The 2024 campaign — particularly the one for president — has been notably vague on policy. But health issues, especially those surrounding abortion and other reproductive health care, have nonetheless played a key role. And while the Affordable Care Act has not been the focus of debate the way it was over the previous three presidential campaigns, who becomes the next president will have a major impact on the fate of the 2010 health law.

The panelists for this week’s special election preview, taped before a live audience at KFF’s offices in Washington, are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Tamara Keith of NPR, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Cynthia Cox and Ashley Kirzinger of KFF.

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As Election Day nears, who will emerge victorious from the presidential race is anyone’s guess. Enthusiasm among Democratic women has grown with the elevation of Vice President Kamala Harris to the top of the ticket, with more saying they are likely to turn out to vote. But broadly, polling reveals a margin-of-error race — too close to call.
• Several states have abortion measures on the ballot. Proponents of abortion rights are striving to frame the issue as nonpartisan, acknowledging that recent measures have passed thanks in part to Republican support. For some voters, resisting government control of women’s health is a conservative value. Many are willing to split their votes, supporting both an abortion rights measure and also candidates who oppose abortion rights.
• While policy debates have been noticeably lacking from this presidential election, the future of Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act hinges on its outcome. Republicans want to undermine the federal funding behind Medicaid expansion, and former President Donald Trump has a record of opposition to the ACA. Potentially on the chopping block are the federal subsidies expiring next year that have transformed the ACA by boosting enrollment and lowering premium costs.
• And as misinformation and disinformation proliferate, one area of concern is the “malleable middle”: people who are uncertain of whom or what to trust and therefore especially susceptible to misleading or downright false information. Could a second Trump administration embed misinformation in federal policy? The push to soften or even eliminate school vaccination mandates shows the public health consequences of falsehood creep.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Resistance to Public Health, No Longer Fringe, Gains Foothold in G.O.P. Politics,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.
• KFF Health News’ “‘What the Health?’: SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies.”
• KFF’s Health Misinformation and Trust Initiative, a program aimed at tracking health misinformation in the U.S., analyzing its impact on the American people, and mobilizing media to address the problem.

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

Emmarie Huetteman: Please put your hands together and join me in welcoming our panel and our host, Julie Rovner. 

Julie Rovner: Hello, good morning, 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 very best and smartest health reporters in Washington, along with some very special guests today. We’re taping this special election episode on Thursday, October 17th, at 11:30 a.m., in front of a live audience at the Barbara Jordan Conference Center here at KFF in downtown D.C. Say hi, audience. 

As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

So I am super lucky to work at and have worked at some pretty great places and with some pretty great, smart people. And when I started to think about who I wanted to help us break down what this year’s elections might mean for health policy, it was pretty easy to assemble an all-star cast. So first, my former colleague from NPR, senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith. Tam, thanks for joining us. 

Tamara Keith: Thank you for having me. 

Rovner: Next, our regular “What the Health?” podcast panelist and my right hand all year on reproductive health issues, Alice Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi Julie. 

Rovner: Finally, two of my incredible KFF colleagues. Cynthia Cox is a KFF vice president and director of the program on the ACA [Affordable Care Act] and one of the nation’s very top experts on what we know as Obamacare. Thank you, Cynthia. 

Cynthia Cox: Great to be here. 

Rovner: And finally, Ashley Kirzinger is director of survey methodology and associate director of our KFF Public Opinion and Survey Research Program, and my favorite explainer of all things polling. 

Ashley Kirzinger: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So, welcome to all of you. Thanks again for being here. We’re going to chat amongst ourselves for a half hour or so, and then we will open the floor to questions. So be ready here in the room. Tam, I want to start with the big picture. What’s the state of the race as of October 17th, both for president and for Congress? 

Keith: Well, let’s start with the race for President. That’s what I cover most closely. This is what you would call a margin-of-error race, and it has been a margin-of-error race pretty much the entire time, despite some really dramatic events, like a whole new candidate and two assassination attempts and things that we don’t expect to see in our lifetimes and yet they’ve happened. And yet it is an incredibly close race. What I would say is that at this exact moment, there seems to have been a slight shift in the average of polls in the direction of former President [Donald] Trump. He is in a slightly better position than he was before and is in a somewhat more comfortable position than Vice President [Kamala] Harris. 

She has been running as an underdog the whole time, though there was a time where she didn’t feel like an underdog, and right now she is also running like an underdog and the vibes have shifted, if you will. There’s been a more dramatic shift in the vibes than there has been in the polls. And the thing that we don’t know and we won’t know until Election Day is in 2016 and 2020, the polls underestimated Trump’s support. So at this moment, Harris looks to be in a weaker position against Trump than either [Hillary] Clinton or [Joe] Biden looked to be. It turns out that the polls were underestimating Trump both of those years. But in 2022 after the Dobbs decision, the polls overestimated Republican support and underestimated Democratic support. 

So what’s happening now? We don’t know. So there you go. That is my overview, I think, of the presidential race. The campaigning has really intensified in the last week or so, like really intensified, and it’s only going to get more intense. I think Harris has gotten a bit darker in her language and descriptions. The joyful warrior has been replaced somewhat by the person warning of dire consequences for democracy. And in terms of the House and the Senate, which will matter a lot, a lot a lot, whether Trump wins or Harris wins, if Harris wins and Democrats lose the Senate, Harris may not even be able to get Cabinet members confirmed. 

So it matters a lot, and the conventional wisdom — which is as useful as it is and sometimes is not all that useful — the conventional wisdom is that something kind of unusual could happen, which is that the House could flip to Democrats and the Senate could flip to Republicans, and usually these things don’t move in opposite directions in the same year. 

Rovner: And usually the presidential candidate has coattails, but we’re not really seeing that either, are we? 

Keith: Right. In fact, it’s the reverse. Several of the Senate candidates in key swing states, the Democratic candidates are polling much better than the Republican candidates in those races and polling with greater strength than Harris has in those states. Is this a polling error, or is this the return of split-ticket voting? I don’t know. 

Rovner: Well, leads us to our polling expert. Ashley, what are the latest polls telling us, and what should we keep in mind about the limitations of polling? I feel like every year people depend a lot on the polls and every year we say, Don’t depend too much on the polls. 

Kirzinger: Well, can I just steal Tamara’s line and say I don’t know? So in really close elections, when turnout is going to matter a lot, what the polls are really good at is telling us what is motivating voters to turn out and why. And so what the polls have been telling us for a while is that the economy is top of mind for voters. Now, health care costs — we’re at KFF. So health care plays a big role in how people think about the economy, in really two big ways. The first is unexpected costs. So unexpected medical bills, health care costs, are topping the list of the public’s financial worries, things that they’re worried about, what might happen to them or their family members. And putting off care. What we’re seeing is about a quarter of the public these days are putting off care because they say they can’t afford the cost of getting that needed care. 

So that really shows the way that the financial burdens are playing heavily on the electorate. What we have seen in recent polling is Harris is doing better on the household expenses than Biden did and is better than the Democratic Party largely. And that’s really important, especially among Black women and Latina voters. We are seeing some movement among those two groups of the electorate saying that Harris is doing a better job and they trust her more on those issues. But historically, if the election is about the economy, Republican candidates do better. The party does better on economic issues among the electorate. 

What we haven’t mentioned yet is abortion, and this is the first presidential election since post-Dobbs, in the post-Dobbs era, and we don’t know how abortion policy will play in a presidential election. It hasn’t happened before, so that’s something that we’re also keeping an eye on. We know that Harris is campaigning around reproductive rights, is working among a key group of the electorate, especially younger women voters. She is seen as a genuine candidate who can talk about these issues and an advocate for reproductive rights. We’re seeing abortion rise in importance as a voting issue among young women voters, and she’s seen as more authentic on this issue than Biden was. 

Rovner: Talk about last week’s poll about young women voters. 

Kirzinger: Yeah, one of the great things that we can do in polling is, when we see big changes in the campaign, is we can go back to our polls and respondents and ask how things have changed to them. So we worked on a poll of women voters back in June. Lots have changed since June, so we went back to them in September to see how things were changing for this one group, right? So we went back to the same people and we saw increased motivation to turn out, especially among Democratic women. Republican women were about the same level of motivation. They’re more enthusiastic and satisfied about their candidate, and they’re more likely to say abortion is a major reason why they’re going to be turning out. But we still don’t know how that will play across the electorate in all the states. 

Because for most voters, a candidate’s stance on abortion policy is just one of many factors that they’re weighing when it comes to turnout. And so those are one of the things that we’re looking at as well. I will say that I’m not a forecaster, thank goodness. I’m a pollster, and polls are not good at forecasts, right? So polls are very good at giving a snapshot of the electorate at a moment in time. So two weeks out, that’s what I know from the polls. What will happen in the next two weeks, I’m not sure. 

Rovner: Well, Alice, just to pick up on that, abortion, reproductive health writ large are by far the biggest health issues in this campaign. What impact is it having on the presidential race and the congressional races and the ballot issues? It’s all kind of a clutter, isn’t it? 

Ollstein: Yeah, well, I just really want to stress what Ashley said about this being uncharted territory. So we can gather some clues from the past few years where we’ve seen these abortion rights ballot measures win decisively in very red states, in very blue states, in very purple states. But presidential election years just have a different electorate. And so, yes, it did motivate more people to turn out in those midterm and off-year elections, but that’s just not the same group of folks and it’s not the same groups the candidates need this time, necessarily. And also we know that every time abortion has been on the ballot, it has won, but the impact and how that spills over into partisan races has been a real mixed bag. 

So we saw in Michigan in 2022, it really helped Democrats. It helped Governor Gretchen Whitmer. It helped Michigan Democrats take back control of the Statehouse for the first time in decades. But that didn’t work for Democrats in all states. My colleagues and I did an analysis of a bunch of different states that had these ballot measures, and these ballot measures largely succeeded because of Republican voters who voted for the ballot initiative and voted for Republican candidates. And that might seem contradictory. You’re voting for an abortion rights measure, and you’re voting for very anti-abortion candidates. We saw that in Kentucky, for example, where a lot of people voted for (Sen.) Rand Paul, who is very anti-abortion, and for the abortion rights side of the ballot measure. 

I’ve been on the road the last few months, and I think you’re going to see a lot of that again. I just got back from Arizona, and a lot of people are planning to vote for the abortion rights measure there and for candidates who have a record of opposing abortion rights. Part of that is Donald Trump’s somewhat recent line of: I won’t do any kind of national ban. I’ll leave it to the states. A lot of people are believing that, even though Democrats are like: Don’t believe him. It’s not true. But also, like Ashley said, folks are just prioritizing other issues. And so, yes, when you look at certain slices of the electorate, like young women, abortion is a top motivating issue. But when you look at the entire electorate, it’s, like, a distant fourth after the economy and immigration and several other things. 

I found the KFF polling really illuminating in that, yes, most people said that abortion is either just one of many factors in deciding their vote on the candidates or not a factor at all. And most people said that they would be willing to vote for a candidate who does not share their views on abortion. So I think that’s really key here. And these abortion rights ballot measures, the campaigns behind them are being really deliberate about remaining completely nonpartisan. They need to appeal to Republicans, Democrats, independents in order to pass, but that also … So their motivation is to appeal to everyone. Democrats’ motivation is to say: You have to vote for us, too. Abortion rights won’t be protected if you just pass the ballot measure. You also have to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot. Because, they argue, Trump could pursue a national ban that would override the state protections. 

Rovner: We’ve seen in the past — and this is for both of you — ballot measures as part of partisan strategies. In the early 2000s, there were anti-gay-marriage ballot measures that were intended to pull out Republicans, that were intended to drive turnout. That’s not exactly what’s happening this time, is it? 

Keith: So I was a reporter in the great state of Ohio in 2004, and there was an anti-gay-rights ballot measure on the ballot there, and it was a key part of George W. Bush’s reelection plan. And it worked. He won the state somewhat narrowly. We didn’t get the results until 5 a.m. the next day, but that’s better than we’ll likely have this time. And that was a critical part of driving Republican turnout. It’s remarkable how much has changed since then in terms of public views. It wouldn’t work in the same way this time. 

The interesting thing in Arizona, for instance, is that there’s also an anti-immigration ballot measure that’s also polling really well that was added by the legislature in sort of a rush to try to offset the expected Democratic-based turnout because of the abortion measure. But as you say, it is entirely possible that there could be a lot of Trump abortion, immigration and [House Democrat and Senate candidate] Ruben Gallego voters. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. And I met some of those voters, and one woman told me, look, she gets offended when people assume that she’s liberal because she identified as pro-choice. We don’t use that terminology in our reporting, but she identified as pro-choice, and she was saying: Look, to me, this is a very conservative value. I don’t want the government in my personal business. I believe in privacy. And so for her, that doesn’t translate over into, And therefore I am a Democrat. 

Rovner: I covered two abortion-related ballot measures in South Dakota that were two years, I think it was 2006 and 2008. 

Ollstein: They have another one this year. 

Rovner: Right. There is another one this year. But what was interesting, what I discovered in 2006 and 2008 is exactly what you were saying, that there’s a libertarian streak, particularly in the West, of people who vote Republican but who don’t believe that the government has any sort of business in your personal life, not just on abortion but on any number of other things, including guns. So this is one of those issues where there’s sort of a lot of distinction. Cynthia, this is the first time in however many elections the Affordable Care Act has not been a huge issue, but there’s an awful lot at stake for this law, depending on who gets elected, right? 

Cox: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, it’s the first time in recent memory that health care in general, aside from abortion, hasn’t really been the main topic of conversation in the race. And part of that is that the Affordable Care Act has really transformed the American health care system over the last decade or so. The uninsured rate is at a record low, and the ACA marketplaces, which had been really struggling 10 years ago, have started to not just survive but thrive. Maybe also less to dislike about the ACA, but it’s also not as much a policy election as previous elections had been. But yes, the future of the ACA still hinges on this election. 

So starting with President Trump, I think as anyone who follows health policy knows, or even politics or just turned on the TV in 2016 knows that Trump has a very, very clear history of opposing the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. He supported a number of efforts in Congress to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. And when those weren’t successful, he took a number of regulatory steps, joined legal challenges, and proposed in his budgets to slash funding for the Affordable Care Act and for Medicaid. But now in 2024, it’s a little bit less clear exactly where he’s going. 

I would say earlier in the 2024 presidential cycle, he made some very clear comments about saying Obamacare sucks, for example, or that Republicans should never give up on trying to repeal and replace the ACA, that the failure to do so when he was president was a low point for the party. But then he also has seemed to kind of walk that back a little bit. Now he’s saying that he would replace the ACA with something better or that he would make the ACA itself much, much better or make it cost less, but he’s not providing specifics. Of course, in the debate, he famously said that he had “concepts” of a plan, but there’s no … Nothing really specific has materialized. 

