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

Emmarie Huetteman: Hello and welcome to “What the Health?” from KFF Health News and WAMU. I’m Emmarie Huetteman, a senior editor for KFF Health News, filling in for host Julie Rovner this week. I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Nov. 13, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today, we’re joined via video conference by Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning. 

Huetteman: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everyone. 

Huetteman: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Huetteman: Later in this episode, we’ll have Julie’s interview with KFF Health News’ Julie Appleby, who wrote our latest “Bill of the Month” story about a doctor who became the patient after a car accident sent her to the hospital and $64,000 into debt. But first, this week’s news. 

The longest federal government shutdown in history is over. Late Wednesday, six House Democrats joined most Republicans in approving legislation that funds the government through January. That vote came after a handful of Senate Democrats broke ranks with their party last weekend and brokered a deal to end the shutdown. Although the Trump administration was still fighting earlier this week not to fully fund food stamps, the White House has said those benefits would be fully restored within hours of the shutdown’s end. That said, food banks and other safety-net programs have warned the shutdown’s consequences could linger, especially for those who were forced to redirect rent money, dip into savings, and make other sacrifices to feed their families. Notably, despite Democrats’ demands, the deal does not include an extension of the expanded tax credits that help people afford Affordable Care Act plans. That means those enhanced subsidies are still slated to expire at the end of the year. Sandhya, you were on Capitol Hill last night. What was included in the deal? And now that the shutdown’s over, can we expect a vote on extending the tax credits? 

Raman: So part of that deal was that sometime in the middle of next month, the Senate is going to be able to vote on a health bill of Democrats’ choosing to extend the Affordable Care Act enhanced subsidies that are set to expire at the end of the year. There’s been a decent amount of talk already in both chambers about what a health care bill could look like, because it would need to be bipartisan to pass. There’s some multiple camps right now. 

I think in the Senate, Republicans are coalescing around putting money into flexible savings accounts instead of doing an extension of the credits as something that they would want to do instead. There are other Republicans that are still open to extending the credits with some reforms attached. The House, we figured out last night, was a little bit more fragmented. They’re less united in the way the House is around doing something with the flexible spending accounts. So a lot of them are still anti-extending the credits at all. They are working on a health package, but it remains to be seen what they want to do with that, given the short amount of time they have. But I think a lot of them are also looking for the same reforms that the Senate is on the Republican side, if they do sign on to extend them. 

Huetteman: Yeah, short is right. We’re already looking at that Dec. 31 deadline to extend the existing credits. And of course, we’re already in the open enrollment period at this point. People are already getting their plans for next year. Polls show that most Americans blamed Republicans for the shutdown. A tracking poll from my KFF colleagues out last week showed most Americans want Congress to extend the tax credits. Republicans are aware of this heading into the midterms next year, no? 

Raman: I think that’s definitely been a big factor when talking to folks, especially ones that I think have been more interested in extending the credits are set up for our competitive races next year. There has been talk at different times of doing a one-year extension. But that puts us pretty close to the midterms, which might not be in everyone’s best interest depending on how things shake out. So, I think it’s definitely in a lot of folks’ minds, just because it is a lot more popular than it has been in previous years. But there are a lot of the more conservative folks that just have been anti-ACA for so long, that they don’t want to extend something that was … The enhanced subsidies were started by Democrats during covid. They think it’s a covid-era thing that needs to be phased out. 

Huetteman: Yeah, and also notably, you might’ve noticed I said that they only funded the government through January. Does that mean we’re getting ready to do this again in a couple of months? 

Raman: There’s a chance. So part of the deal got done this week is that they did three of the 12 spending bills that they do every year to fund the government. But they usually do them in order of which ones are easiest to get done. So we still have to come to agreements on some of the bigger ones, including Labor, HHS [Health and Human Services]. Education is what funds most of the health activities, and that’s usually a tougher one. So, I think it depends on a few things. Are folks sticking to their word? Do they get that health care vote that they were promised? Do other things shake out that make people at odds with each other over the next bit? But we could possibly be in the same situation if we don’t make inroads on funding the government for a yearlong situation before then. 

