[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, July 31, 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 Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: And Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have the second of our two-part series marking the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, which was yesterday, for those keeping track. This week, Sara Rosenbaum of George Washington University, one of the nation’s leading Medicaid experts, takes us through the history of that program and what the next 60 years could bring. And if you want to hear more from both our Medicare and Medicaid experts, we’re going to put the full-length versions of both interviews together for a special episode later in August. But first, this week’s news. 

Before we start, I hope you’ll bear with me this week. I slipped and fell and broke my wrist. So my typing and some of my thinking skills are a little lacking at the moment. But on this week of the 35th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which we will talk about in a few minutes, I am very grateful for all the various technological advances that are now available to those of us with disabilities, whether permanent or temporary, and which allowed the podcast to actually come to you this week. So, now, here we go. 

It was another busy week at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services]. Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., having already fired all the members of the vaccine advisory board, is reportedly now taking aim at the U.S. preventive health services task force. Now, this was not wholly unexpected. When the Trump administration switched sides on that lawsuit over the task force brought in Texas earlier this year, we assumed that RFK Jr. wanted to do something exactly like this. Right, Shefali? 

Luthra: We certainly did, because it wouldn’t have otherwise made a lot of sense to argue that they could continue to make recommendations unless, perhaps, RFK Jr. wasn’t going to listen to them. It just, once again, really bears noting that this was something many people discussed as a likely possibility, given his record, when he was nominated to be secretary. And there were some senators who suggested that perhaps he had made individual promises, commitments, to actually keep the expert panels in place. And here we are. He did not do that. 

Rovner: Yeah. And we should say he has, at least as of this moment, he has not yet fired all of the members, but certainly there are indications that he’s considering it. And obviously that was what they argued to the court, was that, Hey, it’s OK for the Senate not to confirm the members of this task force, because the secretary has control over them. So here’s the secretary suggesting that he’s going to take control over them. 

Edney: And now the senators show support for the task force. It’s just this circle that keeps on going where they need to try to bolster the backing, but the writing was on the wall when they voted to confirm him. 

Rovner: Well, apparently the secretary isn’t finished with vaccine policy, either. He’s also taking aim at the 1980s-era Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or VICP. That’s what provides a no-fault way for people injured by vaccine side effects to get compensation for those injuries. This program was literally created to prevent the vaccine industry from going out of business in the 1980s because it was being sued into oblivion. I know that RFK Jr. said the program is, quote, “broken” and he intends to, quote, “fix it.” But does anybody have any idea what he might be planning for it? I will remind people, like, I’m shouting into the wind, that this was an act of Congress created by Congress, reformed by Congress. I don’t know whether the secretary can just take it apart on his own. 

Kenen: He can try, or leave it intact but create some kind of barriers to filing, or— 

Rovner: Actually, I think he wants to make it easier for people to get compensation. 

Kenen: He wants it easier to get compensation. We don’t know what it will do. But they keep finding workarounds or just ignoring things. So we can’t say we can or cannot do, because we don’t know what they’re going to do. But his whole health persona really is built on the fact that he believes that vaccines are damaging or dangerous and they kill more people than they save. And therefore, apparently all of us could just get a payout because we had a shot. But it’s not as much of a moneymaking business in general, not for a specific new shot, but vaccination is not as profitable as the public may perceive. Yes, the covid shots, there was some exceptional things about the speed and scale, etc.— 

Rovner: Right. Because everybody got one at the same time. 

Kenen: And they’re subsidized, etc., or some of them were. So Anna knows more about this than I do. Basically, it was designed to both protect people who were — nobody, even the strongest pro-vaccine people, nobody denies that there is such a thing as an injury. They would say it’s rare and not autism, but when it is, it is rare, but someone should get compensation and the care they need. 

Rovner: And Anna, we’re really looking at the potential for some of these vaccine makers to just say, We’re going to wash our hands of making vaccines. Right? 

