{"id":1619,"date":"2023-08-12T10:55:36","date_gmt":"2023-08-12T10:55:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/?p=1619"},"modified":"2023-08-12T10:55:36","modified_gmt":"2023-08-12T10:55:36","slug":"on-abortion-rights-ohio-is-the-new-kansas-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/?p=1619","title":{"rendered":"On Abortion Rights, Ohio Is the New Kansas"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"republish-content\">\n<h3>\n\t\tThe Host\t<\/h3>\n<p>\tJulie Rovner<br \/>\n\tKFF Health News<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/jrovner\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t@jrovner\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/author\/julie-rovner\/\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\tRead Julie&#8217;s stories.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\tJulie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News\u2019 weekly health policy news podcast, \u201cWhat the Health?\u201d A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book \u201cHealth Care Politics and Policy A to Z,\u201d now in its third edition.\t\t<\/p>\n<p>Ohio voters \u2014 in a rare August election \u2014 turned out in unexpectedly high numbers to defeat a ballot measure that would have made it harder to pass an abortion-rights constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. The election was almost a year to the day after Kansas voters also stunned observers by supporting abortion rights in a ballot measure.<\/p>\n<p>Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans without health insurance dropped to an all-time low of 7.7% in early 2023, reported the Department of Health and Human Services. But that\u2019s not likely to continue, as states boot from the Medicaid program millions of people who received coverage under special eligibility rules during the pandemic.<\/p>\n<p>This week\u2019s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.<\/p>\n<h3>\n\t\tPanelists\t<\/h3>\n<p>\tEmmarie Huetteman<br \/>\n\tKFF Health News<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/emmarieDC\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t@emmarieDC\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/author\/Emmarie-Huetteman\/\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\tRead Emmarie&#8217;s stories\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\tJoanne Kenen<br \/>\n\tJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/JoanneKenen\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t@JoanneKenen\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/staff\/joanne-kenen\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\tRead Joanne&#8217;s stories\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\tRachel Roubein<br \/>\n\tThe Washington Post<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/rachel_roubein\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\t@rachel_roubein\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t<a href=\"https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/people\/rachel-roubein\/\"><br \/>\n\t\t\t\tRead Rachel&#8217;s stories\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Among the takeaways from this week\u2019s episode:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>It should not have come as much of a surprise that Ohio voters sided with abortion-rights advocates. Abortion rights so far have prevailed in every state that has considered a related ballot measure since the Supreme Court overturned <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em>, including in politically conservative states like Kentucky and Montana.<\/li>\n<li>Moderate Republicans and independents joined Democrats in defeating the Ohio ballot question. Opponents of the measure \u2014 which would have increased the threshold of votes needed to approve state constitutional amendments to 60% from a simple majority \u2014 had not only cited its ramifications for the upcoming vote on statewide abortion access, but also for other issues, like raising the minimum wage.<\/li>\n<li>A Texas case about exceptions under the state\u2019s abortion ban awaits the input of the state\u2019s Supreme Court. But the painful personal experiences shared by the plaintiffs \u2014 notable in part because such private stories were once scarce in public discourse \u2014 pressed abortion opponents to address the consequences for women, not fetuses.<\/li>\n<li>The uninsured rate hit a record low earlier this year, a milestone that has since been washed away by states\u2019 efforts to strip newly ineligible Medicaid beneficiaries from their rolls as the covid-19 public health emergency ended.<\/li>\n<li>The promise of diabetes drugs to assist in weight loss has attracted plenty of attention, yet with their high price tags and coverage issues, one thorny obstacle to access remains: How could we, individually and as a society, afford this?<\/li>\n<li>Lawmakers are asking more questions about the nature of nonprofit, or tax-exempt, hospitals and the care they provide to their communities. But they still face an uphill battle in challenging the powerful hospital industry.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Also this week, Rovner interviews Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, about how the \u201cMedicaid unwinding\u201d is going as millions have their eligibility for coverage rechecked.<\/p>\n<p>Plus, for \u201cextra credit\u201d the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:<\/p>\n<p><strong>Julie Rovner:<\/strong> KFF Health News\u2019 \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/article\/how-the-texas-trial-changed-the-story-of-abortion-rights-in-america\/\">How the Texas Trial Changed the Story of Abortion Rights in America<\/a>,\u201d by Sarah Varney.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Joanne Kenen:<\/strong> Fox News\u2019 \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/health\/male-health-care-leaders-complete-breastfeeding-challenge-texas-hospital-huge-eye-opener\">Male Health Care Leaders Complete \u2018Simulated Breastfeeding Challenge\u2019 at Texas Hospital: \u2018Huge Eye-Opener\u2019<\/a>,\u201d by Melissa Rudy.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rachel Roubein:<\/strong> Stat\u2019s \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.statnews.com\/2023\/08\/08\/hospitals-california-boston-pediatric-neuroarchitecture-design\/\">From Windows to Wall Art, Hospitals Use Virtual Reality to Design More Inclusive Rooms for Kids<\/a>,\u201d by Mohana Ravindranath.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Emmarie Huetteman:<\/strong> KFF Health News\u2019 \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/article\/the-nih-ices-a-research-project-is-it-self-censorship\/\">The NIH Ices a Research Project. Is It Self-Censorship?<\/a>\u201d by Darius Tahir.<\/p>\n<p>Also mentioned in this week\u2019s episode:<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\tclick to open the transcript\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\tTranscript: On Abortion Rights, Ohio Is the New Kansas\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n<p><strong>KFF Health News\u2019 \u2018What the Health?