\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\tJulie Rovner
\n\tKFF Health News<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t \t\t\tJulie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF 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.\t\t<\/p>\n As long predicted, much of the federal government shut down on Oct. 1, after Congress failed to agree on spending bills that keep most programs running. Republicans need at least a handful of Democratic votes to pass spending bills in the Senate. In exchange, Democrats demanded Republicans renew expanded premium subsidies for Affordable Care Act marketplace plans, which were passed during the pandemic \u2014 effectively forcing their own shutdown over ACA policies, as Republicans did in 2013. Republicans so far have refused to continue the subsidies or even discuss them \u2014 but now say they won’t negotiate unless Democrats agree to reopen the government.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, President Donald Trump announced a deal with the drugmaker Pfizer to lower some drug prices in the U.S., but it’s unclear how much of a difference it will make for consumers.<\/p>\n This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.<\/p>\n \t\t\t \tRachel Cohrs Zhang \t\t\t \t\t\t \tShefali Luthra \t\t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t \tLauren Weber \t\t\t \t\t\t Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:<\/p>\n Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Cara Anthony, who wrote a recent “Bill of the Month<\/a>” feature about an out-of-network eye surgery that left one kindergartner’s family with a big bill. If you have an outrageous or inexplicable medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:\u00a0<\/p>\n Julie Rovner:<\/strong> KFF Health News’ “Big Loopholes in Hospital Charity Care Programs Mean Patients Still Get Stuck With the Tab<\/a>,” by Michelle Andrews.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Shefali Luthra:<\/strong> The Washington Post’s “Trump’s USAID Pause Stranded Lifesaving Drugs. Children Died Waiting<\/a>,” by Meg Kelly, Joyce Sohyun Lee, Rael Ombuor, Sarah Blaskey, Andrew Ba Tran, Artur Galocha, Eric Lau, and Katharine Houreld.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Lauren Weber: <\/strong>Time Magazine’s “Trump Is Breaking Americans’ Trust in Doctors<\/a>,” by Dr. Craig Spencer.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Rachel Cohrs Zhang: <\/strong>ProPublica’s “Georgia’s Medicaid Work Requirement Program Spent Twice as Much on Administrative Costs as on Health Care, GAO Says<\/a>,” by Margaret Coker, The Current.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\tClick to open the transcript\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\tTranscript: Democrats Make This Shutdown About the ACA<\/strong>\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n [<\/em>Editor’s note:<\/em><\/strong> This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n Julie Rovner:<\/strong> Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Oct. 2, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.\u00a0<\/p>\n Today we are joined via videoconference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th.\u00a0<\/p>\n Shefali Luthra: <\/strong>Hello.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.\u00a0<\/p>\n Lauren Weber:<\/strong> Hello, hello.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>And Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rachel Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> Hi, everyone.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Later in this episode we’ll play my interview with my colleague Cara Anthony, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month,” about an out-of-network surgery that looked like it had prior approval from the insurer \u2014 but maybe not. But first, this week’s news.\u00a0<\/p>\n So today is Oct. 2, and to the surprise of just about nobody who’s been paying attention, much of the government is in a shutdown, thanks to Congress’ failure to pass a spending bill or even a temporary patch for the fiscal year that started Wednesday. And just like in 2013, this shutdown is about the Affordable Care Act. Except in 2013 the Republicans shut down the government because they wanted to delay the start of the ACA. This time Democrats are shutting down the government to try to force Republicans to reup the additional ACA subsidies that Democrats passed during the pandemic but which expire at the end of December. That’s just the beginning of the confusion.\u00a0<\/p>\n I’m not even going to ask when or how this ends, because truly nobody knows. But there are lots of things that are very different about this shutdown from previous ones, aside from the fact that Democrats, who are usually the ones fighting to keep the government up and running, are the ones who are forcing the shutdown this time. What has changed the most since March, when Democrats went along with a temporary spending measure that they could have blocked at the time?\u00a0<\/p>\n Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> I think obviously we saw a lot of blowback from the Democratic base in response to [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer’s decision to go along and just continue funding the government. I think the argument has been that it’s not business as usual and that Democratic leaders shouldn’t be treating it that way. And this is one of the few leverage points Democrats have in Washington right now, just because Republicans control the White House and the House and the Senate. So we have seen much more aggressive actions by the White House to exercise control over government spending and testing the waters as to how far they can go to overrule Congress’ directions for how money’s supposed to be spent in the government, which obviously plays into the government spending fight.