Edney: Yeah, absolutely. The point of this program was to, like Joanne said, admit that there can be injury but to make it no-fault so that the vaccine makers could continue providing vaccines for the majority of people who respond well to them and to not be caught up in court battles for millions and billions of dollars all the time. And there may be some complaints, but it does seem that people, by and large, are able to get some compensation from this. And you mentioned covid vaccines. Those aren’t included in this program, so that may be something he is looking at, because they’re done through a different program, which is maybe some complaints about it or that it’s a little less likely to pay out or to give as much compensation. And so maybe a way of expanding it is to include the covid vaccines. But if it becomes that — Well, you can keep using this program, but we’re also going to make it easier to sue the vaccine makers — we’re going to see the companies be wary of being involved in providing vaccines at that point. 

Rovner: Well, in still more vaccine-related news, the controversial head of the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] vaccine division resigned unexpectedly this week. Anna, tell us why Vinay Prasad was so controversial. And why did he leave after only three months on the job? 

Edney: Yeah, this was a huge amount of drama at the FDA. So Prasad himself can be a polarizing figure. He has been at UCSF [the University of California-San Francisco] for a long time and gained prominence as someone who criticized the agency for what’s called accelerated approvals, getting certain drugs, particularly cancer drugs, quickly to patients even when they hadn’t proven necessarily that they worked. And he criticized that program. He got to the FDA. He was head of the vaccines division, which also covers biologic drugs. And under this division was a drug made by a company called Sarepta. Every one of their drugs that has come to market has had a lot of drama surrounding it because these are drugs for very, very sick, usually young boys who have Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and it’s a huge parent population that wants these drugs, even when maybe they don’t always show that they work very well. 

Well, a few kids have unfortunately died while taking these drugs in recent months, and so the FDA was looking at that, and it came out that there was another death in a clinical trial of an older gentleman, and no one knew definitely if it was related to the drug. And so once that became public, it’s not like the FDA or the company came out with it, but once it became public, the FDA kind of seemed to overcorrect and try to have the drug be paused, and then maybe take it off the market. And so Vinay Prasad was at the center of this debate. Already he was disliked by some of [President Donald] Trump’s higher-up people, particularly Laura Loomer. We may have heard her name before. 

Rovner: We have. 

Edney: She goes after some nominees, successfully in many cases. And Rick Santorum also got involved at this point. He has a daughter with a rare disease and didn’t like the way that this rare-disease drug was being treated. So essentially Prasad, who clearly for the last several years has only wanted to be at the FDA, has left after three months, was pushed out after three months. 

Rovner: Wow. It’s quite the drama. I’ll link to a story or two if you actually want to go deeper. 

Kenen: But one of the criticisms that Laura Loomer had is that he used to be a Democrat. 

Edney: Right. 

Kenen: Well, that would also apply to RFK Jr. 

Edney: Right. That’s true. 

Rovner: It would. Oh, I’m sure the drama, both at FDA and at HHS writ large, is far from over. Well, speaking of turning the clock back, President Trump issued a new executive order that would end the, quote, “housing first” policy that has driven homelessness strategy since the late 1990s. I guess this is also not a surprise. Trump complained repeatedly on the campaign trail about how homeless encampments were destroying cities. We’ve had a recent Supreme Court case on this, but this new policy seeks to not just allow but encourage localities to force at least some homeless people off the streets and into residential treatment. I imagine this is going to make for another long line of lawsuits, right? 

Kenen: Well, there’s housing first itself. It’s not without controversy. There’s a philosophical divide. Housing first means you house people and then you deal with their social and economic and physical and psychological and drug abuse, etc. Get a roof over their head and then you deal with everything else. Other people say, No, get them into treatment and stabilize them, and then you put them in housing, and they have to … Housing first has been the dominant philosophy in addressing homelessness in recent years. That’s a different debate. This is, like, put them in an institution against their will, which the courts have power to do in limited cases. There are times when a court can say, This individual doesn’t want to be hospitalized, but for their own safety they really need to be. But that’s one by one and not that common, and it’s limited. I believe it’s 30 days. I might be wrong about that. 

