\n<\/p>\n
\tJulie Rovner
\n\tKFF Health News<\/p>\n
\t\t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t \t\t\tJulie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News\u2019 weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.\t\t<\/p>\n The Food and Drug Administration is back in the headlines, with a political appointee overruling agency scientists to reject an application from the drugmaker Moderna for a new flu vaccine, and FDA Commissioner Marty Makary continuing to take criticism from anti-abortion Republicans in the Senate for alleged delays reviewing the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, in a very unlikely pairing, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, and Sen. Josh Hawley, the conservative Republican from Missouri, are co-sponsoring legislation aimed at breaking up the \u201cvertical integration\u201d of health care \u2014 when a single company owns health insurers, drug middlemen, and clinician practices.<\/p>\n This week\u2019s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jackie Forti\u00e9r of KFF Health News, Lizzy Lawrence of Stat, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.<\/p>\n \tJackie Forti\u00e9r \t\t\t \tLizzy Lawrence \t\t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t \tAlice Miranda Ollstein \t\t\t \t\t\t \t\t\t Among the takeaways from this week\u2019s episode:<\/p>\n Plus, for \u201cextra credit\u201d the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:\u00a0<\/p>\n Julie Rovner:<\/strong> ProPublica\u2019s \u201cThe Children of Dilley<\/a>,\u201d by Mica Rosenberg.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Alice Miranda Ollstein:<\/strong> Politico\u2019s \u201cWhy Washington\u2019s All-In on Smart Rings<\/a>,\u201d by Amanda Chu.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Lizzy Lawrence:<\/strong> KFF Health News\u2019 \u201cUS Cancer Institute Studying Ivermectin\u2019s \u2018Ability To Kill Cancer Cells,\u2019<\/a>\u201d by Rachana Pradhan.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Jackie Forti\u00e9r:<\/strong> Stat\u2019s \u201cThe New Childhood Vaccine Guidelines Have a Paid Leave Problem<\/a>,\u201d by Ariana Hendrix.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Also mentioned in this week\u2019s episode:<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\tClick to open the transcript\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n \t\t\t\t\t\tTranscript: New Flu Vax? FDA Says No Thanks<\/strong>\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n [<\/em>Editor\u2019s note:<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0This transcript\u00a0was generated\u00a0using both transcription software and a human\u2019s light touch. It has\u00a0been edited\u00a0for style and clarity.]<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n Julie Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Hello from KFF Health News and WAMU\u00a0public radio\u00a0in Washington, D.C. Welcome to\u00a0What the Health?<\/em>\u00a0I\u2019m\u00a0Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and\u00a0I\u2019m\u00a0joined by\u00a0some of\u00a0the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington.\u00a0We\u2019re\u00a0taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 12, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So,\u00a0here we go.\u00a0<\/p>\n Today,\u00a0we\u00a0are joined\u00a0via\u00a0videoconference by Alice Miranda\u00a0Ollstein\u00a0of Politico.\u00a0<\/p>\n Alice Miranda\u00a0Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0Hello.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Lizzy Lawrence\u00a0of\u00a0Stat\u00a0News.\u00a0<\/p>\n Lizzy Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Hi.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0And up early to join us from California, my KFF Health News colleague\u00a0Jackie\u00a0Forti\u00e9r. Welcome, Jackie.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Jackie\u00a0Forti\u00e9r:<\/strong>\u00a0Hey,\u00a0everyone.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:\u00a0<\/strong>No interview this week, but\u00a0plenty of\u00a0news.\u00a0So\u00a0let\u2019s\u00a0jump right in. We will start this week at the Food and Drug Administration, where things are\u00a0\u2014 why\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0we call it\u00a0\u2014\u00a0newsmaking. The biggest FDA story that broke this week was controversial vaccine chief Vinay Prasad outright rejecting an application for a new flu vaccine from\u00a0Moderna, maker of the mRNA covid vaccine that so many anti-vaxxers have criticized. Lizzy, you\u00a0broke this story<\/a>. Congratulations. What happened exactly?\u00a0And why is this\u00a0such a big deal\u00a0beyond the flu vaccine?\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0This\u00a0is a big deal\u00a0because to refuse to file is a pretty rare occurrence in general, because in general the FDA and industry like to have agreed-upon standards for clinical trials before companies embark on them and\u00a0pour millions of dollars into them. So that was surprising. And then\u2014\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0And refuse to file means that they said that\u00a0they\u2019ve\u00a0got the application and said:\u00a0Yeah,\u00a0we\u2019re\u00a0not accepting that.\u00a0We\u2019re\u00a0not going to review this.<\/em>\u00a0Right?\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Yes, yes. And Prasad wrote that the\u00a0grounds\u00a0for this was that it\u00a0wasn\u2019t\u00a0an adequate, controlled trial. Well,\u00a0Moderna is saying that\u00a0actually the\u00a0FDA greenlit this trial back under the Biden administration in 2024. They acknowledged that there was\u00a0basically a\u00a0control vaccine that the FDA\u00a0say\u00a0they\u00a0would prefer that\u00a0Moderna use for the older population. But they said, however,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0acceptable if you\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0do that.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0And I want to make sure I understand this. The complication here is that this is supposed to be a better vaccine for older people, but right now there\u2019s vaccines for older people that start at age 65 and this is a vaccine\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0supposed to start at age 50, right?\u00a0So\u00a0it was unclear who they were going to\u00a0test\u00a0it against, whether it was going to be the 50-to-64s or the 65s and older. Because there\u00a0isn\u2019t\u00a0a vaccine right now\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0approved for 50 and up, right?