Newsom, whose administration initially opposed the wage deal as too costly, signed the bill, SB 525, into law without knowing the final price tag. His Democratic administration now projects the first-year cost to be $4 billion, though that number has been questioned by labor leaders.

Citing data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, finance officials said the law would boost wages for at least 500,000 workers who directly provide health care, not including related employees like janitors, groundskeepers, and security staff who also are covered under the law. According to the Department of Finance, it would also increase wages for state employees and boost the cost of health services by increasing Medi-Cal managed care payments. About half that cost is expected to be paid by California taxpayers and the rest covered by federal payments to Medi-Cal providers.

The governor’s latest budget asks the state legislature to add an annual trigger making the minimum wage increases contingent on state revenues and to clarify which state employees are included, citing “the significant fiscal impact” of the law. Newsom acknowledged that negotiations are ongoing, a month after his office said talks would begin.

“We continue to work to land that,” he said, adding he hoped for legislation in a matter of weeks.

The governor insisted he had reservations all along and pledged to work with fellow Democrats, who control the legislature, to make the law more affordable. But the bill he signed did not include built-in triggers, such as those used by his predecessor, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown, that could have delayed the increase in the face of a budgetary downturn. Newsom did, however, reject a number of spending bills last year.

“We had a commitment on the trigger,” even though it wasn’t in the bill, Newsom said in response to reporters’ questioning on Jan. 10. “We’re confident all parties that committed to that agreement are going to meet it and do so very shortly.”

David Huerta, president of Service Employees International Union California and SEIU United Service Workers West, said in a statement Jan. 10 that the union looks forward to working with the administration and the legislature “to ensure that these critically needed workforce investments are implemented while maximizing federal funds and holding the healthcare industry accountable for investing their resources in their workers and in patient care.”

Yet last month, SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West President Dave Regan asserted the state must “hold fast to its commitment.” SEIU-UHW is a local affiliate of SEIU California.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, who helped negotiate the earlier deal, wouldn’t comment on reopening the negotiations, and State Sen. María Elena Durazo, the Los Angeles Democrat who introduced the bill, also declined comment.

The law currently phases in the wage boosts, with large health facilities and dialysis clinics reaching the $25 hourly minimum in 2026; community clinics in 2027; and other health facilities in 2028. The $25 minimum would not take effect until 2033 for hospitals with a high percentage of patients covered by Medicare or Medicaid, rural independent hospitals, and small county facilities.

The phase-ins are set to start in June, giving state officials time to roll them back before the new fiscal year.

“I just don’t understand how the governor signed the bill to begin with. I don’t know why anyone thought it was going to be relatively cheap for the government,” said Michael Genest, now a private consultant after serving as former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s finance director. “Does he think the unions care so much about him that they will go back to the table on something they’ve already won? That would be incredibly naive.”

Proponents of the law say it covers about 3,000 employees in the state departments of Corrections and Rehabilitation, Veterans Affairs, and Developmental Services because they operate facilities licensed as hospitals, clinics, or nursing homes.

But undoing one portion of the law threatens to unravel the entire intricate compromise between labor and the health industry.

For instance, as part of the deal United Healthcare Workers West agreed in a separate memorandum of understanding to halt for four years its repeated attempts to impose regulations on dialysis clinics.

The union also previously advocated for health worker minimum wage increases in several California cities. The compromise banned such local boosts for 10 years, a big relief to the California Hospital Association.

Regan, of SEIU-UHW, said the administration’s cost estimate “has been severely overstated.”

Nearly half of health workers who would see wage increases, or a family member, currently rely on safety-net programs such as Medi-Cal, CalFresh, and CalWORKs, said Laurel Lucia, director of the Health Care Program at the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center. So increasing their income would reduce their reliance on those tax-funded programs.

“We’re estimating that the health care minimum wage impact on the state budget could be up to $300 million in the first year, but it’s possible that it could be substantially less than that” depending on how and when the state adjusts Medi-Cal payments to hospitals and clinics, Lucia said.

Genest put the cost to the state’s general fund at about $1.2 billion in an August calculation for the health industry when it opposed the bill before the last-minute compromise.

Finance Department spokesperson H.D. Palmer acknowledged the administration’s calculation did not include offsets such as a reduction in the number of lower-income workers relying on Medi-Cal.

Lucia estimated the $25 minimum wage law would raise wages for about 450,000 health workers, both those providing direct care and those in related occupations — at least 50,000 fewer than the administration’s estimate.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Her commitment to becoming a maternal health care provider was sparked early on when she witnessed the discrimination and judgment leveled against her older sister, who became a mother as a teen. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Peacock was already in her residency program in California, and her thoughts turned back to women like her sister.

“I knew that the people — my people, my community back home — was going to be affected in a dramatic way, because they’re in the South and because they’re Black,” she said.

But even though Peacock attended the Medical College of Georgia, she’s doing her obstetrics and gynecology residency at the University of California-San Francisco, where she has gotten comprehensive training in abortion care.

“I knew as a trainee that’s what I needed,” said Peacock, who plans to return to her home state after her residency.

Ever since the Supreme Court decision, California has worked to become a sanctuary for people from states where abortion is restricted. In doing so, it joins 14 other states, including Colorado, New Mexico, and Massachusetts. Now, it’s addressing the fraught issue of abortion training for medical residents, which most doctors believe is crucial to comprehensive OB-GYN training.

A law enacted in September makes it easier for out-of-state trainees to get up to 90 days of in-person training under the supervision of a California-licensed doctor. The law eliminated the requirement for a training license and also permitted training at programs such as Planned Parenthood that are affiliated with accredited medical schools.

“By allowing physician residents to come to California, where there are more opportunities for abortion training, and by allowing them to be reimbursed for this work, we’re sending a message that abortion care is health care and an essential part of physician training,” said Lisa Folberg, CEO of the California Academy of Family Physicians, which supported the bill.

The question of how to provide complete OB-GYN training promises to become more urgent as the effects of abortion bans on medical education become clear: 18 states restrict or ban abortion to the point of effectively stripping 20% of OB-GYN medical residents of the opportunity to get abortion training, according to the Ryan Residency Training Program in Abortion and Family Planning. That’s 1,354 residents this year out of 5,962 OB-GYN residents nationwide.

The restrictions in some cases aim to reach beyond state borders, spooking medical students and residents who fear hostility from anti-abortion groups and right-wing legislators.

One OB-GYN resident in a state with abortion restrictions, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals, said she’s keen on getting comprehensive abortion care training in California — but can’t.

“My program will not allow us to perform abortions in other states,” she said.

She said administrators worry that doing so would subject residents to litigation because the program is state-funded.

“That is how my program is interpreting the law,” she said. “They’re being very conservative in order to protect us.”

Pamela Merritt, executive director of Medical Students for Choice, pointed to a Kansas law that requires repayment of state medical school scholarships — with 15% interest — if residents perform abortions or work in clinics that perform them, except in cases of rape, incest, or a medical emergency.

Doctors point out that abortion training is not just about ending pregnancies. Peacock recalled a patient who started hemorrhaging badly shortly after a healthy delivery. Peacock and her team at UCSF performed a dilation and curettage — a procedure commonly used to terminate pregnancy.

“If we did not have that skill set, and the patient continued to bleed, it could have been life-taking,” said Peacock, chief OB-GYN resident at UCSF.

It’s not yet clear how many spots will be available in California to train out-of-state medical residents as demand ratchets up. “Many sites were already at their training maximums and are unable to expand opportunities to others,” said Michael Belmonte, a fellow with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Between June 2022, when Roe was overturned, and the end of June 2023, 125 out-of-state doctors did residencies in programs that use the Ryan Residency Training Program model, according to Kristin Simonson, director of programs and operations. Ryan helps OB-GYN residency programs integrate comprehensive abortion care training.

Even when opportunities to learn abortion care are available, those seeking training are proceeding with caution. “Residents arranging to travel for abortion training, like patients who travel for abortion care, are making arrangements quietly so they do not draw unwanted attention or repercussions,” said Janet Jacobson, medical director and senior vice president of clinical services at Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties, which just trained its first resident from a state with an abortion ban.

Statistics on harassment and attacks against abortion providers or disruption of their work back up such concerns, even in states where abortions are allowed. From 2021 to 2022, for example, there were upticks in stalking of personnel, bomb threats, assault and battery, and obstruction, according to the latest data from the National Abortion Federation.

Jessica Mecklosky, a pediatric resident at UCSF, said she hopes to focus on adolescent medicine, including reproductive health, where she can offer young patients choices about their futures. Her medical school experience in Louisiana, she said, is a prime example of why abortion training in California and other states is so crucial.

She initially wanted to specialize in obstetrics and gynecology but switched to pediatrics, which also would involve reproductive health care. Although she knew Louisiana had abortion restrictions, she didn’t realize how much those restrictions would interfere with her ability to learn: There were just three abortion clinics in the entire state, and as she soon found out, none were available for her training.

“I was actually not going to be able to see any elective abortion procedures throughout medical school, because we don’t rotate through any abortion clinics,” she said. There was an opportunity for a day’s training in her third year, “but, unfortunately, Roe fell before I was able to do that.”

Through Medical Students for Choice, a group that provides stipends of up to $1,200, Mecklosky got an abortion care rotation at Montefiore Medical Center in New York during her summer break.

Mecklosky is torn about where she’ll land after her residency. She may return to Louisiana and advocate for legislative changes in reproductive health while attending to patients and making forays to other states to provide abortions.

She recounts an experience in New Orleans when the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, which undid Roe, was imminent that is etched into her memory. “I had actually seen a few patients who were minors, were pregnant, and wanted to terminate their pregnancies,” she said, noting that they could not afford to travel for an abortion. “And I just remember having this sense of dread, just knowing that if we couldn’t get them into an appointment in the next 24 or 48 hours, it was possible that they would not be able to do it.”

Peacock, for her part, is adamant about returning to Georgia, where abortions are banned after six weeks. “I’m still going to provide abortions, whether that’s in Georgia or I need to fly to a different state and work in abortion clinics for a week out of the month,” she said. “It would definitely be a big part of my work.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

An infusion of reliable federal funding, advocates say, could allow these nonprofits to expand their reach to more residents most at risk of being shot — or of shooting someone.

So far, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Oregon have passed laws approving the use of Medicaid money for gun violence prevention, said Kyle Fischer, policy and advocacy director for The Health Alliance for Violence Intervention, which has lobbied for the federal and state Medicaid policy changes allowing this spending. More states are expected to follow.

“These are concrete things that we can do that avoid the debates around the Second Amendment,” Fischer said.

With gun control legislation stalled in Congress, the Biden administration has opened up federal Medicaid dollars to violence prevention as one of the ways states and cities can combat firearm violence. President Joe Biden announced the novel approach in April 2021, and now the money is starting to flow to interested states.

