[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, June 12, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, head of the American Action Forum and former head of the Congressional Budget Office. Doug will talk about what it is that CBO actually does and why it’s the subject of so many slings and arrows. But first, this week’s news. 

The biggest health news this week is out of the Department of Health and Human Services, where Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday summarily fired all 17 members of the CDC’s [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] vaccine advisory committee, something he expressly promised Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy he wouldn’t do, in exchange for Cassidy’s vote to confirm him last winter. Sarah, remind us what this committee does and why it matters who’s on it? 

Karlin-Smith: So, they’re a committee that advises CDC on who should use various vaccines approved in the U.S., and their recommendations translate, assuming they’re accepted by the CDC, to whether vaccines are covered by most insurance plans and also reimbursed. There’s various laws that we have that set out, that require coverage of vaccines recommended by the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] and so forth. So without ACIP recommendations, you may — vaccines could be available in the U.S. but extremely unaffordable for many people. 

Rovner: Right, because they’ll be uncovered. 

Karlin-Smith: Correct. Your insurance company may choose not to reimburse them. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, this is separate from the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] actual approval of the vaccines and the acknowledgment it’s safe and effective. Right, Anna? 

Edney: Yeah, there are two different roles here. So the FDA looks at all the safety and effectiveness data and decides whether it’s safe to come to market. And with ACIP, they are deciding whether these are things that children or adults or pregnant women, different categories of people, should be getting on a regular basis. 

Rovner: So Wednesday afternoon, Secretary Kennedy named eight replacements to the committee, including several with known anti-vaccine views. I suppose that’s what we all expected, kind of? 

Kenen: He also shrunk it, so there are fewer voices. The old panel, I believe, had 17. And the law says it has to have at least eight, and he appointed eight. As far as we know, that’s all he’s appointing. But who knows? A couple of more could straggle in. But as of now, it means there’s less viewpoints, less voices, which may or might not turn out to be a good thing. But it is a different committee in every respect. 

Edney: And I think it is a bit of what we expected in the sense that these are people who either are outright vaccine critics or, in a case or two, have actually said vaccines do horrible things to people. One of them had said before that the covid vaccine caused an AIDS-like virus in people. And there is a nurse that is part of the committee now that said her son was harmed by vaccines. And not saying that is or isn’t true — her concerns could be valid — but that she very much has worked to question vaccines. 

So I think it is the committee that we maybe would’ve expected from a sense of, I think he’s trying to bring in people who are a little bit mainstream, in the sense if you looked at where they worked or things like that, you might not say, like: Oh, Georgetown University. I get it. But they are people who have taken kind of the more of a fringe approach within maybe kind of a mainstream world. 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say there’s also many people on the list that it’s just not even clear to me why you would look at their expertise and think, Oh, this is a committee they should serve on. One of the people is an MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], essentially, like, business school professor who tangentially I think has worked on health policy to some extent. But, right, this is not somebody who has extreme expertise in vaccinology, immunology, and so forth. You have a psychiatrist whose expertise seems to be on nutrition and brain health. 

And one thing I think people don’t always appreciate about this committee at CDC is, you see them in these public meetings that happen a few times a year, but they do a lot of work behind the scenes to actually go through data and make these recommendations. And so having less people and having people that don’t actually have the expertise to do this work seems like it could cause a big problem just from that point of view. 

Edney: And that can be the issue that comes up when Kennedy has said, I don’t want anyone with any conflicts of interest. Well, we’ve talked about this. Certainly you don’t want a legit conflict of interest, but a lot of people who are going to have the expertise you need may have a perceived conflict that he doesn’t want on there. So you end up maybe with somebody who works in operations instead of on vaccines. 

Rovner: You mean maybe we’ll have people who actually have researched vaccines. 

Edney: Right. Exactly. Yeah. 

Kenen: The MIT guy is an expert in supply chains. None of us know who the best supply chain business school professor is in the world. Maybe it’s him, but it’s a very odd placement. 

Rovner: Well, so far Sen. Cassidy hasn’t said very much other than to kind of communicate that he’s not happy right now. Has anybody heard anything further? The secretary has been sort of walking up to the line of things he told the senator he wouldn’t do, but this clearly is over the line of things he told the senator he wouldn’t do. And now it’s done. 

