Category: Rehab News

The FDA has approved an updated covid shot for everyone 6 months old and up, which renews a now-annual quandary for Americans: Get the shot now, with the latest covid outbreak sweeping the country, or hold it in reserve for the winter wave?

The new vaccine should provide some protection to everyone. But many healthy people who have already been vaccinated or have immunity because they’ve been exposed to covid enough times may want to wait a few months.

Covid has become commonplace. For some, it’s a minor illness with few symptoms. Others are laid up with fever, cough, and fatigue for days or weeks. A much smaller group — mostly older or chronically ill people — suffer hospitalization or death.

It’s important for those in high-risk groups to get vaccinated, but vaccine protection wanes after a few months. Those who run to get the new vaccine may be more likely to fall ill this winter when the next wave hits, said William Schaffner, an infectious disease professor at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine and a spokesperson for the National Foundation for Infectious Diseases.

On the other hand, by late fall the major variants may have changed, rendering the vaccine less effective, said Peter Marks, the FDA’s top vaccine official, at a briefing Aug. 23. He urged everyone eligible to get immunized, noting that the risk of long covid is greater in the un- and undervaccinated.

Of course, if last year’s covid vaccine rollout is any guide, few Americans will heed his advice, even though this summer’s surge has been unusually intense, with levels of the covid virus in wastewater suggesting infections are as widespread as they were in the winter.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now looks to wastewater as fewer people are reporting test results to health authorities. The wastewater data shows the epidemic is worst in Western and Southern states. In New York, for example, levels are considered “high” — compared with “very high” in Georgia.

Hospitalizations and deaths due to covid have trended up, too. But unlike infections, these rates are nowhere near those seen in winter surges, or in summers past. More than 2,000 people died of covid in July — a high number but a small fraction of the at least 25,700 covid deaths in July 2020.

Partial immunity built up through vaccines and prior infections deserves credit for this relief. A new study suggests that current variants may be less virulent — in the study, one of the recent variants did not kill mice exposed to it, unlike most earlier covid variants.

Public health officials note that even with more cases this summer, people seem to be managing their sickness at home. “We did see a little rise in the number of cases, but it didn’t have a significant impact in terms of hospitalizations and emergency room visits,” said Manisha Juthani, public health commissioner of Connecticut, at a news briefing Aug. 21.

Unlike influenza or traditional cold viruses, covid seems to thrive outside the cold months, when germy schoolkids, dry air, and indoor activities are thought to enable the spread of air- and saliva-borne viruses. No one is exactly sure why.

“Covid is still very transmissible, very new, and people congregate inside in air-conditioned rooms during the summer,” said John Moore, a virologist and professor at Cornell University’s Weill Cornell Medicine College.

Or “maybe covid is more tolerant of humidity or other environmental conditions in the summer,” said Caitlin Rivers, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins University.

Because viruses evolve as they infect people, the CDC has recommended updated covid vaccines each year. Last fall’s booster was designed to target the omicron variant circulating in 2023. This year, mRNA vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer and the protein-based vaccine from Novavax — which has yet to be approved by the FDA — target a more recent omicron variant, JN.1.

The FDA determined that the mRNA vaccines strongly protected people from severe disease and death — and would do so even though earlier variants of JN.1 are now being overtaken by others.

Public interest in covid vaccines has waned, with only 1 in 5 adults getting vaccinated since last September, compared with about 80% who got the first dose. New Yorkers have been slightly above the national vaccination rate, while in Georgia only about 17% got the latest shot.

Vaccine uptake is lower in states where the majority voted for Donald Trump in 2020 and among those who have less money and education, less health care access, or less time off from work. These groups are also more likely to be hospitalized or die of the disease, according to a 2023 study in The Lancet.

While the newly formulated vaccines are better targeted at the circulating covid variants, uninsured and underinsured Americans may have to rush if they hope to get one for free. A CDC program that provided boosters to 1.5 million people over the last year ran out of money and is ending Aug. 31.

The agency drummed up $62 million in unspent funds to pay state and local health departments to provide the new shots to those not covered by insurance. But “that may not go very far” if the vaccine costs the agency around $86 a dose, as it did last year, said Kelly Moore, CEO of Immunize.org, which advocates for vaccination.

People who pay out-of-pocket at pharmacies face higher prices: CVS plans to sell the updated vaccine for $201.99, said Amy Thibault, a spokesperson for the company.

“Price can be a barrier, access can be a barrier” to vaccination, said David Scales, an assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College.

Without an access program that provides vaccines to uninsured adults, “we’ll see disparities in health outcomes and disproportionate outbreaks in the working poor, who can ill afford to take off work,” Kelly Moore said.

New York state has about $1 million to fill the gaps when the CDC’s program ends, said Danielle De Souza, a spokesperson for the New York State Department of Health. That will buy around 12,500 doses for uninsured and underinsured adults, she said. There are roughly one million uninsured people in the state.

