Courts Archives - 麻豆女优 Health News /topics/courts/ 麻豆女优 Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of 麻豆女优. Fri, 12 Jun 2026 15:24:32 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.5 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Courts Archives - 麻豆女优 Health News /topics/courts/ 32 32 161476233 Trump Bought Tobacco Stocks and Raked In Industry Donations as FDA Eased Standards /courts/fda-tobacco-vape-vaping-ecigarette-smoking-trump-investments-maga-donations/ Thu, 11 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2249297 President Donald Trump, who once declared he had “saved” flavored vapes, grew his stock holdings this year to as much as $1.64 million in tobacco giant Philip Morris.

He also had holdings in Altria and a third leading tobacco company, though an apparent discrepancy in his disclosures clouds the extent of his investments. In 2025, tobacco interests donated $6 million to MAGA Inc., a super PAC that supports the president, and Trump’s inauguration. And, on April 30, a week before FDA guidance that provided a critical boost to the industry, Reynolds American dropped an additional $5 million into the super PAC’s coffers.

The stock trades and political contributions occurred as the Trump administration pursued a broadly pro-tobacco agenda: Its FDA piloted a fast-track program to approve nicotine pouches. It unveiled a program to allow vapes on the market more rapidly, despite resistance from career civil servants and leadership, culminating this year in guidance waving through flavored electronic cigarettes. It cut public health employees focusing on anti-tobacco policy. And it broadened enforcement against illicit e-cigarettes, competitors to the big industry players with a financial relationship to Trump.

It amounts to the most pro-tobacco, pro-nicotine presidency in some time 鈥 a remarkable policy given the tens of millions of deaths cigarettes caused during the 20th century. Even in recent years, anti-smoking groups say a half-million Americans a year die from cigarettes. Industry advocates say the toll helps justify a shift to e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches, which they say are less harmful. However, public health advocates say these products carry their own risks, such as addiction.

Lawmakers and public health leaders have criticized the recent FDA guidance and approvals as a “” that ignored scientific evidence to deliver what investment analysts have described as “very positive” steps for influential tobacco companies.

The scale of the money is “unprecedented and problematic,” said Brian King, who was pushed out of the FDA’s tobacco office last April and now works as an executive at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. He fears that steering public policy toward tobacco 鈥 still addictive and harmful to health 鈥 puts Americans at risk.

“It’s a gift on a platter with a side of public health malpractice,” he said.

The White House did not comment on the president’s investments or industry donations to MAGA Inc. Spokesperson Kush Desai said, “The only guiding factor behind the Trump administration’s health policymaking is Gold Standard Science. FDA’s regulatory treatment of nicotine pouches and vapes is rooted in recent evidence that has found that these products can help adults quit smoking.”

Philip Morris disputed any connection. Company representatives “regularly attend events and forums where we share our commitment to improving public health in the United States,” spokesperson Samuel Dashiell said, “starting with providing better options to America’s 45 million legal-age nicotine consumers.”

“We do not comment on individual engagements or on the personal financial matters or disclosures of public officials,” he added.

Other tobacco companies whose stock Trump has bought and sold during his second term or that donated to groups aligned with Trump 鈥 Juul, Reynolds American, and Altria 鈥 did not respond to requests for comment.

The financial stakes are huge. Investment analysts at Goldman Sachs say the newer products, touted as safer, make more money per sale than traditional cigarettes. Philip Morris expects Zyn pouches, for example, to make eight times the gross profits of its cigarettes, Goldman Sachs analysts said in March 2025.

When he ran for his second term, Trump promoted himself as a pro-tobacco candidate, posting that he had and that President Joe Biden and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris “want everything banned.”

Since late 2023, MAGA Inc. has received over $20 million in funding from the industry, federal campaign records show. Trump’s inauguration garnered nearly $4 million more. His ballroom project donations of an unknown amount from Altria and Reynolds American.

Recent Trump administration actions show he’s followed through with his campaign rhetoric. In May, the FDA released that allows manufacturers to market their vapes and nicotine pouches while awaiting agency approval. It also approved several vaping products. The month before, the Vapor Technology Association, which donated $1.25 million to Trump’s inauguration, it had met with the White House to discuss its concerns.

By that point, Trump had gone on a stock-purchasing spree. In March he made eight separate purchases of Philip Morris or Altria stock, worth as much as $275,000, according to a disclosure form that bears Trump’s signature.

It is difficult to be precise about Trump’s tobacco investments, because the financial disclosures show only ranges of investment amounts. They also have an apparent discrepancy. In January, the president sold $500,000 to $1,000,000 in Altria stock. But that’s confusing because previous disclosures didn’t show Trump held that much equity in Altria. The White House declined to comment on the matter.

The FDA’s May guidance and approvals drew condemnation from public health leaders, who worry that the agency is allowing products with flavors especially appealing to young people. “After years of recognizing the dangers flavored e-cigarettes pose to youth, it is deeply troubling to see FDA ignore the scientific evidence and reverse course,” American Lung Association CEO Harold Wimmer said .

“I think it’s blatantly illegal, both on its merits and also procedurally, because it was issued as a final guidance without even giving the public an opportunity to comment on it,” said Mitch Zeller, a former head of the FDA’s tobacco center.

A group of Democratic senators called the decision a “a free pass to addictive and harmful vapes” in letters to Reynolds American and Altria. It would lead to “a lucrative payday after years of unsuccessful legislative and regulatory efforts to weaken federal tobacco oversight,” they concluded.

Members of Congress are barred from insider trading, and many legislators would like to see trading of individual company stocks banned for all members. In the wake of Trump’s most recent financial disclosures, with revelations that he often traded in companies manufacturing GLP-1 drugs before his administration steered policy in a favorable direction, some members are calling for the president, too, to be barred from stock trading.

Trump’s tobacco policies have garnered favorable grades from investors. At Goldman Sachs, bankers described the May FDA guidance as “very positive” for Philip Morris and “a significant step in the FDA’s positioning toward enforcement and acceptance of nic pouch (as well as e-vapor) innovation generally.”

And Barclays analysts said the FDA’s guidance was good news for Juul, a leading vape producer. (In November, the company contributed $1 million to MAGA Inc.)

FDA resistance to speeding up approvals for these products reportedly contributed to the ouster of agency commissioner Marty Makary, who did not respond to requests for comment. According to and , the White House repeatedly intervened in the approval process.

“I served during the entire first Trump administration as center director, and there was never any pressure from any political appointee at FDA, at HHS, or the White House when it came to application review,” Zeller said.

But recent changes in FDA policy can be traced to the access tobacco firms have had to the White House, he said.

By and large, the Trump administration has delivered on industry priorities. Soon after the inauguration 鈥 which tobacco companies had donated heavily to 鈥 the administration withdrew a Biden-era proposal to ban menthol cigarettes. The administration has eased the path for nicotine pouches like Zyn, which were first approved under Biden. Investment analysts viewed government crackdowns on illicit e-cigarettes positively: Barclays wrote in January that “company commentary on enforcement has also been upbeat, suggesting that the tide could begin to turn in favour of the legal players in the market.”

What’s more, the Trump administration’s government layoffs have decimated public health’s tobacco control offices. The work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s office of smoking has been sharply curtailed; its flagship “Tips From Former Smokers” campaign, which seeks to persuade viewers not to smoke, has been off the air for months, King said.

“It’s not difficult to see that less dollars invested in prevention and control is going to lead to more tobacco product use and tobacco-related disease,” King said, especially given the government’s decades-long success in reducing cigarette usage.

The shift is particularly ironic given the administration’s focus 鈥 through its Make America Healthy Again slogan 鈥 on chronic disease. “Attempting to combat chronic disease without tobacco control is like attempting a triathlon without a bicycle: You are destined for failure before leaving the starting line,” King concluded.

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/fda-tobacco-vape-vaping-ecigarette-smoking-trump-investments-maga-donations/">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=2249297&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2249297
Untreated Cancer, Festering Infections: Immigrant Detainees Detail Medical Care Lapses /health-industry/the-week-in-brief-immigrant-ice-detainees-medical-neglect/ Fri, 05 Jun 2026 18:30:00 +0000 /?p=2246784&preview=true&preview_id=2246784 As the current federal administration rounded up an increasing number of immigrants, with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement holding more than 75,000 in mid-January alone, we heard scattered, localized complaints from detainees alleging medical neglect. We wondered about the extent of the problems and whether the agency and its contractors were keeping pace with detainees’ medical needs nationwide. But no central repository exists, so we had to get creative 鈥 and dive into a trove of court records.

Detainees are filing record numbers of habeas corpus petitions in federal court, arguing they’re being held illegally. Sometimes those cases mention medical conditions. But a federal rule makes immigration filings tricky to obtain because they’re usually available only in person at the court where they were filed. The nation has 94 of those courts.

However, a nonprofit collecting such records through a national network of volunteers gave us documents from thousands of those court cases dating to last January. We teamed up with The Associated Press to dive into them.

In analyzing those files, we found that hundreds of detainees in at least 33 states told courts they’d received inadequate medical care. They said that they didn’t get their medications on time 鈥 or at all 鈥 for everything from diabetes to Parkinson’s to HIV. They told courts their requests for medical help had gone unanswered for weeks, that their blood sugars rose, infections festered, and cancers went untreated. Some said they had collapsed and had seizures.

Court filings described how one man had a stroke while on a video call with his daughter and lost his ability to speak for several days. Records show he hadn’t been getting all his medications while detained. Another detainee described standing by the door each day waiting for the eye drops he needed to maintain his waning vision, as he worried whether he would be able to see his infant child grow up. Even after being released, a father of six U.S. citizens told us he feared he wouldn’t be able to support them because of lingering pain in his leg 鈥 the leg a doctor told him came close to needing amputation when an infection in ICE custody went untreated until he passed out and was hospitalized.

Such allegations spanned facilities of all types, from county jails to sites like “Alligator Alcatraz,” as the Department of Homeland Security gutted the office in charge of oversight.

麻豆女优 Health News and AP asked the agency to respond to our findings, but it did not provide comment. DHS acting Chief Medical Officer Sean Conley has previously said, “It is both policy and longstanding practice for aliens to receive timely and appropriate medical care from the moment they enter ICE custody.”

Detainees’ families said they feel helpless watching their loved ones deteriorate while in custody and hope they don’t join the rising death toll, which has reached 51 since the start of President Donald Trump’s second administration.

A woman in a bedroom lit only by some light from a window sits on a bed and looks out that window contemplatively.

Festering Infections to Untreated Cancer: ICE Detainees Describe Medical Neglect Across US

Immigrant detainees have told courts across the nation that detention officials have failed to treat or stabilize their conditions, from pregnancy to prostate cancer, suggesting that systemic lapses in care extend well beyond record deaths in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.

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-industry/the-week-in-brief-immigrant-ice-detainees-medical-neglect/">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=2246784&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2246784
Medicaid Work Rules Surprise States /podcast/what-the-health-449-medicaid-work-rules-exemptions-june-4-2026/ Thu, 04 Jun 2026 18:30:00 +0000 /?p=2244767&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2244767 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.

New rules out this week from the Trump administration for implementing work requirements for adult Medicaid recipients surprised many state officials. The rules make it more difficult for states to determine who should be exempt from the requirements, including by stipulating that having a serious condition such as HIV or cancer does not automatically excuse an enrollee from having to engage in 80 hours per month of paid work, volunteering, or school attendance.

Meanwhile, a separate rule would give political appointees far more power over who gets health and science grant funding, and what political activities grant recipients can participate in. This would be a dramatic change 鈥 currently most decisions are made by career scientists and outside peer reviewers and based solely on scientific merit rather than whether they advance an administration’s political agenda.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 麻豆女优 Health News, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal.

Panelists

Margot Sanger-Katz photo
Margot Sanger-Katz The New York Times
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico
Liz Essley Whyte photo
Liz Essley Whyte The Wall Street Journal

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • The Medicaid work requirement was pitched as a massive money-saver for the federal government because, supporters argued, it will keep people who shouldn’t be eligible for the program from being on the rolls. But it is becoming clear that implementing the policy is going to cost states tens of millions of dollars in new hires, contracts, communication campaigns, and tech systems. State officials say this is coming when budget pressures are already high.
  • The White House has advanced long-anticipated draft regulations designed to give political appointees the final word on federal research grants. The regulations, which have been close to the heart of Office and Management and Budget Director Russell Vought and were included in Project 2025, would empower the federal branch to pull back funding if political appointees find grantees doing work at odds with the president’s agenda.
  • In a move that went somewhat unnoticed, President Donald Trump on Friday gave his official endorsement to a study by the Department of Health and Human Services that calls for cutting the number of vaccines recommended for every American child. It’s not clear what impact Trump’s action will have 鈥 the changes that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. tried to make have been put on hold by federal courts.
  • A final rule issued this past week for the No Surprises Act makes changes designed to improve communication between insurers and providers. The rule does not, however, get at what’s emerged as the law’s biggest problem: When disputes between doctors and insurers reach arbitration, doctors are the overwhelming winners. And it is costing millions. Fixing the underlying issues would probably require legislative attention.

Also this week, Rovner interviews 麻豆女优 Health News reporter Lauren Sausser, who wrote the latest “Bill of the Month,” about a patient with a temporary memory problem and a less forgettable $59,000 hospital bill. If you have an outrageous or inscrutable medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: 麻豆女优 Health News and The Associated Press’ “Festering Infections to Untreated Cancer: ICE Detainees Describe Medical Neglect Across US,” by Rae Ellen Bichell, Claire Galofaro, Maia Rosenfeld, Renuka Rayasam, Aaron Kessler, and Byron Tau.

Liz Essley Whyte: The Wall Street Journal’s “,” by Christopher Weaver and Anna Wilde Mathews.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “,” by Simar Bajaj.

Margot Sanger-Katz: ProPublica’s “,” by Alec MacGillis and Ken B. Morales.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • Politico’s “,” by Robert King and Alice Miranda Ollstein.
  • The New York Times’ “,” by Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff.
  • The Washington Post’s “,” by Lauren Weber.
click to open the transcript Transcript: Medicaid Work Rules Surprise States

[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, from 麻豆女优 Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 麻豆女优 Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 4, at 10:30 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 video conference by Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times. 

Margot Sanger-Katz: Hello, everybody. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Olstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi, there. 

Rovner: And we welcome to our podcast panel this week Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal. Happy to have you join us. 

Liz Essley Whyte: Thanks for having me, Julie. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my colleague Lauren Sausser, who wrote the latest 麻豆女优 Health News “Bill of the Month.” It’s about a woman with a temporary memory problem who probably wishes she could forget about a $59,000 hospital bill. But first, this week’s news. 

So, it’s been almost a full year since President [Donald] Trump signed the big budget bill that would reduce Medicaid spending by nearly a trillion dollars over the next decade, and this week we got the much-anticipated regulation outlining what states have to do in order to implement the new Medicaid work requirements for low-income adults on the program by next Jan. 1. And it’s safe to say that these rules 鈥 which are interim final rules, by the way, so that means they technically take effect immediately 鈥 are not what states were expecting. I want to break this down in pieces, but first, let’s talk about what a heavy lift this was going to be for the 43 states that are required to put these rules into effect.  before the rules came out, right? 

Ollstein: Yes, this is being pitched as a massive money saver, that was how it was framed. It’s being scored that way in the original bill in order to pay for a bunch of other things: tax cuts, etc. 

Rovner: I would say it is a money saver for the federal government, right? 

Ollstein: Well, that is the promise, that it will save money by reducing the number of people covered by Medicaid. And so proponents of this frame it as cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse, arguing that the only people who are going to get booted off of Medicaid are the people who deserve to be booted off of Medicaid, because in this piece of it they’re not working or volunteering or going to school or caring for a sick relative. We looked at, yes, this is aimed at saving federal money, but it is currently costing states millions or tens of millions of dollars to implement. It is extremely expensive to implement. States are having to hire a lot of people, they’re having to create, you know, brand-new tech systems that, or upgrade their old tech systems that they didn’t have before. And a lot of state officials told us that this is coming at really the worst time for them. They’re already losing other federal funding, they are really struggling, they’re having to make lots of cuts to social services. And so there just isn’t a lot of extra money to go around. And yet they have to spend all this money to implement these rules. And, especially, Democratic officials were telling us that, Look, we wouldn’t mind having to invest this money if it were going to lead to covering more people or offering people better, more comprehensive coverage. But they really resent having to spend this money in order to cover fewer people in the future.  

Rovner: So, let’s get to the rules themselves. As I like to explain, there are two big things that states are going to have to do here: first, to determine which Medicaid recipients are exempt from that community engagement requirement 鈥 to work, volunteer, or attend school 80 hours per month 鈥 and second, to determine if those who are not exempt are actually meeting the requirements. And these new rules make both of those harder for states, right, Margot? 

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, I think it’s been like this huge freak-out among states over these last few weeks, because there were a lot of rumors flying around, but I think there was just this concern, like, Whoa, if they make major changes right now, it’s going to be even harder for us to implement. And for states that were, as Alice said, some of these blue states that were trying to minimize the coverage losses under the Medicaid work requirement, I think they were worried, Well, they’re only going to make it stricter; they’re only going to make it harsherWhy would they be changing things now? And so, , it turns out that is, in fact, what they did, that there were a number of policy choices where they decided to apply a stricter standard than what states had been told before this week. 

So what are the biggest examples of this? I think there are two. One is that the work requirement doesn’t apply to everyone. The Republicans in Congress basically said we want people, adults without young children and without disabilities, to be engaged in their communities 鈥 to work, volunteer, go to school a minimum number of hours each month if they want to stay eligible for Medicaid. But we understand that there are certain people who are going to have trouble doing that, and so we want to have exceptions for those people. So not everyone has to do the work requirement, a bunch of people don’t have to. And the biggest category of this was a category that Congress called “medical frailty.” The idea was these are people who have medical problems that, like, might make it hard for them to work, or who might really suffer if they lost their health insurance. So, depending on who you talk to, that was what Congress was trying to protect with that exception. And what CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] had been telling states over these last few months is: Put together a list of diagnoses of serious illnesses, and you can data match, you know, you have people in your Medicaid system already. OK, if they had cancer, if they have HIV, if they have Parkinson’s disease, that’s a serious illness. Those people are medically frail. You can just automatically exempt them, and then you don’t have to check their work hours. 

Rovner: That’s what Nebraska is already doing, right? Because they’re one of the states that have started this early. 

Sanger-Katz: Correct. Yeah, so Nebraska is already live with its work requirement. And, again, Nebraska, even more so than these other states, got tons of guidance from CMS, because they were so excited to go first, and they wanted to do everything right. They wanted to be a good example. And I think CMS wanted them to demonstrate, OK, you can like do this policy. Yeah, they had a list, I think they had like 300 pages of diagnostic codes, you know, like all these diseases. If you have these diseases, we’re gonna exempt you, then you don’t have to demonstrate work hours. If you don’t, OK, like, then you’re gonna have to prove that you’re working or volunteering or going to school. 

So what the rule said is, like, that’s not good enough. It is not good enough to have cancer 鈥 that in order to be exempted from having to demonstrate that you are working, you have to prove that you have cancer, and that your cancer is creating a problem that would make it hard for you to work. And the rule creates a standard where states are going to have to evaluate not just what diseases people have, which might be easy to do using medical records, for at least people who are already enrolled and who have been getting medical care, but instead that they have to make something like a disability determination, which is something that the states were really not ready for, that they don’t really have the staff to do or the training to do, and that cannot be easily automated on the back end right now. I think there’s not an easy way for them to go into the medical record and decide whether or not someone’s illness is serious enough that it would impair their ability to work. And the language that they use in the rule, the standard, is not actually really like the standard in other programs that have work requirements, so the states have no experience with the standard.  

And, as it turns out, doctors don’t really have any experience with this standard either. So, you know, when you are making a workman’s comp claim, for example, like the doctors have forms, there’s a system, they understand what it means to be too sick to work because of an injury that would preclude you from workman’s comp. And in SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], it turns out, there’s also a standard if you’re unable to work, you could get out of the work requirements. But that is slightly different. And so I think there is this real concern by states that they just like actually don’t know how to do this. There might be some AI [artificial intelligence] solution where they’re data mining in the medical records and trying to figure out if they have these codes, and these codes, like, maybe there’s a way to prove that someone is sick enough. What most people that I’ve talked to said is that basically this is going to be a system that’s largely going to be achieved with doctors’ notes. Doctors have to be willing to do this thing that they’ve never done before, and they’re, you know, having to sign that someone can’t work, and that’s going to be a lot of frictions in that process. And then there’s going to have to be a caseworker on the other end who is going to have to look at those doctors’ notes and is going to have to read them and decide whether the doctor has specified the impairment such that it is in compliance with the work requirement. 

So this is just a lot of like administrative headache. I think there are reasonable arguments for wanting to have this standard given what Congress’ intent was, that they wanted to have a work requirement. The point was they wanted people who could work to work, and they wanted people to be exempted who could not work. I think not everyone in Congress agrees with that, but I think some of them do. But I think the reality of how you actually do this in real life is much, much more complicated than that. There is no, like, godlike state that can just see how sick you are and can make these determinations. And so I think that states are really worried about this. They’re worried about how they’re going to get in compliance with this, they’re worried about all the changes they’re going to have to make to the systems that they’ve already built. And I think that a lot of advocates for people with Medicaid, and a lot of disease groups, advocates for people with serious illnesses, are very worried that many, many more people are going to lose coverage, and particularly people who are medically frail. You know, if you think about, say, a person with HIV, they may be in treatment and getting their medicines, and they might even have undetectable levels of HIV in their blood, and they are perfectly capable of working right now. But if they lose their health insurance and they lose their access to their prescription drugs, they fall out of treatment, their health condition could worsen pretty substantially. And I think we can all think of lots of other diseases that are like that. I think cancer is a good example. You know, some people are living with cancer, and it’s kind of like a chronic disease, but it’s because they’re getting regular care. If they lose their treatment&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;they lose their treatment for many other diseases we can think of that are like this. Depression, you know, certain kinds of mental health problems, if people fall out of treatment, that actually could impair their ability to work, and that causality could run in the opposite direction. So, I think this is a big change. 

And then the other change that they made is more technical, but it was like, how are people going to prove various things under this law? And a lot of states were just expecting people would be able to sign a statement and say, I am caring for a disabled relative&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;you can trust me, I’m signing under penalty of perjuryThis is what I’m doing. Or I volunteered 12 hours last month, you know, I’m just going to sign this under penalty of perjury. Because there’s not a good way to check. 

Rovner: And for the first year, that’s OK, right? They’re taking these attestations&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;

Sanger-Katz: For the first year, they’re going to allow it. And then after the first year, they’re going to allow it for medical frailty only 鈥 once. So if you sign up for Medicaid in 2028 and you claim that you’re too sick to work, you can sign a form that says that, but then, within the next six months, before you renew your coverage, you’re going to have to come back with some kind of medical record with some kind of doctor’s note that proves it. So you know these are some pretty big changes, and Trump administration officials said, you know, our view is this is consistent with [what] the law is for, which is to ensure that people are working and are engaged in their communities if they’re capable of doing it. They also said that this prohibition on people just signing statements is a way to avoid fraud, because why wouldn’t people just sign a statement saying that they didn’t have to do this work requirement if they could? But I think this is going to have real implications in the real world. It’s going to create a huge administrative headache for states. It’s probably going to impair a lot of people from getting coverage who would have otherwise been covered if CMS had stayed the course with what it had been telling states before. 