\u00a0<\/p>\n And we’ve also seen the passage of Republicans’ reconciliation bill in the summer, which always poisons the well a little bit when it comes to bipartisan negotiations. Democrats see an opportunity to highlight Republicans’ spending reductions in Medicaid and all these new policies that they’re passing there. And I think Democrats have always viewed health care as a winning issue for them. I think that’s a lesson that they’ve learned over and over again in midterms and elections, that this is just an issue that generally voters think Democrats do a better job on. So I think they’re seeing this as an opportunity to highlight a potential pocketbook issue for health care and setting up for the midterm elections next year.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>It’s interesting that back in March, one of the things that Chuck Schumer said is that he didn’t want to close down the government and give [President Donald] Trump basically that much more power. Well, this time they’re giving Trump that much more power and he seems to be running with it. The head of the OMB [Office of Management and Budget], Russ Vought, has already announced on social media that he’s cutting off funding for Democratic priorities, including a tunnel that’s being built between New York and New Jersey and a lot of the green energy projects that were in the Biden administration infrastructure bill, all of which have had money appropriated for them that the administration is supposed to spend. And now just this morning before we started taping, the president himself said he’s going to meet with Russ Vought to see what else they can do to basically throw sand in the gears of Democratic priorities that are supposed to be carried out. I guess this maybe is where Schumer gets to say, See, I told you so back in March.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n Luthra: <\/strong>Potentially. I think it’s worth noting \u2014 right? \u2014 that a lot of things, which we’ll talk about later, of course, were cut off, in terms of spending that was already allocated, even without the excuse of a shutdown. So it’s not very productive to engage in counterfactuals and hypotheticals, but it’s totally plausible that even without a shutdown a lot of this funding would’ve been cut off anyway. Which \u2014 I don’t know. It’s just we are not living under really normal politics anymore, and we can’t really pretend we can know what would’ve happened.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> Yes, “unprecedented” is a word I’ve been using a lot lately. Well, we should review what happens to health programs during a shutdown, and I will post a link to the video that I did<\/a> with my corgi Aspen to help explain it. What’s running and what’s not in terms of health care when the government is, quote-unquote, “shut down”? Because not everything is shut down?\u00a0<\/p>\n Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> I mean, we do have a lot of the core functions continuing in terms of emergency response at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. They are cutting back on public communications of public health data that are usually pretty routine. The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has said they’re no longer accepting new drug applications, but obviously the review of applications that they’ve already received will continue because there are a lot of positions at the FDA specifically, but across the government, that are funded through other streams from fees from industry that don’t necessarily go through the routine process. But we certainly will see less information coming out of agencies. Just the general function of them, policy announcements, policy of movement, everything slows down as things that are in motion kind of grind to a halt as everywhere is kind of strained for resources.\u00a0<\/p>\n So I think we’ll see. I know at NIH [the National Instituted of Health] they said that they’re not taking in new patients for clinical trials and the grant reviews may be slowed down. So there’s just a lot of things that will slow down. But I think the core functions \u2014 of, like, Is this patient care? Is this emergency response?<\/em> \u2014 for the large part are continuing at this time.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> And of course mandatory programs, Medicare and Medicaid, continue because they’re not affected by a shutdown, because the shutdown is only for discretionary programs. Lauren, you were going to add something.\u00a0<\/p>\n Weber:<\/strong> I was just going to say I was sitting on an unrelated focus group for five hours on Tuesday night, and like 99% of the people when asked Oh, is anything happening in D.C.?<\/em> had no idea about the shutdown. Like, none. I mean, just absolutely zero idea. So while all of these points are very important to talk through, I also question whether any of the messaging from both sides is getting through to the average person and whether or not the complexities of this are quite clear.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Well, one of the things that the Democrats are shutting the government down over is the failure of Republicans to renew the expanded subsidies for the Affordable Care Act that were passed in 2021 originally and then extended through the end of this year. People are going to find out about those because there’s 24 million people who are getting ACA coverage, and 90% of them are getting subsidies, and they’re all going to find out in the next couple of weeks how much their premiums are going to go up because of the failure to renew these subsidies. How big is this shock going to be?