CDC and FDA experts last year decided to promote annual fall vaccination against covid and influenza along with a one-time respiratory syncytial virus shot for some groups.

It would be impractical for the vaccine-makers to change the covid vaccine’s recipe twice every year, and offering the three vaccines during one or two health care visits appears to be the best way to increase uptake of all of them, said Schaffner, who consults for the CDC’s policy-setting Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.

At its next meeting, in October, the committee is likely to urge vulnerable people to get a second dose of the same covid vaccine in the spring, for protection against the next summer wave, he said.

If you’re in a vulnerable population and waiting to get vaccinated until closer to the holiday season, Schaffner said, it makes sense to wear a mask and avoid big crowds, and to get a test if you think you have covid. If positive, people in these groups should seek medical attention since the antiviral pill Paxlovid might ameliorate their symptoms and keep them out of the hospital.

As for conscientious others who feel they may be sick and don’t want to spread the covid virus, the best advice is to get a single test and, if positive, try to isolate for a few days and then wear a mask for several days while avoiding crowded rooms. Repeat testing after a positive result is pointless, since viral particles in the nose may remain for days without signifying a risk of infecting others, Schaffner said.

The Health and Human Services Department is making four free covid tests available to anyone who requests them starting in late September through covidtest.gov, said Dawn O’Connell, assistant secretary for preparedness and response, at the Aug. 23 briefing.

The government is focusing its fall vaccine advocacy campaign, which it’s calling “Risk less, live more,” on older people and nursing home residents, said HHS spokesperson Jeff Nesbit.

Not everyone may really need a fall covid booster, but “it’s not wrong to give people options,” John Moore said. “The 20-year-old athlete is less at risk than the 70-year-old overweight dude. It’s as simple as that.”

KFF Health News correspondent Amy Maxmen contributed to this report.

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. 

Former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have a rare point of agreement in their otherwise bitter and divisive contest: It’s up to the government to cut high U.S. drug prices.

Harris cast the tie-breaking Senate vote in 2022 for legislation that allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices for its more than 60 million beneficiaries. Before that, she was an aggressive regulator of the drug industry as California attorney general.

As president, Trump would likely retain Medicare price negotiations unless the pharmaceutical industry can come up with something more compelling that they’d put on the table, people close to him say. In his first term, he proposed various policies aimed at reducing prescription costs but had limited success with their implementation.

The drug industry could benefit, though, if Trump remains unable to advance such proposals.

“His efforts were largely fragmented and faced resistance from both the industry and lawmakers,” said Sergio Jose Gutierrez, a political strategist who has primarily worked with Democrats in the U.S. “The lack of a cohesive strategy and the limited ability to implement significant changes made his approach less effective compared to what a Harris-Walz administration could offer.”

The industry is increasingly under attack by lawmakers from both parties for drug prices most Americans regard as unreasonable, according to KFF polling, so the election outcome could be pivotal to drug companies’ fortunes. Their predicament is a sharp reversal from years past, when the firms enjoyed a reputation as being almost untouchable. For more than a decade, manufacturers successfully fended off proposals to let Medicare negotiate lower drug prices before losing the battle two years ago.

The shift in their political standing shows up in pharmaceutical companies’ contributions to candidates. An industry that gave three or four times as much to GOP candidates as to Democrats in the 1990s and early 2000s is now hedging its bets. So far in the 2024 cycle, drug companies have given $4.89 million to Democrats and $4.35 million to Republicans, according to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan research group.

Harris has received $518,571 from the industry and Trump has received $204,748.

At the Democratic National Convention in Chicago last week, Harris and fellow Democrats touted their records on curbing drug prices. Harris supporters point to her past and present.

While she was California’s attorney general, she joined cases that resulted in nearly $7.2 billion (about $22 per person in the U.S.) in fines for drug companies.

Her vote to pass President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act paved the way not only for Medicare price negotiation but also an annual $2,000 cap on Medicare beneficiaries’ total drug spending and a $35 cap on their monthly insulin supplies.

“In the United States of America, no senior should have to choose between either filling their prescription or paying their rent,” Harris said Aug. 15 in her first joint appearance with Biden since he exited the presidential race.

She has promised to extend both the annual drug spending cap and the insulin price cap to all Americans with insurance, not just those on Medicare, if elected president.

Harris also backed a contentious policy that, in some instances, would empower the federal government to inject more competition into the marketplace by seizing the patents on some high-cost drugs developed with federal funds.

Doug Hart, 77, of Tempe, Arizona, has been spending about $7,000 annually on prescription drugs. A drug he takes to prevent blood clots will cost less under the Medicare price negotiations. The retired labor union president said the decrease will be considerable and it is one reason he backs Harris.

