The New York Times: Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions
The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed and strengthened constitutional protections for abortion rights, striking down parts of a restrictive Texas law that could have drastically reduced the number of abortion clinics in the state, leaving them only in the largest metropolitan areas. The 5-to-3 decision was the court’s most sweeping statement on abortion since Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, which reaffirmed the constitutional right to abortion established in 1973 in Roe v. Wade. (Liptak, 6/27)

The Washington Post: Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Clinic Restrictions
The Texas provisions required doctors who perform abortions at clinics to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital and ordered clinics to meet hospital-like standards of surgical centers. (Barnes, 6/27)

Los Angeles Times: Supreme Court Strengthens Right To Abortion, Strikes Down Texas Restrictions On Clinics
“We conclude that neither of these provisions offers medical benefits sufficient to justify the burdens upon access that each imposes,” Breyer wrote in Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellderstedt. “Each places substantial obstacles in the path of women seeking a pre-viability abortion, each constitutes an undue burden on abortion access, and each violates the federal Constitution.” (Savage, 6/27)

Kaiser Health News: Supreme Court Strikes Down Key Restrictions In Texas Anti-Abortion Law
One of the key questions was which side Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been a swing vote on abortion issues, would join. He signed onto the majority opinion with the four justices who traditionally support abortion rights.The immediate impact of the ruling means that the plaintiff in the case, Whole Woman’s Health, will not have to close any more of its Texas clinics. (Rovner, 6/27)

The Hill: Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Restrictions
If the ruling had been upheld, the number of abortion clinics in Texas would have shrunk to about 10 from more than 40 before the law, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights. (Ferris, 6/27)

Stat: Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas Abortion Clinic Regulations
Texas argued that the law was necessary to improve the standard of care at abortion clinics and protect the health and safety of the patients. But supporters of abortion access said they were unnecessary and have already led to the closure of half of the clinics in the state, with more likely to follow. (Nather, 6/27)

The Washington Post: Supreme Court Rules Against Texas And For Science In Abortion Case
As the Texas case made its way through the federal courts over the years, numerous misunderstandings and pure fiction about the health risks of abortion entered the debate. Among them were claims that the procedure is fraught with complications, causes cancer, leads to reduced fertility and results in depression, or even suicide. One of the most critical questions the Supreme Court had to address was whether courts need to consider scientific evidence supporting the laws. A lower court said they do not. But there was a lot for the justices to look at in the medical literature. (Cha, 6/27)

The Dallas Morning News: Supreme Court Strikes Down Texas’ Abortion Restrictions
The ruling ends a three-year saga that put Texas in the national spotlight for the broad sweep of its attempt to restrict abortion access. The initial effort to pass the law was temporarily derailed by a filibuster in the state Senate, with then-Sen. Wendy Davis drawing worldwide attention for her talkathon to block the law. (Martin and Leslie, 6/27)

ProPublica: In Texas Decision, Supreme Court Delivers Sweeping Win For Abortion Rights
[Nancy Northrup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights] called the ruling “a complete and total victory” that “renews the promise of Roe v. Wade for the next generation.” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, a Republican who strongly opposes abortion, called the ruling “a devastating blow” to efforts to protect women’s health and safety. (Martin, 6/27)

The Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Rejects Texas Abortion Law As ‘Undue Burden’
Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, said on Monday: “The decision erodes states’ lawmaking authority to safeguard the health and safety of women, and subjects more innocent life to being lost.” He added that “Texas’ goal is to protect innocent life, while ensuring the highest health and safety standards for women.” President Barack Obama, whose administration argued against the law, said: “These restrictions harm women’s health and place an unconstitutional obstacle in the path of a woman’s reproductive freedom.” (Bravin, 6/27)

The Texas Tribune: Abortion Ruling A Vindication For Wendy Davis And 'Unruly Mob'
When the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down Texas’ 2013 abortion restrictions as unconstitutional, it was a victory years in the making for former state Sen. Wendy Davis and her “unruly mob.” Almost three years to the day after her 11-hour filibuster of the restrictive legislation, the high court’s ruling was in some ways a personal vindication for Davis — and a defining moment for her legacy — particularly after she backed away from the spotlight following a gubernatorial election loss in 2014. (Ura, 6/27)

CNN: Wendy Davis: Texas Abortion Law Was A Sham
Former Texas Senator Wendy Davis says she was overjoyed that Supreme court struck down a Texas abortion law that placed conditions on granting women access to abortion procedures. (6/27)

The Wall Street Journal: SCOTUS Abortion Ruling: Highlights From The Majority And Dissenting Opinions
Justice Stephen Breyer, who wrote the opinion, was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented. [Here] are excerpts from the majority opinion, the concurring opinion by Justice Ginsburg and dissenting opinions by Justices Alito and Thomas. (Gershman and Palazzolo, 6/27)

The New York Times: Reactions To The Supreme Court Ruling On Texas’ Abortion Law
In a major abortion ruling Monday, the Supreme Court struck down parts of a Texas law that would have forced dozens of clinics to close. Here are reactions from all sides of the issue. (6/27)

The Texas Tribune: What's Next For Abortion In Texas?
Though the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a far-reaching Texas anti-abortion law because it placed an undue burden on a woman’s constitutional rights, state lawmakers here are already plotting a course for new rules that could limit the practice of abortion. ... With a Republican governor at the helm of the state’s government and large Republican majorities in both chambers of the Legislature, new anti-abortion laws would very likely have enough popular support to pass when lawmakers meet again in 2017. (Walters, 6/27)

The Texas Tribune: What The Supreme Court Abortion Ruling Means For Texas Women
On its face, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Texas' far-reaching abortion law seems clear: House Bill 2 is unconstitutional. But the implications might not be as straightforward. ... No more Texas abortion clinics are likely slated for closure. ... But don't expect abortion clinics that have already closed to reopen in short order. ... The legislative war is far from over. ... But lawmakers may have to make a stronger case next time around. ... The Texas case could have repercussions for women nationally. (Ura, 6/27)

Houston Chronicle: Abortion Fight Far From Over For Texas Lawmakers
Texas Republican legislative leaders promised to continue their fight against abortion next year, suggesting they will look for ways to impose new restrictions on clinics in the wake of Monday's Supreme Court ruling striking down two of the state's major abortion rules as unconstitutional. (Zelinki, 6/27)

Reuters: Abortion Providers Aim To Reopen Some Closed Texas Clinics
Abortion providers in Texas reacted with surprise and elation on Monday to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to throw out the state's restrictive abortion law and said they aimed to reopen some clinics shut down since the measure was passed in 2013. Since the law was passed by a Republican-led legislature and signed by a Republican governor, the number of abortion clinics in Texas, the second-most-populous U.S. state with about 27 million people, has fallen from 41 to 19. (Herskovitz, 6/28)

