FDA’s Promised Rules on Pulse Oximeters Unlikely To End Decades of Racial Bias

OAKLAND, Calif. — The patient was in his 60s, an African American man with emphysema. The oximeter placed on his fingertip registered well above the 88% blood oxygen saturation level that signals an urgent risk of organ failure and death.

Yet his doctor, Noha Aboelata, believed the patient was sicker than the device showed. So she sent him for a lab test, which confirmed her suspicion that he needed supplemental oxygen at home.

Months later, in December 2020, Aboelata thought back to her patient as she read a New England Journal of Medicine article showing that pulse oximeters were three times as likely to miss dangerously low blood oxygen levels in Black patients as in white ones. At a time when Black Americans were dying of covid at high rates and hospitals struggled to find beds and oxygen for those needing them, the finding exposed one of the most blatant examples of institutional racism in American health care.

“I was like, ‘Were there other patients I missed?” said Aboelata, a family physician and the CEO of Oakland-based Roots Community Health. As she shared the article with colleagues, “there was so much anger and frustration because we had every reason to believe we could rely on this device, and it was systematically not working in the population that we served.”

State attorneys general and U.S. senators have pressed the FDA to take steps to eliminate pulse oximetry’s racial bias, which has caused delays in treatment and worse health outcomes, and more recently has raised concern about the reliability of hospital AI tools that draw on reams of data from the devices.

Aboelata’s clinic has sued producers and stores that sell oximeters, demanding they pull the devices or add safety warnings to the labels. Many of her patients rely on home oxygen, which requires accurate readings for Medicare to cover.

But getting rid of the devices, central to care for heart and lung diseases, sleep apnea, and other conditions, isn’t an option.

Since the 1990s, the convenient fingertip clamps have come to stand in for many uses of arterial blood gas readings, which are the gold standard for determining oxygen levels but dangerous if not done carefully. Makers of oximeters will sell around $3 billion of them this year because they are used in nearly every hospital, clinic, and long-term care facility. During the pandemic, hundreds of thousands of Americans bought them for home use.

One of them was Walter Wilson, a 70-year-old businessman in San Jose, who has had two kidney transplants since 2000. Wilson contracted covid last December but delayed visiting a doctor because his home pulse oximetry readings were in the normal range.

“I’m a dark-complected Black guy. I was very sick. Had the oximeter picked that up I would have gotten to the hospital sooner,” he said.

Wilson ended up back on dialysis after several years of good health. Now he’s looking to join a class action lawsuit against the device manufacturers.

“They’ve known for years that people with darker skin get bad readings,” he said, “but they tested them on healthy white people.”

After years of little action on the issue, the FDA in 2021 sent a safety warning to doctors about oximeters. It has also funded research to improve the devices and promised to issue new guidelines for how to make them.

But as the FDA polishes draft guidelines it had hoped to publish by Oct. 1, clinicians and scientists are unsure what to expect. The agency has indicated it will recommend that manufacturers test new oximeters on more people, including a large percentage with dark-pigmented skin.

Because of industry pushback, however, the guidance isn’t expected to ask device makers to test oximeters under real-world conditions, said Michael Lipnick, a University of California-San Francisco anesthesiologist and researcher.

Hospitalized people are often dehydrated, with restricted blood flow to their extremities. This condition, known as low perfusion — essentially, poor circulation — is particularly common with cardiovascular disease, which is more prevalent in Black patients.

Pigmentation and poor perfusion “work together to degrade pulse oximetry performance,” said Philip Bickler, who directs the Hypoxia Research Lab at UCSF. “During covid, Black patients showed up sicker because of all the barriers those patients face in accessing health care. They’re showing up on death’s door, and their perfusion is lower.”

The FDA guidance isn’t expected to require manufacturers to measure how well their devices perform in patients with poor perfusion. All this means that the FDA’s efforts could lead to devices that work in healthy dark-skinned adults but do “not fix the problem,” said Hugh Cassiere, who chairs a panel for the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee, at its February meeting.

A woman in a suit stands in an office, several people seated at tables behind her
Noha Aboelata, a family physician and the CEO of Oakland-based Roots Community Health, said “there was so much anger” among her colleagues when they realized that the pulse oximeters they had relied on were “systematically not working” on Black patients.(Arthur Allen/KFF Health News)

A History of Inaction

Although some recent industry-sponsored studies have shown that certain devices work across skin tones, research dating to the 1980s has found discrepancies in pulse oximetry. In 2005, Bickler and other scientists at the Hypoxia Lab published evidence that three leading devices consistently failed to detect hypoxemia in darkly pigmented patients — especially those who were severely oxygen-depleted. Noting that these readings could be crucial to directing treatment, the authors called for oximeters to carry warnings.

The FDA’s response was modest. Its regulatory pathway for pulse oximeters clears them for sale as long as they show “substantial equivalence” to devices already on the market. In a 2007 draft guidance document, the FDA suggested that tests of new oximeters could “include a sufficient number of subjects with dark skin pigmentation, e.g., 30%.” However, the final guidance, issued in 2013, recommended “at least 2 darkly pigmented subjects or 15% of your subject pool, whichever is larger.” The studies were required to have only 10 subjects. And the agency did not define “dark-pigmented.”

Testing the devices involves fitting patients with masks that control the gases they breathe, while simultaneously taking pulse oximetry readings and samples of arterial blood that are fed into a highly accurate measuring device, invented by the Hypoxia Lab’s late founder, John Severinghaus.

Bickler, who evinces the bemused skepticism of a seasoned car mechanic when discussing the scores of devices his lab has tested, said “you can’t always trust what the manufacturers say.”

Their data, he said, ranges from “completely inaccurate” to “obtained under absolutely ideal conditions, nothing like a real-world performance.”

During the pandemic, a medical charity approached the lab about donating thousands of oximeters to poor countries. The oximeters it had chosen “weren’t very good,” he said. After that, the lab set up its own ratings page, a kind of Consumer Reports for pulse oximeters.

According to its tests, some expensive devices don’t work; a few of the $35 gadgets are more effective than competitors costing $350. Over a third of the marketed devices the lab has tested don’t meet current FDA standards, according to the site.

To investigate whether real-world tests of oximeters are feasible, the FDA funded a UCSF study that has recruited about 200 intensive care unit patients. The data from the study is being prepared to undergo peer review for publication, Bickler said.

He said the lab did not warm the hands of patients in the study, which is the customary practice of manufacturers when they test their devices. Warming assures better circulation in the finger the device is attached to.

“It affects the signal-to-noise ratio,” Bickler said. “Remember when car radios had AM stations, and you’d get a lot of static? That’s what poor perfusion does — it causes noise, or static that can obscure a clear signal from the device.”

Hypoxia Lab scientists — and doctors in the real world — don’t warm patients’ hands. But “the industry people can’t agree on how to handle it,” he said.

Masimo, a company that says it has the most accurate pulse oximeters on the market, would happily comply with any FDA guidance, Daniel Cantillon, Masimo’s chief medical officer, said in an interview.

How Much To Fix the Problem?

The very best devices, according to the Hypoxia Lab, cost $6,000 or more. That points to another problem.

With better accuracy, “you are going to reduce patient access to devices for a large proportion of the world that simply can’t afford them,” Lipnick said.

Even if the FDA can’t please everyone, its anticipated call for more people with darker skin in oximetry tests will “assure there’s real diversity in the development and testing of those devices before they come to market,” Lipnick said. “That bar has been too low for decades.”

It is difficult to assess harm to individuals from faulty oximeter readings, because these errors are often one factor in a chain of events. But studies at Johns Hopkins University and elsewhere indicated that patients whose oxygen depletion wasn’t noticed — possibly thousands of them — had delayed treatment and worse outcomes.

Already, Aboelata said, a few manufacturers — Zewa Medical Technology, Veridian Healthcare, and Gurin Products — have responded to the Roots Community Health lawsuit by including warnings about their devices’ limitations.

There’s not much she and other clinicians can do in daily practice, she said, other than establish a baseline reading with each new patient and be on the lookout for notable drops. Hospitals have other tools to check oxygen levels, but correct readings are critical for outpatient care, she said. In 2022, Connecticut enacted a law banning insurers from denying home oxygen or other services based solely on pulse oximetry readings.

But “adapting around the crappy device isn’t the solution,” said Theodore Iwashyna, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health professor who co-authored the New England Journal of Medicine article. “A less crappy device is the solution.”

Por qué se habla de discriminación racial al tomar el nivel de oxígeno

OAKLAND, California – El paciente tendría poco más de 60 años y era un hombre afroamericano con enfisema. El oxímetro colocado en la yema de su dedo registraba un nivel de saturación de oxígeno en sangre muy superior al 88%, el índice que indica un riesgo urgente de falla orgánica y muerte.

Sin embargo  su médica, Noha Aboelata, creyó que estaba más enfermo que lo que indicaba el aparato. Así que lo envió a hacerse unos análisis de laboratorio que confirmaron su sospecha: el hombre necesitaba oxígeno suplementario en casa.

