Tagged Courts

Americans Are Now More Likely To Die In An Accidental Opioid Overdose Than A Car Crash

But most Americans are still most likely to die of natural causes such as heart disease or cancer. In other news on the opioid crisis: a mass drug overdose in California leaves at least one dead and more than a dozen in care; Purdue asks the court to review a decision about unsealing the company’s secret records; can medical marijuana help in the fight against the epidemic; and more.

California’s Top Lawyer Cements His Role As Health Care Defender-In-Chief

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Xavier Becerra, the political savvy Democratic attorney general of California, has sued the Trump administration 45 times in the past two years, often with much fanfare.

In winning a legal challenge Sunday against new government rules limiting birth control, he once against cemented himself as a national figure leading a fight against the administration across a range of issues — especially health care.

The 12 other states and the District of Columbia that had joined Becerra’s lawsuit also gained a last-minute reprieve from the federal regulations that would have taken effect Monday. They would have allowed most employers to refuse to provide insurance coverage for workers’ birth control by raising a religious or moral objection.

Those rules were also halted for the rest of the country on Monday when a Pennsylvania judge granted a nationwide injunction in a similar lawsuit.

The contraception case is one of several fronts where Becerra has led state coalitions to defend the Affordable Care Act in lawsuits in Texas, California and Washington, D.C.

“The Trump administration is trying to chip away at those protections,” said Andrew Kelly, an assistant professor at the Department of Health Sciences at California State University-East Bay. “It’s left to states like California and Attorney General Becerra in taking a lead in confronting these efforts.”

Becerra is perhaps best known for leading the opposition to the Texas v. U.S. lawsuit. In that suit, the Texas attorney general argued that the Affordable Care Act should be rendered unconstitutional because Congress eliminated the tax penalty on the uninsured. A federal judge last month sided with Texas, ruling that the federal health care law is unconstitutional.

Becerra, who said he helped write the health care law, said he felt compelled to step in when the Trump administration decided not to defend the law. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia joined that lawsuit, which is now on appeal.

The multistate strategy is one that attorneys general have used often in the past few decades when they don’t agree with policies coming out of Washington, legal and political experts say. And it’s not unique to one political party.

Republican attorneys general, for example, sued the Obama administration to block the expansion of Medicaid in their states. When George W. Bush was president, the state of Massachusetts led Democratic states in an effort to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

The legal tit for tat is what Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, described as a disconcerting “militarization” of the state attorneys general offices to press an agenda in the courts.

“At a time of polarized politics, there’s every incentive to pull whatever levers are available to you to try to advance your goals,” Bagley said. “Over time, the state attorneys general have come to the view that the courts are an important forum to have these fights over important questions.”

The behavior of the attorneys general also comes in response to an administration that is using its executive authority to push initiatives that it can’t get Congress to approve.

President Donald Trump is left “to try to use either the regulatory process or executive order to accomplish his goals,” said Gerald Kominski, a professor of health policy at UCLA. “Anyone who opposes those goals has to proceed through the legal process to challenge them.”

Becerra, the first Latino to serve as California attorney general, has sued the Trump administration on a wide range of issues: health care, immigration, the Muslim travel ban, citizenship questions on the census, the border wall, climate change and clean-water rules.

When the former congressman was sworn in to his second term last week, he declared that he had “been a little busy keeping the dysfunction and insanity in Washington, D.C., from affecting California,” and defending the state from the “overreach of the federal government.” And he doesn’t have any plans to let up.

“Whether it’s the criminals on our streets or the con man in the boardrooms or the highest office of the land,” Becerra said, “we’ve got your back.”

But Becerra’s record has been mixed.

The victory in court Sunday was limited. Oakland-based U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. blocked the rules from taking effect in the District of Columbia and the 13 states that challenged them, but he refused to stop them from taking effect in the rest of the country. That national reprieve came a day later in a Pennsylvania court, with U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone describing the harm to women as “actual and imminent.”

