty Makary and NIH [National Institutes of Health] Director Jay Bhattacharya, announced in a video on X that the department would no longer recommend covid vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, sidestepping the expert advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its advisory committee of experts. 

The HHS officials say people who may still be at risk can discuss whether to get the vaccine with their doctors, but if the vaccines are no longer on the recommended list, then insurance is less likely to cover them and medical facilities are less likely to stock them. Paging Sen. [Bill] Cassidy, who still, as far as I can tell, hasn’t said anything about the secretary’s violation of his promise to the senator during his confirmation hearings that he wouldn’t mess with the vaccine schedule. Have we heard a peep from Sen. Cassidy about any of this? 

Ollstein: I have not, but a lot of the medical field has been very vocal and very upset. I was actually at the annual conference of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists when this news broke, and they were just so confused and so upset. They had seen pregnant patients die of covid before the vaccines were available, or because there was so much misinformation and mistrust about the vaccines’ safety for pregnant people that a lot of people avoided it, and really suffered the consequences of avoiding it. 

A lot of the issue was that there were not good studies of the vaccine in pregnant people at the beginning of the rollout. There have since been, and those studies have since shown that it is safe and effective for pregnant people. But it was, in a lot of people’s minds, too late, because they already got it in their head that it was unsafe or untested. So the OB-GYNs at this conference were really, really worried about this. 

Rovner: And, confusingly, the CDC on its website amended its recommendations to leave children recommended but not pregnant women, which is kind of the opposite of, I think, what most of the medical experts were recommending. Jessie, you were about to add something. 

Hellmann: I just feel like the confusion is the point. I think Kennedy has made it a pattern now to get out ahead of an official agency decision and kind of set the narrative, even if it is completely opposite of what his agencies are recommending or are stating. He’s done this with a report that the CDC came out with autism, when he said rising autism cases aren’t because of more recognition and the CDC report said it’s a large part because of more recognition. 

He’s done this with food dyes. He said, We’re banning food dyes. And then it turns out they just asked manufacturers to stop putting food dyes into it. So I think it’s part of, he’s this figurehead of the agency and he likes to get out in front of it and just state something as fact, and that is what people are going to remember, not something on a CDC webpage that most people aren’t going to be able to find. 

Rovner: Yeah, it sounds like President Trump. It’s like, saying it is more important than doing it, in a lot of cases. So of course there’s abortion news this week, too. The Trump administration on Tuesday reversed the Biden administration guidance regarding EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Biden officials, in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade three years ago, had reminded hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid, which is all of them, basically, that the requirement to provide emergency care includes abortion when warranted, regardless of state bans. Now, Alice, this wasn’t really unexpected. In fact, it’s happening later than I think a lot of people expected it to happen. How much impact is it going to have, beyond a giant barrage of press releases from both sides in the abortion debate? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so, OK, it’s important for people to remember that what the Biden administration, the guidance they put out was just sort of an interpretation of the underlying law. So the underlying law isn’t changing. The Biden administration was just saying: We are stressing that the underlying law means in the abortion context, in the post-Dobbs context, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, that hospitals cannot turn away a pregnant woman who’s having a medical crisis. And if the necessary treatment to save her life or stabilize her is an abortion, then that’s what they have to do, regardless of the laws in the state. 

In a sense, nothing’s changed, because EMTALA itself is still in place, but it does send a signal that could make hospitals feel more comfortable turning people away or denying treatment, since the government is signaling that they don’t consider that a violation. Now, I will say, you’re totally right that this was expected. In the big lawsuit over this that is playing out now in Idaho, one of the state’s hospitals intervened as a plaintiff, basically in anticipation of this happening, saying, The Trump administration might not defend EMTALA in the abortion context, so we’re going to do it for them, basically, to keep this case alive. 

Rovner: And I would point out that ProPublica just won a Pulitzer for detailing the women who were turned away and then died because they were having pregnancy complications. So we do know that this is happening. Interestingly, the day before the administration’s announcement, the put out a new, quote, “practice advisory” on the treatment of preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes, which is one of the more common late-pregnancy complications that result in abortion, because of the risk of infection to the pregnant person. 

Reading from that guidance, quote, “the Practice Advisory affirms that ob-gyns and other clinicians must be able to intervene and, in cases of previable and periviable PPROM” 鈥 that’s the premature rupture of membranes 鈥 “provide abortion care before the patient becomes critically ill.” Meanwhile, this statement came out Wednesday from the , quote, ,“Regardless of variances in the regulatory landscape from one administration to another, emergency physicians remain committed not just by law, but by their professional oath, to provide this care.” 

So on the one hand, professional organizations are speaking out more strongly than I think we’ve seen them do it before, but they’re not the ones that are in the emergency room facing potential jail time for, Do I obey the federal law or do I obey the state ban? 

Ollstein: And when I talk to doctors who are grappling with this, they say that even with the Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA, that didn’t solve the problem for them. It was some measure of protection and confidence. But still, exactly like you said, they’re still caught in between seemingly conflicting state and federal law. And really a lot of them, based on what they told me, were saying that the threat of the state law is more severe. It’s more immediate. 

It means being charged with a felony, being charged with a crime if they do provide the abortion, versus it’s a federal penalty, it’s not on the doctor itself. It’s on the institution. And it may or may not happen at some point. So when you have criminal charges on one side and maybe some federal regulation or an investigation on the other side, what are you going to choose? 

Rovner: And it’s hard to imagine this administration doing a lot of these investigations. They seem to be turning to other things. Well, we will watch this space, and obviously this is all still playing out in court. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we could squeeze in. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Arielle Zionts, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast 麻豆女优 Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest 麻豆女优 Health News “.” Arielle, welcome back. 

Arielle Zionts: Hi. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient has Medicaid as his health insurance, and he left his home state of Florida to visit family in South Dakota for the holidays, where he had a medical emergency. Tell us who he is and what happened that landed him in the hospital. 

Zionts: Sure. So I spoke with Hans Wirt. He was visiting family in the Black Hills. That’s where Mount Rushmore is and its beautiful outdoors. He was at a water park, following his son up and down the stairs and getting kind of winded. And at first he thought it might just be the elevation difference, because in Florida it’s like 33 feet above sea level. Here it’s above 3,000 in Rapid City. 

But then they got him back to the hotel room and he was getting a lot worse, his breathing, and then he turned pale. And his 12-year-old son is the one who called 911. And medics were like, Yep, you’re having a heart attack. And they took him to the hospital in town, and that is the only place to go. There’s just one hospital with an ER in Rapid City. 

Rovner: So the good news is that he was ultimately OK, but the bad news is that the hospital tried to stick them with the bill. How big was it? 

Zionts: It was nearly $78,000. 

Rovner: Wow. So let’s back up a bit. How did Mr. Wirt come to be on Medicaid? 

Zionts: Yeah. So it is significant that he is from Florida, because that is one of the 10 states that has not opted in to expand Medicaid. So in Florida, if you’re an adult, you can’t just be low-income. You have to also be disabled or caring for a minor child. And Hans says that’s his case. He works part time at a family business, but he also cares for his 12-year-old son, who is also on Medicaid. 

Rovner: So Medicaid patients, as we know, are not supposed to be charged even small copays for care in most cases. Is that still the case when they get care in other states? 

Zionts: So Medicaid will not pay for patient care if they are getting more of an elective or non-medically necessary kind of optional procedure or care in another state. But there are several exceptions, and one of the exceptions is if they have an emergency in another state. So federal law says that state Medicaid programs have to reimburse those hospitals if it was for emergency care. 

Rovner: And presumably a heart attack is an emergency. 

Zionts: Yes. 

Rovner: So why did the hospital try to bill him anyway? They should have billed Florida Medicaid, right? 

Zionts: So what’s interesting is while there’s a law that says the Medicaid program has to reimburse the hospital, there’s no law saying the hospital has to send the bill to Medicaid. And that was really interesting to learn. In this case, the hospital, it’s called Monument Health, and they said they only bill plans in South Dakota and four of our bordering states. So basically they said for them to bill for the Medicaid, they would have to enroll. 

And they say they don’t do that in every state, because there is a separate application process for each state. And their spokesperson described it as a burdensome process. So in this case, they billed Hans instead. 

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? He presumably didn’t have $78,000 to spare. 

Zionts: Correct. Yeah. And he had told them that, and he said they only offered, Hey, you can set up a payment plan. But that would’ve still been really expensive, the monthly payments. So he reached out to 麻豆女优 Health News, and I had sent my questions to the hospital, and then a few days later I get a text from Hans and he says, Hey, my balance is at zero now. He and I both eventually learned that that’s because the hospital paid for his care through a program called Charity Care. 