Meses después, en diciembre de 2020, Aboelata volvió a pensar en su paciente mientras leía el New England Journal of Medicine. El artículo señalaba que los oxímetros de pulso tenían tres veces más probabilidades de no detectar niveles peligrosamente bajos de oxígeno en sangre en pacientes negros que en pacientes blancos.

En un momento en el que los estadounidenses de raza negra morían de covid a un ritmo elevado y los hospitales luchaban por encontrar camas y oxígeno para quienes los necesitaban, el hallazgo puso al descubierto uno de los ejemplos más flagrantes de racismo institucional en la atención médica estadounidense.

“Me pregunté si otros pacientes se me habrían pasado por alto”, reflexionó Aboelata, médica de familia y directora ejecutiva de Roots Community Health, con sede en Oakland.

Los colegas con quienes compartió el artículo tuvieron percepciones similares. “Sentimos mucha rabia y frustración porque teníamos todos los motivos para creer que podíamos confiar en este dispositivo pero nos dimos cuenta de que el oxímetro fallaba sistemáticamente en la población a la que atendíamos”, explicó.

Fiscales estatales y senadores de EE.UU. han presionado a la Administración de Drogas y Alimentos (FDA) para que tome medidas que ayuden a eliminar la desviación racial en los oxímetros de pulso.

Los funcionarios entienden que esto ha causado retrasos en los tratamientos y resultados desfavorables en la atención de salud. Más recientemente, esta falla del funcionamiento de los oxímetros de pulso también ha generado preocupación sobre la fiabilidad de las herramientas de Inteligencia Artificial en los hospitales, que dependen mucho de los datos que se obtienen de estos dispositivos.

La clínica de Aboelata ha demandado a los fabricantes y a los comercios que venden oxímetros, planteando la exigencia de que retiren estos dispositivos o por lo menos les agreguen advertencias de seguridad en las etiquetas. Muchos de sus pacientes dependen de la provisión de oxígeno domiciliario y para que el Medicare lo cubra es necesario brindar información precisa.

Sin embargo, eliminarlos no es una opción porque son fundamentales para el tratamiento de enfermedades cardíacas y pulmonares, la apnea del sueño y otras afecciones.

Desde la década de 1990, las cómodas pinzas en la yema de los dedos han sustituido en muchos usos a las lecturas de gases en sangre arterial, que son una referencia definitiva para determinar los niveles de oxígeno en sangre pero también son peligrosas si no se efectúan con cuidado.

Este año, los fabricantes de oxímetros de pulso venderán alrededor de $ 3.000 millones de estos pequeños aparatitos que se utilizan en casi todos los hospitales, clínicas y residencias para adultos mayores. Durante la pandemia, cientos de miles de estadounidenses los compraron para usarlos en su propio hogar.

Uno de ellos fue Walter Wilson, un empresario de 70 años que vive en San José, California. Wilson, que ha atravesado dos trasplantes de riñón desde el año 2000, contrajo covid en diciembre de 2023 pero retrasó la visita al médico porque los indicadores que veía en el oxímetro de pulso que utilizaba en su casa estaban en el rango normal.

“Soy un hombre negro, de piel oscura. Estaba muy enfermo. Si el oxímetro lo hubiera detectado, hubiera ido mucho antes al hospital”, explicó.

Wilson acabó de nuevo en diálisis tras varios años de estar con buena salud. Ahora quiere unirse a una demanda colectiva contra los fabricantes del dispositivo.

“Desde hace años saben que las personas con piel más oscura obtienen lecturas incorrectas”, dijo, “pero solo los probaron en personas blancas saludables”.

Después de dejar pasar el tiempo sin hacer mucho sobre este problema, en 2021 la FDA envió a los médicos un alerta de seguridad sobre los oxímetros de pulso. Por otra parte, financió investigaciones para mejorar los dispositivos y ha prometido publicar nuevas directrices sobre cómo fabricarlos.

Pero mientras la FDA trabajaba en un borrador de directrices, los médicos y los científicos no saben a qué atenerse. La agencia ha informado que recomendará a los fabricantes que prueben los nuevos oxímetros en más personas, y que incluyan un gran porcentaje de individuos con piel de pigmentación oscura.

Sin embargo, a causa de la resistencia que presentó la industria, los fabricantes de dispositivos no tendrán que probar los oxímetros en condiciones reales, según Michael Lipnick, anestesiólogo e investigador de la Universidad de California-San Francisco (UCSF).

Las personas hospitalizadas suelen estar deshidratadas y mostrar un flujo sanguíneo restringido en las extremidades. Esta situación, conocida como “baja perfusión” —es decir, mala circulación—, es especialmente habitual en las enfermedades cardiovasculares, que a la vez son más frecuentes entre los pacientes de raza negra.

La pigmentación y la mala perfusión “actúan conjuntamente para degradar el rendimiento de la pulsioximetría”, explicó Philip Bickler, director del Laboratorio de Investigación sobre la Hipoxia de la UCSF. “Durante la pandemia de covid, los pacientes negros llegaban al hospital en peores condiciones debido a todas las barreras a las que se enfrentan para acceder a la atención médica. Los recibíamos en un estado crítico y su perfusión era mucho menor”, añadió.

“No es probable que las directrices de la FDA obliguen a los fabricantes a medir el rendimiento de sus dispositivos en pacientes con mala perfusión. Por lo tanto, estos esfuerzos de la FDA podrían generar las condiciones para que los dispositivos funcionen correctamente en adultos sanos de piel oscura pero no creemos que logren solucionar el problema”, opinó Hugh Cassiere, que preside un panel del Comité Asesor de Dispositivos Médicos de la FDA, en una reunión del organismo en febrero.

A woman in a suit stands in an office, several people seated at tables behind her
Noha Aboelata, médica de familia y directora ejecutiva de Roots Community Health, con sede en Oakland, dijo que “había mucho enojo” entre sus colegas cuando se dieron cuenta de que los oxímetros de pulso en los que habían confiado “no funcionaban sistemáticamente” en pacientes negros. (Arthur Allen/KFF Health News)

Un historial de inacción

Aunque algunos estudios recientes que patrocinó la industria han demostrado que ciertos dispositivos funcionan correctamente en los distintos tonos de piel, investigaciones que se remontan a la década de 1980 han detectado discrepancias en la oximetría de pulso.

En 2005, Bickler y otros científicos del Laboratorio de Hipoxia publicaron pruebas de que tres de los principales dispositivos no detectaban de forma sistemática la hipoxemia (bajo nivel de oxígeno en sangre) en pacientes con pigmentación oscura, sobre todo en los que presentaban una grave falta de oxígeno. Tras señalar que estas lecturas podían ser cruciales para orientar el tratamiento, los autores pidieron que los oxímetros llevaran un alerta que advirtiera sobre esta dificultad.

La respuesta de la FDA fue poco significativa. La normativa que regula los oxímetros de pulso autoriza su venta siempre que demuestren una “equivalencia sustancial” con los dispositivos ya comercializados.

En un borrador de un documento orientativo de 2007, la FDA sugería que las pruebas de los nuevos oxímetros podían “incluir un número suficiente de sujetos con pigmentación oscura de la piel, por ejemplo, el 30%”. Sin embargo, la guía final, publicada en 2013, recomendó “al menos 2 sujetos con pigmentación oscura o el 15% de su grupo de personas, lo que sea mayor”. Los estudios debían tener solo 10 individuos. Y la agencia no definió “pigmentación oscura”.

Las pruebas de los dispositivos consisten en colocar a los pacientes máscaras que controlan los gases que respiran, al tiempo que se toman lecturas de oximetría de pulso y muestras de sangre arterial que se introducen en un dispositivo de medición de gran precisión, inventado por el difunto fundador del Laboratorio de Hipoxia, John Severinghaus.

Bickler, que cuando habla de las decenas de dispositivos que ha probado su laboratorio exhibe el irónico escepticismo de un avezado mecánico de automóviles, dijo que “no siempre se puede confiar en lo que dicen los fabricantes”.

Sus datos, aseguró, oscilan entre “completamente inexactos” y “obtenidos en condiciones absolutamente ideales, nada que ver con lo que sucede en el mundo real”.

Durante la pandemia, una organización médica benéfica se puso en contacto con el laboratorio para donar miles de oxímetros a países pobres. Los oxímetros que había elegido “no eran muy buenos”, explicaron. Después de eso, el laboratorio creó su propia página de calificaciones, una especie de Consumer Reports para oxímetros de pulso.

Según sus pruebas, algunos dispositivos costosos no funcionan con precisión; unos pocos aparatos de $35 son más eficaces que otros que cuestan $350. Según el sitio, más de un tercio de los dispositivos comercializados que ha probado el laboratorio no cumplen las normas actuales de la FDA.

Para investigar si las pruebas de los oxímetros en condiciones reales son viables, la FDA financió un estudio de la UCSF que ha reclutado a unos 200 pacientes en terapias intensivas. Los datos del estudio se están preparando para ser sometidos a una revisión de pares, con vistas a su publicación, según Bickler.