The Associated Press: Texas May Not Restore Lost Abortion Clinics Despite Ruling
Even with those mandates now gone, Planned Parenthood and others providers are not yet making promises about breaking ground on new facilities in Texas. And any openings, they cautioned, could take years, meaning that women in rural Texas counties are still likely to face hours-long drives to abortion clinics for the foreseeable future. Buildings need to be leased. Staffs need to be hired. Clinics must still obtain state licenses and funds for medical equipment must be raised. Meanwhile, the Republican-controlled Legislature is all but certain to remain hostile to abortion providers that try to expand. (Weber, 6/28)

The Texas Tribune: Don't Expect Shuttered Abortion Clinics To Reopen Soon
While the Supreme Court handed Texas abortion providers a major victory Monday by overturning two key restrictions from the state’s 2013 abortion law, providers say they don't expect abortion clinics that shuttered in wake of the law to reopen soon. Along with financial and logistical constraints, some closed clinics will need to be relicensed by the state. (Pattani, 6/27)

NBC News: Doctors Work To Regroup After Texas Abortion Law Struck Down
Daniel Grossman understands all too well the impact of the Supreme Court striking down Texas' tough restrictions on abortions. He has watched in dismay as the number of doctors licensed to provide abortions in Texas dropped by 42 percent since the law went into effect in 2013. In a state with over 12 million women, only 28 doctors with hospital admitting privileges are providing abortions. (Samee Ali, 6/27)

The Austin Statesman: Legacy Of Texas Abortion Law Likely To Be Long-Shuttered Clinics
The legacy of the 2013 Texas abortion law is likely to be a long-standing reduction in the number of abortion clinics in the state, long after Monday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down the law’s key provisions. Abortion providers cautioned Monday that it would take years to reopen any of the 23 facilities that have shuttered since the law took effect. Rebecca Robertson, legal and policy director at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, said she doubted whether many of the clinics that have closed since 2013 would reopen at all. (Chang and Lindell, 6/27)

The Dallas Morning News: It's Still Hard To Get An Abortion In Texas. Here's Why.
Abortion facilities have closed and reopened several times over the course of the three-year legal battle. Extreme rhetoric on both sides left Texas women in limbo, guessing at which clinics were open, how many appointments they would have to book and whether the procedure was legal at all. This is where Texas stands today. (Martin, 6/27)

Houston Chronicle: McAllen Clinic Has Been In Eye Of Political Storm Over Abortion
When the U.S. Supreme Court struck down harsh Texas abortion regulations Monday, Kristeena Banda, the manager of the only abortion clinic in the Rio Grande Valley, was overcome with emotion. Twice the Whole Woman's Health clinic she manages in McAllen had been forced to close because of the strict regulations, only to reopen amid an uncertain future. (Nelsen, 6/27)

The New York Times: Abortion Ruling Could Create Waves Of Legal Challenges
From Texas to Alabama to Wisconsin, more than a dozen Republican-run states in recent years have passed laws requiring that abortion clinics have hospital-grade facilities or use doctors with admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. Now, Monday’s Supreme Court ruling ... will quickly reverberate across the country. (Eckholm, 6/27)

The Associated Press: Supreme Court Ruling Imperils Abortion Laws In Many States
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, which led the legal challenge, similar admitting-privilege requirements are in effect in Missouri, North Dakota and Tennessee, and are on hold in Alabama, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Wisconsin. The hospital-like outpatient surgery standards are in place in Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and are on hold in Tennessee, according to the center. Monday's ruling is likely to remove an ongoing threat to the only abortion clinic still operating in Mississippi. (Crary, 6/28)

Modern Healthcare: Supreme Court Abortion Ruling Will Bring More Fights Over Limits And Access
The ruling won't stop attempts to limit abortion around the country, but it is a serious blow to those efforts, said Michael Dell, a partner at Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel who filed a brief in the case on behalf of 10 women who've had abortions, siding with the abortion clinics. (Schencker, 6/27)

The Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court Abortion Ruling Scrambles Front Line Of Access Fight
Nancy Northup, head of the Center for Reproductive Rights that brought the Texas case, described the opinion as a “game-changer” in her organization’s efforts to challenge state laws. (Radnofsky, 6/27)

The Boston Globe: Supreme Court Blocks An Entire Anti-Abortion Strategy
The full reach of this ruling is still unclear, however. Moving forward, many abortion restrictions will still need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. States whose restrictions echo those in Texas are likely to face new lawsuits. But other approaches — like mandatory waiting periods — have previously received the court’s blessing. (Horowitz, 6/27)

Los Angeles Times: Supreme Court Ruling Is Likely To Change The Landscape Of 'Abortion Desert'
About half the women in the South live in counties without abortion clinics, as do 53% of women in the Midwest, compared with 38% nationwide, according to the most recent study by the Guttmacher Institute, which advocates for reproductive rights. Since the Texas law passed, many women without clinics nearby or whose clinics had long waits have paid to travel to have abortions in neighboring states. Advocates said there’s a pressing need to reopen clinics that serve women in remote western cities such as Lubbock, Midland and San Angelo. (Hennessy-Fiske, 6/27)

Media outlets from the states report on the expected ramifications of the ruling on local laws —

The Philadelphia Inquirer: How Supreme Court's Texas Decision May Affect Pa.'s Abortion Law
Monday's ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt may have implications for numerous other states. Pennsylvania is among five states that require abortion facilities to be on a par medically with outpatient surgical centers, and four states require hospital admitting privileges, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research center that supports abortion rights. Many more states impose varying restrictions. (McCullough, 6/28)

The Columbus Dispatch: What The Supreme Court Ruling On Abortion Restrictions Means For Ohio
In a major victory for abortion rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Texas abortion law, a decision likely to trigger lawsuits in Ohio challenging similar restrictions. Hundreds of abortion rights supporters outside the court erupted in cheers as the justices handed down the 5-3 ruling with the majority saying the Texas law placed a “substantial obstacle” in the path of a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. The justices brushed aside arguments that the law was medically necessary to protect a woman’s health. (Torry, Candisky and Maier, 6/27)

Cleveland Plain Dealer: Abortion Rights Activists Will Challenge Ohio Laws After U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
Cincinnati-area abortion rights lawyer Jennifer Branch expects the ruling will be used to attack written hospital transfer agreements the state now requires abortion providers to have with nearby hospitals. She said the Ohio Department of Health's requirement that four doctors at each clinic need hospital privileges makes the state's policy more restrictive than the Texas law that the U.S. Supreme court overturned on Monday. (Eaton, 6/27)

New Hampshire Union Leader: Abortion Law Decision Draws Mixed Reaction In NH
New Hampshire reaction to the Supreme Court striking down a Texas abortion law fell along party lines and reflected the heated election year underway. The court’s 5-3 decision comes two days before the New Hampshire Executive Council votes on $549,000 in funding for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England clinics.