Rovner: So, I know my inbox is full of reactions from groups across the medical spectrum. Alice and Liz, I assume you guys are hearing lots of feedback about this, too. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. I mean, just like Margot said, there just isn’t really a good way to do this, trying to automate it and base it on medical claims, like 1) States don’t have that built yet, the different systems don’t, quote unquote, “talk to each other” in that way. But also, you know, just because someone used a certain number or kind of health services in a year doesn’t necessarily tell you whether they can work or not. You know, lots of people who are too sick to work maybe haven’t had the medical services, and someone who had a lot of medical services maybe can work fine. But then again, leaving it up to individual doctors who are not trained to make this determination, who don’t have the time to have a bunch of extra appointments just to do this, and who are more used to doing this for 鈥 Margot gave a few examples, but something some doctors brought up to me was like short-term disability, like evaluating, like, this is the number of weeks someone needs to recover from X surgery. So like that’s a determination a doctor feels qualified to make. Whether someone can work any job, I mean, that’s just not really something they can confidently say. I mean, working a job in a factory is not the same as working an email job, and what kind of jobs are available in this person’s area? It’s just a huge mess. 

Rovner: So, is there any chance the administration is going to back off? There is public comment being taken now until, I think, July. Or will Congress perhaps step in and say this is not what we intended, or does somebody get to sue here? I mean, or this is what’s called an interim, I’m saying, an interim final rule, so it’s not set in concrete yet. 

Sanger-Katz: I mean, I would not be at all surprised if we see lawsuits, but I think we’ll see something else happen first, which is: The law says the states have to get ready to go by&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;Dec. 31, 2026, to be ready to go live in January. But it says if they encounter a hardship, if they’ve been making good-faith effort towards getting ready for the work requirement, and they’ve encountered some hardship, and they, like, can’t make the deadline, they can apply for a waiver, basically a two-year extension from CMS. The Trump administration has been extremely clear to states about this all the way along, basically saying, You are not going to get these, we are not going to grant them, like, you know, maybe if there’s like a volcano that goes off in your state and the entire mainframe that holds your Medicaid enrollment system is melted, like, we’ll talk. But I think a lot of states now, especially some of these blue states that are really concerned about this stuff, I think that they are going to apply now, which they might not have done before. And I think if they are denied, I could see some lawsuits around that waiver process to just say, Look, like, you just changed the rules very late. There’s no practical way that we can get this done in time. We have been proceeding in good faith, and, you know, we need more time. So, I think that there could be litigation. I also think they did have this temporary policy for 2027 around self-attestation, which I think does help states get out of some of these, like, really tricky technical issues in the first year. I don’t know, like maybe there could be some further extension of that. But I don’t know. I’m curious, Alice, what, or Liz, what you think. But I am not holding out much expectation that Congress is going to make major changes here. 

Ollstein: Well, and because of the January deadline, making changes could solve one problem and create another. Because states already feel like they don’t have enough time, and they already feel like the rules of the game are being changed in the middle of the game. You know, what they had been spending months preparing for now has to change because of this guidance. If it changes yet again, and they have even less time to adapt and make a new change&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;like you said, they’re making hires, they’re trying to make contracts based on this, and so even as advocacy groups, and even states ask for additional changes, additional changes could make it even harder to implement in time. 

Rovner: All right, well, let us move on, because there’s lots more news. Speaking of new regulations, a proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget would basically make all grant funding from the U.S. Treasury subject to political appointee approval. Currently, most grant-level awards are determined by career scientists and peer reviewers, who make decisions based on scientific merit. Under this new policy, grants would have to, quote, “demonstrably advance the president’s policy agenda.” At the same time, the new 400-page document includes many new rules for grant recipients, including universities and other entities, including limiting their ability to engage in so-called issue advocacy and allowing the revocation of grant funds if recipients take actions that are not deemed by administration political officials to be in, quote, “the public interest.” Now, all this isn’t totally new. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought has been talking about this literally for years. It was laid out in Project 2025 as well as in several executive orders that have been issued by President Trump, which is why I think it’s getting relatively little attention, given the pretty earth-shaking changes that it envisions. Still, putting it out in an actual proposed regulation raises the stakes here, doesn’t it? 

Whyte: Yeah, I would echo that. This has been on Russ Vought’s radar for many years. If you talk to folks, you know, who know him and know his thinking, this all comes down to this thinking about the executive branch and its role in the Constitution, and how there shouldn’t really be independent agencies or branches of the executive branch that aren’t doing what the president wants. And so that is manifested in this regulation that says you can’t promote anti-American values, contribute to illegal immigration, things like that, that are policy priorities of this administration, and a new filter that’s going to be applied to all federal grant-making, once this is finalized. And it’s a distillation of that theory about the executive branch that is now coming out in practice. 

Rovner: Although going back to what we were just talking about with the Medicaid work requirements, I mean, the idea of having to have a political appointee involved at this extremely micro level in the hundreds of thousands of grants that the federal government issues every year. I mean, some of it is the ideology, but some of it is just the logistics. I know that this has been part of the problem of getting money out the door at the National Institutes of Health 鈥 is that normally money that just sort of flowed when it was approved by career workers now has to wait for the approval of a political appointee, and there are not enough political appointees to approve all of these things, and people aren’t getting their money. So, I mean, this is a logistical logjam, as well as an ideological one, right? 

Sanger-Katz: And we’ve seen some evidence of this. The Department of Homeland Security has had an informal policy like this, where the director was personally approving any expenditure, I think, more than 100 鈥攏ow, I’m forgetting. 

Rovner: $100,000, yeah, I think it was. 

Sanger-Katz: There was some threshold, and it did lead to this huge backlog, because you know this is a busy person who has a lot of other things to do. And it was leading to a lot of money not getting spent that had been authorized by the staff members who thought it was appropriate. And I think there’s also potential for corruption with this kind of system, where you have these bottlenecks where very few people are making all the decisions about where money goes, because then there is an obvious focus on where you send your lobbying efforts to try to get favorable outcomes in contracting and in grant-making. 

Whyte: Yeah, the concern from the science and public health organizations is that the merit of the scientific grant will no longer matter, that how good the science is won’t be the chief thing. 

Rovner: Yeah, that this is all about, you know, promoting the president’s agenda. I’m just wondering what Republicans will feel about this when Democrats, you know, take back the administration and try to do the same thing. 

Whyte: I think that’s exactly the concern that a lot of conservatives on the Hill have, which is, you know, all of this is fine and well, but you’re not going to like it when the tables turn. 

Rovner: Yeah, that was 鈥 that’s what I said, you know, when the Affordable Care Act passed, I said, there’s an awful lot of places where it says the secretary shall, or the secretary may, or the secretary will. I said, you know, the secretary’s not always going to be somebody who supports this. That&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;turned out to be a correct prediction.  

Moving on, the idea of this administration playing down its vaccine skepticism was so last month. Last Friday, President Trump issued an executive order basically endorsing Health and Human Services Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.]’s revamp of the childhood vaccine schedule, and ordering the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to review it and, quote, “take any appropriate steps to update said schedule.” What happened to “This isn’t popular, so we’re not going to push it,” or is doing this on a Friday afternoon how the administration is trying to placate the MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] movement, but not really make big headlines here? I also 鈥 this is another story that I think kind of flew below the radar. 

Whyte: Yeah, it’s funny because HHS can’t really say anything about this executive order due to their litigation ongoing, and so it’s just kind of out there. But it’s totally unclear to everybody why or what it’s expected to do, given that the court has put everything regarding the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on hold, and there currently is no ACIP. So what exactly the White House was intending with this remains pretty opaque, I think. 

Rovner: Like a lot of things, although I have started to, you know, like, pay attention on Friday afternoons again. Meanwhile, our podcast colleague  about how the anti-vax movement is trying to achieve its goal through the courts by arguing that vaccine mandates that lack religious exemptions are unconstitutional. And one of those cases is likely to reach the Supreme Court at some point in the not-too-distant future. What would it mean to public health if the court were to actually strike down the ability of states to impose vaccine mandates, which is one of the possible outcomes here? Or, as the groups claim, is this just about getting the five states that don’t have religious exemptions from vaccines into alignment with the rest of the states? 

Sanger-Katz: I think there is pretty strong evidence from the studies of state policies over the years that having really limited exemptions on mandatory vaccination really increases the number of kids who get vaccinated, that the more ways there are to kind of wiggle out of the requirement, the more parents will choose one of those options. And the narrower the exceptions, the fewer will. So, there are clearly some parents who really, really care about this issue and who do qualify for one of these exemptions. But I think there’s a larger number of parents who are maybe ambivalent or have kind of weakly held preferences not to vaccinate; if they’re not really being forced to do it, they won’t do it. If they are really being forced to go through a lot of administrative burden to prove that they need an exception, then they tend to vaccinate. And so I think this is an exception that almost every state already has, but I think that the evidence is relatively clear that opening up more exceptions in those states that don’t have them now, probably on the margin, will lead to fewer kids getting vaccinated in those states. 

Whyte: Yeah, the five states that don’t allow religious exemptions to vaccine mandates are West Virginia, California, New York, Connecticut, and Maine. So that would be, you know, an immediate effect there. But then I think we can expect from a Supreme Court precedent, if one is set, that other states, state legislatures, local school districts would perhaps expand the religious exemptions they have now, or make them easier. We’ve seen that how much friction there is when you get a religious exemption really matters. So, like, do you have to just sign a form, click a box, or do you have to go meet with someone and prove that you, you know, have sincerely held beliefs on this matter? And those kind of friction points matter a lot too. 

Rovner: Yeah, I just, I couldn’t help thinking, as I was reading this story, about going back to the Dobbs case, the abortion case, which was not originally intended or filed as one that was going to overturn Roe, and makes me wonder what the Supreme Court might do, even if the question that’s raised is, you know, about these religious exemptions, could they go on and overturn 鈥 I think that precedent was from 1905 that said that states can have vaccine mandates 鈥 and wondering whether a) that’s possible, and b) that’s likely. 

Sanger-Katz: It’s always hard to predict what the Supreme Court is going to do. 

Rovner: Always. 

Sanger-Katz: It’s really up to them. They’re an idiosyncratic group of people who get the final say on a lot of things. 

Whyte: I thought it was interesting, Lauren’s story was great, and one of the things it pointed out is that what the Supreme Court did is specifically give instructions to this lower court to go back and look at this question about religious exemptions for vaccine mandates using a case that happened in Maryland, where the Supreme Court found that the school district could not mandate that kids participate in lessons with LGBTQ content that would conflict with their parents’ religious beliefs. So in other words, the families had a religious right to not have to participate into that in school. And the Supreme Court is asking, is there a similar right that a family would have to not have to participate in vaccination to attend school? So that’ll be an interesting question, and it could, as we said, you know, have big impacts across the states and how school districts handle vaccine mandates for kindergartners. 

Rovner: Although I think this will take a while to play out. And before we leave the subject of vaccines, an update to our discussion from a couple of weeks back about the global vaccine alliance known as Gavi, which the U.S. owes some $600 million appropriated by Congress. That’s money that’s been held up by HHS Secretary RFK Jr. At a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said his agency, which has historically been in charge of Gavi for the U.S. government, said that it is, quote, “sort of at a stage where we are going to re-engage. We need to drive this to an outcome.” Was that his polite way of saying that he plans to give Gavi the money that Congress allocated to it, and RFK Jr.’s concerns be damned? 

Whyte: I think a lot of people are reading it that way. You know, the State Department has a very practical view on these things. I also thought the way that Rubio phrased how they were giving Secretary Kennedy a large amount of deference because of his strongly held views on this matter was a very interesting insight into how the Cabinet works and how Trump has instructed his top officials to work together. And I think part of the problem here is that they’re just running into the practicalities of not having an Ebola vaccine. And so the State Department is going to have to do what it feels must be done. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was just a little peek behind the curtain of this intra-agency squabble that’s going on. We’ll wait and see if that happens. 

Whyte: I should say that they don’t have a vaccine for this newest outbreak that is going on. They, you know, the older Ebola vaccine, it was not appropriate to treat this one or to prevent this. 

Rovner: All right. We’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

All right. Our theme this week seems to be federal rulemaking. So, here’s another one. The Trump administration has issued final rules attempting to fix the arbitration system created in the, quote, “No Surprises Act” 鈥 that it is safe to say has not worked as it was designed by Congress. Margot, remind us what went haywire with the process that’s actually in practice [to] dramatically increase what providers get paid, and will these new rules make it all better?  

Sanger-Katz: So this is a system supposed to solve the problem of surprise medical billing when you, say, go to the emergency room and some doctor treats you, and it turns out that that doctor didn’t take your insurance and sends you a huge bill. So the law did away with that, basically said no one is allowed to send you a huge bill in that situation, and then it created a system on the back end for the insurance company and the doctor to kind of fight it out and figure out what the doctor was going to get paid if they didn’t have a contract with that insurance company. And the expectation of Congress was that this is a system that would be used fairly rarely, that most of the time this would be negotiated between the parties; they would just decide on a price and work it out, but every once in a while there would be a rare case where they would need to litigate their dispute. And it would go, they set up this arbitration system where a neutral arbiter, usually a lawyer, but not always, would hear arguments from each side and decide who had the more reasonable position, and would have to choose between the two bids. They couldn’t negotiate any further, but, you know, the doctor would say, This was a very complicated case, I deserve $10,000. And the insurance company would say, No, no, no, like, normally for this kind of visit we pay $500. And the arbitrator would have to decide which is more reasonable: $10,000 or $500. 

What’s happened, I think, to the surprise of a lot of people, is that instead of 17,000 of these cases going to arbitration, which is what CMS expected when the law passed, more than a million are going through a year. There has just been an explosion of cases coming through the system. Lots and lots of medical disputes are now being decided using this process, and the doctors are winning almost all of the time. I think in the last quarter for which there is data, 88% of these arbitration claims are being decided in favor of doctors. And because of that, the doctors, in many cases, have started getting more aggressive in what they ask for. Because they keep winning, there is not really an incentive to say that price is normally $500. They’re much more likely now to ask for $10,000 than early on in the system, where maybe they were asking for $1,000. And so we’re seeing some really eye-popping awards. Not all of them; there are a fair number of awards that are, you know, within a reasonable number of multiples of what the normal price is. But there are an increasing number where doctors are just getting huge, huge, huge increases over what you would expect. And my colleague Sarah Kliff and I wrote a story a few weeks ago about a plastic surgeon in New York and New Jersey who was routinely collecting fees of hundreds of thousands of dollars for breast reduction surgeries that he had previously accepted payments of around $10,000 from the same insurer prior to this law going into place. So big problems. Lots of complaints from insurers, as you can imagine, and also from employers who, in many cases, are actually paying the bills for their workers’ health insurance directly, because they have these self-insured ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974] plans. 

This rule that just came out is not getting at the real, like, meat of the system, how the arbitration works, and what&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;how the arbitrators make their decisions. But it’s dealing with, like, a lot of, like, technical issues about, you know, how do you submit paperwork? What kind of information do you provide? Is it all in one computer system? How can you make sure that you have identified the right insurance company? And what are the administrative fees that you pay when you want to initiate one of these claims? And so this is a very hot issue. I wrote this one story, and, like, everyone is just really worked up about it. The doctors are really worked up about it, the insurers are really worked up about it, the arbitrators are really worked, you know, everyone feels strongly about this law, and whether it’s going well or not well, or what changes or they want or don’t want. Everybody loved this rule. As far as I can tell, there have been, like, basically no complaints about this rule. The one complaint I’ve seen is that they lowered the fee to file a new case, and so I think people who feel like there are too many of these cases would like it to be a little harder to file a new case. But, in general, it seems like these were expected, helpful, technical upgrades that are just going to make the process work a little bit more smoothly and deal with some of the annoying administrative headaches. 

Rovner: But not address the deeper problem. 

Sanger-Katz: The bigger issues, I think, really do require the involvement of Congress. If Congress wants to revisit the law and change the way that this overall system is structured, they’re probably going to have to write new legislation. And I’m not sure how large the appetite is for that right now. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’m not going to hold my breath on that one. All right, that’s as much news as we have time for this week. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast 麻豆女优 Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month.” Hi, Lauren. 

Lauren Sausser: Hi. 

Rovner: So, this month’s patient got caught in one of those fights between the insurance company and the hospital, and, of course, it turned out to be harder to untangle it than it should have been. Tell us who she was, what happened to her, what kind of care she needed. 

Sausser: Sure, so Jan Anderson is a 65-year-old woman who splits her time between Arizona and Washington state. And Jan was hiking with her husband about a year ago in Arizona. They were in Sedona. And later that afternoon 鈥 it might have even been pushing into early evening 鈥 she started repeating herself. So she asked her husband, Did we hike today? And he said, Yes, we hiked. And then a few seconds later she asked the exact same question, Did we hike today? And it was clear almost immediately that Jan needed to be seen. So her husband drove her to a freestanding ER in the Sedona area, and that facility assessed her but was not equipped to deal with patients who might be experiencing stroke. They didn’t know what was happening with Jan at this point, so she was airlifted to a hospital in the Phoenix area, where she was admitted. And they ran a bunch of different tests and images, and it turns out she wasn’t having a stroke, she was having, she was experiencing an episode of something that’s called temporary [transient] global amnesia 鈥 which, the good news is, is benign, and as the name suggests, temporary. But her hospital bill ended up being quite a lot, even though it was less of an emergency than they originally thought. 

Rovner: Well, of course, that’s what they always tell you: If you’re having symptoms, you should go to the emergency room. So, she did have insurance, right? So, why did the hospital in Phoenix think that she didn’t? And how much was the bill? 

Sausser: OK, so the total bill was $59,181. That’s just for the care she received at the hospital in the Phoenix area. She did have insurance. She was insured through Molina [Healthcare], and it was a plan that she had purchased through the federal healthcare.gov marketplace. For some reason, though, her insurance information was not transferred from that freestanding ER in Sedona to the facility where she was airlifted in the Phoenix area. So it was a mistake, but that second facility billed her as if she was a self-pay patient with no health insurance. 

Rovner: Now, once the hospital did figure out that she had insurance, why did the insurance company then still reject the claim? 

Sausser: It took a while to get some answers on this, but eventually Jan learned that Molina was not going to cover the cost of that care she received in Phoenix, because the Phoenix hospital had not sought prior authorization for her to be admitted. Now, under the federal No Surprises Act, emergency services are supposed to be paid for in-network without prior authorization. In this case, the insurer was saying Yes, we do cover emergency services without prior authorization, but in this case her care team was recommending that she be admitted. And the insurer argued that the insurance company needed to be notified before that happened. 

Rovner: So, I know I ask this question all the time: Why didn’t the No Surprises bill [Act] get the patient out of the middle of this obvious insurance company hospital dispute?  

Sausser: This&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;in this case, the No Surprises Act kind of worked. Jan received a bill pretty early on saying she owed about $15,000 of that $59,000 total charge. After she told the hospital that she did indeed have coverage, that bill was suspended. There was no one technically knocking on her door pressuring her to pay any amount of the charges she had accumulated in the Phoenix hospital. But every time she would log on to her patient portal, she would see these outstanding charges. The hospital didn’t understand why the insurance company wouldn’t pay. The insurance company was saying she needed to have had prior authorization, and these charges just weren’t disappearing, and so eventually she started reaching out to insurance commissioners, lawmakers, trying to get someone to pay attention, because she was worried at some point she might owe the hospital $59,000. She couldn’t get these charges resolved, and didn’t understand why. 

Rovner: And what eventually happened? 

Sausser: Well, she eventually contacted us. And, as is often the case when journalists get involved with these health insurance issues, the ball started moving. So Molina started talking to the hospital in the Phoenix area, the Phoenix-area hospital has assured Jan that she will not be billed for any of the $59,000. Even if Molina doesn’t pay, the hospital has assured her that they will write off the balance and that she will not be billed. Jan has asked for that assurance in writing. As of the last time I spoke to her, she hasn’t gotten that, but she has been told she will not have to pay any of it. 

Rovner: So, what’s the takeaway here? I mean, it sounds like, you know, she did everything right, and it seems to be resolved. 

Sausser: It seems to be resolved, although the last I heard the $59,000 in charges haven’t necessarily gone away. I spoke with a patient billing expert about this, and the advice that she gave in a situation like this, you know, when you have a hospital stay, you get all sorts of paperwork in the mail afterward. You get paperwork from the insurer, you get paperwork from the provider. This billing expert recommends that you look at the patient responsibility portion of your explanation of benefits. Now that’s a document that you will get from your insurance company. It should list the charges that the hospital has billed, but it should also list the portion of those charges that the patient is responsible for. In Jan’s case, her explanation of benefits clearly stated that she was not responsible for any of it. Now, that didn’t mean that those $59,000 in charges was automatically disappearing, as this story shows. More than a year later, it’s still not resolved. But it shows you that the insurance company is saying you are not responsible for this bill, in this case. The billing expert that I spoke to recommended that the patient mail or email the explanation of benefits from the insurer to the hospital and show that the patient responsibility is zero, in order to get that balance cleared.  

Rovner: We’ll see if this happens. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much. 

Sausser: Of course, thanks for having me. 

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

Ollstein: Yeah, I have a very interesting piece from The New York Times by Simar Bajaj, and it’s called “.” And it is about the trend we’re seeing under the MAHA movement, largely, you know, expressed by Secretary Kennedy, back towards putting a lot of focus on personal responsibility, personal lifestyle choices, and less focus on policy and environmental factors. And it’s, you know, digging into the history of that on a few different fronts, both with, you know, infectious diseases, but also with things like obesity. And it is talking about basically how we’re seeing a return to a system that didn’t really work before, which is, you know, basically browbeating and shaming people into healthier behaviors that did not work in the past. And yet we are sort of attempting to revive that, and part of that is a reaction to the fact that trying to move away from that also hasn’t seemed to work either. So it really explores these, the different history of these approaches in public health. 

Rovner: That’s why public health will continue to be studied. Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I want to suggest an article in ProPublica from Alec MacGillis called “.” I’ve been interested in the public health problem of gun deaths for many years, and I have to admit that Alec in the story has tackled an issue that I just wasn’t watching. I think it’s, like, one of these other things that has a little bit slipped beneath the radar, because the Trump administration makes so much news. But they, through the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which regulates firearms and firearms dealers, has really loosened up a lot of the restrictions that the Biden administration had put in place to try to prevent the trafficking of illegal guns onto the streets of American cities, where a lot of crime happens. And the story sort of looks at those policy changes and what it means for gun dealers and for people who buy guns. And I think it is too soon to tell whether these policy changes will have an effect on violence and gun deaths on the streets. I think it takes, in many cases, a long time for illegal guns to kind of get out there and be used for crimes. But we have been in this period of really merciful reduction in the crime rate and the murder rate in many American cities for the last few years, and I do think that Alec raises the question that if we are seeing more guns on the streets of the future, whether those declines can be sustained.  

Rovner: Liz. 

Whyte: My choice is from my colleagues Anna Wilde Mathews and Christopher Weaver at The Wall Street Journal, and it’s entitled “.” And it’s a really great look at how there are all these providers that have really exploited this new and growing segment of therapy for kids with autism, which is obviously a growing diagnosis, such that you have, you know, this mom in New Jersey who hears that she can get a no-out-of-pocket-cost treatment for her son and has someone come a few days a week, three or four hours of therapy, and winds up with a bill for more than $900,000, which is obviously a nightmare. So we had previously looked, The Wall Street Journal had, [at] Medicaid billing abuse with these autism therapy services, and found that it was a huge issue. And then this is a look at kind of the private insurance sector, where all these providers are charging private insurance a lot, and when an insurer says, No, we’re not going to pay that, some of these bills end up falling on the families, which is really tragic. About 40 large employers, covering 3.5 million people, their expenses for autism therapy doubled from 2021 to 2025, to $108 million. The Wall Street Journal looked at a bill that was $30,000 for one kid to get autism therapy for one day; it’s actually quite insane. So, kudos to my colleagues for writing about this.  

Sanger-Katz: Can I share one fact from this article that really struck me? 

Rovner: Sure. 

Sanger-Katz: One of the things that these reporters did that I thought was so smart is they documented the growth in the autism services workforce. So, the number of people who are providing this kind of behavioral therapy to children with autism is now larger than the workforce of the U.S. Postal Service. That’s according to a tweet from Derek Thompson, who compared the numbers. But it is kind of astonishing, the growth, not just in the Medicaid spending, not just in private insurance spending, not just in some of these unjustifiable bills that individuals have faced, but also that this is now a huge part of the American workforce is serving in this specific industry right now.  