But the process to unlock the funding has been lengthy, and it’s unclear how much money will ultimately be spent on these programs. Because Medicaid, which provides health care for low-income and disabled residents, is a state-federal program, states must also approve spending the money on violence prevention.

In Illinois, which two years ago became one of the first states to approve Medicaid spending for violence prevention, Chicago CRED hopes to get approval for its program this spring. Arne Duncan, the former U.S. education secretary who leads the violence prevention group, said getting paid by Medicaid will be worth the wait and that he hopes his state’s experience will make it more expeditious for others.

“We’re trying to build a public health infrastructure to combat gun violence,” Duncan said. “Having Medicaid start to be a player in this space and create those opportunities could be a game changer.”

In 2020, many cities around the country confronted a rise in shootings and homicides after officials responding to the pandemic shut down schools, businesses, and critical social services. That same year, police murdered George Floyd, a Black man, in Minneapolis, sparking nationwide protests and calls to cut police funding. Americans, already armed to the hilt, rushed to buy more guns.

While the pandemic has receded and homicide rates have dropped nationally, homicides haven’t gone down in some cities. The number of gun purchases is historically high in the United States, which is estimated to have more guns than people. Programs that worked a few years ago in places like Oakland, Calif. — which had won acclaim for slashing its gun violence — can’t keep up. Memphis in November broke its record for homicides in a year.

“We have a uniquely high prevalence of firearm ownership in the United States,” said Garen Wintemute, a professor of emergency medicine and chair in violence prevention at the University of California-Davis. “We have more guns in civilian hands than we have civilians, with something on the order of 400 million guns in the United States.”

“Guns are tools, and you put a tool in somebody’s hands, they’re going to use it,” he added.

Gun violence also brings a hefty price tag. Studies from the Government Accountability Office and Harvard Medical School have shown that the cost of caring for gunshot survivors ranges from $1 billion in initial treatments to $2.5 billion over the 12 months post-injury. And it’s not only gunshot victims who need medical help.

“The patients that we see, there’s a lot of grief. Parents losing their children, grandparents losing their grandchildren. That impacts people’s health tremendously,” said Noha Aboelata, founding CEO of Roots Community Health Center in Oakland. “Entire neighborhoods have ongoing stress and trauma.”

Despite the long and often bureaucratic process, Medicaid dollars are incredibly attractive for community organizations that have historically relied on philanthropic donations and grants, which can vary year to year.

“Medicaid is reliable,” Fischer said. “If you’re doing the work, you’re qualified for it, and you are taking care of patients, you get reimbursed for the work that you do.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

It’s a new year, but the abortion debate is raging like it’s 2023, with a new federal appeals court ruling that doctors in Texas don’t have to provide abortions in medical emergencies, despite a federal requirement to the contrary. The case, similar to one in Idaho, is almost certainly headed for the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Congress returns to Washington with only days to avert a government shutdown by passing either full-year or temporary spending bills. And with almost no progress toward a spending deal since the last temporary bill passed in November, this time a shutdown might well happen.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• New year, same Congress. It’s likely lawmakers will fall short of their early-year goals to pass necessary spending bills, prompting another government shutdown or yet another short-term extension. And funding for pediatric medical training is among the latest casualties of the clash over gender-affirming care, raising the odds of a political fight over the federal health budget.
• The emergency abortion care decision out of Texas this week underscores the difficult position health care providers are in: Now, a doctor could be brought up on charges in Texas for performing an abortion in a medical emergency — or brought up on federal charges if they abstain.
• A new law in California makes it easier for out-of-state doctors to receive reproductive health training there, a change that could benefit medical residents in the 18 states where it is effectively impossible to be trained to perform an abortion. But some doctors say they still fear breaking another state’s laws.
• Another study raises questions about the quality of care at hospitals purchased by private equity firms, an issue that has drawn the Biden administration’s attention. From the Journal of the American Medical Association, new findings show that those private equity-owned hospitals experienced a 25% increase in adverse patient events from three years before they were purchased to three years after.
• And “This Week in Medical Misinformation”: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earned PolitiFact’s 2023 Lie of the Year designation for his “campaign of conspiracy theories.” The anti-vaccination message he espouses has been around a while, but the movement is gaining political traction — including in statehouses, where more candidates who share RFK Jr.’s views are winning elections.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Sandro Galea, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health, about how public health can regain the public’s trust.

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

Julie Rovner: Politico’s “Why Democrats Can’t Rely on Abortion Ballot Initiatives to Help Them Win,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein, Jessica Piper, and Madison Fernandez.

Lauren Weber: The Washington Post’s “Can the Exhausted, Angry People of Ottawa County Learn to Live Together?” by Greg Jaffe.

Victoria Knight: Politico’s “Georgia Offered Medicaid With a Work Requirement. Few Have Signed Up.” by Megan Messerly and Robert King.

Shefali Luthra: Stat News’ “Medical Marijuana Companies Are Using Pharma’s Sales Tactics With Little of the Same Scrutiny,” by Nicholas Florko.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Law Dork’s “ADF Is Providing Free Legal Representation to Idaho in Anti-Abortion, Anti-Trans Cases,” by Chris Geidner.
• JAMA Network Open’s “Barriers to Family Building Among Physicians and Medical Students,” by Zoe King, Qiang Zhang, Jane Liang, et al.
• The Journal of the American Medical Association’s “Changes in Hospital Adverse Events and Patient Outcomes Associated With Private Equity Acquisition,” by Sneha Kannan, Joseph Dov Bruch, and Zirui Song.
• KFF Health News’ “RFK Jr.’s Campaign of Conspiracy Theories Is PolitiFact’s 2023 Lie of the Year,” by Madison Czopek, PolitiFact, and Katie Sanders, PolitiFact.

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: New Year, Same Abortion DebateEpisode Number: 328Published: Jan. 4, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, Happy New Year, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 4, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hey, everyone.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: An entire panel of KFF Health News alums. I’m pretty sure that is a first. Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Boston University School of Public Health dean Dr. Sandro Galea. He has a new and pretty provocative prescription for how public health can regain public trust. But first, there was plenty of news over the holiday break, in addition to my Michigan Wolverines going to the national championship — sorry, Lauren — plenty of health news, that is. So we shall get to it. We will start on Capitol Hill, where Congress is poised to come back into session — apparently no closer to a deal on the appropriations bills that keep the government open than they were when they left for Christmas, and now it’s only two weeks until the latest continuing resolution ends. Victoria, are we looking at a shutdown again?

Knight: I was texting a lot of people yesterday trying to feel out the vibes. I think a lot of people think a shutdown seems pretty likely. A reminder that we have another member of Congress that is leaving on the Republican side in the House, so now the Republicans can only lose two votes if they’re trying to pass a bill. So when you have House Freedom Caucus members saying, “Hey, we don’t want to agree to any appropriations bills without doing something about the border,” and Democrats unlikely to agree to any border demands that the Freedom Caucus is wanting, it seems like we may be at a standstill. I know there is some reporting this morning that possibly they may just do another fiscal year continuing resolution until …

Rovner: You mean like the last couple of years we’ve done a full-year CR?

Knight: Yeah, exactly. So …

Rovner: The thing they swore they wouldn’t do.

Knight: And [House] Speaker [Mike] Johnson said, he promised he wouldn’t do that, so it’ll be interesting to see how that all plays out. As far as I’ve heard the latest, there’s no top-line funding number, but it does seem like a shutdown may be looming.

Rovner: Well, assuming there is a spending deal at some point, and the fact that 2024 is an election year where not much gets passed, a lot of lawmakers have a lot of things they would like to attach to a moving spending train, assuming there is a moving spending train. What’s the outlook for the bill that we were talking about all of December on PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] and health transparency and some extensions of some expiring programs That’s still kicking around, right?

Knight: Yeah. That’s definitely still kicking around. So there are some extenders like for community health centers and averting some cuts to safety-net hospitals. Those are really high priority for lawmakers. I think those will make their way onto any kind of deal most likely. What seems more up in the air is the transparency measures for PBMs and for hospitals and for insurers. That was the big, as you mentioned, the big pass the House in December. The Senate has introduced their own versions of the bill and there’s talk that maybe some of that could ride onto if there is some kind of funding deal, but it’s also possible that maybe it’s more likely to be punted to the lame duck session. So, post-election, when Republicans are trying in the House and Senate Democrats are trying to do their last hurrah before the new Congress comes in. So we’ll see. Latest I heard yesterday there were some negotiations around the transparency stuff, so it’s still possible, but who knows?

Rovner: Congress is the ultimate college student. They don’t do anything until they have a deadline. Meanwhile, we have yet another health program caught up in the culture wars, this time the Children’s Hospital Graduate Medical Education [Payment] program. Because most medical residencies are funded by Medicare and because Medicare doesn’t have a lot of patients in children’s hospitals, this program was created in 1999 to remedy that. Yes, I covered it at the time. Republicans in the House are happy to reauthorize it or just to fund it through the appropriations process, which keeps the money flowing, but only if it bans funding for children’s hospitals that don’t provide gender-affirming care for transgender minors. It appears that has killed the reauthorization bill that was moving for this year. Is that the kind of thing that could also threaten the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] spending bill?

Knight: Yeah, I mean there are provisions within the HHS bill to ban Medicare, Medicaid paying for gender-affirming care. I don’t know. We haven’t done much debate on the Labor-HHS bill. It’s been the one that’s been put to the side. It hasn’t even gone through the full committee, so we haven’t …

Rovner: In the House, right?

Knight: Yeah, in the House, yes. Yeah. But yeah, I think it’s definitely possible. Just broader picture, this is an issue that Republicans are trying to make a bigger thing that they’re running on in different congressional districts, talking about banning gender-affirming care. So I think even if we don’t see it now, it’s probably something that we’re going to continue seeing.

Rovner: Well, we will obviously talk more as Congress comes back and tries to do things. So new year, same old abortion debate. This week’s big entry is a decision by a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that EMTALA, the federal law that requires hospitals to at least screen and provide stabilizing care to anyone who presents in their emergency room, does not supersede Texas’ abortion ban. In other words, if a pregnant woman needs an abortion to stabilize her condition, she’d also have to meet one of the exceptions in the Texas abortion ban. Given that we don’t really know what the Texas exceptions are, since we’ve had litigation on that, that could be a tall order, right, Shefali?

Luthra: Yes. Doctors have basically said that the Texas exceptions in the state law are unworkable. And I think it’s worth noting that what EMTALA would require and what is in effect in other states with abortion bans is again very narrow. We are talking about the smallest subset of abortions, the smallest subset of medical emergency abortions, because this doesn’t apply to someone with a fetal anomaly who cannot give birth to a viable child. This doesn’t apply to someone who maybe is undergoing chemotherapy and can’t stay pregnant. This is for people who have situations such as sepsis or preterm premature membrane rupture. These are really, really specific instances, and even then, Texas is arguing and the 5th Circuit says, hospitals don’t have to provide care that would by all accounts be lifesaving.

