New cooking series brings the Dietary Guidelines for Americans to life through practical recipes and conversations with America's leading chefs

The Host Julie Rovner KFF Health News @jrovner @julierovner.bsky.social Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

The Trump administration has conceded in court documents that it used purely political considerations to cancel grant funding previously approved by Congress. But that has provoked a surprisingly muted response from lawmakers, who under the Constitution control the power of the purse.

Meanwhile, Republicans in the Senate summoned former National Institutes of Health and White House official Anthony Fauci to testify — again — about his handling of the covid pandemic. Fauci, however, refused to answer questions, citing the advice of his attorneys.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal.

Panelists Rachel Cohrs Zhang Bloomberg News @rachelcohrs Read Rachel's stories. Shefali Luthra The 19th @shefali.bsky.social Read Shefali's stories. Liz Essley Whyte The Wall Street Journal @l_e_whyte Read Liz's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Recent court filings shed light on how the Trump administration has used politics to justify its decisions to cancel federal grants. While similar revelations may have been explosive under other presidents, the filings have triggered muted, if any, responses from lawmakers.
• The Trump administration announced this week that it would end the temporary Medicare Part D subsidies, introduced under the Biden administration, that help lower the monthly premiums older Americans pay for drug coverage. While next year’s premiums probably would have increased anyway, the change — which many will notice when they shop for plans later this year, shortly before the midterm elections — may not help Republicans in the voting booth.
• Meanwhile, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) brought Fauci before the committee he chairs to address accusations related to his role in the nation’s covid response as a key adviser to Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden. But little of substance was said, with the hearing quickly devolving into political grandstanding as Fauci asserted his constitutional right not to self-incriminate.
• An FDA advisory panel voted to recommend the agency make it easier for Americans to obtain several previously banned compounds known as peptides — even as FDA staff caution that there’s no evidence they are safe. The panel included members who stand to profit from expanded access to peptides.

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

Julie Rovner: The Arkansas Times’ “Postpartum Women Go Without Care as Arkansas Holds Out as Lone State To Deny Them Medicaid,” by Byron Tate.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: KFF Health News’ “Trump Administration Demands Hospitals Share Emergency Room Records,” by Amanda Seitz, Maia Rosenfeld, and Darius Tahir.  

Liz Essley Whyte: Stat’s “E-Bikes, E-Scooters Are a Burgeoning Pediatric Public Health Emergency,” by J. Todd R. Lawrence and Madison A. Kesler.  

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post’s “The Problem With RFK Jr.’s Crusade Against Antidepressants,” by Aaron E. Carroll.  

 Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Trump Administration Admits Canceling Grants to States That Did Not Vote for Him,” by Tony Romm and Brad Plumer.
• CalMatters’ “White House Admits It Used Keywords To Kill Billions Worth of California Research Grants,” by Mikhail Zinshteyn.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “Trump Turns Up the Heat on RFK Jr. To Cut Back Childhood Vaccines,” by Liz Essley Whyte.
• Bloomberg News’ “From TV Doctor to Power Broker: Dr. Oz Thrives on Trump’s Team,” by Rachel Cohrs Zhang.
• KFF Health News’ “Trump Has Quietly Throttled an Agency Devoted to the Safety of American Healthcare,” by Arthur Allen.
• The Washington Post’s “Peptide Boom Has States Scrambling To Protect Consumers, Post Investigation Finds,” by Lauren Weber.
• Politico’s “Activists ‘Throwing Everything’ They Can Against Abortion Turn to Wastewater Data,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Ariel Wittenberg.

Click to expand the transcript Transcript: The Politics of Grant Cuts

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from KFF Health News and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 30, 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 video conference by Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Liz Essley Whyte of The Wall Street Journal. 

Liz Essley Whyte: Hello. 

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news, so we’ll get right to it. I want to start with a story that I feel like is getting a little bit buried because it broke last Friday. The New York Times reported on a federal court filing in which the Trump administration admitted that it canceled $7.5 billion in clean-energy grants solely because they were located in states represented by Democrats that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024. In other words, the actions were purely political. Now, this is before the administration finalizes proposed rules that would give political appointees still more power over how grant funding is distributed. I heard one pundit say on cable news that in any other administration, this sort of information would lead to an immediate impeachment inquiry. But these days, it’s just another day that ends in “y.” Is the lack of public outcry about this because everyone already assumes that everything this administration does is political? Or is this considered just too inside baseball for most voters?  

Whyte: Well, I was gonna say I think this has long been people’s suspicions about why certain grants are cut in the way that they are, or some of these Medicare/Medicaid investigations are the way that they are. And so I think maybe the lack of outcry was just people shrugging their shoulders and saying, I mean, yeah, we guessed that, you know. I don’t know. 

Cohrs Zhang: It was really chaotic too, and hard to keep track of all these different things for people whose job it is to do so. So I feel like the fact that this is protracted for so long, we’re like, which DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts were those? And I think it is important, certainly, and I’m glad there’s been coverage of it, just for the record, and just kind of for history purposes and just understanding the limits of that kind of change to government at that speed. But yeah, I think it is just hard to break through in this news cycle, and it was very chaotic and confusing for everyone.  

Luthra: One thing I have been thinking about, though, is when you think about these states where grants were canceled, there are a lot of people who live there who did, in fact, vote for Donald Trump. And depending on the size of the state, you probably have members of Congress who are actually in Republican districts. And that, I think, is really interesting. And I just wonder if eventually there is some sort of conversation. Those are probably in some cases members who might be a little bit more on the defensive in other ways, just given the political environment we are in. And is this an issue that Democrats can talk about and highlight and sort of bring to voters and say, you know, your representative is not here defending your interests because of these broader sort of punitive measures being taken by the White House. I think that’s an interesting thing that we don’t know the answer to yet. 

Rovner: I know I keep saying this, but I can’t believe that Republicans on the [Senate] Appropriations Committee aren’t being louder about this. This is the one power that they have. It’s why you get on the Appropriations Committee, is you get to steer money to your state or your district. That is the great perquisite of being in Congress, and the administration is basically taking it away. And they’re just letting them. I mean, Susan Collins told Politico, quote, “I obviously think that’s wrong.” But she doesn’t seem willing to do anything about this. I mean, she’s the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee! 

Cohrs Zhang: I think we’re, like, testing the checks-and-balances system to its fullest extent. This administration. They can only pick so many fights, you know. 

Whyte: Yeah, Susan Collins, especially, this whole administration has had to choose about when to say something and when to push behind closed doors, push publicly. I mean, there’s been lots of stuff that she hasn’t liked. 

Rovner: Yeah, for sure. Well, this is not the only case where the government has admitted to canceling grants for political reasons. In a case brought by researchers from the University of California, the administration confirmed it canceled some grants because they contained keywords like “diversity,” “gender,” and “vaccine hesitancy” to cut off funding. The plaintiffs in that case argue that it’s a First Amendment violation. Again, we’ve known for some time that this has been happening. Are the courts just too slow to be able to deal with it, Rachel? That’s kind of what you were intimating. This has been dragging out, sort of bit by bit by bit. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think it’s hard. And I — just like with these grants dragging out too, it has impact for the people who are supposed to be receiving this funding and how their cycles work and hiring and just all the … that grant process. But I think it’s hard to make that connection, back to the individual voter. And I think that’s just a tough hill to climb in terms of public communications. So I think, yeah, we’re seeing these similar themes play out. 

Luthra: And one thing that I think is really relevant that I keep coming back to is we did see a test run of this with the USAID [United States Agency for International Development] cuts at the beginning of the administration. Those happened very quickly. The courts took a very, very long time, and by the time there was any kind of real momentum in any direction, it was too late. People did not have money, firms had downsized, people had left their jobs, left the industry altogether. And, at the time, that seemed to me like a really striking test. If this is able to happen here, and it shows that things just continue, why not happen in other areas as well, where you have these grants being put out there that have maybe ideological tension with where the administration wants to be going? 