“The Republicans all voted against Medicare negotiation. Harris broke the tie in the Senate to allow it,” said Hart, who is a board member for the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, which works to mobilize returned union members and activists on progressive issues.

While Republicans as a party remain more friendly to the pharmaceutical industry, Trump has been willing to challenge GOP orthodoxy by taking action to combat high drug costs.

He sought during his administration to tie drug prices in Medicare to lower international prices, a proposal that the PricewaterhouseCoopers health research institute estimated would cost five drugmakers as much as $500 million a year. What was known as the “most favored nation” interim final rule was blocked because of legal challenges and later rescinded by the Biden administration.

Trump issued a rule setting up a path to import drugs from Canada and other countries, with Florida this year becoming the first state to get federal approval to import some prescriptions from Canada. But the state has been stymied by pushback from Health Canada, the Canadian government department responsible for national health policy.

And on his campaign website, Trump posted a video in which he questioned whether childhood health problems are the result of “overprescription” of medications.

“Too often, our public health establishment is too close to Big Pharma — they make a lot of money, Big Pharma — big corporations, and other special interests, and does not want to ask the tough questions about what is happening to our children’s health,” he said. “If Big Pharma defrauds American patients and taxpayers or puts profits above people, they must be investigated and held accountable.”

Trump hasn’t said much about drug prices in his 2024 campaign, but allies and former advisers say he remains committed to knocking down prescription prices if reelected.

He would likely focus on increasing generic and biosimilar competition, importing drugs made in the U.S. but sold overseas back to the U.S., and capping out-of-pocket insulin costs, according to former Trump administration officials. Other goals may be lowering prices for drugs in the Medicare 340B program, which requires drugmakers to provide outpatient drugs at reduced prices to eligible health organizations that serve lower-income and uninsured patients.

“The No. 1 issue he cared about while I was in the White House, and I continue to hear him talk about, is lowering drug prices,” said Theo Merkel, a senior research fellow at conservative think tanks Paragon Health Institute and the Manhattan Institute. Merkel was also a special assistant in the Trump White House. “I’m confident that will be at the top of the agenda,” he added.

Catherine Hill, a spokesperson for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, said the industry trade group looks forward to collaborating with any future presidential administration.

She criticized the Biden administration’s plan for Medicare price negotiation as well as Trump’s plan to align U.S. prices with those in foreign countries. This month, the administration announced new, reduced prices for 10 drugs in the program following negotiations between the federal government and drugmakers. The lower costs take effect in 2026.

“Previous price controls adopted by the Biden administration threaten to stifle that innovation,” Hill said. “Undermining intellectual property protections and borrowing other countries’ price controls will further undercut innovation and threaten patients’ access to medicine.”

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. 

Ashley and Kyle were newlyweds in early 2022 and thrilled to be expecting their first child. But bleeding had plagued Ashley from the beginning of her pregnancy, and in July, at seven weeks, she began miscarrying.

The couple’s heartbreak came a few weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the federal right to abortion. In Wisconsin, their home state, an 1849 law had sprung back into effect, halting abortion care except when a pregnant woman faced death.

Insurance coverage for abortion care in the U.S. is a hodgepodge. Patients often don’t know when or if a procedure or abortion pills are covered, and the proliferation of abortion bans has exacerbated the confusion. Ashley said she got caught in that tangle of uncertainties.

Ashley’s life wasn’t in danger during the miscarriage, but the state’s abortion ban meant doctors in Wisconsin could not perform a D&E — dilation and evacuation — even during a miscarriage until the embryo died. She drove back and forth to the hospital, bleeding and taking sick time from work, until doctors could confirm that the pregnancy had ended. Only then did doctors remove the pregnancy tissue.

“The first pregnancy was the first time I had realized that something like that could affect me,” said Ashley, who asked to be identified by her middle name and her husband by his first name only. She works in a government agency alongside conservative co-workers and fears retribution for discussing her abortion care.

A year later, the 1849 abortion ban still in place in Wisconsin, Ashley was pregnant again.

“Everything was perfect. I was starting to feel kicking and movement,” she said. “It was the day I turned 20 weeks, which was a Monday. I went to work, and then I picked Kyle up from work, and I got up off the driver’s seat and there was fluid on the seat.”

The amniotic sac had broken, a condition called previable PPROM. The couple drove straight to the obstetrics triage at UnityPoint Health-Meriter Hospital, billed as the largest birthing hospital in Wisconsin. The fetus was deemed too underdeveloped to survive, and the ruptured membranes posed a serious threat of infection.

Obstetrician-gynecologists from across Wisconsin had decided that “in cases of previable PPROM, every patient should be offered termination of pregnancy due to the significant risk of ascending infection and potential sepsis and death,” said Eliza Bennett, the OB-GYN who treated Ashley.

Ashley needed an abortion to save her life.