Orlando Sentinel: Supreme Court Abortion Decision Will Have Little Immediate Effect In Florida
A wide-ranging Florida anti-abortion law will have its own day in court, though the Supreme Court's ruling against a Texas anti-abortion law "sets a precedent" according to Planned Parenthood, which is suing over Florida's law. (Sweeney, 6/27)

New Orleans Times-Picayune: Supreme Court Abortion Ruling Has Implications For Louisiana
Abortion rights advocates are hailing the Supreme Court's ruling Monday (June 27) overturning a Texas law requiring abortion doctors to hold hospital admitting privileges as "historic" and a "game-changer" with substantial implications for Louisiana. (Litten, 6/27)

The Charlotte Observer: Abortion Ruling To Have No Direct Effect On NC Laws
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a Texas law that was blamed for the closing of 3 out of 4 abortion clinics in the state. The decision sends a warning shot to other conservative states, as well, that cite medical safety issues in adding restrictions on abortion clinics. (Doyle, 6/27)

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Ruling Signals Court Will Strike Down Wisconsin Abortion Restrictions
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down restrictions on Texas abortion clinics and doctors and signaled that it would soon do the same in Wisconsin, delivering its most significant ruling on the procedure in a generation. ...The ruling has big implications beyond the Lone Star State in states like Wisconsin, which passed similar though less extensive limits on abortion in 2013 only to see them struck down by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Justice Stephen Breyer directly cited the lawsuit over Wisconsin's law and those in other states in his majority opinion in the Texas decision Monday. (Stein, 6/27)

St. Louis Public Radio: Supreme Court Action Likely To Toss Missouri's Abortion Restrictions Back Into Court
Some of Missouri’s restrictive laws governing abortion clinics will likely face a legal challenge as a result of today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision knocking down similar restrictions in Texas. But abortion-rights supporters and opponents in Missouri agree that it’s “too soon to tell’’ the specific effects of the high court’s 5-3 ruling on the Show-Me state, which long has had some of the nation’s strictest abortion laws. (Mannies and Margolies, 6/27)

The Des Moines Register: Court Ruling 'Devastating' To Iowa Anti-Abortion Forces
The leader of an Iowa anti-abortion group called the ruling "devastating" and predicted that it will hurt efforts to restrict abortions here. Meanwhile, a senior official with Planned Parenthood of the Heartland applauded the decision, saying it will protect Iowa women’s constitutional right to safe, legal abortions. (Leys and Petroski, 6/27)

The New York Times: Supreme Court’s Abortion Decision Reverberates In Presidential Campaign
The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down parts of a restrictive abortion law in Texas rippled through the presidential campaign after its release on Monday, with Democrats and Republicans looking to rally voters with reminders that the future of the court was at stake in November. The next president looks to have at least one and potentially several vacancies to fill in the next four years, and Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump have both warned that the fate of laws on immigration, guns and abortion will probably be determined by who gets to fill those openings. (Rappeport, 6/27)

Politico: Supreme Court's Abortion Ruling Will Have Nationwide Impact
The decision’s political ramifications are significant. It will galvanize both sides of the divisive abortion debate as the presidential campaign builds toward the national party conventions, and intensify the political focus on the Supreme Court’s vacancy, which has been frozen in the Senate. The Whole Women’s Health decision is sure to be cited as the two sides in the debate remind voters that the next president will almost certainly name several justices to the bench, providing a rare opportunity to cement the court’s political stance for years to come. (Haberkorn, 6/27)

The Wall Street Journal: Supreme Court’s Abortion Ruling Divides Officials Along Party Lines
The Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating a Texas law regulating abortion clinics split Washington along party lines, much as the issue divides the nation. Democrats said the 5-3 ruling protected women’s right to choose whether to have an abortion. Republicans said that the decision would weaken standards of care and make it harder for states to protect their citizens. (Hughes, 6/27)

Politico: Trump Goes Silent On Supreme Court Abortion Ruling
More than nine hours after the Supreme Court ruled to overturn two provisions of a Texas anti-abortion law on Monday, the Republican Party's presumptive nominee has yet to comment. The 5-3 decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which marks the biggest victory for abortion rights advocates in the past 20 years, ruled that the Texas law would have shut down clinics and keep women from accessing abortion treatment. Donald Trump, who has said in the past that he is "very pro-choice," has struggled to clearly explain his position on abortion during the 2016 campaign. (Ocasio, 6/27)

Stat: The Supreme Court Decision That’s Shaking Up Biotech
In biotech, your company is only as good as its intellectual property. And the Supreme Court on Monday left a whole lot of biotech entrepreneurs fearful that their inventions may not be worth all that much after all. The justices spooked the industry by declining to hear an appeal from Sequenom, a California company that markets a prenatal test based on screening fetal DNA. A lower court had ruled that Sequenom couldn’t patent the test because it was based on a natural biological process. (Garde, 6/27)

Reuters: Supreme Court Refuses To Review Prenatal Test Patent Dispute
In June 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington agreed with Sequenom that the patented method "revolutionized" prenatal care, but nonetheless upheld the patent's cancellation. The ruling cited a Supreme Court decision from 2012, Mayo v. Prometheus, that made it harder to obtain patents on natural phenomena or substances. (Chung, 6/27)

The Associated Press: Congressional Dysfunction Likely To Stall Zika Funding Bill
President Barack Obama's $1.9 billion emergency request to combat a potential public health crisis from the Zika virus is more than 4 months old, but congressional dysfunction appears likely to scuttle a scaled-back version of the president's request, raising the prospect that Congress may leave on a seven-week vacation next month without addressing Zika. (Taylor, 6/28)

The New York Times: Senate To Take Up House Bill On Zika Funding, Barbs And All
The House is not in session this week, providing lawmakers a timeout after last week’s tumultuous Democratic sit-in. But senators will be in town, and they have a fight of their own coming over a spending package to address the Zika public health threat. The military construction and veterans’ spending bill forced through by House Republicans with no debate early Thursday morning contains $1.1 billion for Zika preparation and prevention — but it also contains some poison-pill provisions that are likely to drive off any Democratic support, notably one restricting the use of the money by Planned Parenthood. (Hulse, 6/27)