All nonprofit hospitals are required to have this program, which provides free or very discounted pricing for patients who are uninsured or very underinsured. And the hospital said that they screen everyone for this program before sending them to collections. But what that meant is that for months, Hans was under the impression that he was getting this bill. And he was, got a notice saying, This is your last warning before we send you to collection. 

Rovner: So, maybe they would’ve done it anyway, or maybe you gave them a nudge. 

Zionts: They say they would’ve done it anyways. 

Rovner: OK. So what’s the takeaway here? It can’t be that if you have Medicaid, you can’t travel to another state to visit family at Christmas. 

Zionts: Right. So Hans made that same joke. He said, quote, “If I get sick and have a heart attack, I have to be sure that I do that here in Florida now instead of some other state.” Obviously, he’s kidding. You can’t control when you have an emergency. So the takeaway is that you do risk being billed and that if you don’t know how to advocate yourself, you might get sent to collections. But I also learned that there’s things that you can do. 

So you could file a complaint with your state Medicaid program, and also, if you have a managed-care program, and they might have 鈥 you should ask for a caseworker, like, Hey, can you communicate with the hospital? Or you can contact an attorney. There’s free legal-aid ones. An attorney I spoke with said that she would’ve immediately sent a letter to the hospital saying, Look, you need to either register with Florida Medicaid and submit it. If not, you need to offer the Charity Care. So that’s the advice. 

Rovner: So, basically, be ready to advocate for yourself. 

Zionts: Yes. 

Rovner: OK. Arielle Zionts, thank you so much. 

Zionts: Thank you. 

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

Hellmann: My story is from The New York Times. It’s called “,” which I don’t know how I feel about that headline, but the story was really interesting. It’s about how police departments are using DNA technology to find the mothers of infants that had been found dead years and years ago. And it gets a little bit into just the complicated situation. 

Some of these women have gone on to have families. They have successful careers. And now some of them are being charged with murder, and some who have been approached about this have unfortunately died by suicide. And it just gets into the ethics of the issue and what police and doctors, families, should be considering about the context around some of these situations, about what the circumstances were, in some cases, 40 years ago and what should be done with that. 

Rovner: Really thought-provoking story. Lauren. 

Weber: With credit to Julie, too, because she brought this up again, was brought back to a classic from The New York Times back in 2020, which is called “” And here are the questions: I will read them for the group. 

Rovner: And I will point out that this is once again relevant. That’s why it was brought back. 

Weber: It’s once again relevant, and one of them is, “Do you have paper mail you plan to read that has been unopened for more than a week?” Yes. I’m looking at paper mail on my desk. “Have you forgotten to pay a utility bill on time?” If I didn’t set up auto pay, I probably would forget to pay a utility bill on time. “Have you received a government document in the mail that you did not understand?” Many times. “Have you missed a doctor’s appointment because you forgot you scheduled it or something came up?” 

These are the basic facts that can derail someone from having access to health care or saddle them, because they lose access to health care and don’t realize it, with massive hospital bills. And this is a lot of what we could see in the coming months if some of these Medicaid changes come through. And I just, I think I would challenge a lot of people to think seriously about how much mail they leave unopened and what that could mean for them, especially if you are living in different homes, if you are moving frequently, etc. This paperwork burden is something to definitely be considered. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think we should sort of refloat this every time we have another one of these debates. Alice. 

Ollstein: So I wanted to recommend something I wrote [“”]. It was my last story before taking some time off this summer. It is about the intersection of Trump’s immigration policies and our health care system. And so this is jumping off the Supreme Court allowing the Trump administration to strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Again, these are people who came legally through a designated program, and they are being made undocumented by the Trump administration, with the Supreme Court’s blessing. And tens of thousands of them are health care workers. 

And so I visited an elder care facility in Northern Virginia that was set to lose 65 staff members, and I talked to the residents and the other workers about how this would affect them, and the owner. And it was just a microcosm of the damage this could have on our health sector more broadly. Elder care is especially immigrant-heavy in its workforce, and everyone there was saying there just are not the people to replace these folks. 

And not only is that the case right now, but as the baby boomer generation ages and requires care, the shortages we see now are going to be nothing compared to what we could see down the road. With the lower birth rates here, we’re just not producing enough workers to do these jobs. The piece also looks into how public health and management of infectious diseases is also being worsened by these immigration raids and crackdowns and deportations. So, would love people to take a look. 

Rovner: I’m so glad you did this story, because it’s something that I keep running up and down screaming. And you can tell us why you’re taking some time off this summer, Alice. 

Ollstein: I’m writing a book. Hopefully it will be out next year, and I can’t wait to tell everyone more about it. 

Rovner: Excellent. All right. My extra credit this week is from my 麻豆女优 Health News colleagues Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts, who you just heard talking about her “Bill of the Month,” and it’s called “.” And that sums it up pretty well. The HHS secretary had a splashy photo op earlier this year out west, where he promised to prioritize Native American health. But while he did spare the Indian Health Service from personnel cuts, it turns out that the Native American population is also served by dozens of other HHS programs that were cut, some of them dramatically, everything from home energy assistance to programs that improve access to healthy food, to preventing overdoses. The Native community has been disproportionately hurt by the purging of DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, because Native populations have systematically been subjected to unequal treatment over many generations. It’s a really good if somewhat infuriating story. 

OK. That is this week’s show. Before we go, if you will indulge me for a minute, this is our 400th episode of “What the Health?” We launched in 2017 during that year’s repeal-and-replace debate. I want to thank all of my panelists, current and former, for teaching me something new every single week. And everyone here at 麻豆女优 Health News who makes this podcast possible. That includes not only my chief partners in crime, Francis Ying and Emmarie Huetteman, but also the copy desk and social media and web teams who do all the behind-the-scenes work that brings our podcast to you every week. And of course, big thanks to you, the listeners, who have stuck with us all these years. 

I won’t promise you 400 more episodes, but I will keep doing this as long as you keep wanting it. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you folks these days? Jessie? 

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann and , and . 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: I’m on X and on , shockingly, now. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: on Bluesky and on X. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts, .

And subscribe to 麻豆女优 Health News’ “What the Health?” 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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-episode-400-big-beautiful-bill-senate-june-5-2025/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=2044702&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2044702
Future of Cancer Coverage for Women Federal Firefighters Uncertain Under Trump /insurance/firefighters-wildfires-women-cancer-toxic-coverage-trump-labor-department/ Fri, 28 Feb 2025 10:00:00 +0000 It took nearly three years to win presumptive workers’ compensation coverage for breast, cervical, and other cancers that firefighters who work for federal agencies may develop because of hazardous exposures on the job.

Now, just weeks after the Labor Department added coverage for those illnesses, firefighters worry the gains may be in jeopardy after the Trump administration deleted information about the expansion of coverage for cancers that mostly affect women and transgender firefighters from a federal webpage and ducked questions about whether it will uphold the policy change made in the waning days of the Biden administration.

“It’s really important to continue to focus on ensuring that those who devote their lives to protecting the public and communities continue to receive coverage through the special claims unit,” said Pete Dutchick, a federal firefighter and volunteer with the advocacy group Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.

The Labor Department’s special claims unit, , processes all federal firefighter claims and provides a streamlined path for those with covered conditions. Wildland firefighters and advocacy groups representing them celebrated that year when federal officials moved to expedite workers’ compensation coverage of cancers tied to their jobs. It was recognition that the dangers of battling wildfires extend long after a blaze is extinguished.

The list of cancers federal officials tagged for streamlined claims processes through the Labor Department’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs included esophageal, colorectal, prostate, testicular, kidney, bladder, brain, lung, thyroid, multiple myeloma, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, leukemia, mesothelioma, and melanoma.

But that initial jubilation soured when it became clear that breast, ovarian, cervical, and uterine cancers were excluded, creating a coverage gap for more than 2,700 people, or about 16% of the more than 17,000 federal wildland firefighters working for the Forest Service and the Interior Department. These are firefighters who are dispatched to federal lands, like in national forests and national parks, and sometimes , as they did when fires swept into Los Angeles in January.

“At first glance, we were ecstatic,” Dutchick said. “And then we’re like, 鈥榃ell, where are the female cancers?’”

Dutchick, who has an 8-year-old daughter, was upset. “I certainly want her to have equal protections when it comes to health if she chooses to get into a field of public service,” he said.

Then this year, as the Biden administration wound toward a close, federal officials addressed the exclusion, adding the cancers to the list in a last-minute change before Donald Trump took office.

“This policy change acknowledges the unique occupational hazards faced by women firefighters and ensures they receive the care and support they deserve,” Christopher Godfrey, the now-former director of the workers’ compensation office, said in a Jan. 6 statement on the Labor Department’s website.