Rovner: This puts doctors, particularly in Texas, in an untenable situation where if a woman presents, say, with an ectopic pregnancy, which is neither going to produce a live baby and is likely or could definitely kill the woman, if they perform that abortion, they could be brought up on charges in Texas, but if they don’t perform the abortion, they could be brought up on federal charges.

Luthra: And this is the bind that doctors have found themselves in over and over again. And I do want to reiterate that this isn’t actually unique to Texas because even in states where the EMTALA guidance is in effect, doctors and hospitals remain very afraid of coming up against the very onerous abortion penalties that their laws have. I was talking to a physician from Tennessee earlier this week, and she made the point that what your doctor feels safe doing, it comes down to luck in a lot of ways. Which city you happen to live in, which hospital you happen to go to, what the lawyers on that hospital staff happen to think the law says. It’s really untenable for physicians, for hospitals, and more than anyone else for patients.

Rovner: Now, despite Justice [Samuel] Alito’s hope in his Dobbs opinion overturning Roe that the Supreme Court would no longer have to adjudicate this issue, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. There’s already an emergency petition at SCOTUS from Idaho wanting to reverse a 9th Circuit ruling, preventing them from enforcing their abortion ban over EMTALA. In other words, the 9th Circuit basically said, no, we’re going to put this Idaho ban on hold to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA until it’s all the way through the courts. Not to mention the mifepristone case that could roll back availability of the abortion pill. Is it fair to say that Justice Alito’s reasoning backfired here, or was he being disingenuous when he … did he know this was going to come back to the court?

Luthra: Not one of us can see inside any individual justice’s heart or mind, but I think we can say that anyone who seriously thought that overturning Roe v. Wade, which had been in effect for almost 50 years, would bring up no legal questions to be answered again and again by the courts clearly hadn’t thought this through. I was talking to scholars this week who think that we’ll be spending the next decade answering through the courts all of the new questions that have been instigated by the decision.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s definitely not going to lower their workload. Well, speaking of Idaho, the “Law Dork” blog has an interesting story this week about how the Alliance Defending Freedom — it’s a self-identified Christian law firm that represents mostly anti-abortion and other conservative groups in court — is now providing free representation to the state of Idaho in its effort to keep its state abortion ban in place. ADF is also representing Idaho in a case about bathroom use by transgender people. Now, conservative organizations and states often work together on cases, as do liberal organizations in states, that is not rare. But in this case, ADF is actually representing the state, which poses all kinds of conflicts-of-interest questions, right? Lauren, you’re nodding.

Weber: Yeah, I mean it’s pretty wild to see this kind of overlap. As you pointed out, Julie, it’s not rare for attorney general’s offices to seek outside legal help, that happens all the time. They’re understaffed. There’s a lot of problems they can address. But to fully turn over a case essentially to an ideological group is something different altogether because it also implies that that group is giving a gift to the government. It implies that they may be able to take on more cases because if it’s for free, then who knows? And I want to point out that this group really is at the forefront of many of the battles that we’re seeing play out in health issues legally across the country. I mean, they’re involved in a lot of the gender-affirming care cases and even in dealing with some of the groups that are promoting some of the legislation in places across the country. So this is quite a novel step and something to definitely be on the lookout for as we pay attention to many court cases that are going to play out over the next couple of years.

Rovner: Yeah, this was something I hadn’t really focused on until I saw this story and I was like, “Oh, that is a little bit different from what we’ve seen.” Well, while we were on the subject of doctors and lawsuits and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel there kept alive a case filed by three doctors against the FDA, charging that it overstepped its authority by recommending that doctors not prescribe ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug, for covid. We’ve talked a lot about how the mifepristone case could undermine FDA’s drug approval process. Obviously, if anyone can sue to effectively get a drug approval reversed, this case could basically stop the FDA from telling the public about evidence-based research, couldn’t it?

Weber: This case is quite wild. I mean, as someone that covers misinformation and disinformation and has extensively covered the ivermectin sagas over the last couple of years, the idea that the FDA cannot come out and say, “Look, this drug is not recommended,” it would be a severe restricting of its authority. I mean, government agencies are known to give advice, which does not always have to be neutral. Historically, that is what has been considered just the status quo legally. And so for the court to restrict the FDA’s authority in this way — if this does, it’s obviously still up for appeal, so who knows? But if it were to be successful, essentially everything the FDA ever put out would have to say, “But go talk to your physician,” which would lead to a little bit more of a wild, wild West when it comes to evidence-based medicine as we know it today.

Rovner: Back on the abortion beat, the news isn’t all about bans in California. The new year is bringing several new laws aimed at making abortion easier to access. Shefali, tell us about some of those.

Luthra: California is really interesting because they really position themselves as the antithesis of states banning abortion. And the law that you’re discussing here, Julie, this is part of a real concern that a lot of physicians have, which is that in states with abortion bans, it’ll be harder for medical residents to be trained in appropriate health care. That means providing abortion care. It means providing comprehensive OB-GYN care in general, right? Miscarriage management, you learn how to do that in part by providing abortions. California has implemented a law this year that would try to help more out-of-state doctors come to California to get trained in how to provide this kind of care.

I think where this gets tricky and where doctors I’ve spoken to remain concerned, confused, it’s not a panacea, is the concern about whether any single state in and of itself can do enough to rectify what is happening in 18 states across the country. That’s a very, very tall order, and it comes with other concerns of: Will residents feel safe, able to come to California? Will their institutions want to send them? These are all open questions, and I think this California law, this project that they’re taking on, is incredibly interesting. I think it’ll take some time for us to see both what the impact is and what the kinks and challenges are that emerge along the way.

Rovner: I was also interested in a California law that says that California officials don’t have to cooperate with out-of-state investigations into doctors prescribing abortion pills or gender-affirming care.

Luthra: This is, again, really interesting, and I mean, I think what we are going to see is individual state laws continuing to run up against each other and questions over whose authority applies in what situations. This has come up for doctors constantly, right? The ones who live in states with abortion protections but want to provide care in other states. What happens if they are flying across the country and have a layover in a state with an abortion ban? What happens if they have a medical emergency in a state that they have maybe broken the law of, whose law applies there? These are things that have left a lot of doctors really concerned. I know I’ve spoken to physicians who say that even despite the legal protections in their states, in a state like California for instance, they still don’t feel safe actively breaking another state’s laws. And again, this is just one of those questions we’re going to keep watching and seeing play out. Who ultimately is able to decide what happens and what role would the federal government eventually have to play?

Rovner: I think these were things, these were the kinds of questions that I don’t think the Supreme Court really considered when they overturned Roe. There’s so many ramifications that we just didn’t expect. I mean, there were some that we did, but this seems to be an extent that it’s gone to that was not anticipated.

Luthra: It’s just a whole mess of, if not undesired, then perhaps unanticipated or not fully planned-for questions and concerns that are now emerging.

Rovner: So I wanted to call out a survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association about reproduction more broadly, not about abortion. How hard it is for medical students and young doctors to build families early in their careers — a time when most people are building their families. Medical training takes so long in many cases that women, in particular, may find it much more difficult or impossible to get pregnant if they wait until after their training is done. And the pace of medical care delivery and the patriarchal structure of most medical practice frowns on women doing things like getting pregnant and having babies and trying to raise children. I vividly remember a doctor retreat I spoke at in 2004 when a 30-something OB-GYN said that when she got pregnant, her residency adviser accused her of wasting a residency spot that could have gone to someone who wasn’t going to take time out of their career. I think things have progressed since then, but apparently not all that much, according to this survey.

Luthra: And this, I think, is really interesting because especially after the covid pandemic, we saw obviously, health care workers leave the field in droves. We saw more women leave the field than men. And what that spoke to was, in part, that working through covid was really taxing. Women were more often in positions that were on the front lines, but what it also spoke to is that the culture of medicine has long been very unfriendly toward the family-building burdens that often fall on women, and that hasn’t gotten better. If anything, it’s gotten worse because child care is even harder to come by. Moms, in particular, have way more to juggle and to balance than they once did. And the support, it’s not even fair to say it hasn’t caught up. It was never there to begin with.

Weber: And just to add on that, I mean, I find it — that study is great, and I will say I have family members that struggle with this currently. It’s wild to me that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a 12-week parental leave, and you possibly couldn’t finish your residency or qualify for a surgery residency if you take more than six weeks. I mean, I think that, in itself, that factoid really says exactly what Shefali was getting at. The culture of medicine is not at all friendly to folks that are considering this whatsoever.

Rovner: There’s so many women in medicine now. Now it’s making a problem not just for the women in medicine, but for everybody who wants medical care. So maybe that will get some attention paid to it. Moving on to “This Week in Private Equity,” we have another study from the Journal of the American Medical Association. It found that hospitals that were bought by private equity firms had a 25% increase in adverse events in the three years following their acquisition. Adverse events include things like falls, hospital-acquired infections, and other harm that, in theory, could or should have been prevented. It’s not really hard to connect the dots here, right? Private equity wants to raise more money, and that tends to want to cut staff, so bad things happen. I see you nodding, Victoria.

Knight: Yeah, I mean, I think this is an ongoing issue. It’s something that the Biden administration has said they want to look into, just decreasing quality of care in places that are taken over by private equity. I’m not sure there’s a really good solution to it at this point in time. And I think it also speaks to the broader issues of consolidation among the health care industry and the business of health care and what that means in regards to quality for patients. But yeah, I think this study is just another piece in building up a case of why sometimes private equity doesn’t always seem to equate to the best care for patients.

Luthra: If we go back in time a little bit, there is more evidence that shows the role that private equity has played in not only reduction in quality of care, but in the opposition between the health care industry and consumers. And the example I’m thinking of is air ambulances and surprise billing by those ER staffing firms, all of which were eventually owned by private equity firms that have their own set of incentives that is at odds with the goal of providing care that people can afford and can access, and that keeps them healthy.

Rovner: Indeed. Well, following “This Week in Private Equity,” we have “This Week in Health Misinformation.” My winner this week is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was awarded the “Lie of the Year” from PolitiFact for not just his repeated and repeatedly debunked claims about vaccines, but other fanciful conspiracy theories about covid-19, mass shootings, and the rise in gender dysphoria. I will post the link so I don’t have to repeat all of those things here. Which brings us to the story I asked Lauren here to talk about, how the anti-vax movement is quietly gaining a foothold in state houses. Lauren, tell us what you found.