The Hill: McConnell Pressures Dems To Back Zika Deal
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is pressing Senate Democrats to back a House-passed deal on Zika funding ahead of a vote this week. "The House agreed to the funding level that Democrats supported unanimously," McConnell said from the Senate floor. "The agreement before us is a compromise with input from both parties, and it represents the last chance we will have to address Zika for weeks." (Carney, 6/27)

In other Zika news —

Politico: Congress' Zika Fail Could Bite GOP In Election
The [Zika] stalemate carries real political risk: In 2014, Republicans blasted the Obama administration and Democrats’ response to Ebola, contributing to a public perception in the midterm election of feckless Democratic rule. Republicans gained control of the Senate that year — but now find their playbook is being used against them. Republicans “taught us with Ebola,” said Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “A public health crisis? Take it seriously. I don’t believe they’ve taken it seriously at all.” (Everett and Haberkorn, 6/28)

The Baltimore Sun: Emergent BioSolutions Lands $22 Million Order To Make Zika Vaccine Candidate
Emergent BioSolutions, a Gaithersburg-based drug developer, has received a federal task order worth up to $22 million to develop and manufacture a possible vaccine for the Zika virus, the mosquito-borne illness that is spreading rapidly through Central and South America. (Gantz, 6/27)

The Baltimore Sun: State, Harford Health Officials Stress Prevention As Key To Stopping Zika Virus
With more than 800 cases of the Zika virus diagnosed in the U.S. – 26 of them in Maryland – Harford County and state health officials want residents to have as much information possible about the mosquito-borne disease and how to prevent it. (Anderson, 6/28)

USA Today: Louisiana, The U.S. Incarceration Capital, Prepares For Expanded Medicaid
Here in the state that imprisons more of its citizens per capita than any other, the long-awaited July 1 launch of expanded Medicaid coverage will give those leaving prison a chance to at least continue what many describe as spotty treatment for the conditions that plagued them while behind bars. These include Dolfinette Martin, who has been out of prison for four years with no health coverage or medications to control her bipolar disorder, and Maryam Henderson-Uloho, who spent more than 12 years in prison, and who says she and other inmates seldom sought medical treatment because prison officials would write them up for "malingering" when they did.​ (O'Donnell, 6/27)

New Orleans Times-Picayune: Louisiana Hospitals, Health Department In Wait-And-See Mode
Louisiana's Department of Health and the privately operated safety net hospitals under contract with the state escaped a grueling legislative session with their funding mostly intact. But the hospitals and state Health Department officials say the funding is based on assumptions that are riddled with uncertainty about the Medicaid expansion and the 375,000 more people that will be eligible for charity care in the state. (Litten, 6/27)

The Advocate: Louisiana In For Big Changes, Likely Bumpy Ride With Medicaid Expansion; Here's How We Got Here
Louisiana on Friday is set to become the 31st state to expand Medicaid under the federal health care law. About 375,000 people — mostly the working poor — are expected to get free health insurance coverage through the new program, which is mostly subsidized by the federal government. But the transition to having so many more people on Medicaid, rather than relying on Louisiana’s unique “charity” hospital system when they can’t afford health care, is expected to be bumpy — to put it lightly. “There’s going to be a journey we have of people learning what it actually means to have insurance and have primary care,” said Dr. Rebekah Gee, Louisiana Department of Health secretary. (Crisp, 6/27)

In other Medicaid expansion news —

Bloomberg: Advocates Warn Against Medicaid Cuts In Ryan's ACA Replacement
Medicaid would face radical changes under House Speaker Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) Affordable Care Act replacement plan, patient advocates tell Bloomberg BNA. The 37-page House Republican health-care plan would repeal all of the ACA's mandates and penalties while embracing some of the law's foundation: Americans should have a chance to buy health insurance regardless of whether they’re sick, and the government should have a role in setting some regulations and helping people pay for it. (Weixel, 6/27)

Marketplace: What Are The True Costs Of Medicaid?
New research raises questions about the cost of expanding Medicaid – the health care program for low-income and disabled Americans. Some 19 states have yet to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act – often thanks to concerns about the sticker price. But Yale economist Amanda Kowalski said the price tag could be less expensive than what many have assumed. (Gorenstein, 6/27)

Modern Healthcare: CMS Proposes $180 Million Pay Cut For Home Health
Home healthcare agencies may see a 1% drop in Medicare reimbursement in 2017, the final year of cuts meant to recoup previous overpayments. The proposed rates—which would mean Medicare would pay home health agencies $180 million less next year than in 2016—were published the same day that the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to hear a case challenging a federal labor rule that home health providers say is harming their businesses. ... The proposed payment reduction is not the only financial challenge facing home healthcare providers. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided it would not hear a case challenging a new Department of Labor rule that requires higher wages for many home healthcare workers. (Dickson and Schencker, 6/27)

In other news, CMS will meet with a group of Tennessee lawmakers about improving health care coverage in the state —

The Tennessean: Lawmakers Head To DC To Present Health Care Plan To Feds
A small group of lawmakers will head to Washington, D.C., Tuesday to meet with federal regulators as part of an effort to work toward improving access to health care coverage for uninsured Tennesseans. The group — formally known as the "3-Star Healthy Project" — will meet with officials from the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and present a plan that will include creating a two-phased approach that will focus on finding ways to address the needs of uninsured veterans and those struggling with behavioral health issues, Rep. Cameron Sexton, R-Crossville, told The Tennessean Monday. (Ebert, 6/27)

Los Angeles Times: Patients Pay A Higher Share Of Hospital Bills, Study Finds
Patients, even those with employer-sponsored health plans, may face another condition after they are discharged from a hospital stay: acute sticker shock. Out-of-pocket hospitalization costs rose 37% from 2009 to 2013, with the average patient paying more than $1,000 per hospital visit, according to a study conducted by the University of Michigan. The survey took place before many of the Obamacare provisions were in place, including the health insurance marketplaces. (Channick, 6/27)

NBC News: Even With Insurance, A Hospital Stay Will Cost You $1000 Or More
Medical treatment is getting pricier every year, and a new study shows that patients are carrying a bigger and bigger share of the cost. It found that even people with health insurance pay, on average, more than $1,000 out of their pockets for a hospital stay. (Fox, 6/27)

Bloomberg: Even With Private Insurance, Out-Of-Pocket Costs For Hospital Visits Shot Up 37%
The amount that people with private insurance still had to pay for hospital visits grew 37 percent from 2009 to 2013, a study finds. And it's probably still going up. The study, conducted by the University of Michigan and published today in JAMA Internal Medicine, adds to a growing body of evidence that suggests employers are using high-deductible plans to keep premium costs down. (Ramkumar, 6/27)