Huetteman: Oh goodness. Well, it sounds like we’ll be back again having this conversation soon. Meanwhile, months after the president [Donald Trump] signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill with big changes to Medicaid, new details are emerging about how the Trump administration is using the Medicaid program to promote its policy goals. My KFF Health News colleague Phil Galewitz recently reported on how the Trump administration has ordered state Medicaid agencies to investigate the immigration status of certain enrollees — providing states with lists of names to re-verify — and effectively roping the health program into the president’s immigration crackdown. 

Also, NPR reports the Trump administration plans to dramatically restrict access to medical care for transgender youth. New proposals that could be released as soon as this month would block federal money from being spent on trans care. Policy experts say that would make it difficult, if not impossible, to access that care, in large part because government funding is a huge source of revenue, and losing it could force hospitals to end the programs entirely. Both of these programs are pretty striking: enlisting Medicaid to perform spot checks of immigration status, and also potentially blocking funding for trans care. Have we seen other presidential administrations use Medicaid like this? And since we’re talking about funding, is there a role for Congress here? 

Luthra: My understanding is that this approach, specifically with gender-affirming care and with immigration, doesn’t really have a precedent. And what I think is really important about these is these are decisions that will be litigated, challenged, argued in court. But, even if and as that happens, there’s a real chilling effect that I think is really important. Already, we know that a lot of immigrants are very afraid to sign up even for benefits they are entitled to, because they’re worried it could count against them. We already know that a lot of immigrants with health needs are skipping their health care because they are so worried about what happens if ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] shows up at a hospital. This only threatens to add to that. On the vantage of gender-affirming care, already we have seen some major hospitals and health providers drop the offering, even in anticipation of this policy coming into effect. So I think what’s really important is to understand that no matter what happens, already, people’s health is really being affected, and people are suffering as a result. 

Raman: I think we’ve seen little sprinkles of some of these things that have happened in the past, but this is elevated at such a level that it’s different. Even in the first Trump administration, there were some things put in place with the public charge to crack down on what benefits immigrants could be entitled to. But I think, as with a lot of the things that we’re seeing, it’s really been amped up. I think one thing that Shefali was saying that made me think of was, we’ve already seen a lot of this chilling effect with a lot of things in abortion and reproductive care, where even if laws or regulations don’t go into effect, they’re being talked about or litigated. It already has that effect of people not wanting to show up or not knowing what’s available to them. So we have a little bit of that to look at as well. 

Huetteman: Yeah, absolutely. All right, well, we’re going to take a quick break. We’ll be right back with more health news. 

We’re back. In an Oval Office announcement last week, President Trump unveiled agreements with the pharmaceutical giants Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk to offer some Americans lower prices on their weight loss drugs. Under the deals, the Trump administration says, most eligible patients on Medicare and Medicaid, or those who use the planned TrumpRx website, would pay a few hundred dollars a month for some of the most popular GLP-1 drugs. That’s compared to current price tags, which can be $1,000 or more. Anna, these are only some of the most recent deals between the Trump administration and drugmakers. What does this mean for Americans who take these weight loss drugs, and what do the companies get in exchange? 

Edney: Yeah, I think for Americans who take these or are hoping to take these, I think, is probably where it really opens up. Because … Medicare was not covering these. Now that they’ve come to the table and made a deal, it might open it up to some Medicare beneficiaries. I don’t think you’re going to see everyone on Medicare who wants it be able to get it. I think it’ll be a little stricter on what BMI [body mass index] and comorbidities and things that they need to meet, but it will open access to some Americans. Medicaid, I think, it might not be as beneficial for people’s pocketbooks because they’re already paying extremely low out-of-pocket prices, and Medicaid already negotiates very low prices. That might not be the big change that it was hyped up to be. 

But on the Medicare side, certainly, the companies benefit from that, too, because that opens a new patient population to them. And through TrumpRx — that’s the other place where they made this deal for lowered prices on the GLP-1s — a lot of people have employer coverage that they might be trying to already get these drugs through, and then they’re not paying a whole lot out-of-pocket. But there are employer coverage plans that aren’t covering GLP-1s because they’re just so expensive. So it could be a place where some people might go to try to comparison shop and get their GLP-1s that they didn’t have access to before. 