The couple called their parents; Ashley’s mom arrived at the hospital to console them. Under the 1849 Wisconsin abortion ban, Bennett, an associate clinical professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine, needed two other physicians to attest that Ashley was facing death.

But even with an arsenal of medical documentation, Ashley’s health insurer, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, did not cover the abortion procedure. Months later, Ashley logged in to her medical billing portal and was surprised to see that the insurer had paid for her three-night hospital stay but not the abortion.

“Every time I called insurance about my bill, I was sobbing on the phone because it was so frustrating to have to explain the situation and why I think it should be covered,” she said. “It’s making me feel like it was my fault, and I should be ashamed of it,” Ashley said.

Eventually, Ashley talked to a woman in the hospital billing department who relayed what the insurance company had said.

“She told me,” Ashley said, “quote, ‘FEP Blue does not cover any abortions whatsoever. Period. Doesn’t matter what it is. We don’t cover abortions.’”

University of Wisconsin Health, which administers billing for UnityPoint Health-Meriter hospital, confirmed this exchange.

The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program contracts with FEP Blue, or the BlueCross BlueShield Federal Employee Program, to provide health plans to federal employees. In response to an interview request, FEP Blue emailed a statement saying it “is required to comply with federal legislation which prohibits Federal Employees Health Benefits Plans from covering procedures, services, drugs, and supplies related to abortions except when the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term or when the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

Those restrictions, known as the Hyde Amendment, have been passed each year since 1976 by Congress and prohibit federal funds from covering abortion services.

In Ashley’s case, physicians had said her life was in danger, and her bill should have immediately been paid, said Alina Salganicoff, director of Women’s Health Policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News, the publisher of California Healthline.

What tripped up Ashley’s bill was the word “abortion” and a billing code that is insurance kryptonite, said Salganicoff.

“Right now, we’re in a situation where there is really heightened sensitivity about what is a life-threatening emergency, and when is it a life-threatening emergency,” Salganicoff said. The same chilling effect that has spooked doctors and hospitals from providing legal abortion care, she said, may also be affecting insurance coverage.

In Wisconsin, Bennett said, lack of coverage for abortion care is widespread.

“Many patients I take care of who have a pregnancy complication or, more commonly, a severe fetal anomaly, they don’t have any coverage,” Bennett said.

Recently, the bill for $1,700 disappeared from Ashley’s online bill portal. The hospital confirmed that eight months later, after multiple appeals, the insurer paid the claim. When contacted again on Aug. 7, FEP Blue responded that it would “not comment on the specifics of the health care received by individual members.”

Ashley said tangling with her insurance company and experiencing the impact of abortion restrictions on her health care, similar to other women around the country, has emboldened her.

“I’m in this now with all these people,” she said. “I feel a lot more connected to them, in a way that I didn’t as much before.”

Ashley is pregnant again, and she and her husband hope that this time their insurance will cover whatever medical care her doctor says she needs.

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. 

One of California’s two programs for training nurse-midwives has stopped admitting students while it revamps its curriculum to offer only doctoral degrees, a move that’s drawn howls of protest from alumni, health policy experts, and faculty who accuse the University of California of putting profits above public health needs.

UC-San Francisco’s renowned nursing school will graduate its final class of certified nurse-midwives next spring. Then the university will cancel its two-year master’s program in nurse-midwifery, along with other nursing disciplines, in favor of a three-year doctor of nursing practice, or DNP, degree. The change will pause UCSF’s nearly five decades-long training of nurse-midwives until at least 2025 and will more than double the cost to students.

State Assembly member Mia Bonta, who chairs the health committee, said she was “disheartened” to learn that UCSF was eliminating its master’s nurse-midwifery program and feared the additional time and costs to get a doctorate would deter potential applicants. “Instead of adding hurdles, we need to be building and expanding a pipeline of culturally and racially concordant providers to support improved birth outcomes, especially for Black and Latina birthing people,” she said in an email.

The switch to doctoral education is part of a national movement to require all advanced-practice registered nurses, including nurse-midwives and nurse practitioners, to earn doctoral degrees, Kristen Bole, a UCSF spokesperson, said in response to written questions. The doctoral training will feature additional classes in leadership and quality improvement.

But the movement, which dates to 2004, has not caught on the way the American Association of Colleges of Nursing envisioned when it called for doctorate-level education to be required for entry-level advanced nursing practice by 2015. That deadline came and went. Now, an acute need for maternal health practitioners has some universities moving in the other direction.

This year, Rutgers University reinstated the nurse-midwifery master’s training it had eliminated in 2016. The University of Alabama-Birmingham also restarted its master’s in nurse-midwifery program in 2022 after a 25-year hiatus. In addition, George Washington University in Washington, D.C., Loyola University in New Orleans, and the University of Nevada-Las Vagas added master’s training in nurse-midwifery.