In a statement to 麻豆女优 Health News four days later, Godfrey said the policy change resulted in immediate action for firefighters with new claims.

But in the early days of the Trump administration, the January press release announcing the cancer coverage expansion was deleted from the Labor Department website. When asked whether claims were still being processed for the four recently added cancers, a spokesperson for the workers’ compensation office, Frances Alonzo, told 麻豆女优 Health News, “We do not have any additional updates regarding your inquiry.”

Formalizing the policy change through rulemaking will take months and support from Congress.

Kaleena Lynde is among a generation of women firefighters who developed cancer before streamlined coverage for workers’ compensation claims existed. In 2006, Lynde, then 22, was diagnosed with small cell ovarian cancer during her third fire season on the Shasta Lake Hotshots, an elite crew of firefighters in Northern California. Doctors removed a 5.4-pound tumor almost immediately that year. She’s now cancer-free, but only after multiple surgeries, chemotherapy, and an additional cervical cancer diagnosis three years later. Lynde has since gone on to work various jobs for the Forest Service, including 16 years at Eldorado National Forest doing fire investigation, fire prevention, and dispatch center jobs. She now coordinates wildfire apprenticeships for the agency’s Pacific Southwest region.

A friend recently sent her a link to the , a database tracking the prevalence of diseases among all firefighters, both structural and wildland. It made Lynde wonder 鈥 could her cancers be connected to her work on the fire line?

“I just thought I had bad luck,” Lynde said.

Seeking to fix the omission, more than 15 wildland firefighter advocacy groups, representing Hotshot crews, smokejumpers, and others, signed a September letter to Julie Su, the acting labor secretary at the time. They pointed out that other countries, , already included presumptive coverage for cervical, ovarian, uterine, and breast cancers.

The Labor Department implemented that eased the requirements for covering wildland firefighters’ cancer-related workers’ compensation claims in April 2022 through a Federal Employees’ Compensation Act bulletin. The rules were codified in December 2022 when President Joe Biden signed the National Defense Authorization Act.

To qualify, firefighters must have worked for at least five years and be diagnosed within 10 years of their last exposure. Those with unlisted cancers could still file claims through a special unit but wouldn’t receive the same streamlined adjudication for compensation. By September 2024, the workers’ compensation office had received 91 claims for qualifying cancers and heart and lung conditions. Of those, 89 were adjudicated through the special claims process and 84, or 94%, were accepted. Godfrey said that prior to the legislation, only 29% of occupational disease claims for firefighters were accepted.

Rachel Granberg, a wildland firefighter in Washington state, said streamlined processing and reimbursements are important. “It really gives people more bandwidth to worry about how they’re going to manage their life after a cancer diagnosis, rather than just fighting for basic health care.”

Too often firefighters end up crowdsourcing for financial support after cancer diagnoses, she said.

George Broyles, retired firefighter and Forest Service researcher, said that health risks are too often seen as part of the job. “Hazard pay is not going to stop cancer,” he said. Broyles wants federal firefighting agencies to be honest about cancer risks when hiring young workers and then educate them on ways to protect themselves.

The recent policy change meant claims for federal wildland firefighters with ovarian, breast, or uterine cancer were immediately directed to the special claims unit and expedited processing.

The Labor Department’s decision to change course and expand presumptive coverage to female reproductive cancers was sudden. In December, the agency released a statement to 麻豆女优 Health News saying such a change was unwarranted.

Three weeks later 鈥 without pointing to any new published research 鈥 the agency changed course, citing additional consultation with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and with Steven Moffatt, a doctor who specializes in firefighter illnesses. The agency conducts periodic reviews to consider adding new conditions to its coverage.

The Labor Department’s initial exclusion of female reproductive cancers illuminated the repercussions of research on wildland firefighter health in which women are understudied. that only three out of 20 studies evaluated women firefighters’ cancer risk.

But research has confirmed for years that firefighters are exposed to toxic dangers. A Florida firefighters for almost 20 years in the 1980s and 1990s found that firefighting increases the overall cancer risk in female firefighters. In 2022, the International Agency for Research on Cancer as a cancer-causing occupation.

Recent research contributed to the agency’s inclusion of female reproductive cancers, Godfrey said. In 2023, a link between perfluorononanoic acid, a type of PFAS, and uterine cancer. PFAS, which stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a category of chemicals that in the protective gear worn by wildland firefighters. has also linked PFAS exposure to an increase in melanoma. in September identified 12 chemicals that firefighters are exposed to on the job linked to breast cancer.

But now, it’s unclear whether the Trump administration will roll back the new coverage, leaving some federal firefighters unsure whether exposures on the job will leave them scrambling for 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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/insurance/firefighters-wildfires-women-cancer-toxic-coverage-trump-labor-department/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=1989123&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
1989123
Biden Rule Cleared Hurdles to Lifesaving HIV Drug, but in Georgia Barriers Remain /public-health/prep-hiv-drug-biden-rule-access-georgia-barriers-remain/ Thu, 06 Feb 2025 10:00:00 +0000 ATLANTA — Latonia Wilkins knows she needs to be on PrEP due to her non-monogamous lifestyle. But the 52-year-old Atlanta mother has faced repeated challenges getting the lifesaving drug that can prevent new HIV infections.

Years ago, Wilkins was dating a man newly diagnosed with HIV and went to get tested, she said, but was not offered PrEP.

Since then, Wilkins said, doctors either have told her she doesn’t need the drug or were reluctant to prescribe it. Her insurance through work would not cover a long-acting injectable form that tends to have better results than the original pill form. Getting to appointments across Atlanta for the pills was a challenge. She is now enrolled in a drug trial for a promising PrEP injection but worries about future access and cost.

Preexposure prophylaxis, known as PrEP, reduces the risk of new HIV infections through sex by 99% and among injectable drug users , according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Among states, Georgia has the of new HIV infections, but residents — especially women and Black patients like Wilkins — are often not getting PrEP, data shows.

A rule enacted by the Biden administration that took effect for many Affordable Care Act plans on Jan. 1 should make it easier for people like Wilkins to get long-acting PrEP injectable drugs.

A new Trump administration adds an X factor to this and other federal health programs. On Jan. 27, the White House announced a federal funding freeze, which sent shudders through health agencies and nonprofits. By Jan. 29, it had reversed the order.

Federal initiatives like the and HIV prevention funding seemed to be affected — and “blocking access to PrEP would have deadly consequences,” said Wayne Turner, a senior attorney at the National Health Law Program.

Georgia has big in PrEP uptake, said Patrick Sullivan, who is an epidemiology professor at Emory University and leads AIDSVu and PrEPVu, which track HIV data and access to the drug — work that is backed by Gilead Sciences, a PrEP drug manufacturer.

Public health experts use what’s called a “PrEP-to-need ratio” to measure how many people at risk of HIV are getting the drug. A higher number is better. In Georgia for 2023, the statewide ratio was 6, while it was nearly 167 in Vermont, .

In Georgia and Nationwide, Those Who Need PrEP Aren’t Getting It

While the ratio for white people in Georgia was roughly 22, it was about 3 for Black people and just over 3 for Hispanic people. And while it was 7 for men, it was just over 2 for women.

“Black people generally are underserved by PrEP, and women are underserved by PrEP relative to men,” Sullivan said.

Increasing PrEP uptake would help the state cut its new HIV diagnoses, said Dylan Baker, associate medical director at Grady Health’s HIV Prevention Program.

Georgia’s rate of new HIV diagnoses was 27 per 100,000 in 2022, according to the most recent available data. That’s second only to Washington, D.C., and more than double the national rate of 13 per 100,000. That amounts to about 2,500 new cases diagnosed in Georgia in a year.

Globally about 3.5 million people used PrEP in 2023, up from 200,000 in 2017 but short of the United Nations’ 2025 target of 21.2 million people, by the United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS.

PrEP users in Atlanta report many challenges in getting the drug, including cost, medical providers who don’t prescribe it, stigma, a lack of inclusive marketing, and transportation. Wilkins said she has run up against all of those.

“Here I am telling you that I’m here to get tested because I have come into contact with someone who was living with HIV, and we had a sexual relationship, and you’re not even mentioning PrEP to me,” Wilkins said. “That was a disservice.”

Insurers Now Required To Cover PrEP

Cost has long been a barrier. The Biden administration last fall requiring most insurers to cover the full cost of all forms of PrEP, without prior authorization, along with certain lab work and other services. This includes pills as well as Apretude, an injection given every two months.

That means insured PrEP users should not face , said Carl Schmid, executive director of the , which lobbied for the rule.

It applies to those on the federal marketplace plans and most large private health plans. A similar rule exists for Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans.