But this is a whole different thing. It’s a combination of this, We’re going to force them into institutional settings for treatment, whether they want it or not, combined with the Supreme Court decision of about a year ago allowing cities and local government, not just cities but governments, to forcibly clear away, to dismantle encampments, to force people out. So you have it coming from both the administration’s policies and the court decisions. This creates a whole — and housing money is being cut. Housing assistance is being cut. So you really have this tremendous shift in how we approach homelessness at a time when homelessness is high, while homelessness has been high. And nobody’s saying that there’s not a mental health component for some, but by no means all, people who are homeless. But this is not in accord with how the health and homelessness advocacy and treatment world has been approaching it. This is a significant shift. 

Rovner: And as you point out, this is a health and social service issue, too, because we are seeing money cut and money diverted that, basically this executive order will say, We’re going to give more money to localities that sort of handle this the way we want and less money to others. So I imagine this is going to have trickle-down effects for some time to come. 

Kenen: Yeah. And the clearing the encampments is going on, and we should know it’s not only a conservative state. California has done it. Other states have done it. So the idea of dismantling these — we’ve all seen these encampments — that is happening in various places in the country already, and this is sort of an extra step. It’s not only do you clear them, but this would envision forcing them into treatment, often in an institutional setting. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, as I mentioned at the top, this week marks the 35th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which I also covered, by the way. Secretary Kennedy spoke at an event marking the occasion on Monday. But an awful lot of the disability community is up in arms about the cuts to Medicaid, which they say will roll back much of the progress the movement has made in the past three and a half decades, much of it for people getting in-home types of assistance. And yet the ADA was pushed hard and signed by a Republican administration, that of President George H.W. Bush. Is this yet another formerly Republican priority being kind of tossed out the window? 

Luthra: I think to your point, a lot of things that used to be bipartisan in the health policy world are not anymore. The other example is something like Title X, and it’s just we have really seen this shift of things that used to be broadly uncontroversial, because the health implications are clear, become much more so and largely become rejected by Republicans in a way that is just really, really different from what you might’ve imagined even, I don’t know, 10, 15 years ago. 

Rovner: And my favorite piece of Title X trivia: It was signed by Richard Nixon, but it was sponsored in the House by then-Rep. George H.W. Bush. So he both sponsored Title X, the Family Planning Program, and signed the ADA into law. Boy, it feels like a million years ago and not 35. 

Well, moving on to health care costs. It is tariff week in Washington — again — and not surprisingly, prescription drugs are a big part of that conversation. The trade deal that President Trump announced with the EU while he was in Scotland last weekend includes a 15% tariff on brand-name prescription drugs imported from Europe. That will include things like, I don’t know, the blockbuster weight loss drug Ozempic? Anna, how does Trump think this is going to eventually lower drug prices in the U.S.? It sounds like it’s just going to raise them. 

Edney: Yeah. I think most people agree with your sentiment that it’s going to raise them. I think a lot of this is focused on bringing drug-making back to the United States and trying to get companies to do more of that here. Whether you see that from brand-name companies seems like it could be really difficult. I know Botox is made in Ireland, and this is a facility where, because it’s essentially a toxin, a very deadly toxin if released— 

Rovner: Yes, it’s botulism. 

Edney: Right. This is a facility that is highly guarded. A colleague of mine wrote a story on it many years ago now, but you had to go underground. They’re not just moving this thing over to the United States. So I think for brand-name drugs that it’s going to be particularly difficult to lower the prices based on tariffs, or to say We’re moving production over here in any capacity. So what the thinking of how exactly this works or is beneficial will be interesting to see, because they’re also still doing — this would not apply to these — but they’re doing this national security assessment for tariffs on drugs from other places and trying to figure out if there’s a national security reason to be putting tariffs on them. For the most part, when drug quality comes into question, it’s not usually the European drugmakers that we’re concerned about. 