Weber: Well, I found that it’s becoming very politically advantageous, to some extent. Political clout around anti-vaccine movement is growing. So you’re seeing more and more state legislators get elected that have anti-vaccine or vaccine-skeptical views. And I went down to Baton Rouge and 29 folks that were supported by Stanford Health Freedom, which is against vaccine mandates, got elected in this year’s off-cycle elections. So who knows what will happen next year, but you’re already seeing this reflected in other states. In Iowa, legislators this year stopped the requirement that you can talk about the HPV vaccines in schools. In Tennessee, home-schooled kids no longer have vaccine requirements. In Florida, they banned any possible requiring of covid vaccines, which experts said they worry if you just strike “covid” from that, that could lead to the banning of other requirements for vaccines. You’re seeing this momentum grow, and as you mentioned, Julie, RFK Jr. has played a role in this.

As I talk about in my story, back in 2021, he went down to Louisiana and really riled up some anti-vaccine fever in a legislative hearing about the covid vaccine. And so it’s a combination of things. People are reacting to a lot of misinformation that was spread during covid about the covid vaccine. And that distrust of the covid vaccine is seeping into childhood vaccinations. I mean, this year we saw data that came out that said in the 2022-2023 school year, we saw the highest rate of exemption rates for kindergartners getting their vaccinations. That’s a bad trend for the United States when it comes to herd immunity to protect against things like measles or other preventable diseases. So we will see how the next year plays out legislatively, but as it stands right now, I expect to see much more anti-vaccine movement in the statehouses in 2024.

Rovner: I’ve been covering the anti-vax movement for, I don’t know, 25, 30 years. There’s always been an anti-vax movement. It’s actually this combination of people on the far left and people on the far right, they tend to both be anti-vax, but I think this is the first time we’ve really seen it come into actual legislating way. In fact, the trend over the last couple of years has been to get rid of things like religious exemptions for families getting their children vaccinated in order to attend public school. So now we’re expecting to see the reverse, right?

Weber: Yeah, as you said, this is a horseshoe political issue that it’s been far left, far right, but now it’s really seeped into the far-right conservative consciousness in a way that has become a political advantage for some candidates. And so you’re seeing stuff that would previously be, not even make it to the floor for a vote, have to be vetoed, make it out of a committee, where previously some of these things would’ve looked at the signs and said, this is just not true. Now there’s more political power behind the ideology of some of these anti-mandate freedom pushes. So it’s really going to be something to track in this upcoming year.

Rovner: I think the other trend we’re seeing is actual health officials talking about these kinds of things, led by the Florida Surgeon General, Dr. [Joseph] Ladapo. He’s now moved on beyond recommending that young men not get the covid vaccine, right?

Weber: Yeah. So yesterday he sent out a health bulletin, and I just want to take a step back to say this is incredibly unprecedented because this is a state health officer sending out a bulletin to the state saying that he does not recommend anyone … he wants to halt the use of mRNA covid vaccinations. Now, that is not a position that any other state health officer has taken. It’s not a position that any national health agency has taken. He made it based on claims that have been debunked. He primarily based it on a study that several of the experts I talked to said it is not one that they would base assumptions on.

His claims were implausible, but needless to say, I mean, he’s the health director for the third-largest state in the union. I mean, his words carry weight, and his political patron is Ron DeSantis. Now, DeSantis has not commented publicly yet on this, but oftentimes it seems that they both have worked hand in hand to fight against vaccine mandates and to cause a ruckus around things like this. So it needs to be seen the politicization of this as this continues to play out.

Rovner: Well, that is a wonderful segue into our interview this week with Dr. Sandro Galea about the future of public health. So we will play that now and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Dr. Sandro Galea, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health. Longtime listeners will know I’ve been concerned about the state of public health since even before the pandemic. Dr. Galea has a new book of essays called “Within Reason: A Liberal Public Health for an Illiberal Time” that takes a pretty provocative look at what’s gone wrong for public health and how it might win back the support of the actual public. Dr. Galea, thank you so much for joining us.

Sandro Galea: Thank you for having me.

Rovner: So I want to start with your diagnosis of what it is that ails public health in 2024.

Galea: Well, I suppose I start from the data, and the data show that there is a tremendous loss of trust in science broadly, in public health more specifically. Data from Pew that came out just a few months ago show, really, a 25-point drop in trust in medicine and in health from before the pandemic. So the question becomes why is that? What’s going on? And what I try to do in the book is to identify a number of things that I think have really hurt us, and I could numerate those. No. 1, it is we took a very narrow approach to our perception of what should have been done without leaving space for a plurality of voices that weigh different inputs differently.

No. 2, that through the mediation of social media as a way of extending our voice, we were perhaps inhabited false certitude much more than we ever meant to or much more than we do when we think about our science. And No. 3, we allowed ourselves to become politicized in a way that’s unhealthy. Perhaps partisanized is an even better term because public health is always political, but we allowed ourselves to become blue versus red, and that doesn’t serve anybody because public health should be there to serve the whole public. And I think those three big buckets, obviously in the book I write about them in much more detail, but I think they capture the fundamental problems that then have resulted in this loss of trust we face right now.

Rovner: So I’ve had experts note that the lack of public trust in public health isn’t necessarily because of anything the public health community has done. It’s because of a broader pushback against elites and people in power of all kinds. Do you think that’s the case, or has public health also contributed to its own, I won’t say downfall, but lack of status?

Galea: I feel like the answer to that is “and,” meaning that, yes, there’s no question that there are forces that have tried to undermine public health, forces that tried to undermine science. And in the book, I’m very clear that I do realize there are outside forces that have had mal intent, that they have not acted in good faith and they have tried to undermine public health and science, but that’s not what the book is about. I say that is there, I recognize it’s there, but I wanted to write about public health from within public health. It would be shortsighted of us not to realize that we are contributing to how public perceives us. In many respects, I feel like we should have the agency and the confidence to say, well, there are things that we are doing that we should look at. And now, after the acute phase of the pandemic, is the time to look at that.

I was clear in my other writing that I did not write this book in 2021 or 2022 intentionally, because it was too close. But I feel like now that we’re over the acute phase of the pandemic, now is the time to ask hard questions and to say, “What should we be learning?” And I do that in the book, very much looking forward. I’m not naming names, I’m not pointing fingers. All I’m simply saying is we now have the benefit of time passing. Let us see what we should have done better so we can learn how to be better in future.

Rovner: One of the things I think that frustrated me as a journalist, as somebody who communicates to a lay audience for a living, is that public health and science in general during the pandemic seemed unable to say that yes, as we learn more, we’re going to change what we recommend. It becomes, to the public, well, they said this and now they’re saying that, so they were wrong. Does public health need to show its work more?

Galea: This is the term that I use, which is false certitude, which is that we conveyed confidence when we should not have conveyed confidence. Now, there are many reasons for that. Things were happening quickly. It was a fast-moving pandemic. Everybody was scared. And, also, our communication was mediated through social media, which was a new medium for communication of public health. And that does not leave space for the asterisk, for the caveat. And I think our mistake was not recognizing how much harm it was going to do and not being upfront about this is what we know today, but tomorrow we may know more, and we may then have to change our recommendations. And as one pauses and thinks about how should we do better, surely this is front and center to learn how to communicate by saying, “Today, based on what we know, this is what we think is best, but we reserve the right to come back tomorrow and be clear, tell you that the data have changed, hence the recommendations have changed.”

Rovner: Do you think public health has been slow to embrace things like social media? I mean, there are organizations on social media. I think one that comes to mind is the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Park Service. I mean that they’re very cheeky, but they get out really important information in a very quick and understandable way. Is that something that public health needs to be doing better?

Galea: Perhaps. I’m not sure I’m willing to say that public health is any worse than the National Park Service on social media. I think we are all, as a society, struggling with communicating important facts rapidly in a time of crisis. One analogy, which I use in the book, is the analogy to 9/11, meaning in 9/11, it was the first national crisis that was lived through in a time of 24/7 cable news. And as a result, there was a lot of noise on cable news that was happening that was distorting how we dealt with the event. Similarly, covid-19 was the first national crisis that was lived through the lens of social media, and we did not really know how to use it. So, at the same time as I’m labeling this as a real challenge that public health faced, I’m also trying to understand and have the compassion to realize that in public health we were struggling to learn how to do this as everybody else was.

Rovner: So let’s turn to the future. What should public health do first to try and regain some of the trust that it’s lost?

Galea: Well, I suppose first we should be having this conversation, and I’m grateful to you for having a conversation, but I actually mean that, at a large scale, I actually think that I meant my book to be a place marker. And I say in it clearly, I expect people will disagree with elements of the book, and that’s OK. And I hope that the book encourages others to write their books that talks about the things, how they see it. Because I do think that this conversation should open up space for public health to say, what are the things that we didn’t do well? What are the things that we should do better? Because from that is going to emerge a new consensus about how we should act.

If the only thing that emerges is simply this, what you and I just talked about, which is communicating with due humility, recognizing the complexity of rapidly evolving facts, and being clear with the population that things may change. If that’s the only thing that emerges, we’ve already made progress. So I think the first thing that should happen is having the conversation, opening this up, being honest that there are things that public health did that it should do better. That is going to lead us to a new consensus about how we should do better.

Rovner: And beyond the conversation, is there one thing that you wish that policymakers could do that could help public health regain its prominence and its trust? I mean, there really is no other word here.

Galea: I think the one thing that I would want to see in policy is a moving away from abolishing of the notion that we can “follow the science.” One of my least favorite things that happened during the pandemic was this notion that we could “follow the science.” Now, why do I say that? I’m a scientist! But I say that because “follow the science” implies that science leads to linear answers, to linear solutions. And that phrase, “follow the science,” became a fig leaf for policymakers, saying, “Well, the science says we should do X, therefore we’re going to do X.” That is simply false. Policymaking should rest on multiple inputs, science being one of them, but also values, but also the importance of other sectors of the economy.

And I would like us to see as a society being honest about that, that policymaking shouldn’t take science into account centrally. I agree with that. As I said, it’s my bread and butter, it’s what I do. But to pretend that science has the answer is simply wrong. We elect people in elected positions, and there are people who are appointed in decision-making positions in other circumstances. It is their job to weigh all the inputs, science being one of those inputs.

Rovner: Well, Dr. Galea, thank you so much. I will do my part to keep the conversation going. I’m sure you will do yours as well.

Galea: I will. And thank you for doing the part you’re doing.

Rovner: OK. We are back and it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, why don’t you go first this week?

Luthra: Sure. My story is from Stat by Nicholas Florko. The headline is “Medical Marijuana Companies Are Using Pharma’s Sales Tactics With Little of the Same Scrutiny.” And I think this is such a smart investigation, and I’m so grateful that Nicholas wrote it. It really gets into the fact that medical marijuana is a tremendous industry now, right? It’s not just in the Colorados or the Californias or Massachusetts that you think of. It’s all over the country and it’s a huge business. And because it’s so new, it hasn’t gotten the same scrutiny in terms of how it markets its products to consumers, the relationship it has with providers, et cetera. I think this is just a really important topic, and it’s something that we should all be paying attention to as the industry continues to grow in the coming years.