Rovner: So I wanted to talk about some specific impacts on health policy, notably AHRQ, the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research, which, like USAID, the administration has all but eliminated, despite the fact that it was appropriated nearly $350 million for this year in a bill signed by President Trump. AHRQ, which is down to a fraction of its original staff and hasn’t funded any grants in more than a year, is actually a completely bipartisan creation from the 1990s. It was established to study healthcare quality and access issues, many of which go neatly hand in hand with the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda. Earlier this month, the administration stopped funding more than 100 grants, and an HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] spokeswoman told my KFF Health News colleague Arthur Allen only that the agency plans to establish a new, quote, “framework,” which I thought was the job of Congress. Again, too small to attract much notice? 

Luthra: Probably. I mean, voters don’t know what AHRQ is. Like, we know about it because of our jobs, but this is not something people wake up and think about or talk to their neighbors about. It just feels very divorced from a lot of people’s realities. Even though, to your point, the consequences are far-reaching. They are long-term, and, also, the significance in terms of, as Rachel pointed out, separation of powers, checks and balances are also very striking.  

Rovner: I mean, AHRQ studies things like patient safety. I’m old enough to remember when the, you know, the big Institute of Medicine [now National Academy of Science] report came out that said how many people were injured by medical errors. It was a huge, huge issue. I mean, for years. And that’s basically what AHRQ does, and that’s what this administration says that they care about. They care about gold-standard science. They care about fraud. They care about making the health system safer. And yet, you know, AHRQ is just, well, we don’t know what it is, so we’re going to make it go away, basically. 

Whyte: Obviously, the HHS has not been as clear on this as you might hope and expect for the “most transparent administration in history.” But it is clear that, like, Kennedy is looking for pots of money to do the things that he wants to do. And it seems like this is one of the pots they’ve landed on as something that can be shifted around. 

Rovner: Yeah, so it does. Well, one cut that is likely to be noticed is the administration’s decision to end the temporary subsidy for Medicare Part D that prevented the addition of an out-of-pocket cap on how much enrollees have to spend each year on prescription drugs from spiking those monthly premiums. This will almost certainly raise premiums for many, if not most, of the 25 million seniors who have stand-alone Part D drug plans. And they will see those increases right before Election Day, because Medicare open enrollment starts Oct. 15. And, by the way, seniors vote in disproportionate numbers in midterm elections. If I was a political adviser for this administration, I don’t think I would have advised doing this. Am I missing something here? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think you are seeing there’s an interesting shift happening in terms of the power of the fiscal conservative wing of the administration. And I think we’ll continue to see that play out. I will say it’s unclear, like, how much premiums would have increased anyway without this subsidy program ending, given that the premium increases are capped by statute, in the Inflation Reduction Act through 2029. So, I mean, there is a chance that they might have gone up 6% anyway. We’re maxing out that increase. But the messaging certainly was not stellar for them. And I think we saw some cleanup efforts on that, for them trying to say that, you know, most seniors will see, you know, no increase or an increase of less than $10 a month. 

Rovner: Or they’ll have, I think Dr. [Mehmet] Oz said, they’ll still have an option for a cheaper plan. Of course, that cheaper plan might not cover all their drugs, but … 

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. So I think that’s just like a … this is one, I think, data point in this larger theme I’m thinking about. And how do we see — as we move past the midterm elections and affordability may not be top of mind if there’s no electoral accountability for it — how does that change what we’re seeing out of these agencies? 

Rovner: I’m just old enough to remember when, you know, you don’t raise costs for Medicare beneficiaries right before a midterm election, which is what this will do. Well, it isn’t all cuts. The administration this week finally released the $600 million that Congress had appropriated for the global Vaccine Initiative, Gavi. That was money for last year and this year. The funding had been blocked by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. even though it goes through the State Department, not the Department of Health and Human Services. Kennedy had been concerned that Gavi was paying for vaccines containing the preservative thimerosal, which has been accused, and cleared, of causing autism. Do we know what finally sprung this money loose? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think there was a deadline of Sept. 30, and the funding would have expired. And we did see kind of an exchange with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Susan Collins, where he said, “You know, I’m going to take ownership of this, and we’re going to get it done.” And so I think there was a push by administration officials to get this funding pried loose. And I think there are questions about whether Gavi was kind of heading this way already with some of these vaccines. I think they were starting the transition, but I think there … we’ll see how the implementation works on it. But I think there might be an argument that maybe this transition might have happened maybe faster … or to a broader degree. 

Rovner: The transition away from using thimerosal. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yes, the states … there’s one hexavalent vaccine where countries could already apply to transition to a different formulation without thimerosal starting in 2023. So, but maybe an option would be broader. Just there’s kind of a lot up in the air as to actually how this gets operationalized in the timeline. 

Rovner: Yeah, I was thinking, though, this might have been one of the cases where Congress complaining, both publicly and privately, did actually have some impact. But also, I know a lot of it was Marco Rubio stepping in and saying, “Hey, this is a State Department thing.” And finally, you know, I say a year and eight months later, the money gets distributed. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back.  

Well, speaking of things that may or may not be good politics, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky called former NIH [National Institutes of Health] and White House science official Tony Fauci before his Homeland Security Committee Wednesday to rake him over the coals again over his handling of the covid pandemic. Fauci, who received a preemptive pardon from President Joe Biden as Biden was walking out of the Oval Office door in 2025, did not take the bait. He pleaded the Fifth, lest anything he said be used for a new prosecution for lying to Congress. Meanwhile, Paul says he’ll try to find Fauci in contempt of Congress, which, by the way, would take 60 votes, which feels a little unlikely. Separately, several red-state attorneys general say they now want to investigate Fauci since his pardon doesn’t cover state prosecutions. First, prosecute him for what? And is relitigating covid origins and lockdowns really good politics for Republicans? I’m sure it riles up the base, but it’s hard to see them running on this as their health agenda. 

Whyte: So Rand Paul actually said on TV last night that he just thinks his committee needs to do the contempt of Congress vote, and then they can refer it to the DOJ [Department of Justice]. So they may not need 60 votes. So that will be interesting. Meanwhile, [Sen.] Ron Johnson [R-Wis.] has also threatened to subpoena Fauci. And the Florida attorney general is opening an investigation. And Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville says if he becomes governor, he’s going to try to figure out a way to prosecute Fauci in Alabama. So there’s definitely a lot of focus on Dr. Fauci. 

Rovner: I repeat, though, prosecute him for what? 

Whyte: Well, you know, before the hearing, Rand Paul was saying, Yeah, his preemptive pardon covers stuff in the past, but if he lies again at this hearing, then we will, you know, go after him or whatever. 

Rovner: Right, and that’s why he didn’t, that’s why he pleaded the Fifth.  

Whyte: Right, which is why it was viewed as an … entrapment situation that he should probably steer clear of, and why he would not even answer, like, what is the color of the carpet. 

Rovner: And what color his tie was, or was it Sen. [Josh] Hawley’s tie? 

Whyte: Yeah, and what day of the week it was, yeah. Whether it’s good politics for Republicans, I think we’ll have to see. There’s an Ohio candidate that they’ve tried to get for being, you know, covid czar or whatever, and that really hasn’t gone anywhere in Ohio. She’s polling OK. So I think that’s a good question on whether voters still care about this or not. I think obviously a lot of them do, but, like, the suburban women who are, you know, the famous swing voters, what do they think about Dr. Fauci? Will be interesting to see. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I guess just for watching the questioning, it seemed that they’re trying to, you know, that we know that Democrats have more enthusiasm going into this midterm than Republicans. And it looked like the Republicans were trying to, you know, reactivate the angry covid base, if you will, to get them to come out and vote. It’s just hard to know how many people are angry enough to come out, you know, six years later.  

All right. Well, speaking of buzzy stories, Liz, you broke the buzzy story of the week about how Trump might be pushing RFK Jr. on childhood vaccine policy rather than what we all assumed was the other way around. So tell us about it. 

Whyte: Yeah, this is a bit of a counterintuitive news development for two reasons. One, because everybody thinks RFK Jr. is the big vaccine skeptic in the administration. And two, because the White House had, you know, is widely reported that they were telling HHS to “ix-nay on the accines-vay” ahead of the midterms — like, just dial it down a little bit because of polling they had from the winter that showed while food and ag [agricultural] stuff was really popular, the other MAHA stuff, vaccine skepticism, was not, and they kind of wanted to tone it down. But the president does what he wants. He does not always listen to the polling. And he has been telling Kennedy since at least May, why aren’t you doing more to probe the connection, in his mind, between vaccines and autism? And this took Kennedy aback, actually, at a golf course lunch in May. He was surprised because he was still under the impression they were supposed to be dialing back. And President Trump told him, “You have the yips,” which I just think is such a funny word. 