Bickler explicó que el laboratorio no calentó las manos de los pacientes antes de hacerles el estudio, una práctica habitual entre los fabricantes cuando prueban sus dispositivos. Dar calor a las manos asegura una mejor circulación en el dedo en donde se coloca el oxímetro.

“Afecta la relación señal/ruido”, afirma Bickler. “¿Recuerdas cuando las radios de los coches tenían emisoras AM y se oía mucha estática? Eso es lo que hace una perfusión deficiente: provoca ruido o estática que puede ocultar una señal clara del dispositivo”.

Los científicos del Laboratorio de Hipoxia —y los médicos que atienden en el mundo real— no calientan las manos de los pacientes. Pero “la gente de la industria no se pone de acuerdo sobre cómo manejarlo”, dijo.

Masimo, una empresa que dice tener los oxímetros de pulso más precisos del mercado cumpliría gustosamente cualquier directriz de la FDA, afirmó en una entrevista Daniel Cantillon, director médico de la compañía.

¿Cuánto cuesta solucionar el problema?

Los mejores dispositivos, según el Laboratorio de Hipoxia, cuestan $6.000 o más. Esto agrega otro problema.

Con oxímetros más precisos, “se va a reducir el acceso de los pacientes a los dispositivos porque una gran proporción de las personas simplemente no puede permitírselos”, dijo Lipnick.

Aunque la FDA no pueda complacer a todos, el requisito de incluir a más personas de piel oscura en las pruebas de oximetría “garantizará que haya una verdadera diversidad en el desarrollo y en las pruebas de esos dispositivos antes de que lleguen al mercado”, afirmó Lipnick. “Ese estándar ha sido demasiado bajo durante décadas”, agregó.

Es difícil evaluar el daño que puede causar en las personas las lecturas erróneas de los oxímetros, porque estos errores suelen ser un factor más en una cadena de incidentes. Pero estudios realizados en la Universidad Johns Hopkins y en otros centros indican que los pacientes a los que no se les detectó falta de oxígeno —posiblemente miles de personas— sufrieron demoras en el tratamiento y obtuvieron resultados más desfavorables.

Según Aboelata, algunos fabricantes, Zewa Medical Technology, Veridian Healthcare y Gurin Products, ya han respondido a la demanda de Roots Community Health incluyendo advertencias sobre las limitaciones de sus dispositivos.

No hay mucho que ella y otros médicos puedan hacer en la práctica diaria, dijo, aparte de establecer una lectura de referencia con cada nuevo paciente y estar atentos a consecuencias significativas.

Los hospitales tienen otras herramientas para medir los niveles de oxígeno, pero las lecturas correctas de los oxímetros son fundamentales para la atención ambulatoria, añadió.

En 2022, Connecticut promulgó una ley que prohíbe a las aseguradoras denegar la provisión de oxígeno a domicilio y otros servicios que se basan en las lecturas de la oximetría de pulso.

Pero “adaptarse a un dispositivo de mala calidad no es la solución”, aseguró Theodore Iwashyna, profesor de la Escuela de Salud Pública Bloomberg de Johns Hopkins y coautor del artículo del New England Journal of Medicine. “La solución es trabajar con un dispositivo menos inexacto”.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’: The Health of the Campaign

The Host

When it comes to health care, this year’s presidential campaign is increasingly a matter of which candidate voters choose to believe. Democrats, led by Vice President Kamala Harris, say Republicans want to further restrict reproductive rights and repeal the Affordable Care Act, pointing to their previous actions and claims. Meanwhile, Republicans, led by former President Donald Trump, insist they have no such plans.

Meanwhile, with open enrollment approaching for Medicare, the Biden administration dodges a political bullet, avoiding a sharp spike next year in Medicare prescription drug plan premiums.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • This week, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio muddled his ticket’s stances on health policy during the vice presidential debate, including by downplaying the possibility of a national abortion ban. And Melania Trump, the former president’s wife, spoke out in support of abortion rights. Their comments seem designed to soothe voter concerns that former President Donald Trump could take actions to further block abortion access.
  • Vance raised eyebrows with his debate-night claim that Trump “salvaged” the Affordable Care Act — when, in fact, the former president vowed to repeal the law and championed the GOP’s efforts to deliver on that promise. Meanwhile, Trump deflected questions from AARP about his plans for Medicare, replying, “What we have to do is make our country successful again.”
  • On the Democratic side, Vice President Kamala Harris is campaigning on health, in particular by pushing out new ads highlighting the benefits of the ACA and Trump’s efforts to restrict abortion. Polls show health is a winning issue for Democrats and that the ACA is popular, especially its protections for those with preexisting conditions.
  • Also in the news, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported a slight dip in average Medicare drug plan premiums for next year. Coming in an annual report — out shortly before Election Day — it looks as though government subsidies cushioned changes to the system, sparing seniors from potentially paying in premiums what they may save under the new $2,000 annual out-of-pocket drug cost cap, for instance.
  • And in abortion news, a judge struck down Georgia’s six-week abortion ban — but many providers have already left the state. And a new California law protects coverage for in vitro fertilization, including for LGBTQ+ couples.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-Washington Post “Bill of the Month,” about a teen athlete whose needed surgery lacked a billing code. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Doctors Urging Conference Boycotts Over Abortion Bans Face Uphill Battle,” by Ronnie Cohen.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “A Free Drug Experiment Bypasses the US Health System’s Secret Fees,” by John Tozzi.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “Hospitals Hit With IV Fluid Shortage After Hurricane Helene,” by Joseph Walker and Peter Loftus.

Sandhya Raman: The Asheville Citizen Times’ “Without Water After Helene, Residents at Asheville Public Housing Complex Fear for Their Health,” by Jacob Biba.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:


To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on SpotifyApple PodcastsPocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

On the Campaign Trail, Democrats Call Out Opponents on Abortion

As Nov. 5 approaches and the struggle for control of the U.S. House reaches a fever pitch, Democrats are doing everything they can to tie their Republican opponents to their antiabortion voting records. Some Republican candidates, meanwhile, seem to be softening their positions. And political analysts say it’s part of a larger trend playing out nationwide, up and down the ballot.

“The politics of abortion and reproductive health can get voters to participate at higher rates,” said David McCuan, a political science professor at Sonoma State University. “Republicans have to moderate their stance if they’re going to be in the battle.”

After all, polls show most voters support restoring abortion rights overturned in 2022 by the Supreme Court. Aggressive ads are going up in competitive districts where Democrats see an opportunity to take control of the House by engaging voters who might not vote straight-ticket — or at all.

In New York, Democrat Josh Riley blasted Republican incumbent Marcus J. Molinaro in a 30-second ad for voting against abortion rights 13 times. Next door in New Jersey, Democratic hopeful Sue Altman called out Republican opponent Tom Kean Jr. for a “secret antiabortion agenda.” And in California, Democrat Will Rollins denounced Republican rival “Ken Calvert and MAGA extremists” for backing a national abortion ban.

Meanwhile, in March, shortly after her primary, Rep. Michelle Steel (R-Calif.) removed her support for a blanket abortion ban — the Life at Conception Act — saying it could create confusion because the bill could threaten in vitro fertilization. Following news reports about her reversal, the Orange County-area Republican released an ad in which she shared that she had used IVF and reiterated her support for the procedure.

On the campaign trail, Steel has said she supports exceptions to abortion bans in cases of rape, incest, and in which the mother’s health or life is at risk, a departure from bills she previously supported.

“What we all need to do is to make sure we look at her record, and that record is contrary to what she’s putting out there in her ads,” Steel’s Democratic challenger, Derek Tran, told me.

The Steel and Calvert campaigns told KFF Health News that their candidates oppose a national abortion ban. Calvert, who last backed a 20-week abortion ban in 2017, issued a statement saying the issue is best left to states.

Tim Rosales, a political strategist who has represented Republican candidates, said incumbents shouldn’t get heat for changing their minds over time.

Meanwhile, Rolling Stone reported in March that Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) had deleted antiabortion endorsements from his website. Arizona Republican incumbent Rep. David Schweikert said he opposed a state abortion ban, even though he had co-sponsored a national ban six times.

And vice-presidential candidate JD Vance removed his antiabortion stance from his website the month former president Donald Trump selected him as his running mate.


This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact [email protected].


Catholic Hospital Offered Bucket, Towels to Woman It Denied an Abortion, California AG Said

When Anna Nusslock showed up at her local hospital 15 weeks pregnant and in severe pain earlier this year, she said, a doctor delivered devastating news: The twins she and her husband had so desperately wanted were not viable. Further, her own health was in danger, and she needed an emergency abortion to prevent hemorrhaging and infection.

Providence St. Joseph Hospital, in the small Northern California coastal city of Eureka, refused to provide the care she required because doctors could detect fetal “heart tones,” Nusslock said at a news conference Monday. California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against the Catholic hospital detailing Nusslock’s dangerous experience and alleging the hospital violated multiple state laws when it discharged Nusslock — with an offer of a bucket and towels — to go elsewhere for what he described as standard medical care.