\u2019<\/strong><strong>Episode Title:<\/strong> On Abortion Rights, Ohio Is the New Kansas<strong>Episode Number:<\/strong> 309<strong>Published:<\/strong> Aug. 10, 2023<\/p>\n<p><em><strong>[Editor\u2019s note:<\/strong><\/em><em> This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]<\/em><em\/><\/p>\n<p><strong>Julie R<\/strong><strong>ovner:<\/strong> Hello and welcome back to \u201cWhat the Health?\u201d I\u2019m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I\u2019m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We\u2019re taping a day early this week, on Wednesday, Aug. 9, at 3:30 p.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Joanne Kenen:<\/strong> Hey, everybody.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rachel Roubein:<\/strong> Hi, everybody.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> And my colleague and editor here at KFF Health News Emmarie Huetteman.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Emmarie Huetteman:<\/strong> Hey, everyone. Glad to be here.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> So later in this episode, we\u2019ll have my interview with Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. She\u2019s got her pulse on how that big post-public health emergency \u201cMedicaid unwinding\u201d is going. And she\u2019ll share some of that with us. But first, this week\u2019s news. I guess the biggest news of the week is out of Ohio, which, in almost a rerun of what happened in Kansas almost exactly a year ago, voters soundly defeated a ballot issue that would have made it harder for other voters this fall to reverse the legislature\u2019s strict abortion ban. If you\u2019re having trouble following that, so did they in Ohio. <em>[laughs]<\/em> This time, the fact that the abortion rights side won wasn\u2019t as much of a surprise because every statewide abortion ballot question has gone for the abortion rights side since <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em> was overturned last year. What do we take away from Ohio? Other than it looked a lot like \u2026 the split looked a lot like Kansas. It was almost 60-40.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> It shows that there\u2019s a coalition around this issue that is bigger than Democrat or Republican. Ohio was the classic swing state that has turned into a conservative Republican-voting state \u2014 not on this issue. This was clearly independents, moderate Republicans joined Democrats to \u2026 60-40, roughly, is a pretty big win. Yes, we\u2019ve seen it in other states. It\u2019s still a pretty big win.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Roubein:<\/strong> I agree. And I think one of my colleagues, Patrick Marley, and I spent some time just driving around and traveling Ohio in July. And one of the things that we did find is that \u2014 this ballot measure to increase the threshold for constitutional amendments is 60% \u2014 it had in some, in many, ways turned into a proxy war over abortion. But, in some ways, both sides also didn\u2019t talk about abortion when they were, you know, canvassing different voters. You know, they use different tools in the toolbox. I was following around someone from Ohio Right to Life and, you know, he very much said, \u201cAbortion is the major issue to me.\u201d But, you know, they tried to kind of bring together the side that supported this. Other issues like legalizing marijuana and raising the minimum wage, and, you know, the abortion rights side was very much a part of, you know, the opposition here. But when some canvassers went out \u2014 my colleague Patrick had traveled and followed some, and some, you know, kind of focused on other issues like, you know, voters having a voice in policy and keeping a simple majority rule.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Yeah, I think it\u2019s important \u2014 for those who have not been following this as closely as we have \u2014 what the ballot measure was was to make future ballot measures \u2014 and they said they were not going to have them in August anymore, which, this was the last one \u2014 in order to amend the constitution by referendum, you would need a 60% majority rather than a 50% majority. And just coincidentally, there is an abortion ballot measure on Ohio\u2019s ballot for November, and it\u2019s polling at about 58%. But, yes, this would have applied to everything, and it was defeated.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> And it\u2019s part of a larger trend. It began before the overturning of <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em>. Over the last couple of years, you\u2019ve seen conservative states move to tighten these rules for ballot initiatives. And that\u2019s because more liberal positions have been winning. I mean, Medicaid, the Medicaid expansion on the ballot, has won, and won big. Only one was even close \u2026<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> In very red states!<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> They often won very big in a number of very, very conservative states, places like Idaho and Nebraska. So, you know, there\u2019s always been \u2026 the conventional wisdom is that, you know, the political parties are more extreme than many voters, that the Democratic Party is for the left and the Republican Party is for the right. And there are a lot of people who identify with one party or the other but aren\u2019t \u2026 who are more moderate or, in this case, more liberal on Medicaid. And Medicaid \u2026 what was it, seven states? I think it\u2019s seven. Seven really conservative states. And then the abortion has won in every single state. And there\u2019s a little bit of conversation and it\u2019s \u2026 very early. And I don\u2019t know if it\u2019s going to go anywhere, but if I\u2019ve heard it and written a bit about it, conservative lawmakers have heard about it, too, which is there are groups interested in trying to get some gun safety initiatives on ballots. So that\u2019s complicated. And it may not happen. But they\u2019re seeing, I mean, that\u2019s the classic example of both a criminal justice and a public health issue \u2014 so we can talk about it \u2014 a classic example where the country is much more in the center.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Well, let us move to Texas, because that\u2019s where we always end up when we talk about abortion. You may remember that lawsuit where several women who nearly died from pregnancy complications sued the state to clarify when medical personnel are able to intercede without being subjected to fines and\/or jail sentences. Well, the women won, at least for a couple of days. A Texas district judge who heard the case ruled in their favor, temporarily blocking the Texas ban for women with pregnancy complications. But then the state appealed, and a Texas appeals court blocked the lower-court judge\u2019s blocking of part of the ban. If you didn\u2019t follow that, it just means that legally nothing has changed in Texas. And now the case goes to the Texas Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority. So we pretty much know what\u2019s going to happen. But whether these women ultimately win or lose their case may not be the most important thing. And, to explain why I\u2019m going to do my extra credit early this week. It\u2019s by my KFF Health News colleague Sarah Varney. It\u2019s called \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/article\/how-the-texas-trial-changed-the-story-of-abortion-rights-in-america\/\">How the Texas Trial Changed the Story of Abortion Rights in America<\/a>.