Huetteman: I also noticed, in looking at the Trump administration’s fact sheet on this, that they were heralding that the companies had agreed to some extra American manufacturing. Let’s say concessions. Am I correct about that? Is this connected to tariffs by any chance? 

Edney: Yeah, I think that that’s been going on in conjunction with some of these deals. As you usually hear the companies say, And we’re opening a new factory in Virginia or somewhere. And certainly they’re trying to avoid the tariffs. As with a lot of these things, some of it, in some cases, they have been factories that the companies were already planning to open, and then they just pumped up for this purpose. I think for so many of this — and even for the prices, the lower prices that these companies are negotiating — we just haven’t seen the details that will matter on what the company’s got, and what the American people actually benefit from for all of this, and what these factories will mean or will be making. These are things that might not come online for several years. So you can say you’re building something, but will we see it once Trump is out of office? 

Huetteman: Exactly. And a lot of the framing has been: We’re helping Americans by bringing this work back to America, so that Americans can do the work, so that Americans can benefit from the drug prices. But it seems like there’s at best a lag on that sort of benefit. Right? 

Edney: Definitely. Definitely a lag on being able to bring some of that stuff online. I think with a lot of the Trump administration’s health policies — and I use that word loosely — it is that it is a lot of negotiation and handshakes. And so we don’t really know how solid those efforts will be in the years to come. 

Huetteman: Well, we can definitely keep an eye on that. In other news: Drama, drama, drama at the Food and Drug Administration. With a steady stream of controversial policy reversals, unexplained dismissals, and just plain unflattering stories, concerns are growing that mismanagement at the FDA is undermining the usually cautious agency’s credibility. In some of the latest developments, Stat reported the FDA’s top drug regulator resigned after being accused of using his position to punish a former associate. Stat also reported that dozens of scientists are considering leaving the already diminished FDA office that regulates vaccines, biologics, and the blood supply to get away from a toxic work environment. What are the ramifications of problems at the FDA? Is the internal drama interfering with business there? 

Edney: I think the pharmaceutical industry would say yes, definitely. They’re feeling like their applications for new drugs aren’t getting reviewed in time. They’re worried that they’re not going to be reviewed in time. And this starts with the administration letting go hundreds of workers in those offices, but also, is now … There’s just been such chaos at the top. You had Vinay Prasad, who is the head of vaccines and biologic drugs there, who has been let go and then brought back. And then now we have the head of the drug center, George Tidmarsh, who resigned under investigation for basically using his position to fulfill a vendetta against an old colleague who pushed him out of some companies. And so I think, certainly, there’s a lot of potential for disruption, as people are trying to avoid retaliation, avoid getting in the crosshairs of all of this. 

And recently, the FDA has now put Rick Pazdur, who was the head of their cancer center, in charge of the drug center to try to show some stability to encourage the pharmaceutical industry. Because he is someone who’s really pushed for innovation, pushed for trying to get drugs to the market faster. And he’s been at the FDA for, I think, 26 years. So, they’re trying to show some stability with that. But we’ll have to see how that goes because he’s also been highly criticized in the past by Prasad, and they’ll be working closely together at the head of those two centers. 

Huetteman: Well, finally, in reproductive health news, a federal judge ruled late last month that the FDA violated federal law by restricting access to mifepristone. While the government’s restrictions remain in place for the politically controversial medication, which is used to manage miscarriages as well as abortions, the judge did order the FDA to consider the relevant evidence in order to “provide a reasoned explanation for its restrictions.” And a major anti-abortion group, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, announced plans for it and its super PAC [political action committee] to spend about $80 million in at least four states to support anti-abortion candidates in the midterm elections next year. Shefali, what does this say about how abortion opponents see this moment? What are they looking to gain in the midterms and beyond? 