Bonta also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction in Humboldt County Superior Court, asking that it require Providence to treat anyone with an emergency medical condition. “The need for immediate relief is about to intensify,” the motion said. That’s because Mad River Community Hospital, where Nusslock ultimately got care 12 miles up the road, is slated to close its birth center this month.

Providence will be the only hospital within about 85 miles to offer labor and delivery, according to a California Healthline analysis. When care is more than an hour away, academic researchers typically define the area as a hospital desert.

“It begs the question, what happens next time someone in Anna’s situation shows up at Providence? There will be no Mad River for them to go to,” Bonta said at a news conference. “With a dire lack of services, even here in California, and an influx of patients from states with abortion bans, we need hospitals to follow the law.”

The case illustrates how even in California, where the right to an abortion is enshrined in state law, there’s a glaring loophole. Catholic hospitals, which restrict reproductive health care because they follow the church’s “Ethical and Religious Directives,” are aggressively expanding nationally by acquiring secular hospitals. In swaths of the country, including parts of Northern California, they are the only choice. At the same time, maternity wards are closing rapidly, leaving more patients to contend with religious directives instead of accepted medical standards.

California’s lawsuit also comes amid uncertainty that emerged after the Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the constitutional right to an abortion: whether federal law requires hospitals to provide abortions as emergency medical care even in states that have banned the procedure. The high court punted on the question this summer. The Biden administration reaffirmed its policy that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals to stabilize or treat any patient who shows up at an emergency room. Texas is suing the administration over the policy.

The issue is also playing out in the presidential election. During the Oct. 1 vice presidential debate, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz noted a Georgia woman who died because a hospital delayed care. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) answered, in part, by asking Walz if he wanted to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions against their religious beliefs, saying that “Kamala Harris has supported suing Catholic nuns.”

With federal protections in limbo, Bonta said California must rely on its state laws to protect patients. Specifically, Bonta, who is widely expected to run for governor, alleges that Providence violated a California law mandating that hospitals provide care “necessary to relieve or eliminate the emergency medical condition.”

Nusslock’s case isn’t an isolated incident, the lawsuit said. “One to two women per year receive abortion care at Mad River, after being refused care at Providence Hospital,” the lawsuit said. “These individuals, like Anna Nusslock, had all been discharged from Providence Hospital with instructions to go somewhere else.” Bonta said his office is investigating how widespread cases are in California, where Catholic hospitals represent 15% of hospital beds.

In an Oct. 1 letter to employees that was obtained by California Healthline, Providence Northern California Service Area Chief Executive Garry Olney said the hospital is “heartbroken” about Nusslock’s experience, which “did not meet our high standards for safe, quality, compassionate care.” He added the hospital is revisiting its training, education, and escalation processes to ensure it doesn’t happen again.

Providence spokesperson Bryan Kawasaki said its 51 hospitals abide by applicable federal and state laws, including EMTALA. Kawasaki declined to comment specifically on Nusslock’s case.

More women are running into barriers to obtaining care as Catholic health systems have gained market power, a California Healthline investigation found. Four of the 10 largest hospital chains by number of beds are Catholic, according to federal data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Many Americans don’t have a choice — ambulances may take patients to a Catholic-run health system without giving them a say. Non-Catholic hospitals could be out of their insurance networks or too far to reach in an emergency. In the U.S, nearly 800,000 people have only Catholic or Catholic-affiliated birth hospitals within an hour’s drive, including pockets of Northern California.

Pregnant women who must drive farther to a delivery facility are at higher risk of harm to themselves or their fetus, research shows.

“It’s really concerning, especially in a state like California, where people expect to have comprehensive access to care,” said Debra Stulberg, a family medicine physician at the University of Chicago. “The growth of Catholic hospitals, especially in this post-Dobbs era, continues to constrain the quality of care people get.”

The directives guiding care at Catholic-based health systems are issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. They state that abortions are “intrinsically evil” and “never permitted.”

The document does offer this guidance as an exception: Treatments that could cure “a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.”

“The church, I would say, helps Catholic hospitals to apply some of our deepest beliefs and moral principles to very, very complex situations,” said John Brehany, executive vice president of The National Catholic Bioethics Center, an ethics authority for Catholic health institutions. “And one of those beliefs is that you can never directly intend to end the life of a developing human being.”

Brehany wouldn’t comment on Nusslock’s case but gave the example that if a woman needed cancer treatment, the church would allow her to proceed with the treatment even if it “results in the death of an unborn child.” He added that some situations are “more debatable” than others.

As Catholic-based systems have consolidated and acquired more medical facilities, their care denials have been compounded by other hospitals closing their labor and delivery wards at alarming rates across the country. In California, 56 hospitals have shuttered their maternity wards in the past 12 years, according to an investigation by CalMatters. Nationwide, at least 267 hospitals closed labor and delivery units between 2011 and 2021, representing about 5% of the country’s hospitals, according to Chartis, a health analytics and consulting firm.

With each closure, patients could lose options for abortion care, contraceptives, tubal ligations, and gender-affirming care, said Mona Shah, senior policy and strategy director with Community Catalyst, a national health equity organization.

Nusslock’s 12-mile trip for care at Mad River cost her, according to the lawsuit and her public statement. She had passed an “apple-sized blood clot” and was hemorrhaging in “blinding pain,” she said, by the time she reached the operating room. In the lawsuit, Nusslock said her doctor told her later that her test results showed she most likely had an infection.

It’s a trip Bonta described as “patient dumping” and one Nusslock should never have made.

Seven months later, Nusslock said, she has trouble sleeping, recalling how Providence sent her away.

“I’ll never forget looking at my doctor, tears streaming down my face, my heart shattered into a million pieces, and just pleading with her, ‘Don’t let me die,’” she said.

KFF Health News data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this article.

Trump Leads, and His Party Follows, on Vaccine Skepticism

More than four years ago, former President Donald Trump’s administration accelerated the development and rollout of the covid-19 vaccine. The project, dubbed Operation Warp Speed, likely saved millions of lives. But a substantial number of Republican voters now identify as vaccine skeptics — and Trump rarely mentions what’s considered one of the great public health accomplishments in recent memory.

“The Republicans don’t want to claim it,” Trump told an interviewer in late September.

Instead, on at least 17 occasions this year, Trump has promised to cut funding to schools that mandate vaccines. Campaign spokespeople have previously said that pledge would apply only to schools with covid mandates. But speeches reviewed by KFF Health News included no such distinction — raising the possibility Trump would also target vaccination rules for common, potentially lethal childhood diseases like polio and measles.

The Trump campaign did not respond to requests for comment on this article.

Trump has presided over a landslide shift in his party’s views on vaccines, reflected this campaign season in false claims by Republican candidates during the primaries and puzzling conspiracies from prominent conservative voices. Republicans increasingly express worry about the risks of vaccines. A September 2023 poll from Politico and Morning Consult showed a narrow majority of those voters cared more about the risks than the benefits of getting inoculated.

A surge in anti-vaccine policy in statehouses has followed the rhetoric. Boston University political scientist Matt Motta, who tracks public health policy, said preliminary data shows that states enacted at least 42 anti-vaccine bills in 2023 — nearly a ninefold surge since 2019.

In some states, it has the look of a crusade: The 2024 Texas GOP platform, for example, proposes a ban on mRNA technology, the innovation behind some covid-19 vaccines that scientists believe could have significant applications for cancer care.

Last month, Trump made an appeal to anti-vaccine voters by landing the endorsement of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the nation’s most prominent vaccine skeptics — and appointing him to his transition team. In a recent tour with former Fox News broadcaster Tucker Carlson, Kennedy said he was “going to be deeply involved in helping to choose the people who run FDA, NIH, and CDC.”

Trump’s outreach can be more discreet: He recently met with a delegation of vaccine-skeptical activists — including one group pushing an end to mandates and certain types of vaccines — at his New Jersey golf club; the discussion was publicized by the conservative blog “Gateway Pundit.”

Trump has options in advancing anti-vaccine goals as president, such as by sowing further doubt and undermining the federal government’s ability to make vaccine recommendations. He has promised to appoint Kennedy, along with “top experts,” to a panel exploring chronic diseases, some of which Kennedy’s nonprofit has linked to inoculations. “Nobody’s done more” to advocate for “the health of our families and our children,” Trump declared at a rally accepting Kennedy’s endorsement.

Still, it’s hard to tell how Trump’s most frequently made proposal — defunding schools that mandate vaccinations — would translate into action, said Judith Winston, former general counsel of the Department of Education during the Obama administration.

Currently, the Department of Education lacks the power to turn off public school funding all at once, she said — meaning a second Trump administration would have to take away money program by program.

And the legal basis for such a move isn’t clear. “I am unaware of any federal law that mandates school districts either provide or not provide a vaccine,” Winston said, adding it would probably require congressional action.