Rovner: And we’re still waiting to hear about the generic-drug makers in India and China, right? 

Edney: Yeah, exactly. We’re waiting to see what they’ll decide. They’re still doing their investigation, the administration is, to see what those tariffs might be from India or China, or any other countries that are making generic drugs. 

Rovner: Another story that we will continue to watch, and glad to have Anna here to continue to help us watch that. Now, it’s time for this week in what we’re still learning about the impact of the big tax and spending bill that President Trump signed on July Fourth. This week’s installment comes from my KFF Health News colleague Bernard Wolfson, whose column points out that eliminating eligibility for Affordable Care Act subsidies for immigrants who are here legally will mostly just raise premiums for everyone else by taking more healthy people out of the insurance pool. I get the administration’s insistence on not having people who are not here legally collecting benefits. We’ve talked about emergency Medicaid, but that’s a different issue. But what’s the justification for taking coverage away for people who are here because they’re refugees or victims of abuse, or those with temporary protected status? I don’t honestly understand what the point is of this. 

Kenen: There’s a stigmatization across the board as being an immigrant, right? So the administration is not embracing immigrants who are here legally. We’ve all seen reports of people who are here legally still being picked up by immigration officials. It’s very messy. Sometimes people just say, OK, we’ll save money this way, not understanding that the costs pop up someplace else in the system and it may be more expensive. So not just in terms of that individual, but if things are going untreated in communities because people aren’t seeking care, communicable diseases can also spread. So there have been attempts to blame disease outbreaks on immigration when that’s not the case. 

Rovner: Going back hundreds of years. 

Kenen: Right. Smallpox was brought here by immigrants, right? 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: Hundreds of years ago. 

Rovner: By the European immigrants. 

Kenen: Right. That’s what I— 

Rovner: And given to the Native population. 

Kenen: Right. Right. So it’s just part of an overall gestalt about immigrants and immigration, and sort of treating them as leeches, not as people who live here. 

Rovner: But I feel like both — it’s funny because this connects back to the whole tariff issue. The idea that Trump has here is to make things more “America First,” have more things made in America, and obviously more people made in America, and more Americans here to be served in America. But both of these things would take a long time. I guess the idea of not allowing legal immigrants to have benefits is to discourage people from coming here legally. One can’t see any other thing that would make that logical. And the idea of the tariffs, Anna, as you said, is to have companies build more manufacturing here. Both of those things would take a lot longer than Donald Trump is likely to be president. He doesn’t usually have a long-term view of things, and yet both of these issues are long-term issues, right? 

Edney: Yeah. I think at least for the tariffs and for — there’ve been these small announcements with certain companies where they’ll say, Well, because of Trump, we’re going to build a new plant in Indianapolis. And that plant sure isn’t, like, it’s five years away, but he can make these announcements. And Joanne, and you’re absolutely right that he obviously wants to degrade immigrants in any way that he can, but also Obamacare, right? That’s still a thing that they’re in certain ways willing to go after. 

Rovner: Good point. It’s a twofer. 

Edney: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. So if you can erode Obamacare some and have a sicker population, and people being angry that they had to pay more, but Republicans have been good at still attaching that to Democrats: Oh, Obamacare. So I don’t know, maybe that comes back around. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, question answered. OK. Turning to abortion, the on-again, off-again Planned Parenthood funding is apparently on again, at least for now. You may recall last week a judge had allowed some of the defunding included in the budget bill to begin, but now another federal judge has said, Nope, you’ve got to keep letting Planned Parenthood collect from Medicaid for non-abortion-related services. Shefali, what comes next? 