Kenen: It’s like over the line and he set fire to it. And Cassidy has been pretty quiet. And in fact, when Kennedy testified before Cassidy — Cassidy is the chairman of the health committee — a couple of weeks ago, he gave him a really warm greeting and thanked him for coming and didn’t say: You’re a month late. I wanted you here last month. The questions were very soft. And things have only gotten more heated since then, with the dissolution of the ACIP committee and this reconstitution of it. And he’s been very quiet for somebody who publicly justified, who publicly wrestled with this, the confirmation, was the deciding vote, and then has been really soft since then — in public. 

Rovner: I sent around a story this morning to the panelists, from The Hill, which I will link to in the show notes, that quotes a political science professor in Louisiana pointing out that perhaps it would be better for Cassidy politically not to say anything, that perhaps public opinion among Republicans who will vote in a primary is more on the side of Secretary Kennedy than Sen. Cassidy, which raises some interesting questions. 

Edney: Yeah. And I think that, at least for me, I’m at the point of wondering if Cassidy didn’t know that all along, that there’s a point he was willing to go up to but a line that he is never going to have been willing to cross, and that is actually coming out against Kennedy and, therefore, [President Donald] Trump. He doesn’t want to lose his reelection. I am starting to wonder if he just hoped it wouldn’t come to this and so was able to say those things that got him to vote for Kennedy and then hope that it wouldn’t happen. 

And I think that was a lot of people. They weren’t on the line like Cassidy was, but I think a lot of people thought, Oh, nothing’s ever going to happen on this. And I think another thing I’m learning as I cover this administration and the Kennedy HHS is when they say, Don’t worry about it, look away, we’re not doing anything that big of a deal, that’s when you have to worry about it. And when they make a big deal about some policy they’re bringing up, it actually means they’re not really doing a lot on it. So I think we’re seeing that with vaccines for sure. 

Rovner: Yes, classic watch what they do not what they say. 

Kenen: But if you’re Cassidy and you already voted to impeach President Trump, which means you already have a target from the right — he’s a conservative, but it’s from the more conservative, though, the more MAGA [Make America Great Again] — if you do something mavericky, sometimes the best political line is to continue doing it. But they’ve also changed the voting rules, my understanding is, in Louisiana so that independents are — they used to be able to cross party lines in the primaries, and I believe you can’t do that anymore. So that also changed, and that’s recent, so that might have been what he thought might save him. 

Rovner: Well, it’s not just ACIP where Secretary Kennedy is insinuating himself directly into vaccine policy. HHS has also canceled a huge contract with vaccine maker Moderna, which was working on an mRNA-based bird flu vaccine, which we might well need in the near future, and they’ve also canceled trials of potential HIV vaccines. What do we know about what this HHS is doing in terms of vaccine policy? 

Karlin-Smith: The bird flu contract I think is very concerning because it seems to go along the lines of many people in this administration and Kennedy’s orbit who sometimes might seem a little bit OK with vaccines, more OK than Kennedy’s record, is they are very anti the newer mRNA technology, which we know proved very effective in saving tens of millions of lives. I was looking at some data just even the first year they rolled out after covid. So we know they work. Obviously, like all medical interventions, there are some side effects. But again, the benefits outweigh the risks. And this is the only, really, technology that we have that could really get us vaccines really quickly in a pandemic and bird flu. 

Really, the fear there is that if it were to jump to humans and really spread from human-to-human transmission — we have had some cases recently — it could be much more devastating than a pandemic like covid. And so not having the government have these relationships with companies who could produce products at a particular speed would be probably incredibly devastating, given the other technologies we have to invest in. 

Edney: I think Kennedy has also showed us that he, and spoken about this, is that he is much more interested in a cure for anything. He has talked about measles and Why can’t we just treat it better? And we’re seeing that with the HIV vaccine that won’t be going forward in the same way, is that the administration has basically said: We have the tools to deal with it if somebody gets it. We’re just not going to worry about vaccinating as much. And so I think that this is a little bit in that vein as well. 

Rovner: So the heck with prevention, basically. 

Edney: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, in related news, some 300 employees of the National Institutes of Health, including several institute directors, this week sent an open letter of dissent to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that they are calling the “Bethesda Declaration.” That’s a reference to the “Great Barrington Declaration” that the NIH director helped spearhead back in 2020 that protested covid lockdowns and NIH’s handling of the science. 

The Bethesda Declaration protests policies that the signatories say, quote, “undermine the NIH mission, waste our public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.” Here’s how one of the signers, Jenna Norton of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, put it in a YouTube video. 