Rovner: And if this story sounds familiar, it’s because we had a different autism therapy abuse story last week as one of our extra credits. It was written by Margot here, and Sarah Kliff. Yeah, a burgeoning source for reporters to plumb. My extra credit this week is a joint investigation between my colleagues here at 麻豆女优 Health News and the AP. It’s called “Festering Infections to Untreated Cancer: ICE Detainees Describe Medical Neglect Across US.” The team of six reporters and analysts dug through court records to document that hundreds of immigration detainees in 33 states have filed suit, charging that they were denied adequate medical care. Quoting from the story, “Requests for help went unanswered for weeks, blood sugars rose, infections festered, cancers remained untreated, detainees collapsed and had seizures.” And there’s not even anyone to complain to. Officially, the administration shut down the office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman earlier this year. The story is really infuriating and worth reading in its entirety. 

OK, that is this week’s news. Thanks to our editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. We also had production help this week from Taylor Cook. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts 鈥 as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging these days? Alice. 

Ollstein: I am on Bluesky , and on X . 

Rovner: Liz. 

Whyte: I am , and on X , and Signal: JournoLiz.80. 

Rovner: Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I am @sangerkatz at , and on Signal. If you want to send me tips, I’m @sangerkatz.01. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying Audio producer
Taylor Cook Audio producer
Stephanie Stapleton Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

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

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

This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-449-medicaid-work-rules-exemptions-june-4-2026/">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=2244767&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
2244767
Festering Infections to Untreated Cancer: ICE Detainees Describe Medical Neglect Across US /courts/ice-immigration-detention-medical-care-neglect-court-records-ap-investigation/ Tue, 02 Jun 2026 13:00:00 +0000 /?p=2243229 An Albanian man’s pain grew so unbearable, he said, he pulled out his own tooth as he languished for months in a New Mexico immigration detention center. A Honduran mother of two said she was hospitalized for a heart problem after she was denied blood pressure medications while held in Florida. A said his leg grew purple and swollen from flesh-eating bacteria when staffers at a Vermont facility did not bring him to a scheduled doctor appointment.

Hundreds of detainees across at least 33 states allege in federal suits that immigration detention facilities are failing to provide adequate medical care, an investigation by 麻豆女优 Health News and The Associated Press found. Detainees say they didn’t get medications on time 鈥 or at all 鈥 for conditions including high blood pressure, diabetes, depression, epilepsy, Parkinson’s, and HIV. Requests for help went unanswered for weeks. Blood sugars rose. Infections festered. Cancers remained untreated. Detainees collapsed and had seizures.

U.S. jails and immigration detention centers have to meet the medical needs of the people in their charge. But the system is sagging under an influx of detentions since President Donald Trump returned to office: More than 75,000 immigrants were being detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement , up from around 40,000 a year earlier.

麻豆女优 Health News and AP analyzed thousands of court cases filed since Trump’s second inauguration that use a legal route known as habeas corpus to argue people are being held illegally by ICE. The records offer a rare window into how those detained say, often under penalty of perjury, ICE is handling their medical needs. Reporters also interviewed more than 50 detainees, family members, and lawyers.

The investigation revealed that medical neglect is alleged across the sprawling detention system, including in offices not designed to house people, county jails, and quickly staged sites with nicknames such as “Alligator Alcatraz.”

ICE custody is deadlier than it has been in two decades, researchers wrote in April. The Department of Homeland Security reported 51 people had died in detention since the start of Trump’s second administration 鈥 with suicides .

麻豆女优 Health News and AP asked DHS to respond to the findings six days before publication, but it did not provide comment. The department’s acting chief medical officer, Sean Conley, has “it is both policy and longstanding practice for aliens to receive timely and appropriate medical care from the moment they enter ICE custody” and that the agency recruits healthcare professionals to maintain high standards. “This is better, more responsive healthcare than many aliens have ever received in their entire lives,” he has said.

Individual facilities and private prison companies contracting with DHS that responded to requests for comment said they follow ICE standards and detainees receive medical care when it is required. Some said they were unfamiliar with the allegations outlined in court documents; others blamed some detainees for lapses in their medical care.

“I have never seen such disregard or medical neglect like this anywhere,” Vardan Gukasian, a political dissident and former paramedic who spent years behind bars in Armenia, wrote in in March to contest his detention in Henderson, Nevada, as it stretched to 13 months despite health problems.

Madeleine Skains, a spokesperson for the city of Henderson, said medical care is always available at the facility and that the court had not ordered changes to his care.

Last June, as Gukasian experienced the symptoms of uncontrolled high blood pressure 鈥 dizziness, a nosebleed, and a headache 鈥 his cellmate banged on their door for help.

“When it did not arrive, the rest of the block banged on their doors,” he wrote. Gukasian was hospitalized that day.

鈥楤razen Indifference to Really Obvious Problems’

The administration’s mass deportation effort has swept up during routine immigration check-ins, at traffic stops, at their homes, and in hospitals.

About have no criminal conviction. Their immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal.

“I couldn’t understand why they treated me so harshly,” said a father of six in Georgia. He said he was injured while shackled in custody when the vehicle transporting him to an Atlanta facility jolted, throwing him out of his seat and into a metal armrest. His wound became infected with E. coli, he said, because he had to sleep on a dirty concrete floor amid leaking toilets.

Like other detainees interviewed, he spoke on the condition of anonymity; they said they fear for their safety, for the safety of their families, or that speaking out would jeopardize their immigration cases. The AP and 麻豆女优 Health News are not naming anyone identified in court documents without their consent.

Staffers at Stewart Detention Center in rural Lumpkin, Georgia, didn’t adequately respond to that man’s request for medical help, , until he passed out and was taken to a hospital about an hour away. There, he said, a doctor told him he’d narrowly escaped amputation of his left leg. Medical staff found no records of a case matching this description, according to Brian Todd, a spokesperson for CoreCivic, which runs the facility.

The 48-year-old, who moved to the U.S. from Guatemala more than two decades ago, was released in October and is now a legal permanent resident. But he is unsure if he’ll be able to return to his job in construction because, he said, he can no longer lift heavy things due to his injury.

A man in the Atlanta area was injured while in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody and developed an E. coli infection. “I couldn’t understand why they treated me so harshly,” says the father of six U.S. citizens, who is now a legal permanent resident but did not want to be named to avoid potential retaliation against his family. (Brynn Anderson/AP)

Some detainees or their lawyers said even basic care was denied: gauze to protect an open foot wound, prenatal care for a high-risk pregnancy, a pillow to ease the pain of sleeping with advanced stomach cancer, sanitary pads for postpartum bleeding.

“I would like to believe the government has the best interest of those it holds in detention for whatever period of time,” Judge Benita Pearson, a federal judge in Ohio, said during a hearing in October concerning a 70-year-old who alleged the government lost her glasses during her arrest. “If one is unable to see due to the loss of glasses when detained, that should be fixed.”

, who worked for ICE and now serves as a special adviser to the American Bar Association, said case law requires the government to treat people in immigration detention with the same care it affords those in traditional jails awaiting trial. But administrators are granted discretion and medical care standards vary.

Detainees are frequently moved across the country, often without warning, interrupting treatment. A woman from El Salvador said she missed a week of HIV medication when she was transferred from Colorado to a county jail in Wyoming.

A Russian man wrote that, while detained in Texas, he saw a gastroenterologist about his painful gallstones and scheduled an appointment with a surgeon. “Unfortunately, I never got to see him, due to my being moved around various detention centers.”

Advocates say that even obvious disabilities, like legal blindness, are ignored.

A detainee who lost one eye and had severe glaucoma in the other required twice-daily drops to maintain what vision remained. But, he said, some days the drops never came.

“Now I can only see a little bit straight in front. It now often looks like I’m seeing through gauze,” the man wrote in a court declaration. “This makes me very afraid that one of these times I am going to open my eyes and not be able to see anything at all.”

He wrote that he was scared he wouldn’t be able to see his infant son grow up.

“It’s just sort of brazen indifference to really obvious problems, things you would have thought absurd a decade ago 鈥 like the fact that you can’t see,” the man’s attorney, Brian Hoffman, said. “Before, you could attempt to work with folks on the government side and maybe shame them into doing the right thing. Now, it’s sort of like anything you want done you have to go to court and sue over.”

Even court orders aren’t always enough. One California judge ordered the government to take a man showing signs of prostate cancer to a specialist for diagnosis and treatment. Records show they did not take him.

Lawyers representing ICE told the judge that officials missed the appointment because of an “internal scheduling error.” CoreCivic, which runs that facility, said it was unable to comment on active litigation.

A Surge in Cases

When immigrants file habeas corpus petitions, they exercise a right to challenge unlawful imprisonment that dates to .

More than 40,000 such petitions have been filed during Trump’s second term, fueled by decisions last year to deny bond to many people held on immigration charges. Judges are split on whether that’s legal; the question appears headed to the Supreme Court.

Many habeas claims , but judges typically cite reasons unrelated to the medical neglect described in the petitions, such as detainees’ being held too long before being deported.

The more than 300 medical neglect claims found in this investigation represent a fraction of the problem. The details of habeas corpus cases are often hidden due to a federal rule barring the public from viewing such documents online. 麻豆女优 Health News and AP obtained some documents from courthouses and received records on 4,400 cases from , a project of the nonprofit Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative. But tens of thousands more remain largely inaccessible.

Some judges have written that the habeas process is not how to raise allegations of medical neglect and have declined to release detainees over those claims. Not every detainee who believes they experienced medical neglect files a habeas petition or cites their medical issues if they do.

Jose-Antonio Segismundo’s petition made no mention of being unable to see an oncologist for the cancer in his abdomen while detained for more than seven months at the Florida detention facility known as Alligator Alcatraz and Folkston D Ray ICE Processing Center in Georgia. Medical records in his court filings show he was arrested about five weeks before his scheduled appointment with a cancer specialist.

His wife, Maria Jose Gonzalez, said he didn’t receive any treatment even though she sent his medical records and explained his condition to officials at Folkston. When his stomach pain erupted, often suddenly and intensely, she said, they gave him Tylenol.

Geo Group, which runs Folkston, follows ICE standards and provides healthcare and access to off-site medical specialists when needed, spokesperson Christopher Ferreira said.

This spring, Segismundo, 48, was deported to Mexico, a country he left nearly 30 years ago, Gonzalez said. Now, she said, he will have to restart his search for care in the Oaxacan village where he grew up.

Maria Jose Gonzalez of Wimauma, Florida, holds a photo of her husband, Jose-Antonio Segismundo, who was detained in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody for more than seven months in Florida and Georgia before being deported to Mexico. Medical records show he was arrested about five weeks before his scheduled appointment with a specialist to treat his abdominal cancer. (Chris O'Meara/AP)

Watching Loved Ones Deteriorate

Detainees receiving inadequate healthcare have little recourse. The Department of Homeland Security last year gutted the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman. In early May, it shut the office entirely, arguing that Congress didn’t fund it.

Previously, ombudsman staffers could help facilitate medical care or look into complaints of neglect, according to Matt Boles, an immigration attorney in Georgia. Now, he said, there’s no one to call.

Meanwhile, detainees’ families said they feel helpless, making desperate calls to facilities, the government, and their legislators while watching their loved ones deteriorate.

Riya Khan saw her mother get sicker at the California City Detention Facility, which is owned by CoreCivic. When she visited a week after her mother arrived at the facility in the Mojave Desert, Riya said, the 64-year-old woman stumbled into her seat. She was shaking and her breathing was labored.

Masuma Khan came to the U.S. from Bangladesh in 1997. She has no criminal history, her records say, and was detained in October when she showed up for her regular ICE check-in.

For the month she was detained, according to her daughter, she only intermittently received her medications for conditions including high blood pressure, hypothyroidism, and prediabetes. CoreCivic treats chronic conditions in line with applicable medical standards, Todd said.

“Nothing matters more to CoreCivic than the health, safety and well-being of the people in our care,” Todd said.

Khan said she got her asthma medication for the first time two days before she was released and that her eye drops for glaucoma never arrived. Staffers told Khan she needed to buy some of her medications from the commissary but it didn’t stock them, her daughter said.

Before ICE detained Masuma Khan, she made friends with everyone, her daughter said. She had worked for years at Lucky Boy, an iconic Pasadena fast-food restaurant, and in her free time fed birds and left out fruit for bees that visited her apartment’s balcony.

Now she’s too scared to go outside. She still must regularly check in with ICE, and she’s terrified each time.

Masuma Khan (center) waits in line with her attorney Laboni Hoq (left of Khan) to enter a federal building in Los Angeles for an appointment on April 21. (Jae C. Hong/AP)
Khan (second from right in the front row) and her daughter, Riya (fourth from right in the front row), pose with supporters outside a federal building in Los Angeles on April 21. (Jae C. Hong/AP)
Khan (right) came to the U.S. from Bangladesh in 1997 and was detained for a month after she showed up for a regular check-in with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in October. Here, she hugs her daughter, Riya (left). (Jae C. Hong/AP)
A “Welcome Home” balloon that was left at the front door of Khan’s apartment in Altadena, California, after she was released from an immigration detention facility. (Jae C. Hong/AP)
Khan’s daughter says that her mother has nightmares and is scared to go outside after being held at an immigration detention facility for a month in 2025. (Jae C. Hong/AP)

    A Stroke on a Video Call

    Previously, detainees with serious medical needs would likely have been released on humanitarian parole, in part to avoid the cost of their care, Vermont attorney Andrew Pelcher said.

    In fiscal year 2023 鈥 before the detained population soared 鈥 ICE spent more than $390 million on healthcare for detained noncitizens, according to its to Congress. In May, Todd Lyons, then acting director of ICE, said at a conference that the agency had already spent “almost half a billion dollars” on detainee healthcare this year.

    Now, under “mandatory detention,” people are staying locked up with serious 鈥 and expensive 鈥 conditions.

    A Romanian citizen underwent several heart surgeries, including an emergency triple bypass in April 2025, before he was arrested in July. As part of his recovery, the 52-year-old was required to take 16 daily medications. While at an ICE field office in Baltimore, his court filings allege, he went two days without any medication before officials moved him to a facility in New Jersey.

    He was hospitalized three times while detained, complaining of chest pains 鈥 in part, medical records and court documents say, because despite “countless requests,” the detention center did not provide all his medications. Hospital discharge papers cited by his lawyer show he received only eight of the 16 medications after his second release from the hospital.

    “Can you please talk to the ICE facility to make sure they give him his medications?” his treatment providers wrote in medical records included in his court filings. “He was admitted last week for chest pain and today he was readmitted again for chest pain secondary to non compliance for medications.”

    Several weeks later in August, he had a stroke while on a video call with his daughter, according to court filings. “He was struggling to breathe, and was pointing at his chest where he was again experiencing pain, and suddenly stopped speaking.” His daughter screamed for help through the video monitor, according to his petition. “Eventually an officer came in to assist him and cut the feed.”

    The man lost his ability to speak for four days, the document says. He was returned to detention, where he remained until a federal judge ordered his release in November.

    Khan holds medication she takes daily. While detained, she says, she only intermittently received her medications for multiple conditions including high blood pressure, hypothyroidism, and prediabetes. (Jae C. Hong/AP)

    Impossible Choices

    Cassandra Amador waits for the phone to ring every morning, desperate to ask her husband the question that’s woken her up every night for months: “Did you get your medicine?”

    Her husband, Pedro Javier Amador Gutierrez, 36, has high blood pressure and depends on the state-run facility in Florida nicknamed “Deportation Depot” to administer the prescriptions that have kept him alive for years. Many mornings, he tells his wife he did not get them.

    When she talks to him, she said, he sounds weaker and more scared every day, not like the upbeat man who would take her kids out for ice cream.

    “You can hear in his voice how he feels,” she said.

    Now, she said, he’s considering returning to Cuba, which he fled because of political persecution, out of fear that he will die in detention without his medicines. Amador and her children would go with him, she said, even though she was born in New Jersey, has never been to Cuba, and doesn’t speak much Spanish.

    But he’s already collapsed twice at the Baker Correctional Institution in Sanderson, Florida, his wife said. She’s terrified that the next time, he won’t get up.

    Methodology

    麻豆女优 Health News and The Associated Press sifted through thousands of immigration habeas corpus claims to find allegations of medical neglect from people detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the second Trump administration.

    Without a comprehensive, publicly available dataset of medical complaints by those in ICE custody, we used immigration habeas corpus claims to identify detainees’ healthcare-related allegations raised in federal court. Although the intended purpose of habeas corpus is to challenge the legality of a petitioner’s detention 鈥 rather than conditions of their confinement 鈥 these filings sometimes include detainees’ claims of inadequate healthcare.

    But habeas corpus filings are not always publicly available. Federal rules restrict how members of the public can access habeas petitions filed by people in immigration detention. For most of these cases, court websites publish only court orders and dockets describing other filings. The initial petitions are available only through in-person visits to federal courthouses across the country. Habeas Dockets, a project of the nonprofit Immigration Justice Transparency Initiative, coordinates a nationwide network of volunteers to gather these petitions and make them available online.

    麻豆女优 Health News and AP analyzed the dockets of roughly 33,000 cases filed by detainees from Jan. 20, 2025, through March 2026. The vast majority of cases had only basic procedural information, like dates of court filings and rulings. Only about 4,400 included the original petitions.

    We also gathered a few dozen case files from courthouses, lawyers, and the Massachusetts federal district court website, which posts most petitions under a unique standing order.

    We ran keyword and semantic searches of court records, including petitions, motions, and orders, for terms and phrases potentially related to medical neglect, such as surgery, medications, inadequate medical care, and treatment for chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure.

    We found about 500 cases potentially alleging medical neglect. At least two reporters reviewed each case manually, yielding more than 300 cases containing specific allegations in sworn filings of delayed, denied, or deficient healthcare.

    To be conservative, we excluded dozens of cases that alleged inadequate medical care but lacked specifics, for example a petitioner writing, “I have been sick and don’t get proper treatment,” or a judge noting a petitioner “complains that ICE is ignoring his medical problems.” We also excluded cases in which petitioners claimed only that they were denied special diets, exercise, or other accommodations that they said were key to managing their health conditions, such as a petitioner writing, “I suffer from Parkinson’s and cannot properly exercise,” or claiming that the food provided was unfit for a person with diabetes.

    The cases we analyzed were neither randomly selected nor representative of immigration habeas filings nationwide. The claims were not independently verified. Many filings are not publicly available, and not all detainees raise medical concerns in court, so our account of cases represents a limited window into the landscape of claims, rather than a comprehensive picture.

    Associated Press journalists Garance Burke, Valerie Gonzalez, and Tim Sullivan as well as 麻豆女优 Health News correspondent Kate Wells contributed to this report.

    This report is a collaboration between The Associated Press and 麻豆女优 Health News.

    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/ice-immigration-detention-medical-care-neglect-court-records-ap-investigation/">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=2243229&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
    2243229
    A Trump Stronghold Grapples With Health Risks of ICE Detention Sites /race-and-health/ice-detention-center-social-circle-georgia-lawsuit-trump-stronghold/ Fri, 29 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2242430 SOCIAL CIRCLE, Ga. 鈥 Until recently, this rural city about 45 minutes east of Atlanta was best known for its Blue Willow Inn cookbooks featuring recipes for Southern dishes such as baked pineapple casserole and kudzu blossom jelly.

    Lately, however, the community has been trying to stave off a new identity of “prison town” as it fights the opening of what could become the nation’s largest immigration detention center, holding up to 10,000 people.

    Walton County, home to this city of about 5,500, voted overwhelmingly for President Donald Trump in 2024. But, as the administration’s mass deportation strategy hits closer to home 鈥 with plans moving forward to transform a more than 1 million-square-foot warehouse into a holding pen 鈥 locals say the city’s infrastructure just can’t handle such an influx of people.

    This month, Social Circle in federal court against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The city’s complaint argues that the operation of a detention facility, what it calls a “mega center,” would harm public health, strain the local freshwater and sewage treatment systems, and overburden emergency medical services “due to Social Circle’s modest EMS capacity and DHS’ nebulous plan for emergency transport,” referring to the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE.

    “The community is very unified,” City Manager Eric Taylor said. “We want them to go away.”

    Social Circle is one of several communities across the country thrust into a charged national debate about the administration’s mass immigrant deportation strategy. On the campaign trail, Trump said migrants were . But local leaders, , advocacy groups, and others in , , , , and claim the administration is doing the same thing by plopping detention centers into communities without the capacity to handle a surge of people.

    Last year, Todd Lyons, who is serving as acting director of ICE , described a goal to have the mass deportation operate with the . Deportations would move “like Prime, but with human beings,” he said at a border security expo in Phoenix.

    ICE is now putting every person they seek to deport in detention, including those with no criminal records, without the possibility of release on bond. In January, the agency held almost twice as many people as it had that same month in 2024 under President Joe Biden.

    However, while many supporters remain aligned with Trump’s immigration stance, some locals fear their city’s stability will be jeopardized. “Social Circle is not exactly flourishing, but it’s making it,” said Gareth Fenley, a retired social worker who ran for state Senate in 2024 as a Democrat and was not among the locals who voted for Trump.

    “If Social Circle becomes a prison town,” she said, “we’re gonna lose what we have.”

    A strip of old, two-story buildings in a small town.
    Social Circle, a city of 5,500 people located about 45 miles east of Atlanta, has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, claiming that plans to open a massive ICE detention center could threaten the city’s public health and overburden its emergency medical services. (Renuka Rayasam/麻豆女优 Health News)
    A woman with long, wavy gray hair, wearing a floral blouse and glasses, sits at a table in a coffee shop. She looks in the direction of the camera with a calm expression.
    Gareth Fenley is a retired social worker who lives near Social Circle, Georgia. She ran for state Senate in 2024 as a Democrat and says the city’s concerns about a proposed immigration detention facility resemble those in other communities. (Renuka Rayasam/麻豆女优 Health News)

    鈥業 Thought It Was a Joke’

    In February, DHS purchased the 235-acre site in Social Circle for nearly five times its assessed value. It plans to house more people there than at the Rikers Island Correctional Facility in New York City, and nearly triple the number of people now housed at the country’s biggest immigration detention facility, which is in El Paso, Texas.

    “I thought it was a joke,” said John Miller, when he first read about the plans last year. He and his wife, Kathlene, have lived in Social Circle for 21 years. When they bump into neighbors, Kathlene knows their children’s names, and John can cite the kids’ baseball stats. Their 50-acre horse farm is less than a mile from the elementary school, and right across the street from the detention center site.

    The Millers support Trump’s stance on immigration but feel that turning the vacant warehouse into a detention center would re-create the very problems his administration is trying to solve. Whether people are concentrated in a detention center or out in the public, “they’re still there,” John Miller said.

    DHS estimates that the facility would require about 1 million gallons of water daily, according to the city’s suit, which alleges that volume would bleed residents’ taps dry and contaminate local streams with sewage. Emergency medical calls from the detention center, the lawsuit claims, would overwhelm the city’s first responders, which Taylor said clock in at 14 firefighters, 15 police officers, and two school resource officers. The city relies on Walton County for ambulance services.

    Additionally, Social Circle would live under an ever-present threat of a major disease outbreak, the lawsuit said, adding that the federal government didn’t conduct the needed environmental reviews or solicit community input beforehand.

    Taylor said federal officials had only one meeting with local leaders and brushed off concerns about water, sewage, and emergency care, which administration officials said the site wouldn’t need to use. “I don’t buy that,” Taylor said. “And that’s the problem.”