Rovner: It’s a golf term. 

Whyte: Yes, it’s a golf term. And that has continued to be, actually, a point of tension between the two men, with the president venting his frustration to Kennedy at a mid-June Oval Office meeting. And part of the reason we’re seeing some of this increased action, even if it’s not, you know, really talked about much, but appeals to the federal appeals court to speed up the decision for the key vaccine advisory panel of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], and then also there was that EO [executive order] in May that Trump put out on the childhood vaccine schedule, and just kind of general scrambling behind the scenes to figure out, like, what they can deliver for the president, who is, I’m told, a results guy and wants to see results and thinks, you know, it’s been a year and a half, and why aren’t there results? So, we’ll see where that leads. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, if this puts Kennedy in hot water with the president, Rachel, you this week write about what the newest, who the newest likely candidate is should RFK Jr. leave his post, either voluntarily or not so voluntarily. Tell us about your story. 

Cohrs Zhang: So I have been working on this story for a very long time. But I think we’ve seen kind of this surprise in Washington that Dr. Oz, who’s leading Medicare and Medicaid, has actually like navigated the Trump administration with great skill, and I think we were finally able to capture the scope of that, him translating that skill into personal relationships with the president, with the secretary, and getting himself a seat at the table on far more policy issues than a CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] administrator would normally get. And I think we saw, those of us who remember the first Trump administration, how ugly things got between HHS and CMS — was like very adversarial, like a really bad time in there, very toxic. But I think we’ve seen him take a more, like, cooperative approach. He wields his influence, is more explaining things. He is a medical doctor, his training, unlike the secretary. And I think there is just, like, a general trust and, like, personal friendship between the two of them that has translated into this interesting dynamic, where Dr. Oz kind of serves as a go-between on some of these issues between the White House and the secretary and gets everybody kind of to the place where they need to go. And he’s just a good communicator and has built a lot of trust and parlayed that into getting himself a seat at the table. 

Rovner: Yeah, and Liz … your story about Kennedy and Trump also suggested that Oz’s favor is rising, shall we say? 

Whyte: Yeah, the White House staff love Oz because they know they can send him to the Hill. They can put him on TV. Like, he’s going to do a great job. Rachel had this too. You know, the president calling and texting Oz and saying, you know, what about this issue? and it has nothing to do with CMS. He’s, you know, being called upon to do other stuff that is not in his portfolio. So yeah, every lobbyist is just, like, watching their clock and seeing when Oz takes over. I don’t know that it’s that straightforward. I think the president and secretary have a very warm friendship, and it took a lot for Kristi Noem to get let go, and I don’t think we’re anywhere near that. So we’ll have to see if the mood changes after the midterms. But it doesn’t seem to me that anything would be imminent. 

Rovner: I would add that I know Oz is the one person practically in the entire administration, not just at HHS, who actually does well when he goes to the Hill. Who, you know, is respectful and sort of understands how administration officials are supposed to conduct themselves when they are in front of the people who theoretically are responsible for them having their jobs.  

Whyte: Yeah, you’ll find the Democrat staffers are like, Oh, we actually like Oz, which is funny, I think.  

Rovner: He’s a good politician! What can I say? Rachel, do you want to add something? 

Cohrs Zhang: I will say, though, he did play a role in selling all these Medicaid cuts that are going to be coming down the pike. 

Rovner: He did. 

Cohrs Zhang: And so I think he is going to be the face of this when they actually go to implement it.  

Rovner: He will. 

Cohrs Zhang: So yeah, we’ll see how that goes.  

Rovner: We’ll see how that goes.  

Cohrs Zhang: What time frame they’ll be doing that in. But yeah, certainly. Yeah, it’s interesting. 

Whyte: They’ve kind of given up selling that, too. You know, it’s not something they’re being like, Oh, look at all the great stuff we did with Medicaid in the One Big Beautiful Bill. It’s very much pivoted to fraud.  

Rovner: Yeah, but when it starts, when it takes effect next year, I think there’s going to be, there will be lots of questions to answer. Shefali, do you want to add something before we move on? 

Luthra: The only thing that really just I keep thinking about is the long history of this relationship between Dr. Oz and the president, and, in particular, when during the 2016 campaign he was the one to talk about the president’s testosterone levels on TV and how they were excellent. And I just think it’s really special that we’ve come full circle in this way. 

Rovner: Yes, yes, it is, and we have. All right, moving on. One thing that Secretary RFK Jr. said this week that’s pretty clearly not true is that the department has the cyclospora parasite outbreak, quote, “under control.” A former deputy commissioner of food at the FDA under both the first Trump administration and President Biden told Politico this week that, quote, “it is starting to approach a catastrophic level in terms of how mismanaged it’s been on multiple fronts.” Rachel, you’re keeping an eye on this. What is the latest? What do we know about cyclospora and where it’s coming from? And are the recalls that are in existence enough to stop it? 

Cohrs Zhang: I don’t think they’re stopping it, by any means, especially with an incubation period of two weeks. I think we are continuing to see more cases reported, and I think, like you mentioned, there’s, I think, fingers pointing in all directions. Our team and others have done reporting on just how Taylor Farms has handled themselves behind the scenes. The public spat between Taylor Farms and the FDA was not something you usually see in an outbreak of this kind. It’s just worth probably pointing out that the FDA did DOGE much of its communications staff that has experience with this sort of outbreak. We have, you know, officials shifting around, and there’s some key vacancies at the FDA as well in a lot of these leadership positions. So I think there’s been complaints, certainly, at, like, the report you mentioned about the federal response, but also about the company and their speed and their clarity and communication, and whether that’s truly serving the public interest or not. And I think there are, if I’m not mistaken, some ongoing investigations into other potential causes. But we are seeing a lot of these cases tied back to lettuce from a specific part of Mexico. So I think they have gotten the word out now, but just the confusion and the back-and-forth. And I think former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb got on CNBC and said he would have expected more communication from the FDA on this issue. But it’s kind of a tough one when it’s a voluntary recall, and there’s a company, and they’ve used some restrictions, you know, and what they’re supposed to be talking about publicly. But I think there has just been so much consumer confusion, and that’s not in anyone’s interest. 

Rovner: And as we said, this is not a simple thing to track. It’s not like E. coli; you can’t really find it. Liz, you and your colleagues reported, though, on, you know, Taylor Farms going straight to the White House to try and sort of go over the heads of the FDA on this. 

Whyte: Yeah, Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal had stories with different pieces of this, and it was, you know, in our story, you could see that they were trying to distance themselves from the outbreak before they got named publicly, which is kind of this new wild West of lobbying that we’re in, where it makes a lot of sense for companies to go straight to the White House and skip over dealing with career officials. And what was interesting was that the way all that played out with the communications is Taylor was able to say, FDA apologized to us, made this like really confusing statement. And the FDA, maybe because it didn’t have the comms folks with experience, like Rachel was talking about, at the FDA with, you know, various layers of people who have done this before, you know, it took them till the next day to say: By the way, our epidemiology on this is really good. It’s definitely still Taylor Farms. We just, like, had that one false positive. It was crazy to me how, like, twisted and turned that got. 

Rovner: It was not well handled from a public communications standpoint, shall we say? All right. Well, one thing that we know that RFK Jr. thinks highly of are peptides; those are the amino acids that wellness influencers say can build muscle, heal injuries, and burn fat, among other things. Last week, an FDA advisory committee voted, over the objections of FDA’s own scientists — who say evidence on the benefits of peptides is either skimpy or nonexistent — to nonetheless make it easier for compounding pharmacies to make and sell products containing several different specific peptides. Now, this is not just a scientific disagreement. Several members of this advisory panel are actual sellers of this product, right? 