\u00a0<\/p>\n Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> Depends on who it is, right? So, it’s like some people, especially people who are kind of in the higher income range, around 400% of the federal poverty level, if these tax credits expire, they don’t get any subsidies at all anymore. So we could see hundreds of dollars a month for beneficiaries who fall into this category. But for some beneficiaries there’s a smaller dollars-and-cents change that they’re going to see, because they’ll still get some subsidies but not as many. And I think it’s actually unclear who exactly is going to find out about these rate increases. CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has given states some flexibility as to whether they put the actual premium increase in these letters that people are going to be getting over the next month. So I think it’s going to be interesting to see how states strategize in terms of communicating with people about the potential for these increases but not scaring them away from the exchange entirely if Washington does manage to figure this out in the next couple weeks.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Yeah, the Republicans keep saying, Oh, this is a December problem.<\/em> It’s like, no, this is not a December problem. Open enrollment starts Nov. 1, and if people show up and sign up, or if they’re in a plan that suddenly they can’t afford and they might want to move to a cheaper plan if they can find a cheaper plan to move to, I mean, this is definitely not a December problem.\u00a0<\/p>\n Luthra: <\/strong>And going back to your question, Julie, I mean, KFF did a very helpful analysis<\/a> just looking at how much premiums could go up if the tax credits expire. And the last I checked it was they will more than double, which I noticed when my electricity bill went up this year. I think that’s pretty hard for people to not see when suddenly they’re spending potentially twice as much on their health care.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> And I will post a link to that analysis which just came out. It’s an updated analysis with new data that shows that premiums are likely to spike even more. Well, one of the big arguments that Republicans are making about this shutdown, because Democrats not only want a renewal of these subsidies, they also want a reversal of a lot of the Medicaid cuts that were in the big budget bill that passed over the summer, and Republicans say Democrats are asking for federal health funding for illegal immigrants, which is not really true. What is it that Democrats are asking for?\u00a0<\/p>\n All right. I’m going to have to answer. I will answer this question myself because I went down the rabbit hole on emergency Medicaid. What the bill this summer did is it basically lowered the reimbursement that hospitals get when they provide emergency coverage to people who are not here with documentation. That is a long-standing program. It dates back to 1986, where hospitals can get reimbursed for treating people in medical emergencies who would be eligible for Medicaid other than the fact that they are not documented, meaning undocumented people are not eligible for Medicaid or for Medicare. Shefali, you were saying there’s a lot of this that is used for labor and delivery, right?\u00a0<\/p>\n Luthra:<\/strong> Exactly. And I mean if we even think about who benefits from emergency Medicaid, it’s not really undocumented people. It is hospitals, who are required to provide emergency care. But the example where I hear about this a lot is if you are pregnant and you don’t have documentation, you will go to the hospital because you need to give birth, you need to deliver. And emergency Medicaid is what covers the cost of that, which I just found that to be a really interesting point of tension with Republicans given in particular the vice president’s frequent remarks about how much he cares about healthy births and healthy babies.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> And there’s a whole brand-new federal program aimed at improving birth outcomes. At the same time, they’re chastising the Democrats for saying, We would like to pay hospitals for delivering healthy babies<\/em> \u2014 who are going to be American citizens, by the way, even if they’re mothers don’t have documentation, unless the Supreme Court changes that.\u00a0<\/p>\n Well as if there wasn’t enough to make your head swim here, I think one of the biggest ironies is that if the Democrats get what they want in terms of getting the Republicans to either roll back some of these Medicaid cuts or extend the additional subsidies, isn’t that going to accrue to the benefit of the Republicans? Because if these cuts happen, it’s presumably the Republicans who are going to get blamed come the midterms next year.\u00a0<\/p>\n Weber:<\/strong> That’s the irony of all of it, Julie. I mean, that’s the irony of the shutdown. That’s the irony of the messaging. That’s the irony of the whole thing, is that Republicans polls have shown that if these subsidies do increase, if they do double, I mean to Shefali’s point, I think we all notice when \u2014 if something costs you a thousand more dollars a year, I think people are going to sit up and pay attention to that. That will cause an issue. So yes, I mean it is somewhat surprising, but at the same day this is a lot of brinksmanship. And again, I question whether the messaging on either side is really cracking through to the American public about why both sides are arguing about the shutdown.