    A man with short brown hair wearing a button down shirt and glasses sits at an office desk. He is surrounded by two computers, papers and post-it notes, and a printer.
    John Miller sits in his office at JK Design in Social Circle, Georgia. He and his wife, Kathlene, moved to Social Circle 21 years ago and have raised seven kids. (Renuka Rayasam/麻豆女优 Health News)
    A photo shows an outdoor parking area of a small town. A sign on a lamp post reads, "welcome to Social Circle." A historic sign in the foreground tells the history of the Hightower Trail.
    Social Circle has filed a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, claiming that plans to open a massive detention center could threaten the city’s public health and overburden its emergency medical services. (Renuka Rayasam/麻豆女优 Health News)

    Supercharging Health Concerns

    Current DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin has said he is reviewing , Kristi Noem, to transform warehouses like this one into detention facilities. And the department’s whether the federal government overpaid for some of the buildings. Mullin also said officials are reviewing agency policies and working with community leaders. “We want to be good partners,” said Lauren Bis, a DHS spokesperson.

    Still, the administration’s swift escalation of immigrant detention has exacerbated long-standing allegations of medical neglect for those in custody across the country and led to the in at least two decades.

    Three detention facilities in Folkston, Georgia, about an hour north of Jacksonville, Florida, issued 130 emergency calls from Feb. 4, 2025, to Feb. 3, 2026, according to dispatch reports obtained by 麻豆女优 Health News through a public records request. The calls from the facilities, which hold about 2,000 people, were for wide-ranging reasons, including anaphylaxis, assaults, suicide attempts, overdoses, seizures, strokes, head injuries from falls, and other health issues.

    GEO Group, ICE’s largest contractor, which runs the Folkston facility, provides “around-the-clock access to medical care” and relies on emergency medical services as needed, said Christopher Ferreira, director of corporate relations.

    ERO El Paso Camp East Montana, built on a Texas military base, is currently the nation’s largest detention center and holds about 2,500 people. In the five months from Aug. 17, 2025, to Jan. 20, 2026, about 130 emergency medical calls were made from the site, according to city records. Several detainees have died at the facility; several others have for tuberculosis, measles, or covid-19.

    Amentum Services, which recently took over management of the facility, did not respond to questions about emergency calls.

    Even bigger detention facilities, such as the “mega center” planned in Social Circle, would only supercharge those health issues and bring them to new communities, said , who was immigration ombudsman at the Department of Homeland Security under Biden. Existing facilities already suffer from staffing shortages, poor ventilation and hygiene, and insufficient medical care, she said.

    The proposed facilities are enormous and generally built for boxes, not people, she said. “There’s no way, without extreme cost, both to the community and just in dollars, to make these safe for humans,” she said.

    In the meantime, people such as Kathlene Miller said they feel that Social Circle has become “collateral damage” in the larger debate over immigration. “We’re like the children in a divorce,” she said.

    But Social Circle may face an uphill battle. Taylor said Walton County leaders and the state of Georgia have been silent on the center.

    “They say it’s federal issues, that they have no jurisdiction,” he said. “They don’t have any interest in helping us.”

    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="/race-and-health/ice-detention-center-social-circle-georgia-lawsuit-trump-stronghold/">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=2242430&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
    2242430
    Nurse Convicted in Patient鈥檚 Death Turns Fatal Drug Error Into a Cautionary Tale /syndicate/nurse-drug-errors-hospital-safety-radonda-vought-tennessee/ Wed, 27 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2231480

    LISTEN: After a guilty verdict for negligent homicide, a former nurse has found receptive audiences on the speaking circuit. She says she hopes her story can help shed light on problems in the healthcare industry.

    When RaDonda Vaught got her first speaking request, it had been a year since that day in a Nashville courtroom, when she listened as a jury read her guilty verdict for negligent homicide and neglect of an impaired adult.

    That was in 2022. Vaught was sentenced to three years of probation for administering the wrong medication and killing a patient at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in 2017.

    She also lost her nursing license. So Vaught became a full-time farmer. She and her husband live on a in Bethpage, Tennessee, tucked in the rolling hills north of Nashville. They sell eggs at farmers markets on Saturdays and supply meat to local butchers and restaurants.

    The controversial trial had been national news, and now the healthcare industry wanted to hear from her. So Vaught started giving speeches across the country about what happened that day in the hospital. She says her hope is that others in an industry increasingly turning toward automation and artificial intelligence can understand the multiple factors that contributed to the deadly medication mix-up.

    She says she’s painfully aware that it could appear she is profiting from a tragedy of her making.

    “It wasn’t something that I wanted to happen. It wasn’t even something that was on my radar to think about,” Vaught said of the speaking requests. “The opportunities just kept presenting themselves.”

    The speaking engagements provide her with an income that replaces what she made as a nurse, a career she can never return to. Last year, she told her story more than 20 times, and she is paid $5,000 to $10,000 per event.

    But her speaking engagements also provoke criticism. After she told her story at length on Nashville Public Radio’s in March, a retired nurse, Gary Wood, fired off an email to the station. Such medical mistakes could never be justified, he wrote: “It put a stain on a proud and dedicated profession.” Yet, Vaught often finds a receptive audience, eager to hear her perspective.

    “I’ve seen her a few times now in person, and I’ve never seen RaDonda tell the story and not be upset,” said Charlene Verga, who invited Vaught to be the closing speaker at the ’s clinical nursing conference last year.

    “RaDonda speaking the way she is, she literally is transforming her mistake into a teaching moment,” Verga said.

    RaDonda Vaught stands at her farm. She smiles slightly, holding a cup of coffee.
    “It wasn’t even something that was on my radar to think about,” RaDonda Vaught said of her speaking engagements. “The opportunities just kept presenting themselves.” (Blake Farmer/WPLN News)

    Vaught expected the speaking gigs would be short-lived. But the reviews were good. And she realized she was comfortable in front of a crowd.

    “It was emotionally overwhelming and a little cathartic, but I’m going to tell you, you could have heard a pin drop,” Vaught said of her first talk in 2023 to hundreds of industrial professionals at a meeting organized by , a Knoxville, Tennessee-based company that specializes in root cause analysis.

    Vaught has turned her story into a cautionary tale that she hopes will make hospitals safer. She says that humans are going to make mistakes and that systems in healthcare need to be designed so people can fail without killing someone.

    “This whole mockery of our healthcare system 鈥 people feeling afraid to talk about mistakes and come forward when they happen 鈥 it doesn’t save people. It kills them,” she said in a presentation to the .

    Onstage, Vaught confronts the painful and embarrassing details directly, often choking back tears when talking about the patient who died 鈥 Charlene Murphey.

    It wasn’t just one mistake that led to the death.

    A doctor had ordered a sedative called Versed to settle Murphey’s claustrophobia before an imaging procedure. Vaught typed “VE” into the search function to retrieve Versed from the electronic medicine cabinet. When it did not dispense, she overrode the system.

    In Vaught’s trial, fellow nurses testified that during a time when the hospital was upgrading some of its technology, they could use overrides to bypass delays.

    When Vaught took that step, one of the drug options available was vecuronium, a powerful paralytic. Vaught overlooked multiple warnings about the danger of vecuronium, including on the bottle’s cap, which said “Warning: Paralyzing Agent,” according to court records.

    Vaught administered the vecuronium and also left the patient alone.

    While not disputing most of the facts, Vaught pleaded not guilty to all charges, claiming there were other factors, such as a new electronic health record system that was causing widespread problems in the hospital. A lead investigator for the prosecution testified in the criminal case that Vanderbilt also shared some responsibility.

    As previously reported by 麻豆女优 Health News, Vanderbilt did not initially report the error to regulators as required and told the medical examiner that the patient died of natural causes. The medical center fired Vaught and negotiated a settlement with the Murpheys that keeps the family from talking publicly about her death.

    Once the case became a criminal matter, though, the details entered the public record. Vaught is not bound by the hospital’s settlement, allowing her to share whatever she feels comfortable sharing with whomever she wants.

    Vanderbilt spokesperson Craig Boerner declined to comment about Vaught’s public speaking or what the medical center learned from the incident.

    RaDonda Vaught cares for her lambs inside a barn at her farm.
    Vaught has turned her story into a cautionary tale that she hopes will make hospitals safer. (Blake Farmer/WPLN News)

    The two largest companies that make drug-dispensing cabinets, Omnicell and BD, have updated their machines with recommendations from the . One update requires the user to type in more than the first two letters of a medication to pull up a list of options.

    Many hospitals also tweaked their drug administration protocols, such as by requiring wristband barcode checks anywhere a patient gets medication in a hospital.

    Reacting to Vaught’s case, the state legislature in Kentucky that became law in 2024 providing immunity for on-the-job healthcare mistakes. Support wasn’t just bipartisan. It was unanimous.

    Nursing consultant went to nursing school with Vaught and has worked directly with her as a nurse. Vaught’s criminal case inspired him to go to law school, he said. He now plans to help other nurses defend themselves in similar cases, even though he sees the need for accountability.

    If it had been up to him, he also would have fired Vaught, Garvey said. He also thinks that the Tennessee Board of Nursing should have taken action immediately. Only after the patient’s death escalated to a criminal matter did the board revisit the case and revoke Vaught’s license.

    But the defendants’ side of the story is rarely ever told, Garvey said, because they are advised by their lawyers not to talk.

    Now that she has a platform, Garvey said, it’s therapeutic for Vaught. Her talks resonate with anxious nurses across the nation, he said, and promote a much-needed discussion about collective responsibility.

    “We can’t change what happened. We can only change what we do moving forward,” Garvey said. “Having the individual who can tell you the play-by-play 鈥 that was there when it actually happened 鈥 is incredibly valuable.”

    This article is from a partnership that includes聽,听, and 麻豆女优 Health News.

    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="/syndicate/nurse-drug-errors-hospital-safety-radonda-vought-tennessee/">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=2231480&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
    2231480
    In Search of a New FDA Commissioner /podcast/what-the-health-446-fda-marty-makary-abortion-pill-may-14-2026/ Thu, 14 May 2026 18:00:00 +0000 /?p=2237552&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2237552 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.

    As had been rumored for weeks, Marty Makary is out as commissioner of the FDA after a chaotic 13 months presiding over drama in every corner of the agency. That leaves Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Department of Health and Human Services with three senior vacancies: FDA commissioner, surgeon general, and director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All must pass through the Senate committee chaired by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who has had a troubled relationship with Kennedy and President Donald Trump.

    Meanwhile, opponents of abortion remain unhappy with the Trump administration, demanding a more robust federal crackdown on abortion in general and the abortion pill in particular. The administration, meanwhile, has been pushing policies to encourage families to have more children.

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

    Panelists

    Rachel Cohrs Zhang photo
    Rachel Cohrs Zhang Bloomberg News
    Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
    Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico
    Lauren Weber photo
    Lauren Weber The Washington Post

    Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

    • Makary is leaving his role as FDA commissioner after a troubled tenure. While tensions over granting approval for fruit-flavored vapes appear to have been the last straw, Makary led an agency in near-constant turmoil that cast a shadow over its employees and the industries it oversees. Kyle Diamantas, who will serve as acting director, is not a doctor but rather a lawyer with ties to the Trump family.
    • The fate of telehealth access to the abortion pill mifepristone hung in the balance this week after the Supreme Court extended its stay on a lower-court order halting that access. Should the court affirm that lower-court ruling, it would be the biggest change to abortion access nationwide since it overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022.
    • And the hantavirus outbreak on a cruise ship continues to transfix the globe, with many American passengers in quarantine. The situation highlights the lack of U.S. engagement in global public health, as well as the slashing of federal resources at the CDC under the Trump administration.

    Also this week, Rovner interviews Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), a senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee.

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

    Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “,” by Rob Davis. 

    Rachel Cohrs Zhang: The Wall Street Journal’s “,” by Liz Essley Whyte and Josh Dawsey.  

    Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “,” by Katherine Tully-McManus.  

    Lauren Weber: Stat’s “,” by Lev Facher and Isabella Cueto. 

    Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

    • Bloomberg News’ “,” by Rachel Cohrs Zhang.
    • The Washington Post’s “,” by Lena H. Sun.
    Click to open the transcript Transcript: In Search of a New FDA Commissioner

    [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 from 麻豆女优 Health News and WAMU public radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 麻豆女优 Health News, and, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 14, 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 Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

    Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

    Rovner: Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News. 

    Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody. 

    Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

    Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi. 

    Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin. But first, this week’s news. 

    Well, as we foreshadowed last week, Marty Makary’s tenure as commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration has come to an end. It’s not entirely clear whether he was fired or whether he resigned or whether he was forced to resign, but what is clear is that his 13-month tenure at the helm of the agency that regulates $1 of every $5 worth of consumer products in the U.S. was chaotic, to say the least. Quoting from the excellent  on his exit, “He had upset advocates for vaping and rare-disease patients, antiabortion groups, and some drug-industry leaders 鈥 as well as other officials in the administration.” Rachel, you’ve been following this story very closely and breaking a lot of news on it. Who didn’t Marty Makary piss off? And tell us more about that Wall Street Journal ticktock of his last few days, since it’s your “extra credit” this week. 

    Cohrs Zhang: It is my extra credit. Truly nothing scares me more than seeing Josh Dawsey’s byline on a story on my beat. So I think the tension with Dr. Makary had been going on for months. I think there was kind of an effort that bubbled up, kind of last fall, in November, about 鈥 that raised some questions about his future and just his ability to cooperate. But he was able to keep his job at that point in time. But I think there have been a lot of changes at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] this calendar year, and I think there’s been an effort to kind of stabilize things, start to get people in place for some of these other positions, at surgeon general and at CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. And once those personnel searches started wrapping up, I think it shifted the focus back, I think, to FDA a little bit more, and there’s a lot of drama coming out of there. 

    And I think there is certainly a desire from the White House to get wins out of their agencies to tout, and especially ahead of the midterms, they just want people to be on message and to not have distractions. And I think the FDA, under Dr. Makary’s tenure, just continued to produce distractions. And there was personnel issues. There were certain policy issues that he was not necessarily aligned with the White House on. But there’s also just internal dynamics. When you’re leading an organization, you’re coming in after DOGE [the Department of Government Efficiency], it takes a lot of work to build trust back with career staff who saw their bosses fired, their colleagues retiring. It’s 鈥 there was so much turnover. 

    Rovner: And I was going to say, FDA took a big hit from DOGE, didn’t it? 

    Cohrs Zhang: It did take a big hit. 

    Rovner: This was before Makary came in. 

    Cohrs Zhang: Yes, technically before he came in. But I think we’ve seen other agencies 鈥 certainly not the level of turnover we saw at FDA 鈥 but try to build bridges and speak positively about career staff and really make an effort to value their expertise and bring them in the room. And I think we just didn’t really see that at the FDA. I think there was just mistrust and genuinely a view that we hear in public sometimes that career staff, or the “deep state,” weren’t supportive of the administration’s goals. And I think ultimately just the culture becomes toxic enough, and it’s just a difficult work environment for people doing really important work. 

    Rovner: And people, the stakeholders at FDA, are really important people, many of them. 

    Rachel Cohrs Zhang: They are. It cuts across so many different industries, like tobacco, food, medical devices, drugs, Big Pharma, small biotech. Truly, it’s a tough job to balance all the stakeholder interest. But I think if there had been a sense that he was really taking on industry and pursuing needed reforms, I think that would have been OK. But I think it was just communication issues, unpredictability. It’s just investors, companies don’t like unpredictability. They don’t like surprises, especially kind of a regulator that usually is pretty 鈥 has a lot of continuity from one administration to another. 

    Julie Rovner: Well, it seems like the last straw, as we discussed last week, was this fight over vaping 鈥 in particular, fruit-flavored vapes, which might help adults quit more-dangerous tobacco products but also might attract children to start vaping. Makary was against the fruit-flavored vapes. [President Donald] Trump had promised the vaping industry during the 2024 campaign that he would protect them. Is there going to be more fallout from this whole vaping fight? I did see that a top HHS spokesman quit this week, also citing approval of the fruit-flavored vapes. But there’s more to that story, too. Right, Rachel? 

    Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think personnel issues are really hard to cover, and the context that I would want to provide is that these resignations, both of Dr. Makary and the , Rich Danker, were not resignations where these individuals had the possibility of a long and robust career at these agencies. I think they both kind of reached the end of the line. And certainly, are there policy disagreements that occurred about fruity-flavored vapes? Absolutely, yes. But those dynamics have been ongoing for a long time. I think it’s also important to point out that the agency did approve these before the exit of both of these officials. And I think there’s just, the timeline, it’s a little complicated. Personnel issues are complicated, but I think, again, the Wall Street Journal story by Liz [Essley Whyte] and Josh did a really good job of trying to get that 360 view and kind of explain it in a fair and balanced way as to how that all went down. 

    Rovner: So the question that this keeps leaving in my mind is: How is tobacco not a bigger piece of MAHA? If we’re going to “Make America Healthy Again,” isn’t the first thing we want to do is get people to stop using tobacco products? Why is this out in this sort of little island by itself, when [Health and Human Services Secretary] RFK [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr. is beating up on pretty much everything else? 

    Cohrs Zhang: That is an interesting point. Calley Means at the White House also did a conversation with Harvard this morning and just kind of mentioned that they’re not trying to ban anything in the administration. That was kind of the talking point they were using: We’re not banning cigarettes. We’re not banning ultraprocessed food. We’re just trying to educate people on what’s good or bad for you. So that’s kind of the line they’re taking. 

    Rovner: So it’s like vaccines? It’s like everything should be up to your choice about what you put in your body? 

    Weber: I just wanted to add that, Julie, I feel like you’re asking a question of the MAHA movement the MAHA movement is unable to answer, which is: What is the MAHA movement? If we care so much about chronic disease, why aren’t we looking at one of the things that kills people a lot, which is tobacco? So, which leads also, and we’ll get to it later, to my extra credit, which is on Stat’s excellent series on alcohol, which the administration is also not really looking at. So I think when MAHA talks about these underlying pillars of combating the chronic disease epidemic, that’s all great. But what are they defining as the chronic disease epidemic? Because a lot of their attention has been focused on vaccines, which scientists have very clearly stated are not causing the chronic disease epidemic. So, we’ll see how this continues to unfold. 

    Rovner: And reversing the food pyramid, to emphasize things that science has shown do contribute to chronic disease, like lots of animal products. So it’s a little bit curious, let us say. Well, the person who is now installed to replace Dr. Makary, at least on an interim basis, isn’t even a doctor. He’s a former corporate lawyer at the firm Jones Day and a hunting partner of Donald Trump Jr.’s. What else do we know about Kyle Diamantas, who’s been heading up FDA’s food division? 

    Ollstein: So the anti-abortion groups that were demanding Makary’s ouster, some of them, over accusations that Makary was not doing enough to restrict access to abortion pills, are already worried about the acting replacement because records surfaced showing that he represented Planned Parenthood as a private attorney a decade ago, and so 鈥 

    Rovner: In a real estate case, right? 

    Ollstein: In a real estate case, in a dispute between a clinic and its landlord. So clearly this was a concern, because within hours of his appointment as acting FDA leader, he was on the phone with anti-abortion groups, and he’s been talking to them on Tuesday, on Wednesday, on Thursday, different groups, trying to reassure them that he personally opposes abortion and will work with them going forward. But I think if he is nominated to lead the agency on a more permanent basis, that could potentially become a flash point. 

    Rovner: And of course, we do know, Rachel, I think you were breaking this morning that the idea of him replacing Makary on a more permanent basis is already not going over very well in the Senate. 

    Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think Sen. Bill Cassidy made some comments about Kyle. And I think there is absolutely a permanent search. I am not under the impression that they are planning to nominate Kyle Diamantas to be the permanent leader. I think they are searching for somebody with more robust expertise. But I think he’s just made a lot of allies. He’s been a pretty predictable and rational actor in the FDA. He got promoted earlier this year to be an adviser. He’s been doing public appearances, conferences, and on podcasts and television. So I think they just see him as a kind of a steady hand to guide the agency and not cause a lot of drama going into the midterms, because there’s a big backup of nominations in the Senate. So this could drag on for a while. 

    Rovner: Right. That is my next question. Who is likely to get this job permanently? And, wow, the nominations are stacking up at the Senate HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee, where chairman and troubled Trump ally Bill Cassidy now has to oversee the confirmations of a new FDA commissioner, a new CDC director, and a surgeon general. And Cassidy himself is facing a primary election this weekend in which the president has endorsed one of his opponents. Awkward much? 

    Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, it’s an interesting test of some of this proof of concept. Secretary Kennedy’s political operation has backed congresswoman Julia Letlow and so has the president. So there are these bigger macro issues of loyalty to the president and kind of where the Republican Party is headed. But there is a distinct healthcare flavor to this, given Sen. Cassidy’s influence over health policy in the Senate, and also just the involvement of a sitting Cabinet secretary’s political operation, which is pretty unusual, especially countering a sitting senator from his own party. So, yeah. It’ll be interesting to watch on Saturday. 

    Rovner: Lauren, you want to add something. 

    Weber: I want to call out again that Trump and RFK and Calley Means went pretty scorched-earth on Cassidy when they pulled Casey Means out, too. It’s not just that Trump has opposed him. It’s that this is like blow-everything-up-on-the-field oppose Bill Cassidy. So it is very curious to hear how this goes over, considering that Cassidy was the vote that got RFK his secretary post. So the weekend will be one to watch. 

    Rovner: Yeah, it will. Well, the other big story from last week that continues this week is also FDA-related. It’s the fate of the abortion pill mifepristone and whether it will continue to be available via telehealth prescribing. The Supreme Court last week put a temporary hold on a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that would have rolled back the tele-prescribing option. We were supposed to get a decision on whether or not that appeals court ruling would take effect by the end of the day Monday. But, as we so often say in Washington, that did not happen. Alice, where are we with this case? 

    Ollstein: We’re in a real hurry-up-and-wait situation. I had all my pre-writes ready to go on Monday, and I still have them ready to go for today. Look, the Supreme Court could punt again. They could say we need even more time. That’s happened before. They could say that the nationwide restrictions that the 5th Circuit put into effect that would cut off telehealth access to abortion pills and mail delivery of abortion pills and reinstate a prior rule saying patients can only get the drugs in person from a doctor, they could let that go into effect. Or they could say, Look, we’re going to maintain the status quo for now while this case makes its way through the courts. Those are sort of the three options. There could be a secret fourth thing. This is the Supreme Court. They kind of do what they want. One possibility is some parties in the case have asked the Supreme Court to leapfrog the 5th Circuit and just deal with this themselves once and for all. So that could happen, or they could send it back down to the 5th Circuit. 

    We can sort of take some clues from what they did when a different case challenging abortion pills came before them in 2023, which is: They maintained the status quo. They maintained nationwide telehealth access while sending the case back to the 5th Circuit. And then it eventually came back to the Supreme Court, and they eventually sort of dodged the heart of the issue and decided it based on standing. That could happen again here, too. We have no idea. But this is really a major case because if these nationwide restrictions on telehealth go into effect, it’ll be really the biggest rollback of access since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022. And it will really go after access in blue states with protections on the books for abortion access in a way that people in those states really haven’t experienced before now, which could have very big political as well as healthcare implications. 

    Rovner: And which those states have also sued. 

    Ollstein: Yes. Yes, yes, yes. 

    Rovner: The blue states. So there’s more to come. What role if any did the anti-abortion movement have in Dr. Makary’s losing his job? As we discussed last week, they blamed him for the FDA’s slow-walking of a review of mifepristone safety, even though it’s pretty clear that that delay came from the White House, not from Makary himself. And I know there was a White House meeting just last Friday with anti-abortion groups, just as the Makary-is-on-his-way-out rumors began to fly in earnest. Connected? 