Whyte: Yeah, the panel was a bunch of members who either worked for companies that sell peptides or had a clinic that offers them. And the HHS said these people went through a conflict process. It doesn’t seem like it could have been as rigorous as the previous conflict processes that were in place. I haven’t seen a ton of reporting on that. But, you know, predictably they greenlighted most of the peptides that they looked at over and against the strong recommendations from FDA staff scientists who said we don’t have evidence that these are safe. Like, this is kind of unprecedented. The argument in favor was, well, you know, we do something similar with supplements. You know, Secretary Kennedy has said people should be free to try these out, and you know he wants to end the war on peptides. And meanwhile, scientists with a traditional background in looking at risk and benefits are saying the risks are there, the benefits are not proven, and this almost creates a different paradigm for how we’re looking at medical interventions now. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I think we’ve seen this across the FDA and across HHS. I mean, this is basically what they’re, you know, calling gold-standard science. That there’s a lot of people … go ahead, Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: I was just gonna say, and I’m … I think, looking forward, this creates a split decision, right, between the FDA scientists and the ag comm, and that’s gonna put the FDA in a tough position as to who what they’re going to choose because former commissioner Marty Makary loved to say he was siding with the career scientists, and now we have this forum to hear what they actually think, like, presented to the public. So I think that’s going to be a tough decision ahead, and that’ll tell us how things are working inside. 

Rovner: And of course, we only have an acting commissioner of FDA right now, so …  

Cohrs Zhang: Yes, with instructions to not make news. 

Rovner: Finally, this week, news on reproductive health — because there is always news on reproductive health. Shefali, we had a decision in one of the court cases challenging how the FDA regulates the abortion pill mifepristone, but it’s not the case that we’ve all been watching, right? 

Luthra: No, this was the Virginia case. And what it reminds us is that there’s actually a million different mifepristone cases because you have people looking for more restrictions on mifepristone, and you also have people looking for fewer restrictions on mifepristone. And a lot of the folks who provide the drug, the doctors and manufacturers, have argued that, in fact, there are more restrictions than are actually appropriate. That this is actually much safer, and it does not need to be so hard to get because, for all of the concerns from conservatives and abortion opponents, it actually is very difficult to prescribe and make mifepristone available without going through a lot of hoops of certification. And so we see, right, in some cases, like here, an effort to try and loosen those restrictions a bit and say this could be more available, especially, I mean, people when they have miscarriages, it is actually very hard to get mifepristone, even though it actually would be very beneficial for management. But I think what this does, practically, is again not much changes for now because we have so much going through so many courts in different ways. Realistically, I mean, access to the drug stays as what it is: available in some places, not available in others. And the big case that we’re all waiting for, the Louisiana one, that could possibly bring restrictions in, that very briefly did bring restrictions in mifepristone earlier this year — we’ll probably see more on that closer to the election. And that could be very interesting because, as we’ve talked about so many times, this is not really an issue the White House or a lot of Republicans, frankly, would like to be in the news, because they know that restrictions on abortion just remain so unpopular and continue to be for a long time. 

Rovner: And this is almost certainly heading for the Supreme Court, right? We now have a court, you know, a lower court saying that the Biden administration’s restrictions were too tight, and one assumes that coming out of Louisiana, we will have a decision that says that they’re not tight enough. 

Luthra: I would be stunned if the Supreme Court did not hear a mifepristone case in the coming few years. It just seems like we’ve been building in this direction for a very long time. You’re totally right. The split circuit looming makes that more likely. And I mean, realistically, if I supported abortion rights, if I wanted to make this pill more available, as the folks arguing against the Biden restrictions are, I don’t know that I would be thrilled about this being something before the Supreme Court because this is known to be a more conservative court. A lot of members who think abortion should be far less available than it is — this is the same court that overturned Roe v. Wade. And so I think there’s a real possibility that as we see more and more abortion decisions make their way to the Supreme Court, the restrictions we have become even more so, and where we are now becomes a baseline for making this even more difficult for people to obtain. 

Rovner: We will have to see. Meanwhile, our podcast pal Alice [Miranda] Ollstein has a co-bylined story at Politico this week about how anti-abortion groups are pulling out all the stops to try to show that the increased use of mifepristone is polluting the nation’s water supply. Now they have a study, commissioned by the group Students for Life, claiming that mifepristone is showing up in, quote, “significant levels” in waterways in Austin, Texas; Blacksburg, Virginia; and Carbondale, Illinois — all major college towns, not coincidentally. And while the science behind this remains questionable, the politics don’t, right? 

Luthra: Right. And this is a strategy they’ve been working on for quite some time, putting bills in state legislatures, talking to anyone who will listen about this, and saying, If we care about the environment, the left cares about the environment,why don’t we care about what they say is this mifepristone pollution in the water that they say is caused by medication abortions? And they want to use this argument as a different prong on the way to stop people from having mifepristone made available, of making medication abortions harder to obtain. We haven’t really seen this really yield fruit yet. However, this is part of, again, a longer-term strategy to lay groundwork. And studies like this, they create an intellectual groundwork as well. We saw that with the telehealth studies, the mifepristone safety and efficacy studies — and I perhaps should do “studies” in air quotes because a lot of mainstream researchers call these not very good science. But if you create a large-enough body to point to, then ultimately you can have people in positions of power say, “Well, we’ve looked at the evidence from all sides, and we see these real concerns, and we’re going to use them to inform policy.” I don’t know that that will happen anytime soon, but it’s certainly a goal that they’re building toward. 

Rovner: They’re talking points, basically. 

Luthra: Absolutely. 

Rovner: All right. Well, that is this week’s news. 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 post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week? 

Cohrs Zhang: Mine is from KFF Health News. The headline is “Trump Administration Demands Hospitals Share Emergency Room Records,” by Amanda Seitz, Maia Rosenfeld, and Darius Tahir. I think this is one installment, and that this broader arc of coverage that they have really owned — it’s so diffuse. There’s like states, and there’s providers, and there’s government officials involved, but I think it really illuminates kind of like where is the Trump administration looking for data? I think this is something that started during the DOGE era, where you had DOGE employees trying to get data from different government agencies. But you’re seeing it as, I think, we’ve talked about previously, like, there’s a desire for studies and, you know, things to move faster. Like, where are we looking for data? I think this whole arc of coverage has been really valuable in illuminating: Where are they looking. Is this precedented? Kind of how could these datasets be used? What are the patient potential issues? Are there privacy issues? Can this data be protected? That I think are going to be really important as we kind of look into the rest of this administration, because we’re only a year and a half in. Like, we got a ways to go. 

Rovner: And, oh I mean we say over many, many, many years it’s always been Republicans who have been, you know, very much into the federal government shouldn’t have its hands in people’s personal data, and yet here we have an administration that’s trying to get personal data from every single possible place. 

Cohrs Zhang: Right, it’s fascinating. And this just makes it so concrete. And I think it’s great accountability work, and they’ve clearly developed great sourcing on this. 

Rovner: Yeah. Liz. 

Whyte: Mine is a opinion piece in Stat by two doctors who are concerned about the burgeoning pediatric public health emergency, as they call it, about e-bikes and e-scooters. And I’ve been wondering about this for a long time because I see kids doing two, three kids on these scooters going so fast with no helmets. It’s always boggling my mind, but it’s apparently gotten really bad. They looked at data from 2020 to 2021 and saw an increase in injuries, up 71% in just one year — kid injuries with e-scooters and e-bikes. So that was 8,545 of those injuries in 2021. And the doctors discuss how, you know, these injury patterns that these kids get — I mean, they’re going up to like 28 mph — look very similar to when a child gets hit by a car. And that’s, it’s just real sad. So TBD on whether anybody does any kind of age-appropriate access standards or something like that that can help dial back these injuries. And then I guess I’m cheating Julie, but a shoutout to Lauren Weber’s great story, also in The Washington Post recently, about how peptide med spa clinics have less regulation at the state level than your local restaurant or hair salon. She contacted all 50 states, and I thought it was just a really good supplement to the peptide news that we saw recently. 

Rovner: It was, and … forgive me for not mentioning it, and we will link to that one too. But I’m so glad you did the e-bike thing because if you hadn’t done that, I was going to, because the number of kids just in my neighborhood, little kids on motorized vehicles, it’s like: Shouldn’t they have to have driver’s licenses to do this? Anyway. Shefali. 