\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Exactly, exactly. So it was there\u2019s the high-dose vaccine, which\u00a0is recommended\u00a0for the above-65s,\u00a0but that\u00a0is not recommended\u00a0for the 50-to-64,\u00a0which is part of why\u00a0Moderna didn\u2019t use that high-dose vaccine, because the population that they were studying was broader than this over-65s. So anyway, so\u00a0yeah, so refusing to file is already rare, and then for there to be an overriding refuse to file, where the,\u00a0I\u00a0was told, basically, while\u00a0there may have been individuals who agreed with Dr.\u00a0Prasad\u2019s\u00a0assessment, the review team,\u00a0every discipline,\u00a0thought that it was reviewable. And the head of vaccines wrote a memo explaining why he thought it was\u00a0viable, so that the career staff\u00a0kind of documented\u00a0their thoughts here.\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0not clear whether this will\u00a0be made\u00a0public ever, but one would hope,\u00a0with radical transparency, but\u00a0we\u2019ll\u00a0see. Despite that, Dr.\u00a0Prasad still refused to review\u00a0Moderna\u2019s application.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0So obviously\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0a big deal for the flu vaccine, but\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0a big deal beyond this. Moderna\u2019s\u00a0CEO was on cable news this morning, said that, as you said, after consulting with the FDA officials about the trial, they spent a billion dollars on this trial. How do we expect companies to invest in new medicines like this if the FDA is\u00a0basically acting\u00a0on vibes?\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0I\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0know.\u00a0Yeah. And\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0interesting. It\u00a0doesn\u2019t\u00a0seem like\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0a ton of sympathy\u00a0from\u00a0this administration. Even back last year,\u00a0[FDA]\u00a0Commissioner\u00a0[Marty]\u00a0Makary tweeted something\u00a0\u2014 this was when they were limiting, wanted to require more data for covid vaccines for the under-65 crowd. And\u00a0I think he\u00a0said something like:\u00a0Our goal is not to save companies money.<\/em>\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0not something\u00a0we<\/em>\u00a0\u2014\u00a0which\u00a0of\u00a0course that\u00a0isn\u2019t.\u00a0The FDA\u2019s\u00a0goal is to promote public health. But\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0definitely a\u00a0change in tune. I think that in the past, the FDA has understood that you\u2019re\u00a0really only\u00a0going to get innovation if you have clear, consistent guidance and that it\u2019s a\u00a0really worst-case\u00a0scenario for a company to spend a billion dollars on a clinical trial and then there\u2019s nothing to show for it and nothing for it to benefit patients,\u00a0either. So.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Is this over? What\u00a0happens\u00a0now?\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0So now\u00a0Moderna has requested a meeting to challenge this decision, and now there begins a kind of negotiation. It might be possible\u00a0that\u00a0the FDA would, in fact,\u00a0would review\u00a0at\u00a0least the 50-to-64 cohort, because they\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0have any objections\u00a0there, seemingly. But\u00a0we\u2019ll\u00a0have to see. On a call yesterday, a senior FDA official talked about\u00a0Moderna\u00a0kind of coming\u00a0to the agency with humility and acknowledging that the FDA had recommended this high-dose vaccine. And\u00a0so\u00a0I\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0know.\u00a0I think companies\u00a0are definitely\u00a0\u2014\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0a lesson that\u00a0they\u2019re, especially if\u00a0you\u2019re\u00a0in the vaccine space, you\u00a0have to\u00a0tread very carefully.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah. And I would\u00a0think\u00a0others in the drug space,\u00a0too.\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0not just\u00a0\u2014\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0the point of this\u00a0\u2014\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0not just vaccines.\u00a0Alice, you wanted\u00a0to say something.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0Oh,\u00a0yeah.\u00a0Not only the monetary investment, which\u00a0we\u2019ve\u00a0touched on a bunch, but\u00a0companies spend years.\u00a0So\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0the\u00a0time investment as well. And why would you dedicate years of effort to something that\u00a0you\u2019re\u00a0not sure if a political appointee is going to swoop in and override career scientific officials\u2019\u00a0assessment, if\u00a0you\u00a0can\u2019t\u00a0trust the regulatory system to work as\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0always worked. There really is just\u00a0a lot of\u00a0risk there, and you\u00a0might see people not making these submissions on all kinds of fronts.\u00a0Of course, this is coming as we\u2019ve had a\u00a0really bad\u00a0flu season.\u00a0I\u2019ve had people in my life get\u00a0really sick\u00a0and say it\u2019s been really,\u00a0really bad.\u00a0So\u00a0the prospect of having something that works better to prevent,\u00a0or even just make it milder,\u00a0not coming to fruition\u00a0is rough.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah. And this year, as we know, this year\u2019s flu vaccine was not very well matched to the strains that ended up circulating. And that\u2019s\u00a0kind of the\u00a0point of this\u00a0Moderna vaccine, this mRNA vaccine, is that they say it would be much faster for them to match strains to\u00a0what\u2019s\u00a0going around. If it works as the clinical trials suggest it would\u00a0actually be\u00a0a better flu vaccine than we have now.\u00a0<\/p>\n Well, meanwhile, cases of measles are also continuing to multiply, as they do when people\u00a0aren\u2019t vaccinated, and not just in the places we\u2019ve talked about, like Texas and South Carolina, but also all around us here in the nation\u2019s capital, apparently,\u00a0as a result of\u00a0people traveling here for the anti-abortion March for Life in January. There have been more than 730 confirmed cases of measles in the U.S.\u00a0already this year.