Schmid said he does not think the Trump administration will repeal the rule, but he is concerned the U.S. Supreme Court could end coverage for preventive services, including PrEP, when it issues a decision in , anticipated this summer.

The rule will not help the uninsured. In Georgia, which did not expand Medicaid under the ACA, about are uninsured.

“The cost is also a struggle, especially given different people are part of the gig economy, a lot of folks don’t always have access to health insurance,” said Maximillian Boykin, an Atlanta PrEP user.

Expanding Medicaid would help. States that have done so, Sullivan said, “have higher levels of PrEP uptake.”

Winning the PrEP Lottery

Since getting on PrEP in 2019, Wilkins has encountered two doctors who did not want to prescribe it.

One female OB-GYN told her “‘Girl, at our age, we should know better.’” Wilkins said , telling her that such comments are stigmatizing.

When Wilkins moved, she looked for a nearby primary care provider so she would not have to pay for transportation to get PrEP.

But the doctor she found, Wilkins said, told her to find an infectious disease specialist for PrEP.

“‘You’re not treating an infectious disease,’ I say. ‘This is preventive care,’” Wilkins recalled.

Wilkins’ fortunes turned when she was selected to join a study for a twice-yearly injectable form of PrEP.

A photo of Latonia Wilkins posing next to a Southern AIDS Coalition banner at an event.
Latonia Wilkins, an Atlanta mother, has faced several challenges accessing PrEP, an HIV prevention drug. (Darriyhan Edmond)

Lenacapavir, already approved for HIV treatment, showed promising results for HIV prevention in . Wilkins is part of a trial in Atlanta including about 250 cisgender women nationally who have sex with men.

It’s much better than a daily pill or even a shot once every two months, Wilkins said.

She hopes to stay on the drug, but the U.S. list price for lenacapavir as an HIV treatment averages about $40,000 a year.

Gilead last year announced it signed royalty-free licensing agreements with six manufacturers to make generic lenacapavir for 120 primarily low- and lower-middle-income countries.

It’s not clear where it falls with the Biden rule. “We believe it should be covered,” Schmid said, “but want the federal government to state that clearly.”

For many patients, challenges remain. Most people are willing to travel about 30 minutes for routine health care, Sullivan said, but in cities like Atlanta, those relying on public transportation may face longer commutes to PrEP providers. Some who need PrEP have unstable housing without firm mailing addresses.

Privacy is another concern. “Everybody should be able to find a place that’s comfortable,” Sullivan said. “More of that can go on in primary health care.”

Others agree that public health messaging around PrEP services should target more diverse audiences. Dázon Dixon Diallo is the founder of , an HIV, sexual, and reproductive health organization focused on Black women in the Southeast.

“You’re not going to get to us by giving us a 3-second cameo in a commercial about PrEP,” she said. “There’s no story in there for me, right?”

Healthbeat is a nonprofit newsroom covering public health published by and . Sign up for its newsletters .

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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/public-health/prep-hiv-drug-biden-rule-access-georgia-barriers-remain/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=1981428&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
1981428
Creating Chaos at HHS /podcast/what-the-health-381-trump-executive-orders-hhs-chaos-january-23-2025/ Thu, 23 Jan 2025 20:30:00 +0000 /?p=1974307&post_type=podcast&preview_id=1974307 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner 麻豆女优 Health News Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of 麻豆女优 Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

The second Trump presidency launched with a bang at the Department of Health and Human Services, where a traditional pause on public communications was expanded to an effective stoppage of scientific work, as health agencies were ordered to cancel meetings, travel, and efforts on outside publications. It is unclear how long the order will stay in effect; President Donald Trump’s nominee to run the department, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., won’t go before Senate committees for his confirmation hearings until the end of the month. 

Meanwhile, starting on his first day in office, the new president issued a raft of executive orders aimed at reversing Biden administration policy 鈥 but, notably, none directly addressing abortion, which has been a traditional focus every time the White House changes parties. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 麻豆女优 Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico
Rachel Roubein photo
Rachel Roubein The Washington Post
Rachel Cohrs Zhang photo
Rachel Cohrs Zhang Stat News

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • The Trump administration took a very firm grip on federal agencies this week, sowing uncertainty with blanket cancellations of upcoming meetings and travel 鈥 as well as by implementing a broad pause on external communications. The cancellations reached deep into agencies’ core functions, affecting, for instance, meetings to review grant applications for federally funded research.
  • Kennedy’s confirmation hearings to be Health and Human Services secretary are scheduled for Jan. 29 and 30. Yet questions remain about his nomination, including more recent revelations about conflicts of interest 鈥 such as his financial stake in ongoing litigation with Merck & Co. related to the HPV vaccine.
  • Trump issued a slew of executive orders this week. (It is worth noting that executive orders largely instruct federal agencies to start making a change, rather than constituting the change themselves.) Of note on health, Trump’s orders instructed the removal of the U.S. from the World Health Organization; revoked a Biden administration order to reduce drug prices; and laid the groundwork to undermine health care for transgender people. Notably, though, none of the orders directly addressed abortion.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Rodney Whitlock, a consultant with McDermott+ and an adjunct faculty member at the George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health. Whitlock is a former House and Senate staffer and provides a primer on how Congress’ convoluted budget reconciliation process is supposed to work.

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

Julie Rovner: CNN’s “,” by Brenda Goodman.  

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “,” by Caroline Kitchener.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: The Washington Post’s “,” by Fenit Nirappil.  

Alice Ollstein: The Los Angeles Times’ “” by Karen Garcia and Tony Briscoe. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • The Texas Tribune’s “,” by Eleanor Klibanoff.
Click to open the transcript u003cstrongu003eTranscript: Creating Chaos at HHSu003c/strongu003e

[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 麻豆女优 Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 23, at 10 a.m. As always, and particularly today, 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 Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: And Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

Rachel Roubein: Hi. 

Rovner: I’ll do my best to keep the Rachels straight. Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with longtime Hill staffer Rodney Whitlock, who will help explain budget reconciliation, which is the process by which congressional Republicans are going to try to enact most of President [Donald] Trump’s health agenda later this year. But first, the news 鈥 and it is breaking fast, as I said. 

President Donald Trump was sworn in at noon on Monday and as predicted hit the ground running with a sheaf of executive orders. Many of those have to do with health policy, and we’ll get to them in a moment. But first today, it appears the new administration is taking the tightest hold ever on the workings of the sprawling Department of Health and Human Services, creating chaos, whether on purpose or not. 

Now, every new administration puts a moratorium on what it tells the public as new political appointees integrate themselves into the everyday workings of agencies like the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration. But this administration has gone considerably further than ever before, literally grinding to a halt long-scheduled scientific meetings, scientific journal publications including CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, and canceling travel until further notice and basically any communication with the outside world. 

What do we know about what’s happening here? Is this just the sort of government-wide external communication stoppage, or does it have to do with the administration trying to get rid of efforts at diversity, equity, and inclusion? 

Roubein: My colleagues at The Post, Dan Diamond, Lena Sun, and I dug into this on Tuesday and also Wednesday and continuing this morning, and basically our sense of it kind of early on Tuesday was that Stefanie Spear, an HHS deputy chief of staff, key [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] ally, had instructed agency staff Tuesday morning to do this pause on external communications. There was then later a memo that outlined it. In general, we talked to nearly a dozen people, and some of them acknowledged that, yes, it’s expected, some review during a presidential transition so that the new incoming team can understand the vast flow of info to health agencies. But they also said they were confused by the pause’s scope, and as you mentioned, yesterday there were council meetings, travel, etc., paused, then compounded on some of that confusion. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, basic things like study sections, which is when they review grants. I mean, this is basically stopping a $47 billion agency, the NIH I’m talking about now, in its tracks. 

Ollstein: I think that if this continues, you’re going to see a lot of pressure on members of Congress. Even a lot of conservative Republican members of Congress have been very protective of funding for scientific research because of how many jobs it supports in their districts. I mean, we’re talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not more, around the country that are contingent upon this federal funding continuing to flow. 

So I think I’m already starting to see within the scientific community calls for reaching out to members of Congress talking about how much of this investment flows to their district specifically. So we’ll see if that resonates, if these members of Congress are willing to stand up to the Trump administration on things like this. We just don’t know yet. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean this is every research university, every research institution in the country, effectively. Again, we don’t know how long it will last. Some of it I think goes through Feb. 1, but some of it is still open-ended. 

It’s still unclear when those political appointees are actually going to get to HHS, at least at the top. The Senate Finance Committee has finally set a date for a confirmation hearing for Secretary-designate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It’ll be next Wednesday, Jan. 29. The courtesy hearing at the Senate HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee is tentatively scheduled for the next day 鈥 only the Finance Committee actually votes on this nomination. But that nomination remains in a bit of trouble, yes? 