All 50 states have a vaccine requirement tied to school attendance.

Trump’s outreach to anti-vaccine constituencies comes as vaccine hesitancy increases and preventable disease surges. This summer, Oregon experienced its worst outbreak of measles since 1991.

The situation could get worse, said Tom Frieden, a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: In the Nineties, during a time when vaccine skepticism also proliferated, the U.S. saw thousands of measles cases. According to the CDC, we haven’t yet returned to those bad old days — but the number of measles cases recorded this year is already quadruple that of last year.

“It was highly disruptive,” he said. “Many children who had measles ended up with hearing problems or cognitive problems that were lifelong. A small number died in this country.”

Worldwide, the disease killed over 100,000 in 2022, mostly among children under age 5, according to the World Health Organization.

Polling shows a substantial minority of Americans, concentrated in the Republican Party, hold vaccine-skeptical positions, said Harvard professor and health politics expert Robert Blendon. And skepticism about covid vaccines is blossoming into suspicion of vaccines generally among that group, he said. “It follows from this rebellion against the covid vaccine mandates.”

Vaccine opposition has divided the GOP. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis made opposition to vaccines a core part of his ill-fated campaign for the GOP presidential nomination. In states such as Wyoming and Missouri, pitched primary campaigns centered on anti-vaccine themes this year.

Bob Onder, a physician and Republican candidate for Congress in Missouri, was accused in Facebook ads placed by his top opponent of taking millions from pharmaceutical companies to test vaccines. “He profited from our pain,” one ad said. “You suffered the consequences.”

Onder “has never done covid vaccine research” and opposes covid vaccine mandates, his campaign manager, Charley Lovett, told KFF Health News. (Lovett said Onder “conducted” one study sponsored by AstraZeneca on preventing covid in high-risk patients using monoclonal antibodies, not vaccines.)

Onder won the Republican primary, but his vaccine-disparaging opponent still scored just over 37% of the vote.

Anti-vaccine candidates typically become anti-vaccine policymakers. The impact can be seen in Texas, where vaccine politics were once a bipartisan matter. According to researchers, from 2009 to 2019, legislators there passed 19 pro-vaccine bills, such as a measure allowing pharmacists to administer immunizations.

But that consensus began to shift toward the end of the decade. Small groups, often nurtured on Facebook, made their influence felt. One such group, Texans for Vaccine Choice, spurred testimony before the state legislature in 2021 and targeted pro-immunization legislators, some of whom fell in their GOP primaries.

Misinformation has fueled the anti-vaccine turn in Texas, alongside traditional conservative attitudes about individual autonomy, said Summer Wise, a former executive committee member of the state’s Republican Party — particularly misconceptions about the use of fetal cells in vaccine development; falsified research about a link between vaccines and autism; and conspiracy theories about Bill Gates, the billionaire philanthropist who has championed vaccination.

“Politicians see vaccines as an easy foil to propagate fear among the electorate, which can then be leveraged and directed to control a voting bloc,” Wise said.

In addition to calling for a ban on mRNA technology, the Texas GOP’s 2024 platform features a laundry list of policies that could undermine vaccination, including allowing medical residents and physicians the ability to opt out of administering shots for religious reasons. It also calls for enshrining a patient’s ability to opt out of vaccine mandates in the state’s Bill of Rights.

Nationally, anti-immunization policies could take an aggressive turn under a second Trump administration.

Roger Severino, formerly head of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Civil Rights and now with the Heritage Foundation, penned the health agency section of Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led initiative to plan for a Republican administration.

Among other ideas, the document proposes clipping CDC authority to issue vaccine or quarantine guidance of a “prescriptive” nature, targeted at schools or elsewhere.

A spokesperson for the Heritage Foundation noted Severino has said the agency’s credibility has been hurt, and it has a burden to explain “all the vaccines on the schedule being taken in combination.”

The proposal misunderstands CDC’s history and powers, said Lawrence Gostin, a public health law professor at Georgetown University. The agency “rarely if ever” makes binding recommendations, he said.

“When the next pandemic hits, we will look to CDC to offer guidance based on the best-known evidence,” he said. “We don’t want a disempowered agency in a public health emergency.”

Some Republican intellectuals have spun dystopian visions surrounding vaccines. Take “Dawn’s Early Light,” a yet-to-be-published book by Heritage president Kevin Roberts. The tome — which earned a glowing foreword by Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance — reserves especially sharp words for vaccines.

In one section of the book, Roberts imagines that the federal government would somehow use alleged new capabilities to “deplatform drivers” of cars for “failing to follow the latest vaccine mandate.”

“Yet another powerful tool of social control falls into place,” he wrote.

Healthbeat is a nonprofit newsroom covering public health published by Civic News Company and KFF Health News. Sign up for its newsletters here.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

More Restrooms Have Adult-Size Changing Tables To Help People With Disabilities

ADAIR, Iowa — The blue-and-white highway sign for the eastbound rest stop near here displays more than the standard icon of a person in a wheelchair, indicating facilities are accessible to people who can’t walk. The sign also shows a person standing behind a horizontal rectangle, preparing to perform a task.

The second icon signals that this rest area along Interstate 80 in western Iowa has a bathroom equipped with a full-size changing table, making it an oasis for adults and older children who use diapers because of disabilities.

“It’s a beacon of hope,” said Nancy Baker Curtis, whose 9-year-old son, Charlie, has a disability that can leave him incontinent. “I’m like, ‘Oh my gosh, we’re finally there.’”

The white changing table is 6 feet long and can be lowered and raised with a handheld controller wired to an electric motor. When not in use, the table folds up against the wall.

The table was recently installed as part of a national effort to make public bathrooms more accessible in places like airports, parks, arenas, and gas stations. Without such options, people with disabilities often wind up being changed on bathroom floors, in cars, or even on the ground outside.

Many families hesitate to go out because of the lack of accessible restrooms. “We all know somebody who’s tethered to their home by bathroom needs,” Baker Curtis said. She doesn’t want her son’s life to be limited that way. “Charlie deserves to be out in the community.”

She said the need can be particularly acute when people are traveling in rural areas, where bathroom options are sparse.

A photo of the outside of a rural rest stop.
A rest stop along Interstate 80 near Adair, Iowa, was one of the first in the state to include an adult-size changing table. (Tony Leys/KFF Health News)

A photo of an adult-size changing table folded down.
Without adult-size changing tables, many travelers who wear diapers wind up being changed on bathroom floors, in cars, or even on the ground. (Tony Leys/KFF Health News)

Baker Curtis, who lives near Des Moines, leads the Iowa chapter of a national group called “Changing Spaces,” which advocates for adult-size changing tables. The group offers an online map showing scores of locations where they’ve been installed.

Advocates say such tables are not explicitly required by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. But a new federal law will mandate them in many airports in coming years, and states can adopt building codes that call for them. California, for example, requires them in new or renovated auditoriums, arenas, amusement parks, and similar facilities with capacities of at least 2,500 people. Ohio requires them in some settings, including large public facilities and highway rest stops. Arizona, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and New Hampshire also have taken steps to require them in some public buildings.

Justin Boatner of Arlington, Virginia, advocates for more full-size changing tables in the Washington, D.C., area. Boatner, 26, uses a wheelchair because of a disability similar to muscular dystrophy. He uses diapers, which he often changes himself.

He can lower an adjustable changing table to the height of his wheelchair, then pull himself onto it. Doing that is much easier and more hygienic than getting down on the floor, changing himself, and then crawling back into the wheelchair, he said.

Boatner said it’s important to talk about incontinence, even though it can be embarrassing. “There’s so much stigma around it,” he said.

He said adult changing tables are still scarce, including in health care facilities, but he’s optimistic that more will be installed. Without them, he sometimes delays changing his diaper for hours until he can get home. That has led to serious rashes, he said. “It’s extremely uncomfortable.”

Iowa legislators in recent years have considered requiring adult changing tables in some public restrooms. They declined to pass such a bill, but the discussion made Iowa Department of Transportation leaders aware of the problem. “I’m sorry to say, it was one of those things we’d just never thought of,” said Michael Kennerly, director of the department’s design bureau.

Kennerly oversees planning for rest stops. He recalls an Iowan telling him about changing a family member outside in the rain, with only an umbrella for shelter. Others told him how they changed their loved ones on bathroom floors. “It was just appalling,” he said.

Iowa began installing adult changing tables in rest stops in 2022, and it has committed to including them in new or remodeled facilities. So far, nine have been installed or are in the process of being added. Nine others are planned, with more to come, Kennerly said. Iowa has 38 rest areas equipped with bathrooms.

Kennerly estimated it costs up to $14,000 to remodel an existing rest-stop bathroom to include a height-adjustable adult changing table. Incorporating adult changing tables into a new rest stop building should cost less than that, he said.