Jenna Norton: And the NIH that I’m working in now is unrecognizable to me. Every day I go into the office and I wonder what ethical boundary I’m going to be asked to violate, what probably illegal action am I going to be asked to take. And it’s just soul-crushing. And that’s one of the reasons that I’m signing this letter. One of my co-signers said this, but I’m going to quote them because I thought it was so powerful: “You get another job, but you cannot get another soul.” 

Rovner: I’ve been covering NIH for a lot of years. I can’t remember pushback like this against an administration by its own scientists, even during the height of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. How serious is this? And is it likely to have any impact on policy going forward? 

Edney: I think if you’re seeing a good amount of these signers who sign their actual names and if you’re seeing that in the government, something is very serious and there are huge concerns, I think, because, as a journalist, I try to reach people who work in the government all the time. And if they’re not in the press office, if they speak to me, which is rare, even they do not want me to use their name. They do not want to be identified in any way, because there are repercussions for that. 

And especially with this administration, I’m sure that there is some fear for people’s jobs and in some instances maybe even beyond. But I think that whether there will be any policy changes, that is a little less clear, how this administration might take that to heart or listen to what they’re saying. 

Rovner: Bhattacharya was in front of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee this week and was asked about it, but only sort of tangentially. I was a little bit surprised that — obviously, Republicans, we just talked about Sen. Cassidy, they are afraid to go up against the Trump administration’s choices for some of these jobs — but I was surprised that even some of the Democrats seemed a little bit hands-off. 

Edney: Yeah, no one ever asks the questions I want asked at hearings, I have to say. I’m always screaming. Yeah, exactly. I’m always like: No. What are you doing? 

Rovner: That’s exactly how I was, like: No, ask him this. 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: Don’t ask him that. 

Edney: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, moving on to the Big Budget Bill, which is my new name for it. Everybody else seems to have a different one. It’s still not clear when the Senate will actually take up its parts, particularly those related to health, but it is clear that it’s not just Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act on the table but now Medicare, too. Ironically, it feels like lawmakers could more easily squeeze savings out of Medicare without hurting beneficiaries than either Medicaid or the ACA, or is that just me being too simplistic about this whole thing? 

Kenen: The Medicare bill is targeted at upcoding, which means insurers or providers sort of describing a symptom or an illness in the most severe terms possible and they get paid more. And everybody in government is actually against that. Everybody ends up paying more. I don’t know what else the small —this has just bubbled up — but I don’t know if there’s other small print. 

This alone, if it wasn’t tied to all the politics of everything else in this bill, this is the kind of thing, if you really do a bill that attacks inflated medical bills, you could probably get bipartisan support for. But because — and, again, I don’t know what else is in, and I know that’s the top line. There may be something that I’m not aware of that is more of a poison pill. But that issue you could get bipartisan consensus on. 

But it’s folded into this horrendously contentious thing. And it’s easy to say, Oh, they’re trying to cut Medicare, which in this case maybe they’re trying to cut it in a way that is smart, but it just makes it more complicated. If they do go for it, if they do decide that this goes in there, it could create a little more wiggle room to not cut some other things quite as deeply. 

But again, they’re calling everything waste, fraud, and abuse. None of us would say there is no waste, fraud, and abuse in government or in health care. We all know there is waste, fraud, and abuse, but that doesn’t mean that what they’re cutting here is waste, fraud, and abuse in other aspects of that bill. 

Rovner: Although, as you say, I think there’s bipartisan consensus, including from Mehmet Oz, who runs Medicare, that upcoding is waste and fraud. 

Kenen: Right. But other things in the bill are being called waste, fraud, and abuse that are not, right? That there’s things in Medicaid that are not waste, fraud, and abuse. They’re just changing the rules. But I agree with you, Julie. I think that in a bill that is not so fraught, it would’ve been easier to get consensus on this particular item, assuming it’s a clean upcoding bill, if you did it in a different way. 

Rovner: And also, there’s already a bipartisan bill on pharmacy benefit managers kicking around. There are a lot of things that Congress could do on a bipartisan basis to reduce the cost of Medicare and make the program better and shore it up, and that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening, for the most part. 

Well, we continue to learn things about the House-passed bill that we didn’t know before, and one thing we learned this week that I think bears discussing comes from a new poll from our KFF polling unit that found that nearly half those who purchased Affordable Care Act coverage from the marketplaces are Republicans, including a significant percentage who identify themselves as MAGA Republicans. 