If the administration appeals, as expected, Pennsylvania, along with California and its legal coalition would move ahead with their cases to permanently throw out the rules, arguing that the Affordable Care Act guaranteed women no-cost contraception as part of their preventive health care, a provision that they say has benefited more than 62 million women since 2012, when the regulations went into effect.

The Trump rules, California argued in legal filings, would “transform contraceptive coverage from a legal entitlement to an essentially gratuitous benefit wholly subject to an employer’s discretion.” In its proposed regulations, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services described the exemption as narrow and one that would affect a fraction of women — no more than 127,000.

That’s a number Becerra disputes.

In claiming victory on the birth control lawsuit, Becerra said Sunday that his coalition will continue to advocate for women’s access to reproductive health care.

How much more will Becerra fight during the next four years? Addressing the crowd who gathered this month to see him sworn in to a second term, he conveyed a simple response:

“The sky is the limit.”


This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

California’s Top Lawyer Cements His Role As Health Care Defender-In-Chief

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Xavier Becerra, the political savvy Democratic attorney general of California, has sued the Trump administration 45 times in the past two years, often with much fanfare.

In winning a legal challenge Sunday against new government rules limiting birth control, he once against cemented himself as a national figure leading a fight against the administration across a range of issues — especially health care.

The 12 other states and the District of Columbia that had joined Becerra’s lawsuit also gained a last-minute reprieve from the federal regulations that would have taken effect Monday. They would have allowed most employers to refuse to provide insurance coverage for workers’ birth control by raising a religious or moral objection.

Those rules were also halted for the rest of the country on Monday when a Pennsylvania judge granted a nationwide injunction in a similar lawsuit.

The contraception case is one of several fronts where Becerra has led state coalitions to defend the Affordable Care Act in lawsuits in Texas, California and Washington, D.C.

“The Trump administration is trying to chip away at those protections,” said Andrew Kelly, an assistant professor at the Department of Health Sciences at California State University-East Bay. “It’s left to states like California and Attorney General Becerra in taking a lead in confronting these efforts.”

Becerra is perhaps best known for leading the opposition to the Texas v. U.S. lawsuit. In that suit, the Texas attorney general argued that the Affordable Care Act should be rendered unconstitutional because Congress eliminated the tax penalty on the uninsured. A federal judge last month sided with Texas, ruling that the federal health care law is unconstitutional.

Becerra, who said he helped write the health care law, said he felt compelled to step in when the Trump administration decided not to defend the law. Sixteen states and the District of Columbia joined that lawsuit, which is now on appeal.

The multistate strategy is one that attorneys general have used often in the past few decades when they don’t agree with policies coming out of Washington, legal and political experts say. And it’s not unique to one political party.

Republican attorneys general, for example, sued the Obama administration to block the expansion of Medicaid in their states. When George W. Bush was president, the state of Massachusetts led Democratic states in an effort to force the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars.

The legal tit for tat is what Nicholas Bagley, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School, described as a disconcerting “militarization” of the state attorneys general offices to press an agenda in the courts.

“At a time of polarized politics, there’s every incentive to pull whatever levers are available to you to try to advance your goals,” Bagley said. “Over time, the state attorneys general have come to the view that the courts are an important forum to have these fights over important questions.”

The behavior of the attorneys general also comes in response to an administration that is using its executive authority to push initiatives that it can’t get Congress to approve.

President Donald Trump is left “to try to use either the regulatory process or executive order to accomplish his goals,” said Gerald Kominski, a professor of health policy at UCLA. “Anyone who opposes those goals has to proceed through the legal process to challenge them.”

Becerra, the first Latino to serve as California attorney general, has sued the Trump administration on a wide range of issues: health care, immigration, the Muslim travel ban, citizenship questions on the census, the border wall, climate change and clean-water rules.