Luthra: The case continues to go through the courts. We know that right now that is in a federal district court. It could eventually go to the appellate courts. It could eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, including the debate over whether this proceeding is allowed to take effect or not. In the meantime, I’ve been talking to a lot of clinics, and they are preparing for the real possibility that they lose their Medicaid funding. Some of them are not optimistic about the long-term legal viability of this injunction, and so they’re thinking: What will we do if we lose all of these Medicaid dollars? Will we be able to see patients in the volume that we do? Will we be able to get funds from the state? Some are in active conversations with state governments. Some are looking to private fundraising. Others are thinking about which clinics they would close and also how they would do that in a way that minimizes service loss to patients, while acknowledging that some ability to access care — whether that is abortion or STI [sexually transmitted infection] screening or contraception or cancer screening — will simply not be replaced. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I have to say, for all the million times I have said on this podcast, an administration can’t cut off Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, because it’s written into the Medicaid law, that doesn’t mean that Congress can’t cut off Planned Parenthood, because they can change the law. So I’m also a little bit wondering what the justification for Planned Parenthood being able to argue — I know that they’re arguing that they’re going after Planned Parenthood specifically, and that that’s not allowed. But certainly Congress can change the Medicaid law if it wants to. Congress wrote the Medicaid law. 

Luthra: And I think it’s worth throwing in a couple of other components as well, considering there are multiple lawsuits at play right now, not just the original from Planned Parenthood. There’s the liberal states’ attorneys general. There’s the Maine Family Planning suit, as well. But conservative states do have an avenue to block Medicaid funds going to Planned Parenthood now, if they choose. The Supreme Court gave them that opportunity in the South Carolina case earlier this year. So no matter what happens in this case, there is a very real likelihood that in many parts of the country, Planned Parenthood clinics will lose funding they are reliant on and will probably have to close many facilities. 

Rovner: Yeah. And just to reiterate, this goes back to the Title X Family Planning Program that we were talking about earlier, so it all comes full circle this week. This week we also have the latest chapter in the continuing fight between states with abortion bans and those with shield laws to try to protect doctors who are sending abortion pills through the mail into those states with abortion bans. According to The Texas Tribune, a man from Galveston is suing a doctor in California for sending his girlfriend pills to end her pregnancy. The man is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell, whose name may well be familiar to you as the originator of, most now, of Texas’s various abortion bans. The suit seeks both damages for the man who’s suing and an injunction on behalf of, quote, “all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States.” Shefali, that feels pretty broad. 

Luthra: It certainly does feel very broad. When I read it, I really wondered: How do you decide who are future potential parents of unborn children? Is that— 

Rovner: Fathers, fathers. 

Luthra: Excuse me. Yes. Potential fathers. Even more, how — is it everyone who has sperm? I don’t know. But this is part of a really central strategy to where the anti-abortion movement is right now. They are very upset about shield law prescription and provision of abortion medication. In Texas, they are trying a bunch of things to try and block this, whether that is this particular suit, whether that is one from the attorney general that continues to move back and forth, whether that is trying to get new state laws enacted during this special session. We’ll see if that happens with all the redistricting that is going on. 

Rovner: This is all about Texas, by the way. 

Luthra: And Texas is a really important player. But we did just see a group of attorneys general around the country from conservative states just reach out to members of Congress this week and say, Can you pass some kind of law that will block shield law prescription? We’ve also seen a case out of Louisiana that is held up in court right now because it’s a criminal case. But this is just such an important goal for them, because the reason abortions haven’t gone down is because people can keep accessing care through the mail. And if they can stop that, it will have tremendous implications for people in states with abortion bans, but also in other parts of the country where maybe it’s just too much of a pain or too far to go to a clinic and you can have a doctor mail you that care. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, clearly the abortion fights continue. We will continue to follow them. All right, that is this week’s news. Now, we’ll play excerpts of my interview with Medicaid expert Sara Rosenbaum, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome Sara Rosenbaum to the podcast. Sara is professor emerita of health law and policy at George Washington University, one of the, if not the, leading experts on Medicaid. She’s also the person who has taught me at least 80% of what I know about the program. So I am extra thrilled that she’s agreed to come be our guide. Sara, welcome. 

Sara Rosenbaum: Well, and thank you for having me. It’s such a pleasure to be on the show. 