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Yeah, they’re not on social media and cable TV in general watching people trade these fact checks back and forth.\u00a0<\/p>\n Weber:<\/strong> Yeah.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> Well, meanwhile, back at the now partially shut down Department of Health and Human Services, there is still lots of news. We will start with vaccines. Remember that Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices vote a couple of weeks ago that changed recommendations for a whole bunch of vaccines? Well, the committee’s recommendations are not the end of the process. The committee’s work needs to be officially approved by the head of the CDC or the HHS secretary, neither of which has happened yet. Without that approval, shipping can’t begin, for example, for covid vaccines for the federal Vaccines for Children Program, which provides vaccines to about half of all the children in the U.S., by the way. One thing [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] has apparently done, according to reporting from MSNBC<\/a>, is hire as a senior adviser to CDC Mark Blaxill, a high-profile anti-vaccine activist who is neither a physician nor a scientist. Is Kennedy just thumbing his nose now at anyone who believes in vaccines, particularly at Republican senator and doctor Bill Cassidy, without whose vote Kennedy would not now have his job?\u00a0<\/p>\n Weber:<\/strong> I think Kennedy has been pretty emboldened by the president even going out further than he has publicly on vaccine issues. And I think we’re seeing his continuing leaning into the vaccine point of it all. Which I mean, this is a man who has been an anti-vaccine activist for many, many years. So it’s not completely surprising that he would hire people in that orbit or institute policies that follow what he’s advocated for for many years.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>But I mean, just, I say this every week, he promised at his confirmation hearings that he would not go after the vaccine schedule, and he has definitely not kept that promise.\u00a0<\/p>\n Weber:<\/strong> Would you say that most politicians promise things that they do or do not keep, Julia, in your many years of coverage?\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> I don’t consider Cabinet secretaries who promise things to members of Congress who oversee them to be sort of typical politicians. It’s one thing to run for office and then do something else. It’s quite another thing to say in your confirmation hearing for a job that you won’t do something and then just weeks or months later do it. Shefali wanted to add something.\u00a0<\/p>\n Luthra: <\/strong>Oh, I was going to say to that point, Julie, when all of us watched those confirmation hearings, it was really striking to see that what RFK promised was also different from his long record of advocacy. And one watching those could come away deciding to believe what he said in the hearings or decide to believe what he said leading up to those hearings. And if you picked one, you’d be more right than if you picked the other. And I think there’s a real question now, I mean, given the point that you raised, Sen. Cassidy’s role in helping him get confirmed, his public remarks about how much he supports vaccines. There is a role Congress can play here to try and change things. And I don’t think we’ve seen that that will actually happen.\u00a0<\/p>\n Weber:<\/strong> So, I’m sorry. I just wanted to throw it back to the confirmation hearing itself. Cassidy asked this question directly. He said something, I’m not quoting it directly, but some version of, You’re a 70-something-year-old man. Does a tiger really change his stripes?<\/em> \u2014 and then voted to confirm him. So as Shefali pointed out, I mean he chose to listen to what he said. But I mean I would say his track record in office has certainly not followed suit on those promises.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> Well, while we’re on the subject of vaccines, Rachel, you have a story out this week<\/a> about Kennedy’s plan to add autism to the list of complications eligible for compensation under the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. What would that mean?\u00a0<\/p>\n Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> We’re unclear exactly what they’re planning to do, but they’re planning to change the list of conditions or symptoms that people can claim are related to vaccines in this kind of arbitration process that the federal government has set up to compensate people who do suffer side effects from vaccines. It does happen, and I think there’s bipartisan agreement that the current system for compensating people, it isn’t really working very well. It’s really backed up, and there’s arguments that it doesn’t pay enough for people who experience these things. However, I think Secretary Kennedy has made clear to his advisers that he wants parents who believe their children have autism because of vaccines to be compensated through this program, which doesn’t currently happen.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>No. And would probably bankrupt the program, right?