\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0four times more than have been typical for a full year, and\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0not yet the middle of February. Yet that\u00a0doesn\u2019t\u00a0seem to be deterring the administration from its anti-vaccine activities. So now, the American Medical Association and the University of Minnesota\u00a0Vaccine\u00a0Integrity\u00a0Project have announced\u00a0they\u2019ll\u00a0convene\u00a0a parallel group of experts to make vaccine recommendations,\u00a0basically saying\u00a0they\u00a0are done\u00a0following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This has been brewing for a while.\u00a0Right,\u00a0Lizzy?\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Yes. As soon as the secretary fired\u00a0all of\u00a0the experts who served\u00a0on the advisory panel to the CDC on vaccines, I think\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0been unease. And now, as you said,\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0an active parallel public health establishment\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0trying to spread credible information and provide an alternative resource, because\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0clear that HHS\u00a0[the Department of Health and Human Services]\u00a0has become compromised when it comes to vaccine recommendations. And yet,\u00a0you\u2019re\u00a0seeing the spread of infectious diseases right now.\u00a0<\/p>\n Forti\u00e9r:<\/strong>\u00a0Having\u00a0kind of this\u00a0rival court is not surprising, because\u00a0they\u2019ve\u00a0refused to\u00a0participate\u00a0in any of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meetings for\u00a0months and months. I do wonder if this will\u00a0maybe change\u00a0some of\u00a0the tone. We do have an upcoming ACIP meeting in February. Normally we would have\u00a0a\u00a0agenda out by now.\u00a0Before Secretary\u00a0[Robert F.]\u00a0Kennedy\u00a0[Jr.]\u00a0we would have them weeks in advance,\u00a0and we haven\u2019t seen one yet, so we\u2019re\u00a0really not\u00a0totally sure\u00a0what they\u2019re going to be talking about.\u00a0But Dr.\u00a0[Mehmet]\u00a0Oz did say this week that he finally\u00a0advised people\u00a0\u2014\u00a0he\u2019s\u00a0the CMS\u00a0[Centers\u00a0for\u00a0Medicare & Medicaid Services]\u00a0director\u2014\u00a0to take the vaccine.\u00a0And\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0been over 933\u00a0cases in just South Carolina during this outbreak that started last October. And so when I talk to people on the ground who are treating folks in South Carolina and have been treating them for months, and they\u2019ve been doing vaccine clinics and things like that, they\u00a0were just so fed\u00a0up with Dr.\u00a0Oz and the administration, because they partially blame them for these various outbreaks. And I had one of them tell me, like, well,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0like a band-aid on a bullet hole. Like, now\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0finally encouraging people to get vaccinated when we could have had this months ago.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0And,\u00a0of course, the CDC\u00a0doesn\u2019t\u00a0have a director\u00a0at the moment,\u00a0because the Senate-approved director\u00a0was summarily fired\u00a0and\/or quit, not clear\u00a0which,\u00a0after refusing to\u00a0basically rubber-stamp\u00a0the immunization panel\u2019s recommendations that had not\u00a0been made\u00a0at the time.\u00a0So\u00a0the American Academy of Pediatrics is suing to stop this February ACIP meeting. I did not hear what the last decision was on that, but I know that\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0still\u00a0a lot of\u00a0movement around here.\u00a0I guess the big worry\u00a0is:\u00a0Who should the public trust now? Is it going to be this\u00a0sort of grouping of medical societies led by the AMA, or the CDC, which people and doctors\u00a0are used\u00a0to following the advice of?\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0And\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0all these state alliances forming to do the same thing. And\u00a0so\u00a0I think,\u00a0yeah, the more competing recommendations\u00a0the average person\u00a0hears, the more they just\u00a0sort of throw\u00a0their hands up and say:\u00a0I\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0even know who to trust anymore.\u00a0I\u2019m\u00a0not listening to any of these people.<\/em>\u00a0And the trust that\u2019s eroded in the federal government,\u00a0that\u2019s going to be\u00a0really hard\u00a0to recuperate in the future.\u00a0You\u00a0can\u2019t\u00a0just flip a switch and say:\u00a0OK,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0a different government. We trust them again.<\/em>\u00a0Once those seeds of doubt\u00a0are planted\u00a0in people\u2019s minds, it\u2019s\u00a0really hard\u00a0to unearth.\u00a0And so, if not permanent damage, all of this is doing at least very long-term damage to the idea of\u00a0expertise\u00a0and authoritative information.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0And science, which this administration insists it wants to follow. Well, turning to FDA-related\u00a0\u201cMAHA\u201d [\u201cMake America\u00a0Healthy\u00a0Again\u201d]\u00a0news, the agency said last week it would relax enforcement of its food additive regulations to make it easier for manufacturers to say\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0not using artificial dyes. Now this was a huge deal when the agency announced the phaseout of artificial coloring. Looking at you,\u00a0fancy-colored Froot Loops. Now the administration says\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0going to allow\u00a0foodmakers\u00a0to say\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0not using artificial colors as long as\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0not using petroleum-based dyes.\u00a0Apparently, natural\u00a0dyes are\u00a0OK. But even that is controversial, and\u00a0it appears that this whole effort\u00a0really relies on manufacturers\u2019\u00a0willingness to comply rather than, you know, actual regulation, which is\u00a0kind of what\u00a0the FDA does for a living.\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0a regulatory agency.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, every time the word\u00a0\u201cnatural\u201d\u00a0comes up, I always laugh because there is no definition of that. And there are\u00a0plenty of\u00a0things that are natural that could kill you or hurt you very badly. And there are\u00a0plenty of\u00a0things that\u00a0are\u00a0synthetically manufactured\u00a0that are helpful and fine for you. And\u00a0so\u00a0it has this veneer of safety, veneer of health with no actual substance.