\u201d She writes that this trial was particularly significant because it put abortion foes on the defensive by graphically depicting harm to women of abortion bans \u2014 rather than to fetuses. And it\u2019s also about the power of people publicly telling their stories. I\u2019ve done a lot of stories over the years about women whose very wanted pregnancies went very wrong, very late. And, I have to tell you, it\u2019s been hard to find these women. And when you find them, it\u2019s been really hard to get them to talk to a journalist. So, the fact that we\u2019re seeing more and more people actually come out publicly, you know, may do for this issue what, you know, perhaps what gay rights, you know, what people coming out as gay did for gay marriage? I don\u2019t know. What do you guys think?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Well, I think these stories have been really compelling, but they\u2019re also, they\u2019re the most dramatic and maybe easiest to push back. But it\u2019s, you know, there\u2019s a whole lot of other reasons women want abortions. And the focus \u2014 and it\u2019s life and death, so the focus, quite rightfully, has to be on these really extreme cases. But that\u2019s not \u2026 it\u2019s still in some ways shifting attention from the larger political discussion about choice and rights. But, clearly, some of these states, we\u2019ve seen so many stories of women who, their lives are at stake, their doctors know it, and they just don\u2019t think they have the legal power; they\u2019re afraid of the consequences if they\u2019re second-guessed. There are tremendous financial and imprisonment [risks] for a doctor who is deemed to have done an unnecessary abortion. And this idea that\u2019s taken hold \u2026 among some conservatives is that there\u2019s never a need for a medical abortion. And that\u2019s just not true.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> And yet, I mean, what this trial and a lot of things in Sarah\u2019s piece too point out is that that line between miscarriage and abortion is really kind of fuzzy in a lot of cases. You know, if you go to the hospital with a miscarriage and they\u2019re going to say, \u201cWell, did you initiate this miscarriage?\u201d And we\u2019ve seen women thrown in jail before for losing pregnancies, with them saying, \u201cYou know, you threw yourself down the stairs to end this pregnancy.\u201d That actually happened, I think it was in Indiana. So this is \u2014<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> And miscarriage is very common.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> That was what I was saying.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Early miscarriage is very common. Very, very common.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Huetteman:<\/strong> One of the things that\u2019s so striking about the past year, since <em>Dobbs<\/em> overturned <em>Roe v. Wade<\/em> ,is that we\u2019ve seen this kind of national education about what pregnancy is and how dangerous it can be and how care needs to really be flexible to meet those sorts of challenges. And this actually got me thinking about something that another familiar voice on this podcast, Alice Miranda Ollstein, and some colleagues <a href=\"https:\/\/www.politico.com\/news\/2023\/08\/08\/ohio-takeaways-voters-abortion-00110411\">wrote this morning<\/a> about the Ohio outcome, which is they pointed out that the anti-abortion movement really hasn\u2019t evolved in terms of the arguments that they\u2019re making in the past year about why abortion should continue to be less and less available. Meanwhile, we\u2019ve got these, like, really incredible, really emotional, moving stories from women who have experienced this firsthand. And that\u2019s a hard message to overcome when you\u2019re trying to reach voters in particular.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> And it\u2019s interesting; both sides like to take \u2014 you know, they all go to the hardest cases. So, for years and years, the anti-abortion side has, you know, has gone to the hardest cases. And that\u2019s why they talk about abortion in the ninth month up till birth, which isn\u2019t a thing, but they talk about it. And you know, now the abortion rights side has some hard cases now that abortions are harder to get. Well, while we are on the subject of Texas lawsuits, States Newsroom \u2014 and thank you for sending this my way, Joanne \u2014 has a story reporting that the publisher of the scientific paper that both the lower court judge and the appeals court judges used to conclude that the abortion drug mifepristone causes frequent complications \u2014 it does not \u2014 is being reviewed for potential scientific misconduct. The paper comes from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which is the research arm of the anti-abortion group the Susan B. Anthony List. Sage, which is the publisher of the journal that the paper appeared in, has posted something called an expression of concern, saying that the publisher and editor, quote, \u201cwere alerted to potential issues regarding the representation of data in the article and author conflicts of interest. SAGE has contacted the authors of this article and an investigation is underway.\u201d This was sort of a whistleblower by a pharmacist who looked at the way the data in this paper was put together and says, \u201cNo, that\u2019s really very misleading.\u201d I don\u2019t think I\u2019ve ever seen this, though; I\u2019ve never seen a scientific paper that\u2019s now being questioned for its political bent, a peer-reviewed scientific paper. I mean, this could change a lot of things, couldn\u2019t it?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Well, not if people decide that they still think it\u2019s true. I mean, look at \u2014 you know, the vaccine autism paper was retracted. That wasn\u2019t initially political. It\u2019s become more political over the years; it wasn\u2019t political at the time. That was retracted. And people have been jumping up and down screaming, \u201cIt was retracted! It was retracted!\u201d And, you know, millions of people still believe it. So, I mean, legally, I\u2019m not sure how much it changes. I mean, I thought we had all heard that there were flaws in this study. This article was good because I hadn\u2019t been aware of how deeply flawed and in all the many ways it was flawed. And also the whistleblower yarn was interesting. I\u2019m not sure how much it changes anything.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Well, I\u2019m thinking not in terms of this case. And by the way, I think we didn\u2019t say this, that the study was of emergency room visits by women who\u2019d had either surgical or medical abortions. And the contention was that medical abortions were more dangerous than surgical abortions because more women ended up in the emergency room. But as several people have pointed out, more people ended up in the emergency room after medical abortions because there have been so many more medical abortions over the years. I mean, you don\u2019t actually have to be a data scientist to see some of the problems.