So it’s not just Republicans in the Medicaid expansion population who’d be impacted. Millions of Trump supporters could end up losing or being priced out of their ACA insurance, too, particularly in non-Medicaid-expansion states like Florida and Texas. A separate poll from Quinnipiac this week finds that only 27% of respondents think Congress should pass the big budget reconciliation bill. Could either of these things change some Republican perceptions of things in this bill, or is it just too far down the train tracks at this point? 

Karlin-Smith: We saw a few weeks ago [Sen.] Joni Ernst seemed to be really highly critical of her own supporters who were pushing back on her support for the bill. Even when Republicans failed to get rid of the ACA and [Sen.] John McCain gave it the thumbs-down, he was the one. It wasn’t like everyone else was coming to help him with that. 

And again, I think there was the same dynamic where a lot of people who, if you had asked them did they support Obamacare while it was being written in law, in early days before they saw any benefit of it, would have said no and politically align themselves with the Republican Party, and their views have come to realize, once you get a benefit, that it may actually be more desirable, perhaps, than you initially thought. 

I think it could become a problem for them, but I don’t think it’s going to be a mass group of Republicans are going to change their minds over this. 

Rovner: Or are they going to figure out that that’s why they’re losing their coverage? 

Kenen: Right. Many things in this bill, if it goes into effect, are actually after the 2026 elections. The ACA stuff is earlier. And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure it expires in time for the next enrollment season. 

Rovner: Yeah, and we’ve talked about this before. The expanded credits, which are not sort of quote-unquote— 

Kenen: No, they’re separate. 

Rovner: —“in this bill,” but it’s the expiration of those that’s going to cause— 

Kenen: In September. And so those— 

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: —people would— 

Rovner: In December. No, at the end of the year they expire. 

Kenen: Right. So that in 2026, people getting the expanded benefit. And there’s also somewhat of a misunderstanding that that legislation opened Obamacare subsidies to people further up the eligibility roof, so more people who had more money but still couldn’t afford insurance do get subsidies. That goes away, but it cascades down. It affects lower-income people. It affects other people. It’s not just that income bracket. 

There are sort of ripple effects through the entire subsidized population. So people will lose their coverage. There’s really no dispute about that. The reason it was sunsetted is because it costs money. Congress does that a lot. If we do it for five years, we can get it on the score that we need out of the CBO. But if we do it for 10 years, we can’t. So that is not an unusual practice in Congress for Republicans and Democrats, but that happens before the election. 

It’s just whether people connect the dots and whether there are enough of them to make a difference in an election, right? Millions of people across the country. But does it change how people vote in a specific race in a state that’s already red? If it’s a very red state, it may not make people get mad, but it may not affect who gets elected to House or the Senate in 2026. 

Rovner: We will see. So Sarah, I was glad you mentioned Sen. Ernst, because last week we talked about her comment that we’re all going to die, in response to complaints at a town hall meeting about the Medicaid cuts. Well, Medicare and Medicaid chief Mehmet Oz says to Sen. Ernst, Hold my beer. Speaking on Fox Business, Oz said people should only get Medicaid if they, quote, “prove that they matter.” 

Now, this was in the context of saying that if you want Medicaid, you should work or go to school. Of course, most people on Medicaid do work or care-give for someone who can’t work or do go to school — they just have jobs that don’t come with private health insurance. I can’t help but think this is kind of a big hole in the Republican talking points that we keep seeing. These members keep suggesting that all working people or people going to school get health insurance, and that’s just not the case. 

Kenen: But it sounds good. 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say, there are small employers that don’t have to provide coverage under the ACA. There are people that have sort of churned because they work part time or can’t quite get enough hours to qualify, and these are often lower-income people. And I think the other thing I’ve seen people, especially in the disability committee and so forth, raises — there’s an underlying rhetoric here that to get health care, you have to be deserving and to be working. 

That, I think, is starting to raise concerns, because even though they kind of say they’re not attacking that population that gets Medicaid, I think there is some concern about the language that they’re using is placing a value on people’s lives that just sort of undermines those that legitimately cannot work, for no fault of their own. 

Kenen: It’s how the Republicans have begun talking about Medicaid again. Public opinion, and KFF has had some really interesting polls on this over the last few years, really interesting changes in public attitudes toward Medicaid, much more popular. And it’s thought of even by many Republicans as a health care program, not a welfare program. What you have seen — and that’s a change. 