\u00a0<\/p>\n Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> It could. It could. Depending on, there’s just so many children these days that do kind of fall under the definition of autism. They’ve talked about maybe changing a definition of some just general neurological symptoms to maybe allow people with autism to qualify. But I think there’s a clear concern from experts as to how this program works, that it’s already backed up and if it’s flooded with these new claims. There’s actually a statutory limit on how many special masters there are to oversee this process.\u00a0<\/p>\n And unless Congress acts, then they can’t increase that number. So there’s a point at which, A, if these claims are getting granted that they just run out of money. They’re funded by a fixed tax on vaccine doses. So, again, unless Congress acts, they have a limited amount of money. And then you’re thinking about just the fixed capacity that they have to process these claims in the first place. And I think there is genuine concern here that without some support from Congress, this could completely overwhelm the program and just kind of be a roundabout way to validate the idea that vaccines cause autism.\u00a0<\/p>\n So I think there’s much to watch in terms of what the details are coming out. We’ve just had some high-level comments from an adviser, but stay tuned on that and I think it’ll definitely be something to watch.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> Oh, absolutely. In other administration news directly affecting HHS and how it provides research funding to universities, The Washington Post is reporting<\/a> that the White House is working on a plan that would reward institutions that pledge to, quote, “adhere to the values and policies of the Trump administration.” While others are reporting that Trump is about to close a deal with Harvard that involves the U.S.’ most prestigious university paying $500 million to the federal government and, so we hear, opening up and operating trade schools. And in a related piece of news, Politico EU reports<\/a> that a program run by the EU’s top research council, essentially the EU’s NIH, has seen a fivefold increase in applications from U.S.-based scientists interested in moving across the pond. I’m not even sure what to make of any of this or what it could mean for the future of biomedical research, but it sounds like potentially big, big changes in how the research operation works here in the U.S.?\u00a0<\/p>\n Luthra:<\/strong> It does seem like something that could ripple for years if not generations to come. I mean, research is something that happens in years-long installments. Careers are built over very long periods of time. And, I mean, when I’ve spoken to a lot of young academics, whether that is for work or even in a personal capacity, a lot of them are really navigating so much instability that is just not what they anticipated when they began their years-long Ph.D. programs. And so it’s not at all surprising that we are seeing the EU’s efforts to recruit American scientists really bear fruit. But to your point, it absolutely raises the specter that a lot of cutting-edge research, a lot of really great future biomedical work simply won’t happen here and we won’t reap the immediate benefits in a way that we have historically. I mean, our higher education and research sector has been a real crown jewel, and it’s hard to see if that stays the case.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> And it’s been a really important contributor to the economy. I mean, it’s not just the benefits of the research itself. It’s the biomedical research establishment has been something that’s been really important to the United States for a couple of generations now.\u00a0<\/p>\n Luthra:<\/strong> When you go to a university town, the university is almost always the largest employer and it plays a really big role in keeping up local economies and state economies. And we don’t have a clear answer for what fills in the gap if the institutions that provide those resources disappear or significantly downsize.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> So sort of kind of related to what’s going on in the university community, President Trump is also demanding that U.S. drugmakers lower their prices and move manufacturing back to the USA \u2014 which he also demanded in his first term, though he was mostly blocked by the courts in the ways he tried to make that happen. Well, now he’s employing the same strategy that he’s using with other countries with tariffs and with universities, by negotiating individually. He’s now negotiating individually with drug companies and threatening bad things if they don’t do what he wants. And lo and behold, this week he announced a deal with Pfizer. Rachel, what has Pfizer promised to do? And what does it mean for what had been a unified wall of resistance by drug companies to Trump’s demands that they lower prices?\u00a0<\/p>\n Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> Yeah, I agree with your take there that this is a symbolic change for the industry that had warned for so long that if you take, like, put even a toe over the line of imported \u2014 tying what Americans pay for medicines to what countries abroad pay, that it was going to be a slippery slope and it was a terrifying concept. So that is a big moment.\u00a0<\/p>\n We know at a high level what Pfizer’s committed to, but we don’t have a lot of details yet. There’s little in writing, and the press releases were pretty vague. But at a high level, I think Pfizer has agreed to reduce the prices that they offer state Medicaid programs and make those more in line with what prices abroad are. Again, Medicaid already gets really low prices for drugs, so it really is going to be a drug-by-drug, I think, question of: Is this price even lower? I think in some cases, the experts I’ve spoken with think that it’s possible that Medicaid could save money on some of these drugs, but some of them the price could be higher. And I think there’s a question of exactly what those mean. And drug pricing’s really hard, and they aren’t necessarily public, what each payer is paying for these things. So that’s one big element of this that’s important.