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Right. And some of them also weren\u2019t that \u2014 really, were nervous, and they didn\u2019t know what was normal and they went to the ER because they were scared and they really were safe. They were not \u2014 they didn\u2019t need \u2014 you know, they just weren\u2019t sure how much pain and discomfort or bleeding you\u2019re supposed to have. And they went and they were reassured and were sent home. So it\u2019s not even that they really had a medical emergency or that they were harmed.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Or that they had a complication.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Right. There were many flaws pointed out with this research.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> But my broader question is, I mean, if people are going to start questioning the politics of scientific papers, I mean, I could see the other side going after this.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Well, there\u2019s climate science, too, that\u2019s bad. I mean, I don\u2019t think this is actually unique. I think it\u2019s egregious. But there were studies minimizing the risk of smoking, which was also a political business, commercial. Climate is certainly political. I mean, I think this is sort of the most politicized and most acute example, but I don\u2019t think it\u2019s the only one.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Roubein:<\/strong> And I think, Julie, as you\u2019d mentioned, I think when [U.S. District Judge] Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas came down with his decision \u2014 you know, for instance, there are media outlets \u2014 that my colleagues at the Post did a story just kind of unpacking some of the kind of flaws and some of the studies that were used to make, you know, a court decision.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Yeah, to give the judge what he assumes to be evidence that this is a dangerous drug. So it\u2019s \u2014 yeah.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Which he came in believing, we know, from the profiles of him and his background.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Right. All right, well, let us move on. The official Census Bureau estimate of how many people lack health insurance won\u2019t be out until next month. But the Department of Health and Human Services is out with a report based on that other big federal population survey that shows the uninsured rate early this year was at its lowest level since records started being kept, which I think was in the 1980s: 7.7%. Now, that\u2019s clearly going to be the high point for the fewest number of people uninsured, at least for a while, because clearly not all of the millions of people who are losing or about to lose their Medicaid coverage are going to end up with other insurance. But I remember \u2014 Joanne, you will, too \u2014 when the rate was closer to 18% \u2026 was a huge news story, and the thing that triggered the whole health reform debate in the first place. I\u2019m surprised that there\u2019s been so little attention paid to this.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Because, you know \u2026 [unintelligible] \u2026 it\u2019s so yesterday. And also, as you alluded to, you know, we\u2019re in the middle of the Medicaid unwinding. So the numbers are going up again now. And we don\u2019t know. We know that it\u2019s a couple of million people. I think 3 million might be the last \u2014<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> I think it\u2019s 4 [million], it\u2019s up to 4.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Four, OK. And some of them will get covered again and some of them will find other sources of coverage. But right now, there\u2019s an uptick, not a downtick.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Roubein:<\/strong> And I think when you look at just, like, estimates of what the insured and the uninsured rates would be in 2030, like, the CMS\u2019 [Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services] analysis, one of the other questions is, you know, whether the enhanced Obamacare subsidies continue past 2025. So there\u2019s Medicaid and then there\u2019s also some other kind of question marks and cliffs coming up on how and whether it will fluctuate.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> No, it\u2019s worth watching. And remember, when the census numbers come out, those will be for 2022. Well, moving on, we have two stories this week looking at the potential cost of those breakthrough obesity drugs, but through two very different lenses. One is from my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan, details how the makers of the current \u201cit\u201d drug, Ozempic, which is Novo Nordisk, in an effort to get the votes to lift the Medicare payment ban on weight loss drugs, <a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/article\/seeking-medicare-coverage-for-weight-loss-drugs-pharma-giant-courts-black-influencers\/\">is quietly contributing<\/a> large amounts of money to groups like the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. It\u2019s sort of a backdoor lobbying that\u2019s pretty age-old, but that doesn\u2019t mean it doesn\u2019t work. The other story, by Elaine Chen at Stat, looks at how health insurers are <a href=\"https:\/\/www.statnews.com\/2023\/08\/03\/ozempic-wegovy-obesity-weight-loss-drugs-insurers\/\">pushing back hard<\/a> against the off-label use of diabetes medications that also work to help people lose weight. They\u2019re doing things like allowing the more expensive weight loss drugs only if people have tried and failed other methods or disallowing them if the other methods had been slightly successful. So, if you take a lesser drug and you lose enough weight, they won\u2019t let you take the better drug because, look, you lost weight on the other drug. We\u2019ve talked about this, obviously, before: These drugs, on the one hand, have the potential to make a lot of people both healthier and happier. There\u2019s a study out this week that shows that Mounjaro, the Eli Lilly drug, actually reduces heart disease by 20%.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> In people who have heart disease.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Right, in people who have heart disease.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> It\u2019s not lowering everybody\u2019s risk.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> But still, I mean, everybody\u2019s \u2014 well, I mean, there are medical indications for using these drugs for weight loss. But if everybody who wants them could get them, it would literally break the bank. Nobody can afford to give everybody who\u2019s eligible for these drugs these drugs. Is the winner here going to be the side with the most effective lobbying, or is that too cynical?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Huetteman:<\/strong> Isn\u2019t that always the winner? Speaking of cynical.