What you’ve seen in the last couple of months is Republican leaders, notably Speaker [Mike] Johnson, really talking about this as welfare. And it’s very reminiscent of the Reagan years, the concept of the deserving poor that goes back decades. But we haven’t heard it as much that these are the people who deserve our help and these are the lazy bums or the cheats. 

Speaker Johnson didn’t call them lazy bums and cheats, but there’s this concept of some people deserve our help and the rest of them, tough luck. They don’t deserve it. And so that’s a change in the rhetoric. And talking about waste and talking about fraud and talking about abuse is creating the impression that it’s rampant, that there’s this huge abuse, and that’s not the case. People are vetted for Medicaid and they do qualify for Medicaid. 

States have their own money and their own enrollment systems. They have every incentive to not cover people who don’t deserve to be covered. Again, none of us are saying there’s zero waste. We would never say that. None of us are saying there’s zero abuse. But it’s not like that’s the defining characteristic of Medicaid is that it’s all fraud and abuse, and that you can cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of it without anybody feeling any pain. 

Rovner: And there were a lot of Republican states that expanded Medicaid, even when they didn’t have to, that are going to feel this. That’s a whole other issue that I think we will talk about probably in the weeks to come. I want to move to DOGE [the Department of Government Efficiency]. Elon Musk is back in California, having had a very ugly breakup with President Trump and possibly a partial reconciliation. But the impact of DOGE continues across the federal government, as well as at HHS. 

The latest news is apparently hundreds of CDC employees who were told that they were being laid off who are now being told: Never mind. Come back to work. Of course, this news comes weeks after they were told they were being fired, and it’s unclear how many of them have upended their work and family lives in the interim. 

But at the same time, much of the money that’s supposed to be flowing, appropriations for the current fiscal year that were passed by Congress and signed by President Trump — apparently still being held up. What are you guys hearing about how things at HHS are or aren’t going in the wake of the DOGE cutbacks? Go ahead, Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: It still seems like people at the federal government that I talked to are incredibly unhappy. At other agencies, as well, there have been groups of people called back to work, including at FDA. But still, I think the general sense is there’s a lot of chaos. People aren’t comfortable that their job will be there long-term. Many people even who were called back are saying they’re still looking for work other places. 

There’s just so many changes in both, I think, in their day-to-day lives and how they do their job, but then also philosophically in terms of policy and what they are allowed to do, that I think a lot of people are becoming kind of demoralized and trying to figure out: Can they do what they signed up to do in their job, or is it better just to move on? And I think there’s going to be long-term consequences for a lot of these government agencies. 

Rovner: You mean being fired and unfired and refired doesn’t make for a happy workplace? 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say a lot of them were called back to offices that they didn’t always have to come to. They’ve lost people who have been working and never lost their jobs, have lost close colleagues, support staff they rely on to do their jobs. So it’s really complicated even if you’re in the best-case scenario, I think, at a lot of these agencies. 

Kenen: And a loss of institutional memory, too, because nobody knows everything in your office. And in an office that functions, it’s collaborative. I know this, you know that. We work together, and we come out with a better product. So that’s been eviscerated. And then — we’re all in a part of an industry that’s seen a lot of downsizing and chaos, in journalism, and the outcome is worse. When things get beaten up and battered and kicked out, things are harmed. And it’s true of any industry, since we haven’t been AI-replaced yet. 

Rovner: Yet. So it’s been a while since we had a, quote, “This Week in Private Equity in Health Care,” but this week the governor of Oregon signed into law a pretty serious ban on private equity ownership of physician practices. Apparently, this was prompted by the purchase by Optum — that’s the arm of UnitedHealth that is now the largest owner of physician practices in the U.S. — of a multi-specialty group in Eugene, Oregon, that caused significant dislocation for patients and was charged by the state with impermissibly raising prices. Hospitals are not included in Oregon’s ban, but I wonder if this is the start of a trend. Or is this a one-off in a pretty blue state, which Oregon is? 

Edney: I think that it could be. I don’t know, certainly, but I think to watch how it plays out might be quite interesting. The problem with private equity ownership of these doctors’ offices is then the doctors don’t feel that they can actually give good care. They’ve got to move people through. It’s all about how much money can they make or save so that private equity can get its reward. And so I think that people certainly are frustrated by it, as in people who get the care, also people who are doing legislating and things like that. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see some other attempts at this pop up now that we’ve seen one. 