\u00a0<\/p>\n They’re also agreeing to sell some of their medicines online, straight to consumers, on a website branded TrumpRx. And I think it’s just kind of like a platform, like a shopping platform is how they’ve described it. You can type in the drug name and then the website would direct you to the marketplaces that the drug companies run themselves.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> And that just cuts out the middlemen, right? That doesn’t itself save money \u2014 I mean, save money for consumers.\u00a0<\/p>\n Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> Right. The price may be discounted, but most people aren’t paying the net price of what their insurer pays for a lot of medicines. They’re paying a copay or a percentage. So again, for some medicines, if you’re uninsured, yeah, it’s a lot better to pay a discounted price. But if you have insurance, it’s unclear how, whether you would save any money by going through this process. And you have to have a prescription anyway for a lot of these medicines. So I think there’s just a lot of unanswered questions about exactly how that would interplay for patients with insurance. And then you also have assurances that Pfizer will launch medicine prices that are kind of aligned with what they charge other countries. Generally companies launch in the U.S. first. So does this create a new floor and leverage for Pfizer? I think that’s going to be a really interesting question.\u00a0<\/p>\n And then I think the last commitment that they made was if they raise prices in other countries for medicines that some of this increased revenue that they get from those drug sales abroad would go back to the federal government potentially through the Medicare program. But we don’t have a lot of details.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>I saw a story just before we started taping that not only has Pfizer stock gone up since this announcement, but other drug companies’ stocks have gone up since this announcement. Obviously in exchange for this deal, Pfizer has been sort of absolved from having to pay the tariffs that Trump has threatened for three years. And the idea is that other drug companies are likely to make these same deals, which certainly the stock market thinks is not going to cause them to lose money, which suggests that it’s not going to cause big savings for consumers, right?\u00a0<\/p>\n Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> Yes. I think that’s a good question, and it is important that analyst notes have expressed that Pfizer’s U.S. revenue, only like 5% of it is for Medicaid. So it’s a very small amount of what they make on drugs. But I think there is this looming regulatory option where Trump could kind of force drugmakers to comply with price reductions in other programs if they don’t make deals. So I don’t think this story is over. And they’ve foreshadowed that more deals are coming, and they may not have exactly the same terms as Pfizer. So I think we’re very much staying tuned here.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Well, we will cover them as they happen. OK, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Cara Anthony, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.\u00a0<\/p>\n I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ Cara Anthony, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month<\/a>.” Cara, welcome back.\u00a0<\/p>\n Cara Anthony:<\/strong> Hey, thanks for having me.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>So this month’s patient \u2014 or her family, more accurately \u2014 did everything right before an elective surgery. At least they thought they did. Tell us who the patient was and what kind of care she needed.\u00a0<\/p>\n Anthony:<\/strong> Yeah, this month we introduced our readers to a little girl named Chloë Jones. She was in kindergarten at the time. She needed an elective surgery. She had a condition known as ptosis. In layman’s terms, that just means that she had a droopy eyelid. Her parents didn’t want this to interfere with her vision in the future, and so they elected to have this surgery.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> And they lived where?\u00a0<\/p>\n Anthony:<\/strong> Just outside of St. Louis, pretty close to me, actually. But here’s the thing: They had a hard time finding a provider who was in network, and the story kind of goes on from there.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Yeah. So I guess pediatric ophthalmologists are not a dime a dozen. And they did find somebody. And knowing that it was out of network, they asked their insurer for permission, right?\u00a0<\/p>\n Anthony:<\/strong> Yeah. They asked for something called a gap exception and actually worked with their pediatrician, worked with Chloë’s primary care doctor, who wrote a letter on their behalf to say: Hey, she needs to have this surgery. Would you honor it as an in-network treatment?<\/em> Because the closest person that could do this surgery was in Wisconsin, which wasn’t reasonable for them. This is a family with a lot of little kids. So they did. They dotted all of the i’s, crossed all the t’s \u2014 or so they thought, because they ended up with a huge bill.