Luthra: It’s so interesting to me to see how much anti-abortion groups are really — and, in particular, SBA — leaning into this moment. And they really see this as a reversal of last year’s election, where Trump certainly won. But we do know from polling that voters largely opposed abortion restrictions, supported abortion rights. I think some really useful context is to consider that the president, despite being backed by abortion opponents, has not really been the champion many of them would’ve hoped for. He hasn’t actually done very much on abortion, has not taken the very meaningful steps that you might’ve expected in a post-Dobbs landscape [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] to remarkably restrict it, beyond the normal things any Republican president does. And so I think what we’re seeing here is an effort to reposition the anti-abortion movement beyond this presidential administration. Thinking ahead to what does it look like if there is a post-Trump GOP? 

How do you build out a movement that is a more staunch ally to the anti-abortion movement going forward? One other thing that I think is really noteworthy is: A lot of abortion opponents are looking at polling that says that voters who support abortion rights aren’t prioritizing it in the same way they might have a year ago. And they’re really hoping that things can revert to how they used to be. Or the voters who were these single-issue abortion voters were on their side, were supportive of restrictions, and then might be mobilized by these kinds of really seismic investments in elections. 

Huetteman: Yeah, absolutely. I’m thinking about now how there was such a reaction about a month ago — check me on the timing — when a generic version of the abortion pill was put out. What was the reaction like then, and what does that say about how they feel the Trump administration is reacting to their needs? 

Luthra: A lot of abortion opponents were really livid about this, and approving this generic was pretty standard. It was not that complicated of a process. This drug has been available for so long in other forms. But it underscored that a lot of people who oppose abortion feel like they’re really just waiting. The HHS and the FDA have promised this review of mifepristone that they say could ultimately lead to restrictions. But all it has really been has been a promise this review is ongoing, is coming. There will eventually be results, but there haven’t been any. So to be waiting for some kind of policy that people keep telling you is coming, and then at the same time, to see actually the FDA moving to make abortion medication more available — not less — is really frustrating for a lot of people who hope that this administration would be an ally to them. 

Huetteman: Absolutely. OK. That’s it for this week’s news. Now, we’ll have Julie’s interview with KFF Health News’ Julie Appleby. And then we’ll do our extra credits. 

Julie Rovner: I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast, KFF Health News’ other Julie, Julie Appleby, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Julie, welcome back. 

Julie Appleby: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient is actually a doctor, so she knows how the system works. But, as so often happens, she was in a car accident and ended up in an out-of-network hospital. Tell us who she is and what kind of care she needed. 

Appleby: OK. Her name is Lauren Hughes, and she was heading to see patients at a clinic about 20 miles from where she lives in Denver back in February when another driver T-boned her car, totaling it. She was taken by ambulance to the closest hospital, which turned out to be Platte Valley Hospital, where she was diagnosed with bruising, a deep cut on her knee, and a broken ankle. Physicians there recommended immediate surgical repair because they wanted to wash out that wound on her knee. And also, she needed some screws in her ankle to hold it in place. 

Rovner: So then after the surgery and an overnight stay, she goes home, and then the bills start to come. How much did it end up costing? 

Appleby: Well, she was billed $63,976 by the hospital. 

Rovner: And the insurance company denied her claim. What was their argument? 

Appleby: Yeah, this is where it gets complicated, as many of these things often do. Her insurer, Anthem, fully covered the nearly $2,400 ambulance ride and some smaller radiology charges from the ER. But it denied the surgery and the overnight stay charges from the hospital, which did happen to be out-of-network. Four days after her surgery, Anthem notified Hughes in a letter that after consulting clinical guidelines for her type of ankle repair, its reviewer determined that it wasn’t medically necessary for her to be fully admitted for an inpatient hospital stay. So, the note said that if she’d needed additional surgery or had other problems such as vomiting or fever, an inpatient stay might’ve been warranted. But they didn’t have that in this case. And generally, people don’t stay overnight in the hospital after broken ankle surgery. 

Rovner: Of course, she had no car and she … 

Appleby: Right? Her car was totaled. She had no way to get home. She had nobody to pick her up. And it turns out, there’s a couple more little quirks. So the surgery charges were denied because this quirk that under Anthem’s agreement with the hospital, all claims for services before and after a patient are approved or denied together. So, since the hospital stay was generally not required after the ankle surgery, the surgery charges itself were denied as well. Even though Anthem said they always felt that that was medically necessary — that she needed the ankle surgery — it all came down to this overnight hospital stay. 