The Associated Press: Getting Overdose Antidote With Painkillers May Cut ER Visits
Overdoses don't happen just to heroin addicts — patients who legally use strong painkillers called opioids are at risk in the nation's epidemic, too. A new study says when patients were prescribed an overdose antidote along with those medications, they made fewer painkiller-related visits to the emergency room. (Neergaard, 6/27)

San Francisco Chronicle: Overdose Antidote Should Go With Pain Prescriptions, Study Urges
A drug that is effective at reversing heroin overdoses isn’t just for street addicts — it should be routinely distributed to people taking prescription pain medications who may not appreciate their risk of accidental death, San Francisco public health officials said in a study released Monday. Doctors should consider regularly prescribing naloxone — a drug given by injection or nasal spray to counteract opioid overdoses — alongside narcotic pain medications, the study’s authors said. Naloxone, often sold under the brand name Narcan, has become increasingly popular as a way to reverse heroin overdoses among street users. (Allday, 6/27)

The Associated Press: US Medical Schools Expand Training To Curb Painkiller Abuse
Medical schools nationwide are rethinking their training on opioids amid rising overdose deaths. Schools are taking action after critics said they had inadvertently contributed to addiction problems. Federal health experts say that physicians have been prescribing addictive opioid painkillers too often, and that poor training is frequently to blame. (Binkley, 6/28)

New Hampshire Public Radio: Vivitrol: A Promising Tool For Treating Opioid Addiction
The medication “Vivitrol” is gaining traction as a tool in the fight against drug addiction. It’s a once-a-month injection that was approved as a treatment for opioid and alcohol users in 2010. A psychiatric hospital in Hampstead now prescribes the medication, and patients seem to show signs of improvement. (Zars, 6/27)

USA Today/The Tennessean: USDA Chief Tom Vilsack Targets Rural Opioid Problem
The chief of the U.S. Department of Agriculture will meet with state and local leaders in the Tennessee-Virginia border region this week as federal agencies look for local partners to combat opioid abuse in hard-hit rural areas across the nation. "There is no silver bullet. I wish there were," Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack said in an interview with The Tennessean. "If there was, we’d obviously be focused on it.” (Fletcher, 6/27)

Stateline: In States, Some Resistance To New Opioid Limits
Lawmakers in dozens of states took decisive action this year to stanch the flow of prescription pain drugs and help those addicted to them. ... But the new laws are not without controversy. In several Northeast states, doctors are balking at new limits on the number of pills hospital emergency departments, physicians, dentists or nurses can prescribe for acute pain. Prominent medical groups, including the American Medical Association, argue that doctors and patients, rather than lawmakers, should be able to balance the need for pain relief against the risk of addiction in individual cases. (Vestal, 6/28)

New Haven Independent: 16 Overdose In 6 Hours; 2 Dead
A toxic batch of heroin laced with fentanyl appears to have hit New Haven, with firefighters and cops rushing to rescue 16 different people who overdosed on drugs — at least two of them fatally — between 3:30 and 9:30 p.m. Thursday. “I don’t ever recall a day like this ever. I don’t think we’ve had this amount in a very, very long time,” said Assistant Fire Chief Matt Marcarelli. (Yaffe-Bellany and Bass, 6/24)

Chicago Tribune: Federal Grant To Help County Expand Opioid-Addiction Services
The Lake County Health Department announced Monday a federal grant will allow it to double the number of individuals the department can treat in its Medication Assisted Treatment program for opioid addiction over the next two years to try and stem a rise in overdose deaths. (Abderholden, 6/27)

Kaiser Health News: Doctors Wrestle With Mixed Messages When Deciding Whether To Prescribe Painkillers
Steve Diaz, an emergency medicine doctor at Augusta’s MaineGeneral Health, says he knows what patients want when they come to him in pain. Drugs. And preferably strong ones. ... And with abuse of prescription painkillers like OxyContin, methadone and Percocet soaring, the instinct, public health experts say, should be to say no. ... But [a] federal policy — a provision of the 2010 federal health law linking hospital payments to patient satisfaction surveys — may be complicating efforts to curb opioid prescribing as part of the nation’s effort to address the painkiller abuse epidemic. (Luthra, 6/28)

Stat: Health Experts Offer Their Support For — And Skepticism Of — The Cancer Moonshot
The National Cancer Moonshot Summit, to be held on Wednesday, is an effort by the White House to promote efforts championed by Vice President Joe Biden to find a cure for cancer. At the same time, dozens of associated regional conferences will take place around the country, bringing together scientists, patients, and health care experts. In advance of the summit, STAT reporters interviewed various individuals in the worlds of science, medicine, and health for a sampling of opinion on Biden’s initiative. They range from skepticism to support. (Skerrett, 6/28)

The Washington Post: Should Pregnant Women Be Induced At 39 Weeks?
When doctors who treat pregnant women recently met to debate the best time to induce labor, they came up with a surprising answer: 39 weeks — three weeks earlier than currently recommended. Their organization, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), has not changed its guidelines on late-term pregnancies. The guidelines say that doctors may consider elective induction at 41 weeks and should proceed with it at 42 weeks. But the question has some doctors reconsidering their assumptions about induction and has sparked criticism by women who contend there is already too much interference with uncomplicated pregnancies. (Margulies, 6/27)

Kaiser Health News: End-Of-Life Care Better For Patients With Cancer, Dementia: Study Finds
A new study offers surprising findings about end-of-life care -- specifically, physicians tend to be more likely to accommodate the advanced-care wishes of patients with cancer or dementia than renal disease, congestive heart failure, pulmonary disease or frailty. “There’s been a lot of focus on end-of-life care for cancer,” said Melissa Wachterman, the study’s principal author and a physician at the VA Boston Healthcare System and the Boston-based Brigham and Women’s Hospital. “But most people don’t die of cancer. And the quality of end-of-life care for those dying of other conditions … is not as good.” The research was published online Sunday in JAMA Internal Medicine. (Luthra, 6/27)

The Washington Post: These Sisters Are Surviving A Dangerous Heart Ailment Together
Traditionally, sisters share everything. “There isn’t anything we keep from one another,’’ Nicole Fearrington says of herself and her sisters. “We are best friends.’’ She pauses. “Of course, this was something we did not expect — or choose — to share,’’ she says. By “this,” she means the heart condition that killed their father in 2003, and thus far afflicts four of six sisters, Nicole, 41, LaWanda, 39 , Candice, 34, and Kasi, 27. (Cimons, 6/27)