Rovner: We haven’t seen any of those concepts. 

Cox: Yes, the concept is … But we can look at his record. And so we do know that he has a very, very clear record of opposing the ACA and really taking any steps he could when he was president to try to, if not repeal and replace it, then significantly weaken it or roll it back. Harris, by contrast, is in favor of the Affordable Care Act. When she was a primary candidate in 2020, she had expressed support for more-progressive reforms like “Medicare for All” or “Medicare for More.” But since becoming vice president, especially now as the presidential candidate, she’s taken a more incremental approach. 

She’s talking about building upon the Affordable Care Act. In particular, a key aspect of her record and Biden’s is these enhanced subsidies that exist in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. They were first, I think … They really closely mirror what Biden had run on as president in 2019, 2020, but they were passed as part of covid relief. So they were temporary, then they were extended as part of the Inflation Reduction Act but, again, temporarily. And so they’re set to expire next year, which is setting up a political showdown of sorts for Republicans and Democrats on the Hill about whether or not to extend them. And Harris would like to make these subsidies permanent because they have been responsible for really transforming the ACA marketplaces. 

The number of people signing up for coverage has doubled since Biden took office. Premium payments were cut almost in half. And so this is, I think, a key part of, now, her record, but also what she wants to see go forward. But it’s going to be an uphill battle, I think, to extend them. 

Rovner: Cynthia, to sort of build on that a little bit, as we mentioned earlier, a Democratic president won’t be able to get a lot accomplished with a Republican House and/or Senate and a Republican president won’t be able to get that much done with a Democratic House and/or Senate. What are some of the things we might expect to see if either side wins a trifecta control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress? 

Cox: So I think, there … So I guess I’ll start with Republicans. So if there is a trifecta, the key thing there to keep in mind is while there may not be a lot of appetite in Congress to try to repeal and replace the ACA, since that wasn’t really a winning issue in 2017, and since then public support for the ACA has grown. And I think also it’s worth noting that the individual mandate penalty being reduced to $0. So essentially there’s no individual mandate anymore. There’s less to hate about the law. 

Rovner: All the pay-fors are gone, too. 

Cox: Yeah the pay-fors are gone, too. 

Rovner: So the lobbyists have less to hate. 

Cox: Yes, that too. And so I don’t think there’s a ton of appetite for this, even though Trump has been saying, still, some negative comments about the ACA. That being said, if Republicans want to pass tax cuts, then they need to find savings somewhere. And so that could be any number of places, but I think it’s likely that certain health programs and other programs are off-limits. So Medicare probably wouldn’t be touched, maybe Social Security, defense, but that leaves Medicaid and the ACA subsidies. 

And so if they need savings in order to pass tax cuts, then I do think in particular Medicaid is at risk, not just rolling back the ACA’s Medicaid expansion but also likely block-granting the program or implementing per capita caps or some other form of really restricting the amount of federal dollars that are going towards Medicaid. 

Rovner: And this is kind of where we get into the Project 2025 that we’ve talked about a lot on the podcast over the course of this year, that, of course, Donald Trump has disavowed. But apparently [Senate Republican and vice presidential candidate] JD Vance has not, because he keeps mentioning pieces of it. 

Ollstein: And they’re only … They’re just one of several groups that have pitched deep cuts to health safety net programs, including Medicaid. You also have the Paragon group, where a lot of former Trump officials are putting forward health policy pitches and several others. And so I also think given the uncertainty about a trifecta, it’s also worth keeping in mind what they could do through waivers and executive actions in terms of work requirements. 

Rovner: That was my next question. I’ve had trouble explaining this. I’ve done a bunch of interviews in the last couple of weeks to explain how much more power Donald Trump would have, if he was reelected, to do things via the executive branch than a President Harris would have. So I have not come up with a good way to explain that. Please, one of you give it a shot. 

Keith: Someone else. 

Rovner: Why is it that President Trump could probably do a lot more with his executive power than a President Harris could do with hers? 

Cox: I think we can look back at the last few years and just see. What did Trump do with his executive power? What did Biden do with his executive power? And as far as the Affordable Care Act is concerned or Medicaid. But Trump, after the failure to repeal and replace the ACA, took a number of regulatory steps. For example, trying to expand short-term plans, which are not ACA-compliant, and therefore can discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, or cutting funding for certain things in the ACA, including outreach and enrollment assistance. 

And so I think there were a number — and also we’ve talked about Medicaid work requirements in the form of state waivers. And a lot of what Biden did, regulatory actions, were just rolling that back, changing that, but it’s hard to expand coverage or to provide a new program without Congress acting to authorize that spending. 

Kirzinger: I think it’s also really important to think about the public’s view of the ACA at this point in time. I mean, what the polls aren’t mixed about is that the ACA has higher favorability than Harris, Biden, Trump, any politician, right? So we have about two-thirds of the public. 

Rovner: So Nancy Pelosi was right. 

Kirzinger: I won’t go that far, but about two-thirds of the public’s now view the law favorably, and the provisions are even more popular. So while, yes, a Republican trifecta will have a lot of power, the public — they’re going to have a hard time rolling back protections for people with preexisting conditions, which have bipartisan support. They’re going to have a hard time making it no longer available for adult children under the age of 26 to be on their parents’ health insurance. All of those components of the ACA are really popular, and once people are given protections, it’s really hard to take them away. 

Cox: Although I would say that there are at least 10 ways the ACA protects people with preexisting conditions. I think on the surface it’s easy to say that you would protect people with preexisting conditions if you say that a health insurer has to offer coverage to someone with a preexisting condition. But there’s all those other ways that they say also protects preexisting conditions, and it makes coverage more comprehensive, which makes coverage more expensive. 

And so that’s why the subsidies there are key to make comprehensive coverage that protects people with preexisting conditions affordable to individuals. But if you take those subsidies away, then that coverage is out of reach for most people. 

Rovner: That’s also what JD Vance was talking about with changing risk pools. I mean, which most people, it makes your eyes glaze over, but that would be super important to the affordability of insurance, right? 

Cox: And his comment about risk pools is — I think a lot of people were trying to read something into that because it was pretty vague. But what a lot of people did think about when he made that comment was that before the Affordable Care Act, it used to be that if you were declined health insurance coverage, especially by multiple insurance companies, if you were basically uninsurable, then you could apply to what existed in many states was a high-risk pool. 

But the problem was that these high-risk pools were consistently underfunded. And in most of those high-risk pools, there were even waiting periods or exclusions on coverage for preexisting conditions or very high premiums or deductibles. So even though these were theoretically an option for coverage for people with preexisting conditions before the ACA, the lack of funding or support made it such that that coverage didn’t work very well for people who were sick. 

Ollstein: And something conservatives really want to do if they gain power is go after the Medicaid expansion. They’ve sort of set up this dichotomy of sort of the deserving and undeserving. They don’t say it in those words, but they argue that childless adults who are able-bodied don’t need this safety net the way, quote-unquote, “traditional” Medicaid enrollees do. And so they want to go after that part of the program by reducing the federal match. That’s something I would watch out for. I don’t know if they’ll be able to do that. That would require Congress, but also several states have in their laws that if the federal matches decreased, they would automatically unexpand, and that would mean coverage losses for a lot of people. That would be very politically unpopular. 

It’s worth keeping in mind that a lot of states, mainly red states, have expanded Medicaid since Republicans last tried to go after the Affordable Care Act in 2017. And so there’s just a lot more buy-in now. So it would be politically more challenging to do that. And it was already very politically challenging. They weren’t able to do it back then. 

Rovner: So I feel like one of the reasons that Trump might be able to get more done than Harris just using executive authority is the makeup of the judiciary, which has been very conservative, particularly at the Supreme Court, and we actually have some breaking news on this yesterday. Three of the states who intervened in what was originally a Texas lawsuit trying to revoke the FDA’s [Federal Drug Administration’s] approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, officially revived that lawsuit, which the Supreme Court had dismissed because the doctors who filed it initially didn’t have standing, according to the Supreme Court. 

The states want the courts to invoke the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-vice law banning the mailing and receiving of, among other things, anything used in an abortion, to effectively ban the drug. This is one of those ways that Trump wouldn’t even have to lift a finger to bring about an abortion ban, right? I mean, he’d just have to let it happen. 

Ollstein: Right. I think so much of this election cycle has been dominated by, Would you sign a ban? And that’s just the wrong question. I mean, we’ve seen Congress unable to pass either abortion restrictions or abortion protections even when one party controls both chambers. It’s just really hard. 

Rovner: And going back 60 years. 

Ollstein: And so I think it’s way more important to look at what could happen administratively or through the courts. And so yes, lawsuits like that, that the Supreme Court punted on but didn’t totally resolve this term, could absolutely come back. A Trump administration could also direct the FDA to just unauthorize abortion pills, which are the majority of abortions that take place within the U.S. 

And so — or there’s this Comstock Act route. There’s — the Biden administration put out a memo saying, We do not think the Comstock Act applies to the mailing of abortion pills to patients. A Trump administration could put out their own memo and say, We believe the opposite. So there’s a lot that could happen. And so I really have been frustrated. All of the obsessive focus on: Would you sign a ban? Would you veto a ban? Because that is the least likely route that this would happen. 

Kirzinger: Well, and all of these court cases create an air of confusion among the public, right? And so, that also can have an effect in a way that signing a ban — I mean, if people don’t know what’s available to them in their state based on state policy or national policy. 

Ollstein: Or they’re afraid of getting arrested. 

Kirzinger: Yeah, even if it’s completely legal in their state, we’re finding that people aren’t aware of whether — what’s available to them in their state, what they can access legally or not. And so having those court cases pending creates this air of confusion among the public. 

Keith: Well, just to amplify the air of confusion, talking to Democrats who watch focus groups, they saw a lot of voters blaming President Biden for the Dobbs decision and saying: Well, why couldn’t he fix that? He’s president. At a much higher level, there is confusion about how our laws work. There’s a lot of confusion about civics, and as a result, you see blame landing in sort of unexpected places. 

Rovner: This is the vaguest presidential election I have ever covered. I’ve been doing this since 1988. We basically have both candidates refusing to answer specific questions — as a strategy, I mean, it’s not that I don’t think — I think they both would have a pretty good idea of what it is they would do, and both of them find it to their political advantage not to say. 

Keith: I think that’s absolutely right. I think that the Harris campaign, which I spend more time covering, has the view that if Trump is not going to answer questions directly and he is going to talk about “concepts” of a plan, and he’s just going to sort of, like, Well, if I was president, this wouldn’t be a problem, so I’m not going to answer your question — which is his answer to almost every question — then there’s not a lot of upside for them to get into great specifics about policy and to have think tank nerds telling them it won’t work, because there’s no upside to it. 

Cox: We’re right here. 

Panel: [Laughing] 

Rovner: So regular listeners to the podcast will know that one of my biggest personal frustrations with this campaign is the ever-increasing amount of mis- and outright disinformation in the health care realm, as we discussed at some length on last week’s podcast. You can go back and listen. This has become firmly established in public health, obviously pushed along by the divide over the covid pandemic. The New York Times last week had a pretty scary story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg — who’s working on a book about public health — about how some of these more fringe beliefs are getting embedded in the mainstream of the Republican Party. 

It used to be that we saw most of these kind of fringe, anti-science, anti-health beliefs were on the far right and on the far left, and that’s less the case. What could we be looking forward to on the public health front if Trump is returned to power, particularly with the help of anti-vaccine activist and now Trump endorser R.F.K. [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr.? 

Kirzinger: Oh, goodness to me. Well, so I’m going to talk about a group that I think is really important for us to focus on when we think about misinformation, and I call them the “malleable middle.” So it’s that group that once they hear misinformation or disinformation, they are unsure of whether that is true or false, right? So they’re stuck in this uncertainty of what to believe and who do they trust to get the right information. It used to be pre-pandemic that they would trust their government officials. 

We have seen declining trust in CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], all levels of public health officials. Who they still trust is their primary care providers. Unfortunately, the groups that are most susceptible to misinformation are also the groups that are less likely to have a primary care provider. So we’re not in a great scenario, where we have a group that is unsure of who to trust on information and doesn’t have someone to go to for good sources of information. I don’t have a solution. 

Cox: I also don’t have a solution. 

Rovner: No, I wasn’t — the question isn’t about a solution. The question is about, what can we expect? I mean, we’ve seen the sort of mis- and disinformation. Are we going to actually see it embedded in policy? I mean, we’ve mostly not, other than covid, which obviously now we see the big difference in some states where mask bans are banned and vaccine mandates are banned. Are we going to see childhood vaccines made voluntary for school? 

Ollstein: Well, there’s already a movement to massively broaden who can apply for an exception to those, and that’s already had some scary public health consequences. I mean, I think there are people who would absolutely push for that. 

Kirzinger: I think regardless of who wins the presidency, I think that the misinformation and disinformation is going to have an increasing role. Whether it makes it into policy will depend on who is in office and Congress and all of that. But I think that it is not something that’s going away, and I think we’re just going to continue to have to battle it. And that’s where I’m the most nervous. 

Keith: And when you talk about the trust for the media, those of us who are sitting here trying to get the truth out there, or to fact-check and debunk, trust for us is, like, in the basement, and it just keeps getting worse year after year after year. And the latest Gallup numbers have us worse than we were before, which is just, like, another institution that people are not turning to. We are in an era where some rando on YouTube who said they did their research is more trusted than what we publish. 

Rovner: And some of those randos on YouTube have millions of viewers, listeners. 

Keith: Yes, absolutely. 

Rovner: Subscribers, whatever you want to call them. 

Ollstein: One area where I’ve really seen this come forward, and it could definitely become part of policy in the future, is there’s just a lot of mis- and disinformation around transgender health care. There’s polling that show a lot of people believe what Trump and others have been saying, that, Oh, kids can come home from school and have a sex change operation. Which is obviously ridiculous. Everyone who has kids in school knows that they can’t even give them a Tylenol without parental permission. And it obviously doesn’t happen in a day, but people are like, Oh, well, I know it’s not happening at my school, but it’s sure happening somewhere. And that’s really resonating, and we’re already seeing a lot of legal restrictions on that front spilling. 

Rovner: All right, well, I’m going to open it up to the audience. Please wait to ask your question until you have a microphone, so the people who will be listening to the podcast will be able to hear your question. And please tell us who you are, and please make your question or question. 

Madeline: Hi, I’m Madeline. I am a grad student at the Milken Institute of Public Health at George Washington. My question is regarding polling. And I was just wondering, how has polling methodologies or tendencies to over-sample conservatives had on polls in the race? Are you seeing that as an issue or …? 