\u00a0So\u00a0my red flags go up whenever I hear that word, and I think everyone should be skeptical.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0But it goes with RFK Jr.\u2019s quest now that you should,\u00a0quote,\u00a0\u201ceat real food.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Right.\u00a0Yeah.\u00a0I was going to\u00a0say same with\u00a0\u201cchemical.\u201d\u00a0I feel like,\u00a0\u201cchemical\u201d\u00a0abortion drug,\u00a0\u201cchemical.\u201d\u00a0And\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0like,\u00a0a lot of\u00a0things are chemicals.\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0not\u2014\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah, like in your own body, naturally.\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0You have chemicals.\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0We are chemicals.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0We are chemicals.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0You guys are all too young to remember the Dow Chemical advertising line\u00a0\u201cBetter Living Through Chemistry,\u201d\u00a0which at the time,\u00a0in the\u00a0\u201960s and\u00a0\u201970s, was true.\u00a0There was,\u00a0there\u00a0\u2014\u00a0we\u2019ve\u00a0had\u00a0a\u00a0lot of\u00a0better living through chemistry. And\u00a0some of\u00a0it has turned out to be\u00a0maybe not\u00a0so good for us, but\u00a0a lot of\u00a0it has turned out to be pretty darn good for us.\u00a0<\/p>\n Well, finally, in FDA\u00a0land,\u00a0Commissioner Marty Makary this week met with anti-abortion senators about that ongoing review of the abortion pill\u00a0mifepristone, which senators want the FDA to remove from the market. Alice,\u00a0how\u2019d\u00a0that meeting go?\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0Not great for the FDA,\u00a0from what I\u00a0was told.\u00a0I got on the phone with Sen.\u00a0Josh Hawley after it, and he was extremely frustrated. He said he\u00a0didn\u2019t\u00a0get answers to any of the questions\u00a0he\u2019s\u00a0been sending in public letters to the FDA for months and now asking in this briefing behind closed doors that they held\u00a0on\u00a0Capitol Hill this week.\u00a0He said he\u00a0didn\u2019t\u00a0get answers about what the timeline is for this review of the abortion pill mifepristone, what the review consists of,\u00a0whether\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0even begun, really, whether\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0even underway. And\u00a0so\u00a0he is\u00a0sort of concluding\u00a0that this is not going anywhere, and he wants Congress to step in and\u00a0take action.\u00a0Now,\u00a0Congress has tried to step in and\u00a0take action\u00a0before.\u00a0They\u2019ve\u00a0tried to put restrictions on mifepristone in the FDA funding bill.\u00a0That\u00a0didn\u2019t\u00a0pass.\u00a0So\u00a0I\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0know if this is even plausible in this environment where Congress\u00a0can\u2019t\u00a0really pass much of anything anymore.\u00a0<\/p>\n But\u00a0Hawley\u00a0is\u00a0not just another Republican senator. He is very intertwined with the anti-abortion movement. His wife is an\u00a0extremely prominent anti-abortion lawyer\u00a0who\u2019s\u00a0led\u00a0a lot of\u00a0the major cases trying to restrict or ban mifepristone. They founded their own anti-abortion advocacy group. And\u00a0so\u00a0it really shows that the\u00a0tensions,\u00a0clashes, whatever we want to call them, between the anti-abortion movement and the Trump administration, so after backing the Trump administration for years and years,\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0really\u00a0getting fed\u00a0up. And\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0fed up that even after they achieved their grand goal of overturning\u00a0Roe v.\u00a0Wade<\/em>, there are\u00a0actually more\u00a0abortions happening now than before, and\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0largely through\u00a0these pills and people\u2019s ability to get them. And\u00a0so\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0getting increasingly impatient with the Trump administration, who has been\u00a0sort of stringing\u00a0them along and saying:\u00a0Yeah,\u00a0we\u2019re\u00a0working on it.\u00a0We\u2019re\u00a0working on it.<\/em>\u00a0But they want to see\u00a0results. Now, of course, if there were\u00a0some\u00a0sort of restrictions imposed, that could have a big political effect. And\u00a0so\u00a0a lot of\u00a0Republicans are very torn about that. But not Sen.\u00a0Hawley. Sen.\u00a0Hawley\u00a0wants to see it.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0right. Well, moving to what I call FDA-adjacent news, one of the\u00a0many\u00a0thorny\u00a0issues that FDA has been dealing with is the compounding of those\u00a0very popular\u00a0and very pricey obesity drugs. When the drugs were in shortage, it was legal for compounders to make their own copies. But now the shortage for\u00a0both of the leading\u00a0medications\u00a0\u2014\u00a0semaglutide, made by Novo Nordisk,\u00a0and\u00a0tirzepatide, made by Eli Lilly\u00a0\u2014\u00a0is over, and those cheaper copycats were supposed to\u00a0be pulled\u00a0from the market.\u00a0So\u00a0it was a bit of a surprise when the company Hims, one of those direct-to-consumer drug sites, announced the unveiling of a semaglutide tablet just weeks after the first such drug\u00a0was approved\u00a0by the FDA, by Novo Nordisk. The FDA promptly referred the company to the Justice Department for\u00a0possible violation\u00a0of federal drug laws, after which\u00a0Hims\u00a0said,\u00a0Oh,\u00a0maybe we\u00a0won\u2019t\u00a0start selling the drug after all.<\/em>\u00a0Oh, and Novo is\u00a0suing for\u00a0patent infringement. But I would think that the war over the\u00a0\u201cfat\u201d\u00a0drugs, as President\u00a0[Donald]\u00a0Trump likes to call them, is likely to lower prices just as effectively as government regulation might. Or am I misreading that? Lizzy, this has been quite the sideshow, if you will.\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah. It might. I think that the compounding,\u00a0the FDA\u2019s crackdown on\u00a0Hims was\u00a0very interesting\u00a0to me because I think before the commissioner had come into his role, there was\u00a0some\u00a0speculation.