Several organizations offer portable changing tables, which can be set up at public events. Some are included in mobile, accessible bathrooms carried on trailers or trucks. Most permanent adult changing tables are set up in “family restrooms,” which have one toilet and are open to people of any gender. That’s good, because the act of changing an adult is “very intimate and private,” Baker Curtis said. It’s also important for the tables to be height-adjustable because it’s difficult to lift an adult onto a fixed-height table, she said.

Advocates hope adult changing tables will become nearly as common as infant changing tables, which once were rare in public bathrooms.

A photo of a sign outside a bathroom that shows a person in a wheelchair and a person preparing to use an adult-size changing table.
A sign outside a bathroom at a rest stop near Pacific Junction, Iowa.(Jenny Pohl)

Jennifer Corcoran, who lives near Dayton, Ohio, has been advocating for adult changing tables for a decade and has seen interest rise in recent years.

Corcoran’s 24-year-old son, Matthew, was born with brain development issues. He uses a wheelchair and is unable to speak, but he accompanies her when she lobbies for improved services.

Corcoran said Ohio leaders this year designated $4.4 million in federal pandemic relief money to be distributed as grants for changing-table projects. The program has led to installations at Dayton’s airport and art museum, plus libraries and entertainment venues, she said.

Ohio also is adding adult changing tables to rest stops. Corcoran said those tables are priceless because they make it easier for people with disabilities to travel. “Matthew hasn’t been on a vacation outside of Ohio for more than five years,” she said.

Kaylan Dunlap serves on a committee that has worked to add changing-table requirements to the International Building Code, which state and local officials often use as a model for their rules.

Dunlap, who lives in Alabama, works for an architecture firm and reviews building projects to ensure they comply with access standards. She expects more public agencies and companies will voluntarily install changing tables. Maybe someday they will be a routine part of public bathrooms, she said. “But I think that’s a long way out in the future, unfortunately.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

Harris Correct That Trump Fell Short on Promise To Negotiate Medicare Drug Prices

“Donald Trump said he was going to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices. He never did. We did.”

Vice President Kamala Harris at the ABC News presidential debate, Sept. 10

Since Vice President Kamala Harris entered the presidential race, she and former President Donald Trump have sparred over their approaches to lowering prescription drug costs. Harris has described this as an important campaign promise that Trump made but didn’t deliver on.

“Donald Trump said he was going to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices,” Harris said during the ABC News debate on Sept. 10 in Philadelphia. “He never did. We did.”

She previously told CNN that Trump’s promise to pursue such negotiations “never happened” during his administration.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly promised, if elected, to take steps to allow the government to negotiate drug prices. He never enacted such a policy in office. The Trump administration pursued smaller, temporary programs aimed at lowering drug costs.

However, experts say the effect of Trump’s moves fell far short of the expected effect of the Medicare drug price negotiation program included in President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act and of what Trump promised.

Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Policy, Explained

The Inflation Reduction Act — a sweeping climate and health care law Biden signed in August 2022 — included a measure authorizing the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to negotiate Medicare prescription drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies.

“The idea behind drug price negotiation is that Medicare can use its buying power to get a better price than what is currently being negotiated for these drugs,” according to Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the Program on Medicare Policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Medicare covers more than 67 million Americans, giving it enormous potential influence over prices for U.S. drugs and medical services.

In August, CMS announced it had secured significant discounts on the list prices of 10 drugs because of its negotiations. Those discounts ranged from a 38% reduction for blood cancer medication Imbruvica on the low end to a 79% cut for diabetes drug Januvia on the high side. (List prices and the prices Medicare drug plans pay can differ.)

The new prices are expected to save Medicare $6 billion in the first year, with Medicare beneficiaries set to save an additional $1.5 billion in out-of-pocket costs, according to the White House.

Those new prices aren’t set to take effect until 2026 — though Biden and Harris have highlighted other aspects of the law that are bringing down drug costs sooner, such as a $35-a-month out-of-pocket price cap on insulin for Medicare enrollees and a $2,000 yearly out-of-pocket spending cap for Part D drugs effective in January. The Part D program covers most generic and brand-name outpatient prescription drugs.

CMS will start negotiating prices for the next group of drugs — 15 a year for the next two years — in early 2025, and those talks will continue annually at least through the end of the decade.

Trump’s Promises Versus His Actions

As a presidential candidate in 2016, Donald Trump pledged to pursue prescription drug price negotiation programs — and sometimes overstated such a policy’s power to cut prices.

During multiple campaign rallies and media interviews that year, Trump suggested allowing the government to negotiate drug prices directly with manufacturers would save $300 billion a year, a claim a fact-checker said was “absurd” then.

“The problem is, we don’t negotiate,” Trump said during an MSNBC town hall in Charleston, South Carolina, on Feb. 17, 2016. “We’re the largest drug buyer in the world. We don’t negotiate.” He went on to say: “If we negotiated the price of drugs, Joe, we’d save $300 billion a year.”

Similarly, at a Feb. 24, 2016, rally in Virginia Beach, Virginia, Trump reiterated his interest in making this change. “If you bid them out we’ll save $300 billion … and we don’t even do it. We’re going to do it.” The pharmaceutical industry would push back, he said, but he added: “Trust me I can do it.”

In office, however, Trump backed away from those promises, rejecting a bill spearheaded by then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to authorize such negotiations. The Democratic-led House ultimately passed that legislation, though the Republican-led Senate didn’t consider it.

“Pelosi and her Do Nothing Democrats drug pricing bill doesn’t do the trick,” Trump wrote on X, the social platform then known as Twitter.

Trump pursued smaller initiatives that sought to lower drug costs. One such program, the “most favored nation” model, tried to cap the cost of some Part B medications — those administered in a doctor’s office or hospital outpatient setting — at the lowest price paid in certain peer nations with a per capita GDP of at least 60% that of the United States.

“Medicare is the largest purchaser of drugs anywhere in the world by far,” Trump said in announcing the program. “We’re finally going to use that incredible power to achieve a fairer and lower price for everyone.”

The Trump campaign didn’t respond to an inquiry about prescription drug price negotiations or the most favored nation model.

The program would have started in January 2021 and lasted seven years. CMS officials estimated the government would save more than $85 billion on Part B spending. But some of those savings came from assumptions that Medicare beneficiaries would lose access to some Part B medications under the model, with some manufacturers unlikely to sell products at the lower, foreign prices.

Trump’s program never took effect. Amid lawsuits from several drug companies and industry groups, a federal judge stayed the plan in December 2020. The Biden administration scrapped it in 2022.

Even if the most favored nation model had been enacted, experts say it wouldn’t have come close to saving Americans or the government as much money as the IRA’s drug price negotiation provisions. A contemporaneous analysis of Trump’s proposal estimated that 7% of the 60 million Medicare beneficiaries in 2018 would have benefited.

More importantly, the most favored nation model did not authorize the government to negotiate prescription drug prices with manufacturers — the policy Trump promised to implement.

What Comes Next?

A recent KFF poll shows 85% of Americans, including more than three-quarters of Republicans, favor allowing Medicare to negotiate prices with drug companies.

And lowering drug costs continues to be a key issue for both campaigns, with Trump and Harris sparring over everything from the price of insulin to the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act on Medicare spending.

“I’ll lower the cost of insulin and prescription drugs for everyone with your support, not only our seniors,” Harris told supporters at an Aug. 16 campaign event in Raleigh, North Carolina, promising to extend the IRA’s price caps.

A Trump campaign spokesperson, meanwhile, previously told KFF Health News that the former president “will do everything possible to lower drug costs for Americans when he’s back in the White House, just like he accomplished in his first term.” She provided no specifics.

Trump, however, has also repeatedly promised to repeal parts of the Inflation Reduction Act — though he has never specifically mentioned the drug price negotiation provision — and to rescind unspent money. Congressional Republicans have spoken publicly about their intentions to roll back the drug price negotiation provision.

Even without legislative changes, the next president will have the opportunity to steer Medicare’s prescription drug price negotiation process.

“An administration that wants to be more lenient on drug companies might be more lax in the negotiations process,” said Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president at KFF and the executive director of its Program on Medicare Policy. “Or the administration could perhaps be tougher than the Biden administration.”

Our Ruling

As a presidential candidate in 2016, Donald Trump promised to let the government negotiate prescription drug prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. As president, however, he instead tried to tie some U.S. drug prices to their costs in other countries. Drugmakers and industry groups sued, challenging the move, and courts blocked it.

Harris, therefore, is correct that Trump never was able to open Medicare up to drug negotiations despite his sweeping campaign promises.

We rate Harris’ claim True.