Kirzinger: OK. You know who’s less trusted than the media? It’s pollsters, but you can trust me. So I think what you’re seeing is there are now more polls than there have ever been, and I want to talk about legitimate scientific polls that are probability-based. They’re not letting people opt into taking the survey, and they’re making sure their samples are representative of the entire population that they’re surveying, whether it be the electorate or the American public, depending on that. 

I think what we have seen is that there have been some tendencies when people don’t like the poll results, they look at the makeup of that sample and say, oh, this poll’s too Democratic, or too conservative, has too many Trump voters. Or whatever it may be. That benefits no pollster to make their sample not look like the population that they’re aiming to represent. And so, yes, there are lots of really, really bad polls out there, but the ones that are legitimate and scientific are still striving to aim to make sure that it’s representative. The problem with election polls is we don’t know who the electorate’s going to be. We don’t know if Democrats are going to turn out more than Republicans. We don’t know if we’re going to see higher shares of rural voters than we saw in 2022. 

We don’t know. And so that’s where you really see the shifts in error happen. 

Keith: And if former President Trump’s — a big part of his strategy is turning out unlikely voters. 

Kirzinger: Yeah. We have no idea who they are. 

Rovner: Well, yeah, we saw in Georgia, their first day of in-person early voting, we had this huge upswell of voters, but we have no idea who any of those are, right? I mean, we don’t know what is necessarily turning them out. 

Kirzinger: Exactly. And historically, Democrats have been more likely to vote early and vote by mail, but that has really shifted since the pandemic. And so you see these day voting totals now, but that really doesn’t tell you anything at this point in the race. 

Rovner: Lots we still don’t know. Another question. 

Rae Woods: Hi there. Rae Woods. I’m with Advisory Board, which means that I work with health leaders who need to implement based on the policies and the politics and the results of the election that’s coming up. My question is, outside some of the big things that we’ve talked about so far today, are there some more specific, smaller policies or state-level dynamics that you think today’s health leaders will need to respond to in the next six months, the next eight months? What do health leaders need to be focused on right now based on what could change most quickly? 

Ollstein: Something I’ve been trying to shine a light on are state Supreme Courts, which the makeup of them could change dramatically this November. States have all kinds of different ways to … Some elect them on a partisan basis. Some elect them on a nonpartisan basis. Some have appointments by the governor, but then they have to run in these retention elections. But they are going to just have so much power over … I mean, I am most focused on how it can impact abortion rights, but they just have so much power on so many things. 

And given the high likelihood of divided federal government, I think just a ton of health policy is going to happen at the state level. And so I would say the electorate often overlooks those races. There’s a huge drop-off. A lot of people just vote the top of the ticket and then just leave those races blank. But yes, I think we should all be paying more attention to state Supreme Court races. 

Rovner: I think the other thing that we didn’t, that nobody mentioned we were talking about, what the next president could do, is the impact of the change to the regulatory environment and what the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Chevron is going to have on the next president. And we did a whole episode on this, so I can link back to that for those who don’t know. But basically, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for whoever becomes president next time to change rules via their executive authority, and put more onus back on Congress. And we will see how that all plays out, but I think that’s going to be really important next year. 

Natalie Bercutt: Hi. My name is Natalie Bercutt. I’m also a master’s student at George Washington. I study health policy. I wanted to know a little bit more about, obviously, abortion rights, a huge issue on the ballot in this election, but a little bit more about IVF [in vitro fertilization], which I feel like has kind of come to the forefront a little bit more, both in state races but also candidates making comments on a national level, especially folks who have been out in the field and interacting with voters. Is that something that more people are coming out to the ballot for, or people who are maybe voting split ticket but in support of IVF, but for Republican candidate? 

Ollstein: That’s been fascinating. And so most folks know that this really exploded into the public consciousness earlier this year when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are people legally under the state’s abortion ban. And that disrupted IVF services temporarily until the state legislature swooped in. So Democrats’ argument is that because of these anti-abortion laws in lots of different states that were made possible by the Dobbs decision, lots of states could become the next Alabama. Republicans are saying: Oh, that’s ridiculous. Alabama was solved, and no other state’s going to do it. But they could. 

Rovner: Alabama could become the next Alabama. 

Ollstein: Alabama could certainly become the next Alabama. Buy tons of states have very similar language in their laws that would make that possible. Even as you see a lot of Republicans right now saying: Oh, Republicans are … We’re pro-IVF. We’re pro-family. We’re pro-babies. There are a lot of divisions on the right around IVF, including some who do want to prohibit it and others who want to restrict the way it’s most commonly practiced in the U.S., where excess embryos are created and only the most viable ones are implanted and the others are discarded. 

And so I think this will continue to be a huge fight. A lot of activists in the anti-abortion movement are really upset about how Republican candidates and officials have rushed to defend IVF and promised not to do anything to restrict it. And so I think that’s going to continue to be a huge fight no matter what happens. 

Rovner: Tam, are you seeing discussion about the threats to contraception? I know this is something that Democratic candidates are pushing, and Republican candidates are saying, Oh, no, that’s silly. 

Keith: Yeah, I think Democratic candidates are certainly talking about it. I think that because of that IVF situation in Alabama, because of concerns that it could move to contraception, I think Democrats have been able to talk about reproductive health care in a more expansive way and in a way that is perhaps more comfortable than just talking about abortion, in a way that’s more comfortable to voters that they’re talking to back when Joe Biden was running for president. Immediately when Dobbs happened, he was like, And this could affect contraception and it could affect gay rights. And Biden seemed much more comfortable in that realm. And so— 

Rovner: Yeah, Biden, who waited, I think it was a year and a half, before he said the word “abortion.” 

Keith: To say the word “abortion.” Yes. 

Rovner: There was a website: Has Biden Said Abortion Yet? 

Keith: Essentially what I’m saying is that there is this more expansive conversation about reproductive health care and reproductive freedom than there had been when Roe was in place and it was really just a debate about abortion. 

Rovner: Ashley, do people, particularly women voters, perceive that there’s a real threat to contraception? 

Kirzinger: I think what Tamara was saying about when Biden was the candidate, I do think that that was part of the larger conversation, that larger threat. And so they were more worried about IVF and contraception access during that. When you ask voters whether they’re worried about this, they’re not as worried, but they do give the Democratic Party and Harris a much stronger advantage on these issues. And so if you were to be motivated by that, you would be motivated to vote for Harris, but it really isn’t resonating with women voters and the way now that abortion, abortion access is resonating for them. 

Rovner: Basically, it won’t be resonating until they take it away. 

Kirzinger: Exactly. If, I think, the Alabama Supreme Court ruling happened yesterday, I think it would be a much bigger issue in the campaign, but all of this is timing. 

Ollstein: Well, and people really talked about a believability gap around the Dobbs decision, even though the activists who were following it closely were screaming that Roe is toast, from the moment the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and especially after they heard the case and people heard the tone of the arguments. And then of course the decision leaked, and even then there was a believability gap. And until it was actually gone, a lot of people just didn’t think that was possible. And I think you’re seeing that again around the idea of a national ban, and you’re seeing it around the idea of restrictions on contraception and IVF. There’s still this believability gap despite the evidence we’ve seen. 

Rovner: All right. I think we have time for one more question. 

Meg: Hi, my name’s Meg. I’m a freelance writer, and I wanted to ask you about something I’m not hearing about this election cycle, and that’s guns. Where do shootings and school shootings and gun violence fit into this conversation? 

Keith: I think that we have heard a fair bit about guns. It’s part of a laundry list, I guess you could say. In the Kamala Harris stump speech, she talks about freedom. She talks about reproductive freedom. She talks about freedom from being shot, going to the grocery store or at school. That’s where it fits into her stump speech. And certainly in terms of Trump, he is very pro–Second Amendment and has at times commented on the school shootings in ways that come across as insensitive. But for his base — and he is only running for his base — for his base, being very strongly pro–Second Amendment is critical. And I think there was even a question maybe in the Univision town hall yesterday to him about guns. 

It is not the issue in this campaign, but it is certainly an issue if we talk about how much politics have changed in a relatively short period of time. To have a Democratic nominee leaning in on restrictions on guns is a pretty big shift. When Hillary Clinton did it, it was like: Oh, gosh. She’s going there. She lost. I don’t think that’s why she lost, but certainly the NRA [National Rifle Association] spent a lot of money to help her lose. Biden, obviously an author of the assault weapons ban, was very much in that realm, and Harris has continued moving in that direction along with him, though also hilariously saying she has a Glock and she’d be willing to use it 

Ollstein: And emphasizing [Minnesota governor and Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim] Walz’s hunting. 

Keith: Oh, look, Tim Walz, he’s pheasant hunting this weekend. 

Rovner: And unlike John Kerry, he looked like he’d done it before. John Kerry rather famously went out hunting and clearly had not. 

Keith: I was at a rally in 2004 where John Kerry was wearing the jacket, the barn jacket, and the senator, the Democratic senator from Ohio hands him a shotgun, and he’s like … Ehh. 

Kirzinger: I was taken aback when Harris said that she had a Glock. I thought that was a very interesting response for a Democratic presidential candidate. I do think it is maybe part of her appeal to independent voters that, As a gun owner, I support Second Amendment rights, but with limitations. And I do think that that part of appeal, it could work for a more moderate voting block on gun rights. 

Rovner: We haven’t seen this sort of responsible gun owner faction in a long time. I mean, that was the origin of the NRA. 

Keith: But then more recently, Giffords has really taken on that mantle as, We own guns, but we want controls. 

Rovner: All right, well, I could go on for a while, but this is all the time we have. I want to thank you all for coming and helping me celebrate my birthday being a health nerd, because that’s what I do. We do have cake for those of you in the room. For those of you out in podcast land, as always, if you enjoy the podcast, you could subscribe wherever you get your podcast. 

We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our live-show coordinator extraordinaire, Stephanie Stapleton, and our entire live-show team. Thanks a lot. This takes a lot more work than you realize. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @KFF.org, or you can still find me. I’m at X at @jrovner. Tam, where are you on social media? 

Keith: I’m @tamarakeithNPR. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Cynthia. 

Cox: @cynthiaccox. 

Rovner: Ashley. 

Kirzinger: @AshleyKirzinger. 

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

Credits

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Twenty-four minutes before the mass shooting at the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl victory parade in February left one person dead and at least 24 people injured, Jenipher Cabrera felt a bullet pierce the back of her right thigh.

The 20-year-old and her family were just four blocks from Union Station, in a river of red-shirted Chiefs fans walking toward the massive rally after the parade that warm Valentine’s Day. The bullet — fired by teen boys fighting in the street — thrust Cabrera forward.

She grabbed her mom by the shoulder and signaled in panic to her bleeding leg with her large brown eyes, not saying a word. Cabrera was being treated in an ambulance when she heard reports blasting from the police radio.

“My mom was trying to get on the ambulance,” Cabrera said. “I remember them saying, like, ‘You can’t get on. There might be other victims that we need to pick up.’”

Cabrera’s shooting happened before the one that garnered the big headlines that day and is one of hundreds that kill or injure Kansas City-area residents each year. That endless drumbeat of gun violence — from one-off incidents to mass shootings — has shattered the sense of safety for those who survive. As victims and their families try to move forward, reminders of gun violence are inescapable in the media, in their communities, in their daily lives.

“I look at people differently,” said James Lemons, who was shot in the thigh at the rally. Now when he’s around strangers he can’t help but wonder if they have a gun and if his kids are safe.

The new NFL season opened here with a moment of silence for Lisa Lopez-Galvan, the only person killed at the parade. Kansas City has recorded at least 124 homicides this year. Local police say there have been an additional 476 “bullet-to-skin victims” — people who were shot and survived. And there were at least 50 school shootings nationwide by mid-September.

Collectively it is all taking a toll.

Survivors suffer panic attacks and feel a heightened sense of danger in crowds and deep anxieties about the threat of violence anywhere in Kansas City.

Every shooting survivor responds in their own way to gun violence and even the threat of it, according to LJ Punch, a trauma surgeon by training and founder of the Bullet Related Injury Clinic in St. Louis.

For some, getting shot ensures they will always be on guard, perhaps even armed. Others want nothing to do with guns ever again.

“But what’s the common ground? That people desperately want to be safe,” Punch said.

Cabrera’s search to make meaning out of what happened has led her to work with a frustrated local lawmaker seeking new gun laws — something akin to impossible given Missouri state law, which prohibits nearly any local restrictions on firearms.

Learning of Other Shootings on the Phone

Feb. 14 is a movie in Cabrera’s mind, in slow motion, frame by frame, and the soundtrack is her voice, talking and talking. She sees a group of rowdy teenage boys running around her and her family. Then two pops — fireworks? Another pop. Finally, a fourth.

“I think that’s where the shock kicked in, and I grabbed my mom,” Cabrera remembered. “I didn’t say anything to her. I just, like, looked at her, and I had, like, my eyes were widened, and I kind of signaled with my eyes to look down at my leg.”

Cabrera fell and other fans rushed to her rescue, calling 911, and began cutting off her leggings. Four men instantly pulled off their belts when asked for a tourniquet. She remembers thinking that if she lost consciousness, she could die. So she talked and talked. Or so she thought.

One of her rescuers later said she actually didn’t say a word even when he asked how many fingers he was holding up.

“He told me [that] my eyes were huge, like oranges, and that all I was basically doing was, like, looking up and down four times since he had four fingers up,” Cabrera said.

Cabrera remembers being moved out of the emergency room at University Health to make room for 12 people who came in from the shooting at the rally, including eight with gunshot wounds. She checked social media on her phone — another shooting? Unreal. Finally her parents found her. She spent seven days in the hospital.

Cabrera is grateful to be alive. But she is triggered now when she sees groups of teenage boys cursing and playing, or when she sees red Chiefs shirts. Hearing four pops in a row — a regular occurrence in her northeast Kansas City neighborhood — makes Cabrera’s chest swell and she braces for a panic attack.

“It runs over and over and over and over in my mind,” she said.

‘An Increasing Sense of Threat?’

The U.S. surgeon general declared gun violence a public health crisis in June, but nearly any new regulation on guns is a political nonstarter in Missouri. In fact, a 2021 state law — signed at the Kansas City-area gun store where one of the weapons used in the parade shooting was purchased — would have barred local police from enforcing federal gun laws. The law was struck down by a federal appeals court in August.

Missouri has no age restrictions on gun use and possession, although federal law largely prohibits juveniles from carrying handguns.

Polling of Missouri voters shows support for requiring background checks and instituting age restrictions for gun purchases, but also nearly half were opposed to allowing counties and cities to pass their own gun rules.