\u00a0He had worked for a telehealth company that prescribed compounded drugs. And\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0also, I think\u00a0compounders have tried to tap into a little bit of the MAHA medical freedom aspect. But clearly\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0not been\u00a0the case, at\u00a0least at the FDA. They are clearly\u00a0very upset\u00a0about this\u00a0and\u00a0mean business, and I think\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0tying\u00a0into their crackdown on direct-to-consumer drug advertising as well. But as far as\u00a0price,\u00a0yeah. I think the deals that Trump has managed to strike with the companies\u00a0could\u00a0actually be\u00a0reducing price for patients. I think\u00a0we\u2019ll\u00a0have to see.\u00a0I know there\u2019s obviously drug pricing programs\u00a0as well that\u00a0they could pursue. So,\u00a0yeah,\u00a0we\u2019ll\u00a0have to see.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0All right. Well,\u00a0we\u2019re\u00a0going to\u00a0take a quick break. We will be right back.\u00a0<\/p>\n OK.\u00a0We\u2019re\u00a0back.\u00a0And speaking of President Trump,\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0also\u00a0drug news this week\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0not\u00a0directly related\u00a0to the FDA.\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0the official unveiling of\u00a0TrumpRx, the website the\u00a0president says will lower drug prices like no one\u2019s\u00a0\u201cever seen before.\u201d\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0a direct\u00a0quote, by the way. Except it turns out\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0not quite the\u00a0case. First, these discounts are only for people who are paying out-of-pocket, not those with insurance, which makes them valuable mostly for people who have no coverage or people who take drugs that insurance often\u00a0doesn\u2019t\u00a0cover, like those for obesity or infertility. Yet of the 43 drugs so far that\u00a0are promoted\u00a0on the\u00a0TrumpRx\u00a0website, about half already have cheaper generic copies available through sites like\u00a0GoodRx\u00a0and Mark Cuban\u2019s\u00a0Cost\u00a0Plus\u00a0Drugs. And really, the website just points people to already existing manufacturer websites that were already offering those lower prices.\u00a0So\u00a0what is the point of\u00a0TrumpRx?\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Great question.\u00a0Yeah.\u00a0This administration has been\u00a0very focused\u00a0on, obviously, media and wins\u00a0and\u00a0attaching President Trump\u2019s name to things.\u00a0So\u00a0it\u00a0accomplishes\u00a0that goal.\u00a0Maybe it\u00a0does raise awareness for these other sites that already exist. But that\u2019s a theme of\u00a0a lot of\u00a0the movement on health\u00a0care so far,\u00a0has been\u00a0\u2014\u00a0there\u2019s been\u00a0a lot of\u00a0chaos, and then there\u2019s also sometimes things that they announce as like a grand,\u00a0brand-new,\u00a0no-one\u2019s-ever-thought-of-it-before policy, but then there are already, of course, existing programs or avenues for that.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0And to be fair, Trump has\u00a0jawboned\u00a0down\u00a0some\u00a0prices, including\u00a0some\u00a0prices for the obesity drugs,\u00a0by\u00a0basically dragging\u00a0in the CEOs of these companies and saying,\u00a0You\u00a0will lower prices.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah,\u00a0yeah. The dealmaking has been effective. And\u00a0I think the question\u00a0is: Will this last beyond his administration? Will there be a legacy there?\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0I think\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0also\u00a0some\u00a0danger in\u00a0overpromising, because\u00a0he\u2019s\u00a0out there saying things that\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0comport with how math works.\u00a0He\u2019s\u00a0basically suggesting\u00a0prices will come down so many percents that\u00a0we\u2019ll\u00a0be getting paid to take drugs, because\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0what more than 100%\u00a0is. And people who are hearing that, voters who are hearing that, if they aren\u2019t seeing that show up in their bills, if they\u2019re not actually seeing those drastic, drastic drops that they\u2019re\u00a0being promised\u00a0by the\u00a0president,\u00a0are they going to get upset? And is that going to\u00a0impact\u00a0how they vote? So yes, there has been\u00a0some,\u00a0on\u00a0the\u00a0margins,\u00a0improvements, but when\u00a0you\u2019re\u00a0out there promising 600% reductions\u00a0and not delivering,\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0a risk to that.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Jackie, you wanted to add something.\u00a0<\/p>\n Forti\u00e9r:<\/strong>\u00a0Well, I was going to\u00a0say, I think it\u2019s also confusing for a lot of people, from a consumer perspective, because\u00a0you log on and I think people, they hear these huge promises, like Alice is talking about, and then they think that they can, necessarily, buy the drugs through there and\u00a0immediately get them shipped, what these third parties like\u00a0Hims and Weight Watchers are doing a lot of\u00a0with the GLP-1s. And\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0not how this works.\u00a0You still have another step of getting a prescription and then going to the pharmacy and\u00a0using these to potentially get\u00a0discounts\u00a0and lower prices,\u00a0in the same way that\u00a0these have been available from pharmaceutical manufacturers and other things like\u00a0GoodRx\u00a0for years. But it\u2019s that disconnect between, even if you can get a discount,\u00a0actually getting\u00a0the discount and crediting the Trump administration for that that I think is going to be\u00a0really difficult\u00a0for\u00a0a lot of\u00a0voters to make that connection in the way that the administration wants them to.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0And this was ever the case with rebates\u00a0\u2014\u00a0for other consumer products, not just talking about drugs.\u00a0We\u2019ll\u00a0give you a $15 rebate, but you\u00a0have to\u00a0fill out 87 forms and\u00a0send it to this place and get it exactly right, do\u00a0it before the end date, and\u00a0we\u2019ll\u00a0send you back $15.<\/em>\u00a0Because they count on most people not being able or willing to follow\u00a0all of\u00a0the various steps. So instead of giving everybody the discounted price, they make you\u00a0really basically\u00a0work for your discount, which is a consumer thing, but it\u2019s\u00a0pretty popular\u00a0in\u00a0the drug\u00a0space as well. Rather than just lowering prices,\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0going to say,\u00a0We\u00a0will give you a discount, but\u00a0you\u2019re\u00a0going to have to do this, that,\u00a0and the other thing\u00a0in order to\u00a0get it.