Rovner: Indeed. Victoria?

Knight: Yeah. So my extra credit this week is a Politico story by Megan Messerly and Robert King titled “Georgia Offered Medicaid With a Work Requirement. Few Have Signed Up.” And so it’s talking about just the rollout of Georgia implementing a work requirement for their Medicaid program, which they did expand Medicaid, but they included a work requirement. So I thought this was just really stunning. It said through the first four months, only 1,800 people have enrolled when the governor, Brian Kemp, expected 31,000 people to sign up.

Rovner: Contrast that with North Carolina, which expanded Medicaid without the work requirement and got, like, 200,000 people to sign up.

Knight: Yeah. So that’s just a stunning number. And they’re talking about in the story there. They’re not sure why all the reasons are, but part of it is that there is a lot of paperwork involved. And so I think it was just a really interesting example. Obviously, we have seen work requirements play out before, but we haven’t seen it in a while. And so it’s interesting to see how difficult it can be for people to access Medicaid if this is put in place. And I also think it’s important to remind people that last year, in 2023, during the debt ceiling debate, Republicans did for a while talk about wanting to implement work requirements in Medicaid again. And so, if this was something that they put into place, it would mean probably a lot of people would drop off the rolls. So it’s an idea that resurfaces. So just important to remember that.

Rovner: Indeed. Lauren.

Weber: I was obsessed with Greg Jaffe story from The Washington Post titled “Can the Exhausted, Angry People of Ottawa County Learn to Live Together?” And it’s this incredible portrait of this Michigan county where the county public health officer, Adeline Hambley, has come under tremendous pressure and threat from the conservative county board. And this is a story we have seen play out in different iterations all around the country in the wake of covid. It’s the “we don’t believe in masks, we don’t believe in shutdowns” versus the county public health folks who are trying to follow the science and how does that play out at a people level, which Greg just does a fantastic way of showing. And it’s interesting, the board was so fed up with her and making such political statements that they offered her $4 million to quit. Now this fell apart because the county doesn’t seem to have the money that would affect them, et cetera.

But it just goes to show how deep the divisions are between what used to be a very non-politicized, normal government job of being a public health officer who keeps your water safe and tries to keep you from catching bad diseases at restaurants, to the post-covid era, where [they’re] just absolutely vilified and hated, really, it seems in some of these comments in the story — so much so that they would be paid this much money to quit. So I think this speaks a lot to the tension that we see in America around public health today, and I really recommend everybody to give it a read.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really remarkable story. Well, my extra credit this week is from our podcast pal Alice [Miranda] Ollstein, along with her colleagues Jessica Piper and Madison Fernandez at Politico. It’s called Why Democrats Can’t Rely on Abortion Ballot Initiatives to Help Them Win.” And it’s a warning for Democrats not to get too smug about the popularity and success of abortion rights ballot measures around the country. They dug into the numbers and found that in many of those states, the very same voters who supported the abortion rights measures also turned around and voted for Republican candidates. As usual, in politics, things are rarely as simple as they seem.

All right, that is our show for this first week of 2024. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, my fellow Wolverine, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Shefali, where are you these days?

Luthra: I am @shefalil on X and Blue Sky, and then on Threads, I’m @shefali.luthra.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I’m @victoriaregisk on X and Threads.

Luthra: Lauren.

Weber: And then I’m @LaurenWeberHP on X and clearly still need to work on my social media game.

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

Credits

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.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Beginning in 2015, she suffered a string of personal troubles, including a shattering family trauma, marital strife, and a major professional setback. At first, sheer grit and determination kept her going, but eventually she was unable to keep her troubles at bay and took refuge in heavy drinking. By late 2020, Morrow could barely get out of bed and didn’t shower or brush her teeth for weeks on end. She was up to two bottles of wine a day, alternating it with Scotch whisky.

Sitting in her well-appointed home on a recent autumn afternoon, adorned in a bright lavender dress, matching lipstick, and a large pearl necklace, Morrow traced the arc of her surrender to alcohol: “I’m not going to drink before 5 p.m. I’m not going to drink before 2. I’m not going to drink while the kids are home. And then, it was 10 o’clock, 9 o’clock, wake up and drink.”

As addiction and overdose deaths command headlines across the nation, the Medical Board of California, which licenses MDs, is developing a new program to treat and monitor doctors with alcohol and drug problems. But a fault line has appeared over whether those who join the new program without being ordered to by the board should be subject to public disclosure.

Patient advocates note that the medical board’s primary mission is “to protect healthcare consumers and prevent harm,” which they say trumps physician privacy.

The names of those required by the board to undergo treatment and monitoring under a disciplinary order are already made public. But addiction medicine professionals say that if the state wants troubled doctors to come forward without a board order, confidentiality is crucial.

Public disclosure would be “a powerful disincentive for anybody to get help” and would impede early intervention, which is key to avoiding impairment on the job that could harm patients, said Scott Hambleton, president of the Federation of State Physician Health Programs, whose core members help arrange care and monitoring of doctors for substance use disorders and mental health conditions as an alternative to discipline.

But consumer advocates argue that patients have a right to know if their doctor has an addiction. “Doctors are supposed to talk to their patients about all the risks and benefits of any treatment or procedure, yet the risk of an addicted doctor is expected to remain a secret?” Marian Hollingsworth, a volunteer advocate with the Patient Safety Action Network, told the medical board at a Nov. 14 hearing on the new program.

Doctors are as vulnerable to addiction as anyone else. People who work to help rehabilitate physicians say the rate of substance use disorders among them is at least as high as the rate for the general public, which the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration put at 17.3% in a Nov. 13 report.

Alcohol is a very common drug of choice among doctors, but their ready access to pain meds is also a particular risk.

“If you have an opioid use disorder and are working in an operating room with medications like fentanyl staring you down, it’s a challenge and can be a trigger,” said Chwen-Yuen Angie Chen, an addiction medicine doctor who chairs the Well-Being of Physicians and Physicians-in-Training Committee at Stanford Health Care. “It’s like someone with an alcohol use disorder working at a bar.”

From Pioneer to Lagger

California was once at the forefront of physician treatment and monitoring. In 1981, the medical board launched a program for the evaluation, treatment, and monitoring of physicians with mental illness or substance use problems. Participants were often required to take random drug tests, attend multiple group meetings a week, submit to work-site surveillance by colleagues, and stay in the program for at least five years. Doctors who voluntarily entered the program generally enjoyed confidentiality, but those ordered into it by the board as part of a disciplinary action were on the public record.

The program was terminated in 2008 after several audits found serious flaws. One such audit, conducted by Julianne D’Angelo Fellmeth, a consumer interest lawyer who was chosen as an outside monitor for the board, found that doctors in the program were often able to evade the random drug tests, attendance at mandatory group therapy sessions was not accurately tracked, and participants were not properly monitored at work sites.

Today, MDs who want help with addiction can seek private treatment on their own or in many cases are referred by hospitals and other health care employers to third parties that organize treatment and surveillance. The medical board can order a doctor on probation to get treatment.

In contrast, the California licensing boards of eight other health-related professions, including osteopathic physicians, registered nurses, dentists, and pharmacists, have treatment and monitoring programs administered under one master contract by a publicly traded company called Maximus Inc. California paid Maximus about $1.6 million last fiscal year to administer those programs.

When and if the final medical board regulations are adopted, the next step would be for the board to open bidding to find a program administrator.

Fall From Grace

Morrow’s troubles started long after the original California program had been shut down.

The daughter of a prominent cosmetic surgeon, Morrow grew up in Palm Springs in circumstances she describes as “beyond privileged.” Her father, David Morrow, later became her most trusted mentor.

But her charmed life began to fall apart in 2015, when her father and mother, Linda Morrow, were indicted on federal insurance fraud charges in a well-publicized case. In 2017, the couple fled to Israel in an attempt to escape criminal prosecution, but later they were both arrested and returned to the United States to face prison sentences.

The legal woes of Morrow’s parents, later compounded by marital problems related to the failure of her husband’s business, took a heavy toll on Morrow. She was in her early 30s when the trouble with her parents started, and she was working 16-hour days to build a private medical practice, with two small children at home. By the end of 2019, she was severely depressed and turning increasingly to alcohol. Then, the loss of her admitting privileges at a large Los Angeles hospital due to inadequate medical record-keeping shattered what remained of her self-confidence.

Morrow, reflecting on her experience, said the very strengths that propel doctors through medical school and keep them going in their careers can foster a sense of denial. “We are so strong that our strength is our greatest threat. Our power is our powerlessness,” she said. Morrow ignored all the flashing yellow lights and even the red light beyond which serious trouble lay: “I blew through all of it, and I fell off the cliff.”

By late 2020, no longer working, bedridden by depression, and drinking to excess, she realized she could no longer will her way through: “I finally said to my husband, ‘I need help.’ He said, ‘I know you do.’”

Ultimately, she packed herself off to a private residential treatment center in Texas. Now sober for 21 months, Morrow said the privacy of the addiction treatment she chose was invaluable because it shielded her from professional scrutiny.

“I didn’t have to feel naked and judged,” she said.

Morrow said her privacy concerns would make her reluctant to join a state program like the one being considered by the medical board.

Physician Privacy vs. Patient Protection

The proposed regulations would spare doctors in the program who were not under board discipline from public disclosure as long as they stayed sober and complied with all the requirements, generally including random drug tests, attendance at group sessions, and work-site monitoring. If the program put a restriction on a doctor’s medical license, it would be posted on the medical board’s website, but without mentioning the doctor’s participation in the program.

Yet even that might compromise a doctor’s career since “having a restricted license for unspecified reasons could have many enduring personal and professional implications, none positive,” said Tracy Zemansky, a clinical psychologist and president of the Southern California division of Pacific Assistance Group, which provides support and monitoring for physicians.

Zemansky and others say doctors, just like anyone else, are entitled to medical privacy under federal law, as long as they haven’t caused harm.

Many who work in addiction medicine also criticized the proposed new program for not including mental health problems, which often go hand in hand with addiction and are covered by physician health programs in other states.

“To forgo mental health treatment, I think, is a grave mistake,” Morrow said. For her, depression and alcoholism were inseparable, and the residential program she attended treated her for both.

Another point of contention is money. Under the current proposal, doctors would bear all the costs of the program.

The initial clinical evaluation, plus the regular random drug tests, group sessions, and monitoring at their work sites could cost participants over $27,000 a year on average, according to estimates posted by the medical board. And if they were required to go for 30-day inpatient treatment, that would add an additional $40,000 — plus nearly $36,000 in lost wages.