Cohrs Zhang: I don’t know that it’s in any more trouble this week than it was last week or last month. I think there have been more active advertising and outreach by groups that are concerned about his nomination, certainly in the public sphere. But again, these are largely Democratic-backed groups. We have seen Mike Pence’s organization doing some advertising around RFK Jr.’s lack of a鈥 

Rovner: His lack of a pro-life. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, lack of a pro-life record. But I think as we’ve been in the hallways and talked to senators who are generally very concerned about abortion and reproductive rights and those kind of issues, they have not voiced concern about his nomination. They have met with him. They’ve had generally positive things to say. And again, I think part of it’s that they don’t want to get out ahead of themselves before these hearings. But I think there are certainly some Republican senators who do remain concerned about his views on vaccines and public health and just some of the levers that he could use on that front. And so it’s not a sure bet by any means, but I don’t know that there’s been a substantial change in the past week as to whether he gets confirmed or not. 

Rovner: One thing we did see this week were the financial disclosures, which include some interesting things. Alice, is that what you wanted to talk about? 

Ollstein: No, I鈥 

Rovner: Or, no, you want to mention something else? 

Ollstein: Yeah, quickly just to highlight something Rachel said, that we really have not seen widespread organized opposition to Kennedy coming from the anti-abortion movement. Mike Pence’s group is kind of out on a limb by themselves on this one. You have not seen the other big groups join them in opposing his nomination. And even though some of them do share concerns privately, they’re taking a wait-and-see approach. They want to see what he says at his hearing, like Rachel mentioned. He’s been telling Republican members of Congress what they want to hear on the abortion front, promising to do X-Y-Z to impose restrictions through different HHS policies. 

So a lot of people in the anti-abortion movement see Kennedy as someone who can be reached and influenced and isn’t a hardcore abortion rights advocate. And his record is all over the place. He’s basically taken every position possible. So it’s鈥 

Rovner: Like Trump. 

Ollstein: Yeah, honestly, a lot of fluidity there. And so it becomes sort of a Rorschach test where people point to the part that they want to make an argument about. 

Rovner: Any impact from some of these financial disclosures about the fact that he continues to get money from a lawsuit against Merck’s HPV vaccine, among other things? I mean, so he’s got a vested interest in that lawsuit going forward at the same time he’ll be in charge of the FDA. 

Cohrs Zhang: I think from just the feedback that we’ve heard, these agreements are very convoluted, they’re complicated, and I think that this is kind of a case that we haven’t really seen before. I think this was kind of the first disclosure of how he could try to get around some of these conflicts that he obviously has. And I think he is going to divest in a large number of those things. And the people that I’ve talked to who have served in prior administrations who are lawyers say he may have to recuse himself from some of these issues. But the ethics agreement, the wording was pretty vague. I do expect certainly some members of the Senate committees that he’s going to be appearing before to ask potentially for commitments on some of these ethical issues or to explain his position a little bit more. 

But I think what we’re seeing with the Merck and HPV vaccine is where he’s involved in referring clients to the law firm, and that’s going to stop going forward. He’ll have to divest from any case that involves United States government directly or these vaccine programs directly. But that lawsuit itself is kind of a post-program lawsuit where people have gone through, they’ve claim they’ve been injured, they’ve gone through the government program already, they’ve received their decision, and now they’re taking it further into court. So it certainly is going to be a live issue, absolutely expected to come up. But in terms of actually operating a very large agency, this Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is a, relatively, a very small part of what they do. 

Rovner: All right, well, back in the White House, as I mentioned, the new president’s executive orders issued Monday covered everything from immigration, to renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, to ordering federal workers back to the office, to pulling the U.S. out of the World Health Organization. 

Now, most of these orders don’t carry the force of law. They direct federal agencies to start the process of carrying out these changes, and most could and will, and some already are, being challenged in court. But they certainly signal a dramatic change of direction the Trump administration intends to take. Let’s start with drug prices. This is an issue that Trump has been 鈥 another issue Trump has been 鈥 all over the place on. He revoked [President Joe] Biden’s executive order to have HHS look at ways to reduce out-of-pocket drug spending. That doesn’t really do anything, but does it suggest anything about whether the new administration will pursue the next round of Medicare drug price negotiations on the 15 drugs that the Biden administration named just, oh, what, a week or two ago? 

Roubein: The Biden administration, they put out very clearly, right before the change of administration, their Medicare drug negotiation list. And on a call with reporters, a lot of people asked, OK, do you expect the Trump administration to change these drugs that you have listed? And their belief is that it was pretty firm in statute the data that they needed to look at, and they didn’t expect an actual change in those drugs, which include the major weight loss drugs. So people had been really highly anticipating this second round. 

Rovner: At least Ozempic and Wegovy, that one, not all of the weight loss drugs. I don’t think I realized until I started getting into this that even if the administration doesn’t pursue the negotiations, there would still be caps on the prices of these drugs, right? I mean, that’s written into the statute. 

Cohrs Zhang: The statutory deadlines are pretty nonnegotiable. I guess there could be some lawsuits against HHS maybe for not implementing the program on schedule, but it is pretty formulaic for how these steps have to happen. I don’t know that the caps automatically go into effect if the negotiation process isn’t happening. We are kind of in uncharted territory here, testing the boundaries of the program. But I don’t know that the CMMI [Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation] demonstrations that we saw, I wouldn’t read that as an indicator of how they plan to proceed on negotiation, given it’s kind of like a win handed to Trump on a silver platter. So I think we’ll have to watch and stay tuned. 

Rovner: I mean, that’s sort of the mysterious part of all of this is that a lot of things that were set in motion by the Biden administration that haven’t happened yet and will happen seemed to be something that Trump could just say, “Hey, look, it happened on my watch, therefore I get credit for it.” Rachel, you’re nodding. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yes, absolutely. We’ve seen this 鈥 the Biden administration with surprise billing laws, too. That was passed under Trump and kind of was more implemented through Biden. So it’s not unheard of. This strategy happens every time. 

Rovner: Well, on the Affordable Care Act, Trump is effectively ordering the rollback of some of the things that the Biden administration did to increase enrollment, like boost outreach and lengthen enrollment periods. What else are we expecting on the ACA front, or at least administratively? I know that the big legislative push is going to be on whether or not to extend the additional subsidies that were created under the Biden administration. But do we think that Trump’s going to launch another effort, broadside, on the Affordable Care Act to make it not work, or might he just let it go this time? 

Ollstein: I think that this past week has shown that health care is not a priority for this administration. So yes, they are moving to try to roll back a lot of Biden initiatives on this front, but they aren’t really proposing anything new or anything very sweeping. And so I think, like we saw in his first administration, there is a lot they could do administratively to sort of chip away at it and make it less successful in various ways. But I think also the longer the law is in place, the more baked into the health care system it is, the more popular it’s become, the more people who are enrolled. Way more people are enrolled now, and particularly in red states, than were enrolled when he first took a whack at it in 2017. And so I think the sort of, like you said, broadside will be more difficult this time around and doesn’t seem to be on the front burner anyway. 

Roubein: I think for some of this past is prologue when obviously in 2017 Republicans did not repeal the ACA, and then the Trump administration through regulation, which took time, tried to put their stamp on it, like with changing rules to make short-term health plans more accessible. So that all is longer and it’s kind of more in the weeds, but I think that’s what we should look out for. And then the other big thing being if Congress, a Republican-controlled Congress, extends the Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies, that’ll be a big fight for 2025. 

Rovner: And of course if they go after Medicaid, which people keep forgetting is a big piece of the Affordable Care Act, was the expansion of Medicaid. Rachel C., you wanted to say something. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yes, I just wanted to flag that Theo Merkel, who worked in the last White House and worked on a lot of these ACA rules and plans and thinks in a very sophisticated way about health care from a conservative perspective, is going back to the White House. So I think we may see some of these efforts that may not capture headlines in the same way and they may be kind of wonky, but they definitely can have a measurable effect on price transparency, on the ACA, on some of the way that these markets work. So I wouldn’t expect it to be something that Trump is talking about from a podium, but I think behind the scenes I am expecting some creative thinking on these things. 

Rovner: So speaking of things that Trump has not made a priority, he has not done anything explicitly about abortion with these executive orders. That’s a little bit surprising. And he’ll actually be in California touring the fire damage on Friday when the annual March for Life comes to D.C. And we will talk more about abortion and reproductive health shortly. But one of the executive orders, called, quote, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government,” could have some pretty far-reaching consequences. Right, Alice? 