Per capita, Kansas City, Missouri, is among the more violent places in the nation. From 2014 to 2023, there were at least 2,175 shootings in this city of 510,000, leaving 1,275 people dead and 1,624 injured. And while murder rates fell in more than 100 cities across the country last year, Kansas City recorded its deadliest year on record.

Shared with permission from The Trace.

Punch, of the Bullet Related Injury Clinic, likened the violence to a disease outbreak that goes unaddressed and spreads. The state’s permissive posture toward guns might supercharge the reality in Kansas City, Punch said, but it didn’t start it.

“So is there something going on? Is there an increasing sense of threat?” Punch asked.

Jason Barton was familiar with that violence growing up in Kansas City. Now settled in Osawatomie, Kansas, he thought long and hard about bringing his own gun for protection when he drove his family to the Super Bowl parade.

Ultimately he decided against it, surmising that if something happened and he pulled out a gun, he would be arrested or shot.

Barton responded quickly to the shooting, which happened right in front of him and his family. His wife found a bullet in her backpack. His stepdaughter’s legs were burned by sparks from a bullet ricochet.

Despite his worst fears coming true, Barton said not bringing his gun that day was the right decision.

“Guns don’t need to be brought into places like that,” he said.

‘A 12-Gauge With Teeth’

Mass shootings can derail survivors’ sense of safety, according to Heather Martin, a survivor of the Columbine High School shooting in 1999 and co-founder of The Rebels Project, which provides peer support to survivors of mass trauma.

“Trying to find a way to feel safe again is very common,” Martin said, “in the years following it.”

James Lemons had always felt trepidation about returning to Kansas City, where he grew up. He even brought his gun with him to the parade but left it in the car at the urging of his wife. His 5-year-old daughter was on his shoulders when a bullet entered the back of his thigh. He shielded her from the ground as he fell. What was he realistically going to do with a gun?

And yet he can’t help but wonder “what if.” He can’t shake the feeling that he failed to protect his family. Waking up from dreams about the parade, “I just start crying,” he said. He knows he hasn’t processed it yet but he doesn’t know how to start. He has focused on his family’s safety.

They got two American bulldogs this summer, making three total in the house now — one for each kid. Lemons described them as “like having a gun without having a gun.”

“I’ve got a 12-gauge with teeth,” Lemons joked, “just a big, softy protector.”

Most nights he sleeps only a few hours at a time before waking up to check on the kids. Usually he’s on the couch. It’s more comfortable for his leg that is still healing, and it helps him avoid the restless kicks of his 5-year-old, who has slept with her parents since the parade.

It also ensures he’ll be the one to intercept an intruder who breaks into the house.

Emily Tavis, who was shot through the leg, found solace at her church and from a sister congregation’s in-house therapist.

But then, the Sunday morning after the Donald Trump rally shooting in July, the preacher’s sermon turned to gun violence — triggering panic inside her.

“And it just, like, overwhelmed me so much, where I just went to the bathroom,” Tavis said, “and I just stayed in the bathroom for the rest of the sermon.” Now even attending church gives her pause.

Tavis recently moved into a new house in Leavenworth, Kansas, that she is renting from a friend. The friend’s husband cautioned that if Tavis was going to be alone she needed a gun for protection. She told him she just can’t deal with guns right now.

“And he’s like, ‘OK, well, take this.’ And he pulls out this giant machete,” Tavis recalled, laughing.

“So I have a machete now.”

A Search for Something Good

Cabrera, the young woman who couldn’t speak after being shot, is now trying to use her voice in the fight against gun violence.

Manny Abarca, a Jackson County, Missouri, legislator, lives down the street. One evening, he came to visit. Cabrera’s parents did most of the talking; she’s shy by nature. But then he turned and asked her directly: What did she want?

“I just want, like, some justice for my case,” she said, “or something good to happen.”

Before the parade, Cabrera was offered a factory job where her sister worked, but she hadn’t started because her leg was still healing. So Abarca offered her an internship, helping him establish a Jackson County Office of Gun Violence Prevention, a plan he introduced in July in response to the parade shootings.

Abarca was in the Chiefs victory parade with his 5-year-old daughter, Camila. They were in Union Station when shots were fired — and they huddled in a downstairs bathroom.

“I just said, ‘Hey, you know, just be calm. Just be quiet. Let’s just find out what’s going on. Something’s happened,’” Abarca said. “And then she said, ‘This is a drill.’ And hey, it tore everything out of me, because I was like, she’s referring to her training” at school.

They emerged shaken but safe, only to learn that Lopez-Galvan had died. Abarca knew the 43-year-old mother and popular Tejano DJ through the area’s tight-knit Hispanic community.

Abarca has taken advantage of this heated time after the Super Bowl parade shootings to work on anti-violence measures, despite knowing the severe limitations posed by state law.

In June, the Jackson County Legislature passed a measure that gives local teeth to a federal domestic violence law that allows judges to remove firearms from offenders.

But Abarca hasn’t been able to get the gun violence office approved, and county officials have refused to take up another measure that would establish age limits for purchasing or possessing firearms, fearing a lawsuit from a combative state attorney general. He hired Cabrera, he said, because she is bilingual and he wants her help as a survivor.

In a sense, the work makes Cabrera feel stronger in her fight to move forward from the shooting. Still, her family’s perception of safety has been shattered, and no one will be attending games or a possible Super Bowl victory parade anytime soon.

“We just never expected something like that to happen,” she said. “And so I think we’re gonna be more cautious now and maybe just watch it through TV.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Doctors are seeing more cases of life-threatening high blood pressure in pregnant and postpartum mothers, and new rules will require more adult-size changing tables in public buildings to accommodate people with disabilities.

Oct. 3

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: New data shows that getting a vaccine while pregnant is a good way to protect newborns from covid, and a Trump victory in November’s presidential election could allow more states to create burdensome work requirements for receiving public assistance.

Sept. 26

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Pediatricians won’t get refunds on all their unused covid vaccines, leaving some parents of children under 3 struggling to find them, and 2023 saw the largest number of abortions in more than a decade despite bans or heavy restrictions in 20 states.

Sept. 18

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Botox could help people with a painful health condition that prevents them from burping, and shooting survivors can face a scarcity of mental health providers as they try to recover from trauma.

Sept. 12

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: The end of Congressional money for covid could leave local health departments struggling to fulfill routine functions, and the error-prone computer systems operated by a private company are kicking eligible people off public assistance.

Sept. 5

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Hundreds of rural hospitals have stopped offering cancer care, and anti-abortion policymakers are targeting clinics as some states weigh legalizing abortion this fall.

Aug. 29

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Public health officials in Montana are turning to vending machines to provide free, lifesaving opioid overdose medication, and lawmakers nationwide struggle to land on a winning legal strategy to curb the mental health risks of social media to kids.

Aug. 22

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: New treatments and vaccines are available for respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV, and fentanyl-laced stimulants are driving a new wave of opioid overdose deaths.

Aug. 15

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Fears about social media may cause policymakers to miss the mental health benefits it can provide teenagers, and nursing home residents are missing out on covid shots that could help keep them safe.

Aug. 8

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: More women are ending their pregnancies without medical assistance since the fall of Roe v. Wade, and some states are taking action to protect workers from deadly heat.

Aug. 1

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Drones could speed up lifesaving treatment in an emergency, and paperwork problems can leave patients with frightening medical bills they may not have to pay.

July 25

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: A new program in Philadelphia hopes to reduce gun violence trauma by making sure the city cleans up quickly after a shooting, and the nation’s 911 system is on the brink of its own emergency.

July 18

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: More young people are asking for sterilization since the end of federal abortion protections, and it’s getting harder to see a doctor without having to pay hundreds of dollars in membership fees.

July 11

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: A new Supreme Court ruling could upend who gets the final word in setting federal health rules, and emergency room branding is creating confusion for patients.

July 4

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: HIV doctors are learning how to care for their aging patients and states that voted to protect abortion rights in their constitutions could still face years of court battles to restore service.

June 27

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: CDC tests aren’t reaching the front lines of the bird flu outbreak, and some medical translators worry artificial intelligence could end up confusing doctors and patients who speak different languages.

June 20

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Some tribal nations are treating addiction with traditional healing ceremonies funded by money from companies accused of fueling the opioid epidemic, and nursing homes weigh how to care for their residents in a time of increasingly intense wildfires.

June 13

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Bird flu could pose a risk to the egg supply vaccine manufactures rely on, and millions of Americans could lose the internet service they use to access health care as a pandemic-era program expires.

June 6

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Dairy farm workers weigh the risks of testing positive for bird flu and potentially losing a paycheck, and cruise-goers could face costly medical bills if they get sick at sea.

May 30

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: High demand and high prices keep drugs like Ozempic out of reach for diabetes patients on a fixed income, and why changing the kind of respiratory inhaler you use could be a better choice for the planet.

May 23

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: A 1930s law is keeping cutting-edge sunscreen off the shelf in the United States, and survivors of gun violence often have to decide what to do with the bullets still in their bodies.

May 16

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: DIY gel manicures could give you an allergic reaction and some aspiring specialist physicians are avoiding states with strict abortion laws.

May 9

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Beware fine print on a doctor’s agreement that might get in the way of a health insurance reimbursement, and health risks from climate change have Oregon looking to send Medicaid recipients air conditioners and purifiers.

May 2

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Young adults who got hooked on vaping struggle to kick the habit and vehicle tires emerge as a major source of air pollution.

April 25

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Some homeless people who are eligible for Medicaid are losing it as states rush to purge their rolls, and a wave of communities have stopped adding cavity-preventing fluoride to their drinking water.

April 18

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: A shortage of dentists has more primary care doctors taking care of teeth, and providers risk jail time in states that continue to outlaw needle exchanges.

April 11

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Rising attacks on emergency room staffers have nurses demanding harsher penalties, and a loophole in the No Surprises Act left a mom with an air-ambulance bill of more than $97,000.

April 4

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: A tech-powered, faster way to diagnose the disease that causes diabetes-related blindness, and emerging research on alcohol consumption and women’s risks.  

March 28

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Questions around abortion rights could be on the ballot in more than a dozen states this November, and a new report points to rising rates of alcohol-related deaths among women.

March 21

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Public health experts worry the anti-vaccine movement pits parental rights against public health, and a Michigan widower joins the fight for minimum staffing levels for hospital nurses.

March 14

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Medicaid expansion could help some rural hospitals stay open, and upcoming rules from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would keep all medical debt off credit reports.

March 6

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Some providers are saving penicillin for pregnant patients amid a shortage of the drug, which is used to treat syphilis, and why bigger hearing aids might be better.

Feb. 28

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Calls for confidential mental health treatment rise as some medical providers put off care for fear of losing their jobs, and lawmakers grapple with how to regulate artificial intelligence in medicine.

Feb. 22

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Pain specialists say injections for kids don’t have to hurt so much, and states overwhelmed by the housing crisis are using Medicaid funds to curb homelessness.

Feb. 15

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Some cities rethink the role of police in responding to someone in a mental health crisis, and the FDA takes aim at a carcinogen commonly found in hair-straightening products.

Feb. 08

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: The Federal Trade Commission says drugmakers are misusing patents to keep prices high on medication delivery devices like inhalers and injectors, and some providers are using a loophole in the Affordable Care Act to charge patients for preventive care that’s supposed to be free.

Feb. 01

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Americans struggle to find a primary care provider, and some experts on aging are calling on older drivers to sign an advance directive to determine when they should stop driving.

Jan. 25

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: The federal government will force some insurers to review prior authorization requests more quickly, and it’s still worth it to get vaccinated for the flu, covid, and RSV in the middle of respiratory virus season.

Jan. 18

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Workers in smoky casinos say they shouldn’t have to gamble with their health on the job, and some Medicare Advantage enrollees feel trapped in their plans as they get older and sicker.

Jan. 11

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: A national shortage of Adderall leaves people with narcolepsy struggling to live normal lives. and researchers find little evidence that mental health courts are keeping those who need them most out of lockup.

Jan. 4

This week on the KFF Health News Minute: In some states, anglers have little guidance about the “forever chemicals” in freshwater fish, and California once again expands access to its Medicaid program, opening the door wider for immigrants regardless of age or legal status.

The KFF Health News Minute is available every Thursday on CBS News Radio.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

As part of a media blitz aimed at women voters, Vice President Kamala Harris this week rolled out a plan for Medicare to provide in-home long-term care services. It’s popular, particularly for families struggling to care for both young children and older relatives, but its enormous expense has prevented similar plans from being implemented for decades.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden called out former President Donald Trump by name for having “led the onslaught of lies” about the federal efforts to help people affected by hurricanes Helene and Milton. Even some Republican officials say the misinformation about hurricane relief efforts is threatening public health.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico.

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Vice President Kamala Harris’ plan to expand Medicare to cover more long-term care is popular but not new, and in the past has proved prohibitively expensive.
• Former President Donald Trump has abandoned support for a drug price policy he pursued during his first term. The idea, which would lower drug prices in the U.S. to their levels in other industrialized countries, is vehemently opposed by the drug industry, raising the question of whether Trump is softening his hard line on the issue.
• Abortion continues to be the biggest health policy issue of 2024, as Republican candidates — in what seems to be a replay of 2022 — try to distance themselves from their support of abortion bans and other limits. Voters continue to favor reproductive rights, which creates a brand problem for the GOP. Trump’s going back and forth on his abortion positions is an exception to the tack other candidates have taken.
• The Supreme Court returned from its summer break and immediately declined to hear two abortion-related cases. One case pits Texas’ near-total abortion ban against a federal law that requires emergency abortions to be performed in certain cases. The other challenges a ruling earlier this year from the Alabama Supreme Court finding that embryos frozen for in vitro fertilization have the same legal rights as born humans.
• The 2024 KFF annual employer health benefits survey, released this week, showed a roughly 7% increase in premiums, with average family premiums now topping $25,000 per year. And that’s with most employers not covering two popular but expensive medical interventions: GLP-1 drugs for weight loss and IVF.

Also this week, excerpts from a KFF lunch with “Shark Tank” panelist and generic drug discounter Mark Cuban, who has been consulting with the Harris campaign about health care issues.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly.

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” by Mel Leonor Barclay.

Jessie Hellmann: The Assembly’s “Helene Left Some NC Elder-Care Homes Without Power,” by Carli Brosseau.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It,” by Kate Morgan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Biden Accuses Trump of ‘Outright Lies’ About Hurricane Response,” by Michael D. Shear.
• The Miami Herald’s “Florida Threatens To Prosecute TV Stations Over Abortion Ad. FCC Head Calls It ‘Dangerous,’” by Claire Healy and Ana Ceballos.
• KFF’s “2024 Employer Health Benefits Survey.”