Rovner: So, isn’t this exactly what the federal surprise billing law was supposed to eliminate — being in an accident, getting taken to an out-of-network hospital for emergency care? How did it not apply here? 

Appleby: Right. Well, that’s where it’s so interesting because initially, that’s what everybody thought: The No Surprises Act would cover it. And the No Surprises Act from 2022, it’s aimed at preventing these so-called surprise bills, which come when you go to an out-of-network hospital or provider. And in those cases, it limits your financial liability for emergency care to the exact same cost sharing as if you had been in an in-network hospital. 

So in this case, it applies to emergency care, and we saw that it did actually cover some of her emergency room charges, and that kind of thing. But generally though, emergency care is defined as treatment needed to stabilize a patient. So once she was stabilized before the surgery, she enters this post-stabilization situation. And if your provider determines that you can travel using nonmedical transport to an in-network facility, you might lose those No Surprises Act protections. Generally, you’re asked to sign some paperwork saying you want to stay at the out-of-network facility, and you want to continue treatment, and you waive your rights in that case. Hughes does not remember getting anything like that. And this case didn’t come down to the No Surprises Act. It was a question of medical necessity. Your insurer has broad power to determine medical necessity. And if they review a situation and determine that it’s not medically necessary, and you’re post-stabilization, that trumps any No Surprises Act protections. 

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? 

Appleby: So what eventually happened was that the hospital resubmitted the charges as outpatient services. And that seemed to be the crux of the matter here. It was that inpatient overnight hospital stay. If she was kept [on] an observation status — which is a lower level of care, hospitals get paid a little bit less — that would’ve seemed to solve the problem. And that’s what happened here. Platte Valley resubmitted the bill, and her insurer paid about $21,000 of that bill. There was another $40,000 that was knocked off by an Anthem discount. And in the end, Hughes only owed a $250 copayment. 

Rovner: Wow. 

Appleby: Yeah. 

Rovner: Of course, you left out the part where we actually called and made it … 

Appleby: Well, there was that, too. And she was very savvy, as you mentioned. She also got her HR department at her employer involved. She wrote letters. She was not going to give up on this. That’s one of the advice that she gave is not to wait — not to delay too long if you get a notice of not medical necessity — but to quickly and aggressively question insurance denials once they’re received. Make sure you understand what’s going on. Try to get it escalated to the insurers and the hospital’s leadership. All of those things. And I think another takeaway for folks is — and this is harder because, look, you’re in the emergency room, you don’t know what’s going on — but it might be worth asking, Hey, am I post-stabilization? Am I being admitted as an inpatient? Am I being held for an observation stay? Is there some kind of difference with that in terms of my insurance coverage? And you could perhaps try to put this to the hospital billing department. But it’s even better if there’s a way you can call your insurer. But that’s not always realistic in these kinds of emergency situations. 

Rovner: Yeah, and just out of curiosity, if somebody totals my car and I end up [in] an ambulance needing surgery, I’m going to assume that the other driver’s insurance is going to pay my medical bills. Why didn’t that happen? 

Appleby: Well, in this case, the way it was explained to me is the other driver had the minimum coverage needed in the state of Colorado. And so it did pay nearly $5,000 toward some of these charges. But that’s about all it paid. 

Rovner: Wow. Well, now, obviously, as you said, Lauren Hughes is a doctor. Savvy about the way the system works, or doesn’t in this case. Even then, it took her months and called us to work this all out. How should somebody with less expertise handle a situation like this? Is there somebody they can turn to help, assuming that they’re not cognizant enough to start asking questions about their admission status while they’re still in the emergency room waiting for surgery? 