Luthra: My piece is by Aaron Carroll. It is an op-ed in The Washington Post. The headline is: “The Problem With RFK Jr.’s Crusade Against Antidepressants.” And what he talks about, I think, is just so smart. It’s about how it actually would be great if we had better and more research on SSRIs. However, the point he makes is that the government is actually not really approaching this from that kind of vantage. And instead the idea is to try and just cut back access to SSRIs, rather than learn more about them, learn how to make them work better, if they are as effective as they want them to be. And the point that he gets at the end as well is that while it is really good and worthwhile to investigate and study how well SSRIs work, one thing that we are actually getting into, which is really problematic, is stigmatizing use of them. And he talks about why that’s actually not good, and that is not actually helpful when it comes to thinking about how to make treatment for depression better and better and better. And I love this framing because we should try and make medications better for people. We should always be looking at treatments we have and saying, yes, they work. But what if we made them work better and better? What if we had fewer side effects? What if we made them more effective? That would be awesome. And I really love that he is putting those questions out there in a way that is smart and productive and forward-looking. 

Rovner: And not partisan. This has never been partisan. This is just so …  it’s all so unprecedented. All right. My extra credit this week is from The Arkansas Times. It’s called “Postpartum Women Go Without Care as Arkansas Holds Out as Lone State To Deny Them Medicaid,” by Byron Tate. And it’s about exactly what the headline says. Since Congress gave states the option to extend Medicaid coverage to postpartum women for a full year after they give birth, 49 states have exercised that option — all but Arkansas, where that coverage still ends after 60 days. And Arkansas has one of the nation’s highest maternal mortality rates. So who’s against it? Apparently, the governor, Republican Sarah Huckabee Sanders, herself a mom. She says these women should be transitioning to other coverage, except apparently most of them are not. According to one study, 94% of those losing postpartum Medicaid are becoming uninsured instead. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts — as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. 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, and on Bluesky @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging on socials these days? Rachel? 

Cohrs Zhang: I’m on X @rachelcohrs and also on LinkedIn. 

Rovner: Shefali. 

Luthra: On Bluesky @shefali. 

Rovner: Liz. 

Whyte: I am on X @l_e_whyte — with a “Y,” W-H-Y-T-E — and @lizessleywhyte.bsky. You can Google me. 

Rovner: I’m sure people can find you. All right, we’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits Francis Ying Audio producer Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

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

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

One of America’s most competitive gubernatorial races could settle a heated argument over whether private insurance companies should run Medicaid.

The race is in Iowa, whose Medicaid program has been plagued with controversy since 2016, when the state hired national insurance companies to manage billions of dollars’ worth of benefits.

That shift was made by then-Gov. Terry Branstad, a Republican. With his executive order, Iowa joined most other states in privatizing the management of Medicaid, which covers healthcare for more than 67 million Americans with low incomes or disabilities.

The arguments have resurfaced this year during the competition to replace Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds, who was Branstad’s protégé and continued contracting with private companies to manage Medicaid benefits. Zach Lahn, the Republican candidate to succeed the retiring governor, supports the practice. Rob Sand, the Democratic candidate, wants to end it.

“It’s been a disaster,” said Sand, Iowa’s state auditor. “The number of complaints has been catastrophic.”

Pros and Cons

Supporters of privatization say the insurers, known as managed-care organizations, make Medicaid more effective and efficient. Critics contend the companies pad their profits by denying payment for crucial health services and by shortchanging agencies and professionals who provide care.

Iowa is among 41 states, plus the District of Columbia, that contract with outside companies to run at least part of their Medicaid programs. Overall, private insurers manage the benefits of more than three-quarters of Medicaid patients. Connecticut is the only state that has fully reversed course after privatizing its Medicaid system.

Sand has criticized privatized Medicaid for years. As state auditor, he published reports alleging that the national insurers systematically deny or delay payment for services to which Medicaid participants are entitled.

He has vowed not to renew state contracts with the three insurers managing care for more than 600,000 Iowans on Medicaid, which is jointly financed by the state and federal governments. He would resume having state employees review and pay bills from clinics, hospitals, and other healthcare providers.

Lahn told KFF Health News that Sand’s pledge to resume state administration of Medicaid “is the exact wrong idea.”

Lahn is a former activist for Americans for Prosperity, a national pro-business group affiliated with the Koch family. He contends that state governments and Medicaid participants benefit when insurers compete to serve them.

“There are very few things that government does more efficiently than the private sector,” he said.

Lahn, who is a businessman and farmer, emphasized that state officials should strictly enforce contract requirements, ensuring that the insurers treat Medicaid recipients fairly and make prompt payments to care providers. He also said he would bar insurers from using artificial intelligence systems to determine whether to pay for medical claims under Medicaid. “Iowans deserve to have a human looking at their case,” he said.

Sand said in a recent interview that he doesn’t want Iowa to fully return to a “fee-for-service” Medicaid system, in which hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare agencies would effectively be paid piecemeal for whatever services they provided. Instead, he said, state employees should take over operation of a managed-care system, in which administrators review services to help ensure Medicaid participants receive what they need without wasting public money on ineffective services.

A few months ago, Republicans controlling the Iowa Legislature considered a bill to require the state to have a privately managed Medicaid system. That proposal would have blocked future governors from unilaterally shifting back to public management of the program. But the bill failed to pass.

Sand, a former assistant state attorney general, said he is confident he would have legal authority as governor to stop contracting with private Medicaid managers, although he cautioned that the transition would be complicated and could take time.

Republican candidate Zach Lahn says that if he were elected Iowa governor he would continue contracting with private insurance companies to manage the state’s Medicaid program because he believes they are more efficient than the government. (Erin Murphy/The Gazette via AP) Democratic candidate Rob Sand says that if he were elected Iowa governor he would end private management of the state’s Medicaid program, which he says has been a disaster. (KC McGinnis/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

A Toss-Up Race

National political observers say the Iowa governor’s race could go either way.

This June, Lahn won an underdog primary campaign to beat a sitting congressman backed by President Donald Trump. Lahn gained Trump’s endorsement after winning the Republican primary. He is a vocal supporter of the Make America Healthy Again movement, led by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which aims to improve Americans’ diets and reduce environmental poisons.

Sand noted that Lahn’s past political activism included a failed 2014 attempt to defeat a proposal to cover more people under Montana’s Medicaid program.

Lahn said that at the time he worried the federal government would reduce how much money it would contribute to such Medicaid expansions, leaving states to foot much of the bill. He said he also didn’t want to see public programs such as Medicaid giving benefits to adults capable of providing for themselves. But he said those concerns have been allayed, partly by the Trump administration’s moves to require millions of Medicaid recipients to prove they are working, volunteering, or going to school.

If elected governor, he said, he would not try to reverse Iowa’s expansion of Medicaid, which happened in 2014 under Branstad.

Branstad also is the governor who decided in 2016 to hire private insurers to manage Medicaid.

Branstad, who declined to comment for this article, did not need the legislature to approve his momentous decision. He weathered controversy over the change, including allegations that the companies systematically denied payment for care that people with disabilities needed to remain in their homes.

Andy Schneider, a Georgetown University researcher who studies health policy issues, said it’s understandable that many government leaders see an advantage in hiring private Medicaid management companies. Each state’s Medicaid program pays claims for hundreds of thousands or even millions of members, and administrators must scrutinize bills from thousands of hospitals, clinics, and other healthcare organizations. “That’s a heavy lift,” said Schneider, who worked in federal Medicaid administration when Barack Obama was president.

Schneider noted that Medicaid expenses are among the biggest parts of any state’s budget. The costs can vary dramatically year to year, he said, which is hard for legislators and governors to plan for. Management companies sign contracts for set amounts of money per enrollee, depending on people’s ages and health conditions. Managed-care companies say they can improve Medicaid members’ health and reduce expenses. But Schneider said outside researchers have been unable to confirm or disprove those claims.

Federal law gives states flexibility in how they run their Medicaid programs, including whether they hire private insurers to manage the programs. “Unwinding those arrangements might take a little time, but there’s no question they can do it,” Schneider said.

Connecticut ended its use of private insurers to run Medicaid in 2012. Minnesota legislators decided to contract only with nonprofit insurers, starting in 2025, and that state’s governor has talked about doing away with private management altogether.

Gary Jessee, a former Texas Medicaid director who helped transition that state’s program into managed care, noted that most Americans’ health coverage is managed by some kind of insurance company, whether they obtain it on their own or get it through a government or employer plan.