Our Sources:

ABC News, “READ: Harris-Trump Presidential Debate Transcript,” Sept. 10, 2024

Axios, “Hill GOP Sets Sights on Scrapping Drug Price Talks,” Sept. 17, 2024

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “Trump Administration Announces Prescription Drug Payment Model To Put American Patients First,” Nov. 18, 2020

CNN, “READ: Harris and Walz’s Exclusive Joint Interview With CNN,” Aug. 30, 2024

Congress.gov, “H.R.3 – Elijah E. Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act,” accessed Sept. 17, 2024

Factbase, “Donald Trump Attends an MSNBC Town Hall in Charleston, South Carolina,” Feb. 17, 2016

Factbase, “Donald Trump in Pawleys Island, SC,” Feb. 19, 2016

Federal Register, “42 CFR Part 513,” Nov. 27, 2020

KFF, “A Status Report on Prescription Drug Policies and Proposals at the Start of the Biden Administration,” Feb. 11, 2021

KFF, “KFF Health Tracking Poll September 2024: Support for Reducing Prescription Drug Prices Remains High, Even As Awareness of IRA Provisions Lags,” Sept. 13, 2024

KFF, “Most People Are Unlikely To See Drug Cost Savings From President Trump’s ‘Most Favored Nation’ Proposal,” Aug. 27, 2020

KFF Health News, “5 Things To Know About the New Drug Pricing Negotiations,” Aug. 30, 2023

KFF Health News, “Harris Did Not Vote To ‘Cut Medicare,’ Despite Trump’s Claim,” Aug. 20, 2024

KFF Health News, “Trump Is Wrong in Claiming Full Credit for Lowering Insulin Prices,” July 18, 2024

Phone interview with Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president at KFF and the executive director of its Program on Medicare Policy, Sept. 13, 2024

Reuters, “Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration Drug Pricing Rule,” Dec. 23, 2020

The Washington Post, “Trump’s Truly Absurd Claim He Would Save $300 Billion a Year on Prescription Drugs,” Feb. 18, 2016

The White House, “Remarks by President Trump at Signing of Executive Orders on Lowering Drug Prices” July 24, 2020

The White House, “Remarks by Vice President Harris at a Campaign Event in Raleigh, NC,” Aug. 16, 2024

X, then known as Twitter, “@RealDonaldTrump,” Nov. 22, 2019

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

Vance-Walz Debate Highlighted Clear Health Policy Differences

Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz met in an Oct. 1 vice presidential debate hosted by CBS News that was cordial and heavy on policy discussion — a striking change from the Sept. 10 debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. 

Vance and Walz acknowledged occasional agreement on policy points and respectfully addressed each other throughout the debate. But they were more pointed in their attacks on their rival’s running mates for challenges facing the country, including immigration and inflation. 

The moderators, “CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell and “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan, had said they planned to encourage candidates to fact-check each other, but sometimes clarified statements from the candidates.  

After Vance made assertions about Springfield, Ohio, being overrun by “illegal immigrants,” Brennen pointed out that a large number of Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are in the country legally. Vance objected and, eventually, CBS exercised the debate ground rule that allows the network to cut off the candidates’ microphones.  

Most points were not fact checked in real time by the moderators. Vance resurfaced a recent health care theme – that as president, Donald Trump sought to save the Affordable Care Act – and acknowledged that he would support a national abortion ban.  

Walz described how health care looked before the ACA compared to today. Vance offered details about Trump’s health care “concepts of a plan” – a reference to comments Trump made during the presidential debate that drew jeers and criticism for the former president, who for years said he had a plan to replace the ACA that never surfaced. Vance pointed to regulatory changes advanced during the Trump administration, used weedy phrases like “reinsurance regulations” and floated the idea of allowing states “to experiment a little bit on how to cover both the chronically ill but the non-chronically ill.”  

Walz responded with a quick quip: “Here’s where being an old guy gives you some history. I was there at the creation of the ACA.” He said that before then insurers had more power to kick people off their plans. Then he detailed Trump’s efforts to undo the ACA as well as why the law’s preexisting condition protections were important.  

“What Senator Vance just explained might be worse than a concept, because what he explained is pre Obamacare,” Walz said.  

The candidates sparred on numerous topics. Our PolitiFact partners fact-checked the debate here and on their live blog

The health-related excerpts follow. 

The Affordable Care Act: 

Vance: “Donald Trump could have destroyed the (Affordable Care Act). Instead, he worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care.” 

False. 

As president, Trump worked to undermine and repeal the Affordable Care Act. He cut millions of dollars in federal funding for ACA outreach and navigators who help people sign up for health coverage. He enabled the sale of short-term health plans that don’t comply with the ACA consumer protections and allowed them to be sold for longer durations, which siphoned people away from the health law’s marketplaces. 

Trump’s administration also backed state Medicaid waivers that imposed first-ever work requirements, reducing enrollment. He also ended insurance company subsidies that helped offset costs for low-income enrollees. He backed an unsuccessful repeal of the landmark 2010 health law and he backed the demise of a penalty imposed for failing to purchase health insurance. 

Affordable Care Act enrollment declined by more than 2 million people during Trump’s presidency, and the number of uninsured Americans rose by 2.3 million, including 726,000 children, from 2016 to 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau reported; that includes three years of Trump’s presidency.  The number of insured Americans rose again during the Biden administration. 

Abortion and Reproductive Health:  

Vance: “As I read the Minnesota law that (Walz) signed into law … it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide lifesaving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion.” 

False. 

Experts said cases in which a baby is born following an attempted abortion are rare. Less than 1% of abortions nationwide occur in the third trimester. And infanticide, the crime of killing a child within a year of its birth, is illegal in every state. 

In May 2023, Walz, as Minnesota governor, signed legislation updating a state law for “infants who are born alive.” It said babies are “fully recognized” as human people and therefore, protected under state law. The change did not alter regulations that already require doctors to provide patients with appropriate care. 

Previously, state law said, “All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.” The law was updated to instead say medical personnel must “care for the infant who is born alive.” 

When there are fetal anomalies that make it likely the fetus will die before or soon after birth, some parents decide to terminate the pregnancy by inducing childbirth so that they can hold their dying baby, Democratic Minnesota state Sen. Erin Maye Quade told PolitiFact in September. 

This update to the law means infants who are “born alive” receive appropriate medical care dependent on the pregnancy’s circumstances, Maye Quade said. 

Vance supported a national abortion ban before becoming Trump’s running mate. 

CBS News moderator Margaret Brennan told Vance, “You have supported a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks. In fact, you said, if someone can’t support legislation like that, quote, ‘you are making the United States the most barbaric pro-abortion regime anywhere in the entire world.’ My question is, why have you changed your position?” 

Vance said that he “never supported a national ban” and, instead, previously supported setting “some minimum national standard.” 

But in a January 2022 podcast interview, Vance said, “I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally.”In November, he told reporters that “we can’t give in to the idea that the federal Congress has no role in this matter.” 

Since joining the Trump ticket, Vance has aligned his abortion rhetoric to match Trump’s and has said that abortion legislation should be left up to the states. 

-Samantha Putterman of PolitiFact, on the live blog 

A woman’s 2022 death in Georgia following the state passing its six-week abortion ban was deemed “preventable.” 

Walz talked about the death of 28-year-old Amber Thurman, a Georgia woman who died after her care was delayed because of the state’s six-week abortion law. A judge called the law unconstitutional this week. 

A Sept. 16 ProPublica report  found that Thurman had taken abortion pills and encountered a rare complication. She sought care at Piedmont Henry Hospital in Atlanta to clear excess fetal tissue from her uterus, called a dilation and curettage, or D&C. The procedure is commonly used in abortions, and any doctor who violated Georgia’s law could be prosecuted and face up to a decade in prison. 

Doctors waited 20 hours to finally operate, when Thurman’s organs were already failing, ProPublica reported. A panel of health experts tasked with examining pregnancy-related deaths to improve maternal health, deemed Thurman’s death “preventable,” according to the report, and said the hospital’s delay in performing the procedure had a “large” impact. 

— Samantha Putterman of PolitiFact, on the live blog 

What Project 2025 Says About Some Forms of Contraception, Fertility Treatments 

Walz said that Project 2025 would “make it more difficult, if not impossible, to get contraception and limit access, if not eliminate access, to fertility treatments.” 

Mostly False. The Project 2025 document doesn’t call for restricting standard contraceptive methods, such as birth control pills, but it defines emergency contraceptives as “abortifacients” and says they should be eliminated from the Affordable Care Act’s covered preventive services. Emergency contraception, such as Plan B and Ella, are not considered abortifacients, according to medical experts. 

PolitiFact did not find any mention of in vitro fertilization throughout the document, or specific recommendations to curtail the practice in the U.S., but it contains language that supports legal rights for fetuses and embryos. Experts say this language can threaten family planning methods, including IVF and some forms of contraception. 

— Samantha Putterman of PolitiFact, on the live blog 

Walz: “Their Project 2025 is gonna have a registry of pregnancies.” 

False.  

Project 2025 recommends that states submit more detailed abortion reporting to the federal government. It calls for more information about how and when abortions took place, as well as other statistics for miscarriages and stillbirths. 

The manual does not mention, nor call for, a new federal agency tasked with registering pregnant women. 

Fentanyl and Opioids: 

Vance: “Kamala Harris let in fentanyl into our communities at record levels.” 

Mostly False. 