Ollstein: Yes, absolutely. So the order is very sweeping, and it’s basically getting rid of any federal recognition of trans or nonbinary people on all fronts. And so this will impact what documents people are able to get. It will influence what services they’ll be able to access in terms of shelters that are gender-segregated. People who are incarcerated, if they’re federally incarcerated, this gets rid of their right to gender-affirming care while incarcerated, so it’s sort of forcibly detransitioning people essentially who are in custody. Yeah, I think that this is sort of going under the radar but is going to be one of the most impactful orders they’ve done so far. 

Going back to the abortion front just for a second, I, too, thought it was very notable that they had nearly 80 Biden regulations on a list on Day 1 they were getting rid of and not a single one pertained to abortion. And I’ve been hearing from the anti-abortion community a lot of frustration and hope that he’ll still do some of these things, but he’s been the first Republican president in decades and decades to not do some of these things on Day 1 or Day 2, things like the Mexico City policy, changing the Title X program domestically. So I’m hearing from anti-abortion activists. They’re sort of asking each other How patient should we be? or How much should we push back and criticize being sort of left off the agenda? 

Rovner: Some sharp-eyed analysts also noted that the language of the executive order defines male and female as starting at conception, which in addition to being biologically not quite accurate 鈥 you cannot differentiate embryos as male or female until they are several weeks old 鈥 it also introduced the concept of personhood into the federal lexicon. Or is that reading too much into it? 

Ollstein: Yeah, I did see a lot of jokes about how under federal law everyone is a woman now because of defining sex at conception rather than at birth. I mean, we see tons of medically inaccurate language in tons of laws all the time. So it is unclear whether this is a personhood gambit or just a misunderstanding. I think obviously this is going to be challenged in court, and I’m curious if either the challengers or judges zero in on that sort of personhood-y language and try to make anything of it. 

Rovner: Well, there are a lot of judges that would like to create personhood, so I guess it depends where these things end up in court. 

Moving on to reproductive health. As I mentioned earlier, President Trump has so far been pretty mum on this issue, but the new Congress has not. Both the House and the Senate have teed up something called the Born-Alive Child Protection Act, which basically restates law that a baby born alive should receive needed medical care and that infanticide is illegal. The Senate voted yesterday, Wednesday, which was also the 52nd anniversary of the now-defunct Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade, and it failed to get the 60 votes needed to block a filibuster. So it’s not going to become law, at least not right now. But passing the bill was never the actual point of this exercise, right? 

Ollstein: Well, what’s fascinating is 鈥 so they’ve taken messaging votes on this exact bill multiple times before. What’s fascinating to me is that given that it is more or less a messaging vote, why they chose this policy rather than something more sweeping that the anti-abortion people would like to see, like a gestational ban or restrictions on abortion pills. This is seen as sort of the lowest rung. It is important for the anti-abortion movement and they’re touting the vote, but it is a lower ambition than some of the bills we’ve seen Congress take up in the past. 

I think it is interesting that we’re not going to get a chance to see how Trump would deal with this if it passed. I think there’s going to be a lot of interesting tensions around his promise on the campaign trail to not meddle in abortion from the federal level, whereas Congress could send him things that do that and he’ll have to make a decision either way. 

Roubein: We kind of saw the same playbook in 2023 when Republicans controlled the House and there was thinking, because that was the first year after Roe v. Wade had been overturned, that maybe they would bring up something like a 15-week ban and there was talk of that, and then they ended up not doing that and bringing up this legislation that is being voted on. And that’s been a signal to many that this is not something Republicans want to take a vote on, which is a ban it at a certain point in pregnancy. 

Rovner: Well, and I think this low-hanging fruit shows what we’ve known for a long time, which is that neither side has a filibuster-proof majority on anything that has to do with abortion, either for abortion rights or against them. I mean, this is why all the people who were complaining that the Democratic Congress should try to pass some kind of assurance of abortion rights, codify Roe v. Wade, there have never been the votes for that. 

Cohrs Zhang: They did try, and it fell short. 

Rovner: They did try, yes. They did try, and it didn’t happen, because neither side has the votes and neither side has actually had the votes since Roe v. Wade passed. In the early 1980s, the Republican Senate under President [Ronald] Reagan tried to pass constitutional amendments. They didn’t have the votes for that, either. Both sides have sort of struggled with this for decades now, and I think it looks like the struggle will continue. 

Well, speaking of the struggle continuing, in news you might’ve missed, just before leaving office last week, President Biden issued a statement recognizing the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Talk about things from the 1980s. This is actually from the 1970s. This is a very long-running saga, since Virginia became the 38th state to vote to ratify the amendment in 2020. Now, Biden recognizing the amendment as law is a big deal, but not the deal that would actually make it happen, right? Or is it now a part of the Constitution? What do we know about the status of the Equal Rights Amendment? 

Ollstein: So what President Biden did doesn’t have any immediate effect. It will have to be litigated, basically. He’s putting out his theory that it is part of the Constitution, but it will take people suing under it and citing it to force courts to determine whether or not they agree. And I’ve been hearing a lot of frustration from progressives that he didn’t kick off this entire process years earlier. He could have had his solicitor general out in court arguing for this. And we know how long these court battles take, years and years and years. And so there’s a lot of frustration that he didn’t kick off that process sooner so that people could have an answer by this point, potentially. 

I talked to some folks in the White House behind the scenes who were saying: Look, the president’s view on this has had to evolve. It was influenced by the American Bar Association coming out with a statement saying they view it as ratified. They were explaining that Biden was always a supporter of the ERA but wasn’t sort of clear on what he could do and what the status of the law is. And so it is interesting that you have, in the wake of this announcement, folks on both the left and the right saying: This is theater. This doesn’t really do anything. 

Rovner: I guess what would’ve done something is, I think, that the national archivist has to publish it, which is what makes it an amendment to the Constitution, what marks it as ratified. 

Ollstein: Yes, but you have鈥 

Rovner: The archivist said she can’t do that, because the Justice Department has an opinion that Virginia happened too late. I mean, that’s what the fight is about. Has it, quote-unquote, “expired,” or because the period that was supposed to end was only in the preamble and not in the language of the amendment, does the amendment stand? And that’s the legal fight, right? 

Ollstein: Right. And so you have folks like Sen. [Kirsten] Gillibrand who’ve been really out in front on this saying that that is a mere technicality. The archivist works for the president. The president did her job for her was the line I was getting. And the archivist taking that particular action doesn’t really matter. It’s sort of just a technicality. Other people disagree and say that because she didn’t take that step, none of this means anything. And so, again, this will have to be hashed out in court over years, likely. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, the reason we’re talking about this in the sort of reproductive section of the podcast is that if the Equal Rights Amendment were actually part of the Constitution, it would basically create a constitutional right to abortion, yes? 

Ollstein: That is what some people argue. Again, this’ll be fought over in court for years to come. But the basic argument is, yes, if there is an amendment in the Constitution for women’s equality under law, then, some people argue, being denied the right to access abortion when men are not denied the right to access their health care services, that is an actionable discrimination. And one thing that’s interesting to me is that both progressives and conservatives view the ERA this way, and you had anti-abortion groups waging years-long campaigns against it, citing the potential for its use to expand abortion access. 

Rovner: Wow. All right, so while we are on the subject of the Supreme Court, down in Texas, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, he of the controversial case aimed at canceling the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, has officially revived the case after the Supreme Court ruled its original plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue. Now the case will be carried forward by attorneys general of three conservative states. Now what happens? 

Roubein: This case would be prohibiting telehealth prescriptions for mifepristone, changing when people can use mifepristone in pregnancy from the current 10 weeks to the previous seven weeks. This would not be revoking the original approval in 2000 of mifepristone. 

Rovner: Which is what Judge Kacsmaryk originally said they could do and was overruled by 鈥 even the conservative 5th Circuit said, Yeah, maybe you can roll back the expansion of availability, but you can’t cancel the actual approval, although we will wait to see what the Trump administration would get, somebody installed at the FDA decides to do on that score. 

Also in Texas this week, Republican Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick I guess unexpectedly called for the state to amend its abortion ban to make clear that women with life-endangering pregnancy complications can have an abortion if needed. Alice, this has been the subject not just of debate but of a lawsuit that went to the Texas Supreme Court. How big a break is this with a leading Texas Republican? And could something actually happen during this year’s legislative session? 

Ollstein: So I mean, looking across the country, we have seen here and there Republicans coming out and saying that, The law we passed banning abortion is having consequences we did not intend. And so some have moved to add more exceptions, singling out things like ectopic pregnancies. Some have changed how people can be prosecuted under these bans, moving from affirmative defense, where we prosecute a doctor and then the doctor can exonerate themself after the fact, to having a real exception for certain medical instances. 