Los Angeles Times: To Do Better In School, Kids Should Exercise Their Bodies As Well As Their Brains, Experts Say
Attention parents: If you’d like to see your kids do better in school, have them close their books, set down their pencils and go outside to play. That’s the latest advice from an international group of experts who studied the value of exercise in school-age kids. “Physical activity before, during and after school promotes scholastic performance in children and youth,” according to a new consensus statement published Monday in the British Journal of Sports Medicine. (Kaplan, 6/27)

KQED: Seniors Go Virtual To Relieve Pain, Loneliness
For a Bay Area virtual reality entrepreneur, (Sonya) Kim has an unusual target audience: the elderly. (Virginia) Anderlini is the first private client for Kim’s Aloha VR program, which Kim envisions as a way to help people relax, an alternative to endlessly watching TV, and a change of scenery for those who can’t get out much. (Platoni, 627)

The New York Times: An N.Y.U. Study Gone Wrong, And A Top Researcher Dismissed
New York University’s medical school has quietly shut down eight studies at its prominent psychiatric research center and parted ways with a top researcher after discovering a series of violations in a study of an experimental, mind-altering drug. A subsequent federal investigation found lax oversight of study participants, most of whom had serious mental issues. The Food and Drug Administration investigators also found that records had been falsified and researchers had failed to keep accurate case histories. (Carey, 6/27)

San Jose Mercury News: Gov. Brown Signs Bill That Limits Seizure Of Assets Of Many Medi-Cal Recipients
After three years of sleepless nights for hundreds of thousands of Medi-Cal recipients, Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday signed into law a bill that limits the state's seizure of assets from the estates of low-income residents ages 55 to 64. Beginning Jan. 1, 2017, California will join many other states in the country that only recover the costs of enrollees' long-term care and related costs after they die. (Seipel, 6/27)

The Dallas Morning News: Yellow Cab Parent Company Must Pay $1.125M To Resolve Medicaid Fraud Allegations
Three North Texas cab company executives and their entities have agreed to pay the U.S. more than $1 million to resolve Medicaid fraud allegations....The settlement resolves part of an ongoing lawsuit filed in 2012 by former Yellow Cab employees who worked for its Medicaid services. The government provides transportation for Medicare and Medicaid patients if they cannot travel or have no access to transportation. (Meyers, 6/27)

Reuters: Illinois Insurance Regulator Approves Aetna Purchase Of Humana
The Illinois Department of Insurance has approved Aetna Inc's proposed $34 billion acquisition of Humana Inc provided it is approved by the U.S. Department of Justice, according to an order dated June 23 posted on the department's website. Aetna announced the deal last summer and it is under review by the Justice Department, which is looking at competition concerns around its combined Medicare Advantage business for older people and the disabled. (Humer, 6/27)

The Associated Press: Allina Health Offers New Contract Proposal To Union Nurses
Allina Health says it's offering a new contract proposal to its union nurses who staff five hospitals in the Twin Cities area. The company has asked the Minnesota Nurses Association to come back to the bargaining table. The union said Monday it will review the proposal. The nurses returned to work Sunday following a seven-day strike. (6/27)

KQED: California Surpasses National HIV Target — 6 Years Early
State health officials say California has passed a major goal in fighting HIV/AIDS: more than 90 percent of people living with the virus have been diagnosed, a necessary first step in treatment. The state accomplished this goal six years ahead of the target 2020 set in the National HIV/AIDS Strategy, established by the White House. Data released Monday from 2014 shows 91 percent of Californians with HIV had been diagnosed. (Aliferis, 6/27)

The Boston Globe: At Brigham, A Day Of Relief Tinged With Bitterness
Brigham and Women’s Hospital started returning to its regular routine on Monday, a day of relief tinged with lingering bitterness, after a threatened nurses strike was averted over the weekend. The Boston hospital is admitting patients, ramping up surgeries, and rescheduling canceled appointments now that a tentative new contract with the Massachusetts Nurses Association has been hammered out. (Dayal McCluskey, 6/27)

The Baltimore Sun: Maryland Hospitals Launch Effort To Inform Consumers On Changing Landscape
Hospitals in Maryland are changing the way they deliver care, focusing more on coordinating services and preventing complications...Called A Breath of Fresh Care, the campaign’s goal is to get patients to engage in their care by directing them to hospital wellness and chronic disease management initiatives, as well as information on interacting with providers or even the process of registering a complaint. (Cohn, 6/28)

The Baltimore Sun: Maryland Doctors Perform Kidney Transplant With No Dialysis
Doctors at the University of Maryland Medical Center were able to perform a kidney transplant on a patient with no need for dialysis — a feat they said was the first type of procedure in the country. (McDaniels, 6/27)

Wyoming Public Radio: Northern Arapaho Tribe Takes Over Its Health Clinic
Northern Arapaho officials on the Wind River Indian Reservation in Wyoming say they've experienced some bumps since the tribe took over management of their federal health clinic earlier this year. The Northern Arapaho Tribe has been working for many years to get full management of their health care system. In January, they finally took over for the Indian Health Services. Tribal Administrator Vonda Wells says the federal government has controlled the tribe’s health system since they were placed on the Wind River Reservation in the late 1800’s. (Edwards, 6/27)

California Healthline: Old Motels Get New Life Helping Homeless Heal
Just up the freeway from Disneyland, in the Orange County city of Buena Park, Paul Leon stood outside the beat-up remnant of a seedy motel. Above him, a faded pink sign advertised the Coral Motel, whose rooms back in its prime cost 35 bucks a night. “This particular motel was going to be taken back by the city of Buena Park, because of the drugs, alcohol, prostitution,” Leon explained. But Leon, CEO of the Irvine-based Illumination Foundation, a homeless services nonprofit, had a different idea. He proposed turning the motel lobby into a triage center and converting the rooms into clean recovery facilities for homeless people recently discharged from the hospital. And that’s what he did. (Gorn, 6/28)

San Francisco Chronicle: Oakland Council Votes To Block Coal-Shipping Plan
The Oakland City Council voted unanimously Monday to block the handling and storage of coal in Oakland, effectively halting a developer’s controversial plan to ship coal from the port. Hundreds of people crowded City Hall — and demonstrated outside — as seven council members weighed the proposal by Mayor Libby Schaaf and Councilman Dan Kalb to bar coal and petroleum coke from Oakland. Schaaf and Kalb advocated for their measure by arguing that these fossil fuels pollute the air and pose serious risks to workers and nearby residents. (Swan, 6/27)