<\/em>\u00a0<\/p>\n Forti\u00e9r:<\/strong>\u00a0Right.\u00a0But when\u00a0you\u2019re\u00a0president and you want credit for it,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0going to be a little more\u00a0\u2014\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0harder\u00a0in order to\u00a0make that connection. Sorry.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Yes,\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0true. That is a good point. All right,\u00a0moving\u00a0on. We have talked\u00a0a lot\u00a0about consolidation in the health\u00a0care industry, particularly companies like UnitedHealthcare, which used to be just an insurer, now owns its own PBM\u00a0[pharmacy benefit manager], its own claims processing company, and\u00a0thousands\u00a0of medical practices around the country. Well, now an extremely unlikely pair in the Senate, Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren and Missouri Republican Josh Hawley,\u00a0have joined to introduce something called the\u00a0Break\u00a0Up\u00a0Big\u00a0Medicine Act, which would\u00a0basically outlaw\u00a0so-called vertical integration, like that of\u00a0United and,\u00a0to a\u00a0somewhat lesser\u00a0extent, Cigna and CVS Health, which owns Aetna, the insurer.\u00a0Some\u00a0are referring to this as the health version of the 1932 Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial from investment banking\u00a0\u2014 and,\u00a0side note, whose repeal in 1999\u00a0is considered\u00a0a major factor setting off the\u00a0financial crisis\u00a0of 2008.\u00a0But that was a\u00a0risk\u00a0thing. It\u00a0was done\u00a0to prevent another stock market crash like the one in 1929.\u00a0This is a\u00a0cost\u00a0thing. This is to go after high health care costs. Could it work? Could it pass? And is this the beginning of the next\u00a0big thing\u00a0in health reform?\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Perhaps.\u00a0Yeah. Last year,\u00a0I\u00a0worked with my colleagues on\u00a0a series<\/a>\u00a0kind of examining UnitedHealth Group and the effects of consolidation on doctors and patients. And at the time, I think,\u00a0there were\u00a0some\u00a0vocal lawmakers on either side of the aisle who were criticizing this, especially in the wake of the murder of the UnitedHealth CEO, and which had a surprising\u00a0\u2014\u00a0the public sort of had this reaction\u00a0and\u00a0to\u2014\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Not in United\u2019s favor.\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Not in United\u2019s favor. And so\u00a0I think that there\u00a0is, this is a political issue that affects\u00a0everyone, Republican and Democrat, the,\u00a0well,\u00a0cost in general, but I think there\u2019s\u00a0a lot of\u00a0resentment and anger, and it seems like that is bringing together these\u00a0unlikely and pretty powerful senators.\u00a0I\u2019m\u00a0not an expert on\u00a0the\u00a0Hill. I\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0know if this has a chance. Especially,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0targeting massive, powerful companies with hands in every part of the health care system.\u00a0So\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0something that you would imagine the entire health\u00a0care industry would fight against. But,\u00a0yeah, I\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0know.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0And I will point out that Sen.\u00a0Josh Hawley, in addition to all his anti-abortion activities, last year, when Congress was debating the Medicaid cuts, kept vowing not to vote for those Medicaid cuts.\u00a0So\u00a0he\u2019s\u00a0\u2014\u00a0which, of course, in the end, he did\u00a0\u2014\u00a0but\u00a0he\u2019s\u00a0been\u00a0sort of\u00a0on\u00a0the consumer side of health\u00a0care for a while now.\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0just\u00a0this is not brand new to him.\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Right.\u00a0And\u00a0I\u2019m\u00a0not sure how\u00a0many\u00a0other Republican senators would follow him down this path.\u00a0But it\u2019s\u00a0definitely a\u00a0noteworthy development,\u00a0and\u00a0curious to see where it goes.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah,\u00a0I\u2019m\u00a0curious to see sort of if the\u00a0populist part of health care costs sort of rises to the fore.\u00a0We\u2019ll\u00a0have to, we will have\u00a0to watch that space. Well, finally this week, more on the impact of the Trump administration\u2019s immigration crackdowns and health.\u00a0My\u00a0KFF\u00a0Health\u00a0News colleague Amy\u00a0Maxmen\u00a0has\u00a0a story<\/a>\u00a0about health professionals in the U.S.\u00a0Public Health Service Commissioned\u00a0Corps\u00a0actually resigning\u00a0rather than accepting postings to Guant\u00e1namo Bay,\u00a0Cuba, where some immigrants are being detained in prisons that used to hold al-Qaida suspects. Another\u00a0KFF Health News\u00a0story<\/a>\u00a0by Claudia Boyd-Barrett describes how when people detained by ICE\u00a0[Immigration and Customs Enforcement]\u00a0end up in the hospital, often their immediate families and their lawyers\u00a0aren\u2019t\u00a0even allowed to know where. And remember, last week we talked about cases of measles in\u00a0some\u00a0immigration detention facilities. Well, now there are two confirmed cases of tuberculosis at the\u00a0ICE\u00a0facility at Fort Bliss in El Paso,\u00a0Texas.\u00a0I\u2019m\u00a0thinking\u00a0maybe the\u00a0health part of this is starting to\u00a0kind of get\u00a0to people as\u00a0much\u00a0as the whole depriving-civil-liberties part.\u00a0<\/p>\n Forti\u00e9r:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah, and\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0also been cases of covid-19, which makes sense.\u00a0You\u2019re\u00a0going to have respiratory viruses as you get hundreds of people grouped together. That makes sense. A judge in California a couple\u00a0days\u00a0ago ordered that there had to be adequate health provided to detainees in one specific California\u00a0\u2014 it was a prison and now\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0an\u00a0ICE\u00a0detainee facility.