But we’ve seen in a lot of states, even when prominent Republicans come out and say, We need to do something 鈥 people are dying, we’ve seen things not happen and a real resistance to changing these laws from lawmakers, from anti-abortion organizations that are very influential in these different states. And so I am not sure that this is necessarily a huge breakthrough, just based on what we’ve seen in other states, because we’re also seeing at the same time calls for making a lot of these laws even stricter. And so we’re seeing both. We’re seeing both people calling for exceptions and loosening some things, and we’re seeing calls for tightening some things as well. 

Rovner: The fight rages on. Well, finally this week I want to note , who was a longtime leader in the abortion rights movement, including a dozen years as head of Planned Parenthood. She was a daughter of the late Texas governor Ann Richards and the mother of former press secretary to then-Sen. Kamala Harris, Lily Adams. Even during her fight against an aggressive brain cancer, Cecile continued to try to work to advance the cause of reproductive health for women. She was respected, I think, by both sides. 

All right, that is the news for this week. Before we get to our interview, I have a quick correction. Last week I got the first name wrong of the new governor of West Virginia, which is doubly embarrassing because I have known him for more than two decades. It’s Patrick Morrisey. All right, now we will play my interview with Rodney Whitlock, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Rodney Whitlock. Rodney, who has worked as a senior staffer in both the House and the Senate, is a veteran of many, many pieces of health legislation, both large and small. He’s currently vice president at McDermott Plus, a D.C. health policy consulting firm, and one of the people I still turn to when I get confused about some piece of congressional minutia. He’s also played “What the Health?” host at various live events around Washington and done it very well. Rodney, thank you for being here as a guest. 

Rodney Whitlock: It is absolutely a pleasure to be with you, friend. I am looking forward to it. 

Rovner: So I have asked you to come help me explain as briefly as we can the congressional budget process and budget reconciliation, in particular. President Trump and congressional leaders keep talking about a, quote, “big, beautiful bill” or possibly two “big, beautiful bills” into which they would like to pour most of the president’s agenda. But there’s an entire process to go through before we get there. So let’s start at the beginning. What’s the annual budget resolution? How does it work, and why do we need it? 

Whitlock: Well, that’s an interesting question, since we haven’t had one around here forever. It’s like we have to go, “Oh, what is that again?” All right. So where we start is this, that Congress has the ability through the budget resolution process to create instructions, we call them reconciliation instructions, that allows them to make significant changes without facing a filibuster in the Senate. And so the annual budget resolution process, which produces the appropriations, etc., we’ve gotten to the point that we barely pay attention to when that occurs, because it’s not really an enforceable, or something you used to watch when you and I were much younger, as the regular process, what we would have called regular order. It only becomes interesting when they say, OK, but now we’re going to do it and we’re going to do it in unified government through budget reconciliation, which means now we’re playing with majority rules in both bodies, which allows for them to make significant changes, as we saw in ’21-’22 when Democrats are in control. Republicans tried in 2017. Democrats succeeded through the ACA in 2009-’10. So that’s where we are. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, the budget resolution is supposed to set the terms of spending both in the annual spending bills, the appropriations, and in spending that is not subject to annual appropriations, because it’s mandatory and it goes on unless Congress does something to stop it. So you don’t really need a budget resolution to do the spending bills, even though they’re supposed to set what we call the top line, the overall number, which is why the spending bills happen no matter what. But you do need a budget resolution to do reconciliation, right? 

Whitlock: That is correct. Because that allows the Senate 鈥 listen, the House has to do their job. I don’t mean to be disrespectful of the place I spent 10 years in, but I spent 11 years in the other place, so I can be disrespectful to a degree. The House, they have to do their part of it, but the game, the rules, why it matters is all about the Senate. 

Rovner: So what typically goes into a reconciliation bill as opposed to what goes into the annual spending bills? I think that’s where people get really confused. 

Whitlock: Sure. It’s especially relevant for mandatory programs and the ability to be able to make changes to mandatory programs through this special process that avoids the use of the filibuster. Generally the spending bills, at the end of the day, they come up with some agreement, although we’re still waiting for this fiscal year’s agreement, that is generally related to the appropriations bills. It doesn’t get into the mandatory side, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, where there’s a lot of money. And so if you want to do things there鈥 

Rovner: And the spending bills are not allowed to get into the mandatory side. 

Whitlock: They’re not supposed to get into them. You and I are having this wonderful conversation where we’re talking about, OK, this is how it’s supposed to happen, and then we step back and go, OK, now this is how it actually happens. So they’re not supposed to, authorizing on appropriations, blah, blah, blah. You’re not supposed to do that. But then we end up with 5,800-page bills, going, There’s a lot in here beyond just simple appropriations. So, yes, that “supposed to” thing. 

Rovner: They’re not really in the bill. They’re just catching a ride on the bill. 

Whitlock: Exactly. 

Rovner: So you’ve sort of explained why health is always a big part of a budget reconciliation bill. Because of those big programs or because it’s so much money or both? 

Whitlock: It is both. We have three monstrous mandatory programs that take up a huge chunk of our spend: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Why do we end up talking about health care? Medicare and Medicaid. And because Social Security by statute is not allowed to be used, is not allowed to be touched through reconciliation. And so that leaves you Medicare, Medicaid 鈥 health care. 

Rovner: And taxes of course, which is the big thing that gets changed through reconciliation, which they don’t have to use reconciliation for, but they do because it can’t be filibustered in the Senate, right? 

Whitlock: Correct. And the directional can vary based on who’s in charge. You can use reconciliation to increase taxes. You can use reconciliation to decrease taxes within the rules of reconciliation. 

Rovner: And those are within the parameters of the budget resolution. 

Whitlock: Correct. Which is set by the Budget Committee then goes to each floor for a vote, must be unified, must give specific instructions with specific amounts to specific committees, and each then must meet those or the whole thing falls. 

Rovner: That’s right. 

Whitlock: And so that’s why the budget resolution and that process is really important. 

Rovner: And that’s Step 1, right? Which is really three steps. House has to do a budget resolution, Senate has to do a budget resolution, and then they have to agree on a final budget resolution. 

Whitlock: Correct. And what they’re trying to do is avoid that third step by having the same one pass through both bodies, preclearance, etc., of trying to make sure they don’t have to do it twice. But certainly that’s part of the challenge they face is figuring out, and as you started in the conversation, which is: How are they going to do it? How are they setting it up? Very complicated stuff, to say the least. 

Rovner: So under regular order, you get the budget resolution. It has reconciliation instructions. It sends the committees with jurisdiction over those programs off to meet those instructions, which may, say, add several billion dollars or cut several billion dollars or do some specific things. And then that all gets bundled together and sent to each floor. Right? Do I have it right so far? 

Whitlock: That’s correct. It’s each committee has to deliver. In the House, again, doesn’t matter as much. They have to do theirs, and they want to get as close as possible. But at the end of the day, the House doesn’t have to worry about the Byrd Rule. It’s only in the Senate where the Byrd Rule has teeth and really matters. And that determines what is or is not eligible to be in a reconciliation bill. So the House will go through their process, and the House is going to try as much as they possibly can. And the House has a very vested interest. The House doesn’t want to be told by the folks in the Senate, having worked in both bodies I can speak to that, which is the House does not want to be told, Well, that’s cute of you, but you can’t do that, because the Byrd Rule. They want to do as much as they can with their own authority, not have to dance to the tune being sung by the Senate. 

Rovner: And explain what the Byrd Rule is, please. 

Whitlock: I was wondering when we were going to get to that. OK, the Byrd Rule. Essentially what happened was is that Sen. [Robert] Byrd, who was a longtime senator from West Virginia, scion of the process, he cared very much about how things were going in terms of reconciliation and how it was being used. 

In 1985, the Senate adopted a rule that basically allows you to continue with the reconciliation, but it limits how it can be used. It’s referred to as the Byrd Rule, and it was because Sen. Byrd himself felt like it was being abused. It was not being used for its intended purpose. It was being used to accomplish policy outside of that. So a rule was adopted as a six-part test, which then allows for a restriction on what you can do and a limitation on how it could be in, what meets the test. 

Rovner: Who decides what’s in or out? I mean, basically there has to be a referee to say you can put this in reconciliation or you can’t. 

Whitlock: All right, so this is complicated, but it is 鈥 effectively the way the process works is that these six-part tests, if you write a provision that goes in the reconciliation bill, down to the sentence, that it can be challenged. The technical way the challenge works is a member will stand up on the Senate floor and say, I object under the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985, that under Section whatever whatever whatever, that this provision in Title X, Section A, of whatever bill, of the reconciliation bill, violates the Byrd Rule. Then the president pro tempore, whoever’s standing up there, my former boss, Sen. [Chuck] Grassley, or whoever is there, then says yes or no it does 鈥 does or does not. Then the Senate, if there’s an objection, has to vote. 