Appleby: Right. Again, that is so complicated. If you can, call your insurer and see what they have to say. And again, it may be after hours. It may be not possible. Perhaps see if you can chat with the hospital billing department. But again, some of this is going to be after the fact. And remember, the billing in this situation came down to how the hospital coded the billing. They coded it as an inpatient hospital stay, and that’s after the fact. And there’s not a lot you can do about it. But in the end, it was resubmitted as an outpatient service, and that made all the difference in this case. 

Rovner: Wow. Another complicated one. Or I guess you can just write to us. Julie Appleby, thank you very much. 

Appleby: Thanks for having me. 

Huetteman: All right, now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week that we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Anna, how about you go first this week? 

Edney: Sure. This story is from a few of my colleagues at Bloomberg. “Bayer Weighs Roundup Exit as Cancer Legal Bill Nears $18 Billion.” And I thought this was an interesting story, not just because there is the possibility that the world’s most-used weed killer could be going away because it’s just folding under so many legal challenges related to cancer. But it’s also just a deep dive to look at this herbicide that has affected all of our lives and how it came to be, what’s going on with it now, why it’s not working. And also at this company, Bayer, that in the middle of these legal challenges, bought the company that owned Roundup. So I just think it’s an interesting look at the whole situation and something that we’ve probably all consumed before in certain ways, through just fruits and vegetables and different seeds and things. 

Huetteman: Definitely. Shefali, how about your story? 

Luthra: Sure. So I picked a four-part series by my colleague at The 19th, Orion Rummler. The headline for the piece I picked is “Detransition Is Key to Politicians’ Anti-Trans Agenda. But What Is It Really Like?” I think this is a really smart package of stories because, as Orion notes, people who have “detransitioned” — transitioned and then transitioned back — are a really central part of the modern conservative movement’s efforts to target trans health and, in particular, trans health for young people. Saying, look at these people who transitioned and then came back and regretted it. But there hasn’t been a lot of journalism actually looking at people who navigate this experience beyond those who are these political tokens. So Orion does exactly that. He talked to people who have had the experience of transitioning and then detransitioning in some way. 

He notes that this is a pretty rare experience to have this journey with one’s gender, but that the people he interviewed, he profiled, said that they felt really frustrated with how the conversation has unfolded. In fact, their transitioning was an important part of their journey to discover their gender, and that they are deeply concerned that restrictions on trans health could be harmful to them and their loved ones as well. I think this is really valuable journalism, and I’m so excited that Orion did it, and I hope everyone reads it. 

Huetteman: That’s really interesting. Thank you for sharing that one. Sandhya, what do you have this week? 

Raman: So I pick, “Canada Loses Its Measles-Free Status, With US on Track To Follow,” and it’s by Nadine Yousif for the BBC. So this week, the Pan-American Health Organization, Canada is no longer measles-free. And so that means that the Americas region as a whole has lost its elimination status. I thought this was important because in the U.S., we’re at a 33-year high with measles. And Mexico has also seen a surge in cases. And just an interesting way to look at what’s happening a little broader than just the U.S. lens, as all these places are seeing fewer people vaccinated against measles. 

Huetteman: Thanks for sharing that story, Sandhya. My extra credit this week is a great scoop from my KFF Health News colleague Amanda Seitz. The headline is, “Immigrants With Health Conditions May Be Denied Visas Under New Trump Administration Guidance.” Amanda got her hands on a State Department cable that expands the list of reasons that would make visa applicants ineligible to enter the country, including now age or the likelihood they might rely on government benefits. And it gives visa officers quite a bit of power to make those calls.  

Now immigrants, they’re already screened for communicable diseases and mental health problems. But the new guidance goes further and emphasizes that chronic diseases should be considered. And it calls on those visa officers to assess whether applicants can pay for their own medical care, noting that certain medical conditions can “require hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of care.” 

All right, that’s this week’s show. Thanks this week to our editor, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineers, Taylor Cook and Francis Ying. “What the Health?” is available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts. And, as always, on kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on LinkedIn. Where are you folks these days? Sandhya? 

Raman: I’m on X and on Bluesky @SandhyaWrites. 

Huetteman: Shefali? 

Luthra: I’m on Bluesky @Shefali. 

Huetteman: And Anna? 

Edney: X or Bluesky @AnnaEdney. 

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