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health.” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for 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, October 10th, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via teleconference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: Jesse Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Schools of Public Health and Nursing and Politico magazine. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have some excerpts from the Newsmaker lunch we had here at KFF this week with Mark Cuban — “Shark Tank” star, part-owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team, and, for the purposes of our discussion, co-founder of the industry-disrupting pharmaceutical company Cost Plus Drugs. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start this week with Vice President [Kamala] Harris, who’s been making the media rounds on women-focused podcasts and TV shows like “The View.” To go along with that, she’s released a proposal to expand Medicare to include home-based long-term care, to be paid for in part by expanding the number of drugs whose price Medicare can negotiate. Sounds simple and really popular. Why has no one else ever proposed something like that? she asks, knowing full well the answer. Joanne, tell us! 

Kenen: As the one full-fledged member of the sandwich generation here, who has lived the experience of being a family caregiver while raising children and working full time, long-term care is the unfulfillable, extremely expensive, but incredibly important missing link in our health care system. We do not have a system for long-term care, and people do not realize that. Many people think Medicare will, in fact, cover it, where Medicare covers it in a very limited, short-term basis. So the estimates of what families spend both in terms of lost work hours and what they put out-of-pockets is in, I think it’s something like $400 billion. It’s extraordinarily high. But the reason it’s been hard to fix is it’s extraordinarily expensive. And although Harris put out a plan to pay for this, that plan is going to have to be vetted by economists and budget scorers and skeptical Republicans. And probably some skeptical Democrats. It’s really expensive. It’s really hard to do. Julie has covered this for years, too. It’s just— 

Rovner: I would say this is where I get to say one of my favorite things, which is that I started covering health care in 1986, and in 1986 my first big feature was: Why don’t we have a long-term care policy in this country? Thirty-eight years later, and we still don’t, and not that people have not tried. There, in fact, was a long-term-care-in-the-home piece of the Affordable Care Act that passed Congress, and HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] discovered that they could not implement it in the way it was written, because only the people who would’ve needed it would’ve signed up for it. It would’ve been too expensive. And there it went. So this is the continuing promise of something that everybody agrees that we need and nobody has ever been able to figure out how to do. Shefali, I see you nodding here. 

Luthra: I mean, I’m just thinking again about the pay-fors in here, which are largely the savings from Medicare negotiating drug prices. And what Harris says in her plan is that they’re going to get more savings by expanding the list of drugs that get lower prices. But that also feels very politically suspect when we have already heard congressional Republicans say that they would like to weaken some of those drug negotiation price provisions. And we also know that Democrats, even if they win the presidency, are not likely to have Congress. It really takes me back to 2020, when we are just talking about ideas that Democrats would love to do if they had full power of Congress, while all of us in Washington kind of know that that is just not going to happen. 

Rovner: Yes, I love that one of the pay-fors for this is cutting Medicare fraud. It’s like, where have we heard that before? Oh, yes. In every Medicare proposal for the last 45 years. 

Kenen: And it also involves closing some kind of international tax loopholes, and that also sounds easy on paper, and nothing with taxes is ever easy. The Democrats probably are not going to have the Senate. Nobody really knows about the House. It looks like the Democrats may have a narrow edge in that, but we’re going to have more years of gridlock unless something really changes politically, like something extraordinary changes politically. The Republicans are not going to give a President Harris, if she is in fact President Harris, her wish list on a golden platter. On the other hand there’s need for this. 

Rovner: But in fairness, this is what the campaign is for. 

Kenen: Right. There is a need for something on long-term care. 

Rovner: And everybody’s complaining: Well, what would she do? What would she do if she was elected? Well, here’s something she said she would do if she could, if she was elected. Well, meanwhile, former President [Donald] Trump has apparently abandoned a proposal that he made during his first term to require drugmakers to lower their prices for Medicare to no more than they charge in other developed countries where their prices are government-regulated. Is Trump going soft on the drug industry? Trump has been, what, the Republican, I think, who’s been most hostile towards the drug industry until now. 

Hellmann: I would say maybe. I think the “most favored nation” proposal is something that the pharmaceutical industry has feared even more than the Democrats’ Medicare negotiation program. And it’s something that Trump really pursued in his first term but wasn’t able to get done. In such a tight race, I think he’s really worried about angering pharmaceutical companies, especially after they were just kind of dealt this loss with Medicare price negotiation. And if he does win reelection, he’s going to be kind of limited in his ability to weaken that program. It’s going to be hard to repeal it. It’s extremely popular, and he may be able to weaken it. 

Rovner: “It” meaning price negotiation, not the “most favored nations” prices. 

Hellmann: Yeah. It’s going to be really hard to repeal that, and he may be able to weaken it through the negotiation process with drug companies. It’s definitely an interesting turn. 

Rovner: Joanne, you want to add something? 

Kenen: Trump rhetorically was very harsh on the drug companies right around the time of his inauguration. I think it was the week before, if I remember correctly. Said a lot of very tough stuff on drugs. Put out a list of something like dozens of potential steps. The drug companies have lots of allies in both parties, and more in one than the other, but they have allies on the Hill, and nothing revolutionary happened on drug pricing under Trump. 

Rovner: And his HHS secretary was a former drug company executive. 

Kenen: Yes, Eli Lilly. So we also pointed out here that former President Trump is not consistent in policy proposals. He says one thing, and then he says another thing, and it’s very hard to know where he’s going to come down. So Trump and drug pricing is an open question. 

Rovner: Yes, we will see. All right, well, moving on. Drug prices and Medicare aside, the biggest health issue of Campaign 2024 continues to be abortion and other reproductive health issues. And it’s not just Trump trying to back away from his anti-abortion record. We’ve had a spate of stories over the past week or so of Republicans running for the House, the Senate, and governorships who are trying to literally reinvent themselves as, if not actually supportive of abortion rights, at least anti abortion bans. And that includes Republicans who have not just voted for and advocated for bans but who have been outspokenly supportive of the anti-abortion effort, people like North Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson, New Hampshire Republican gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, along with former Michigan Republican representative and now Senate candidate Mike Rogers. Donald Trump has gotten away repeatedly, as Joanne just said, with changing his positions, even on hot-button issues like abortion. Are these candidates going to be able to get away with doing the same thing, Shefali? 

Luthra: I think it’s just so much tougher when your name is not Donald Trump. And that’s because we know from focus group after focus group, and survey after survey, that voters kind of give Trump more leeway on abortion. Especially independent voters will look at him and say, Well, I don’t think he actually opposes abortion, because I’m sure he’s paid for them. And they don’t have that same grace that they give to Republican lawmakers and Republican candidates, because the party has a bad brand on abortion at large, and Trump is seen as this kind of maverick figure. But voters know that Republicans have a history of opposing abortion, of supporting restrictions. 

When you look at surveys, when you talk to voters, what they say is, Well, I don’t trust Republicans to represent my interests on this issue, because they largely support access. And one thing that I do think is really interesting is, once again, what we’re seeing is kind of a repeat of the 2022 elections when we saw some very brazen efforts by Republican candidates for the House and Senate try and scrub references to abortion and to fetal personhood from their websites. And it didn’t work, because people have eyes and people have memories, and, also, campaigns have access to the internet archive and are able to show people that, even a few weeks ago, Republican candidates were saying something very different from what they are saying now. I don’t think Mark Robinson can really escape from his relatively recent and very public comments about abortion. 

Rovner: Well, on the other hand, there’s some things that don’t change. Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance told RealClearPolitics last week that if Trump is elected again, their administration would cut off funding to Planned Parenthood because, he said, and I quote, “We don’t think that taxpayers should fund late-term abortions.” Notwithstanding, of course, that even before the overturn of Roe, less than half of all Planned Parenthoods even performed abortions and almost none of those who did perform them later in pregnancy. Is it fair to say that Vance’s anti-abortion slip is showing? 

Luthra: I think it might be. And I will say, Julie, when I saw that he said that, I could hear you in my head just yelling about the Hyde Amendment, because we know that Planned Parenthood does not use taxpayer money to pay for abortions. But we also know that JD Vance has seen that he and his ticket are kind of in a tough corner talking about abortion. He has said many times, We need to rebrand — he’s very honest about that, at least — and trying to focus instead on this nonmedical term of “late term” abortions. 

It’s a gamble. It’s hoping that voters will be more sympathetic to that because they’ll think, Oh, well, that sounds very extreme. And they’re trying to shift back who is seen as credible and who is not, by focusing on something that historically was less popular. But again, it’s again tricky because when we look at the polling, voters’ understanding of abortion has shifted and they are now more likely to understand that when you have an abortion later in pregnancy, it is often for very medically complex reasons. And someone very high-profile who recently said that is Melania Trump in her new memoir, talking about how she supports abortion at all stages of pregnancy because often these are very heart-wrenching cases and not sort of the murder that Republicans have tried to characterize them as. 

Rovner: I think you’re right. I think this is the continuation of the 2022 campaign, except that we’ve had so many more women come forward. We’ve seen actual cases. It used to be anti-abortion forces would say, Oh, well, this never happened. I mean, these are wrenching, awful things that happened to a lot of these patients with pregnancy complications late in pregnancy. And it is, I know, because I’ve talked to them. It’s very hard to get them to talk publicly, because then they get trolled. Why should they step forward? 

Well, now we’ve seen a lot of these women stepping forward. So we now see a public that knows that this happens, because they’re hearing from the people that it’s happened to and they’re hearing from their doctors. I do know also from the polling that there are people who are going to vote in these 10 states where abortion is on the ballot. Many of them are going to vote for abortion access and then turn around and vote for Republicans who support restrictions, because they’re Republicans. It may or may not be their most important issue, but I still think it’s a big question mark where that happens and how it shakes out. Joanne, did you want to add something? 

Kenen: You’re seeing two competing things at the same time. You have a number of Republicans trying to moderate their stance or at least sound like they’re moderating their stance. At the same time, you also have the whole, where the Republican Party is on abortion has shifted to the right. They are talking about personhood at the moment of conception, the embryo — which is, scientifically put, a small ball of cells still at that point — that they actually have the same legal rights as any other post-birth person. 

So that’s become a fairly common view in the Republican Party, as opposed to something that just five or six years ago was seen as the fringe. And Trump is going around saying that Democrats allow babies to be executed after birth, which is not true. And they’re particularly saying this is true in Minnesota because of [Gov.] Tim Walz, and some voters must believe it, right? Because they keep saying it. So you have this trend that Shefali just described and that you’ve described, Julie, about this sort of attempting to win back trust, as Vance said. And it sounded more moderate, and at the same time as you’re hearing this rhetoric about personhood and execution. So I don’t think the Republicans have yet solved their own whiplash post-Roe. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, the abortion debate is getting mired in the free-speech debate. In Florida, Republican governor Ron DeSantis is threatening legal action against TV stations airing an ad in support of the ballot measure that would overturn the state’s six-week abortion ban. That has in turn triggered a rebuke from the head of the Federal Communications Commission warning that political speech is still protected here in the United States. Shefali, this is really kind of out there, isn’t it? 

Luthra: It’s just so fascinating, and it’s really part of a bigger effort by Ron DeSantis to try and leverage anything that he can politically or, frankly, in his capacity as head of the state to try and weaken the campaign for the ballot measure. They have used the health department in other ways to try and send out material suggesting that the campaign’s talking points, which are largely focused on the futility of exceptions to the abortion ban, they’re trying to argue that that is misinformation, and that’s not true. And they’re using the state health department to make that argument, which is something we don’t really see very often, because usually health departments are supposed to be nonpartisan. And what I will say is, in this case, at least to your point, Julie, the FCC has weighed in and said: You can’t do this. You can’t stop a TV station from airing a political ad that was bought and paid for. And the ads haven’t stopped showing at this point. I just heard from family yesterday in Florida who are seeing the ads in question on their TV, and it’s still— 

Rovner: And I will post a link to the ad just so you can see it. It’s about a woman who’s pregnant and had cancer and needed cancer treatment and needed to terminate the pregnancy in order to get the cancer treatment. It said that the exception would not allow her to, which the state says isn’t true and which is clearly one of these things that is debatable. That’s why we’re having a political debate. 

Luthra: Exactly. And one thing that I think is worth adding in here is, I mean, this really intense effort from Governor DeSantis and his administration comes at a time when already this ballot measure faces probably the toughest fight of any abortion rights measure. And we have seen abortion rights win again and again at the ballot, but in Florida you need 60% to pass. And if you look across the country at every abortion rights measure that has been voted on since Roe v. Wade was overturned, only two have cleared 60, and they are in California and they are in Vermont. So these more conservative-leaning states, and Florida is one of them, it’s just, it’s really, really hard to see how you get to that number. And we even saw this week there’s polling that suggests that the campaign has a lot of work to do if they’re hoping to clear that threshold. 

Rovner: And, of course, now they have two hurricanes to deal with, which we will deal with in a few minutes. But first, the Supreme Court is back in session here in Washington, and even though there’s no big abortion case on its official docket as of now this term, the court quickly declined to hear two cases on its first day back, one involving whether the abortion ban in Texas can override the federal emergency treatment law that’s supposed to guarantee abortion access in medical emergencies threatening the pregnant woman’s life or health. The court also declined to overrule the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos can be considered legally as unborn children. That’s what Joanne was just talking about. Where do these two decisions leave us? Neither one actually resolved either of these questions, right? 

Luthra: I mean, the EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] question is still ongoing, not because of the Texas case but because of the Idaho case that is asking very similar questions that we’ve talked about previously on this podcast. And the end of last term, the court kicked that back down to the lower courts to continue making its way through. We anticipate it will eventually come back to the Supreme Court. So this is a question that we will, in fact, be hearing on at some point. 

Rovner: Although, the irony here is that in Idaho, the ban is on hold because there was a court stay. And in Texas, the ban is not on hold, even though we’re talking about exactly the same question: Does the federal law overrule the state’s ban? 

Luthra: And what that kind of highlights — right? — is just how much access to abortion, even under states with similar laws or legislatures, really does depend on so many factors, including what circuit court you fall into or the makeup of your state Supreme Court and how judges are appointed or whether they are elected. There is just so much at play that makes access so variable. And I think the other thing that one could speculate that maybe the court didn’t want headlines around reproductive health so soon into an election, but it’s not as if this is an issue that they’re going to be avoiding in the medium- or long-term future. These are questions that are just too pressing, and they will be coming back to the Supreme Court in some form. 

Rovner: Yes, I would say in the IVF [in vitro fertilization] case, they simply basically said, Go away for now. Right? 

Luthra: Yeah. And, I mean, right now in Alabama, people are largely able to get IVF because of the state law that was passed, even if it didn’t touch the substance of that state court’s ruling. This is something, for now, people can sort of think is maybe uninterrupted, even as we all know that the ideological and political groundwork is being laid for a much longer and more intense fight over this. 