Now, what’s critical is to override the ruling of the chair requires 60 votes. So in a tightly controlled Senate, 53-47, which is where we are, there’s no chance it’s being overridden. Now, the step I left out there, which is important: Who actually says that? It is the Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, who’s been there for the better part of 15 years. And it’s her job to listen to both sides make their arguments and determine prior to that moment where that member stands up, because they know it’s coming, which direction she would rule. She then turns to the president pro tempore and says, This is what the ruling is. The president pro tempore or the vice president repeats that. And that’s how the process goes. 

Rovner: In theory. 

Whitlock: In theory. We, the Senate have always depended upon everybody following the rules. The president pro tempore does not have to repeat what is said. That’s never happened. That is 鈥 we’ve never had 鈥 there have been challenges. Some have been overridden, some have been upheld, but we’ve never had gamesmanship where the president pro tempore ignores the ruling of the parliamentarian. We’ve had parliamentarians fired over whether or not the majority leader liked the ruling, but we’ve never had the ruling ignored. 

And so we’ll see if Republicans have to use that. We watched it to see if they would do it in ’17. We watched what the Democrats would’ve done in 2009-’10, ’21-’22. To date, everybody’s followed the rules 鈥 barely, but they have. And those rules are the Byrd Rules. 

Rovner: So what is the most important thing to know about the Byrd Rule, which is obviously what dictates what can and can’t be in this bill? 

Whitlock: Yeah. Six-part test, and some of them are very perfunctory: Can’t touch Social Security. Got to be in your jurisdiction. Has to actually save or spend money. The most important one, Rule No. 4, is produces a change and outlays the revenues, which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision. In other words, it’s got to be more about the money than the policy. And that is the very gray-area rule where people will walk into the parliamentarian and say, OK, yeah, there are a lot of pages here, but they’re all critical to be able to achieve the savings. And the other side can say, But not that sentence and not that sentence and not that sentence, and start to pick it apart until it’s Swiss cheese, which was a lot of what happened to Republicans in 2017, such that it barely even works anymore. 

And so the fight over the Byrd Rule is typically right there on 鈥 is it about the spending or is it about the policy? And it’s not black-and-white. It is incredibly gray for us to figure out what is an answer. And it is fought out in front of the parliamentarian, and she makes the ruling. 

Rovner: And so basically, I mean, what has to be remembered is this is supposed to be a budget exercise and not a policy exercise. 

Whitlock: 100%. And that’s why, again, the Affordable Care Act could have never been written under reconciliation. The Medicare Modernization Act, which created Part D, could never have been written under reconciliation, because they were policy bills. And so you can’t do a policy bill in reconciliation. And if you come in thinking, Let me see if I can sneak a policy bill through and call it reconciliation, oh, you are in for a miserable time. Been there, done that. 

Rovner: So I’m not going to ask you to predict what’s going to be in this bill or multiple bills. You can do more than one reconciliation bill per budget resolution, but we’re not going to go there. But I will ask you to handicap how long you think this might take. I mean, it’s hardly going to be the couple-of-weeks, we’re-going-to-have-this-before-the-end-of-the-winter kind of thing. Right? 

Whitlock: Early on I felt like they were heading to a two-step process where they were going to do in the first hundred days, What could we all agree to quickly? Hold hands, get done, boom. Taxes, energy, some immigration stuff, whatever fit in, done. And then came the whole “one big, beautiful bill” concept and: Let’s do it all at once. Let’s try to throw in debt limit. Let’s try to throw in some level of deficit reduction consistent with what we would require under a debt limit agreement. And let’s do it all in one big, beautiful bill. 

Well, the former was quick, the latter is slow. And I think what we are coming to realize, and as somebody who worked both sides but certainly appreciated the Senate position, which was more often than not in my career the median position, that which what could get done, was what the Senate could get the votes for. I think right now the real concept that we’re dealing with here is what you’re going to do, how you’re going to do it, when you’re going to do it, is what the House can get done, given their very tight majority and their members who are willing to say: Nope. Perfect. I’m waiting for perfect. Everything else is my enemy. It doesn’t matter how good it is. It’s my enemy because I’m holding out for perfect. When you’ve got members willing to do that, it’s going to be a very hard slog to get there. 

And so there are things they could have moved quickly on. They’re not doing that. And so because they’ve decided to slow down the process and see if they can put things together, it’s going to take more time, because the more things you put in, the more you have to do education, the more people have to understand, the more work it is. That’s the challenge. 

Rovner: Well, this has been a very useful primer. I hope we can call on you again as the process proceeds. 

Whitlock: I’ll be here for you. I come running any time you call. 

Rovner: Rodney Whitlock, thank you so much. 

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

Cohrs Zhang: My extra credit is in The Washington Post. The headline is “.” And I think it’s just a great case study of what we’re going to see over the next couple of years 鈥 that, sure, there’s going to be so much attention focused on the federal level, focused on Congress, focused on HHS, but the powers of the federal government are limited on public health and some of these issues. I think fluoride and how that’s included in the water supply is a great one. And I think it is just going to be so important to watch how all these issues are playing out in state and local governments as well. 

So I think there’s just going to be this sense that local officials are emboldened by the stances that the Trump administration is taking on some of these issues. And I think it’s just a great way to make practical some of the influences of the rhetoric that we’ve seen so far before top health officials are even in office. So I thought it was really well done, and I think this is going to be a line of coverage to follow. 

Rovner: Local news more important than ever. Alice. 

Ollstein: Yeah, speaking of local news more important than ever, my piece is from the L.A. Times, which has just been doing phenomenal coverage of the fires that have devastated the area. I’m from L.A. The L.A. Times has gone through a lot, but I really want to hold up their incredible coverage of this crisis. 

And the piece I chose is by Karen Garcia and Tony Briscoe, and it’s called “” And it’s just about how even though people are cleared to go back to the often pile of rubble that their houses have become 鈥 and obviously people are very eager to do that and want to search for anything that might have survived of their personal belongings. But this article is really warning people to take precautions when they do that, because the amount of things in the average home nowadays can be so toxic when on fire. And so things like basic cleaning products, things like synthetic fabrics and furniture. So they’re really encouraging people to wear an N95 mask, wear gloves, cover all of your skin, because some of these things can be so dangerous if inhaled or if they touch you. So I think this is a very important thing for folks in that situation to keep in mind. 

Rovner: Yes, the danger is not gone when the fire is out, basically. Rachel R. 

Roubein: My story, it’s in The Washington Post by my colleague Caroline Kitchener. The headline is “.” And the story shows the reach and the scope of how anti-abortion advocates have been trying to pursue ways to stop abortions, but they’ve had trouble finding efforts to fully end the practice with many women receiving pills through mail, through a handful of websites, and they’re trying to devise new strategies. 

So Caroline writes about anti-abortion advocates launching legal efforts to try and stop abortion pills from reaching women in states with bans. And how they’re doing that is increasingly turning to male sex partners of women who decided to end their pregnancies. And she writes about the strategy being filed in a lawsuit last month by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and that this kind of partner-focused approach will become more public next month when Texas’ largest anti-abortion organization is planning to launch ads on Facebook, etc., to reach husbands, boyfriends, sex partners of women who’ve had abortions in Texas. 

Rovner: Wow, it’s quite the eye-opening story. My extra credit this week is from CNN by Brenda Goodman, and it’s called “.” And it’s something I never really thought about, but it seems that feeding your pets, particularly your cats, a raw diet can be as dangerous as you drinking raw milk. Raw diets are popular with lots of pet parents who don’t like processed foods and additives, but the use of raw milk, meat, and eggs can introduce bacteria and viruses like bird flu into your pet and possibly pass pathogens onto you and your family. Just something else to worry about. 

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. We welcome back our ace producer and editor, Frances Ying, this week. Also thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, , and increasingly at Bluesky, . Where are you folks these days? Alice? 

Ollstein: I’m on Bluesky, . 

Rovner: Rachel Roubein. 

Roubein: On X, , or Bluesky, . 

Rovner: Rachel C. 

Cohrs Zhang: I’m still on X, , and also hanging out more on these days. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to 麻豆女优 Health News’ “What the Health?” 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 .

This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-381-trump-executive-orders-hhs-chaos-january-23-2025/">article</a&gt; first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="">麻豆女优 Health News</a> and is republished here under a <a target="_blank" href=" Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src="/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=150&quot; style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

<img id="republication-tracker-tool-source" src="/?republication-pixel=true&post=1974307&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
1974307