When the former congressman was sworn in to his second term last week, he declared that he had “been a little busy keeping the dysfunction and insanity in Washington, D.C., from affecting California,” and defending the state from the “overreach of the federal government.” And he doesn’t have any plans to let up.

“Whether it’s the criminals on our streets or the con man in the boardrooms or the highest office of the land,” Becerra said, “we’ve got your back.”

But Becerra’s record has been mixed.

The victory in court Sunday was limited. Oakland-based U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. blocked the rules from taking effect in the District of Columbia and the 13 states that challenged them, but he refused to stop them from taking effect in the rest of the country. That national reprieve came a day later in a Pennsylvania court, with U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone describing the harm to women as “actual and imminent.”

If the administration appeals, as expected, Pennsylvania, along with California and its legal coalition would move ahead with their cases to permanently throw out the rules, arguing that the Affordable Care Act guaranteed women no-cost contraception as part of their preventive health care, a provision that they say has benefited more than 62 million women since 2012, when the regulations went into effect.

The Trump rules, California argued in legal filings, would “transform contraceptive coverage from a legal entitlement to an essentially gratuitous benefit wholly subject to an employer’s discretion.” In its proposed regulations, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services described the exemption as narrow and one that would affect a fraction of women — no more than 127,000.

That’s a number Becerra disputes.

In claiming victory on the birth control lawsuit, Becerra said Sunday that his coalition will continue to advocate for women’s access to reproductive health care.

How much more will Becerra fight during the next four years? Addressing the crowd who gathered this month to see him sworn in to a second term, he conveyed a simple response:

“The sky is the limit.”


This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

Podcast: KHN’s ‘What The Health?’ New Year, New Health Proposals

The new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives took its first steps on health care — voting to intervene in the appeal of a Texas-led lawsuit that found the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional in December. And around the country, Democratic governors and mayors unveiled new initiatives aimed at making health care cheaper and more accessible.

In Washington, the partial shutdown of the government has left most health agencies untouched but shuttered major parts of the Food and Drug Administration and the Indian Health Service.

This week’s panelists for KHN’s “What the Health?” are Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News and Rebecca Adams of CQ Roll Call.

Among the takeaways from this week’s podcast:

  • Much of the attention on the impact of the federal judge’s decision in Texas to invalidate the ACA has centered on how it affects people with preexisting medical conditions. But the ruling is much more far-reaching and could affect broad swaths of health care in the country.
  • The partial government shutdown has had only a small impact on the Department of Health and Human Services, which already received its funding. But the FDA, which is funded through the Agriculture Department’s appropriations bill, is affected. Officials there say they are trying to keep up with high-risk food inspections and may bring some employees back to work.
  • The FDA receives a substantial part of its budget through the fees paid by pharmaceutical companies for review of their products. But during the shutdown, the agency is not allowed to accept more fees, so it will run out of money for drug application reviews in about a month, officials said.
  • Recent efforts by some Democratic state and local officials highlight the intraparty debate over health care. New California Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed expanding insurance premium subsidies to people making up to 600 percent of the federal poverty level (about $72,800 for an individual) — up from the law’s current 400 percent (about $48,500) — while Washington Gov. Jay Inslee wants to set up a government-run plan that would be an option for people buying their own insurance. And in New York City, Mayor Bill de Blasio wants to offer coverage to people who are in the country illegally.
  • The latest government enrollment figures show that more than 11 million people signed up for coverage offered in the ACA marketplaces. That is down a bit from prior years, but still more than industry watchers predicted given the tax penalty for not having coverage expired this year.
  • The small slippage in enrollment in the past two years, following changes made by the Trump administration and a Republican-led Congress, may signal challenges in the future, especially in small markets where getting competition has been tough.

Also this week, Julie Rovner interviews KHN senior correspondent Jordan Rau, who investigated and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature for Kaiser Health News and NPR. It’s about a skiing accident that required repeat surgeries — and bills for the patient, although she did nothing wrong. You can read the story here, and its update here.