Kenen: But Oregon is uniquely placed to get something like this through. They are a very blue state. They’ve got a history of some health reform stuff that’s progressive. I don’t think you’ll see this domino-ing through every state legislature in the short term. 

Rovner: But I will also say that even in Oregon, it took a while to get this through. There was a lot of pushback because there is concern that without private equity, maybe some of these practices are going to go belly up. This is the continuing fight about the future of the health care workforce and who’s going to underwrite it. 

Well, finally this week, I want to give a shoutout to the biggest cause of childhood death and injury that is not being currently addressed by HHS, which is gun violence. According to a new study in JAMA Pediatrics, firearms deaths among children and teens grew significantly in states that loosened gun laws following a major Supreme Court decision in 2010. And it wasn’t just accidents. The increase in deaths included homicides and suicides, too. Yet gun violence seems to have kind of disappeared from the national agenda for both parties. 

Edney: Yeah, you don’t hear as much about it. I don’t know why. I don’t know if it’s because we’re inundated every day with a million things. And currently at the moment, that just hasn’t come up again, as far as a tragedy. That often tends to bring it back to people’s front of mind. And I think that there is, on the Republican side at least, we’re seeing tax cuts for gun silencers and things like that. So I think they’re emboldened on the side of NRA [the National Rifle Association]. I don’t know if Democrats are seeing that and thinking it’s a losing battle. What else can I focus my attention on? 

Kenen: Well, it’s in the news when there’s a mass killing. Society has just sort of become inured or shut its eyes to the day to day to day to day to day. The accidents, the murders. Don’t forget, a lot of our suicide problem is guns, including older white men in rural states who are very pro-gun. Those who kill themselves, it is how they kill themselves. It’s just something we have let happen. 

Rovner: Plus, we’re now back to arguing about whether or not vaccines are worthwhile. So, a lot of the oxygen is being taken up with other issues at the moment. 

Kenen: There’s a very overcrowded bandwidth these days. Yes. 

Rovner: There is. I think that’s fair. All right, well, that is this week’s news, or as much as we could squeeze in. Now we will play my interview with Doug Holtz-Eakin, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, and former head of the Congressional Budget Office during the George W. Bush administration, when Republicans also controlled both Houses of Congress. Doug, thank you so much for being here. 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin: My pleasure. Thank you. 

Rovner: I mostly asked you here to talk about CBO and what it does and why it’s so controversial. But first, tell us about the American Action Forum and what it is you do now. 

Holtz-Eakin: So the American Action Forum is, on paper, a center-right think tank, a 501(c)(3) entity that does public education on policy issues, but it’s modeled on my experiences at working at the White House twice, running the Congressional Budget Office, and I was also director of domestic and economic policy on the John McCain campaign. And in those jobs, you worked on policy issues. You did policy education, issues, options, advice, but you worked on whatever was happening that day. 

You didn’t have the luxury of saying: Yeah, that’s not what I do. Get back to me when something interests you. And you had to convey your results in English to nonspecialists. So there was a sort of a premium on the communications function, and you also had to understand the politics. On a campaign you had to make good policy good politics, and at the White House you worried about the president’s program. 

No matter who was in Congress, that was all they thought about. And in Congress, the CBO is nonpartisan by law, and so obviously you have to care about that. And I just decided I like that work, and that’s what AAF does. We do domestic and economic policy on the issues that are going on in Congress or the agencies, with an emphasis on providing material that is readable to nonspecialists so they can understand what’s going on. 

Rovner: You’re a professional policy nerd, in other words. 

Holtz-Eakin: Pretty much, yeah. 

Rovner: As am I. So I don’t mean that in any way to be derogatory. I plead guilty myself. 

Holtz-Eakin: These bills, who knew? 

Rovner: Exactly. Well, let’s talk about the CBO, which, people may or may not know, was created along with the rest of the congressional budget process overhaul in 1974. What is CBO’s actual job? What is it that CBO is tasked to do? 

Holtz-Eakin: It has two jobs. Job number one, the one we’re hearing so much about now, is to estimate the budgetary impact of pieces of legislation being considered on the floor of the House or the Senate. So they call this scoring, and it is: How much will the bill change the flow of revenues into the Treasury and the flow of spending out of the Treasury year by year over what is currently 10 years? 

And you compare that to what would happen if you didn’t pass law, which is to say, leave the laws of land on autopilot and check out what happened to the budget then. So that’s what it’s doing now, and you get a lot of disagreement on the nature of that analysis. It also spends a lot of time doing studies for members of Congress on policies that Congress may have to be looking at in the future. 