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Yeah, in health care.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Well, I mean, I also think there\u2019s questions about, like, these drugs clearly are really wonderful for people who they were designed for; you don\u2019t have to be on insulin. They\u2019re having not just weight loss and diabetes. There are apparently cardiac and other \u2014 you know, these are probably really good drugs. But there are a lot of people who do not have diabetes or heart disease who want them because they want to lose 20 pounds. And some of them are being told you have to take it for the rest of your life. I mean, I just know this anecdotally, and I\u2019m sure we all know it anecdotally.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Right. It\u2019s like statins.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Yes.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Or blood pressure medication. If you stop taking your blood pressure medication, your blood pressure goes back up.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Right. So, I mean, should the goal for the weight loss be, \u201cOK, this is going to help you take off that weight and then you\u2019re going to have to maintain it through diet and exercise and healthy lifestyle,\u201d blah, blah, blah, which is hard for people. We know that. Or are we putting healthy people on a really expensive drug that changes an awful lot of things about their body indefinitely? We don\u2019t have safety data for lifelong use in otherwise healthy people. So, you know, I\u2019m always a little worried because even the best clinical trial is small compared to the entire \u2014 it\u2019s small and it\u2019s time-limited. And maybe these drugs are going to turn out to be absolutely phenomenal and we\u2019re going to all live another 20 healthy years. But maybe not, you know. Or maybe they\u2019re going to be really great for a certain subpopulation, but, you know, we\u2019re not going to want to put it in the water supply. So, I still think that there\u2019s this sort of pell-mell rush. And I think it\u2019s partly because there\u2019s a lot of money at stake. And it\u2019s also, like, most people who are overweight have tried to lose it, and it\u2019s very difficult to lose and maintain weight. So, you know, people want an easier way to do it. And I think the other thing is right now it\u2019s an injection. There are side effects for some people on discomfort. There probably will be an oral version, a pill, sometime fairly soon, which will open \u2014 you know, there are people who don\u2019t want to take a shot who would take a pill. It also means you might be able to tell \u2014 I mean, I don\u2019t know the science of the pills, but it would make sense to me that you could take a lower dose, you know, maybe ease into it without the side effects, or could you stay on it longer with fewer problems? I mean, we\u2019re just the very beginning of this, but it\u2019s a huge amount of money.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Yeah. You could see \u2014 I mean, my big question, though, is why can\u2019t we force the drugmakers to lower the price? That would, if not solve the problem, make it a lot better. I mean, really, we\u2019re going to have to wait until there is generic competition?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> It\u2019s not just this.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Yeah.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> I mean, it\u2019s all sorts of cancer treatments and it\u2019s hepatitis treatments. And it\u2019s, I mean, there\u2019s a lot of expensive drugs out there. So, this one just has a lot of demand because it makes you skinny.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Well, that was the thing. We went through this with the hepatitis C drugs, which were really super expensive. It\u2019s much more like that.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Well, they seemed super expensive at the time \u2014<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Not so much anymore.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> \u2014 but maybe for a thousand dollars, in retrospect.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> All right. Well, let\u2019s move on. So, speaking of powerful lobbies, let\u2019s talk about hospitals. Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren \u2014 now, there is an unlikely couple \u2014 are among those asking the IRS to more carefully examine tax-exempt hospitals to make sure they\u2019re actually benefiting the community in exchange for not paying taxes, which is supposed to be the deal. Now, Sen. Grassley has been on this particular hobbyhorse for many, many years, I think probably more than 20, but not much ever seems to come of this. I can\u2019t tell you how many workshops I\u2019ve been to on, you know, how to measure community benefits that tax-exempt hospitals are providing. Any inkling that this time is going to be any different?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Roubein:<\/strong> Well, hospitals don\u2019t tend to be sort of the losers. They try and kind of frame themselves as, like, \u201cWe\u2019re your sort of friendly neighborhood hospital,\u201d and every \u2014 I mean, every congressman, most congressmen have, you know, hospitals in their district. So they they get lobbied a lot, though, you know \u2014 I mean, this is a different issue, but particularly on the House side, hospitals are facing site-neutral payments, which if that actually went through Congress would be a loss. So yeah, but lawmakers have found it in general hard to take on the hospital industry.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Yeah, very much so.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> Yeah. I mean, I think that we think of nonprofits and for-profits as, they\u2019re different, but they\u2019re not as different as we think they are, in that, you know, nonprofits are getting a tax break and they have to reinvest their profits. But it doesn\u2019t mean they\u2019re not making a lot of money. Some of them are. I mean, some of them have, you know, we\u2019ve all walked into fancy nonprofits with, you know, fancy art and marble floors and so on and so forth. And we\u2019ve all been in nonprofits that are barely keeping their doors open. So it\u2019s your tax status. It\u2019s not really, you know, your ethical status or the quality of care. I mean, there\u2019s good nonprofits, there\u2019s good for-profits. You know, this whole thing is like, if I were a hospital, I would be getting this huge tax break, and what am I doing to deserve it? And that\u2019s the question.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> And I think the argument is, you know, that the 7.7% uninsured we were talking about, that hospitals are supposed to be providing care as part of their community benefit that the federal government now is ending up paying for. I think that\u2019s sort of the frustration. If nonprofit hospitals were doing what they were supposed to do, it would cost federal and state governments less money, which always surprises me because this is not gone after more. I mean, Grassley has spent his whole career working on various types of government fraud. So this is totally in line for him. But it\u2019s never just seemed to be a big priority for any administration.