UCSF estimates tuition and fees will cost $152,000 for a three-year doctoral degree in midwifery, compared with $65,000 for a two-year master’s. Studies show that 71% of nursing master’s students and 74% of nursing doctoral students rely on student loans, and nurses with doctorates earn negligibly or no more than nurses with master’s degrees.

Kim Q. Dau, who ran UCSF’s nurse-midwifery program for a decade, resigned in June because she was uncomfortable with the elimination of the master’s in favor of a doctoral requirement, she said, which is at odds with the state’s workforce needs and unnecessary for clinical practice.

“They’ll be equally prepared clinically but at more expense to the student and with a greater time investment,” she said.

Nurse-midwives are registered nurses with graduate degrees in nurse-midwifery. Licensed in all 50 states, they work mostly in hospitals and can perform abortions and prescribe medications, though they are also trained in managing labor pain with showers, massage, and other natural means. Certified midwives and certified professional midwives, by contrast, study maternity care outside of nursing schools, attend births outside of hospitals, and are licensed only in some states.

The California Nurse-Midwives Association also criticized UCSF’s program change, which comes amid a national maternal mortality crisis, a serious shortage of obstetric providers, and a growing reliance on midwives. According to the 2022 “White House Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis” report, the U.S. has the highest maternal mortality rate of any developed nation and needs thousands more midwives and other women’s health providers to bridge the swelling gap.

Ginger Breedlove, founder and CEO of Grow Midwives, a national consulting firm, likened UCSF’s switch from master’s to doctoral training to “an earthquake.”

“Why are we delaying the entry of essential-care providers by making them go to an additional year of school, which adds nothing to their clinical preparedness or safety to serve the community?” asked Breedlove, a past president of the American College of Nurse-Midwives. “Why they have chosen this during one of the worst workforce shortages combined with the worst maternal health crisis we have had in 50 years is beyond my imagination.”

A 2020 report published in Nursing Outlook failed to find that advanced-practice registered nurses with doctorates were more clinically proficient than those with master’s degrees. “Unfortunately, to date, the data are sparse,” it concluded.

The American College of Nurse-Midwives also denounced the doctoral requirement, as have trade associations for neonatal nurse practitioners and neonatal nurses, citing “the lack of scientific evidence that … doctoral-level education is beneficial to patients, practitioners, or society.”

There is no evidence that doctoral-level nurse-midwives will provide better care, Breedlove said.

“This is profit over purpose,” she added.

Bole disputed Breedlove’s accusation of a profit motive. Asked for reasons for the change, she offered broad statements: “The decision to upgrade our program was made to ensure that our graduates are prepared for the challenges they will face in the evolving health care landscape.”

Like Breedlove, Liz Donnelly, vice chair of the health policy committee for the California Nurse-Midwives Association, worries that UCSF’s switch to a doctoral degree will exacerbate the twin crises of maternal mortality and a shrinking obstetrics workforce across California and the nation.

On average, 10 to 12 nurse-midwives graduated from the UCSF master’s program each year over the past decade, Bole said. California’s remaining master’s program in nurse-midwifery is at California State University in Fullerton, south of Los Angeles, and it graduated eight nurse-midwives last year and 11 this year.

More than half of rural counties in the U.S. lacked obstetric care in 2018, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

In some parts of California, expectant mothers must drive two hours for care, said Bethany Sasaki, who runs Midtown Nurse Midwives, a Sacramento birth center. It has had to stop accepting new clients because it cannot find midwives.

Donnelly predicted the closure of UCSF’s midwifery program will significantly reduce the number of nurse-midwives entering the workforce and will inhibit people with fewer resources from attending the program. “Specifically, I think it’s going to reduce folks of color, people from rural communities, people from poor communities,” she said.

UCSF’s change will also likely undercut efforts to train providers from diverse backgrounds.

Natasha, a 37-year-old Afro-Puerto Rican mother of two, has spent a decade preparing to train as a nurse-midwife so she could help women like herself through pregnancy and childbirth. She asked to be identified only by her first name out of fear of reducing her chances of graduate school admission.

The UCSF program’s pause, plus the added time and expense to get a doctoral degree, has muddied her career path.

“The master’s was just the perfect program,” said Natasha, who lives in the Bay Area and cannot travel to the other end of the state to attend CSU-Fullerton. “I’m frustrated, and I feel deflated. I now have to find another career path.”

The Host

The conventions are over, and the general-election campaign is officially on. While reproductive health is sure to play a key role in the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, it’s less clear what role other health issues will play.