If you have a medical bill you would like NPR and KHN to investigate, you can submit it here.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: Rewire.News’ “There’s Almost No Data About What Happens When Catholic Hospitals Deny Reproductive Care,” by Amy Littlefield

Rebecca Adams: The Washington Post Magazine’s “Life, Death and Insulin,” by Tiffany Stanley

Margot Sanger-Katz: Vox.com’s “A $20,243 Bike Crash: Zuckerberg Hospital’s Aggressive Tactics Leave Patients With Big Bills,” by Sarah Kliff

Anna Edney: The Washington Post’s “The FDA Is Still Letting Doctors Implant Untested Devices Into Our Bodies,” by Jeanne Lenzer and Shannon Brownlee

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunesStitcher or Google Play.

Despite GOP Losing Control Of The House, Anti-Abortion Advocates Aren’t Worried About Movement’s Momentum

With Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the court, the anti-abortion movement is eager to see cases move through the judicial branch. “Our agenda is very focused on the executive branch, the coming election, and the courts,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion organization Susan B. Anthony List. Abortion news comes out of Louisiana, as well.

Despite GOP Losing Control Of The House, Anti-Abortion Advocates Aren’t Worried About Movement’s Momentum

With Justice Brett Kavanaugh on the court, the anti-abortion movement is eager to see cases move through the judicial branch. “Our agenda is very focused on the executive branch, the coming election, and the courts,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion organization Susan B. Anthony List. Abortion news comes out of Louisiana, as well.

Where Abortion Fights Will Play Out In 2019

With Democrats now in control of the U.S. House of Representatives, it might appear that the fight over abortion rights has become a standoff.

After all, abortion-rights supporters within the Democratic caucus will be in a position to block the kind of curbs that Republicans advanced over the past two years when they had control of Congress.

But those on both sides of the debate insist that won’t be the case.

Despite the Republicans’ loss of the House, anti-abortion forces gained one of their most sought-after victories in decades with the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Now, with a stronger possibility of a 5-4 majority in favor of more restrictions on abortion, anti-abortion groups are eager to get test cases to the high court.

And that is just the beginning.

“Our agenda is very focused on the executive branch, the coming election, and the courts,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion organization Susan B. Anthony List. She said the new judges nominated to lower federal courts by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate reflect “a legacy win.”

The Republican majority in the U.S. Senate is expected to continue to fill the lower federal courts with judges who have been vetted by anti-abortion groups.

Abortion-rights supporters think they, too, can make strides in 2019.

“We expect 25 states to push policies that will expand or protect abortion access,” said Dr. Leana Wen, who took over as president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in November. If the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade is eventually overturned, states will decide whether abortion will be legal, and under what circumstances.

Here are four venues where the debate over reproductive health services for women will play out in 2019:

Congress

The Republican-controlled Congress proved unable in 2017 or 2018 to realize one of the anti-abortion movement’s biggest goals: evicting Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for people who have low incomes. Abortion opponents don’t want Planned Parenthood to get federal funds because, in many states, it functions as an abortion provider (albeit with non-federal resources).

Though Republicans have a slightly larger majority in the new Senate, that majority will still be well short of the 60 votes needed to block any Democratic filibuster.

Because Democrats generally support Planned Parenthood, the power shift in the House makes the chances for defunding the organization even slimmer, much to the dismay of abortion opponents.

“We’re pretty disappointed that, despite having a Republican Congress for two years, Planned Parenthood wasn’t defunded,” said Kristan Hawkins of the anti-abortion group Students for Life of America. “This was one of President Trump’s promises to the pro-life community, and he should have demanded it,” she added.

Another likely area of dispute will be the future of various anti-abortion restrictions that are routinely part of annual spending bills. These include the so-called Hyde Amendment, which bans most federal abortion funding in Medicaid and other health programs in the Department of Health and Human Services. Also disputed: restrictions on grants to international groups that support abortion rights, and limits on abortion in federal prisons and in the military.