Rovner: So let’s start at the beginning. Medicaid was kind of an afterthought to Medicare when they were both created 60 years ago. How did Medicaid come to be? 

Rosenbaum: It’s a really interesting question. This is, of course, the lore, that Medicaid was an afterthought. If you look at the original act, which had been enacted about five years before, and you read the original statutory language — which we lawyers revel in doing — you are amazed. This was not such a big afterthought. I would say that Wilbur Cohen and Wilbur Mills and Lyndon Johnson and everybody else had a good idea of what they were doing. They knew that they were planting the seeds for a program that ultimately would come to be the foundation of health insurance for low-income people across the United States, as well as, of course, specific categories such as people with very severe disabilities. 

Rovner: So what was the difference between Medicare and Medicaid supposed to be when they were signed into law 60 years ago? 

Rosenbaum: Yeah. So Medicaid was very much structured in the classic style of a state grants program. It has come, of course, to be so much more than that, but it was a grant to states, and states would set up state plans. This is all language that has become very familiar to us. And they would provide medical assistance, as it was called, to certain categories of poor people. And the theory was that the program would start with these people, but tucked into — the categories were cash welfare recipients — but tucked in there were a group of people known as the medically needy, in the early days. And the medically needy, I always felt, was sort of the first seeds of something much bigger, because the point was that it was a program for people who were low-income, who couldn’t afford their medical care, but didn’t get cash welfare. 

So the theory was exactly the theory that has carried the program for 60 years now. And originally the thought was that it would really — and of course, this has turned out to be the case — that that would enable people who had very serious health care costs for things that Medicare did not cover — nursing home care, home health benefits ultimately, those kinds of really big-ticket long-term care items outside of Medicare — because Medicare was really sort of like Blue Cross Blue Shield for old people like me. 

Rovner: You weren’t old at the time though? 

Rosenbaum: I was not. Right. I was just a kid. But the program was meant to replicate what folks had had during their working years, and so it was very important and very profound, but limited. 

Rovner: So Medicare’s long been the more politically popular of the two programs. 

Rosenbaum: Yes. 

Rovner: Primarily because of the political clout of older voters, which is how it was created. How was it that Medicaid became the program that grew so much? 

Rosenbaum: What would propel Medicaid forward is that, unlike Medicare, which is tied to a premium structure, right? Medicare is funded through premium payments, which is great, but premium payments are quite unique. Because they are actuarially based, they are a very tightly controlled form of financing, because you’re asking — whether it’s the government or, now, of course, private insurers that contracted the government — you’re asking them to take on a lot of financial risk, and so everybody wanted the assurance of premium structure. Well, Medicaid was not. Medicaid is a classic public health statute. It’s general revenue. And so every time something happened that required an intervention by the federal government where health care was concerned, you could just add a few pages to the Medicaid statute and end up with, voilà, a fix. And by the mid-’70s, people said, Well, what if we decoupled this category from cash welfare funding levels and just let poor children have Medicaid? And there then ensued, essentially, a decade-long effort to add poor children and pregnant women as groups in their own right to the Medicaid program. 

Rovner: I feel like in 2017, in the fight over the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, that was sort of a big change for Medicaid. I think people had finally realized that Medicaid had grown larger than— 

Rosenbaum: Yes. 

Rovner: —Medicare, that it was not just a program for the poorest of the poor, that it did all of these other things that you’re talking about, and that really a lot of, I guess, the stigma had been taken away. And yet this Congress felt comfortable — I don’t know if I’d say comfortable — but a majority of them voted to make these really deep, profound changes. What is that going to mean going forward, both to the health care system and to the political system? 

Rosenbaum: Well, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking in this post-enactment period about when was the die cast that’s had everybody spinning. And I think congressional leaders and the White House leadership understood the fatal error they’d made in 2017, which was separating the tax reforms from the spending reforms. Because, of course, we were then able to battle the spending reforms on our own turf, right?. Here, because of the decision that was made back, I’m sure, almost a year ago— 

Rovner: Literally the idea to do one “big, beautiful” bill. 