Jessee now helps run a health policy consulting company whose clients include Medicaid managed-care companies. He said states rarely talk about totally scrapping contracts with such companies. Instead, he said, states have options to change the contracts, including to increase oversight or limit profits.

Overall, Jessee said, managed-care companies help Medicaid enrollees obtain the services they need to stay healthy. But it’s hard to calculate how much money the companies save states, he said, because all healthcare costs have been rising, and new members of managed-care plans may at first use more services as the insurance companies encourage them to get regular checkups instead of waiting for emergencies.

Iowa’s Medicaid program is managed by three insurers: Molina Healthcare, Elevance Health subsidiary Wellpoint, and Centene subsidiary Iowa Total Care.

None responded to requests for comment for this article.

Catherine Gray of Des Moines helps run a Facebook page for families who use Iowa’s Medicaid system. Her adult son, John, is on Medicaid because of a disability. Gray said the managed-care companies have made it much harder for people to obtain services, including mental healthcare, dental care, and transportation to health appointments. Iowa’s shift to the private system was abrupt and chaotic, she said. “We know people have died,” she said.

Gray said she probably will vote for Sand for governor, even though she doesn’t agree with every nuance of his stance on Medicaid. She suspects many other Iowans who use the program will do the same. “They’ve really been put through the wringer for 10 years, and they’re exhausted.”

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

American taxpayer dollars must support transparent, evidence-based programs that deliver measurable health outcomes.

HHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced a settlement with OSF Healthcare System and its Affiliated Covered Entities, concerning potential HIPAA violations.

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. met with dozens of healthcare leaders who have pledged to strengthen the nation’s behavioral health system.

Mark Vantrease regularly sees his Vietnam War buddies over breakfast, attends his grandchildren’s Little League games, and, when he’s up to it, tends to his lush front-yard garden, which is dotted with shells retrieved from his abalone-diving days.

Time is precious for him. Last year, doctors told the 76-year-old former truck driver that a combination of heart failure, lung disease, and liver damage had left him with only six months to live. “That was about 11 months ago,” Vantrease said in a May interview, smiling at having, for the moment, cheated death.

In June 2025, Vantrease began hospice, which focuses on quality of life for terminally ill patients, receiving regular visits from a nurse in his home in Novato, California. Medicare is covering those services for him. His hospice caregivers reminded him of the attention his unit received from medical staff in Vietnam.

“We used to call them guardian angels,” he said, “because they took such great care of you.”

But the Trump administration’s allegations of unchecked hospice fraud in California have tainted the industry’s reputation, prompting concerns that fewer patients will seek the care they need. Health policy researchers and hospice administrators worry that the negative attention on the industry and potential for overly punitive regulations could put California patients and taxpayers on the losing end.

“The fraud situation has done a lot of damage to the reputation of hospices overall and undone a lot of the progress that had been made in destigmatizing hospice,” said Lauren Hunt, an associate professor at the University of California-San Francisco’s Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies who focuses on hospice care. “Policymakers should pursue targeted strategies that root out fraud and abuse without overburdening the many providers who are doing the right thing.”

Hospice care is facing sweeping restrictions. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in May announced a six-month national moratorium on hospice provider enrollment in Medicare and increased oversight in California and several other states with “elevated fraud risk”: Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, and Texas.

In a statement, CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said state inaction on hospice programs rife with fraud drove the need for federal intervention. Foster said CMS believes the crackdown won’t affect patients’ ability to obtain services, with roughly 7,000 hospices still approved nationwide, and that it will help ensure the hospices that remain provide the care “individuals near end of life deserve.”

“Ensuring patient safety and access to quality hospices and other certified healthcare services is paramount to CMS’ work,” Foster said.

Mehmet Oz, the CMS administrator, has said the strict approach also protects taxpayer money. Studies have concluded that even as for-profit hospices have expanded, the industry has saved Medicare money by offsetting other expensive care. A 2023 University of Chicago report commissioned by industry associations estimated that Medicare patients who used hospice over hospitals in 2019 saved taxpayers over $3 billion.

California has already been cracking down on the problems, with Democratic Attorney General Rob Bonta deeming hospice fraud an “epidemic” last year and asserting that the state is “on it.” The state has had its own moratorium on hospice licenses since 2021, charged numerous providers with crimes over the years, and implemented emergency regulations to curb fraud this June.

Hunt said she’s heard from California healthcare providers who are reluctant to refer patients to hospice because they’re unsure the patients will receive high-quality care and from patients who don’t know which hospice providers they can trust. California has the most hospice organizations of any state — approximately 2,800 as of 2022, according to the California state auditor’s office. That same year, CMS reported 5,800 hospice agencies nationwide.

Hospice administrators in good standing have already found themselves in the crosshairs: A Washington Post investigation in June found that the federal government’s new anti-fraud task force has already suspended licenses for 43 legitimate hospices.

Still, Hunt and other policy researchers welcome the efforts to target unscrupulous operators.

“While most hospices are committed to providing high-quality care, there are serious concerns about a subset that exploit patients and the system for financial gain,” she said.

The hospice industry is uniquely vulnerable to fraud because of insufficient licensing regulations and inadequate oversight, according to industry researchers. And the percentage of the population aging into Medicare is rapidly rising, with spending expected to accelerate in the next 10 years.

Most of the rapid growth in operators has been among for-profit hospices, a state auditor’s report in 2022 noted. In California, about 94% of hospice providers are now for-profit, a shift from 20 years ago, when nonprofits dominated the industry in California and nationally. On average, for-profit operators make around $2,100 more per patient in pretax profit and $49 more per patient-day than nonprofit hospice operators, according to one study.

Skelly Wingard, CEO of By the Bay Health, a Northern California nonprofit that provides services to Vantrease, acknowledges that fraud is a big problem in the industry. “These organizations that have exploited patients were extremely savvy,” she said.

But Wingard warns against losing sight of the bigger picture.

“Hospice, when done well, is one of the most compassionate and meaningful benefits in healthcare,” she said. “We should be working to protect that, not inadvertently erode confidence in it.”

By the Bay Health has been in business for 50 years and serves around 750 hospice patients in the Bay Area. About 89% of them are covered by Medicare, 3% by California’s Medicaid program, Medi-Cal, and the rest by commercial health plans, Wingard said.

At home in Novato, Vantrease lifts his shirt to show where a catheter was surgically implanted to drain uncomfortable fluid buildup in his abdomen. The hospital trained his wife, Paula Vantrease, a retired career counselor, to connect a suctioning device to the catheter to siphon the excess fluid. A hospice nurse from By the Bay, Blake Knier, helped her master the technique the first few times she tried it at home.

“Paula is the rock in my foundation,” Mark Vantrease said.

Knier orders all of Vantrease’s medications and rejiggers them when necessary to manage his bouts of intense nausea and pain. Every week, Knier checks the surgical incision around the catheter for infection, listens to Vantrease’s lungs, checks his blood pressure, and cleans and dresses the open wounds that sometimes form from burst blisters on his legs, a complication of the fluid buildup and weakened skin.

Hospice nurse Blake Knier listens to Mark Vantrease’s lungs. (Laurie Udesky for KFF Health News)

Knier helps usher hospice patients and their families through critical turning points. He recalled guiding one patient’s daughter through her mother’s loss of appetite.

“It’s OK if your mother isn’t eating vegetables,” he told the patient’s daughter. “Let her eat ice cream, if that’s what she wants.”

California’s emergency regulations against fraud took effect in late June. In addition to tighter prescreening of license applicants, they call for minimum professional qualifications for management, higher nurse-to-patient ratios, stricter rules around physical office space, and other restrictions.

Hunt said the new regulations are a step in the right direction but urged caution.

“The broader impact on the industry should be closely monitored, particularly to ensure that well-intentioned, high-quality providers are not placed under undue strain or forced to close,” she said.

Late one night last year, when Knier wasn’t available, another hospice nurse from By the Bay Health came promptly to the Vantreases’ home in response to an urgent call from Paula.

“I felt like I was about to die,” Mark Vantrease said, explaining he’d just had a premonition that he wouldn’t wake up in the morning. His sons were called to his bedside. The family needed reassurance. So a nurse arrived, examined him, and checked their father’s vitals.

By midnight, he was sleeping.