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Huetteman:<\/strong> There\u2019s a little bit of an X factor here. Look at the fact that Grassley and Warren are talking about this publicly now. Maybe I\u2019m just really optimistic from all the journalism we\u2019ve been doing about projects like \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/tag\/bill-of-the-month\/\">Bill of the Month<\/a>.\u201d But the reality is that a lot of people are now seeing reporting that\u2019s showing to them what nonprofit hospitals are actually doing when it comes to pursuing patients who don\u2019t pay bills. And what it means to have community benefit comes into question a lot when you talk about wage garnishment, suing patients who are low-income for their medical debt. These are things that journalists have uncovered over and over again, happening at \u2014 ding, ding, ding \u2014 nonprofit hospitals. It\u2019s harder to argue that hospitals are just doing their best for people when you have these stories of poor people who are losing their homes over unpaid medical bills, for instance. And I think that right now, when we\u2019re in this political moment where health care costs are so, so potent to people and so important, I mean, could we see that this will actually be more effective, that we\u2019re heading towards something that\u2019s more effective? Maybe.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Well, repeats the journalist, as we all are, the power of storytelling. Definitely the public is primed. I imagine that\u2019s why they\u2019re doing it now. We\u2019ll see what comes of it.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> think the public is primed for bad practices. I\u2019m not sure how many patients understand if the hospital they go to is a nonprofit or a for-profit. I think the public understands that everything in health care costs too much and that there are bad actors and greed. There\u2019s a difference between profit and greed, and I think many people would say that we\u2019re now in an era of greed. And not everybody in the health care sector \u2014 before anybody calls us up and shouts, \u201cNot everybody who provides care is greedy\u201d \u2014 but we\u2019ve seen, you know, it is clearly out there. You know, you had Zeke Emanuel on a couple of weeks ago. Remember what he said, that, you know, 10 years ago, some people still liked their health care and now nobody likes their health care, rich or poor.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Yeah, he\u2019s right. All right. Well, that is this week\u2019s news. Now, we\u2019ll play my interview with Kate McEvoy of the National Association of Medicaid Directors about how the Medicaid unwinding is going. And one note before you listen: Kate frequently refers to the federal CMCS, which is not a misspeak; it stands for the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, which is the branch of CMS, the Centers for Medicare &amp; Medicaid Services, that deals with Medicaid. So, here\u2019s the interview:<\/p>\n<p>I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, which is pretty much exactly what the name says, a group where state Medicaid officials can share information and ideas. Kate, welcome to \u201cWhat the Health?\u201d<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kate McEvoy:<\/strong> Good afternoon. Thanks for having me.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Obviously, the Medicaid unwinding, which we have talked about a lot on the podcast, is Topic A for your members right now. Remind us again which Medicaid recipients are having their coverage eligibility rechecked? It\u2019s not just those in the expansion group from the Affordable Care Act, right?<\/p>\n<p><strong>McEvoy:<\/strong> It\u2019s not, no. Each and every person served by the country nationwide has to be reevaluated from an eligibility standpoint this year.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> What do we know about how it\u2019s going? We\u2019re seeing lots of reports that suggest the vast majority of people losing coverage are for paperwork reasons, not because they\u2019ve been found to be no longer eligible. I know you recently surveyed your members. What are they telling you about this?<\/p>\n<p><strong>McEvoy:<\/strong> So, I first want to say this is an unprecedented task and it\u2019s obviously historically significant for everyone served by the program. The volume of the work, and also the complexity, makes it a challenging task for all states and territories. But what we are seeing to date is a few things. First, we have seen an incredible effort on the part of states and territories to saturate really every means of communicating with their membership, really getting out that message around connecting with the programs, especially if an individual has moved during the period of the pandemic, which is very typical for people served by Medicaid. So that saturation of messaging and use of new means of connecting with people, like texting, really does represent a tremendous advance for the Medicaid program that has traditionally relied on a lot of complex, formal, legal notices to people. So that seems like a very positive thing. What we are seeing, and this is not unexpected, is that, you know, for reasons related to complex life circumstances and competing considerations, many people are not responding to those notices, no matter how we are transmitting those messages. And so that is a piece that is of great interest and concern to all of us, notably Medicaid directors wanting to make sure that eligible folks do not lose coverage simply because they are not responsive to the requests for more information. So we\u2019re at a point where we\u2019re beyond that initial push around messaging and now are really focused on means of protecting people who remain eligible, either through automatic review of their eligibility \u2014 the ex parte process \u2014 or by restoring them through such means as reconsideration. That\u2019s really the main focus right now.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> And there\u2019s that 90-day reconsideration window. Is that \u2026 how does that work?<\/p>\n<p><strong>McEvoy:<\/strong> So the federal law gives this period of 90 days to families and children within which they can be renewed with very little effort, essentially removing the responsibility to complete a new application. We also have long-standing help to people called \u201cpresumptive eligibility.\u201d So if someone goes to a federally qualified health center or, more unfortunately, goes to the hospital, many of those types of providers can restore someone\u2019s eligibility. So those are important protective pieces. We also know from the survey that you mentioned of our membership that many states and territories are extending those reconsideration protections to all coverage groups \u2014 also including older adults and people with disabilities.