Rosenbaum: Yes. And that meant that Medicaid, along with food stamps, or SNAP [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], along with everything else, just became pay-fors. They just became offsets. And the name of the game then became beating back every attempt to deprive Congress of pay-fors to do the thing that it really wanted to do, which was tax reform. And so we were all reduced to — “we” in the sense of people who worked on social welfare policy — to bystanders in this effort to get to a trillion dollars. And therefore— 

Rovner: A trillion dollars in cuts. 

Rosenbaum: A trillion dollars in cuts, and therefore it opened the door to extraordinary things. 

Rovner: So what happens next? Does this happen? And if it happens, does it undergird or take out the underpinnings of the entire health care system? Or does Congress eventually realize what it’s done and change its mind? 

Rosenbaum: Well, I think the hope is that — some people are saying: Well, the two-year runway. It’s like two years until it becomes effective. The two-year runway is sort of going to make people forget about this, and then boom, it’ll be upon us. I don’t think so. I think the two-year runway will end up shining a huge light on the fact that states cannot implement the whole system. While we are very focused on the number of people who will lose their coverage, the states are confronting an insurmountable problem here. They’ve never had to link Medicaid to work records, and Congress did everything it could to make matters so much worse. For example, they could have just said that, We’re going to import the same requirements that apply to SNAP to Medicaid, and so if you’re getting SNAP in your working age, then you automatically enroll in Medicaid. They didn’t do that. They didn’t do that. It’s a different-enough set of eligibility criteria and exemption categories. For example, SNAP ends, I think, at about 60, and the Medicaid work requirements go all the way to 65. 

Rovner: Age 60 and 65. 

Rosenbaum: Yes, exactly. But the exemptions are different. The requirements are different. And so states — people are talking about, Oh, well, it’s just the line reporting systems. No, no, no, no. You are liable for all kinds of error rate penalties. If you just rely on SNAP, you can’t. So states have no way to deal with this. So there’s no mitigation strategy for this, and I think the hope is that Congress will call it back. 

Rovner: If it doesn’t, is this — the one sort of silver lining that I’d been sort of thinking about is, well, maybe if we tear down the health care system, we’ll have to start again and build a better one. Is it possible that we could get there, or are we just going to limp along? 

Rosenbaum: I have those thoughts often, and then I stop and think, well, those of us with health insurance could sit there and say, Yeah, maybe we just tear down the health system to start again. Meanwhile, of course, we will have millions of people without health care. So I — interestingly, the Affordable Care Act, of course, was designed not to tear down the health care system but to strengthen the health care system. But it was the brilliance of the Affordable Care Act was that it saw the holes and it sort of tried to fix them. And if we’d left it alone with everybody in this what I consider to be sort of an intermediate arrangement, we could have done exactly what you are talking about. With just about everybody in the United States covered, we could have begun to really do the serious work of moving to something more unified, better— 

Rovner: Cheaper. 

Rosenbaum: And of course, cheaper. 

Rovner: More efficient. 

Rosenbaum: More efficient. That’s right. Far easier to use. But we have decided instead to tear the Affordable Care Act apart, both the access to the marketplace by rolling back the assistance and, of course, the Medicaid reforms. 

Rovner: Well, happy birthday, Medicaid. 

Rosenbaum: Happy birthday, Medicaid. 

Rovner: Thank you so much, Sara Rosenbaum. 

Rosenbaum: Thank you for having me. It was a — it was both uplifting and sad. 

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

Kenen: The story I’m doing is in ScienceAlert: “New Kind of Dental Floss Could Replace Vaccine Needles, Study Finds,” by David Nield. OK, I should begin with a caveat, which is I basically don’t like it when journalists hype findings. It’s something that was only in a dozen mice or something. My exception is when something is really, really sort of just interesting to learn about. Then it’s OK to report it as long as you just sort of shout: This is only in mice! We don’t know if it’s going to work in people! But it is an interesting study. 