Illicit fentanyl seizures have been rising for years and reached record highs under Biden’s administration. In fiscal year 2015, for example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized 70 pounds of fentanyl. As of August 2024, agents have seized more than 19,000 pounds of fentanyl in fiscal year 2024, which ended in September. 

But these are fentanyl seizures — not the amount of the narcotic being “let” into the United States.   

Vance made this claim while criticizing Harris’ immigration policies. But fentanyl enters the U.S. through the southern border mainly at official ports of entry. It’s mostly smuggled in by U.S. citizens, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Most illicit fentanyl in the U.S. comes from Mexico made with chemicals from Chinese labs. 

Drug policy experts have said that the illicit fentanyl crisis began years before Biden’s administration and that Biden’s border policies are not to blame for overdose deaths.  

Experts have also said Congress plays a role in reducing illicit fentanyl. Congressional funding for more vehicle scanners would help law enforcement seize more of the fentanyl that comes into the U.S. Harris has called for increased enforcement against illicit fentanyl use. 

Walz: “And the good news on this is, is the last 12 months saw the largest decrease in opioid deaths in our nation’s history.” 

Mostly True. 

Overdose deaths involving opioids decreased from an estimated 84,181 in 2022 to 81,083 in 2023, based on the most recent provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This decrease, which took place in the second half of 2023, followed a 67% increase in opioid-related deaths between 2017 and 2023. 

The U.S. had an estimated 107,543 drug overdose deaths in 2023 — a 3% decrease from the 111,029 deaths estimated in 2022. This is the first annual decrease in overall drug overdose deaths since 2018. Nevertheless, the opioid death toll remains much higher than just a few years ago, according to KFF.  

More Health-Related Comments: 

Vance Said ‘Hospitals Are Overwhelmed.’ Local Officials Disagree. 

We asked health officials ahead of the debate what they thought about Vance’s claims about Springfield’s emergency rooms being overwhelmed. 

“This claim is not accurate,” said Chris Cook, health commissioner for Springfield’s Clark County. 

Comparison data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services tracks how many patients are “left without being seen” as part of its effort to characterize whether emergency departments are able to handle their patient loads. High percentages usually signal that the facility doesn’t have the staff or resources to provide timely and effective emergency room care. 

Cook said that the full-service hospital, Mercy Health Springfield Regional Medical Center, reports its emergency department is at or better than industry standard when it comes to this metric. 

In July 2024, 3% of Mercy Health’s patients were counted in the “left-without-being-seen” category — the same level as both the state and national average for high-volume hospitals. In July 2019, Mercy Health tallied 2% of patients who “left without being seen.” That year, the state and national averages were 1% and 2%, respectively.  Another Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2024 datapoint shows Mercy Health patients spent less time in the emergency department per visit on average — 152 minutes — compared with state and national figures: 183 minutes and 211 minutes, respectively. Even so, Springfield Regional Medical Center’s Jennifer Robinson noted that Mercy Health has seen high utilization of women’s health, emergency, and primary care services.  

— Stephanie Armour, Holly Hacker, and Stephanie Stapleton of KFF Health News, on the live blog 

Minnesota’s Paid Leave Takes Effect in 2026 

Walz signed paid family leave into law in 2023 and it will take effect in 2026. 

The law will provide employees up to 12 weeks of paid medical leave and up to 12 weeks of paid family leave, which includes bonding with a child, caring for a family member, supporting survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, and supporting active-duty deployments. A maximum 20 weeks are available in a benefit year if someone takes both medical and family leave. 

Minnesota used a projected budget surplus to jump-start the program; funding will then shift to a payroll tax split between employers and workers.  

— Amy Sherman of Politifact, on the live blog 

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

Harris’ Emphasis on Maternal Health Care Is Paying Dividends With Black Women Voters

Vice President Kamala Harris is seeing a surge of support from Black women voters, galvanized in part by her work on health care issues such as maternal mortality, reproductive rights, and gun control.

The enthusiasm may be key for Democratic turnout at the polls in critical battleground states.

Black women have always been among the most reliable voters in the Democratic base and were central to former President Barack Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012. Enthusiasm was also robust for President Joe Biden in 2020. But this year, before he bowed out of the race and Harris became the Democratic nominee, his support among this critical demographic had been fading, which could have dampened turnout in swing states.

Black voters’ support for the top of the Democratic ticket has since increased. In July, before he left the race, 64% of Black voters supported Biden, according to the Pew Research Center. Seventy-seven percent of Black voters supported Harris in August.

Black voter turnout, especially in rural areas of Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, could help propel Harris to victory. That support — especially among Black women — has swelled since Biden’s departure, polling shows.

“This is a renaissance,” said Holli Holliday, a lawyer in the Washington, D.C., area who is president of Sisters Lead Sisters Vote, a group that works to advance Black women’s political leadership. “We’re partnering with a collective of Black women organizations to collaborate and collectively move like we never have before.”

Gun safety issues could especially resonate in Georgia, where both Harris and the Republican nominee, former President Donald Trump, are vying for the support of Black voters. A Sept. 4 shooting at Apalachee High School near Winder, Georgia, killed four people and left nine hospitalized with injuries, with scores more facing mental and emotional scars.

Eighty-two percent of Black women had a favorable view of Harris in August, according to the Pew Research Center, up from 67% in May.

And more Black women than before say they will go to the polls. Almost 70% of Black women said in August they were extremely or very motivated to vote, according to Pew, up from 51% in July. Sixteen million Black women in the U.S. are eligible to vote and 67% of them are registered, according to Higher Heights, a political action committee focused on mobilizing and electing Black women.

Trump has also sought support from Black women voters. His campaign released a video in August showcasing Black women pledging to support him over Harris, pointing to his economic policies as a key reason.

Still, only 8% of Black women voters say the Republican Party does a better job of looking out for their interests, according to a poll done in May and June by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, the publisher of California Healthline.

Harris’ attention to health issues particularly important to Black women is helping to draw their support, said Kimberly Peeler-Allen, a co-founder of Higher Heights. In 2021, the vice president called for a more robust government response to the nation’s high maternal mortality rates.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say Black women are three times as likely to die from pregnancy-related complications as white women. The disparity is driven in part by differing access to quality health care, underlying health conditions, bias, and racism.

“The vice president’s focus on Black maternal morbidity has gotten a lot of attention and gratitude,” Peeler-Allen said. “High-quality and affordable care, as well as the economy, are one of the top issues that drive Black women voters to get to the polls.”

As a senator, Harris co-sponsored a package of legislation aimed at improving maternal health, with a focus on Black women. The Biden administration pushed to expand maternal health initiatives in rural communities and improve bias training for health care providers, including by awarding more than $103 million in grants in 2023 to support and expand access to maternal health care.

Trump in 2018 signed legislation intended to reduce the maternal mortality rate that provided $58 million a year for five years to help states investigate and prevent pregnancy-related deaths.

As vice president, Harris also pushed states to extend postpartum care in Medicaid, the state-federal health program for low-income and disabled people. Biden signed legislation that temporarily gave states the option to expand the coverage to a full year from the required 60 days, with federal matching funds, and later signed a law allowing states to make the extended benefits permanent.

Illinois, New Jersey, and Virginia were the only states providing 12 months of postpartum Medicaid coverage when Harris became vice president. Today, the yearlong benefit has been adopted by at least 46 states and Washington, D.C., according to KFF.

“I am so thrilled out of my mind. I didn’t think we’d get there that quick,” said Rep. Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), who has helped lead congressional efforts to reduce mortality and morbidity among mothers and pregnant women, especially Black women. “It helps having everybody at the Senate, House, and White House working together. I am optimistic we are going to have someone at the top who gets it. We still have a ways to go.”

Harris’ support for measures to stem gun violence also helps her appeal to Black women. Harris said during her debate with Trump last month that she’s a gun owner. But she has pressed for banning what are often known as assault weapons and to implement universal background checks ahead of gun purchases — issues that may resonate in Georgia, especially, after the Apalachee shooting.

Eighty-four percent of Black women favor Harris on gun reform over Trump, according to a 2024 poll conducted for The Highland Project, a women-led coalition focused on creating multigenerational wealth in Black communities.

Trump’s campaign advisers have said he would protect access to guns by appointing federal judges who oppose restrictions. He has supported gun rights despite two apparent assassination attempts during the campaign, and as president in 2017 he reversed a controversial Obama administration regulation making it harder for people with mental health issues to purchase guns.

Win With Black Women, a network of Black women leaders, hosted a planning call with Black women the day Biden withdrew from the race. About 44,000 participants joined the meeting.

Waning enthusiasm for the Democratic ticket among Black women before Harris entered the race could have undermined turnout. And turnout matters: In the 2020 presidential race, seven states were won by less than three percentage points each.

“To have 44,000 black women on a phone call that Sunday night? That enthusiasm, that’s good for Democrats,” said Kelly Dittmar, research director at Rutgers’ Center for American Women and Politics. “If Democrats selected someone with less enthusiastic backing, a lot of women who supported Biden may have stayed home.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.