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> So are there any states that are doing anything that\u2019s different and innovative? I remember when CHIP [the federal Children\u2019s Health Insurance Program] was being stood up \u2014 and boy, that was a long time ago, like 1999 \u2014 South Carolina put flyers in pizza boxes, and some other state put flyers in sneaker boxes for back-to-school stuff. Are there better ways to maybe get ahold of these people?<\/p>\n<p><strong>McEvoy:<\/strong> So I think the answer is: a lot of different channels. Our colleagues in Louisiana have a partnership with Family Dollar stores to essentially feature this information on receipts. There\u2019s a lot of work at pharmacy counters. Some of the big chain pharmacies have QR codes and other means of prompting people around their Medicaid eligibility. There\u2019s going to be a big push for the back-to-school effort. And I think CMS and states are really interested, particularly in ensuring that children do not lose coverage even if their parents have regained employment and they\u2019re no longer eligible. Another thing that\u2019s going on is a lot of innovation in the means of enabling access to information. So many states have put in place personal apps through which people can track their own eligibility. There\u2019s interest and some uptake of the so-called pizza-tracker function \u2014 so you can kind of see where you\u2019re situated in that pipeline \u2014 and also a lot of use of automation to help call people back if they\u2019re trying to get to state call centers. So really, all of those types of strategies \u2026 we\u2019re seeing a huge amount of effort across the country.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> How\u2019s the cooperation going with the Department of Health and Human Services? I know that \u2026 they seem to be not happy with some states. Are they being helpful, in general?<\/p>\n<p><strong>McEvoy:<\/strong> They\u2019re being extraordinarily helpful. I would say that we often talk about Medicaid representing a federal-state equity partnership, and we\u2019ve seen that manifest from the beginning of the first notice of the certainty around the start of the unwinding. CMCS has consistently offered guidance to states. They work with states using a mitigation approach as opposed to moving rapidly to compliance. We feel mitigation is the best way of essentially working out the strategies that are going to best protect continuing eligibility for people at the state level. And we really appreciate CMS\u2019 efforts on that. We understand they do have to ensure accountability across the country, and we\u2019re mutually committed to that.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> You better explain mitigation strategies.<\/p>\n<p><strong>McEvoy:<\/strong> Yeah, so this is a year where we are calling the question on eligibility standards that help ensure that the pathway to Medicaid coverage is a smooth one, and also that there is continuity of coverage. So, for any state that wasn\u2019t yet meeting all those standards, CMCS essentially entered into an agreement with the state or territory to say, here is how you will get there. And that could have involved some means of improving the automatic renewals for Medicaid. It could have meant relying on an integrated eligibility processes. There are a lot of different tools and strategies that were put in place, but essentially that is a path to every state and territory coming into full compliance.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Is there anything unexpected that\u2019s happening? I know so much of this was predicted, and it was predicted that the states that went first that, you know, were really in a hurry to get extra people off of their rolls seem to be doing just that: getting extra people off of their rolls. Are you surprised at the differences among states?<\/p>\n<p><strong>McEvoy:<\/strong> I think that there have definitely been differences among states in terms of the tools they have used from a system standpoint, but I don\u2019t see any differences in terms of retention of eligible people. That remains a shared goal across the entire country. And again, this is a watershed point where we have the opportunity to bring everyone to the same standards, ongoing, so that we help to prevent some of the heartache of the eligibility process for folks ongoing.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Anything else I didn\u2019t ask?<\/p>\n<p><strong>McEvoy:<\/strong> Well, I think that piece around the reconsideration period is particularly important. We are struck by there being probably less literacy around that option, and that\u2019s something we want to continue to promote. The other piece I\u2019d wind up by saying is that the Medicaid program is always available for people who are eligible. So in the worst-case scenario in which an otherwise eligible person loses coverage, they can always come back and be covered. This is in contrast to private insurance that may have an annual open enrollment period. Medicaid, as you know, is available on a rolling basis, and we want to keep reinforcing that theme so that no one goes with a gap in coverage.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Kate McEvoy, thank you very much. And I hope we can call you back in a couple of months.<\/p>\n<p><strong>McEvoy:<\/strong> I would be very happy to hear from you.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner: <\/strong>OK. We are back and it\u2019s time for our extra credit segment. That\u2019s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. As always, don\u2019t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the <a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/podcast\/what-the-health-308-abortion-rights-ohio-ballot-august-10-2023\/\">podcast page<\/a> at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. I did mine already. Emmarie, why don\u2019t you go next?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Huetteman:<\/strong> My story this week comes from KFF Health News, my colleague Darius Tahir. He has a story called \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/article\/the-nih-ices-a-research-project-is-it-self-censorship\/\">The NIH Ices a Research Project. Is It Self-Censorship?<\/a>\u201d Now, the story talks about the fact that the former head of NIH Francis Collins, was, as he was leaving, announcing an effort to study health communications. And we\u2019re talking about not just doctor-to-patient communications, but actually also how mass communications impact American health. But as Darius found out, the acting director quietly ended the program as NIH was preparing to open its grant applications. And officials who spoke with us said that they think political pressure over misinformation is to blame. Now, we don\u2019t have to look too far for examples of conservative pressure over misinformation and information these days. In particular, there\u2019s a notable one from just last month out of a Louisiana court, the federal court decision that blocked government officials from communicating with social media companies. You really don\u2019t have to look too far to see that there\u2019s a chilling effect on information. And we\u2019re talking about the NIH was going to study or rather fund studies into communication and information. Not misinformation, information: how people get information about their health. So it\u2019s a pretty interesting example and a really great story worth your read.