One reason people don’t get vaccines is they’re afraid of needles. And if you could actually apply the vaccine to a dental floss pick and get it — because the line between our gums and our teeth is permeable, stuff can get in and out. That’s why we have to clean it. If you could treat a dental floss with the vaccine instead of just plain old dental floss or a needle in your arm or leg or whatever, maybe that could be a way of improving. And so these animal studies have been suggestive that this is a worthwhile course to follow. But before you go out to the drugstore with your dental floss and ask them to put the vaccine stuff on it — they’ve done it with a couple of people with dye, not with vaccine, just to sort of trace it. We are a long way away, but it was interesting enough for me to decide that we could discuss it. 

Rovner: I thought it was pretty cool. Shefali? 

Luthra: My piece also is dentistry adjacent, even dentistry directly relevant. It is from The New Yorker. It is by Burkhard Bilger. The headline is “Mexico’s Molar City Could Transform My Smile. Did I Want It To?” This is a really fun read. He travels to this town. Los Algodones, in Mexico, is right across the border, and it is where a lot of people go to get dental work. It is much cheaper there than getting it in America. So he goes through the history of dental work, why it has been something that people really do not enjoy, the pain associated with it, how many bad dentists are out there, also the stigma and violence against dentists. And then he talks through his own personal journey of trying to figure out: Does he need this dental work? How much would it cost to get it in this Mexican town compared to getting it in the U.S.? 

He talks to a dentist there, talks to a celebrity dentist as well, and in the end decides to keep his teeth as they are, which is very beautiful to me as someone who hates going to the dentist. But it’s a really fun read to think about how expensive health care is, how often things are marketed to us that maybe we do or don’t need, and also why dentistry has really been siloed out of all other health care for basically all of our history. 

Rovner: Yeah, it really has. It’s a wonderful combination of stories. Anna. 

Edney: Mine is not dental-related. I apologize. But this is an obit in The Washington Post by Stefanie Dazio, “Morton Mintz, Post reporter with a muckraker spirit, dies at 103.” And I wanted to talk about him because he was the reporter responsible for bringing to light everything that was going on with thalidomide. He wrote a 1962 front-page Washington Post profile on Francis Kelsey, the FDA pharmacologist who essentially blocked thalidomide from getting to market in the U.S., and she faced a lot of pressure and a lot of name-calling and things to stand in the way. And he took on the story, and he did many amazing stories, so it’s just, it’s worth a read. He wrote a lot about the pharmaceutical industry as well, and so I think it’s just nice to remember him. 

Rovner: It is. I will point out he was a fellow Michigan Daily alum, a close family friend. My mother actually worked on the Michigan Daily with his younger sister and then later worked with him at The Washington Post for years, so I can attest, not just a great reporter but a really swell guy. All right, well, my extra credit is not dental-related, either. It’s another great investigation from my KFF Health News colleague Fred Schulte. It’s called, “Cosmetic Surgeries Led to Disfiguring Injuries, Patients Allege.” And it’s mostly about a chain you’ve probably seen advertised called Sono Bello and how this private-equity-owned business and some others like it are being sued in scores of medical malpractice and negligence lawsuits, claiming under-trained medical professionals have caused disfiguring injuries and, in at least a dozen cases, wrongful deaths. The subtext of this story, of course, is that this is another one of those not quite med spa but not quite ambulatory surgery center categories that’s not very well regulated by either the FDA or most states. So it’s yet another good case of buyer beware when it comes to protecting your health. 

OK. That’s this week’s show. As always, thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. Extra-special thanks this week to Taylor Cook, who’s editing our Medicare and Medicaid anniversary interviews. If you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Shefali. 

Luthra: I am at Bluesky, @shefali. 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: Bluesky and LinkedIn, @joannekenen. 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: Bluesky or X, @annaedney. 

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