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Yeah. So then she has the surgery, everything is great, and then the bill comes. How big was the bill?\u00a0<\/p>\n Anthony:<\/strong> Thirteen thousand dollars, Julie, which was a huge surprise to the family. They didn’t have the means to pay that. So immediately, Chloë’s mom, Keyanna Jones, starts to ask questions, making phone calls, trying to figure out, Hey, what’s going on?<\/em> They only paid just under $2,000, and there was no way they could pay a $13,000 bill.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>So they had this letter from the insurance company that said that they would cover this. What happened?\u00a0<\/p>\n Anthony:<\/strong> Yeah, and this is why we had to ask ourselves in this case: What does covered actually mean? And in this case, the insurers said that they would cover it though without offering network discounts, the surgery itself. Now, some of her other exams that she needed, they did honor those as in network and that was fine. But the surgery itself was covered, but they weren’t willing to cover it as in network and offer those discounts, which would’ve made it much more reasonable, which is why we ended up with the $13,000 bill.\u00a0<\/p>\n But the tricky part here is that they received letters that looked basically identical. So the letters that said that they would get those in-network discounts were just for the pre-surgery and some post-surgery exams. Those look the same as the letter that said that they were covered for the surgery. But in that letter, the insurer explained that, Hey, we are not going to offer you network discounts.<\/em> So the family was really confused here, and they had to ask for some serious help.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> And what finally happened with the bill?\u00a0<\/p>\n Anthony:<\/strong> Well, Keyanna has a brother who was a former state senator. So she got so frustrated with the situation, she reaches out to her brother, who’s former state Sen. Caleb Rowden, here in Missouri, and he says, Hey, reach out to the senator who represents you, Sen. Travis Fitzwater<\/em>, and they got the ball rolling. She also reached out to the Missouri attorney general, wrote a letter. Representative Fitzwater also contacted the hospital and the insurer, and they worked it out. So it’s really important for people to know that they can contact their local lawmakers, and that’s what they do \u2014 they advocate for their constituents. And in this case, the family paid absolutely nothing.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> So eventually the bill was basically completely taken care of?\u00a0<\/p>\n Anthony:<\/strong> It was taken care of completely. They didn’t even have to pay the copay. That’s how much this was kind of messed up. And UnitedHealthcare and both the hospital here in St. Louis just said: You know what? We’re done.<\/em> So kind of wild.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> So what’s the takeaway here, besides that you can go for help? I mean, that’s obviously a big piece of it. But what’s the takeaway in the asking permission and getting what we think of as these prior authorizations, these preapproval letters for things like elective surgery?\u00a0<\/p>\n Anthony:<\/strong> Yeah. I think the main thing is that even if the letters look the same, you have to read every line, make sure that you have clarity there. But it’s also, here’s another reflection of how complicated our health care system is. And in this case, the family had a happy ending. But I don’t know, had she not contacted her brother, who’s a state senator, and not everybody has that kind of advantage. But everyone can contact their local lawmaker for help. But in this case, I would just say read the fine print, and if you think you understand it, read it again because there might be something in there that you’ll catch, and hopefully you can avoid a huge bill. But I’m glad this family was taken care of.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> Oh, good advice. Cara Anthony, thank you so much.\u00a0<\/p>\n Anthony:<\/strong> Hey, thanks for having me, Julie.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, you chose first this week. Why don’t you go first?\u00a0<\/p>\n Luthra: <\/strong>Sure. My story is from The Washington Post. I normally try and give every byline, but there are a lot. Many journalists really worked very hard on this piece. The headline is “Trump’s USAID Pause Stranded Lifesaving Drugs. Children Died Waiting.<\/a>” And it’s a very impressive, in-depth investigation. It takes us to Congo, where we meet a young girl who has malaria, and she dies because she can’t get the medication she needs even though it is less than 10 miles away. And the medication never comes to her, because of the freeze on USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development] funding, and this is the taking of U.S. aid inside the State Department.\u00a0<\/p>\n The story does a remarkable job following the grants and orders that were stopped in the United States when we have the USAID freeze take effect. And then it takes us to the people who suffered and whose lives were lost, including many children, because they couldn’t get medication that was actually not even that far away but simply couldn’t travel the last few miles to get there. It puts all of these against Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s promise that no one has died because of the USAID funding freeze and shows that that probably isn’t true. I mean, not probably, that isn’t<\/em> true, because these people here in this story did in fact die because they couldn’t get medications that we purchased and sent there and then simply could not get the final step there. I think it’s a really great look at just how devastating this policy choice has been and will continue to be around the world.