Meanwhile, Medicare recently announced negotiated prices of the first 10 drugs selected under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The announcement is boosting attention to what was already a major pocketbook issue for both Republicans and Democrats.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Politico and Johns Hopkins University’s schools of nursing and public health, Shefali Luthra of The 19^th, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Democratic National Convention highlighted reproductive rights issues as never before, with a parade of public officials and private citizens recounting some of their most personal, painful memories of needing abortion care. But abortion rights activists remain concerned that Harris has not promised to push beyond codifying the rights established under Roe v. Wade, which they believe allows too many barriers to care.
• As reproductive rights have taken center stage in her campaign, Harris has been less forthcoming about her other health policy plans so far. In her career, she has embraced fights against anticompetitive behavior by insurers and hospitals and in drug pricing.
• Would former President Donald Trump make Robert Kennedy Jr. his next health secretary? Even many Republicans would consider his elevation a bridge too far. Polls show Trump stands to gain from Kennedy’s departure from the presidential race, but likely only slightly more than Harris.
• In other national health news, abortion access will be on the ballot this fall in Arizona and Montana, and the federal government recently announced the first drug prices secured under Medicare’s new drug-negotiation program.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment about a woman who fought back after being charged for two surgeries despite undergoing only one. 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: The New York Times’ “Hot Summer Threatens Efficacy of Mail-Order Medications,” by Emily Baumgaertner.

Joanne Kenen: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s “Who Is Gus Walz and What Is a Non-Verbal Learning Disorder?” by Natalie Eilbert. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “The Fight Against DEI Programs Shifts to Medical Care,” by Theo Francis and Melanie Evans.  

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post’s “Weight-Loss Drugs Are a Hot Commodity. But Not in Low-Income Neighborhoods,” by Ariana Eunjung Cha. 

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket 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. 

CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa — Garret Frey refuses to be sidelined.

Frey has been paralyzed from the neck down for more than 37 of his 42 years. He has spent decades rejecting the government’s excuses when he and others with disabilities are denied the support they need to live in their own homes and to participate in society.

The Iowan won a landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1999, after his school district refused to pay for the care he needed to continue attending high school classes in Cedar Rapids. He recently scored another victory when a complaint he lodged with federal officials pressured Iowa to agree to increase Medicaid payments for caregivers to stay overnight with Frey so he won’t need to move into a nursing home.

“These are civil rights issues,” he said. “They are human rights issues.”

Frey makes his points a handful of words at a time. The cadence of his speech follows the rhythm of a mechanical ventilator, which pushes air into his lungs every few seconds through a tube in his throat.

His voice is soft, but he makes sure it’s heard.

Frey was paralyzed in an accident at age 4. He uses sip-and-puff controls to drive his wheelchair into courtrooms and through the halls of the Iowa Statehouse and the U.S. Capitol, where he demands policies that allow people with disabilities to live full lives.

“We’ll get there. It takes time, but I’m not going to just let things go or let things slide,” he said in an interview on the sunny patio of his Cedar Rapids home.

Frey emphasizes that anyone could find themselves needing assistance if they suffer an accident or illness that hampers their ability to care for themselves. He encourages other people with disabilities to cite his victories when seeking services they’re entitled to under federal law.

He has served on numerous local, state, and national boards and committees focused on protecting disability rights. He composes emails and updates his website using voice commands and a sticker on his chin that can interact with his computer’s camera.

His activism has drawn admirers nationwide.

“People like Garret are critically important, because they are the trailblazers,” said Melanie Fontes Rainer, director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In June, Fontes Rainer’s office announced an agreement with the state of Iowa to settle Frey’s complaint that Medicaid pay rates were insufficient for him to hire and retain overnight caregivers at his home.

Frey said he filed his federal complaint after being rebuffed by state officials. The resulting agreement increased his workers’ pay from about $15.50 to $22 an hour, the federal agency said. It also made other changes designed to allow Frey to continue living in the home he shares with his mother and brother.

Fontes Rainer said state officials cooperated with her office in settling Frey’s complaint. She said she hopes other people will take notice of the result and report problems they have in obtaining services that help them remain in their communities.

The federal administrator said she gets emotional when she sees how hard Frey and others fight for their rights. “You shouldn’t have to advocate for health care,” she said. “When I think about all that he’s been through, and that he continues to use his voice, I think it is so powerful.”

The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment on Frey’s case. But spokesperson Alex Murphy said the department is “committed to ensuring access to high-quality behavioral health, disability, and aging services for all Iowans in their communities.”

This summer, Frey and his mother visited Washington, D.C., where they participated in a 25th anniversary celebration of the Supreme Court decision Olmstead v. L.C. In that landmark case, the justices declared that people with disabilities have a right to live in their own communities, instead of in an institution, if their needs can be reasonably accommodated.

Frey was reminded during the ceremony that others are still buoyed by his own Supreme Court case, Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F.

The 1999 case focused on the Frey family’s contention that the school district should pay for help Garret needed to safely use his ventilator so he could continue to attend classes. School district leaders said they shouldn’t have to pay for such assistance because it was health care.