    Ollstein: So the administration is definitely trying to reassure the anti-abortion movement and keep them in their good graces leading up to the midterms. But that’s not entirely been successful. The anti-abortion groups are still upset. They still want to see these policy actions. They want the FDA or the DOJ [Department of Justice] or the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] or some agency to do something to cut off access to abortion pills. They have not gotten that yet. They’re also really upset that the current ban on Planned Parenthood receiving Medicaid funding is set to expire in July, and it’s not totally clear Congress is going to manage to extend that defunding provision at all or in time for its expiration. And so these are two big priorities of theirs that they are very upset about. And so it’s not clear that all of this access that the administration is extending to them in these meetings and these phone calls, if that’s not followed up by concrete policy action, they’re not going to be satisfied. They’re going to keep complaining, loudly, as we’ve already seen this week. 

    Rovner: Well, meanwhile the Trump administration used Mother’s Day this week to unveil a new regulation aimed at making it easier for employers to offer IVF [in vitro fertilization] coverage to their workers, though not making it free, as Trump had promised on the campaign trail in 2024. And at a maternal health event on Monday in the White House, administration officials continued to press their pro-natal push for more people to procreate. Here’s how [Centers for] Medicare & Medicaid [Services] chief Dr. Mehmet Oz put it at the event. 

    Mehmet Oz: One in 3 Americans are under-babied. What does under-babied mean? That means that you either don’t have any children or you have less children than you would normally want to have. 

    Rovner: Um, OK then. This event also featured the unveiling of a new federal website, moms.gov, which HHS says is a, quote, “user-friendly, one-stop digital hub providing new and expectant mothers with essential resources.” But it also links users to an anti-abortion group site that collects lots of sensitive personal information that can apparently be used any way the group, Heartbeat International, sees fit. Alice, this has prompted some concern in the reproductive health community. Has it not? 

    Ollstein: It has, and it’s also a good example of how the administration is both working to appeal to anti-abortion activists while also continuing to piss them off, disappoint them. And so there was just a lot of mixed reaction to the unveiling of this website, because the anti-abortion folks were thrilled that it was steering people, using government resources to steer people to these often faith-based, anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. But at the same time, it was promoting IVF, which many of them oppose. They see it as akin to abortion. They 鈥 some see it as even worse than abortion, because it’s creating all these embryos and discarding them. And so it’s this real sort of push and pull where they’re not happy and, as you mentioned, the pro-abortion-rights camp is really not happy, either. 

    Rovner: So we will have more of this as we go forward. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

    So back in February 鈥擨 looked this up 鈥 we talked about the Trump administration threatening to withhold millions of dollars appropriated to the global childhood vaccine group called Gavi, because it wouldn’t promise to phase out the use of the preservative thimerosal, which, by the way, has long since been cleared of accusations that it causes autism. The U.S., which helped create Gavi, now owes it $600 million 鈥 $300 million each for the last fiscal year and the current fiscal year. And last week, a bipartisan group of senators, led by Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins of Maine, sent a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio asking him to, you know, spend the money that Congress appropriated. Now, Gavi says it has specific reasons for using vaccines with preservatives, because it mostly operates in poor countries, where refrigeration can be spotty, and it has to make the best use of limited funds. My bigger question is: How does the secretary of Health and Human Services get to stop the State Department from spending money appropriated by Congress? 

    Weber: I think that’s a great question, Julie. At the end of the day, Kennedy, for years 鈥 this is not something he came up with overnight. This is something he’s been harping on for years. He wrote a book about thimerosal. He has linked it to autism, which is a claim that has been disproven by scientists and even folks at his own agency, before his handpicked advisory committee voted to get rid of it, in a decision that now is on ice with the federal court. But he also has railed against the sending of these vaccines abroad for years. I’ve listened to him talk about it. He really dislikes Bill Gates for his involvement in some of this. And so on. So it was a personal issue for him that he’s held tightly. I’m not sure how you get ahold of State Department funds, but I’m not sure of a lot of things these days. So, here we are. 

    Rovner: Neither is Congress, apparently. We will watch the Gavi space, too. Well, meanwhile, we are also still watching this hantavirus outbreak that apparently came from Dutch tourists in Argentina, who caught it and spread it on a cruise ship in the Atlantic. So far, there are nine confirmed cases and two more people showing symptoms. Public health experts, including what’s left of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention here in the U.S., seem fairly united in the view that while this is an odd outbreak, since hantavirus rarely spreads from person to person, they’re still not super worried about it morphing into another pandemic. But it does underscore just how unprepared the U.S. is should another outbreak of this or something else prove more dangerous, now that the nation has basically cut public health capacity to the bone, cut ties with international public health organizations like the World Health Organization, and defunded much of the federal public health infrastructure. Although, I have to add, there is at least a little bit of karma in watching all these officials who rose to prominence criticizing the nation’s covid response trying to respond to a public health emergency of their own. What are you guys watching for? Lauren, you must be on this one. 

    Weber: Yeah, no, I had  earlier in the week about: What’s it like to be in the Nebraska national quarantine unit? Which it was kind of fascinating to me. So basically there’s this whole setup in the middle of the country 鈥 and as a Midwesterner, I obviously love a Midwest shout-out 鈥 where they repatriated all these people off the cruise ship and sent them to Nebraska. And you end up, basically, if you’re in the quarantine unit, in what’s essentially a souped-up hotel room. There’s an exercise bike. Apparently, the staff is very nice. But you can’t leave, really, unless 鈥 there is some talk about letting some of the people that seem to really have no symptoms potentially leave to stay at home, but it’s a little unclear what’s happening there. Staff comes in in protected masks. And you don’t get to see people for a while, so that’s kind of a tough go after you were on a cruise ship sailing the world. That really went awry. So 鈥 

    Rovner: And it’s a long incubation period for this particular strain of hantavirus. 

    Weber: It’s a long 鈥 42 days! That’s a long time to be stuck in a room. But again, officials 鈥 as you said, Julie, I think which was smart to point out 鈥 have said this is not covid. This does have very low risk of spreading to the general public. I do think there is some question about this question of prolonged contact and what that means 鈥 it seems like it’s being debated a little bit about how exactly this spreads and how exactly many people may end up coming down with it 鈥 that we’ll have to continue to watch as well. 

    Rovner: And of course, we’re already seeing people online, like, selling more ivermectin. And, this sort of thing does bring out the less-than-scrupulous actors in public health, shall we say? 

    Weber: Nothing like a crisis. But, in general, I think it’s a good reminder. As you pointed out, we’re watching the contrarians run the ship. I was fascinated. In the Oval Office, basically, RFK Jr. said there’s nothing to worry about, Nothing to see here kind of thing. And that is, it’s interesting, the public health messaging, which has varied from person to person in the administration, because they have litigated how covid was messaged for such a long time. Now, again, this is not covid. But it’s very fascinating to see players that had such strong opinions deal with some of the same terms, like “quarantine,” “6-feet isolation,” the uncertainty of what’s happening, and, again, deal with it in a backdrop of: We’ve withdrawn from the WHO. There have been CDC cuts. And what happens now? 

    Rovner: Yeah, and also the fact, and we talked about this a little bit last week, that the U.S. didn’t even know that some of the people who were exposed had already gotten off the ship and gone home. And those people are not in quarantine in Nebraska. Those people are apparently being watched by their individual state health departments. So the coordination effort here was not great, either. 

    Weber: Well, it does sound like the CDC was on the horn with state health officials. But yeah, I mean, some of these people kind of flew into the wind, so to speak, and they haven’t found everyone. But that said, you know, I talked to the Virginia state health official who was like, Look, we’re in talks with the patient in Virginia who&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;they check in for daily monitoring of temperature checks and so on. The California state health official that I listened to said, Look, these people that we’re watching were either a row behind or a row in front of, or two seats next to, for at least 15 minutes a suspected ill passenger on a plane. That’s why we’re watching them. And that’s interesting to me, too, because that speaks to the level: Is that prolonged contact? What does prolonged contact mean? is my underlying question I continue to ask. So we’ll have to continue to see what we learn more on this front. 

    Rovner: Well, at very least, they’re getting an idea that covid was not so easy to deal with 鈥 these people who’ve been criticizing the covid response. OK, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with Sen. Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

    I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin. Sen. Baldwin is a senior member of both the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and the Senate Appropriations Committee, where she’s the top Democrat on the subcommittee that funds the Department of Health and Human Services. Sen. Baldwin, thank you so much for joining us. 

    Sen. Tammy Baldwin: Thank you for having me. 

    Rovner: So we spend a lot of time on the podcast talking about health issues that are divisive, and often divisive by party, but one feel-good story of the past few months comes from a study showing that the new 988 suicide prevention hotline has, in fact, reduced youth suicides. That was a very bipartisan effort in Congress that you were, I know, a big part of. How satisfying has it been to see that succeed, and is there a chance that you could repeat that work on other health issues, or was this kind of a one-off? 

    Baldwin: Look, I knew when we wrote the bill to establish the 988 hotline that it was going to save lives. But to have this study showing that there was 10% to 11% reduction in youth suicide and attributable to this 988 hotline 鈥 it’s heartwarming to know that this work matters. And it was very bipartisan legislation to establish the 988 hotline. You know, we’ve long had a mental health crisis suicide prevention hotline. It was a 10-digit number that no one would remember at a time of crisis and need. And so now people remember it and can use it, and it’s also modern in that you can also chat or text as well as call. And with the young generation, sometimes that’s their preferred way of reaching out and communicating. But again, heartwarming to hear what I always believed would be true about 988 鈥 that it is saving lives and people are using it. 

    Rovner: I know that as much of a success as this has been, you’ve been critical of HHS Secretary RFK Jr. for eliminating the part of the hotline that provided a separate option for LGBTQ+ youth. What’s the status of your effort to get that restored? 

    Baldwin: Yeah, and I’ll focus on that. And there’s some other concerns that I have about the way in which we support 988. But let me start with that. There are certain populations in the United States that have higher rates of suicide. I think we all immediately think of our military veterans. And so when you call the 988 hotline, one of the first screening questions is: “Are you a military veteran? Press 1.” And if you are, you have the option then of getting your call or inquiry responded to by somebody in the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] system who, I might say, has walked in your boots before and understands the experiences that you might have had while serving in the military. Another population with a very high rate of suicide is LGBTQ youth, and so the “Press 3” option made sure that youth who were in the LGBTQ community and reaching out for help in crisis were getting their calls and texts responded to by somebody who was specially trained and understood their situation. And you know, again, it promotes use of the line because you don’t think when you call that you’re likely to be judged. And by the way, the study that showed this was having a very positive impact on reducing suicide said that 1 in 10 calls to the 988 hotline, people utilize the “Press 3” option. But what happened there is the Trump administration last year abruptly ended the service and defended that by saying, Well, we want to treat everyone the same. We don’t want to discriminate. Well, they kept the “Press 1” option for veterans, and understanding that specialized response for veterans would be important to keep, but they eliminated the service “Press 3” for LGBTQ youth. Very unfortunate. But fortunately, there was a bipartisan pushback to that 鈥攐n two fronts for that, one successful and the other still in progress. We wanted to make sure that the administration restored the “Press 3” option and restored the contracts with nonprofits that are able to provide the response to those calls. And that was written into our appropriations law for the fiscal year 2026. Now we’re chasing down the administration and Secretary Kennedy, saying, It’s in the law. Let’s get it done. It hasn’t happened yet, but we have his public commitment to make sure it does. And so we’re pressing him for expeditious restoration of the “Press 3” option. That said, we also want to make this permanent law. And so I have a bill that is bipartisan with Sen. Lisa Murkowski that would write into statute that a “Press 3” option has to exist and so that it doesn’t become political football in the future. 

    Rovner: Well, I’m so glad you mentioned things that have been written into the appropriations law, because one of the continuing issues that we’ve chronicled over this last year has been this administration just refusing to spend money as appropriated by Congress. Now, I’ve been covering Congress in general 鈥 and the Labor-HHS appropriation, in particular 鈥 for four decades now, and a 25-year-old or 35-year-old me could not imagine appropriators standing for any administration, ignoring their power of the purse, which this one seems to be doing. Why has there been so little pushback, and is that going to change? 

    Baldwin: Yeah, in answer to your question, I want to say that in this most recently passed bill that Donald Trump signed into law, we had to put guardrails that we’ve never had to put into our appropriations laws before to enforce our spending bills. And those laws have made it clear that we expect that they must spend what we have appropriated, and not just, you know, all of it at the end of the fiscal year, but in a timely manner throughout the year. And we also are more specific about staffing requirements, because we saw last year these incredible numbers of people fired, RIF’d, as well as really heavy pressure to get people to sign up to early retirements, etc., but just a big push to get people out of the agencies. And so we had to write into the appropriations law that they have to maintain staffing sufficient for their mission. And I can give you any number of examples where people needed to reach out to divisions within the CDC, for example, and no one was there. 

    Rovner: Is there going to be more pushback, do you think, if the administration tries this year to avoid spending money in the way that they tried to avoid spending money last year 鈥 and, as you kind of mentioned, dumped a lot of money out the door at the very end of the fiscal year? 

    Baldwin: Yeah, so one of the areas in which they did that in a significant way was NIH [the National Institutes of Health]. We saw thousands fewer grants awarded last fiscal year, and we’re very worried that they would continue to act in that vein. And part of that battle is still ongoing. There’s something 鈥 we’re going to get in the weeds here for a second 鈥 but there’s something they call forward funding, where instead of just annually funding one year of grant research activity, you actually fund multiyear grants all at once up-front. And the administration has wanted to move into doing that more and more and more, but if you have a finite number of dollars, that simply means fewer grants will be awarded each year. And the way I liken it, if you’re thinking about NIH and curing cancer or finding a better treatment for Alzheimer’s, these are more shots on goal. We need to not just invest in a few research endeavors to try to cure cancer, to try to treat Alzheimer’s, to deal with all of the things that NIH is trying to advance, you have to have as many shots on goal as you can. And so this forward funding is really tying up a lot of resources in fewer and fewer research endeavors. 

    Rovner: And that 鈥 which leads me to my last question, which is&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;concerns the other thing we’ve talked about a lot, is that future health care and research worker pipeline having fewer grants means fewer jobs for students and PhDs. And this administration has also made it more difficult for medical students and other health profession students to take out loans by capping the loan amount. How big a concern is this? And what can you do from your posts, either on the HELP Committee or on the Appropriations Committee, to make sure that there is a future workforce for healthcare and research? 

    Baldwin: Yes. Well, especially in research, I was proud to&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;lead bipartisan legislation called the Next Generation Researchers Act that passed many years ago but is definitely in threat under this administration. I represent the state of Wisconsin. We have a couple of academic research centers that are exceptional. And I remember visiting on so many occasions and seeing these bright postdocs looking forward to their opportunity to advance treatments and cures for devastating illnesses and learn about the basic mechanisms of biology. And knowing each year that the average age of the first-time grant awardee is getting older and older and older, and the opportunities for a career in research 鈥 which is such an investment by the individual to their education and postdoc work 鈥 their opportunities are shrinking and shrinking. And some are leaving research and going into private industry. Some are leaving the country and are actually being lured by other nations who want to take advantage of this neglect here in the United States. This is something we’ve got to turn around. And forward funding is one of the things that is making it harder, but also the lack of commitment to just increasing the overall research enterprise in the United States, which is something we are known for globally. You have to keep up with it. Costs increase, and so you can’t just flat-fund, that means less. You can’t forward-fund, that means less. So we’re going to have some bipartisan pushback, but we also are going to have a very limited amount of resources to deal with, especially 鈥 just to drop a big topic at the very end here 鈥 especially with a Defense Department that is seeking $1.5 trillion in funding 鈥 that, just the math doesn’t work out. 

    Rovner: Well, we will be watching the appropriations process closely as it moves forward. 

    Baldwin: Yes, indeed. 

    Rovner: Sen. Baldwin, thank you so much for joining us. 

    Baldwin: Thank you for having me. 

    Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, you have already done yours. Lauren, why don’t you go next? 

    Weber: Yeah, I wanted to highlight Stat’s series, the first of which is titled “,” by Lev Facher and Isabella Cueto. And it’s just a fabulous step-back look at how this administration, in particular, which would seem to be primed to look into alcohol as an addiction, considering that Trump himself is a teetotaler and RFK Jr. has publicly spoken about his recovery from addiction to alcohol, is not seizing the moment. And this is happening at a time that ER visits for alcohol are going up, and that alcohol does, speaking of chronic diseases, contribute to quite a large amount of American healthcare costs. And it’s a real bracing look at an issue that, you know, oftentimes people don’t want to look at in this way, as alcohol is such an inherent part of America’s social fabric. So kudos to them for the look. 

    Rovner: Yeah, I would point out that both alcohol and tobacco are, you know, two of those vices that have been bipartisan over the years. Republicans and Democrats in Congress have worked on, but this administration seems to be sort of downplaying both of them. Alice. 

    Ollstein: Yes, I have a piece by my colleague Katherine Tully-McManus titled “.” Now we’ve been hearing a lot about the threats to medical privacy with everything being in these electronic records, and, you know, being shared from company to company. And turns out, even being a member of Congress does not protect you from this brave new world that we live in. And there was a data breach this week that lawmakers were informed of, and potentially their prescription history was unveiled. And so that is information I am sure they do not want out there. So it just really shows that if even they can be at risk, then, you know, what’s going to happen to the rest of us? 

    Rovner: Yeah, that was some story. And I would add that TMZ is looking for members of Congress who smoke weed. That’s a separate story. Not my extra credit. My extra credit this week is from ProPublica. It’s called “,” by Rob Davis. It’s about a state law that gave Oregon officials the power to stop mergers and acquisitions that were deemed not in the best interest of patients. The idea was to, if not stop them, then at least slow the consolidation push that was cutting access and driving up healthcare costs 鈥 except it hasn’t worked, at least not yet. Quoting from the story: “Of the nine healthcare deals for which regulators have done follow-up reviews, at least three had outcomes the law was meant to forestall.” As always, complicated healthcare problems defy simple solutions, but I assume they’ll keep trying. 

    OK, that’s this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts 鈥 as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X , or on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging these days? Lauren. 

    Weber: I am still on X  and the same thing on . 

    Rovner: Rachel. 

    Cohrs Zhang: I’m on X  and on . 

    Rovner: Alice. 

    Ollstein: I am  on Bluesky and  on X. 

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

    Credits

    Francis Ying Audio producer
    Emmarie Huetteman Editor

    Click here to find all our podcasts.

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

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

    This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-446-fda-marty-makary-abortion-pill-may-14-2026/">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=2237552&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
    2237552
    Abortion Pill Politics /podcast/what-the-health-445-abortion-pill-mifepristone-makary-may-7-2026/ Thu, 07 May 2026 18:29:22 +0000 /?p=2235382&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2235382 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.

    A decision Friday night by a federal appeals court not only has raised new questions about the continued availability of the abortion pill mifepristone but has also thrust the abortion issue back into the spotlight. That’s something the Trump administration had hoped to avoid during the midterm elections.

    Meanwhile, this week Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary, the agency’s scientists, and President Donald Trump tussled over whether to approve fruit-flavored vapes, which might help adults quit smoking but also might attract youths to vaping.

    This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 麻豆女优 Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law.

    Panelists

    Jessie Hellmann photo
    Jessie Hellmann CQ Roll Call
    Shefali Luthra photo
    Shefali Luthra The 19th
    Sandhya Raman photo
    Sandhya Raman Bloomberg Law

    Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

    • It is unclear whether the abortion pill mifepristone will continue to be available through telehealth prescribing 鈥 currently the way more than a quarter of all abortions in the U.S. are obtained. The Supreme Court this week temporarily restored access after a lower court blocked it, but it remains to be seen what the high court will do next. The justices could decide to hear the case, potentially reviving abortion as a campaign issue in the midterm elections. Regardless, the case has the power to undermine not only abortion access, even in states where it is legal, but also the pharmaceutical industry’s ability to develop new drugs.
    • Makary’s job as FDA commissioner is reportedly in limbo, now over flavored vape products, after Trump reportedly pressured Makary to clear them through agency approval. Trump talked on the campaign trail about preserving the vapes 鈥 considered by some a useful smoking cessation tool 鈥 yet that perspective runs afoul of public health concerns about the risk to children of keeping fruit-flavored tobacco products on the market.
    • Also, the White House pulled Casey Means’ nomination to become U.S. surgeon general, replacing her with Nicole Saphier, a radiologist and commentator who has criticized Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s policies. Saphier is Trump’s third nominee for the post.
    • And the United States, having pulled out of the World Health Organization under Trump’s leadership, finds itself sidelined as the global body responds to a cruise ship with a deadly hantavirus outbreak, with potentially serious ramifications for public health.

    Also this week, Rovner interviews 麻豆女优 Health News’ Andrew Jones, who wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about an emergency room bill for a visit that wasn’t an emergency 鈥 but could have been.

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

    Julie Rovner: 麻豆女优 Health News’ “HHS’ Healthy Food Agenda Puts Hospitals on Notice About Patients’ Meals,” by Stephanie Armour.

    Shefali Luthra: ProPublica’s “,” by Duaa Eldeib.

    Sandhya Raman: The Cut’s “,” by Juno DeMelo.

    Jessie Hellmann: Nature’s “,” by Max Kozlov, Alexandra Witze, and Dan Garisto.

    Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

    • The Wall Street Journal’s “,” by Philip Wegmann, Liz Essley Whyte, and Jennifer Calfas.
    • The New York Times’ “,” by Christina Jewett.
    • The New York Times’ “,” by Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz.
    • CNN’s “,” by Andrew Kaczynski and Meg Tirrell.
    click to open the transcript Transcript: Abortion Pill Politics

    [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, from 麻豆女优 Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 麻豆女优 Health News, and, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 7, at 10:30 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 video conference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

    Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

    Rovner: Sandhya Raman of Bloomberg Law. 

    Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

    Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

    Jessie Hellmann: Thanks for having me. 

    Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Andrew Jones, who reported and wrote the latest 麻豆女优 Health News “Bill of the Month,” about an emergency room bill for what turned out not to be an emergency but could have been. But first, as always, this week’s news. 

    Let’s start this week with the continuing fight over the abortion pill mifepristone. Last month, it appeared that the court fight over the pill was put on the back burner. That was after the Trump administration, to the consternation of abortion opponents, asked a federal district court judge to postpone proceedings while it finished a new safety review of the pill by the Food and Drug Administration. Well, the state of Louisiana, which had brought the suit to roll back the pill’s availability, wasn’t satisfied with that, and appealed the delay to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Last Friday, right before dinner, a three-judge appeals court panel ruled in favor of Louisiana and basically ordered a rollback of abortion pill availability to the rules that were in place before 2021. That’s when doctors had to literally hand the pill to patients, meaning no telehealth and no pharmacy distribution. Shefali, you’re one of our abortion experts. Pick up the story from there. What happened over the weekend, and where are we now? 

    Luthra: Over the weekend, there was a lot of confusion. I spent a lot of time talking to abortion providers and people who track abortion law quite closely. And providers were prepared to switch regimens, if they had to, to change to what’s misoprostol-only 鈥 using larger doses of the other drug in medication abortions, which is safe, is effective 鈥 is less safe, less effective? 鈥 but still good, though not gold standard. Meanwhile, we saw an appeal from the manufacturers of medication abortion to the Supreme Court. They also saw a stay from the 5th Circuit. While they might get some more time to figure things out, they never heard from the 5th Circuit. But then, on Monday, the Supreme Court weighed in and said, We are blocking this 5th Circuit ruling for a week. You have a few days 鈥 so, until Thursday, today actually 鈥 to submit arguments from both sides. And then, by the end of the day Monday, they are supposed to say whether this stay will be extended, whether they will be ruling, whether they might take up this case. And there’s a lot that could happen, right? They could try and make a ruling now, they could send this back to the lower courts. They could say, We want to hear arguments before this term ends, which would be at the end of June. They could say, We want to hear arguments on this in the fall, right before the midterm elections. But what they do could have real significance for whether mifepristone is available by telehealth, and, as a result, how people in states with abortion bans 鈥 but also where abortion is legal 鈥 get abortions. Because telehealth abortion is increasingly popular. One in 4 abortions are done by telehealth. About half of those are for people in states with bans, but half of them are for people in states where abortion is legal and protected. But going to a clinic and getting a pill handed to you is simply much more inconvenient and often impractical or not really possible, compared to having it mailed to you 鈥 if you have child care, if you can’t get off work, if you live really far from a clinic. And so access to this gold-standard regimen of abortion care is now possibly going to be very much in limbo for all these people across the country. 