Austin Statesman: Doctor Answers 6 Questions About Flesh-Eating Bacteria
Adrian Ruiz’s family was shocked to learn last week that the 42-year-old Texas man had become infected with a flesh-eating bacteria — and risked losing his leg — after returning from a fishing trip in Rockport and visiting the beach in Corpus Christi during Father’s Day weekend. ... Dr. A. Scott Lea, a professor of internal medicine and infectious diseases at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, spoke with the Austin American-Statesman about Vibrio vulnificus to answer some questions about the bacteria. (Hall, 6/28)

The California Health Report: Chronic Funding Shortfalls Frustrate County Coroners
In a refrigerated crypt at the Los Angeles County Coroner-Medical Examiner’s headquarters, the bodies lie awaiting examination on the shelves of metal racks, similar to what you might find in a Home Depot. The coroner’s office is responsible for investigating violent and unusual death. With up to 80,000 deaths in Los Angeles County annually, about 20,000 are reported each year to the medical examiner’s office. The department examines from 8,000 to 9,000 bodies a year, records show. (Richard, 6/28)

The New York Times: A Major Victory For Abortion Rights
In the most significant victory in a generation for a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body, the Supreme Court on Monday struck down Texas’s harsh and dishonest anti-abortion law by a vote of 5 to 3. The justices’ reasoning in overturning the law applies to hundreds of other attempts in recent years by Republican lawmakers around the country to restrict or destroy constitutionally protected reproductive rights. (6/27)

USA Today: A Big Win For Abortion Rights
For more than 25 years, abortion opponents unable to overturn Roe v. Wade have been building ever-higher barriers to a woman’s right to an abortion. On Thursday, in the most far-reaching abortion ruling in a generation, the Supreme Court in essence told them, “Stop, you’ve gone too far.” In its 5-3 decision, the bitterly divided court struck down parts of a Texas law that had already closed half of the state’s abortion clinics, and if allowed to go forward, would have left the nation’s second largest state with less than 10 clinics to serve 5.4 million women of reproductive age. By contrast, California, the nation’s most populous state, had 160 abortion clinics at last count. (6/27)

The Washington Post: The Supreme Court Saves Reproductive Freedom
[A]bortion has been among the most contentious legal subjects of the past half-century, and several issues have desperately required lucid guidance from the court since the last major ruling. The majority’s eagerness to clarify what the Constitution requires resulted in a ruling that, on the merits, is both sensible and clear: Politicians may not use obvious pretexts to erode a woman’s right to end a pregnancy. Forty-three years after Roe, they should stop trying. (6/27)

Los Angeles Times: Supreme Court Rejects States’ Ploy To Roll Back Abortion Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to strike down two onerous provisions in a Texas abortion law sends a clear and powerful message that medically unjustified restrictions that obstruct a woman’s access to abortion are unconstitutional. In its most sweeping decision on abortion since 1992, the court reaffirmed what it said at that time: If a law regulating abortion before the fetus is viable is more an obstacle to women than a benefit to them then it violates the Constitution. (6/27)

The Dallas Morning News: Safe, Legal Abortion Is Here To Stay
Forty-three years have passed since Roe vs. Wade was first decided. Abortion remains a sharply divisive issue for all of us, and perhaps it always will be. ... But our courts have spoken again and again across more than four decades and multiple generations. In this country, women have the right to choose whether to end their pregnancies. It is time for Texas lawmakers to end their machinations aimed at limiting that right, whether couched in concern for women's health or not. Their efforts would be better aimed at creating laws that make it easier for women to carry pregnancies to term, and to raise their children. (6/27)

The Dallas Morning News: SCOTUS Abortion Decision Is Misogyny In Action
As a pro-life feminist, I not only believe that women deserve equal human rights, but that women are strong and capable. The abortion industry tells women they can't make anything of their lives without abortion. That is the opposite of empowerment. Women were once considered property and denied basic human rights. How dare we treat our children the same way? Our liberation cannot come at their expense. (Kristen Walker, 6/27)

The Wall Street Journal: The Supreme Court’s Cultural Winners
Justice Thomas pointed out that the Court’s liberals identified new, impossible-to-meet “tests” for allowable state abortion regulation only a week after they waved through college racial preferences with little more justification than asserting “aspirational educational goals” (Fisher v. University of Texas). U.S. law, wrote Justice Thomas, is now “riddled with special exceptions for special rights.” So please, hold the crocodile tears over our “polarized politics.” What has polarized the country is not specific rights claims. Those will always emerge in a vibrant democracy. The bitter division is the result, in no small part, of a Supreme Court that picks the winners. (6/27)

The Wall Street Journal: The Texas Abortion Ruling And The Supreme Court’s New Normal
The death of Antonin Scalia, the botched GOP response to the nomination of Merrick Garland, and the increasingly probable election of Hillary Clinton have conspired to make the ideological reconfiguration of the court a growing likelihood. And while an eight-person court can still maintain the conservative status quo on occasion (such as last week’s decision on immigration), Monday’s action on abortion access in Texas represents what’s going to be the new normal for many years to come. (Dan Schnur, 6/27)

Bloomberg: Court Restores Balance To Abortion Debate
The pro-lifers thought they had found a way around their inability to get Roe v. Wade overturned even with Republican majorities in the House and Senate. Their strategy was to whimper about “women’s health and safety,” as if either were jeopardized or as if the pro-lifers cared; get GOP-controlled legislatures to pass hard-to-meet regulations; and then cheer as abortion clinics and doctors couldn’t meet those rules. Texas shut down half its clinics, and the other half were threatened by regulations that would require operating rooms to be capable of performing brain surgery, and hospital-admitting privileges for doctors who worked there. That all ended today. (Margaret Carlson, 6/27)

Los Angeles Times: Abortion Isn't An Outlier Medical Procedure, It's A Constitutional Right
On Monday, the Supreme Court responded to a prime example of the dishonest “health and safety” scam with a 5-3 decision striking down an alarmingly effective pair of restrictions in Texas. The court’s ruling in Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt, and the implicit reinforcement of the judiciary’s essential role in safeguarding abortion rights, marks a turning point in the still-raging battle to preserve women’s reproductive freedom, not just in Texas but nationwide. (Dorothy Samuels, 6/28)

WBUR: Opinion: Supreme Court Ruling Suggests Public Health Data Matters In Abortion Cases
In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, the Supreme Court ruled that such restrictions "vastly increase the obstacles confronting women seeking abortions in Texas without providing any benefit to women's health capable of withstanding any meaningful scrutiny." ...A critical and worrying concern for many abortion rights researchers and advocates in anticipation of the ruling was whether and to what extent the court could be relied on to base its decision on sound public health data. They had good reason to be. (Emily Maistrellis, 6/27)