And so anticipating the needs of Congress, studying things like Social Security reforms, which are coming, or different ways to do Medicaid reform if we decide to go down that route, and things that will prepare the Congress for future debates. 

Rovner: Obviously these scores are best guesses of people who spend a lot of time studying economic models. How accurate are CBO’s estimates? 

Holtz-Eakin: They’re wrong all the time, but that’s because predicting the future is really hard, and because when CBO does its estimates, it’s not permitted by law to anticipate future actions of Congress, and Congress is always doing something. That often changes the outcome down the road. Sometimes there are just unexpected events in the world. The pandemic was not something that was in the CBO baseline in 2019. And so, obviously, the numbers changed dramatically because of that. 

And also, because CBO is not really just trying to forecast. If that was all it was being asked to do, it might get closer sometimes, but what it’s really being asked to do is to be able to compare pieces of legislation. What’s the House bill look like compared to the Senate bill? And to do that, you have to keep the point of comparison, the so-called baseline, the same for as long as you’re doing this legislation. 

In some cases, that’s quite a long time. It was over two years for the Affordable Care Act. And by the time you’re at the end, the forecast is way out of date. But for consistency, you have to hold on to it. And then people say, Oh, you got the forecast wrong. But it’s the nature of what they’re being asked to do, which is to provide consistent scores that rank things appropriately, that can interfere with the just pure forecasting aspect. 

Rovner: And basically they’re the referee. It’s hard to imagine being able to do this process without having someone who acts as a referee, right? 

Holtz-Eakin: Well, yes. And in fact, sometimes you see them rush through and ignore CBO. And generally, that’s a sign that it’s not going well, because they really should take the time to understand the consequences of what they’re up to. 

Rovner: And how does that work? CBO, people get frustrated because this stuff doesn’t happen, like, overnight. They write a bill and there should be a CBO score the next day. But it’s not just fed into an AI algorithm, right? 

Holtz-Eakin: No. That’s a great misconception about CBO. People think there’s a model. You just put it in the model. You drop the legislation and out comes the numbers. And there are some things for which we have a very good feel because they’ve been done a lot. So change the matching rate in Medicaid and see what happens to spending — been done a lot. We understand that pretty well. 

Pass a Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, where the federal government provides a backstop to the private property and casualty insurance companies in the event there’s a terrorist attack at an unknown time in the future using an unknown weapon in an unknown location — there’s no model for that. You just have to read about extreme events, look at their financial consequences, imagine how much money the insurance companies would have, when they would round up money, and how much the federal government would be on the hook for. It’s not modeling. You’re asking CBO’s professionals to make informed budgetary judgments, and we pay them for their judgment. And I think that’s poorly understood. 

Rovner: So I’ve been at this since the late 1980s. I’ve seen a lot of CBO directors, Republican and Democrats, and my impression is that, to a person, they have tried very hard to play things as much down the middle as possible. Do you guys have strategy sessions to come up with ways to be as nonpartisan as you can? 

Holtz-Eakin: The truth is you just listen to the staff. I say this and I’m not sure people will fully appreciate it: Nonpartisanship is in the DNA of CBO, and I attribute this to the very first director, Alice Rivlin, and some of her immediate successors. They were interested in establishing the budget office, which had been invented in 1974, really got up and running a couple of years later, and they wanted to establish this credibility. 

And regardless of their own political leanings, they worked hard to put in place procedures and training of the staff that emphasized: There’s a research literature out there, go look at it. What’s the consensus in that research literature? Regardless of what you might think, what is it telling you about the impact of this program or this tax or whatever it might be? Bring that back. That’s what we’re going to do. 

Now we’ve done an estimate. Let’s go out at the end of the year and look at all our baseline estimates and look at what actually happened, compare the before and after. Oh my God. We’re really off. Why? What can we learn from that? And it’s a constant repetition of that. It’s been going on for a long time now and with just outstanding results, I think. CBO is a very professional place that has a very specialized job and does it real well. 

Rovner: So obviously, lawmakers have always complained about the CBO, because you always complain about the referee, particularly if they say something you don’t like or you disagree with. I feel like the criticism has gotten more heated in the last couple of years and that there’s been more of an effort to really undermine what it is that CBO does. 