\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0specific to\u00a0there, but it\u2019s\u00a0\u2014\u00a0more and more\u00a0senators, I think, are also looking at this and pointing out that\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0just not providing the health facilities that people need. And especially ongoing care\u00a0\u2014\u00a0a\u00a0lot of\u00a0folks need diabetes treatment, and that treatment just\u00a0isn\u2019t\u00a0really happening in\u00a0many\u00a0cases.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah,\u00a0we\u2019ve\u00a0talked about this at\u00a0some\u00a0length, over\u00a0many\u00a0weeks, that people in detention are not getting health care, even though it\u00a0is\u00a0required,\u00a0that we keep hearing stories about people not getting needed health care. I\u00a0didn\u2019t\u00a0know until I read this story that people who\u00a0actually end\u00a0up\u00a0being hospitalized, that their family members\u00a0are not allowed\u00a0to know.\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0allegedly, well, it is because of security, because the idea is that if somebody\u00a0who\u2019s\u00a0in detention is in a hospital, you\u00a0don\u2019t\u00a0necessarily want bad people knowing that and being able to come to the hospital. But these are people\u00a0often\u00a0who are,\u00a0as we have documented at length, do not have criminal records, and\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0hard to find out where they are. Alice, you wanted\u00a0to add something.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah. So there was a recent GAO\u00a0[Government Accountability Office]\u00a0report about this, and it found that\u00a0people were not getting evaluated when they entered a facility to see if they were medically vulnerable and at risk of having\u00a0a really bad episode or emergency, and that even\u00a0children, pregnant women, vulnerable populations weren\u2019t getting that\u00a0initial evaluation, which then led to problems down the road. And it also said that people upon their release\u00a0\u2014\u00a0either deportation or release within the United States if\u00a0that\u2019s\u00a0what\u00a0a court ordered\u00a0\u2014\u00a0they\u00a0weren\u2019t\u00a0being given\u00a0their medical records, their prescriptions. And\u00a0so\u00a0the continuity of care\u00a0was disrupted. And\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0important to note that that GAO report was about\u00a0a few\u00a0years ago under the Biden\u00a0administration.\u00a0So\u00a0this\u00a0isn\u2019t\u00a0new. These problems\u00a0aren\u2019t\u00a0new, but\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0getting\u00a0much\u00a0worse, because the number of people detained is at record levels and so\u00a0everything\u2019s\u00a0just getting multiplied.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah, it is. Well, we will keep watching that space. OK, that\u2019s this week\u2019s news. Before we\u00a0get to our\u00a0extra credits, I am pleased to present the winner of our annual\u00a0KFF Health\u00a0News\u00a0Health\u00a0Policy Valentine contest.\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0from\u00a0[Andrew Carleen]\u00a0of Massachusetts, based on a story about Medicare Advantage overpayments. And it goes like this:\u00a0\u201cI thought it was love. My heart felt spring-loaded. Turns out our relationship was significantly\u00a0upcoded.\u201d Congratulations,\u00a0and happy Valentine\u2019s Day to all.\u00a0<\/p>\n OK, now\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0time for our\u00a0extra-credit\u00a0segment.\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0where we each recognize\u00a0a\u00a0story we read this\u00a0week\u00a0we think you should read,\u00a0too.\u00a0Don\u2019t\u00a0worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, why don\u2019t you start us off this week?\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0Sure.\u00a0So\u00a0I have a kind of fun story\u00a0[\u201cWhy Washington\u2019s All-In on Smart Rings<\/a>\u201d]\u00a0from my co-worker Amanda Chu about how the\u00a0Oura ring has taken over D.C. They have been heavily lobbying the Trump administration and Congress to prevent tough regulations.\u00a0Basically, there\u2019s\u00a0a debate about whether it should\u00a0be regulated\u00a0as a medical device or not.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Tell us again what it does.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0a ring you wear\u00a0on your finger that\u00a0monitors\u00a0different health metrics. And\u00a0so\u00a0the Trump administration\u00a0MAHA\u00a0movement has gone all in on this. They love it. The Pentagon has a huge contract with them. Other government agencies are looking at it,\u00a0too. I think\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0interesting because it is this very sort of conservative mindset of individual responsibility in health care\u00a0and, oh, if you could just\u00a0track your own metrics and do the right things.\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0an approach that is\u00a0sort of counter\u00a0to the idea of public health\u00a0and government protecting your health through policy.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0And we know HHS Secretary Kennedy is\u00a0a big fan\u00a0of wearables.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0Exactly, and this is one of the most popular ones right now. And\u00a0so\u00a0this story does\u00a0a good job\u00a0digging into all the lobbying\u00a0and also\u00a0into concerns about data privacy and pointing out that\u00a0these technologies are moving much faster than government can regulate them. And that is leaving\u00a0some\u00a0lawmakers really concerned about who could have access to this data.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Jackie.\u00a0<\/p>\n Forti\u00e9r:<\/strong>\u00a0Mine is\u00a0by Ariana Hendrix.\u00a0She\u2019s\u00a0a writer based in Norway.\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0entitled\u00a0\u201cThe\u00a0New Childhood Vaccine Guidelines Have a Paid Leave Problem<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0It\u00a0was published\u00a0in\u00a0Stat. And she writes eloquently\u00a0about being a parent in Norway and knowing that her children\u00a0wouldn\u2019t\u00a0go to day\u00a0care until they were about 16 months old, because Norway has paid parental leave. And she points out, beyond the vaccine debate\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0a bigger issue,\u00a0that the U.S.\u00a0lacks universal health care and federal paid parental leave.\u00a0So\u00a0changes in infant vaccines in the U.S.\u00a0have a large effect, because babies in the U.S.