Mark and Paula Vantrease in their home in Novato, California. (Laurie Udesky for KFF Health News) KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Around the end of last year, Ronmel Rangel, 63, began to feel a familiar discomfort in his lower abdomen. Twenty-five years earlier, while living in his native Venezuela, he had undergone surgery to repair a hernia on the right side of his groin.

Now, the same pain had returned — on the left.

This time, Rangel was in the U.S. and lacked health insurance. In 2019, he moved to Portland, Maine, where one of his daughters lives.

As a green-card holder, he qualified to purchase health insurance through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. But he quickly realized that the premiums for someone his age were beyond his budget. He decided to go without insurance, even though it had been a priority for him.

Instead, Rangel signed up for a plan at a concierge practice where patients pay as little as $70 a month for services, including unlimited office visits and minor procedures such as stitches and biopsies.

But when Rangel was diagnosed with a hernia, surgery became unavoidable. Ben Hagopian, his primary care physician, helped him compile a list of hospitals and surgical centers to consider. Rangel has a PhD in management, a field he pursued while serving in the navy in Venezuela. Armed with that knowledge and a naturally inquisitive mind, he began researching prices.

His efforts paid off when the bill came.

The Medical Service

Rangel had what is called an inguinal hernia, which occurs when the contents of the abdomen bulge through a weak spot in the lower abdominal wall. The condition is relatively common, particularly among older adults.

In most cases, surgery is required to fix the muscle wall and can be performed as an outpatient procedure. There are three main surgical approaches to repair an inguinal hernia: open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted. Studies have shown that the three approaches have similarly low rates of hernia recurrence and are safe and effective.

Rangel underwent an open repair, an approach often preferred by physicians for recurrent hernias. He said his operation lasted less than two hours, and he walked out of the surgical center shortly afterward.

The Bill

$2,900: The flat rate Rangel ultimately paid for his hernia repair at an outpatient surgery center in Maryland, including the surgeon’s fee and anesthesia. He said he also paid around $1,800 to travel to the surgery center from his home in Maine, including airfare, meals, and lodging for him and his wife.

The Billing Problem: No Insurance — But Time To Shop

Because Rangel did not have insurance, he had no protections from high costs — except time and his ability to shop for an acceptable price for his procedure.

Rangel’s first stop was a nonprofit hospital close to home. He scheduled a consultation with a surgeon with MaineHealth, the state’s largest health system, and received an estimate showing it would cost approximately $23,000 to repair his hernia laparoscopically.

Laparoscopic procedures generally cost more because surgeons use more advanced tools. Still, the average laparoscopic inguinal hernia repair costs nearly twice as much at a hospital as it does at an ambulatory surgery center for a patient covered by Medicare, which pays $5,280 for the hospital-based option.

“I wasn’t going to mortgage my life just to have surgery and spend the next 30 years paying off the debt,” said Rangel, now 64.

So, he kept shopping. He considered a surgical center in Oklahoma that was far cheaper, but he ultimately ruled it out because it was so far away. He also explored traveling to Universidad de los Andes in Santiago, Chile, where another of his daughters lives. There, his hernia repair would have cost about $7,000, but once he added thousands of dollars in travel expenses, that option no longer made financial sense.

Gerard Anderson, a professor who analyzes healthcare spending at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said patients without health insurance are often the ones hit hardest by wide price variations.

A closer look at any hospital bill helps explain why. “Every hospital is different,” he said, “but generally about half of the total charge is the facility fee,” a charge added to hospital care to help cover overhead costs.

Anderson said hospitals often mark up prices far more than smaller facilities do.

Medical billing researchers say the price gap between hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers partially reflects the higher overhead costs of operating a hospital.

Hagopian, Rangel’s physician, acknowledged that hospitals have higher administrative expenses. “But that doesn’t explain the high costs.”

MaineHealth declined to comment to KFF Health News, directing questions about the hospital-based procedure’s cost to Jeffrey Austin, president of the Maine Hospital Association.

Austin said that, unlike surgery centers, hospitals must absorb the costs of providing “money-losing” services, such as behavioral healthcare and care for Medicaid patients. He added that revenue generated by large hospitals in a health system supports other facilities, improving access to care.

Hospital prices, which can vary widely, are also driven by negotiations with insurers and market concentration. For uninsured patients, those list prices can become the starting point for negotiations — or the full amount owed.

Anderson noted that standardized payment rates exist for Medicare and Medicaid but not for most privately priced medical services. “In the private sector, providers can charge whatever they want.”

Rangel collected estimates from facilities near and far from his home in Portland, Maine, including some outside the United States. “I wasn’t going to mortgage my life just to have surgery and spend the next 30 years paying off the debt,” he says. (Brianna Soukup for KFF Health News)

The Resolution

Rangel has another daughter in Argentina, a son in Venezuela, and other family in Spain. But he decided to stop looking around the globe for a good price, because he finally found what he was looking for in Maryland.

In April, he traveled to the Affordable Hernia Surgery center in Rockville, where he said “an efficient, well-coordinated system” guided him through the entire process.

“I received professional and very human care,” Rangel said. He was fully recovered within two weeks, as his surgeon predicted, he said.

The surgery center charged Rangel a flat fee for his hernia repair. The added travel expenses for the two-day trip with his wife went toward airline tickets, transportation, meals, and one night in a hotel.

Rangel said he paid about $4,700 total.

Alan Kravitz, the surgeon who performed Rangel’s operation, said the price difference uninsured patients face compared with insured patients is far from fair. “In the predatory and strategic world of U.S. healthcare pricing, uninsured patients generally get charged more than providers would accept from Medicare or commercial insurance.”

Kravitz then pulled out an estimate another patient had received for an inguinal hernia repair from a different large health system. The price: $37,000.

The Takeaway

Without insurance, many patients are on their own to negotiate.

“With the help of their primary physicians, patients can dig into prices and compare their options to avoid falling into medical debt,” Rangel said.

That approach, however, is most feasible for elective procedures with several surgical options offering comparable outcomes.

Patients facing medical emergencies do not have the luxury of comparing prices before seeking care, though many hospitals offer cash-pay discounts or charity care for those paying without insurance.

Billing analysts say patients who do have time to shop should look beyond cost alone. They recommend checking the quality of hospitals and surgical centers by reviewing publicly available ratings and patient reviews. Research has found that higher prices do not necessarily translate into a better quality of care, but it’s also important to select a reputable care provider.

Comparison shopping for medical care can be time-consuming. But for patients facing elective procedures, the effort can pay off — sometimes saving thousands of dollars.

“This was a learning experience for me,” Rangel said, “and I hope it will be for other people, too.”

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KFF Health News and The Washington Post’s Well+Being that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

The United States remains committed to advancing scientific innovation that improves the health, safety, and well-being of the American people.

HHS applauds the release of the Trump Administration’s new United States Government Policy for Stopping High-Risk Life Sciences Research.

Benjamin Pinckney has dreamed of becoming a physician assistant since he was 20 years old but says new student loan limits enacted by Congress in 2025 may prevent him from pursuing his goal. (Erica S. Lee for KFF Health News)

The federal government is capping the amount graduate students can borrow. The Department of Education says the new rules are designed to help curb student debt and pressure schools to lower tuition. But some loan experts fear those good intentions could leave many at the mercy of private lenders with higher interest rates. Saddling healthcare graduate students with pricier debt burdens can narrow their career choices.

KFF Health News correspondent Lauren Sausser joined WAMU’s Health Hub on July 22 to explain how the loan caps could make healthcare provider shortages worse or compromise the diversity of the workforce. Plus, she discusses how some states are pushing back against the new rules.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

A tiny federal agency tasked with protecting the public from injuries caused by lawn mowers and coffeemakers is demanding that some of the nation’s biggest health systems turn over detailed, personally identifiable medical records of all patients who seek help at their emergency rooms.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, responsible for tracking and issuing recalls of dangerous products sold in the U.S., began discreetly pressuring hospital executives this year to share personally identifiable health data with a private contractor. But hospital lawyers and other industry experts have questioned the agency’s authority to collect, its ability to safeguard such a swath of sensitive information, and whether it has followed the legal process to overhaul its surveillance system.