People who work in the field of addiction medicine believe that is an unfair burden. They note that most programs for physicians in other states have outside funding to reduce the cost to participants.

“The cost should not be fully borne by the doctors, because there are many other people that are benefiting from this, including the board, malpractice insurers, hospitals, the medical association,” said Greg Skipper, a semi-retired addiction medicine doctor who ran Alabama’s state physician health program for 12 years. In Alabama, he said, those institutions contribute to the program, significantly cutting the amount doctors have to pay.

The treatment program that Morrow attended in spring of 2021, at The Menninger Clinic in Houston, cost $80,000 for a six-week stay, which was covered by a concerned family member. “It saved my life,” she said.

Though Morrow had difficulty maintaining her sobriety in the first year after treatment, she has now been sober since April 2, 2022. These days, Morrow regularly attends therapy and Alcoholics Anonymous and has pivoted to become an addiction medicine doctor.

“I am a better doctor today because of my experience — no question,” Morrow said. “I am proud to be a doctor who’s an alcoholic in recovery.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

It’s easy to break into a sweat and grow tired, workers say. The ventilation feels inconsistent, they say, and workers have testified in a public hearing about nosebleeds, nausea, and dizziness. In some warehouses, the walk to find a place to cool down is at least half a mile.

“We are in constant motion. Throughout the day, my shirt is soaked in sweat three to four times,” said Sara Fee, a former worker at an Amazon warehouse in San Bernardino, California, who testified before a state workplace safety board in May. “I have been nauseous, dizzy.”

As the climate warms and the threat of extreme heat spreads, California is poised to protect people who work in poorly ventilated warehouses, steamy restaurant kitchens, and other indoor job sites where temperatures can soar to potentially dangerous levels. The state has had heat standards on the books for outdoor workers since 2005, and indoor workplaces are next.

Only two other states, Minnesota and Oregon, have adopted heat rules for indoor workers, according to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Nationally, legislation has stalled in Congress, and even though the Biden administration has initiated the long process of establishing national heat standards for outdoor and indoor work, the rules are likely to take years to finalize.

If California adopts its proposal in the spring, businesses would be required to cool worksites below 87 degrees Fahrenheit when employees are present and below 82 degrees in places where workers wear protective clothing or are exposed to radiant heat, such as furnaces. If businesses are unable to lower the temperatures, they must provide workers with water, breaks, areas where they can cool down, cooling vests, or other means to keep employees from overheating.

“It is only getting hotter every year,” said Alice Berliner, director of the Worker Health & Safety Program at the University of California-Merced. “Having protections for both indoor and outdoor workers, it empowers someone to feel like they can ask for access to drinking water, and access to a break when they feel like they’re hot.”

Neither workers nor businesses are satisfied with the plan. Some businesses fear they won’t be able to meet the requirements, even with the flexibility the regulation offers. Workers argue buildings should be kept even cooler.

Heat stress can lead to heat exhaustion, heatstroke, cardiac arrest, and kidney failure. In 2021, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported 1,600 heat-related deaths, which is likely an undercount because health care providers are not required to report them. It’s not clear how many of these deaths are related to work, either indoors or outdoors.

In California, 20 workers died from heat between 2010 and 2017, seven of them because of indoor heat, according to the Rand Corp., which analyzed the state’s proposed indoor heat rules.

After a record-breaking heat wave in the Pacific Northwest in 2021, Oregon in 2022 adopted protections for indoor workers that trigger when temperatures hit 80 degrees. Minnesota’s threshold temperatures range from 77 degrees to 86 degrees, depending on the type of work. The sheer size of California’s workforce, estimated at about 18 million, could usher in changes for the rest of country, said Juanita Constible, senior climate and health advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“As California goes, so goes the nation on so many things,” she said.

California regulators have crafted the indoor rules to complement the state’s protections for outdoor workers. Those say that when temperatures exceed 80 degrees, employers must provide shade and observe workers for signs of heat illness. At or above 95 degrees, they must come up with ways to prevent heat illness, such as reducing work hours or providing additional breaks. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington also have rules for outdoor workers.

The California Occupational Safety and Standards Board, which is charged with setting worker protections, is weighing the regulation that would require employers to cool their buildings with air conditioning, fans, misters, and other methods when the temperature or the heat index hits 82 or 87. Some employees would be exempt from the rule, including employees who work remotely and those involved in emergency operations.

The board is expected to vote on the rules in March, and they would take effect by this summer, board Chief Counsel Autumn Gonzalez said.

Workers say buildings should be cooler than the proposed temperatures, especially in warehouses, food-processing plants, and other places where employees routinely move and lift.

These temperature thresholds “are too high,” said Robert Moreno, a UPS driver in San Diego who told the board in May that he has spent most of his life working in warehouses. At the proposed temperatures, it’s too hot to sit outside and eat lunch, let alone work inside a building that’s been baking in the sun all day, he said.

“Most of these warehouses are sheet metal, zero to no airflow.”

At the Amazon facility in San Bernardino where Fee worked, company spokesperson Steve Kelly said the building is air-conditioned and outfitted with ceiling fans, and workers are encouraged to take cooldown breaks anytime they need to.

“We’ve seen the positive impacts of an effective heat-mitigation program and believe all employers should be held to the same standard,” said Kelly, who declined to say whether the company supports the California proposal.

The temperature inside the 658,000-square-foot building hasn’t risen above 78 degrees, Kelly said.

Regulators have acknowledged that some businesses won’t be able to cool their workplaces, such as laundries or restaurant kitchens, where commercial boilers, ovens, and fryers operate, and have offered them the option of giving workers cooldown areas and other relief.

But those solutions aren’t always feasible, Katie Davey, former legislative director of the California Restaurant Association, told the board in May. For instance, there isn’t room for a cooldown area in many small restaurants, she said. And lowering temperatures in a kitchen could put restaurants in violation of food safety laws that require food to be heated to specific temperatures, she added.

“We are concerned that the proposed indoor-heat illness regulations may conflict with regulations which affect our ability to heat and hold food to the necessary temperatures to protect the public health from foodborne illness,” Davey said.

California regulators have spent years drafting their proposal, and it appears unlikely they will lower the threshold temperatures of 82 degrees and 87 degrees. Doing so would increase the number of businesses that have to comply and the cost, triggering a new review that would delay the regulation’s release, said Eric Berg, deputy chief of health and research and standards at California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health, which would enforce the regulation.

“I think that the threshold should be lowered, in general,” said board member Laura Stock, at the May meeting. “But equally, if not, more importantly, is that we don’t hold the process up so that we can get a standard in place as quickly as possible.”

The urgency comes, in part, because of federal inaction. Legislation has stalled in Congress to require OSHA to publish an emergency rule to enact temporary standards for all workers while the agency pursues a permanent standard. The bill is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled House, which hasn’t favored regulations on business.

Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), a co-sponsor of that bill, said the situation has become dire in his state. In June, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law eliminating existing local ordinances in Austin, Dallas, and other cities that required employers to give outdoor construction workers water breaks.

“As the climate worsens, and as summers get hotter, we should be doing more to protect workers, rather than taking their rights away,” Casar told KFF Health News. “Too often, worker protection rules have been allowed to die a slow death in a prolonged rulemaking process, and we can’t let that happen here.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Eleven states and Washington, D.C., together provide full health insurance coverage to more than 1 million low-income immigrants regardless of their legal status, according to state data compiled by KFF Health News. Most aren’t authorized to live in the U.S., state officials say.

Enrollment in these programs could nearly double by 2025 as at least seven states initiate or expand coverage. In January, Republican-controlled Utah will start covering children regardless of immigration status, while New York and California will widen eligibility to cover more adults.

“These are kids, and we have a heart,” said Utah state Rep. Jim Dunnigan, a Republican who initially opposed his state’s plan to cover children lacking legal status but relented after compromises including a cap on enrollment.

There are more than 10 million people living in the U.S. without authorization, according to estimates by the Pew Research Center. Immigrant advocates and academic experts point to two factors behind state leaders’ rising interest in providing health care to this population: The pandemic highlighted the importance of insurance coverage to control the spread of infectious diseases; and some states are focusing on people without legal status to further drive down the country’s record-low uninsured rate.

States have also expanded coverage in response to pleas from hospitals, lawmakers say, to reduce the financial burden of treating uninsured patients.

All states pay hospitals to provide emergency services to some unauthorized residents in emergency rooms, a program known as Emergency Medicaid. About a dozen states have extended coverage for only prenatal care for such people. Full state-provided health insurance coverage is much less common, but increasing.

An estimated half of the people living in the U.S. without authorization are uninsured, according to a KFF-Los Angeles Times survey. That’s more than five times the uninsured rate for U.S. citizens. Immigrants lacking authorization are ineligible for federal health programs. But states can use their own money to provide coverage through Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program for low-income people.

California was the first state to begin covering immigrants regardless of their legal status, starting with children in 2016.

“This is a real reflection of the conflict we have in the country and how states are realizing we cannot ignore immigrant communities simply because of their immigration status,” said Adriana Cadena, director of the advocacy group Protecting Immigrant Families. Many of the millions of people without permanent legal residency have been in the United States for decades and have no path to citizenship, she said.

These state extensions of health coverage come against a backdrop of rising hostility toward migrants among Republicans. The U.S. Border Patrol apprehended nearly 1.5 million people in fiscal year 2023 after they crossed the southern border, a record. GOP presidential candidates have portrayed the border as in crisis under Biden, and dangers of illegal immigration, like increasing crime, as the nation’s top domestic concern.

Simon Hankinson, a senior research fellow specializing in immigration issues with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said states would regret expanding coverage to immigrants lacking permanent legal residency because of the cost. Illinois, he noted, recently paused enrollment in its program over financial concerns.

“We need to share resources with people who contribute to society and not have people take benefits for those who have not contributed, as I don’t see how the math would work in the long run,” Hankinson said. “Otherwise, you create an incentive for people to come and get free stuff.”

Most adults lacking authorization work, accounting for about 5% of the U.S. labor force, according to the Pew Research Center. The state with the most unauthorized residents with state-provided health insurance is California, which currently covers about 655,000 immigrants without regard for their legal status. In January, it will expand coverage to people ages 26-49 regardless of their immigration status, benefiting an estimated 700,000 additional Californians.

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, D.C., and Washington state also provide full coverage to some people living in the U.S. without authorization. New York and Washington state are expanding eligibility next year.

Oregon, Colorado, and New Jersey in recent years began covering more than 100,000 people in total regardless of legal status. Minnesota will follow in 2025, covering an estimated 40,000 people.

While states are expanding coverage to people living in the U.S. potentially without authorization, some are imposing enrollment limits to control spending.