    I don’t know if we have seen much to indicate that this is going to be a campaign issue. We haven’t really heard as much chatter from Democrats as one might expect. But it is possible that if this becomes more of a live issue, if the Supreme Court makes those restrictions more permanent, or if they, in fact, do take this case up in a manner of timing that would be very influential, that this could, in fact, become a meaningful campaign issue, because most voters don’t like abortion restrictions, especially national ones. 

    Rovner: Yeah, among the people who are sort of put in a difficult situation here is the Trump administration. The anti-abortion movement clearly wants more action on this issue. Trump was pretty clear, even on the campaign trail in 2024, that he doesn’t want to further restrict abortion; he’s already getting hammered for not following through on his promise to make in vitro fertilization more available. And now anti-abortion groups are planning to put not just money but their large volunteer power up against those candidates who won’t vow to take more aggressive federal action. How angry are they? And what impact could that have on the midterms, where Republicans are already on defense? 

    Luthra: They are furious with the Trump administration. I mean, you have the head of SBA Pro-Life America : Trump is the problem. That’s quite blatant for what is ostensibly a close ally to the White House, an organization that has tried to influence policy, that has hoped for those influences to be translated into actual policy. It’s clear that they’ve given up on that. And many of them were very, very frustrated that the administration took on this purported review of mifepristone and kept saying, We will have more information for you later, probably after the elections. And that they, in fact, argued against Louisiana in the courts, and they defended their policy of having mifepristone available for now. And so I think what you’re seeing politically is this real possibility of schisms in the conservative movement. The people who oppose abortion and, right, are an important part of that base, but also, Trump may be unpopular nationally, but he still carries a lot of influence in a large part of the Republican Party. We just saw that in the primaries in Indiana this week. And so I think we really don’t know who wins. Do anti-abortion voters simply stay home? Do they say, Well, this is still our best option. It’s the Republican Party. And also, in the meantime, how much does the movement start thinking instead about trying to pick a possible successor to Trump? And a lot of them really are focusing now on the midterms, but also on 2028. And so do they just say, Well, we’re done with thisWe’re not going to win and move on. Or is there something that they might be able to get if they keep threatening to withhold money and voter influence? Open question. I think we’ll see. 

    Rovner: Jessie, Sandhya, you guys are on the Hill. I mean, you know, there’s been a lot written this week: Oh, Democrats haven’t said anything about this. I think this came as a bit of a surprise. I think we, most of us, thought that this was going to be kind of back-burnered until after the election. Do you see Democrats picking this up and running with it at some point? It has, it has been, it’s been an effective political issue, but maybe not so much in terms of votes, right?  

    Hellmann: I don’t know if Democrats really saw much gain from focusing on abortion in the last round of elections, which feels like such a weird way to talk about it. But they might think that other campaign issues, like the affordability issue, healthcare costs, more generally, might be more of an issue that they want to hit on&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;especially after the ACA tax credits expired. But we might see more from them as this issue continues to play out in the courts. 

    Rovner: And I’m just wondering if, you know, if Republicans start&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;I mean, we’ve seen people like Bill Cassidy, the chairman of the HELP [Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] Committee, who’s been very outspoken, you know, and has long anti-abortion bona fides, I mean, going back pretty much his whole career. But it’s interesting that he’s been hammering on this. I’ve seen Republicans on the Hill hammering on this in a way that separates them from the president, which is a little bit surprising. It makes me wonder if Democrats are going to try to exploit that difference or not, or if they can figure out how, or if just, as you say, affordability is so much a bigger issue right now. 

    Hellmann: I think the Bill Cassidy race is really interesting. He’s in a heated primary against Julia Letlow, and he seems to think that this mifepristone issue is going to be, like, a wedge issue in that race. He’s the chairman of the HELP Committee, so he spends so much time talking about this. Even when HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary RFK [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr. was on the Hill a few weeks ago, this is one of the first things that he asked him about, and he didn’t even get to the vaccine issue until later. But I think that maybe in those more conservative primaries, it could be an issue. But then it’ll be interesting to see how he’ll talk about it later on, if he does win that primary. 

    Luthra: I think one thing to note about the Cassidy primary that I’m really surprised by 鈥 and I think speaks to the complicated state of things, and maybe the fact that people thought this was a resolved issue 鈥 is he talks about it a lot on the Hill. If you go through his TV ads that he is running in this very close primary, they’re not about abortion. He has not had a single TV ad about abortion, and it is largely instead about trying to assert his bona fides as a true partner to Donald Trump. And I think that’s really interesting because, again, as we’ve discussed, Trump is not really interested in this issue, and Louisiana primary voters certainly are. But there’s a calculation, right? Do you want to situate yourself as the partner to the president, or do you want to talk about abortion? And maybe you can do both, but maybe it’s actually really difficult to do both of those things. 

    Rovner: Well, one thing I haven’t seen mentioned in this latest round of debate over abortion is the potential impact on the rest of the drug industry. Once again, justices are being asked to step in and override the presumably evidence-based findings of the Food and Drug Administration. The last time we got this close to a Supreme Court ruling on an FDA approval of mifepristone was in 2024, when the justices were able to punt by pointing out that the doctors group that brought the suit didn’t have standing. But it doesn’t look like that’s as viable an out this time, because it’s the state that’s suing. Why haven’t we heard more from drugmakers, who we know are freaking out about not being able to rely on FDA decisions to make, you know, business plans worth billions of dollars? 

    Raman: I think we will. I think it really depends on what we see in the next week, in terms of is this getting escalated, that the Supreme Court would hold arguments, or where we are? If I think back to 2024, I feel like a lot of more of the involvement from the pharmaceutical industry 鈥 when they were speaking out more, holding briefings, maybe submitting those briefs 鈥 was when we got to the Supreme Court stage. So I think it’s a matter of time. And right now it’s, you know, kind of figuring out their options and what they’re going to do. But a ruling could have a huge impact on so many other drugs. So I doubt that they’d be quiet as we get further along. 

    Rovner: Yes, I would expect, I mean, we’re going to see a flurry of briefs by the end of the day today, and I would expect that the drug industry would be among those who are going to be filing those briefs. So we will know more. 

    Luthra: In fact, we actually already have a brief from PhRMA [. 

    Rovner: Oh good. 

    Luthra: It came in either last night or this morning, and it says exactly what you’d say, that they are concerned that pharmaceutical development will suffer if Louisiana wins, that this is really problematic for drug research and development. And we are seeing some op-eds from biotech CEOs, etc., in places like Stat just highlighting that they are very concerned about the ramifications for the industry. So I think so I’m just totally right, like, as this case picks up steam, that chorus will get louder and louder, because this is just too consequential for the industry to not talk about. 

    Rovner: Right, this is about much, much more than abortion. All right. Well, speaking of the FDA, Commissioner Marty Makary’s job is, quote, “on thin ice” 鈥 that was, were the exact words used in stories from Bloomberg, NOTUS, and The Wall Street Journal, all in the past few days. On the one hand, we’ve heard these rumors before, as things at FDA have been chaotic, to say the least, but this week’s flurry of rumors appears to be over Makary’s overruling of FDA scientists who recommended approval of mango- and blueberry-flavored vapes. Makary was reportedly concerned about attracting children to vaping by approving fruit flavors. This has been a long-standing argument. While the scientists who recommended approval wanted to help adults actually quit smoking, which is demonstrably worse for their health than vaping. As it turns out, the flavored vapes were approved on Tuesday, apparently after President Trump intervened personally by calling Makary. So this raises two questions. First, is this more politicization of FDA policy? It certainly looks like it, even if the ultimate decision here was what the FDA scientists actually wanted. 

    Raman: I mean, if you look back to when President Trump was on the campaign trail, he did talk about wanting to save vaping and how that was a big issue for certain voters and stuff. So it has been something that’s been in the back burner. These kind of approvals and authorizations take a very long time. And they’ve, you know, a lot of folks have been complaining for a long time about how long some of these things take. They can be backlogged for years. And we had very different opinions with some of the appointees during the Biden administration about how to handle flavored nicotine and tobacco products. I do think that the short turnaround between some of those conversations over the weekend and then suddenly this getting authorized is a little unusual, but it’s kind of hard to say where they were in the process before that, if they were dotting the i’s, crossing the t’s, or if this shoved things forward a lot more. So it’s hard to tell, but I think it really does build into your earlier point about how folks are just not sure for how long that he remains as FDA commissioner. I mean, there have been things building for months, but it really has heated up in the last couple weeks or so. And I think something that raises for me there is just if he does get out at some point soon, that would make another thing that the Senate has to get through and, you know, find agreement on which could get even more complicated if, depending on what happens with&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;

    Rovner: 鈥 with the abortion case. 

    Raman: Yeah, and Cassidy’s race! 

    Rovner: Oh, Cassidy’s primary! That’s right. Yes. 

    Raman: Yeah. So I think there’s a lot of interconnected things that will be really interesting to watch here as this plays out. 

    Rovner: Well, there’s also, before we get off of this, there’s a broader question here about harm reduction. Sandhya, we just talked about this a few weeks ago, after the federal government said it would stop paying for test strips to detect fentanyl and other potentially fatal substances added to illicit drugs. So harm reduction is bad when it comes to fentanyl strips, but good for flavored vapes? 

    Raman: I think we’ve had a lot of conflicting messaging on this. Flavored vapes, I guess, are a little bit more complicated, because you could be an adult and just go straight into flavored vapes, and it is a little bit more complicated than that. 

    Rovner: And it is a legal product. 

    Raman: Yes, it is a legal product. You know, it’s regulated very differently. But I think, since you did bring up harm reduction, the interesting thing there that has been happening is just that there’s been so much differences of opinion, despite that guidance. You know, we had the Office of National Drug Control Policy this week put out their drug control strategy plan for the year, and that had language in favor of the testing strip. So we’ve had a lot of conflicting messages between different parts of the administration over the same issue, which is really confusing folks on the ground. 

    Rovner: It is. Well, in other news from the FDA this week,  that the agency blocked the publication of several studies that found very few serious side effects from vaccines for covid-19 and shingles. This included top FDA officials ordering the withdrawal of studies that had already been accepted by medical journals. This is far from the first that we’ve heard of this sort of thing from the FDA and from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But it does increase the doubts that this administration is, quote, “following the science,” does it not? 

    Raman: I mean, we saw the same kind of reaction in terms of why this happened from HHS, you know, saying that the studies were making really broad claims, and they were not supported by whatever the underlying data that they had was. I think that this and the CDC vaccine study getting pulled are both highly unusual, but the fact that they’re both happening in a short period of time, you know, kind of increases that. I think it’ll be interesting, you know, we saw with the CDC study that it ended up getting leaked, and then people were able to look at it and make their own conclusions. What happens with this? But having these studies about vaccine efficacy being pulled when the administration is trying to pull back on their vaccine messaging is, like, a less salient issue for the midterms is interesting. So I’m curious what happens next there. 

    Rovner: Yeah, me too. OK, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

    OK, we’re back, and of course, we have more personnel news. Last Thursday, just after we taped, thank you very much, President Trump pulled the nomination of Casey Means to become the next surgeon general after it had become clear she did not have the votes to even move out of committee. In her place, the president nominated Dr. Nicole Saphier, a Fox News contributor who did finish her medical residency and is a practicing radiologist specializing in breast imaging, and 鈥 apparently this is now a requirement for a high job at the Department of Health and Human Services 鈥 she’s a podcast host. Just this week, there’s been a  that were critical of some of the health stances taken by President Trump and HHS Secretary RFK Jr. But I imagine that might actually help her nomination, which has generally been pretty well received, by making her look like she’s at least as interested in accurate medical advice as she is in currying favor. Or am I misreading this? 

    Raman: I don’t know that the tweets are going to have a huge effect either way, when there’s so many other things going on. And I feel like it’s so interesting that her book from, you know, long before this administration, was called Make America Healthy Again. So it seems like if anyone is committed to this movement, it would be someone with a book titled that six years ago. 

    Rovner: Although she’s not really a MAHA person, right? 

    Raman: Yeah, yeah. But it just is such a funny coincidence. But I think that right after they pulled the Means nomination, it was interesting 鈥 kind of goes back to what Jessie said was that 鈥 we had the president; we had her brother, Calley Means; and then we had Secretary Kennedy as well digging in on Cassidy and blaming him for that nomination falling through. But they did back the new nominee. So it’s interesting what is going to happen there. But just how political just getting this across is, even though there weren’t other votes in the Senate to get Casey across the finish line. 

    Rovner: Yeah. Shefali, you were going to add something? 

    Luthra: Oh, I just think that the tweets, I mean, they are really striking, and I think you’ve hit on something that is a fascinating tension. This is someone who has criticized the president’s talking points around Tylenol in pregnancy; who has said that, you know, maybe there is not a link between Tylenol and pregnancy and autism. Maybe I don’t want to be told just tough it out when I am in pain. She also, fascinatingly, is quite anti-abortion, and has talked about that a lot as well. And I think there’s just a lot of really complicated worldviews that she brings. And on the one hand, like, maybe some of that ends up being appealing to lawmakers because, as we’ve discussed many times on this podcast, the stances that are more anti-vax, anti-medicine, anti-science are not necessarily that popular with voters, and lawmakers are reacting to that. That’s why it’s been so difficult to confirm a surgeon general nominee. And maybe this finally changes that. Maybe deleting those tweets does suggest that someone would rather remain in good standing with the president. I don’t think we really know until&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;if she gets the job and then see what happens. But it is really fascinating to see the third person picked, where there’s still an unfilled position, possibly being someone a bit more aligned with some things that are, in fact, conventionally accepted medicine. 

    Rovner: Well, we will see. And of course, this is&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;yet another nomination that has to go through Bill Cassidy’s HELP Committee. And regardless of what happens in his primary, even if he loses his primary, he’s going to be the chairman of that committee until the end of this year. So we will have to see. 

    All right. Moving on to the Affordable Care Act, we have more evidence this week about the impact of last year’s big budget bill and the expiration of those covid-era additional premium subsidies that they’re having on enrollment.  that analysts and state officials are expecting a drop of about 20%, dropping from 24 million in 2025 to about 19 million. Insurance company Cigna announced last week that it’s dropping out of the ACA marketplace. It currently sells in 11 states. And hospitals are reporting their first-quarter results that are already experiencing the fallout 鈥 from lower admissions to more uncompensated care. That includes not just people who’ve dropped insurance, but people who had to buy insurance with higher deductibles that they may not be able to pay. Republicans in the Trump administration have tried to downplay the reductions, but as the year wears on and the results get more obvious, aren’t they going to have to have some counterargument to this? 

    Hellmann: A 20% decrease in enrollment could be really bad for the marketplaces, especially if the people who are leaving are healthy. It’s going to lead to a sicker risk pool, which is going to possibly lead to higher premiums in the future. So you would think that the administration would have to respond to that. But they have also showed that they’re not really a friend to the ACA, and the first Trump administration also did a lot of things to undermine it. So I’m not sure that they’re going to try to find a way to fix these problems. And they also had a recent marketplace rule that some experts actually think could weaken the health of the marketplaces even more.  

    Rovner: Yeah&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;I know the Republicans&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;one of the big Republican talking points is that a lot of these people were what they call phantom enrollees. They didn’t even know they were enrolled. They didn’t file any claims. But, as you point out, a lot of people have insurance and don’t file any claims because they are healthy. Those are kind of the people that the insurers want. Obviously, not phantom people who don’t know they’re enrolled. That’s fraud. But people who&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;have insurance and don’t use it are a good thing for the insurance industry. Shefali, you’re nodding. 

    Luthra: No, I was just thinking about all the years I’ve had health insurance and didn’t file a claim. Like, of course you would want that. That’s awesome. It doesn’t mean I wasn’t covered. It meant that I relied on the peace of mind of having health insurance. And I would be very sad if I started filing claims for insurance and suddenly all the healthy people were gone. That would be terrible. 

    Rovner: Yeah, we will 鈥 again, I think we’re going to get more evidence as the year wears on, and this is going to become a big, I think, campaign issue, obviously. 

    Well, I want to talk about global health, at least briefly. A lot of people are watching that Dutch-flagged cruise ship with passengers sickened and some dying of hantavirus. Now, hantavirus is not normally spread person-to-person, but it is fairly clear that that’s what’s happening in this case, and it appears the outbreak is being fairly effectively handled by the World Health Organization. But of course, the U.S. left the WHO when Trump returned to office, so the U.S. is not only not helping with this, it’s out of the loop, even though there are more than a dozen Americans who’ve been on board, and reportedly seven who could have been exposed to this who have disembarked and already returned to the U.S. This is kind of why the U.S. was part of the WHO, right? When you have an international incident like this? 

    Raman: Yeah, and I was just listening in to [an] infectious disease briefing this morning, where they were detailing how this situation is unusual. Usually, at this point in a crisis like this, we would have had more communication from the CDC, from the NIH [National Institutes of Health], just about the state of play, different briefings, or just going and helping with the situation. And we haven’t seen that, and just how striking that is right now. 

    Rovner: And of course, I mean, so many people are having PTSD [post-traumatic stress disorder] from covid, and remembering, you know, cruise ships with people with covid. Public health experts say that’s not going to happen here with hantavirus. It’s just this one strain of hantavirus that spreads person to person. It’s hard to spread it. But with so little trust in science and so much misinformation, you got to wonder whether even this incident that shouldn’t cause a panic might anyway. 

    Raman: Yeah, I think that has been kind of the concern is that this is something that the experts are worried about, and they’d like to learn more about, because there is a new case that they can learn from, to provide more public health information. But to not panic over this, just because the things that you said: This is not likely to cause another major pandemic in the same way as covid. 

    Rovner: Well. Finally, this week, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. has struck out on another cause. Now he wants to get people off of their antidepressants. At a MAHA meeting on Monday, he unveiled a series of steps for doing that, from encouraging non-drug interventions for mental health conditions, to paying doctors to counsel patients for how to taper off the medications. He says he doesn’t want to tell people to stop taking their drugs, which can be lifesaving in many cases, although he’s also said he doesn’t want people not to be allowed to take vaccines, too. So where is this headed? Is this 鈥 this is a big, I guess, some MAHA people think people are overmedicated with antidepressants and ADHD [] drugs. 

    Raman: I think it has a lot of the same playbook that we’ve seen with vaccines. He’s talked about over-medicalization as an issue for a while now. It was in the last MAHA report about a year ago, and even before that, he’s brought it up. My sense from attending that event this week was not that they were really looking at changing prescription guidelines, but I guess it’s hard to tell where we’ll see further along down the line. But it was more of just like an exploratory stage, you know, training physicians about different things related to tapering and things like that. But sometimes that’s the start of things changing down the line, and it is interest[ing], that kind of brings back his focus to very much the psychiatric drugs, the ADHD, depression, anxiety, and just wanting to lessen the medications there. So. 

    Rovner: I can’t help but wonder if, because he’s been told to back off of the vaccine issue, because it doesn’t play that well with the public, that he’s going to pick this up as his next crusade.  

    Raman: There was a huge emphasis on informed consent, which is, I feel, another big talking point with vaccine. So there is a lot of similarities in how it’s approached. So, I would look for more of those kind of clues there. 

    Luthra: I think it’s also worth noting, even if this is early rhetoric that we know from research that rhetoric does influence prescribing behavior. We saw that study that showed after the “don’t take Tylenol when you’re pregnant” kerfluffle, prescriptions of Tylenol went down for people who are pregnant. And this is not really the first time RFK has talked about SSRIs, specifically. He’s talked about them with regard to pregnancy, in particular, and that’s already a very stigmatized, very fraught time for people, even though the consensus is, if you are depressed, stay on your medications. And I think this is something absolutely worth keeping an eye on, even if this is largely rhetorical, discouraging use of medications. Does that translate into changes, especially around something that is fraught and is often stigmatized and misunderstood, like antidepressants, which, as you mentioned, Julie, are lifesaving and very important for people with severe depression. 

    Rovner: Indeed, and for people with severe anxiety. All right, that’s this week’s news. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Andrew Jones, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits. 

    I am pleased to welcome to the podcast 麻豆女优 Health News’ Andrew Jones, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month.” Andrew, welcome. 

    Andrew Jones: Thank you so much for having me. 

    Rovner: So tell us about this month’s patient 鈥 who she is, where she’s from, and what happened that landed her in the emergency room. 

    Jones: Silvana Toska. She’s from Davidson, North Carolina. It’s just north of Charlotte. She’s a professor of political science there, and a mom of two. And while she was outdoor at an event last fall, she got bit by an insect, and she ended up with such a bad systemic allergic reaction that she got anaphylaxis. What anaphylaxis means is that her lungs began to be difficult to breathe. And so she broke out in hives, and she immediately decides, with her husband, to go to an urgent care, where she gets treated with two doses of epinephrine. And then the doctor says you need to be under watch for a couple of hours, so you need to go to the ER, which is kind of where our story starts. 

    Rovner: So she doesn’t drive off to the ER, she goes in an ambulance to the ER, right? 

    Jones: That’s correct. Yeah. They put her in the back of an ambulance, and they ship her off to the ER. Her husband and her two kids follow. 

    Rovner: So by the time she got to the ER, she was already feeling better from the medication that they gave her at the urgent care. That’s what’s in an EpiPen, right? 

    Jones: That’s correct, yeah. 

    Rovner: The epinephrine. So what happened when she got to the ER? 

    Jones: So, not a whole lot, actually. Like you said, she’s feeling fine at that point. A doctor comes in. The doctor sees her for less than five minutes, asks her about her condition, does a quick checkup, doesn’t actually make physical contact with her, which I thought was very interesting. And then the doctor steps out. And she basically spends an hour and a half doing nothing, trying to keep her kids entertained. And she gets a dose of Pepcid to keep the allergic reaction at bay. But after the doctor came in again, just to say that she could leave, she left, and it was an incredibly uneventful ER visit. 

    Rovner: And then, as we say, the bill came. So how much is the ER charge for her couple of hours of follow-up&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;at which not very much happened? 

    Jones: Yeah. So that empty hour and a half, essentially, for that time, she was charged $6,746.50. And at the end of the day, she was responsible for a $150 copay and $3,100.24 鈥 a bill that she got on Christmas Day that year. 

    Rovner: Awesome. So what was the justification for such a big bill for such 鈥 I won’t say “little care,” but what seemed to be little care? 

    Jones: Yeah, well, she was actually charged for something that wasn’t little. It was called “critical care.” She was coded for critical care, her time there was. And the experts that I spoke to said that while Toska had every right to think that it was an outrageous price to charge, it was probably an appropriate charge for the situation, those codes were. And that’s partly because of a coding system that really isn’t hyper-specific to individual cases. Toska needed to be in the ER setting because of the anaphylaxis. It can return and cause a critical situation. And while she was coded based on what might have happened, rather than what did happen, it ended up not working in her favor as far as the bill went. And so people all over the U.S. experience this. Another expert I spoke to said that people are brought on that train of care when they arrive to the ER. There’s really no way to get off once it starts moving. And you don’t know what it’s going&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;what the dreaded bill is going to be once it stops. And there definitely could be reform in the way that U.S. healthcare system does ER coding, although there would have to be some, you know, pretty titanic changes for that to happen. But I’ll say that if listeners ever find themselves concerned about a bill, they should definitely call their insurance company, ask if there was an attempt to negotiate, and they should call the hospital to check the accuracy of the coding. Toska did do both of those things and, unfortunately, nothing changed. But I can say that that was the right thing to do. There was some great back-and-forth. There was a letter that explained why they did that and, ultimately, what happened to her comes down to a coding system that did not work in her favor. And she told me that recently she experienced another allergic reaction, but instead of going to the ER, she just took some Benadryl instead. 