After KFF Health News asked the CPSC about the new system, the agency announced the program on July 21. Left unmentioned, however, is the alarm it has raised among hospital executives, as well as the nature and extent of the agency’s data demands.

In a stark departure from its product-focused mission, the agency’s goal is to obtain millions of Americans’ medical records from emergency room visits for most injuries, from a broken bone to a childhood vaccine reaction or even a suicide attempt, according to documents and emails obtained by KFF Health News, as well as interviews with five people involved or familiar with the discussions.

A CPSC official also insisted in the emails that the institutions provide all ER patients’ identifiable information — such as names, addresses, diagnoses, and other personal details — to the contractor, Konza Health, for analysis. In correspondence with hospital executives, Konza representatives described participation as “mandatory” or “required.”

As a condition of viewing the correspondence, KFF Health News agreed not to republish some of the emails it obtained.

The CPSC wants at least 100 hospitals to start sending detailed medical records by the end of this year, according to an internal memo.

“The whole thing is troubling,” said Sharona Hoffman, a professor of health law at Case Western Reserve University who noted that giving a private entity access to a sweeping collection of data will introduce risks to patient privacy. “If this company really is collecting identifiable information, that is worrisome for patients.”

The new project was launched amid upheaval at the traditionally independent agency, which is without a governing board since President Donald Trump fired the CPSC’s three Democratic board members. Nearly 1 in 5 career staffers left the CPSC in the first 16 months of the new administration, according to a KFF Health News analysis of federal workforce data.

The initiative also comes as the Trump administration has sought unprecedented access to millions of Americans’ medical records, with the Office of Personnel Management requesting federal workers’ sensitive health information and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. using a private organization to collect more medical records for his studies on vaccines and autism.

Steve Roney, CPSC spokesperson, said in an emailed statement on July 10 that the CPSC is “modernizing” its surveillance system. Asked whether the CPSC will file complaints against hospitals that do not participate, he said only that while the previous system “operated as a voluntary program, the ability of hospitals to opt out limited the sample size and usefulness of the data.”

Roney also acknowledged that the agency had not yet notified the public, as “required by law.”

Federal law requires the agency to provide notice and a public comment period before requesting information from 10 or more entities, a step it has not taken despite plans for 100 hospitals to join the surveillance system. KFF Health News independently confirmed with over a dozen hospitals that they had been approached.

Federal public health authorities cannot legally mandate that private health data be reported. But CPSC officials have suggested publicly and privately that if hospitals decline to share data with the new surveillance system, they could be subject to strict penalties from a data-sharing regulation known as “information blocking.”

Yet some hospital executives say they are reluctant to share patients’ sensitive data because they’re concerned about a different violation — that of federal privacy law.

AI Takes Over

Dozens of ERs across the country already participate in the CPSC’s voluntary National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, or NEISS, through which trained hospital workers report injuries involving consumer products, almost always stripped of patients’ identifiable information. The system helps the CPSC identify products, such as baby loungers, toys, and household appliances, with a pattern of injuring consumers.

The new injury surveillance program goes much further.

At a toy industry trade event in February, acting CPSC Chairman Peter Feldman said the agency is “investing in AI-enabled workflows that improve the quality and quantity of injury surveillance data, while also building up digital infrastructure to handle a massive new volume of electronic health records.”

Konza Health, a Kansas-based organization that runs the state’s health data exchange, will automatically pull and analyze medical records of all patient visits from ERs nationwide. Konza won a five-year contract worth up to $15.9 million with the CPSC last fall.

In email correspondence with hospital technology officials, Konza Health President and CEO Laura McCrary also has described ERs’ participation as “required,” stipulating that they share patients’ records with identifying information.

McCrary told KFF Health News by email that the company is not using AI to process the records it receives, saying instead that Konza will use “advanced analytic parsing and filtering capabilities.” Roney, the CPSC spokesperson, did not answer questions about the use of AI.

For years, agency officials have discussed moving away from human contractors and automating NEISS to save time and money.

But without workers on-site, hospital staffers may no longer receive training to determine what clinical information is important to include for the CPSC. In short, the changes could dilute the quality of the product safety data the agency collects.

“They want to suck in as much data as possible, but I’m not sure how thoughtful they’re being about what is collected and what is actually needed by the agency,” said former CPSC chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric, one of the Democratic appointees Trump fired last year.

Wanted: Injuries From Vaccines and Stingrays

The CPSC’s new data collection appears to contradict its own 214-page operating manual, which instructs hospitals not to include identifiable information “such as names, birthdates, or addresses” when reporting cases.

The agency is supposed to receive patients’ identifying information only when needed for follow-up investigations, which happens in fewer than 1% of reported cases, according to the manual.

The CPSC has also historically limited the records it collects to minimize privacy violations in case of a data breach.

The risk is not hypothetical: From 2017 to 2019, the agency improperly released personal health information of around 30,000 people, a disclosure that a top Republican at the time called “concerning.”

Konza, however, will receive even more sensitive information on many more people. McCrary said in a statement that Konza will remove patients’ names, addresses, and medical information “not needed by CPSC” before sharing records with the agency.

Leaving a private organization to collect sensitive information introduces risks, including that it could be stolen or used for business purposes, said Hoffman, the Case Western professor.

“Very often, they will use information for marketing because now they’re going to know what conditions people have,” she said.

Roney said that its contract with Konza, which has not been made public, prohibits the organization from selling or marketing the data it collects.

The CPSC’s manual also identifies types of ER visits that should not be reported to the CPSC, which has jurisdiction over only certain consumer products. Excluded injuries are those caused by food, illegal drugs, medical devices, alcohol, or plants, as well as injuries that did not involve consumer products — such as a cut from a rock or broken bones from a fall on the ground — and suicide attempts by adults.

But in a contract offered to one hospital and reviewed by KFF Health News, Konza set no such limits on the information it would gather from ER records and said it would hold on to patient health information for at least 30 days.

In an email sent to hospital technology officials, McCrary wrote that Konza would provide the CPSC with records when a patient is treated in the ER for any of more than 10,000 conditions. The expansive list of diagnostic codes Konza provided in the email includes injuries that do not involve consumer products.

Child injuries resulting from “poisoning by” vaccines or contact with stingrays, neither of which is regulated by the CPSC, are included in the list.

A limited number of hospitals once shared deidentified data on all injuries — regardless of product involvement — through the NEISS using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s injury-tracking program. But the CDC halted that data collection, after funding and staffing were cut last year, and has not restarted it.

Pressure on Hospitals

CPSC Chief Data Officer Elizabeth Puchek, who joined the agency late last year after engineering U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ data system, has told hospitals in emails that they must seek an exemption from the program if they decline to share patients’ emergency room records with Konza.

The CPSC’s targeted outreach has included some of the nation’s largest urban and rural health systems, as well as small, publicly owned hospitals.

Staff members at Mary Greeley Medical Center in Ames, Iowa, said that Konza and federal officials told them their participation in the new program was mandatory. The hospital, which has long participated in NEISS, signed a new contract in April to share its ER records with Konza.

Yet the hospital is reevaluating its participation after being notified that the funds it received to participate in NEISS were “no longer available,” spokesperson Steve Sullivan said.

Several hospital executives, lawyers, and others have raised doubts about the CPSC’s claimed authority.

Harborview Medical Center spokesperson Susan Gregg said the Seattle hospital’s emergency room has “voluntarily submitted de-identified data for many years, but we are not obligated to report this information.”

In Boston, Mass General Brigham has declined to participate in the new program, with spokesperson Kelly Mitchell saying that “to protect patient privacy, we are unable to provide these medical records.”

Henry Ford Health in Detroit; St. Luke’s in Boise, Idaho; and Sanford Health based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota — which together handle over a million ER visits a year — are among the health systems that have been approached but not yet entered into an agreement with Konza, according to representatives. Several of the nation’s busiest hospital systems targeted for the program — including the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Yale New Haven Hospital in Connecticut, Nationwide Children’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and Baylor Scott & White Health in Texas — declined to answer questions about whether they’re participating.

Hoehn-Saric, the agency’s former chairman, said he was surprised that the CPSC would insist that hospitals provide identifiable records from all emergency room visits.

“This idea that they can simply demand patient information from a hospital and that the hospital would provide it — I really don’t understand the basis for that,” he said.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.