\u00a0often go to day\u00a0care,\u00a0when\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0around\u00a0a lot of\u00a0other kids when\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0just\u00a0a few\u00a0weeks old.\u00a0So\u00a0she points to the,\u00a0in January, the infant RSV\u00a0[respiratory syncytial virus]\u00a0vaccine\u00a0was moved\u00a0to the high-risk category of shots, so now it\u00a0isn\u2019t\u00a0routinely recommended\u00a0for all babies in the U.S. And RSV, of course, is the most common cause of hospitalizations for infants, and that\u2019s\u00a0due to the fact that\u00a0they\u2019re exposed to the virus in day\u00a0care\u00a0a lot\u00a0earlier than other children in other countries like Norway and Denmark whose vaccine schedules U.S.\u00a0officials are now\u00a0kind of trying\u00a0to emulate.\u00a0So\u00a0she does a really\u00a0great job\u00a0of laying out how families face greater health and financial risks in the U.S.\u00a0without the same safety net that other countries have.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Or just the same social policies that other countries have.\u00a0<\/p>\n Forti\u00e9r:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah,\u00a0it reminded\u00a0me\u2014\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0hard to,\u00a0right,\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0hard to import another country\u2019s\u00a0\u2014\u00a0part of another country\u2019s\u00a0\u2014\u00a0policies without importing all of them. It is\u00a0really\u00a0good story. Lizzy.\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0Yeah. So my piece is by Rachana Pradhan and\u00a0KFF\u00a0Health\u00a0News, and it\u2019s about the\u00a0\u201cUS Cancer Institute Studying Ivermectin\u2019s \u2018Ability To Kill Cancer Cells.\u2019<\/a>\u201d\u00a0And I thought this piece was very interesting, just because in general I\u2019ve been fascinated by\u00a0\u2014\u00a0politicization of medicine isn\u2019t new\u00a0\u2014\u00a0but just like right-wing-coded products and left-wing-coded products. And in this piece,\u00a0Rachana\u00a0talks about NIH\u00a0[National Institutes of Health]\u00a0Director Jay Bhattacharya\u00a0kind of talking\u00a0about how,\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0the people\u2019s NIH and if\u00a0a lot of\u00a0people are using it, well, we want to investigate it.<\/em>\u00a0So\u00a0she\u00a0just, she\u00a0does a really\u00a0good job\u00a0of kind of unpacking why this is problematic, that\u00a0they\u2019re\u00a0kind of just\u00a0choosing a random medication and\u00a0there\u2019s\u00a0not really any scientific reason to be investing in it as much as they are. And she\u00a0got a response from NIH after the fact as well, kind of where they were trying to defend this decision to pour this\u00a0much\u00a0investment.\u00a0And so,\u00a0yeah, I think it\u2019s just\u00a0a really interesting\u00a0development in NIH land.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0It is.\u00a0My extra credit this week\u00a0is from ProPublica,\u00a0by Mica Rosenberg, and\u00a0it\u2019s\u00a0called\u00a0\u201cThe\u00a0Children of Dilley<\/a>.\u201d\u00a0It\u2019s\u00a0about what immigration detention looks like from the point of view of children\u00a0being held\u00a0at a family facility in Dilley, Texas.\u00a0That\u2019s\u00a0the one where the two cases of measles\u00a0were diagnosed\u00a0earlier this winter. The story includes\u00a0some\u00a0pretty wrenching letters and video calls from kids who were living elsewhere in the U.S., while their parents were mostly working within the immigration system. And these kids had\u00a0been ripped\u00a0from their daily lives, their other parents and siblings in\u00a0some\u00a0cases, their\u00a0schools\u00a0and their classmates, and in\u00a0many\u00a0cases, from\u00a0hope itself. Wrote\u00a0one\u00a014-year-old from Hicksville, New York, quote: \u201cSince I got to this\u00a0Center all you will feel is sadness and mostly depression.\u201d\u00a0It\u00a0really is\u00a0a must-read story.\u00a0<\/p>\n OK. That is this week\u2019s show. As always, thanks to our editor,\u00a0Emmarie Huetteman,\u00a0and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A\u00a0reminder:\u00a0What the\u00a0Health?<\/em>\u00a0is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app,\u00a0and wherever you get your podcasts, as well as, of course,\u00a0kffhealthnews.org<\/a>.\u00a0Also, as always, you can email\u00a0us\u00a0your comments or questions.\u00a0We\u2019re\u00a0at\u00a0whatthehealth@kff.org<\/a>. Or you can find me on\u00a0X,\u00a0@jrovner<\/a>, or on Bluesky,\u00a0@julierovner<\/a>.\u00a0Where are you folks hanging these days? Jackie.\u00a0<\/p>\n Forti\u00e9r:<\/strong>\u00a0Bluesky mainly,\u00a0@jackie-fortier<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Alice.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ollstein:<\/strong>\u00a0Mainly on\u00a0Bluesky,\u00a0@alicemiranda<\/a>,\u00a0and still on\u00a0X,\u00a0@AliceOllstein<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0Lizzy.\u00a0<\/p>\n Lawrence:<\/strong>\u00a0On\u00a0X,\u00a0@LizzyLaw_<\/a>. On\u00a0Bluesky,\u00a0@lizzylawrence<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Rovner:<\/strong>\u00a0We\u2019ll\u00a0be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.\u00a0<\/p>\n \tFrancis Ying \tEmmarie Huetteman Click here to find all our podcasts.<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n And subscribe to \u201cWhat the Health? From KFF Health News\u201d on Apple Podcasts<\/a>, Spotify<\/a>, the NPR app<\/a>, YouTube<\/a>, Pocket Casts<\/a>, or wherever you listen to podcasts.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\n\t\t\t\t@jrovner\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t@julierovner.bsky.social\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\tRead Julie’s stories.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n\n\t\tPanelists\t<\/h3>\n
\n\tKFF Health News<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\tRead Jackie’s stories.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\tStat<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t@LizzyLaw_\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t@lizzylawrence.bsky.social\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\tReady Lizzy’s stories.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\tPolitico<\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t@AliceOllstein\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\t@alicemiranda.bsky.social\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n
\n\t\t\t\tRead Alice’s stories.\t\t\t<\/a><\/p>\n\n
\n\t\tCredits\t<\/h3>\n
\n\tAudio producer<\/p>\n
\n\tEditor <\/p>\n