Rovner: Well, remember back last week when we predicted that the judge’s decision overturning Georgia’s six-week ban was unlikely to be the last word? Well, sure enough, the Georgia Supreme Court this week overturned the immediate overturning of the ban, which officially went back into effect on Monday. Like these other cases, this one continues, right? 

Luthra: Yes, this continues. The Georgia case continued for a while, and it just sort of underscores again what we’ve been talking about, just how much access really changes back and forth. And I was talking to an abortion clinic provider who has clinics in North Carolina and Georgia. She literally found out about the decision both times and changed her plans for the next day because I texted her asking her for comment. And providers and patients are being tasked with keeping up with so much. And it’s just very, very difficult, because Georgia also has a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, which means that every time the decision around access has changed — and we know it very well could change again as this case progresses — people will have to scramble very quickly. And in Georgia, they have also been trying to do that on top of navigating the fallout of a hurricane. 

Rovner: Yeah. And as we pointed out a couple of weeks ago when the court overturned the North Dakota ban, there are no abortion providers left in North Dakota. Now that there’s no ban, it’s only in theory that abortion is now once again allowed in North Dakota. Well, before we leave abortion for this week, we have two new studies showing how abortion bans are impacting the health care workforce. In one survey, more than half of oncologists, cancer doctors, who were completing their fellowships, so people ready to go into practice, said they would consider the impact of abortion restrictions in their decisions about where to set up their practice. And a third said abortion restrictions hindered their ability to provide care. 

Meanwhile, a survey of OBGYNs in Texas by the consulting group Manatt Health found “a significant majority of practicing OB/GYN physicians … believe that the Texas abortion laws have inhibited their ability to provide highest-quality and medically necessary care to their patients,” and that many have already made or are considering making changes to their practice that would “reduce the availability of OB/GYN care in the state.” What’s the anti-abortion reaction to this growing body of evidence that abortion bans are having deleterious effects on the availability of other kinds of health care, too? I mean, I was particularly taken by the oncologists, the idea that you might not be able to get cancer care because cancer doctors are worried about treating pregnant women with cancer. 

Luthra: They’re blaming the doctors. And we saw this in Texas when the Zurawski case was argued and women patients and doctors in the state said that they had not been able to get essential, lifesaving medical care because of the state’s abortion ban and lack of clarity around what was actually permitted. And the state argued, and we have heard this talking point again and again, that actually the doctors are just not willing to do the hard work of practicing medicine and trying to interpret, Well, obviously this qualifies. That’s something we’ve seen in the Florida arguments. They say: Our exceptions are so clear, and if you aren’t able to navigate these exceptions, well, that’s your problem, because you are being risk-averse, and patients should really take this up with their doctors, who are just irresponsible. 

Rovner: Yes, this is obviously an issue that’s going to continue. Well, moving on. The cost of health care continues to grow, which is not really news, but this week we have more hard evidence, courtesy of my KFF colleagues via the annual 2024 Employer Health Benefit Survey, which finds the average family premium rose 7% this year to $25,572, with workers contributing an average of $6,296 towards that cost. And that’s with a distinct minority of firms covering two very popular but very expensive medical interventions, GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide-1] drugs for obesity and IVF, which we’ve just been talking about. Anything else in this survey jump out at anybody? 

Hellmann: I mean, that’s just a massive amount of money. And the employer is really paying the majority of that, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an impact on people. That means it’s going to limit how much your wages go up. And something I thought of when I read this study is these lawsuits that we’re beginning to see, accusing employers of not doing enough to make sure that they’re limiting health care costs. They’re not playing enough of a role in what their benefits look like. They’re kind of outsourcing this to consultants. And so when you look at this data and you see $25,000 they’re spending per year per family on health care premiums, you wonder, what are they doing? 

Health care, yes, it’s obviously very expensive, but you just kind of question, what role are employers actually playing in trying to drive down health care costs? Are they just taking what they get from consultants? And another thing that kind of stood out to me from this is, I think it’s said in there, employers are having a hard time lately of passing these costs on to employees, which is really interesting. It’s because of the tight labor market. But obviously health care is still very expensive for employees — $6,000 a year in premiums for family coverage is not a small amount of money. So employers are just continuing to absorb that, and it does really impact everyone. 

Rovner: It’s funny. Before the Affordable Care Act, it was employers who were sort of driving the, You must do something about the cost of health care, because inflation was so fast. And then, of course, we saw health care inflation, at least, slow down for several years. Now it’s picking up again. Are we going to see employers sort of getting back into this jumping up and down and saying, “We’ve got to do something about health care costs”? 

Hellmann: I feel like we are seeing more of that. You’re beginning to hear more from employers about it. I don’t know. It’s just such a hard issue to solve, and I’ve seen more and more interest from Congress about this, but they really struggle to regulate the commercial market. So … 

Rovner: Yes, as we talk about at length every week. But it’s still important, and they will still go for it. Well, finally, this week in health misinformation. Let us talk about hurricanes — the public health misinformation that’s being spread both about Hurricane Helene that hit the Southeast two weeks ago, and Hurricane Milton that’s exiting Florida even as we are taping this morning. President [Joe] Biden addressed the press yesterday from the White House, calling out former President Trump by name along with Georgia Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for spreading deliberate misinformation that’s not just undermining efforts at storm relief but actually putting people in more danger. Now, I remember Hurricane Katrina and all the criticism that was heaped, mostly deservedly, on George W. Bush and his administration, but I don’t remember deliberate misinformation like this. I mean, Joanne, have you ever seen anything like this? You lived in Florida for a while. 

Kenen: I went through Andrew, and there’s always a certain — there’s confusion and chaos after a big storm. But there’s a difference between stuff being wrong that can be corrected and stuff being intentionally said that then in this sort of divided, suspicious, two-realities world we’re now living in, that’s being repeated and perpetuated and amplified. It damages public health. It damages people economically trying to recover from this disastrous storm or in some cases storms. I don’t know how many people actually believe that Marjorie Taylor asserted that the Democrats are controlling the weather and sending storms to suppress Republican voters. She still has a following, right? But other things … 

Rovner: She still gets reelected. 

Kenen: … being told that if you go to FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] for help, your property will be confiscated and taken away from you. I mean, that’s all over the place, and it’s not true. Even a number of Republican lawmakers in the affected states have been on social media and making statements on local TV and whatever, saying: This is not true. Please, FEMA is there to help you. Let’s get through this. Stop the lies. A number of Republicans have actually been quite blunt about the misinformation coming from their colleagues and urging their constituents to seek and take the help that’s available. 

This is the public health crisis. We don’t know how many people have been killed. I don’t think we have an accurate total final count from Helene, and we sure don’t have from Milton. I mean, the people did seem to take this storm seriously and evacuated, but it also spawned something like three dozen tornadoes in places where people hadn’t been told, there’s normally no need to evacuate. There’s flooding. It’s a devastating storm. So when people are flooding, power outages, electricity, hard to get access to health care, you can’t refrigerate your insulin. All these— 

Rovner: Toxic floodwaters, I mean, the one thing … 

Kenen: Toxic, yeah. 

Rovner: … we know about hurricanes is that they’re more dangerous in the aftermath than during the actual storm in terms of public health. 

Kenen: Right. This is a life-threatening public health emergency to really millions of people. And misinformation, not just getting something wrong and then trying to correct it, but intentional disinformation, is something we haven’t seen before in a natural disaster. And we’re only going to have more natural disasters. And it was really — I mean, Julie, you already pointed this out — but it was really unusual how precise Biden was yesterday in calling out Trump by name, and I believe at two different times yesterday. So I heard one, but I think I read about what I think was the second one really saying, laying it at his feet that this is harming people. 

Rovner: Yeah, like I said, I remember Katrina vividly, and that was obviously a really devastating storm. I do also remember Democrats and Republicans, even while they were criticizing the federal government reaction to it, not spreading things that were obviously untrue. All right. Well, that is the news for this week. Now we will play a segment from our Newsmaker interview with Mark Cuban, and then we will be back with our extra credits. 

On Tuesday, October 8th, Mark Cuban met with a group of reporters for a Newsmaker lunch at KFF’s offices in Washington, D.C. Cuban, a billionaire best known as a panelist on the ABC TV show “Shark Tank,” has taken an interest in health policy in the past several years. He’s been consulting with the campaign of Vice President Harris, although he says he’s definitely not interested in a government post if she wins. Cuban started out talking about how, as he sees it, the biggest problem with drug prices in the U.S. is that no one knows what anyone else is paying. 

Mark Cuban: I mean, when I talk to corporations and I’ve tried to explain to them how they’re getting ripped off, the biggest of the biggest said, Well, so-and-so PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] is passing through all of their rebates to us. 

And I’m like: Does that include the subsidiary in Scotland or Japan? Is that where the other one is? 

I don’t know. 

And it doesn’t. By definition, you’re passing through all the rebates with the company you contracted with, but they’re not passing through all the rebates that they get or that they’re keeping in their subsidiary. And so, yeah, I truly, truly believe from there everybody can argue about the best way. Where do you use artificial intelligence? Where do you do this? What’s the EHR [electronic health record? What’s this? We can all argue about best practices there. But without a foundation of information that’s available to everybody, the market’s not efficient and there’s no place to go. 

Rovner: He says his online generic drug marketplace, costplusdrugs.com, is already addressing that problem. 

Cuban: The crazy thing about costplusdrugs.com, the greatest impact we had wasn’t the markup we chose or the way we approach it. It’s publishing our price list. That changed the game more than anything. So when you saw the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] go after the PBMs, they used a lot of our pricing for all the non-insulin stuff. When you saw these articles written by the Times and others, or even better yet, there was research from Vanderbilt, I think it was, that says nine oncology drugs, if they were purchased by Medicare through Cost Plus, would save $3.6 billion. These 15, whatever drugs would save six-point-whatever billion. All because we published our price list, people are starting to realize that things are really out of whack. And so that’s why I put the emphasis on transparency, because whether it’s inside of government or inside companies that self-insure, in particular, they’re going to be able to see. The number one rule of health care contracts, particularly PBM contracts, is you can’t talk about PBM contracts. 

Rovner: Cuban also says that more transparency can address problems in the rest of the health care system, not just for drug prices. Here’s how he responded to a question I asked describing his next big plan for health care. 

We’ve had, obviously, issues with the system being run by the government not very efficiently and being run by the private sector not very efficiently. 

Cuban: Very efficiently, yeah. 

Rovner: And right now we seem to have this sort of working at cross-purposes. If you could design a system from the ground up, which would you let do it? The government or— 

Cuban: I don’t think that’s really the issue. I think the issue is a lack of transparency. And you see that in any organization. The more communication and the more the culture is open and transparent, the more people hold each other responsible. And I think you get fiefdoms in private industry and you get fiefdoms in government, as well, because they know that if no one can see the results of their work, it doesn’t matter. I can say my deal was the best and I did the best and our outcomes are the best, but there’s no way to question it. And so talking to the Harris campaign, it’s like if you introduce transparency, even to the point of requiring PBMs and insurers to publish their contracts publicly, then you start to introduce an efficient market. And once you have an efficient market, then people are better able to make decisions and then you can hold them more accountable. 

And I think that’s going to spill over beyond pharm. We’re working on — it’s not a company — but we’re working on something called Cost Plus Wellness, where we’re eating our own dog food. And it’s not a company that’s going to be a for-profit or even a nonprofit, for that matter, just for the lives that I cover for my companies, that we self-insure. We’re doing direct contracting with providers, and we’re going to publish those contracts. And part and parcel to that is going through the — and I apologize if I’m stumbling here. I haven’t slept in two days, so bear with me. But going through the hierarchy of care and following the money, if you think about when we talk to CFOs and CEOs of providers, one of the things that was stunning to me that I never imagined is the relationship between deductibles for self-insured companies and payers, and the risk associated with collecting those deductibles to providers. 

And I think people don’t really realize the connection there. So whoever does Ann’s care [KFF Chief Communications Officer Ann DeFabio, who was present] — well, Kaiser’s a little bit different, but let’s just say you’re employed at The Washington Post or whoever and you have a $2,500 deductible. And something happens. Your kid breaks their leg and goes to the hospital, and you’re out of market, and it’s out of network. Well, whatever hospital you go to there, you might give your insurance card, but you’re responsible for that first $2,500. And that provider, depending on where it’s located, might have collection — bad debt, rather — of 50% or more. 

So what does that mean in terms of how they have to set their pricing? Obviously, that pricing goes up. So there’s literally a relationship between, particularly on pharmacy, if my company takes a bigger rebate, which in turn means I have a higher deductible because there’s less responsibility for the PBM-slash-insurance company. My higher deductible also means that my sickest employees are the ones paying that deductible, because they’re the ones that have to use it. And my older employees who have ongoing health issues and have chronic illnesses and need medication, they’re paying higher copays. But when they have to go to the hospital with that same deductible, because I took more of a rebate, the hospital is taking more of a credit risk for me. That’s insane. That makes absolutely no sense. 

And so what I’ve said is as part of our wellness program and what we’re doing to — Project Alpo is what we call it, eating our own dog food. What I’ve said is, we’ve gone to the providers and said: Look, we know you’re taking this deductible risk. We’ll pay you cash to eliminate that. But wait, there’s more. We also know that when you go through a typical insurer, even if it’s a self-insured employer using that insurer and you’re just using the insurance company not for insurance services but as a TPA [third-party administrator], the TPA still plays games with the provider, and they underpay them all the time. 

And so what happens as a result of the underpayment is that provider has to have offices and offices full of administrative assistants and lawyers, and they have to not only pay for those people, but they have the associated overhead and burden and the time. And then talking to them, to a big hospital system, they said that’s about 2% of their revenue. So because of that, that’s 2%. Then, wait, there’s more. You have the pre-ops, and you have the TPAs who fight you on the pre-ops. But the downstream economic impacts are enormous because, first, the doctor has to ask for the pre-op. That’s eating doctor’s time, and so they see fewer patients. And then not only does the doctor have to deal with them, they go to HR at the company who self-insures and says, Wait, my employee can’t come to work, because their child is sick, and you won’t approve this process or, whatever, this procedure, because it has to go through this pre-op. 

Or if it’s on medications, it’s you want to go through the step-up process or you want to go through a different utilization because you get more rebates. All these pieces are intertwined, and we don’t look at it holistically. And so what we’re saying with Cost Plus Wellness is, we’re going to do this all in a cash basis. We’re going to trust doctors so that we’re not going to go through a pre-op. Now we’ll trust but verify. So as we go through our population and we look at all of our claims, because we’ll own all of our claims, we’re going to look to see if there are repetitive issues with somebody who’s just trying to —there’s lots of back surgeries or there’s lots of this or there’s lots of that — to see if somebody’s abusing us. And because there’s no deductible, we pay it, and we pay it right when the procedure happens or right when the medication is prescribed. Because of all that, we want Medicare pricing. Nobody’s saying no. And in some cases I’m getting lower than Medicare pricing for primary care stuff. 