    Rovner: And you know, I guess the takeaway here is that when a medical professional tells you to go to the ER, it’s not usually because they’re going to make money from sending you to the ER. It’s because something could happen that you should be in the ER for it. I guess that’s sort of why we have medical insurance, right? 

    Jones: Absolutely, absolutely. Yeah. I mean, she really had no other choice. It was the right thing for her to do. But again, because of a coding system that wasn’t specific to her situation, it ended up 鈥 I see, you know, testimonies all the time from people who see this very outrageous bill for a little care. Toska is the first time I’ve seen a bill where there was essentially no care that she could see. And so I think it’s fair for her to have this discussion in her mind and with her family, and here in this article about: Is our coding system fair? But ultimately, when a provider says you need to go to the ER to make sure that you know your situation is taken care of, that’s what you have to do. 

    Rovner: Andrew Jones, thank you very much. 

    Jones: Julie, thank you. 

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

    Hellmann: My extra credit is from Nature. It’s titled “.” They [Max Kozlov, Alexandra Witze, and Dan Garisto] did an analysis showing that more than 100 independent advisory panels have been terminated. These are panels that advise agencies on biomedical environmental policy and other types of health policy. They’re typically staffed by researchers and other experts from outside of the government. And now so many of these groups are being canceled, there’s concern that this could result in less transparency and more of agencies making decisions within their own ranks. And then they also found that groups that are still in existence are meeting less and less. They’re not issuing public reports. An example of this that we all know about is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is tied up in a big legal dispute right now. And the White House defended all of this, is saying that these panels are a waste of taxpayer dollars that don’t meaningfully inform policymaking. So I thought that was a good read on something that doesn’t get a ton of attention. 

    Rovner: Yeah. Well&苍产蝉辫;鈥&苍产蝉辫;of course, these panels are intended to bring in the public to make public policy. That’s kind of why they’re there. They’ve always been sort of a bipartisan thing. Anyway, really interesting story. Sandhya. 

    Raman: So my extra credit is from The Cut, and it’s called “,” and it’s by Juno DeMelo. And this was a story that, you know, they talked to a lot of pediatricians about how their jobs have changed given the increasing vaccine skepticism. And some of these pediatricians are talking about having to really sell to their patients and their families why pediatric vaccines are necessary, or just devoting a lot more time, having a longer appointment just to explain why this is necessary. Sometimes it takes multiple appointments, which is just different with what they’ve had to do from the past. And, you know, the fatigue from having to go into all the science, instead of just presuming the child will get the vaccine and being able to discuss other things 鈥 safety and signs to watch and growth, and all of that. And so I think it was a good look at some of the things that drilled down on that. 

    Rovner: Yeah, it was. These policy changes have impacts way down the line. Shefali. 

    Luthra: My story is from ProPublica. It is by Duaa Eldeib. The headline is “.” It’s about families opting out of vitamin K shots, which are useful for blood clotting for newborns, and babies dying. And I think the story is remarkable for several reasons. It’s really got remarkable examples, and we see who these children are who are dying. We know how old they are, we know the color of their hair. We know what their symptoms were and what happened to them. There isn’t government data tracking vitamin K shots and whether they are rejected, but the story does a really good job painting a picture anyway. It has interviews with hospitals who have seen more and more parents saying we don’t want this because we are concerned. And it contextualizes this within the rising anti-establishment approach to medicine, more skepticism around well-researched and appropriate interventions. There is data showing how many children die from this spontaneous bleeding that can often happen if you’re deficient in vitamin K. And together, it uses those different points to create a picture of a troubling and avoidable public health trend that’s resulting in kids dying. 

    Rovner: Yeah, more fallout from the anti-vax movement. My extra credit this week is from my 麻豆女优 Health News colleague Stephanie Armour, and it’s called “HHS’ Healthy Food Agenda Puts Hospitals on Notice About Patients’ Meals.” It’s a story about something that we’ve talked about before in the podcast, the new HHS policy that threatens hospitals’ Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for facilities that don’t conform to last year’s new dietary guidelines. But there’s some pretty vivid detail here about how those guidelines actually fail to address the needs of many hospitalized patients who may be limited in their ability to eat or drink and might actually need Jell-O or ginger ale or Ensure, all of which are now at least theoretically banned. And the administration is also asking patients to report hospitals that are violating the new rules. Again, another thing that was not on my 2026 bingo card. 

    All right, that’s this week’s show. As always, thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts 鈥 as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X , or on Bluesky . Sandhya, where are you hanging these days? 

    Raman: I’m on  and on  @SandhyaWrites. 

    Rovner: Jessie. 

    Hellmann:  on  and  and also on . 

    Rovner: Shefali. 

    Luthra: On Bluesky . 

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

    Credits

    Francis Ying Audio producer
    Emmarie Huetteman Editor

    Click here to find all our podcasts.

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

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

    This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-445-abortion-pill-mifepristone-makary-may-7-2026/">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=2235382&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
    2235382
    The Supreme Court Case That Could Slow Generic Drugs /podcast/an-arm-and-a-leg-supreme-court-generic-drugs-skinny-labels/ Tue, 05 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2232952&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2232952 The Supreme Court has heard a about “” on generic drugs. It could shape the future of affordable prescriptions in America.

    The same medication can be used to treat many conditions. And each use can have its own patent, even though the drug itself never changes. When patents expire, companies can make their own generic versions 鈥 but only so long as they make it clear that it can’t be used for anything else that still has a patent. This is what’s called a “skinny label.”

    But in , one patent holder says generic manufacturers aren’t playing by the rules. The petitioners allege some drugmakers are writing skinny labels with a wink to doctors that their cheaper generic pill can be swapped in for more expensive patented ones.

    An Arm and a Leg senior producer Emily Pisacreta talks with legal experts and doctors about how this case got to the highest court in the land and what a ruling could mean for how many and how quickly new generic drugs reach the market.

    Dan Weissmann Host and producer of "An Arm and a Leg." Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago's WBEZ. His work also appears on "All Things Considered," Marketplace, the BBC, 99% Invisible, and "Reveal," from the Center for Investigative Reporting.

    Credits

    Emily Pisacreta Producer
    Claire Davenport Producer
    Adam Raymonda Audio wizard
    Ellen Weiss Editor
    Click to open the Transcript Transcript: The Supreme Court case that could slow generic drugs

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

    Dan: Hey there鈥 

    Dr. Anmol Gupta is a resident physician at the University of Michigan. One day a week, he drives thirty miles north of Ann Arbor to a rural clinic and for a lot of his patients there, it’s the only doctor they can get to within an hour.

    Dr. Gupta: They have to travel the furthest. They’re often the ones that are uninsured or on Medicaid. They often are coming and seeking care later than you’d wish they had access to care.

    Dan: So they’re sicker. And the cost of prescription drugs comes up in like every single visit.

    Dr. Gupta: I’m meeting patients who are just now being able to afford medications who maybe weren’t able to five, 10 years ago who needed it then.   

    Dan: Take statins, the cholesterol-lowering drugs. One of the most popular brand-name versions, Crestor, finally went generic in 2016. Before that, a lot of patients like Dr. Gupta’s simply couldn’t afford it.. So now he wants generic versions for today’s expensive drugs to reach his patients as soon as possible. 

    Dr. Gupta: We’re trying to prevent long term risks here. The faster we can start these medications, the better the outcomes in hopefully preventing devastating things like heart attacks and strokes.

    Dan: Which is why what’s about to happen at the Supreme Court matters so much to him 鈥 and to millions of patients like his.

    This spring 鈥 actually, this week 鈥 the court is hearing arguments in a case that could make it harder, and slower, for cheaper generic drugs to become available to patients.

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

    Our show’s senior producer, Emily Pisacreta, flagged this Supreme Court case for us months ago.

    Emily, you’ve been reporting the heck out of it ever since. 

    Emily: Dan, I talked with lawyers. I talked with doctors. I talked with one guy who is both a lawyer and a doctor. And the good news is, you don’t need to be any of those things to understand what’s going on here.

    Dan: Great 鈥 take it away.

    Emily: Let’s start with the basics. When a drug company invents a new medicine, they get a patent 鈥 basically an exclusive right to sell it for about twenty years 鈥 sometimes a couple extra years.  Exclusive, without competition. That’s part of why brand-name drugs cost so much.

    But when the patent expires, other companies can make a generic version of the exact same drug. Those generics usually sell for much cheaper. The legal rules of this brand vs. generic deal got hashed out back in 1984, in a law called Hatch-Waxman. We talked all about that in our last episode 鈥 but don’t worry if you missed it.

    Sean Tu: Hatch-Waxman made this balance between giving protection to brand-name manufacturers to innovate and create new drugs, but then once their patents expire, the idea is we open it up for generic competition.

    Emily: That’s Professor Sean Tu. He teaches law at the University of Alabama. He also has a PhD in pharmacology and a history working in the biotech industry. Sean helped write a legal brief in this case on the side of the generic drug maker.

    He says this case is about that balance that Hatch Waxman tried to create. Because, drug companies don’t just file one patent and leave it at that. They file a whole stack of them鈥 Starting with a patent on the drug itself 鈥  the “molecule” 鈥 And then a second patent on how the drug is used. So when the first patent runs out, they might still have years of protection left on the second one. 

    But it doesn’t end there. They can also patent new uses of that drug.

    Sean Tu: Here’s an example and I’m just gonna make one up. I have a drug X that was first approved for diabetes. But let’s say the patent expires in 2000. And then later on I get a new patent for that same drug to treat cancer but that patent doesn’t expire until 2020.

    Emily: Hatch-Waxman’s rules say generic drugmakers don’t have to wait until 2020 to sell a generic for treating diabetes. 

    But they do have to be careful with their generic drug’s label

    In the world of Hatch Waxman, the label is not just the white sticker on the orange bottle you get from the pharmacy.  

    The label means all that folded-up paperwork full of small type that comes with your prescription.

    It’s full of technical information about the drug. So if a generic drug-maker sells a version of Sean Tu’s made-up drug for diabetes, they have to make sure that “label” doesn’t mention that the drug can also treat cancer. In the industry they call this a 鈥榮kinny label” 

    And skinny labels are a BIG part of getting generic drugs to market 鈥 making them available鈥 quickly. The industry says four out of ten generics get launched with a skinny label.

    So, skinny labels are the big legal idea at the heart of this supreme court case. 

    Now let’s talk about the specific drug in this legal tug-of-war. It’s called Vascepa.

    Commercial voiceover: Discover the science of prescription VASCEPA proven in multiple clinical trials.

    Emily: Vascepa’s made by a company called Amarin,  and it’s their only product. It comes from fish oil, and it’s been approved by the FDA for two different uses 鈥 well, kind of different. 

    First, in 2012, to treat a rare condition involving dangerously high levels of a certain kind of fat in the blood. 

    A few years later, Vascepa got approved for another condition, one that affects a lot more people: people with only slightly too much of that fat in their blood. 

    Commercial voiceover: Prescription power. Proven to work now with a new indication. Ask your doctor about Vascepa.

    Emily: That second approval meant a second patent for the second use. Meanwhile the patent on the first use was set to expire. When that happened, a generic manufacturer called Hikma jumped at the chance  to come to market with a cheaper, generic version. 

    Newscaster: ??Finally talk quickly about Hikma Pharmaceuticals. London listed under the code HIK, but founded in Jordan [fade under] 鈥

    Emily: In 2020, Hikma launched their generic with a skinny label on the packaging. They say that skinny label was carefully written: That it only described the unpatented original use. That they definitely left out any mention of the second use鈥 the one that’s still patented.

    But Amarin 鈥 the brand name manufacturer 鈥 didn’t see it that way鈥nd they sued them.

    Amarin’s argument has two parts. First, they say Hikma’s label, even though it left out the patented use, still referenced a study that was only conducted for that still-patented use. Second, they say that in press releases, on their website, and on investor calls, Hikma described their product a little too broadly,  including calling it, quote, “the generic version of Vascepa.”

    Amarin says: put those two things together, and Hikma was effectively encouraging doctors to prescribe it for the use that’s still under patent. 

    The legal term for this is 鈥榠nducing infringement’.

    There’s a pretty-famous Supreme Court case about inducing infringement 鈥揳t least maybe famous to legal nerds:  It involved a file-sharing service called Grokster. The whole product was basically built to help people swap pirated music and movies. But instead of my entire high school graduating class getting sued for copyright infringement, Grokster did. For inducing it.

    Sean Tu says induced infringement means YOU didn’t infringe the patent yourself, but you nudged someone else into doing it. On purpose.

    Sean Tu: You have to have the intent to induce somebody to actually infringe the patent. Looking at the label, looking at these fairly innocuous marketing statements, I don’t think any of them induce a doctor to prescribe for the patented indication.

    Emily: And here’s the thing, some of the people who agree with Sean Tu 鈥 they aren’t who you’d expect.

    Greg Chopskie: Yeah. Amarin would have you believe that doctors pay attention to investor relations calls when making their prescribing decisions.

    Emily: Greg Chopskie is a patent attorney who works mostly for brand-name drug companies. About a decade ago, he was part of a team that won a $2.15 billion settlement. It was one of the biggest brand-versus-generic lawsuits ever. So, he’s not exactly a cheerleader for generic drug makers.

    But he says, until recently, a case like Amarin’s wouldn’t have legs. Except things took a big turn in 2021. 

    That year a big brand-name drug company, GlaxoSmithKline, 鈥 we’ll call them GSK for short 鈥 they won $235 million in damages from a generic maker called Teva. The accusation: Induced infringement. Greg Chopskie says GSK’s victory really shook things up.

    Greg Chopskie: What it did was make mundane market activities potential bases for infringement claims.

    Emily: Mundane marketing activities like calling your drug the generic version of something. Saying it’s been rated equivalent by the FDA. Normal things generic companies say all the time. But now鈥

    Greg Chopskie: The focus is on what’s printed on the label, what’s being said in the market, what your detailers are telling physicians, what you’re telling investors鈥 a much bigger scope of activities could be used to find infringement.

    Emily: Teva appealed their case to the Supreme Court, but the court took a pass on hearing it. Greg thinks the Court taking up the Hikma vs. Amarin case is a sign they regret that decision.

    Greg Chopskie: I think this is a little bit of buyer’s remorse from the Supreme Court that they did not take the GSK case.

    Emily: So just how important is this case? And what could it mean for us? That’s next.

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

    EmilyHow big of a deal is Hikma versus Amarin?

    Sara Koblitz: So it’s, it’s a pretty big deal.

    Emily: Sara Koblitz is a lawyer whose firm works with both brand-name and generic drug companies. She’s been watching this case closely, because however it goes, she says it changes how everybody in the industry operates.

    And Sara says part of the reason it’s a big deal is because of how early in the process this case is being heard. No jury has weighed in. There hasn’t even been any discovery, no documents exchanged, there haven’t been any depositions. 

    The question before the court is: Should this case just get tossed out without even having a trial?

    Sara Koblitz: So it is deciding whether the case can continue and Amarin can continue to make those allegations against Hikma.

    Emily: ?If it rules for Hikma, the generic company, the court could say, this KIND of a case just shouldn’t be a thing: Claiming “induced infringement” over what experts like Sara and Greg Chopskie say have been totally normal skinny-label practices for decades. 

    The court could say: there’s no “there” there 鈥 and not just to Amarin.

    Sara Koblitz: Theoretically, other companies should be on notice that they can’t bring induced infringement cases on such little evidence.

    Emily: On the other hand, if the court rules AGAINST Hikma, that would be a big worry for every generic drug maker

    Sara Koblitz: the idea that you can have a case go with very little evidence about what has been said to induce infringement will mean that it’s really easy to bring litigation against these generic companies. 

    Emily:  Easy to bring litigation that would cost those generic companies millions of dollars to fight, Big money. And that’s just the cost if they win. If they lose鈥 

    Sara Koblitz: The ramifications for being found guilty of induced infringement are really significant. It’s treble damages, so it’s three times the amount that the company would have made, but for the introduction of the generic drug. 

    Emily: Which raises the big question here: If the Supreme Court rules against Hikma, and opens the door to lots of “induced infringement” cases, would generic companies keep trying to use a skinny label at all, or would they decide it’s just not worth the risk? 

    And if they decide it’s not worth the risk and instead wait for all the patents to expire, does that mean we have to wait longer for generics?  

    A 2019 study estimated that skinny labels come out an average of 3 years earlier than generics that come out after all of the patents have expired. And as Sara points out, that’s the average. Not the limit.

    Sara Koblitz:  In some situations you, it could save you 10 years. You could be getting a product 10 years earlier than you would’ve gotten it if you had otherwise ?waited until the product was off patent to come to market.

    Emily: And Sara is not the only one worried. In 2024, the FDA warned Congress that the GSK decision 鈥 the earlier case that set the stage for this fight 鈥 could “significantly impact the timely availability of generic drugs.” 

    There’s already SOME data, from a very small study, suggesting generic companies are pulling back. Before the GSK ruling in 2021, about 43 percent of eligible drugs came to market with a skinny label. By 2023, researchers from Harvard found that only one out of five eligible drugs did so. 

    Sara thinks that trend is the result of uncertainty after the GSK decision. And that Hikma vs. Amarin 鈥 no matter how the court rules 鈥 will clear away some confusion.

    Sara Koblitz: ?I think that this case in particular is really important for generic companies so they can have certainty about what they’re doing and saying.

    Emily: And if the Supreme Court rules in Amarin’s favor, Sean Tu worries that brand companies will get more creative about blocking skinny label competition 鈥 by filing more patents on how the drug is used鈥  patents that are so similar to each other that it’s almost impossible to write a label for just one of them.

    Sean Tu: In the Amarin v Hikma case, the actual indication is  鈥榬eally bad heart disease’ and 鈥榮lightly bad heart disease’ 鈥 and then 鈥榩reventing heart disease.’ That’s the kind of games I think are going to happen in the future.

    <<<Music>>>

    Emily: Oral arguments are Wednesday, April 29th. We’ll be listening. 

    And you know who else will be listening? Dr. Gupta 鈥搕he hospital resident we met at the very beginning of this episode. Along with his job practicing medicine, he volunteers with a group called Doctors for America 鈥 thats a group advocating for access to affordable health care. Including drugs.   

    And he’s hoping the justices understand just what’s at stake for his patients.

    Dr. Gupta: You know, as a doctor, when I’m sitting in front of a patient, right, I’m trying to figure out what’s the best medication for your disease. I see the benefit of generics when they come around. I’m seeing that now, but there’s still so many common medications that aren’t generics yet that people struggle to afford.

    And if we can find a medication that you can afford, that’s best, right

    Dan: Emily, thank you so much for getting us this story. 

    Emily: Yeah, you bet. 

    Dan: We’ll be back with another episode in a few weeks. Until then Take care of yourself.

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

    Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard.

    Our music is by Dave Weiner and Blue Dot Sessions. 

    Claire Davenport is our engagement producer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    OR, for a zero-cost way to help us out: Why not rate us and leave a nice review on Apple Podcasts?  People read those testimonials, and it helps folks decide to give a listen. 

    Thanks! 


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

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

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

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

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

    This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/an-arm-and-a-leg-supreme-court-generic-drugs-skinny-labels/">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=2232952&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
    2232952
    The Peculiar Politics of Hospitals /podcast/what-the-health-444-hospital-pricing-congress-988-suicide-april-30-2026/ Thu, 30 Apr 2026 19:15:00 +0000 /?p=2232481&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2232481 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.

    Republicans and Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee had strong words for hospital CEOs about their prices at a hearing this week. But it remains unclear whether they will follow up their words with actions to force prices down.

    Meanwhile, in a rare bit of positive health policy news, a study of the first two years of the new 988 suicide prevention hotline shows it reduced suicides among young people, and more so in states that fielded more calls.

    This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of 麻豆女优 Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

    Panelists

    Joanne Kenen photo
    Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico
    Shefali Luthra photo
    Shefali Luthra The 19th
    Rachel Roubein photo
    Rachel Roubein The Washington Post

    Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

    • Hospitals have long been the most sacrosanct of healthcare stakeholders to politicians, partly because every member of Congress has at least one in their district. Hospitals are often major employers and have a powerful lobbying presence. So it was notable that members of Congress from both parties were willing to criticize hospital CEOs strongly at a hearing to examine hospital prices.
    • The Supreme Court heard arguments this week about labeling for the controversial pesticide glyphosate, which may or may not cause or contribute to cancers. The issue divides the Make America Healthy Again movement, which sees the Trump administration’s support of the Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that the product is not carcinogenic as a political betrayal.
    • A study demonstrating the effectiveness of the national 988 suicide prevention hotline in reducing youth suicide is a bit of good news stemming from a rare bipartisan effort to address a serious problem.
    • Another pair of studies this week suggest that the Trump administration’s delay of the recommended birth dose of the vaccine to prevent hepatitis B could increase the number of cases of the disease and cost millions more in health spending to treat its complications.

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

    Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “,” by Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller.

    Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “,” by Anna Clark.

    Rachel Roubein: 麻豆女优 Health News’ “Big Companies Position Themselves for Payday From $50B Federal Rural Health Fund,” by Sarah Jane Tribble.

    Shefali Luthra: The Atlantic and 麻豆女优 Health News’ “,” by Elisabeth Rosenthal.

    Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

    • 麻豆女优’s “,” by Audrey Kearney, Mardet Mulugeta, Alex Montero, Isabelle Valdes, Lunna Lopes, and Ashley Kirzinger.
    • 麻豆女优’s “,” by Drew Altman.
    • JAMA’s “,” by Vishal R. Patel; Michael Liu; and Anupam B. Jena.
    • JAMA Pediatrics’ “,” by Eric W. Hall; Prabhu Gounder, Heather Bradley, and Noele P. Nelson.
    • JAMA Pediatrics’ “,” by Margaret L. Lind, Matt D.T. Hitchings, Roshni P. Singh, Benjamin P. Linas, Derek A.T. Cummings, and Rachel L. Epstein.
    click to open the transcript Transcript: The Peculiar Politics of Hospitals

    [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 from 麻豆女优 Health News and WAMU public radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 麻豆女优 Health News. As always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 30. 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 Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

    Shefali Luthra: Hello.  

    Rovner: Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

    Rachel Roubein: Happy to be here.  

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

    Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.  

    Rovner: No interview this week, but lots of news. So let’s dive right in. I want to start with politics this week. The House Ways and Means Committee held a kind of remarkable hearing with some large hospital chain CEOs, at which members from both parties took great public umbrage at hospital pricing practices. The headline on the Ways and Means GOP chair Jason Smith’s opening statement was, quote, “,” and that was among the milder charges that he and other committee members lobbed at the witnesses. Yet Ways and Means members have been talking about things like site-neutral payments for Medicare and reining in the 340B Drug Pricing Program for literally years now without actually doing anything about them. Was this all just for show? Or might we actually see some action on hospital pricing this year?  

    Kenen: They did take a bite at this, about the site-neutral payments, in a limited 鈥 on certain things. I looked it up last night because I figured Julie would know it by heart but I couldn’t remember. It was 2015. So they did a little bit of it, and they 鈥 it was bipartisan. And they did not solve the problem. They sort of nibbled around the edges. Consolidation of hospitals and acquisition of physician practices, etc., have intensified in the last decade. So there is a bipartisan willingness to nibble. We don’t know if there’s a bipartisan or even either side really having the stick-to-itness to get something done. I wasn’t in that room. Some of you may have been on the Hill more than I get there. I don’t feel that action is imminent, but I do think that the conversation is returning to hospitals in a way we haven’t seen it for a while. And hospitals are a lot of money.  

    Rovner: That was my point is that hospitals are where the money is in healthcare. Rachel, you wanted to add something.  