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong> Yeah, <\/strong>it was quite an impressive project. Lauren.\u00a0<\/p>\n Weber:<\/strong> I picked an op-ed in Time by Dr. Craig Spencer titled “Trump Is Breaking Americans’ Trust in Doctors<\/a>.” It’s an op-ed after Trump and RFK Jr. talked about Tylenol and Trump went on to talk about vaccines and what that means for the rest of the country. And I will just say personally, I’ve been struck by how many of my friends from the Midwest, mom friends, regular friends, have reached out like: Hey, you are a reporter for The Washington Post that covers health. What is this?<\/em> And I do think the Tylenol press conference really broke through in a way that a lot of other things have not.\u00a0<\/p>\n And Craig makes a bunch of different points about how it essentially pits doctors against the president. And what does that do for decaying trust in medical authorities? What does it do for trust in authorities, period? And I think that’s a question we’re going to continue to see bear out over the next couple of years.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Yeah, I think the byword of 2025 is “losing trust.” Rachel.\u00a0<\/p>\n Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> My extra credit this week is in ProPublica. The headline is “Georgia’s Medicaid Work Requirement Program Spent Twice as Much on Administrative Costs as on Health Care, GAO Says<\/a>,” and that’s by Margaret Coker with The Current. And I just thought this story did a great job of just kind of being grounded in the local reporting of: What have we seen? I think there’s tremendous interest in how some of these Medicaid policies that Republicans have committed to will play out across the country. We know state Medicaid officials are already scrambling. Insurance companies, hospitals are trying to figure out: How are we going to implement work requirements at the beginning of 2027?<\/em> And I think this is a really interesting test project of what that could mean. And I think the administrative burden should not be underestimated, and I think this is just a great way to quantify the infrastructure you need to run a program like this. And I think if you’re spending more on the infrastructure to track people than on the actual health care, then I think that just raises questions about the program as a whole and how efficiently it’s running. So.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>I would say a lot of eyes on Georgia because they’ve got the only one that’s actually up and running at the moment that people can study.\u00a0<\/p>\n My extra credit this week is from KFF Health News by Michelle Andrews, and it’s called “Big Loopholes in Hospital Charity Care Programs Mean Patients Still Get Stuck With the Tab<\/a>.” And it’s about how stupid and bifurcated our health system now is that you can go to a hospital, get approved for charity care, and then still get billed into bankruptcy by doctors who work at<\/em> the hospital but not for<\/em> the hospital. It’s kind of a perfect case study into just how dysfunctional things have gotten, and with the impending Medicaid cuts and the ACA premium increases, lots more people are going to become uninsured and likely fall into this same trap. It’s really good story.\u00a0<\/p>\n All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks this week to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. If you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org<\/a>. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner<\/a>, or on Bluesky, @julierovner<\/a>. Where are you folks hanging these days? Rachel.\u00a0<\/p>\n Cohrs Zhang:<\/strong> I’m still on X, @rachelcohrs<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Shefali?\u00a0<\/p>\n Luthra:<\/strong> I’m Bluesky, @shefali<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Lauren.\u00a0<\/p>\n Weber:<\/strong> I’m on X<\/a> and Bluesky<\/a>, @LaurenWeberHP.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner: <\/strong>Excellent. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.\u00a0<\/p>\n \tFrancis Ying \tEmmarie Huetteman To hear all our podcasts,\u00a0click here<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on\u00a0Spotify<\/a>,\u00a0Apple Podcasts<\/a>,\u00a0Pocket Casts<\/a>, or wherever you listen to podcasts.<\/em><\/p>\n KFF Health News<\/a> is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF\u2014an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF<\/a>.<\/p>\n This story can be republished for free (
\n\t\t\t\t@jrovner\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t@julierovner.bsky.social\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\tRead Julie’s stories.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n\n\t\tPanelists\t<\/h3>\n
<\/p>\n
\n\tBloomberg News<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t@rachelcohrs\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\n\tThe 19th<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t@shefali.bsky.social\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\tRead Shefali’s stories.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\n\tThe Washington Post<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t@LaurenWeberHP\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\tRead Lauren’s stories.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n
\n\t\tCredits\t<\/h3>\n
\n\tAudio producer<\/p>\n
\n\tEditor <\/p>\nUSE OUR CONTENT<\/h3>\n