The cost of Utah’s program is capped at $4.5 million a year, limiting enrollment to about 2,000 children. Premiums will vary based on income but cost no more than $300 a year, with preventive services covered in full.

“The pandemic highlighted the need to have coverage for everybody,” said Ciriac Alvarez Valle, senior policy analyst for Voices for Utah Children, an advocacy group. “It will make a huge impact on the lives of these kids.”

Without coverage, many children use emergency rooms for primary care and have little ability to afford drugs, specialists, or hospital care, she said. “I am not sure if this will open the door to adults having coverage, but it is a good step forward,” Alvarez Valle said.

Colorado also limits enrollment for subsidized coverage in its program, capping it at 10,000 people in 2023 and 11,000 in 2024. The 2024 discounted slots were booked up within two days of enrollment beginning in November.

Adriana Miranda was able to secure coverage both years.

“You feel so much more at ease knowing that you’re not going to owe so much to the hospitals,” said Miranda, 46, who is enrolled in a private plan through OmniSalud, a program similar to the state’s Obamacare marketplace in which low-income Coloradans without legal residency can shop for plans with discounted premiums.

Miranda left Mexico in 1999 to follow her two brothers to the United States. She now works at Lamar Unidos, a nonprofit immigrant rights group.

Before she had health insurance, she struggled to pay for care for her diabetes and racked up thousands of dollars of debt following foot surgery, she said. Under the state program, she doesn’t pay a monthly premium due to her low income, with a $40 copay for specialist visits.

“I was really happy, right? Because I was able to get it. But I know a lot of people who also have a lot of need couldn’t get it,” she said.

OmniSalud covers only a small fraction of the more than 200,000 people living in Colorado without authorization, said Adam Fox, deputy director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. But starting in 2025, all low-income children will be able to be covered by the state’s Medicaid or the related Children’s Health Insurance Program regardless of immigration status.

“There is a growing acknowledgement that people regardless of their immigration status are part of the community and should have access to health care in a regular, reliable manner,” Fox said. “If they don’t, it adds costs and trauma to the health systems and communities.”

KFF Health News senior audio producer Zach Dyer contributed to this report.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Starting Jan. 1, Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, will implement new standardized contracts with its 22 managed care health plans, which collectively cover 99% of enrollees. The new contracts tighten enforcement of quality measures, especially for women and children; require the health plans to report publicly on the performance of medical providers ― and in some cases other insurers ― to whom they delegate care; and mandate that plans reveal the number of enrollees who don’t have access to primary care and invest more to plug the gap. They also commit plans to better integration of physical and mental health care and greater responsiveness to the cultural and linguistic needs, sexual orientation, and gender identity of members.

To realize these promises, state regulators will have to be tougher than they have been in the past.

But that might be difficult, because the changes are happening at the same time as a number of other initiatives that could compete for staff attention and confuse some enrollees.

Beginning next year, over 700,000 immigrants without permanent legal residency will become eligible for full Medi-Cal coverage. In addition, an estimated 1.2 million beneficiaries in 21 counties will need to change health plans after the state last year rejiggered the constellation of insurers and multiple counties switched the way they deliver Medi-Cal. Some counties will have only one plan left. Where there is more than one, enrollees who are losing their plan will have to choose a new one.

Kaiser Permanente, the Oakland-based managed care giant, will start a new direct contract with the state in 32 counties, largely an administrative shift that should not disrupt care for most enrollees. And thousands of Medi-Cal enrollees in residential care will be switched into managed care plans for the first time, as the state accelerates its move away from traditional, direct-pay Medi-Cal.

All of this is happening amid the so-called unwinding, in which over 900,000 people have been shed from Medi-Cal thus far, and disenrollments are expected to continue until next summer. The unwinding follows the termination of pandemic-era protections.

“My head is spinning thinking about all of that going on at the same time,” says John Baackes, CEO of L.A. Care Health Plan, the state’s largest Medi-Cal plan, with nearly 2.6 million members. “Our call center is stacked to the gills.”

Tony Cava, spokesperson for the Department of Health Care Services, which oversees Medi-Cal, says the new contracts, signed by all the Medi-Cal managed care plans, will provide for “quality, equitable, and comprehensive coverage,” emphasizing prevention and “offering services that address long-term care needs throughout a member’s life.”

And in a groundbreaking move, the new contracts also require health plans for the first time to reinvest a portion of their profits ― between 5% and 7.5% ― in the communities where they operate.

They also provide a number of carrots and sticks, which include withholding a small percentage of payments to health plans with a chance for them to earn it back by reaching quality and health equity benchmarks. And profitable health plans that don’t meet expectations will have to reinvest an additional 7.5% of their profits in the community. This is all on top of increased fines that regulators can levy on poorly performing health plans.

The new Medi-Cal contracts also enshrine key elements of CalAIM, a $12 billion, five-year experiment, already underway, in which health plans aim to provide a range of social services for the neediest Medi-Cal members, including housing assistance and medically tailored meals, on the grounds that poverty and related social inequities are often the root of health problems. So far, however, the rollout has been slow.

Abbi Coursolle, senior attorney in the Los Angeles office of the National Health Law Program, says the requirement for health plans to report publicly on the care provided by their subcontracted medical providers should increase accountability, helping enrollees better navigate Medi-Cal.

“This is a step forward that advocates have been paying attention to for over a decade,” Coursolle says. “There’s so much ping-ponging people back and forth between the health plan and the provider group. That dilutes accountability so much.”

Another big change for Medi-Cal is the elimination of the so-called asset limit test for a certain subset of enrollees, including people who are aged, blind, disabled, in long-term care, or on Medicare. In addition to meeting income requirements, people have had to keep the total value of their personal assets below certain thresholds to qualify for Medi-Cal. The assets that are counted include savings, certain investments, second homes, and even second cars.

Until last year, those limits were so low ― $2,000 for an individual ― that people had virtually no ability to accumulate savings if they wanted to be on Medi-Cal. In mid-2022, however, the limit was raised to $130,000, which meant that for the majority of people subject to the test, assets were no longer a barrier to eligibility. In 2024, the asset test will be eliminated altogether.

But given last year’s change, the total elimination will likely generate only a few thousand new Medi-Cal enrollees. Still, it should save people the bureaucratic headache of having to prove they’re below a certain asset threshold.

If you want to learn more about the asset limit test, the DHCS has an FAQ on the subject on its website (dhcs.ca.gov).

If you wonder whether you are among the 1.2 million Medi-Cal members who need to change health plans, and you haven’t already received communication on the subject, the department has an online tool to tell you the plans that will be available in your county as of Jan. 1.

Nearly half the people who need to switch plans are Health Net members in Los Angeles County who are being transferred to Molina Healthcare as part of a compromise agreement the state struck last year to avoid becoming mired in lawsuits by angry health plans that lost out in a bidding competition.

If you need to change plans and you’re lucky, your doctors may be in the new plan. Make sure to check. If they are not, you may be able keep them for up to a year or long enough to finish a course of treatment that is already underway. The DHCS provides a fact sheet outlining your rights to continuity. You can also contact your current health plan for additional information or ask your county Medi-Cal office. The Health Consumer Alliance (1-888‑804‑3536, or healthconsumer.org) is another source of information and assistance, as is Medi-Cal’s managed care ombudsman (1-888-452-8609, or MMCDOmbudsmanOffice@dhcs.ca.gov)

Despite the state’s best intentions, an acute shortage of medical professionals could be a big obstacle. “As these coverage expansions are happening, and as this innovation is happening, it is being built on a health workforce that is already strained,” says Berenice Nuñez Constant, senior vice president for government relations at AltaMed Health Services, one of the state’s largest community clinic groups.

Labor shortage or not, the health plans must deliver on their contractual obligations. Anthony Wright, executive director of the advocacy group Health Access California, says, “On some level, this is about holding the plans accountable for what they are promising and getting tens of billions of dollars for.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

A partir del 1 de enero, Medi-Cal implementará nuevos contratos estandarizados con sus 22 planes de salud gestionados, que cubren en total al 99% de los inscritos.

Los nuevos contratos refuerzan la aplicación de medidas de calidad, especialmente para mujeres y niños; y exigen que los planes de salud informen públicamente sobre el rendimiento de los proveedores médicos, ―y en algunos casos otras aseguradoras, en las que delegan atención―. También ordenan que los planes revelen la cantidad de inscritos que no tienen acceso a la atención primaria, y que inviertan más para cubrir esa brecha.

Además, comprometen a los planes a una mejor integración de la atención física y mental, y a una mayor capacidad de respuesta a las necesidades culturales y lingüísticas, la orientación sexual e identidad de género de los miembros.

Para cumplir con estas promesas, los reguladores estatales deberán ser más estrictos de lo que han sido hasta ahora. Pero eso podría ser difícil, ya que los cambios están ocurriendo al mismo tiempo que varias otras iniciativas que podrían competir por la atención del personal y confundir a algunos beneficiarios.

A partir del próximo año, más de 700,000 inmigrantes sin papeles serán elegibles para una cobertura completa de Medi-Cal. Además, se espera que aproximadamente 1.2 millones de beneficiarios en 21 condados deban cambiar de planes de salud después que el estado reorganizara el conjunto de aseguradoras el año pasado, y varios condados cambiaran la forma en que ofrecen Medi-Cal.

Algunos condados solo tendrán un plan. Donde haya más de uno, los inscritos que estén perdiendo su plan deberán elegir uno nuevo.

Kaiser Permanente, el gigante de la atención gestionada con sede en Oakland, comenzará un nuevo contrato directo con el estado en 32 condados, un gran cambio administrativo que no debería interrumpir la atención para la mayoría de los inscritos.

Y, por primera vez, se cambiará a miles de inscritos de Medi-Cal en cuidados residenciales a planes de atención gestionada, ya que el estado acelera su distanciamiento del Medi-Cal tradicional, de pago directo.

Todo esto ocurre en medio del llamado desmantelamiento de Medicaid (que comenzó cuando terminaron las protecciones de la pandemia), por el cual más de 900,000 personas han sido eliminadas de Medi-Cal hasta ahora, un proceso que, se espera,  continúe hasta el próximo verano.

“Mi cabeza está dando vueltas pensando en todo eso sucediendo al mismo tiempo”, dice John Baackes, CEO de L.A. Care Health Plan, el plan de Medi-Cal más grande del estado, con casi 2.6 millones de miembros. “Nuestro centro de llamadas está abarrotado”.

Tony Cava, vocero del Departamento de Servicios de Atención Médica (DHCS), que supervisa Medi-Cal, dijo que los nuevos contratos, firmados por todos los planes de atención gestionada de Medi-Cal, proporcionarán una “cobertura de calidad, equitativa y completa”, enfatizando en la prevención y “ofreciendo servicios que aborden las necesidades de atención a largo plazo a lo largo de la vida del miembro”.