Rovner: OK, we are back. Now it’s time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include the links to all these stories in our show notes on your phone or other device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week. 

Kenen: There was a fascinating story in The New York Times by Kate Morgan. The headline was “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It.” So I knew nothing about this, and it was so interesting. Placentas have amazing healing properties for wound care, burns, infections, pain control, regenerating skin tissue, just many, many things. And it’s been well known for years, and it’s not widely used. This is a story specifically about a really severe burn victim in a gas explosion and how her face was totally restored. We don’t use this, partly because placenta — every childbirth, there’s a placenta. There are lots of them around. There’s I think three and a half million births a year, or that’s the estimate I read in the Times. One of the reasons they weren’t being used is, during the AIDS crisis, there was some development toward using them, and then the AIDS crisis, there was a fear of contamination and spreading the virus, and it stopped decades later. 

We have a lot more ways of detecting, controlling, figuring out whether something’s contaminated by AIDS or whether a patient has been exposed. It is being used again on a limited basis after C-sections, but it seems to have pretty astonishing — think about all the wound care for just diabetes. I’m not a scientist, but I just looked at the story and said, it seems like a lot of people could be healed quicker and more safely and earlier if this was developed. They’re thrown away now. They’re sent to hospital waste incinerators and biohazard waste. They’re garbage, and they’re actually medicine. 

Rovner: Definitely a scientist’s cool story. Shefali. 

Luthra: My story is from my brilliant colleague Mel Leonor Barclay. The headline is “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” and as part of this really tremendous series that she has running this week, looking at how Latinas as a much more influential and growingly influential voter group could shape gun violence, abortion rights, and housing. And in this story, which I really love, she went to Arizona and spent time talking to folks on all sides of the issue to better understand how Latinas are affected by abortion rights and also how they’ll be voting on this. 

And she really challenges the narrative that has existed for so long, which is that Latinas are largely Catholic, largely more conservative on abortion. And she finds something much more complex, which is that actually polls really show that a large share of Latina voters in Arizona and similar states support abortion rights and will be voting in favor of measures like the Arizona constitutional amendment. But at the same time, there are real divides within the community, and people talk about their faith in a different way and how it connects their stance on abortion. They talk about their relationships with family in different ways, and I think it just underscores how rarely Latina voters are treated with real nuance and care and thoughtfulness when talking about something as complex as abortion and abortion politics. And I really love the way that she approaches this piece. 

Rovner: It was a super-interesting story. Jesse. 

Hellmann: My story is from The Assembly. It’s an outlet in North Carolina. It’s called “Helene Left Some North Carolina Elder-Care Homes Without Power.” Some assisted living facilities have been without power and water since the hurricane hit. Several facilities had to evacuate residents, and the story just kind of gets into how North Carolina has more lax rules around emergency preparedness. While they do require nursing homes be prepared to provide backup power, the same requirements don’t apply to assisted living facilities. And it’s because there’s been industry pushback against that because of the cost. But as we see some more of these extreme weather events, it seems like something has to be done. We cannot just allow vulnerable people living in these facilities to go hours and hours without power and water. And I saw that there was a facility where they evacuated dozens of people who had dementia, and that’s just something that’s really upsetting and traumatizing for people. 

Rovner: Yeah, once again, now we are seeing these extreme weather events in places that, unlike Florida and Texas, are not set up and used to extreme weather events. And it is something I think that a lot of people are starting to think about. Well, my story this week is from our KFF Health News public health project called Health Beat, and it’s called “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly. And it’s one of those stories you never really think about until it’s pointed out that in areas, particularly those that had been redlined, in particular, the lack of safety infrastructure that most of us take for granted — crosswalks, sidewalks, traffic lights are not really there. And that’s a public health crisis of its own, and it’s one that rarely gets addressed, and it’s a really infuriating but a really good story. 

All right, that is our show. Next week, for my birthday, we’re doing a live election preview show here at KFF in D.C., because I have a slightly warped idea of fun. And you’re all invited to join us. I will put a link to the RSVP in the show notes. I am promised there will be cake. 

As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our fill-in editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org, or you can still find me for the moment at X. I’m @jrovner. Joanne, where are you? 

Kenen: @JoanneKenen sometimes on Twitter and @joannekenen1 on Threads.

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on Twitter.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: @shefalil on Twitter.

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

Credits

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Montana is looking to fast-track Medicaid access for older adults who need help to stay in their homes or towns.

Medicaid, the joint federal-state health care program for low-income Americans, opens the door to services such as paying for help to prepare meals or shower safely. But applying for and obtaining that coverage can take weeks or months, leaving aging people in a dangerous limbo: too vulnerable to live at home without assistance, but too healthy to merit a hospital or nursing home bed.

Montana lawmakers drafted a bill for the legislative session that begins in January that would create a shortcut to that care. The Children, Families, Health, and Human Services Interim Committee’s proposal would allow older people and those with a physical disability who are likely eligible for Medicaid to start receiving in-home and community-based care while awaiting final approval.

The goal of presumptive eligibility is to avoid delays in providing stabilizing care outside of medical facilities. Supporters of the plan say local care is also a lot less expensive than hospital or nursing home care.

Montana would join at least 11 states that have presumptive eligibility for seniors and people with disabilities to access in-home care, according to AARP. Washington state began expediting Medicaid coverage in 2023 for people recently discharged from a hospital and plans to expand coverage further. Rhode Island authorizes such benefits to new long-term care applicants. And a law signed last winter in New Jersey means seniors there will have similar access.

People who are hospitalized or checked into a nursing home can struggle to find the middle-ground option for care they need.

Katy Mack, a spokesperson for the Montana Hospital Association, said bottlenecks in the process are difficult for patients, long-term care providers, and hospitals.

“Many elderly patients do ‘get stuck’ in hospitals waiting for transfer to a more appropriate level of care,” Mack said in an email. “This is due to a variety of issues, including staffing, bed availability, and appropriate payments from the patient’s source of health coverage.”

Tyler Amundson, executive director of Big Sky Senior Services, a nonprofit that helps seniors stay in their home, said in one case, a couple without the support they needed ended up in the hospital dozens of times over two months.

“There are a lot of seniors in our community struggling,” Amundson said. “They’ll go home from a hospital with just enough care to get by for a little while.”

The nation’s pool of older Americans is getting bigger. With age comes more medical complications. People 65 or older have the highest rate of preventable hospitalizations, and medical emergencies risk worse health outcomes.

Rising health care costs are fueling anxiety among tens of millions of seniors, with 1 in 10 living below the federal poverty level. Older adults are struggling to pay the combined cost of housing and medical care, and some become homeless.

For years, states have had the option through the Affordable Care Act to allow qualified hospitals to extend presumptive eligibility to some adults based on their income, on top of the opportunity that most states give pregnant women and children. But in states such as Montana, people 65 and older haven’t been included. States need a federal waiver to expand who qualifies for that early access.

Alice Burns, who researches Medicaid issues at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, said widening presumptive eligibility for in-home and community-based care gained momentum during the covid-19 pandemic.

“It’s easy to understand why,” Burns said. “When we had the fatality rates in nursing facilities that we did, it was like, OK, we cannot send these people to the nursing facilities unnecessarily.”

The Montana proposal would, after state training, allow tribal entities, area agencies on aging, and hospitals, among others, to screen patients for presumptive eligibility. Approved patients would begin receiving services while state health officials review their applications.

The draft bill spells out some covered services, such as meal delivery and in-home medical equipment. Lawmakers noted it’s not clear if the proposal would help people move into long-term care, such as assisted living facilities, which offer daily support rather than medical treatment.

Montana officials don’t have an estimate for how much the temporary coverage would cost. Jon Ebelt, a spokesperson for the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services, declined to comment on the proposal.

Mike White is a co-owner of Caslen Living Centers, which has six small assisted living facilities across central and southwestern Montana. His company no longer accepts Medicaid applicants until their coverage is final, and White said it’s not alone. He said that process can take anywhere from three to six months due to cumbersome paperwork, which he said is too long for small businesses to go without pay.

State officials have said delays in Medicaid approval often stem from ongoing communication with applicants.

The state’s Medicaid program has gone through major upheaval in the past year as states nationwide reviewed eligibility for everyone on the program. Montana officials dropped more than 115,300 people from coverage in that process, according to the state’s final report. Those disenrollments continued as nonprofits and patients alike cited problems in the state’s process, including delays in application processing and access to help for other safety net services.

Now, state lawmakers predict a major political fight during the legislative session over whether to continue to allow expanded Medicaid access to people who earn up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or about $43,000 a year for a family of four.

State Rep. Mike Yakawich, the Billings Republican behind the presumptive eligibility proposal, said he wants to keep some of its language vague. He’s leaving room for negotiations and potential amendments during the legislative session and beyond.

“The focus is to keep people at home, and it’s still going to be a hard lift to get it past the session,” Yakawich said. “We can add more to it two years from now.”

Not everyone on the interim committee was on board.

Sen. Daniel Emrich, a Republican from Great Falls, voted against the policy, saying it sounded too much like a gamble for families.

“We run the risk of taking and providing a service that’s then going to be pulled out from under them,” Emrich said.

The counterargument is that such cases would be rare. Burns, with KFF, said there is no reliable data nationally to show how often people are denied Medicaid after being presumed eligible. Presumptive access to Medicaid in-home programs is relatively new. And, from hospital data for other patients, it’s difficult to know whether a person was denied Medicaid because they didn’t qualify or because they didn’t complete the paperwork after leaving the hospital.

“There’s all these places where the ball could get dropped,” Burns said.

She said the difference with measures like Montana’s is that support services follow patients in their daily life, making it less likely patients would fall off the radar.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

In states like Connecticut and Indiana, legislators have passed bills restricting these so-called “facility fees.”

In this episode of “An Arm and a Leg,” host Dan Weissmann takes a close look at Kari’s bill, alongside Christine Monahan, an attorney and assistant research professor focused on facility fees and state efforts to limit them.

Credits

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

Dan: Hey there– 

Kari Greene lives in Portland. She’s got a couple of auto-immune disorders– mostly under control these days. She sees her rheumatologist a couple times a year — just to check in. 

And last year she noticed a charge on top of the $40 copay she was used to. 

$88 for an “observation room fee.” 

She says she called her insurance. 

Kari Greene: And the person I spoke with was like, this seems weird. 

Dan: She says they promised to investigate, but Kari never heard back. Eventually, she paid the bill and moved on with her life. 

After Kari’s appointment at the start of this year, the fee was there again. But instead of $88, now it was $99. Kari was pissed. She still is. 

Kari Greene: I’m like, how? How dare you? it’s such a slap in the face where you’re like, I already paid my copay 

Dan: Now they want a hundred bucks on top of that. For no reason Kari can see. And Kari’s pretty sure it’s not just her. 

Kari Greene: That’s the part that galls me it’s like, there’s this Scrooge McDuck back there going, Oh, we’ve got this doctor who works her little tushy off and she sees, five patients an hour. 

And, we can add this charge on to every single one of these office visits. 

Dan: Kari’s definitely right that this isn’t just her. We haven’t found Scrooge McDuck and his swimming pool full of currency — yet. 

But researchers and advocates have been talking for years about these kinds of extra charges — called “facility fees.” 

They can get tacked onto office visits by hospitals, when the hospital owns the doctor’s office. 

And with hospitals buying more and more doctors’ offices, those researchers say these fees keep popping up more and more often. 

So we asked: Would anybody who had gotten a bill for one please share it with us? Kari was one of a bunch of people who responded. 

And took time to talk with us. 

Teresa: oh, it made me so mad, so mad. 

Anne Gaffney: I mean, it’s a 10 minute appointment for a prescription. Amanda: I don’t understand any of it. 

where did this number come from? 

Dan: We dug a little deeper with Kari’s story, partly because it fit so closely with what we’d been hearing about: A fee that wasn’t there one year, and the next it was. For a brief office visit — Kari thinks maybe ten minutes– in a normal setting. 

Kari Greene: It’s a regular doctor’s office room. it’s got the little bed with the paper on it, you know. And it’s got the like blood pressure cuff thing on the wall, there’s nothing that makes it special, 

Dan: Except, when it comes time to bill, for the fact that a hospital owns it. 

And our first question, of course, was: Can they really freaking DO that?!? How is that even allowed? 

The “how” is long and complicated and honestly boring. But by and large, it’s legal. They can do that. 

Except, as far as we can tell — for the most part — in a few states. Especially Connecticut.

Legislators and policy-makers there have been working on this issue for a decade. And bit by bit, they’ve worked to outlaw charges like the ones on Kari’s bills. 

And other states have started working on following Connecticut’s lead. We talked with someone who’s been tracking those efforts. 

Christine Monahan: My name is Christine Monahan. I’m an assistant research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms, which is part of Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy. 

Dan: Christine and her colleagues issued a report over the summer looking at efforts to restrict facility fees like these across all fifty states. 

And she has some good news: 

Christine Monahan: there’s bipartisan interest in this issue. We are seeing these reforms bubble up across the states. 

Dan: The less-good news: It could take other states a lot of years to catch up. And they’re hitting opposition every step of the way. 

We’ll have a progress report. But first we’ll go deeper with Kari’s story, which turns out to have a twist. 

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

Kari’s in her mid-fifties, works in public health. For a long time, she’d had problems that no doctor ever found a cause for: Joint pain, migraines, fatigue. 

Then in 2020, she got COVID, and things took a turn. Weird sores. She says her fingers swelled up like sausages. 

Kari Greene: when these like Sores were showing up and like I couldn’t move my hands and they were super fat that was at least something that I could be like, see, it’s not just the joint pain. It’s not just the fatigue. It’s not just the migraines. It’s not just the, like, look at my hand. This is not normal. Right. 

Dan: Friends helped her find her rheumatologist. 

Kari Greene: She was able to figure out what was going on. And, she’s, I, I mean, I will get weepy talking about her because she is just, rheumatologists are like detective doctors, you know, they are amazing diagnosticians, they’re incredible listeners 

Dan: After a bunch of listening, a bunch of labs, this doctor got Kari a diagnosis — diagnoses — and some meds that help a lot. So, Kari is pretty devoted to this doctor. 

Kari Greene: Anytime I consider switching, you know, when open enrollment comes around, I’m like, Okay, I see that I could spend a lot less money on a different plan, but there’s no way I’m giving her up. 

Dan: These extra fees aren’t enough to send her away either. But Kari is doing what she can to avoid charges like this with another specialist she sees. 