The New York Times: The Facts Win Out On Abortion
Someone landing from Mars on Monday and coming upon Justice Stephen G. Breyer’s majority Supreme Court opinion in the Texas abortion case would have had no hint of the decades-long battle over women’s right to abortion and the dogged efforts by states to put obstacles in their way. There is no poetry in the 40-page opinion, which strikes down a Texas law that would have closed most abortion clinics in the state in the name of protecting women’s health. The dry, almost clinical tone could scarcely be more different from the meditative mood the Supreme Court struck the last time it stood up for abortion rights, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 24 years ago this week. “Liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt” was Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s mysterious opening line in that opinion. (Linda Greenhouse, 6/27)

The Texas Tribune: Supreme Court's Abortion Decision Is A Win For Texas Women
As an abortion provider, as a Latina, as a mother, as an immigrant from Latin America, I'm relieved that these barriers can at last be lifted. I join my colleagues, our patients, and women and families across the country in celebrating the historic U.S. Supreme Court decision in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt. (Andrea Ferrigno, 6/27)

Philadelphia Daily News: Supreme Court Saw Through The Texas Bull
Hence, the court gutted the Texas bill called H.B. 2, which, in the guise of protecting a woman's health, instead impinged on her right to have an abortion. (Ronnie Polaneczky, 6/27)

The Baltimore Sun: Abortion Rights Affirmed
The Supreme Court's Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt decision striking down key provisions of a Texas anti-abortion law — an effort to shutter abortion clinics in the name of "safety" and "women's health" — is a victory for reproductive rights with broad implications. One can only hope the first is to dissuade states from adopting (or perhaps even prompt them to voluntarily roll back) similarly targeted regulations of abortion providers, or TRAP laws. (6/27)

The Boston Globe: Beating Back An Undue Burden On Legal Abortions
The US Supreme Court’s vote Monday that voided Texas’ oppressive restrictions on abortion clinics is rightly being hailed as the most significant abortion rights ruling in a quarter century. Supporters of the Texas law, known as H.B. 2, had insisted that its intent was to protect women’s safety, but five of the Supreme Court’s eight justices recognized the legislation’s true purpose: to make it as difficult as possible for women to exercise their right to abortion. (6/28)

The Des Moines Register: Supreme Court, Not Texas, Protects Women
Texas has the highest rate of uninsured residents in the country. State officials have refused to expand Medicaid under the health reform law to insure more low-income people. Access to health care is not exactly a priority in the Lone Star State. (6/27)

Bloomberg: Republicans' Health-Care Plan: Not Much Care, Not Much Plan
Republicans’ long-promised health-care plan has arrived -- though it’s light on the health care and offers too little detail to tell whether it’s a realistic plan. Many aspects of House Speaker Paul Ryan’s proposal are clear: It would permit health insurers to cover far fewer services than they have to cover under Obamacare, and it would reduce federal subsidies for buying insurance, pare protections for people with pre-existing conditions, roll back funding for Medicaid, and convert Medicare to a voucher-type program. ... The question is: What problem is the plan meant to solve? (6/28)

Bloomberg: A Better Way To Educate Doctors
Just when it seems as if citizens everywhere are revolting against government, a county in Texas provides a vivid counterexample. In 2012, voters in Travis County approved an increase in their property taxes to help fund a new medical school at the University of Texas at Austin. The school illustrates that taxpayers are willing to support a project they believe is justified. And this project -- the Dell Medical School (it also has funding from the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation) -- is well justified, because its curriculum breaks from tradition to address the challenges doctors increasingly face in the effort to improve the value of medical care. (Peter R. Orszag, 6/28)

The New York Times: Low Prices For Vaccines Can Come At A Great Cost
A $30,000 price tag for cancer drug therapy that extends life only a few weeks is understandably alarming. But a $2,000 price tag for all childhood vaccines — credited with eradicating smallpox, preventing a million or more cases of other diseases and averting thousands of deaths each year — is a bargain. In fact, the price of childhood vaccines may be too low for our own good because it contributes to shortages. (Austin Frakt, 6/27)

Wichita (Kan.) Eagle: Medicaid Reporting Error Just The Latest Fiasco
The state reported to federal authorities that the number of people awaiting approval of their Medicaid applications was about 3,500. It turns out the real total is more than four times that much – nearly 15,500. What’s more, most of that increase is among people waiting more than 45 days (the federal approval deadline). That total increased more than five times – from about 2,000 to 11,000. This isn’t just a bureaucratic misstep. The processing delays can endanger the lives of vulnerable Kansans. (Phillip Brownlee, 6/27)

Orlando Sentinel: Overtime Rule For Home Care Workers A Mixed Blessing
On Jan. 1, the Department of Labor extended federal wage protections to the nation's home health care workers, entitling them to the federal minimum wage and time-and-a-half pay for overtime beyond 40 hours per week. These new government protections are positive for several reasons. They recognize home health care as professional work that should be held to high standards, compensated fairly, and provide income security to caregivers, most of whom locally are women and many of whom immigrated to America in search of a livable wage. Additionally, it's an important first step in preparing for the reality that with 76 million baby boomers born between 1946 and 1964, there will be a need in the future for more home health caregivers than ever before. (Zachary Desmond, 6/27)

Orange County Register: State Officials Addicted To Nicotine Taxes
The tobacco-tax initiative’s backers say “an increase in the tobacco tax is an appropriate way to decrease tobacco use and mitigate the costs of health care treatment.” It’s true that a higher tax discourages smoking. So a higher e-cigarette tax would also discourage vaping, which happens to be a great way to stop smoking. The logic seems inescapable that hiking taxes on vaping products is more about revenue than public health. (Steven Greenhut, 6/25)

The Tennessean: Medicare Changes Would Jeopardize Cancer Patients
Former President Jimmy Carter announced to the world last summer that he had been diagnosed with melanoma that had spread to his liver and brain. Just months later, after receiving a groundbreaking, personalized treatment known as immunotherapy, his cancer was in remission. ... Many of the more than 1.6 million Americans who will be diagnosed with cancer this year might not have the same options. Last month, Washington bureaucrats with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced plans to alter Medicare Part B drug benefits for patients with cancer. (Jeff Patton, 6/27)

Orange County Register: The High Price Of "Cheap" Drugs
Fifty percent more people overdose today than in 2006. Fortunately, the Food and Drug Administration just approved the anti-addiction treatment Probuphine. It’s an implant placed in a person’s upper arm, where it releases a steady stream of an anti-addiction drug called buprenorphine to help addicts stay sober. (Sally C. Pipes, 6/27)