The court, in a 7-2 decision, described Frey as “a friendly, creative, and intelligent young man” who had a right to services enabling him to attend school with his peers.

At the recent Washington ceremony, a California teenager approached Frey. “He said, ‘You’re Garret F? Thank you. Without you, I’d never have been able to go to school,’” recalled Frey’s mother, Charlene Frey.

The 13-year-old fan was James McLelland, who breathes through a tube in his throat because of a genetic issue that impedes his windpipe. His breathing apparatus needs constant monitoring and frequent cleaning by a nurse.

His mother, Jenny McLelland, said she shows printed copies of the Garret F. court decision to school officials when she requests that James be provided with a nurse so he can attend regular classes instead of being sent to a separate school.

Because of the Supreme Court precedent, “we didn’t have to litigate, we just had to educate,” she said in an interview.

James, who is entering eighth grade this school year, is thriving in classes and loves playing percussion in band, his mother said. “James has had the life that people like Garret had to fight to get,” she said. “These are the kinds of rights that are built brick by brick.”

Frey said he found inspiration from earlier advocates, including Katie Beckett, a fellow Cedar Rapids resident who, four decades ago, drew national attention to the plight of children with disabilities who were forced to live away from their families. Beckett, who was partly paralyzed by encephalitis as an infant, was kept in a hospital for about three years. At the time, federal rules prevented payment for Beckett to receive care in her home, even though it would have been much less expensive than hospital care.

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan denounced the situation as absurd and told administrators to find a way to let the young Iowan go home. The Republican president’s stance led to the creation of what are still known as Katie Beckett waivers, which make it easier for families to get Medicaid coverage for in-home care for children with disabilities.

Frey knew Beckett and her mother, Julie Beckett, and admired how their outspokenness prompted reforms. He also drew inspiration from meeting Tom Harkin, the longtime U.S. senator from Iowa who was the lead author of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.

Harkin, a Democrat, is retired from the Senate but keeps tabs on disability issues. In an interview, he said he was glad to hear that Frey continues to push for the right to participate in society.

Harkin said he is disappointed when he sees government officials and business leaders fail to follow requirements under the Americans with Disabilities Act. To maintain the law’s power, people should speak up when they’re denied services or accommodations, he said. “It’s important to have warriors like Garret and his mother and their supporters.”

Iowa’s agreement to increase Medicaid pay for Frey’s caregivers has helped him hire more overnight workers, but he still goes some nights without one. When no outside help is available, his mother handles his care. Although she can be paid, she no longer wants to play that role. “She should be able to just be my mom,” he said.

At a recent board meeting of The Arc of Iowa, a disability rights group, Frey told his friends he’s thinking about applying for a civil rights job with the federal government or running for public office.

“I’m ready to rumble,” he said.

Federal regulators have blocked two private sector enrollment websites from accessing consumer information through the federal Obamacare marketplace, citing “anomalous activity.”

The unusual step comes as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is under the gun to curb unauthorized enrollment and switching of Affordable Care Act plans by rogue agents. The agency received more than 200,000 complaints in the first six months of the year about such actions.

CMS said in a written statement that it had suspended the two sites — Benefitalign and Inshura — “while the anomalous activity is researched to ensure the EDE partners are in compliance with CMS data standards.” EDE stands for “enhanced direct enrollment” and refers to websites approved to integrate with healthcare.gov.

In a separate development, the two websites, which insurance brokers use instead of the federal healthcare.gov site to enroll clients in Affordable Care Act plans, are mentioned in an ongoing civil lawsuit filed by attorneys representing consumers and agents who claim they’ve been harmed by enrollment schemes.

CMS posted on Aug. 9 an updated list of websites approved to integrate with the federal Obamacare marketplace that no longer included Benefitalign and Inshura. As a result, insurance agents can’t use the websites to enroll customers in or make changes to their Obamacare plans.

Private sector enrollment sites were first allowed to integrate with healthcare.gov data under the Trump administration. About a dozen such sites are now approved to connect with the federal system.

Thwarting enrollment schemes and rogue insurance agents without making it too difficult for consumers and legitimate agents to enroll in health plans has become a political problem for the Biden administration. President Joe Biden has claimed record-breaking enrollment under the ACA as one of his administration’s major accomplishments.

In recent weeks, lawmakers have called on CMS to do more and introduced legislation to increase penalties for agents who enroll people in plans without authorization. The large number of complaints from victims of the schemes have caught the attention of House Republicans, who on June 28 requested investigations by the Government Accountability Office and the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services.

KFF Health News began reporting on ACA enrollment schemes early this year.

CMS has since taken actions to short-circuit unscrupulous agents and call centers.