Holtz-Eakin: I don’t know if I agree with that. That comes up a lot. It is certainly more pointed. I lay a lot of this at the feet of the president, who, when he first ran, introduced a very personal style campaigning. Everything is personal. He doesn’t have abstract policy arguments. He makes it about him versus someone else and usually gives that person a nickname, like “Rocket Boy” for the leader of North Korea, and sort of diminishes the virtues and skills of his opponent, in this case. 

So he says, like, that CBO is horrible. It’s a terrible place. That is more personal. That isn’t the nature of the attacks I receive, for example. But other than that, it’s the same, right? When CBO delivers good news, Congress says, God, we did a good job. When CBO delivers bad news, they say, God, CBO is terrible. And that’s been true for a long time. 

Rovner: And I imagine it will in the future. Doug Holtz-Eakin, thank you so much for being here and explaining all this. 

Holtz-Eakin: Thank you. 

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

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a story in Wired by David Gilbert, “The Bleach Community Is Ready for RFK Jr. To Make Their Dreams Come True.” It’s a story about Kennedy’s past references to the use of chlorine dioxide and groups of people who were pushing for this use as kind of a cure-all for almost any condition you can think of. And one thing the author of this piece picked up on is that some of the FDA warnings not to do this, because it’s incredibly dangerous and can kill you — it is not going to cure any of the ailments described — have been taken off of the agency’s website recently, which seems a bit concerning. 

Now, FDA seems to suggest they did it because it’s just a few years old and they tend to archive posts after that. But if you read what happens to people who try and use bleach — or really it’s like even more concentrated product, essentially — it would be hard for me to understand why you would want to try this. But it is incredibly concerning to see these just really dangerous, unscientifically supported cures come back and get sort of more of a platform. 

Rovner: Yes. I guess we can’t talk about gun violence because we’re talking about drinking bleach. Anna. 

Edney: So mine is from KFF Health News, by Arthur Allen. It’s “Two Patients Faced Chemo. The One Who Survived Demanded a Test To See if It Was Safe.” And I found this starts off with a woman who needed chemo, and she got it and she started getting sores in her mouth and swelling around her eyes. And eventually she died a really painful, awful death, not from the cancer but from not being able to swallow or talk. And it was from the chemo. It was a reaction to the chemo, which I didn’t realize until I read this can, is a rare side effect that can happen. 

And there is a test for it. You can tell who might respond this way to chemo. And it doesn’t necessarily mean you wouldn’t get any chemo. You would instead maybe get lower doses, maybe different days of the week, things like that to try to help you not end up like this woman. And he also was able to talk to someone who knew about this and insisted on the test. And those were some of the calibrations that they made for her treatment. So I think it’s a great piece of public service journalism. It helps a lot of people be aware. 

Rovner: Super interesting. I had no idea until I read it, either. Joanne. 

Kenen: ProPublica, Brandon Roberts, Vernal Coleman, and Eric Umansky did a story called “DOGE Developed Error-Prone AI Tool to ‘Munch’ Veterans Affairs Contract.” And they had a related story that Julie can post that actually shows the code and the AI prompts, and you do not have to be very technically sophisticated to understand that there were some problems with those prompts. Basically, they had somebody who had no government experience and no health care experience writing really bad code and bad prompts. 

And we don’t know how many of the contracts were actually canceled, as opposed to flagged for canceling. There were things that they said were worth $34 million that weren’t needed. They were actually $35,000 and essential things that really pertain to patient care, including programs to improve nursing care were targeted. They were “munched,” which is not a word I had come across. So yes, it was everything you suspected and ProPublica documented it. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a very vivid story. Well, my extra credit this week is from Stat, and it’s called “Lawmakers Lobby Doctors To Keep Quiet — or Speak Up — on Medicaid Cuts in Trump’s Tax Bill,” by Daniel Payne. And it’s about something called reverse lobbying, lawmakers lobbying the lobbyists — in this case, in hopes of getting them to speak out or not about the budget reconciliation bill and its possible impact. Both sides know the public trusts health groups more than they trust lawmakers at this point. 

And so Democrats are hoping doctor and hospital groups will speak out in opposition to the cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, while Republicans hope they will at least keep quiet. And Republicans, because it’s their bill, have added some sweeteners — a long-desired pay increase for doctors in Medicare. So we will have to wait to see how this all shakes out. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review. That helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrover, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Anna. 

Edney: X or Bluesky, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Joanne 

Kenen: Bluesky or LinkedIn, @joannekenen. 

Rovner: Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: All of the above, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

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