Kari Greene: My, my neurologist is in the same building and last year he was like, we can switch to telehealth. You don’t have to come in. 

Dan: But Kari says the rheumatology consult is different. More hands-on. 

Kari Greene: Rheumatologists really need to be able to touch your joints and manipulate. To be able to, see, disease progression or even just be able to do, like, diagnostics. 

Dan: So Kari’s back at that office every six months, paying that extra fee. 

She says she’s lucky it’s more of an annoyance than a real financial hardship for her, but when she’s in the waiting room, she worries about the other folks she sees there.

Kari Greene: these are not young, healthy people who are like out in the workforce, like just live in their best lives. 

Dan: After her January visit this year, when the “observation room fee” went up from $88 to $99, Kari called her insurance again, looped in the benefits person from her work. 

The upshot: The insurer didn’t have a problem with the charge. They said the hospital had the right to bill for it. 

Kari Greene: But just because you have the right to do it, does that mean you should be able to do it? 

Dan: And actually, here’s the thing: Maybe the hospital DIDN’T have the right to do it, either. 

Christine Monahan — the Georgetown researcher who’s been tracking efforts to clamp down on these kinds of fees? 

She’s also an attorney — and she’s a bulldog. She helped us really dig into Kari’s bills and insurance paperwork. We waded deep into the alphabet soup. 

Christine Monahan: She has a um, E/M CPT code on her EOB. Hospital’s billing a G 0 4 6 3 

Dan: I’ll spare you more of that. But here’s where Christine patiently led us: Based on written policies from Kari’s insurance company, Christine thinks Kari probably never should have gotten charged for anything beyond that 40 dollar copay. 

Christine Monahan: I think there’s a good argument to kind of question why she should be paying more 

Dan: Mmhmm. Dang. 

Dan: Now, our producer Emily Pisacreta was on the call with Christine too — to help make sure I didn’t get lost.

And then it was time for Emily and me to test how well we’d followed Christine through that strong argument: By summing it up and running it by Kari’s insurance company and the hospital. 

We went back to documents Christine had dug up. 

Emily: This is… 

Dan: This is the, uh, this is the reimbursement policy manual. 

Emily: The reimbursement policy manual. 

Dan: YEP. That one. It’s a section from the insurer’s REIMBURSEMENT POLICY MANUAL– which spells out what they do and don’t pay for. 

Christine had grabbed policy number 0h-Six-one: Clinic Services in the Outpatient Setting. Like Kari’s doctor’s office. 

And it turned out to tell basically the whole story. Emily and I got excited, talking over each other. 

Dan: Now that we’re looking at it. 

Emily: And they’re like not allowed to this. 

Dan: I mean, like I got confused even talking through it with Christine, but this seems crystal clear. They’re like not allowed to do this. 

Emily: Mmhmm. 

Dan: Here’s what it says: 

“For clinic visits and services performed in the hospital outpatient setting, we do not allow split-billing” 

And a couple sentences down that gets spelled out even more clearly: 

“Do not split-bill clinic-based services, billing part of the service as a facility charge, and part of the service as a professional charge”

That sure looks like it means: Don’t double-dip with a professional charge– a bill for the doctor’s service — AND a facility fee. 

We reached out to Kari’s insurance company and the hospital that sent the bills. Asking them: Are we missing something here? 

We haven’t heard back. 

Which leads me to think somebody may owe Kari some kind of refund. Which feels very satisfying to know. But it’s not exactly satisfactory. 

Because as Christine said when we talked with her: This is not the sort of thing a regular person could be expected to run down, on their own time. 

Christine Monahan: Most consumers are not going to know to look up the reimbursement policy. 

Dan: Or how to interpret it. I mean, Emily and I look at this kid of stuff as part of our jobs. We’re not brand new at it. But even with Christine leading us every step of the way, it took us some time to follow it all. 

Christine Monahan: I think it, really just highlights how opaque all of this is and there may well be some insurers that are not paying these facility fees, or at least that say on paper that they are not going to, but it’s a whole mishmash of different policies and they’re not always followed. And the consumer is really left in the dark. 

Dan: Which is why legislators in states from Connecticut to Colorado have started saying: Hey, maybe this shouldn’t be a fight that individual people have to get into. 

Maybe there should be RULES about fees like this. 

Maybe there should be rules against them. 

That’s next. 

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of Public Road Productions and KFF Health News. That’s a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Their reporters do incredible work, and I’m honored to work with them. 

Before we start talking about efforts to regulate facility fees, we wanted to hear the case FOR them. We asked the American Hospital Association to make that case. 

They sent us a statement from Molly Smith, their group vice president for policy, and she recorded it as a voice memo. Here’s the bulk of it: 

Molly Smith: The cost of care delivered in hospitals and health systems and any associated sites of care operated by the hospital takes into account the many unique services that only they provide to their communities. This includes the cost of maintaining standby capacity for traumatic events and delivering 24/7 care to all who come through the emergency department, regardless of ability to pay or insurance status. 

They provide access to critical healthcare services that may not be otherwise available, especially in low income, rural, and other medically underserved communities. Hospital facilities also treat patients who are sicker and have more chronic conditions than non hospital facilities, which requires a greater use of resources. 

In addition, hospital facilities must comply with a much more comprehensive scope of licensing, accreditation, and other regulatory requirements than do other sites of care. Facility fees are one way that hospitals may bill for overhead costs to maintain all of the essential services they provide to their patients and communities 

Dan: Molly Smith also takes a long swipe at insurers, including Medicare, for not paying enough. 

And I think it’s fair to sum this up as: Operating a hospital is expensive. Facility fees are one way we try to get money to meet those expenses. 

Which, according to Christine Monahan from Georgetown, is what hospitals tell state legislators when facility-fee regulations get proposed. 

Christine Monahan: Hospitals will come in and tell horror stories about how devastating it will be to their finances if we were to do even the itsy bitsiest of reforms, and it can be hard for advocates and policy makers to go in and fact check those statements by the hospitals.

An Arm and a Leg Season 12, Episode 4 September 26, 2024 p.9 

Dan: Because they don’t have the data. Hospitals have it, but there’s a lot they’re not required to share. 

Christine Monahan: The hospitals continue to have all of that information kind of in a black box about like exactly how much revenue are they getting, where are the facility fee revenues going, how much are going to profits, how much are going to cost, and if so, what are the costs, 

Dan: That’s a LOT of unknowns. 

Christine Monahan: It can be scary to policymakers when a hospital industry comes in and says, this is going to ruin us and they don’t have the data to come back and say, well, no, it really won’t. Even if they may be very skeptical that that what the hospitals are saying is accurate. 

Dan: Mm. That is super interesting. There’s like this information asymmetry. 

Christine Monahan: Yes. Yeah, we’ve been calling it an information monopoly . 

Dan: Look, here’s just one example: How often are hospitals charging facility fees for visits to doctors offices? Like actual offices that aren’t anywhere near the hospital, but that the hospital now owns? 

Where could you find that out, if you were a state official? Well, a lot of states have databases with all insurance claims that got paid. Maybe you could look at insurance claims that included facility fees. 

But how would you know where a particular appointment happened? The claim has a provider number. But a hospital doesn’t have to use a new provider number for every location, every doctor’s office. 

Christine Monahan: Often they will be using a single identifier number for all their claims, or maybe a single health system might have a handful of identifier numbers. And they’ll put those identifier numbers on the claims forms. And they might use the same identifier for if you’re at the hospital, or if you’re out 20 miles away in a physician’s practice that they’ve recently acquired.

Dan: So to start with, policy-makers may have no way of knowing where these fees are even being charged. 

So when Connecticut started passing laws in 2014, the first ones were really just about information. Requiring hospitals to post signs about them. And commissioning a study. 

The next year, Connecticut passed a much bigger bill. It prohibited a lot of facility fees for regular office visits — what’s called “evaluation and management” services on insurance forms. And required hospitals to make annual reports on facility fees. 

And in a separate law, Connecticut banned facility fees for telehealth. That’s a step Christine says a lot of other states have followed. 

Christine Monahan: I mean, how egregious is it to get a facility charge for a telehealth visit where you did not leave your home? 

Um, that just does not make any sense. And so that’s really easy pickings as far as hospital reforms go for regulated policymakers to look at and say, this, this doesn’t make sense 

Dan: Since then, Connecticut has passed a dozen more laws– requiring new disclosures here, tightening loopholes there. 

And the state still may not have closed them all. We heard from a listener in Connecticut who was trying — and failing — to find a place he could get a stress test that wouldn’t charge him a facility fee. 

But even if more loopholes get closed, there’s a problem. One economist we talked with said: Outlawing fees like this, it’s like squeezing part of a balloon. Other parts of it just get bigger. 

Christine Monahan agreed. 

Christine Monahan: hospitals, particularly those with more market power, are best able to then, you know, shift their revenue somewhere else. If you say you can’t impose a facility fee for XYZ services, okay, we’re going to start imposing facility fees on these other services, or maybe we’re just going to increase rates overall. And so it may not necessarily contain total system costs because of the balloon effect.

Dan: the, if I’m running a hospital, I’m like, well, my costs are this. Like, I’m gonna like, my, my, my, my revenue goal is this. Like, you’re telling me I can’t charge that. What else can I charge? How else am I gonna get that money? 

Christine Monahan: Yeah. 

Dan: And as Christine alluded to in that exchange: not all hospitals are created equal. Some are big and rich, running surpluses — profits — in the hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Others — smaller hospitals, rural hospitals — struggle to keep their doors open. Some do close every year. 

Christine and her colleagues found, the big ones can use their poorer counterparts as political shields. 

Christine Monahan: We spoke with a few hospital executives as part of our research last year. And, you know, one hospital executive we spoke with, he, represents kind of a smaller, less market powerful hospital, and he expressly acknowledged they carry the water for other hospitals in their state before the state legislature. 

Dan: So, when a state like Indiana passed restrictions on facility fees in 2023, the law only applied to the state’s biggest hospitals. 

Indiana’s story illustrates Christine’s point that this isn’t a partisan issue — where Democrats hold majorities in Connecticut, Indiana is solidly Republican. The Employers Forum of Indiana has led the charge there. 

Their story also illustrates Christine’s point that change happens slowly. 

Gloria Sachdev is executive director of the Employers Forum of Indiana. When she started the job in 2015, she went around to meet with employers.. 

Gloria Sachdev: I asked them, what is your biggest pain point? And all of them said, healthcare costs, they’re not sustainable. They’ve been going up, you know, four or five, six, seven, 8 percent every year. 

Dan: The group spent years conducting studies. Among their finidngs: Indiana hospitals charged more than hospitals in other states. And more than independent medical practices that offered some of the same services. Oh, also: Hospitals were buying up those practices, and jacking up prices.

Gloria Sachdev: And nothing was changing about the service. It was just that they owned it now and were able to tack on a hospital facility fee. 

Dan: In 2020, the Employers Forum started lobbying for changes. Restricting facility fees was one of several issues. And it got maybe the most pushback. 

Gloria Sachdev: the Indiana Hospital Association was fairly masterful at, uh, bringing forward Physicians from all across the state, they had school nurses showing up. 

Dan: School nurses who were employed by local hospitals. 

Gloria Sachdev: They said, Oh my gosh, you know, the, we’d have to shut down the school nurse program. 

Dan: The Employers Forum lost that round. Getting a win took three years. And the bill that passed was narrowly tailored. It wouldn’t apply to smaller, financial-strapped hospitals: Just the state’s five largest hospital systems. And it only applied to “off-campus” locations — like a doctors office the hospital just happened to own. 

Gloria Sachdev: So if they’re in a strip mall, you know, 20 miles away. They can’t charge a hospital facility fee. 

Dan: According to this year’s report from Christine Monahan’s team at Georgetown, Indiana is now one of nine states with some restrictions on facility fees. 

Another dozen states have passed other laws, including ones that require hospitals to disclose data. Data that may help advocates and policy-makers chip away at the information monopoly– the one that Christine calls an obstacle to change. 

Christine Monahan: we are making baby steps, um, in a very difficult environment. And so I count that as progress. 

Dan: We’ll have links to Christine Monahan’s reports in our newsletter. You can check to see what steps your state has taken so far. We’ll also link to reports on facility fees from the Public Interest Research group, which has also been pushing for reforms. 

We’ll also highlight some other stories we’re watching right now. I’m telling you: Our newsletter is pretty good. You might want to sign up! You can do that at arm and a leg show dot com, slash, newsletters. 

Thank you for sharing your stories, and your bills, with us for this series. We’ve learned more from you than we’ve been able to share so far. We’ll keep looking for ways to bring that to you. 

We’ll have a new episode for you in a few weeks right here. 

Till then, take care of yourself. 

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

Big thanks to the many experts who talked with us about facility fees, especially Patricia Kelmar of the Public Interest Research Group and medical-bill coding expert Shelley Safian. 

Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Weiner and Blue Dot Sessions. Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. 

Sarah Ballama, who has been our operations manager since early 2022, just left to take a very cool full-time job in another state. Sarah, we’ll miss you so much! 

Lucky for us, the amazing Lynne Johnson has come aboard to run the operations side for us. Welcome, Lynne! And thanks so much for joining us. 

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

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

And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor. They allow us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN.org. 

Finally, thank you to everybody who supports this show financially. You can join in any time at arm and a leg show, dot com https://armandalegshow.com/support/. Thank you so much for pitching in if you can — and, thanks for listening.

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to its newsletters. You can also follow the show on Facebook and the social platform X. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.

To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

In the series finale of the podcast, a confident, outspoken Sikeston teenager shares her feelings in an uncommonly frank conversation with Chief James McMillen, head of Sikeston’s Department of Public Safety, which includes Sikeston police. 

Host Cara Anthony asks what kind of systemic change is possible to reduce the burden of racism on the health of Black Americans. Health equity expert Gail Christopher says it starts with institutional leaders who recognize the problem, measure it, and take concrete steps to change things. 

“It is a process, and it’s not enough to march and get a victory,” Christopher said. “We have to transform the systems of inequity in this country.” 

Host

In Conversation With …

Editor’s note: If you are able, we encourage you to listen to the audio of “Silence in Sikeston,” which includes emotion and emphasis not found in the transcript. This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast. 

[Ambient sounds from Sikeston, Missouri’s 2021 Juneteenth celebration — a DJ making an announcement over funky music, people chatting — begin playing.] 

Cara Anthony: It’s 2021. It’s hot and humid. We’re at a park in the heart of Sunset — Sikeston, Missouri’s historically Black neighborhood. 

Emory: Today is Juneteenth, baby. 

Cara Anthony: The basketball courts are jumping. And old-school funk is blaring from the speakers. Kids are playing. 

Cara Anthony: [Laughter] Are you enjoying the water?