Y en un acción innovadora, los nuevos contratos también requieren que los planes de salud reinviertan por primera vez una parte de sus ganancias, entre el 5% y el 7.5%, en las comunidades donde operan.

También ofrecen una serie de incentivos y penalizaciones, que incluyen retener un pequeño porcentaje de los pagos a los planes de salud con la posibilidad de que lo recuperen alcanzando objetivos de calidad y equidad en salud.

Y los planes de salud rentables que no cumplan con las expectativas deberán reinvertir un 7.5% adicional de sus ganancias en la comunidad. Todo esto se suma a las multas aumentadas que los reguladores pueden imponer a los planes de salud con bajo rendimiento.

Los nuevos contratos de Medi-Cal también consagran elementos clave de CalAIM, un experimento de $12 mil millones y cinco años, ya en marcha, en el que los planes de salud buscan proporcionar una variedad de servicios sociales para los miembros de Medi-Cal más necesitados, incluida asistencia para vivienda y comidas adaptadas médicamente, con el argumento de que la pobreza y las inequidades sociales relacionadas a menudo están en la raíz de los problemas de salud.

Hasta ahora, sin embargo, la implementación ha sido lenta.

Abbi Coursolle, abogada senior en la oficina de Los Ángeles del National Health Law Program, dijo que el requisito de que los planes informen públicamente sobre la atención proporcionada por sus proveedores médicos subcontratados debería aumentar la responsabilidad, ayudando a los inscritos a navegar mejor por Medi-Cal. “Esto es un avance en el que los defensores han estado prestando atención durante más de una década”, dice Coursolle. “Hay tanto ir y venir de la gente entre el plan de salud y el grupo de proveedores. Eso diluye tanto la responsabilidad”.

Otro gran cambio para Medi-Cal es la eliminación de la llamada prueba de límite de activos para un cierto grupo de inscritos, incluidas personas de edad avanzada, ciegas, con discapacidades, en atención a largo plazo o en Medicare.

Además de cumplir con los requisitos de ingresos, las personas han tenido que mantener el valor total de sus activos personales por debajo de ciertos umbrales para calificar para Medi-Cal. Los activos contados incluyen ahorros, ciertas inversiones, segundas viviendas e incluso segundos automóviles.

Hasta el año pasado, esos límites eran tan bajos, $2,000 para un individuo, que las personas prácticamente no tenían la capacidad de acumular ahorros si querían estar en Medi-Cal. A mediados de 2022, sin embargo, el límite se elevó a $130,000, lo que significó que para la mayoría de las personas sujetas a la prueba, los activos ya no eran una barrera para la elegibilidad.

En 2024, la prueba de activos se eliminará por completo.

Pero dado el cambio del año pasado, la eliminación total probablemente genere solo unos pocos miles de nuevos inscritos en Medi-Cal. Aún así, debería prevenir que las personas tengan la molestia burocrática de tener que demostrar que están por debajo de cierto umbral de activos.

Si quieres tener más información sobre la prueba de límite de activos, el DHCS tiene respuestas sobre el tema en su sitio web (dhcs.ca.gov).

Si te preguntas si estás entre los 1.2 millones de miembros de Medi-Cal que necesitan cambiar de plan de salud, y aún no has recibido una comunicación al respecto, el departamento tiene una herramienta en línea para informarte sobre los planes disponibles en tu condado a partir del 1 de enero.

Casi la mitad de las personas que necesitan cambiar de plan son miembros de Health Net en el condado de Los Ángeles que serán transferidos a Molina Healthcare como parte de un acuerdo de compromiso que el estado alcanzó el año pasado, para evitar enredarse en demandas de planes de salud enojados que perdieron en una competencia de licitación.

Si necesitas cambiar de plan y tienes suerte, tus médicos pueden estar en el nuevo plan. Asegúrate de verificar. Si no están, es posible que puedas mantenerlos por un año o el tiempo suficiente para completar un tratamiento que ya está en marcha.

El DHCS tiene una hoja informativa que describe tus derechos a tener esa continuidad. También puedes contactar a tu plan de salud actual para obtener información adicional o preguntar en la oficina de Medi-Cal de tu condado.

La Health Consumer Alliance (1-888 804 3536, o healthconsumer.org) es otra fuente de información y asistencia, al igual que el defensor del cuidado gestionado de Medi-Cal (1-888-452-8609, o MMCDOmbudsmanOffice@dhcs.ca.gov).

A pesar de las mejores intenciones del estado, la grave escasez de profesionales médicos podría ser un gran obstáculo.

“Mientras estas expansiones de la cobertura y estas innovaciones están ocurriendo, se está construyendo sobre una fuerza laboral de salud que ya está tensionada”, dijo Berenice Nuñez Constant, vicepresidenta senior de relaciones gubernamentales en AltaMed Health Services, uno de los grupos de clínicas comunitarias más grandes del estado.

Con escasez de personal o no, los planes de salud deben cumplir con sus obligaciones contractuales. Anthony Wright, director ejecutivo del grupo de defensa Health Access California, dijo: “A cierto nivel, se trata de hacer que los planes sean responsables de lo que prometen y de obtener decenas de miles de millones de dólares por ello”.

Este artículo fue producido por KFF Health News, que publica California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la California Health Care Foundation. 

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Somewhat by accident, Bloomer, 26, found Priya Kalyan-Masih six months into her pregnancy. Kalyan-Masih is a doula, a professional childbirth companion who provides emotional support, physical comfort, and education to women before, during, and after pregnancy. Bloomer hadn’t realized Medi-Cal would cover the service until she visited an informational fair near her home in the High Desert region of Southern California.

Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program for low-income residents, started offering the benefit in January — but doulas have wrestled with the program’s bureaucratic requirements and what they say is insufficient pay.

“Priya really listened to me. Out of all my births, this was the most peaceful and stress-free,” said Bloomer, who is a student working part-time as an in-home caregiver and at a detox center. “The fact that I didn’t have to pay anything out-of-pocket was life-changing.”

Having Kalyan-Masih at her side was critical for Bloomer because her partner — now fiancé — was imprisoned a few weeks after she found out she was pregnant, which would have meant she’d have to navigate her pregnancy and delivery without him.

Across the country, doulas are being enlisted to combat rising maternal mortality rates. In 2021, the most recent year for which data is available, about 1,200 women in the U.S. died from pregnancy complications either during pregnancy or within six weeks afterward, about 60% more deaths than were reported two years earlier, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The numbers are starkest for Black women and their children. In 2021, Black women died at more than 2½ times the rate of white women.

Doulas are distinct from the medical team and act as advocates for birthing parents. A National Institutes of Health study published this year found that doula care was associated with reductions in cesarean sections, epidural use, length of labor, premature deliveries, and maternal stress.

During Bloomer’s pregnancy, Kalyan-Masih assisted with strategies such as mapping a birth plan and coaching Bloomer on breathing techniques to ease her anxiety.

Less than a year after Bloomer moved from Texas to be with her fiancé, Tim Smith, he was arrested for firearm possession while on probation for drug-related charges. That left Bloomer in Victorville, on the edge of the Mojave Desert, far from friends and family.

In Smith’s absence, Bloomer was grateful for Kalyan-Masih’s companionship and reminders to take care of herself, she said.

But what meant the most was Kalyan-Masih’s willingness to weave Smith into the birth without judgment, she said. Kalyan-Masih acted as his eyes and ears at the hospital in June, running around with Bloomer’s phone so Smith could meet his newborn daughter, Tiara, via FaceTime.

“It meant everything. I mean, I’m locked up and I saw the baby before Mia did,” Smith recalled, laughing. “Priya made everything possible. She held the phone. She was running around when the baby came out. She made it feel like I was there.”

Smith met Tiara in person when he was released a month later.

Kalyan-Masih’s presence also led to a noticeable difference in how medical staff treated her, Bloomer said.

During her previous deliveries, she felt the medical professionals had been pushy and dismissive. For example, when her son Thaddeus was born last year, she said, doctors pressured her to get an epidural against her wishes after Smith left the room to grab her lunch.

“When I had Priya in the room, they were more attentive to my needs and didn’t treat me like my opinion didn’t matter,” Bloomer said. “It wasn’t an argument or debate. It was just like, ‘OK, that’s what we’re doing.’”

Medi-Cal covers up to 11 doula visits before and after pregnancy, and support during labor and delivery — and patients can petition for extra postpartum visits. Doulas can also be paid by Medi-Cal for providing support during and after miscarriages or abortions.

“I always explain it as obstetricians and midwives are the ones catching babies, and doulas catch Mom,” said Kalyan-Masih, who is a medical doctor by training and a doula since January.

Kalyan-Masih is pleased with California’s investment in doula services but said it has been a challenge to maneuver Medi-Cal’s administrative requirements, like acquiring business licenses.

Samsarah Morgan, a doula and founder of the Oakland Better Birth Foundation, said the business license fees, in addition to Medi-Cal’s reimbursement rates, prevent some doulas from participating in the program.

The state pays doulas fixed rates per visit, adding up to $1,154 if patients schedule the standard number of nine visits before and after birth, in addition to labor and delivery. Doulas can make up to $2,078 through Medi-Cal if patients schedule additional postpartum visits. The $1,154 rate is more than twice what the state initially proposed in 2022, and Morgan said that she’s grateful for the increase — but that it’s still not enough.

In her own practice, most clients pay $2,500 to $3,500, typically out-of-pocket since, in her experience, many private insurance plans don’t cover doula services, she said.

“I want to work with clients who are on Medi-Cal, but I also need to pay my bills,” Morgan said.

Griselda Melgoza, a spokesperson for the Department of Health Care Services, which administers Medi-Cal, said the department pays doulas the same as other providers — including doctors, nurses, and physician assistants — for the same services. The department has proposed rate increases for doula services next year, which would vary by type of delivery. A doula who provides the standard nine visits and attends a vaginal delivery, for example, would be paid $2,180, 89% more than the current rate.

Preliminary data shows that 50 doula claims were processed statewide as of July 31 and that claims from that time frame are still coming in, Melgoza said. She added that the department is working to make the benefit more accessible. In November, for instance, it eliminated most referral requirements, removing a hurdle for patients.

Bloomer said she wishes she had been able to work with a doula during previous pregnancies, especially when she was carrying Lucas, her first child, at age 19.

At the time, she didn’t know what questions to ask or what to expect, including how to cope with postpartum depression.

“With a doula, I would have been more informed,” Bloomer said as 6-month-old Tiara babbled on her lap. “I would have felt more empowered. I would have had the kind of support that would have made me a better mom.”

This article is part of “Faces of Medi-Cal,” a California Healthline series exploring the impact of the state’s safety-net health program on enrollees.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).