Until last month, agents using the approved private sector enrollment sites could access consumer information via healthcare.gov with only a name, birth date, and state of residence. CMS now requires three-way calls among agents, consumers, and the healthcare.gov helpline when agents new to a policy try to make a change. Many legitimate insurance agents are urging an additional fix used widely by state Obamacare enrollment systems: requiring two-factor authentication before consumer information can be accessed or changed by agents.

Meanwhile, the move to suspend the two enrollment websites baffled the companies, said Catherine Riedel, a spokesperson for TrueCoverage, an insurance call center that also does business as Inshura. TrueCoverage and Benefitalign are subsidiaries of Speridian Global Holdings of California.

“We don’t know what they want us to do differently,” she said.

The websites, she said, are cooperating with CMS, and they conducted an internal review that found no security issues. Very few details, other than “it is related to a potential technical anomaly reported by an outside party” were given, Riedel wrote, and the firms have not been provided “any specific, actionable information related to the alleged anomaly.”

Both firms are mentioned in the lawsuit first filed in April in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The suit alleges that people and organizations engaged in misleading advertising, or made changes to ACA policies, without the express permission of consumers — all with a goal of racking up commissions.

Late on Aug. 16, that case was amended to add allegations and defendants, including Benefitalign. The other enrollment website, Inshura, is not listed as a defendant, although it is run by TrueCoverage, which is.

Riedel said TrueCoverage disputes the lawsuit’s claims.

The case “is founded on misinformation and technical naivety that seems to have been connected to create a sensational and false narrative,” she said.

The Aug. 16 filing alleges that TrueCoverage or Speridian Technologies, another subsidiary of Speridian Global Holdings, used the Benefitalign or Inshura websites to access U.S. consumers’ personal information, then sent it to marketers in India and Pakistan. The allegation, if true, would violate agreements the private sector websites made with the federal government to gain approval to operate, the suit contends.

Riedel said there is no evidence to support the allegations and that it is technically impossible to move “bulk amounts of consumer data” from the Obamacare marketplace.

“Like many technology companies, some of TrueCoverage’s marketing efforts have been based in India. However, as part of that marketing work, TrueCoverage did not move any customer data out of the EDE platform,” she said.

The 185-page amended complaint added as a defendant Bain Capital Insurance Fund, part of one of the world’s leading private investment companies, saying it “aided and abetted” Florida-based Enhance Health, which describes itself as a large broker of ACA plans. Bain helped launch Enhance with a $150 million investment in 2021 and appointed its CEO.

After initially planning to market Medicare Advantage plans, the lawsuit says, Enhance Health and Bain decided to shift to ACA plans, which were seen as more profitable. The suit alleges Enhance Health participated in unauthorized agent changes or switching of ACA policies.

Bain knew “what was going on” at Enhance “and ultimately supported it,” the lawsuit says, noting that Bain executives sat on Enhance’s board, controlled the hiring of executives, and were often at its Sunrise, Florida, offices. The firm hoped to sell the company once it showed how profitable it could be, the suit alleges.

In a written statement, Enhance Health said that “upholding the highest standards of compliance and controls is a core focus in all aspects of our operation and we will vigorously defend against these baseless claims.”

Bain Capital Insurance did not reply to a request for comment.

The additional allegations expand on the initial April filing, which outlined a complex web of activities aimed at capitalizing changes to the ACA under Biden that resulted in broader availability of zero-premium plans for lower-income applicants. In some cases, consumers were lured to call centers through misleading ads touting nonexistent cash cards. Some call centers or agents filed duplicate coverage for the same individuals, without consumer permission, or split family members among multiple policies, the suit alleges.

Because the customers don’t pay monthly premiums for the plans, they may not notice they’ve been enrolled until they try to obtain care.

Some consumers whose plans were switched lost access to their doctors or medications. Some face tax consequences if they were enrolled in duplicative coverage or in subsidized plans for which they did not qualify.

One victim added to the case, Paula Langley of Texas, initially responded to an advertisement promising a cash card. She called the number advertised and was enrolled in ACA coverage in February 2023 but never received the promised incentive, according to the lawsuit.

She and her husband began receiving multiple insurance cards from different insurers, the suit says. She would show up for a doctor’s visit or to pick up a prescription only to find her coverage had been canceled, leaving her with unpaid medical bills.

All in all, she was switched among plans and agents at least 22 times in just over a year, the lawsuit alleges.

Attorneys Jason Kellogg of Miami and Jason Doss of Atlanta said they amended the lawsuit based on dozens of interviews with former employees of the named firms. They’re seeking class-action status on behalf of affected consumers and agents who have lost business to the unauthorized plan-switching, and the suit alleges violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations — or RICO — Act.

“The scheme is bad enough because it’s so large,” Kellogg said. “But it’s much worse given that it preys upon Americans who are at the lowest levels of the income scale, who may be desperate, are most vulnerable.”

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.