    Roubein: Oh yeah, and we saw in Trump 1 [President Donald Trump’s first term] some efforts around site-neutral at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. But just sort of politically speaking, why the rhetoric is interesting, it used to historically be a little harder for lawmakers to take aim at their friendly neighborhood hospital. They’re major employers in their districts, particularly rural areas, and they also support lawmakers. 

    Rovner: Yes, and I would say for those who don’t follow this as weedily as we do, site-neutral payment is when hospitals who own outpatient clinics charge more for the same service in the hospital than they do in the clinic. The art justification is, Well, we have to help support the rest of the hospital facility, so we have to charge more. And this has been a point of contention for some time. 

    Kenen: But that playing field has changed. So it’s more, there are more of them now than there were when there were more independent medical practices and more independently owned, either small chains or non-chain hospitals. The whole hospital industry has changed. And if I can add just one other quick fact why, I think politically, the targets have been insurers and drug companies, right? And that’s what the conversation’s been about for quite 鈥 the dominant conversation. And I think it’s because insurance prices are really high, and they go up every year, and you see it in your paycheck week after week. And drugs, most of us do go to a pharmacy or have a mail order. So many of us are confronted with paying out-of-pocket for a drug, and people who don’t have great insurance might pay a lot out-of-pocket for a drug, or they’re on a drug that’s not in their formulary, etc. It can be confusing. Most of us in any given year are not in a hospital. And sometimes, when we are in a hospital, we’re grateful for it. It’s not that everybody gets perfect care and there are no bad outcomes. Of course, there are. But if the hospital I gave birth at saved my kid, I’m grateful for that. And it was a long time ago. Eighth grade wasn’t so great, but the rest of his life is right. So we have a different relationship in terms of how we interact and how often we interact with our hospitals. 

    Rovner: So building on that one hint of why Republicans might be feeling freer to criticize hospitals 鈥 who have long been, as Rachel points out, the most protected of all the healthcare stakeholders in Washington 鈥 came from . Quoting 麻豆女优 President and CEO Drew Altman’s , which I will link to, quote: “What jumped out from the poll is the value voters place on villainizing health care’s big interests now. It’s like serving up a big fat slow curveball for every candidate to hit.” Putting on my cynical hat, maybe the message that politicians are taking here is to talk a big game on healthcare but don’t do things that will actually impact negatively the people who fund your campaigns. In other words, it is all for show and they’re not planning on doing it. 

    Luthra: That’s kind of the interesting question, right? I was thinking a lot this morning about the really great  in The [New York] Times that Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff wrote, and one of the points that they make is there’s less political pressure when people aren’t seeing firsthand the consequences for reform. And so if there isn’t really vocal outcry from consumers directly at hospitals as an institution, where does that political pressure come from? I don’t know that we have an answer that suggests it would be strong enough to outweigh what an important interest hospitals are. 

    Rovner: Yeah. I want it noted that, in addition to going after Big Insurance and Big Pharma, members of Congress are now going after Big Hospital, which, as Joanne points out, is pretty rare. We will see if anything comes of it. 

    Well, one of the reasons that healthcare is such a hard subject to, you know, legislate on is that there are almost always unintended consequences. Lawmakers want to give people stuff, and they want to give healthcare providers stuff, but they don’t want to figure out how to pay for it or who should pay for it. Case in point 鈥 those very popular weight loss drugs known as GLP-1s. The Trump administration last year announced a deal that would make the drugs made by Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk 鈥 those are the two big makers of these popular drugs 鈥 would make those drugs available through a Medicare pilot program provided by insurers. But even with the drugmakers agreeing to dramatically slash the drugs’ prices, insurers have balked at the added cost, causing the pilot to be canceled. Now, Medicare plans to pay for the drugs itself, apparently, at least temporarily. But of course, that’s going to pile new costs on a program that itself is not financially stable, and run the risk of doing to Medicare what many employers are doing to their workers, cutting off coverage for these drugs after they’ve already started it. There’s no easy solution to giving people new, modern, even working technologies that are expensive, right? 

    Kenen: As more and more research about the potential benefits of these drugs 鈥 and also they are still relatively new. We could be having a whole different conversation about long-term use in a few years. But right now, one finding after another shows that it’s not just weight loss and diabetes, that there may be a lot of other benefits which still have to be studied or understood better, and who would benefit, and all those questions for the scientists. But these could be, end up being as common as statins down the road, and very expensive. So then the question is: Who gets the savings? Is it going to be worth it if Medicare pays for the drugs and ends up with fewer hospitalizations for advanced diabetes complications and amputations and kidney failure and all the terrible things that can come from advanced, uncontrolled diabetes? Is an insurer 鈥 insurers don’t like to always pay long-term. They don’t like to spend something tomorrow where the benefits may be 10 years down the road, because that person might not be your customer anymore in 10 years. So you’re investing in their long-term health, but they’re gonna be paying their premiums to your competitor in 10 or 20 or 30 years. So I just see this is getting more and more and more expensive, or at least the demand, the more and more people. How are we defining 鈥 diabetes has a clinical definition, but obesity is a little fudgier, right? No pun intended. 

    Rovner: Two points. One is that the one thing we know about prevention and people who are not children is that it doesn’t pay for itself. So if you keep these people from dying from their diabetes complications and other complications of obesity, they’re going to live longer and eventually are going to die of something else, and that’s going to be expensive. So probably not a savings from CBO’s [the Congressional Budget Office’s] point of view. But the other thing is that other countries aren’t having this issue, because they have price controls on drugs, and we don’t. And try as hard as President Trump seems to be doing to piggyback off of other countries’ price controls, at some point 鈥 and I guess this harkens back to the hospital conversation 鈥 at some point Congress, the president, could just bite the bullet and say: Hey, we’re not going to let you charge 鈥 we’re not going to buy your drugs if you’re going to charge this much. So charge us less. I don’t see that anytime soon, but it is a possibility, yes? 

    Luthra: Certainly. And I think one thing we’re not thinking about as well is what happens 鈥 right? 鈥 when people have had access to these drugs and then suddenly they are no longer covered. And with GLP-1s in particular, it’s actually kind of complicated and fascinating, because we are seeing all of these compounding pharmacies, some 鈥 right? 鈥 more in compliance with regulations than others, developing knockoffs. And people, I’ve talked a lot of them, will just go to those places instead, buy those products at a price they can afford, but the safety, the quality, may or may not be guaranteed. And there’s just a very large conversation that we’re not having about all of these consequences and trade-offs that we can’t quantify, by nature of us kicking the can down the road on dealing with the pricing problem. 

    Rovner: Yeah, there’s a lot of PhD theses that are going to come out of this. There are just so many tentacles of it to study. And Joanne’s right. We don’t know. 

    Kenen: Right. Particularly, to combine PhDs. The sweet spot is going to be like an AI analysis of GLP spending, or some 20 years out or whatever. That’s going to be what all the PhD theses are. 

    Rovner: Yes, well, going from insoluble problems, most of what we talk about is kind of by necessity, bad news or divisive news. So this week I wanted to highlight an actual good-news story in health policy. According to  in the Journal of the American Medical Association, youth suicides have dropped markedly in the two years following the implementation of the 988 suicide prevention hotline. And while it’s hard to attribute all of the improvement to the hotline’s existence, the researchers were able to tease out that suicides decreased most in states with higher volumes of answered 988 calls and that suicides didn’t change much in peer countries that didn’t implement a hotline, like in England. And even more good news, while the Trump administration ended a specific part of the program that was aimed at helping LGBTQ+ callers last year, HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified during his marathon of hearings last week that the department would reinstate that option. Now all of this was the result of a bipartisan push in Congress over several years. What are the chances that seeing something good come from working together might prompt more cooperation that things, that lawmakers might agree on? This is my non-cynic hat. 

    Kenen: Maybe in an alternative universe. 

    Rovner: Go head, Rachel. 

    Roubein: I thought this was interesting, because, as you said, this was something that was rolled out with bipartisan support in 2022. And it came off of the heels of the pandemic, which really exposed issues with youth mental health. I remember writing about the time this number was replacing a 10-digit hotline number, and advocates, etc., weren’t sure how much people would know about it, how received it would be from that standpoint, because you really had to get the message out that this was out there. So I thought that these numbers a few years later were pretty striking. 

    Rovner: Yeah, I thought it was striking how fast that we were able to sort of see a difference. 

    Kenen: But also there’s a history going back at least 10-ish, and probably longer, years on mental health. There’s bipartisanship. There have been a number of bills, both on opioids and substance abuse and mental health in general, not just for kids. There’s several over, in recent years, about mobile clinics and just spending more money. And this is great news, right? It’s good. And I think it helps in this area. Like by, can you work on some youth issues? Or could you work on some, continue working in a bipartisan basis on mental health issues? Because this country has a lot of mental health challenges. So I think a success makes that lane broader and better lit, but I don’t think it necessarily spills over to fixing all the 800,000 other problems stacked up in Congress. But it’s good. It’s obvious, I think, not just good news but I also think it’s good news for moving ahead and doing something else good. 

    Rovner: Yeah, I would say it’s good news on its own, but it’s also potentially good news on the Let’s make other policy and fix other problems in the healthcare system. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

    OK, we are back 鈥 and back to divisive stuff. The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a case surrounding glyphosate. That’s the pesticide sold under the brand name Roundup, which Make America Healthy Again supporters and many scientists say causes, or at least contributes to, multiple types of cancers, and which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined is not carcinogenic. The case at issue concerns whether or not the maker of Roundup, Monsanto, should have included a warning label on its packaging. I’m less interested in the details of the case here, which involve whether states have the right to require labeling that the EPA does not, than the split it’s causing in the MAHA movement as the Trump administration backs the EPA’s finding that glyphosate is not carcinogenic, which MAHA supporters find to be a complete betrayal of their cause. Does this potentially have as much political oomph as the dispute over vaccines? Certainly not helping the MAHA movement be happy with the Trump administration. 

    Roubein: This has definitely opened fissures between the Make America Healthy Again movement and the Trump administration. On top of that, I think one of the things that people in the MAHA movement were particularly upset about was Trump’s executive order earlier this year to boost domestic manufacturing of glyphosate. But at the same time, we have seen the Trump administration try and make nice with some MAHA leaders, inviting them to the White House. Some of them even spoke to Trump a little bit. So you’re kind of seeing that kind of divide here with the administration also trying to placate as well. 

    Rovner: Yeah, this is sort of a fascinating political alliance that they’re on the one hand trying to protect and on the other hand trying to not allow, particularly when it comes to things like vaccines, not let it alienate people who are outside the movement, which as we have seen has turned out to be an extremely delicate dance. 

    Luthra: And we’ve talked about this before, but I think one thing we still don’t really know is just how amorphous vs. cohesive MAHA as a movement is, and also its political potency. And there are Senate primaries that are good tests of this, [Sen.] Bill Cassidy an obvious one, given his vote on RFK and his stance on vaccines broadly. But we are still many months out from knowing if Trump alienating MAHA, if Republican institutions alienating parts of the MAHA movement, actually matters. Clearly a lot of Democrats think it might. That’s why we’re seeing so many of them court this constituency. But, yeah, I just think we really need to get a better sense as to how much of this is an influence that has been maybe a little bit hyped up, even by us in the press, and how much of it is actually substantial and influential. 

    Rovner: Yeah, we know that the anti-abortion movement is powerful and turns out their voters, and when they make endorsements, when they get behind somebody or when they go against somebody, they have the money and the power and the clout and the vote to back that up. We don’t really know that yet about MAHA. I think that’s a really fair point. Joanne you wanted to add something? 

    Kenen: No I think we don’t know as much. I think that the Trump people think they’re voters and that they think they helped them in 2024. But MAHA, I agree with what both of you just said. It’s amorphous. There are people whose primary issue is vaccines, and that’s how many of us think of MAHA, but it is also about healthy food. And some things that people could find common ground are the pesticides, the chemicals. Those are things that actually had been identified more with Democratic causes or Democratic voters in the past, those, some of the environmental issues. But I think, Julie, the question you asked is right. It’s a political force, but is it a political force that’s gonna gain power or just sort of dissipate? And there’s so many other things right now changing the politics of the country. I don’t think we could possibly know, even if you took a terrific poll today and found out they were mad. We have a pretty short news cycle. 

    Rovner: Yeah, we do. We’ll see. All right. Well, meanwhile, elsewhere in the Trump administration, scientific retribution continues apace. The Justice Department this week announced the indictment of a former aide to Dr. Anthony Fauci for using his personal devices and email addresses to skirt public record laws and keep official communications private. Now this isn’t really news. The scientist, named David Morens, testified before a House hearing in 2024 and basically admitted what he did. So the question here is whether this criminal indictment is the beginning of a new effort to publicly punish those who the Trump administration accuse of unspecified wrongdoing regarding their handling of the covid pandemic. I would note that this week, obviously, we also got the indictment, again, of former FBI director Jim Comey. It’s not clear how much of this is the Justice Department trying to please President Trump and how much is sort of a new effort on this scientific front. 

    Luthra: That’s such a good question. 

    Rovner: Thank you. 

    Luthra: No, I just, I think you’re right. It’s just not clear, because the acting attorney general hasn’t been in his role for very long. We know one of the reasons he has this job is because of dissatisfaction with how Pam Bondi approached the president’s goal of going after political opponents and targets. And so maybe, in a way, the why of it doesn’t matter if it creates a perception that this war on science is, in fact, renewed or accelerated or regaining steam in some way. If that’s how people feel and what the consequences look like, then there’s obviously a chilling effect that could be even greater than what we’ve already seen. 

    Rovner: Yeah, and I would point out, it is a crime to use your personal devices to avoid public records laws. It is pretty common, but the actual indictment came so long after this. And is this the beginning of a series of, We’re gonna go punish the people who we think wronged us during the pandemic using whatever power we can find, or is this a one-off? And I guess we’ll have to see. 

    Kenen: But I think he was sort of easy pickings because he had publicly admitted it. It’s up to the courts to decide if he’s guilty of an actual crime or just not following the rules. That’s not our decision. But it’s also, he was an easy target because he had admitted it, but he had also 鈥 it’s a sore spot. It’s the China lab thing. It’s not just some study or something to do with covid. It was very specifically, there are people who believe it was engineered and a lab leak that鈥 

    Rovner: Oh, yeah, this clearly feeds into that. Right? 

    Kenen: Into that conspiracy theory, which is unproven, and we may never know the full story of how covid emerged, but that’s a political button for a certain segment of Trump supporters. 

    Rovner: Well, the administration’s ideologic purge continues as well. Late last week, the president fired all 22 members of the advisory board for the National Science Foundation. Now, the National Science Board is a bipartisan group that has advised the NSF since 1950. It is hardly full of political firebrands. Also this week, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health [Services] Administration announced it would no longer pay for test strips to see if drugs are adulterated with fentanyl or other potentially deadly substances, because it “facilitates,” air quotes, illegal drug use. Now there is a long and lively debate about whether such harm reduction policies protect lives or encourage illegal drug users to continue to use drugs, or both. But it does look kind of weird the week after the administration sought to loosen restrictions on both marijuana and hallucinogens. Yes? 

    It doesn’t feel very consistent. Let’s put it that way. Though on the one hand, No more harm reduction, but we’re going to make it easier for you to use LSD and marijuana, because Joe Rogan thinks that it can help you with PTSD]. Which maybe it can 鈥 I’m not suggesting that was a wrong decision. I’m just suggesting that it does not look very consistent on a policy level. 

    Kenen: That’s a good word, Julie. 

    Luthra: No. You’re right, I think, to highlight the Joe Rogan maybe not manosphere but podcast-adjacent world where obviously you are trying to appeal to a very specific demographic by loosening regulations on marijuana or LSD in particular. And maybe it’s as simple as a lot of the party drug stimulants don’t fit into that demographic, at the risk of being incredibly reductive, like cocaine is associated with Brat summer. Brat summer is not 鈥 right? 鈥 the Joe Rogan-adjacent cultural force. I don’t know, maybe there’s something to there that this doesn’t fit into that same policy category because of who is seen as the people who end up sort of fitting into these different drug areas. 

    Rovner: It does feel sort of overtly political, though, that going after particular groups of people who might or might not support you. Not that every, obviously, every administration is overtly political in some ways. They want to help the people who support them and not help the people who don’t support them. This just feels much more picking and choosing audiences. 

    Kenen: I think you’re right, and it’s also a shift. I think that the country made a lot of progress in, again, that bipartisan mental health push we were talking about a few minutes ago. There was a greater understanding that addiction is a disease 鈥 there’s a criminal element, it’s an illegal drug, and there’s bad people involved in that market, obviously 鈥 but that this is not entirely a criminal justice issue. This is also a mental health and health issue, and that people need treatment. So we did sort of, not 100%, but we got much better at thinking about that. Chris Christie was one of the first appointees that Trump made in his first term on that initial opioid commission who really pressed that message. And this just seems to be a sort of demographic and class for subsectors of the population, who’s the Silicon Valley people who are into psychedelics vs. who’s using quote-unquote “street” drugs. So we’ll just have to see how this plays out. 

    Roubein: Oh, I think with fentanyl strips, specifically, we’ve seen sort of a ping-pong with administrations, too. With, you’re talking about the politics, like Elinore McCance Katz, under Trump 1, who was the head of SAMHSA, opposed this. And then the Biden administration came in, and they had their drug strategy, which leaned heavily into harm reduction, which, as you mentioned duly, has been political. 

    Rovner: Going back to needle exchanges in the early 2000s. It’s always been: Do you want to make it safer? And if you do make it safer, does that deter people from stopping using illegal drugs? That’s sort of the age-old debate about harm reduction. But you also don’t want when we had the overdose crisis, particularly when fentanyl first came on the scene. Do you really want people dying of fentanyl when they could have a test strip that costs a dollar and find out it’s, like: Ooh, this thing has been cut with fentanyl. Maybe I shouldn’t take it.  

    Kenen: Right. Because if your goal is to get people into treatment and off of drugs, you can’t do that once they’re dead. 

    Rovner: That is very true. All right. Finally, this week, there is vaccine news, because there is always vaccine news these days. The decision by the Department of Health and Human Services to drop the recommendation for the birth dose of the vaccine to protect against hepatitis B could result in hundreds of cases of the disease that could have been prevented and millions of dollars in additional healthcare costs to treat liver cancer and other complications. That’s according to   in this week’s JAMA Pediatrics journal. That’s partly because not every pregnant woman gets tested before giving birth, and also because there are other ways infants can contract the virus, that people keep saying, Oh, it’s only sexually transmitted. It’s not only sexually transmitted. There is such a thing as household transmission. I don’t suppose this study is going to change anybody’s mind who wanted the change on the hepatitis B vaccine in the first place, though, will it? 

    Roubein: I think we’ve seen people in their camps on this one. The medical establishment, even some Republicans, Sen. Cassidy, etc., had been upset about this decision. 

    Rovner: Yes, Sen. Cassidy, who is a liver specialist and is particularly unhappy with this decision, and yet, you know, science. So we will see if this also plays out. 

    All right. That is this week’s news. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, why don’t you start us off this week? 

    Luthra: Mine is from The Atlantic and 麻豆女优 Health News by the wonderful Elisabeth Rosenthal. The headline is “.” And I would very much say that you should read this in installments, because it is very, very difficult to get through. It’s about how her husband died in the emergency room, and just the quality of care that he got, and for how long he was just boarded and 鈥 right? 鈥 kept without really getting the appropriate care, and how they knew that this was going to happen, because it had happened so many times and they’d gone to the ER. And she uses her experience as a journalist to also highlight how the problem of boarding has actually gotten a lot worse, which I didn’t realize, and we’ve all known for a long time that boarding is terrible, and being in the emergency department is actually really bad for you a lot of the time, even though it’s supposed to be a place for people in the midst of health crises. And I think there’s just a really effective blend of what her family’s story is and what the policy problems are. And 鈥 right? 鈥 by the end she realizes the only way to get appropriate care for her husband is to call somebody who she knows and see if they can get special treatment, which it just kind of is the way it is, I think, in a lot of these emergency departments. And I hope that when people read this and think about the experiences of their loved ones getting emergency care, they bring us to something where actually we can fix this. Because it feels like it’s something that, speaking of things that are easy to fix, everyone should want to. 

    Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. It is quite the story. Rachel. 

    Roubein: My extra credit this week, the headline is “Big Companies Position Themselves for Payday From $50B Federal Rural Health Fund,” by 麻豆女优 Health News’ Sarah Jane Tribble. She writes about the $50 billion pot of money Congress earmarked for rural healthcare in America, which came amid Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill last summer, which also cut money to Medicaid. And Sarah, she writes about the tussle to get funds, which is kind of a persistent problem that we see in healthcare, and how small community healthcare providers may find they are sharing the billions with, as she called it, “an army of corporate giants before it reaches their patients.” And she talks about sort of a lack of digital infrastructure, which is generally an issue at rural hospitals, but how some state plans showed that a “heavy dose” of spending will go to companies that “increase the use of electronic health records, strengthen cybersecurity, and improve state and health system technology platforms.” I liked the story because I think it’s really interesting to see this fight over how to get funding for your healthcare system. 

    Rovner: And making the point that they’re taking money away from everybody. And they say they’re giving back. First of all, they’re taking a trillion, $900 billion out and giving $50 billion back, so it doesn’t make up for the cuts. But also that the money that they’re giving back isn’t going to the places where they’re doing the cutting, which I think is sort of the broader point. Sorry. Go ahead. Joanne. 

    Kenen: This is from ProPublica, by Anna Clark: “.” Basically, there’s now a new thread of disinformation that solar power is bad for us, not the power but that the process of capturing the sun’s power, that radiation is blocking things, and the noise, that there’s sort of, quote, “visual pollution.” So anyway, it’s interfering with the growth of, the spread of solar power in Michigan, which is one of the states that had been sort of 鈥 pretty far north and pretty cold 鈥 I hadn’t realized it was one of the targeted states for a big push for solar energy, but it is. We’ve seen health disinformation about pretty much everything, and the latest is the sun. 

    Rovner: Yeah, really interesting story. My extra credit this week is from The New York Times, by Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller, and it’s called “.” The aide in question, Calley Means, is the brother of the wellness influencer nominated to serve as surgeon general, Casey Means. And now Calley Means is a full-time regular employee in the federal government. But for most of last year, when he was advising HHS Secretary Kennedy as a, quote, “special government employee,” he also continued to hold a large stake in the health company Truemed, which profits from people using money in their health savings accounts to pay for medical expenses insurance doesn’t cover. According to the story, that includes things like $10,000 saunas and radiation-blocking underwear. And health savings accounts were dramatically expanded last year in the Republican budget bill. Now, Calley Means says he didn’t work on HSA policy, but it’s hard to ignore just all the appearances of conflicts in this administration. And just because there are so many of them, shouldn’t really normalize it. So this has been really good shoe leather reporting here. 

    OK, that is this week’s show. Before we go, some well-deserved kudos to some of our podcast panelists. [Bloomberg’s] Anna Edney has been named a winner of the annual NIHCM [National Institute for Health Care Management] health awards for her work on  about the high cost and often limited benefit of new cancer drugs, and [The Washington Post’s] Lauren Weber and our own Shefali Luthra here have been named finalists for the University of Michigan’s Livingston Award for young journalists, along with 麻豆女优 Health News’ Aneri Pattani. I’m not kidding when I say we let you hear from the best and smartest reporters covering healthcare. 

    As always, thanks to our editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Yang. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts, as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X, , or on Bluesky, . Where are you guys hanging these days? Joanne. 

    Kenen: On  and . 

    Rovner: Rachel. 

    Roubein: On X, . Bluesky, . 

    Rovner: Shefali. 

    Luthra: On Bluesky, . 

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

    Credits

    Francis Ying Audio producer
    Stephanie Stapleton Editor

    Click here to find all our podcasts.

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

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

    This <a target="_blank" href="/podcast/what-the-health-444-hospital-pricing-congress-988-suicide-april-30-2026/">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=2232481&amp;ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0&quot; style="width:1px;height:1px;">]]>
    2232481