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> And I\u2019ve done nothing but preach about public health communication for three years now.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> It\u2019s a very good story.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Yeah, it was a really good story. Rachel, you\u2019re next.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Roubein:<\/strong> All right. This story is called \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.statnews.com\/2023\/08\/08\/hospitals-california-boston-pediatric-neuroarchitecture-design\/\">From Windows to Wall Art, Hospitals Use Virtual Reality to Design More Inclusive Rooms for Kids<\/a>,\u201d by Stat News, by Mohana Ravindranath. And I thought this story was really interesting because she kind of dived into what Mohana called \u201ca budding movement to make architecture more inclusive\u201d for the people and patients who are spending a lot, a lot of time in hospital walls. And what some researchers are doing is using virtual reality to essentially gauge how comfortable children who are patients are in hospital rooms. And she talked to researchers at Berkeley who were using these, like, virtual reality headsets to kind of study and explore mocked-up hospital rooms. And, I didn\u2019t know a ton about this field. I mean, apparently it\u2019s not new, but it\u2019s this kind of growing sort of movement to make patients more comfortable in the space that they\u2019re inhabiting for perhaps long periods of time.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> I went to a conference on architecture, hospital architecture, making it more patient-centered, 10 years ago. But my favorite thing that I still remember from that is they talked about putting art on the ceiling because people are either in bed or they\u2019re in gurneys. They\u2019re looking up at the ceiling a lot. And ceilings are scary in hospitals. So that was one of the things that I took away from that. OK, Joanne, now it\u2019s your turn.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> OK. This is from Fox News. And yes, you did hear that right. It\u2019s by Melissa Rudy, and the headline is \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/health\/male-health-care-leaders-complete-breastfeeding-challenge-texas-hospital-huge-eye-opener\">Male Health Care Leaders Complete \u2018Simulated Breastfeeding Challenge\u2019 at Texas Hospital: \u2018Huge Eye-Opener\u2019<\/a>.\u201d So at Covenant Health, they had a bunch of high-level guys in suits pretend they were nursing and\/or pumping mothers, and they had to nurse every three hours for 20 minutes at a time. And they found it was quite difficult and quite cumbersome and they didn\u2019t have enough privacy. And as one of them said, \u201cThere was no way to multitask.\u201d But trust me, if you have two kids, you have to figure that out, too. So it was a really good story.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Some of these things that we feel like should be required everywhere, but it was a great read; it was a really good story. OK, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We\u2019d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks this week to Zach Dyer, sitting in for the indefatigable Francis Ying. And as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We\u2019re at <a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/podcast\/what-the-health-309-abortion-rights-ohio-ballot-august-10-2023\/mailto:whatthehealth@kff.org\">whatthehealth@kff.org<\/a>. Or you can tweet me or X me or whatever; I\u2019m <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/jrovner\">@jrovner<\/a>. And also on <a href=\"https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/julierovner.bsky.social\">Bluesky<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/www.threads.net\/@julie.rovner\">Threads<\/a>. Rachel?<\/p>\n<p><strong>Roubein:<\/strong> <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/rachel_roubein\">@rachel_roubein<\/a> \u2014 that\u2019s on Twitter.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Joanne.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Kenen:<\/strong> In <a href=\"https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/joannekenen.bsky.social\">most places<\/a> I\u2019m <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/JoanneKenen\">@JoanneKenen<\/a>. On Threads, I\u2019m <a href=\"https:\/\/www.threads.net\/@joannekenen1?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==\">@joannekenen1<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> Emmarie.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Huetteman:<\/strong> And I am <a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/emmarieDC\">@emmarieDC<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rovner:<\/strong> We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.<\/p>\n<h3>\n\t\tCredits\t<\/h3>\n<p>\tZach Dyer<br \/>\n\tSenior Audio Producer<\/p>\n<p>\tEmmarie Huetteman<br \/>\n\tEditor <\/p>\n<p><em>To hear all our podcasts,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/kffhealthnews.org\/news\/tag\/podcast\/\">click here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>And subscribe to KFF Health News\u2019 <\/em>\u201c<em>What the Health?<\/em>\u201d <em>on\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/open.spotify.com\/show\/32EdsB662C3oyIrqLMmBXI?si=TQhRjzzLTgWtK3crfbOFtA\">Spotify<\/a>,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/podcasts.apple.com\/us\/podcast\/what-the-health\/id1253607372?mt=2\">Apple Podcasts<\/a>,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/play.pocketcasts.com\/web\/podcasts\/a379e280-3f57-0135-9028-63f4b61a9224\">Pocket Casts<\/a>, or wherever you listen to podcasts.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p><script async src=\"\/\/platform.twitter.com\/widgets.js\" charset=\"utf-8\"><\/script><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Host Julie Rovner KFF Health News @jrovner Read Julie&#8217;s stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News\u2019 weekly health policy news podcast, \u201cWhat the Health?\u201d A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book \u201cHealth Care Politics and Policy A to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1118,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1619","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-pharmaceuticals"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1619","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1619"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1619\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1620,"href":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1619\/revisions\/1620"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1118"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1619"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1619"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/healthynewsusa.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1619"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}