However, now that they have a substantial majority in the House, “Democrats are on stronger grounds to demand and expect clean appropriations bills,” without many of those riders, said Wen of Planned Parenthood. While Senate Republicans are likely to eventually add those restrictions back, “they will have to go through the amendment process,” she said. And that could bring added attention to the issues.

With control of House committees, Democrats can also set agendas, hold hearings and call witnesses to talk about issues they want to promote.

“Even if the bills don’t come to fruition, putting these bills in the spotlight, forcing lawmakers to go on the record — that has value,” said Wen.

The Trump Administration

While Congress is unlikely to agree on reproductive health legislation in the coming two years, the Trump administration is still pursuing an aggressive anti-abortion agenda — using its power of regulation.

A final rule is expected any day that would cut off a significant part of Planned Parenthood’s federal funding — not from Medicaid but from the Title X Family Planning Program. Planned Parenthood annually provides family planning and other health services that don’t involve abortion to about 40 percent of the program’s 4 million patients.

The administration proposal, unveiled last May, would effectively require Planned Parenthood to physically separate facilities that perform abortions from those that provide federally funded services, and would bar abortion referrals for women who have unintended pregnancies. Planned Parenthood has said it is likely to sue over the new rules when they are finalized. The Supreme Court upheld in 1991 a similar set of restrictions that were never implemented.

Abortion opponents are also pressing to end federal funding for any research that uses tissue from aborted fetuses — a type of research that was authorized by Congress in the early 1990s.

“It’s very important we get to a point of banning” fetal tissue research “and pursuing aggressively ethical alternatives,” said Dannenfelser.

State Capitols

Abortion opponents having pushed through more than 400 separate abortion restrictions on the state level since 2010, according to the Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights think tank. In 2018 alone, according to Guttmacher, 15 states adopted 27 new limits on abortion and family planning.

“Absolutely some [of these are] an exercise in what they can get to go up to the Supreme Court,” said Destiny Lopez, co-director of the abortion-rights group All* Above All. “Sort of ‘Let’s throw spaghetti against the wall and see what sticks.’”

But 2018 also marked a turning point. It was the first time in years that the number of state actions supporting abortion rights outnumbered the restrictions. For example, Massachusetts approved a measure to repeal a pre-Roe ban on abortion that would take effect if Roe were overturned. Washington state passed a law to require abortion coverage in insurance plans that offer maternity coverage.

The Federal Courts

The fate of all these policies will be decided eventually by the courts.

In fact, several state-level restrictions are already in the pipeline to the Supreme Court and could serve as a vehicle to curtail or overturn Roe v. Wade.

Among the state laws closest to triggering such a review is an Indiana law banning abortion for gender selection or genetic flaws, among other things. Also awaiting final legal say is an Alabama law banning the most common second-trimester abortion method — dilation and evacuation.


KHN’s coverage of women’s health care issues is supported in part by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Democrats Fight Back Against Lawsuit Threatening Health Law

Democrats on Thursday officially launched their pushback against a December federal court decision that declared the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional.

A group of 17 Democratic state attorneys general formally appealed the Dec. 14 decision in Texas v. U.S. issued by U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor. In the case filed by 18 Republican state attorneys general and two GOP governors, O’Connor ruled that when Congress in 2017 reduced the tax penalty for not having insurance to zero, the rest of the law became invalidated.

“Our coalition of attorneys general has been working around the clock to challenge the decision from the Northern District of Texas that threatens our entire health care system,” said California AG Xavier Becerra, who is leading the Democratic group. “This case could impact children, seniors, women, families and workers who have their own insurance through employers,” he said.

The far-reaching impact of invalidating the law cannot be overstated. Even Republican health efforts — including many Trump administration initiatives — would be threatened by the disappearance of the ACA.

There was a brief lag between O’Connor’s opinion and the Democrats’ appeal because the judge did not issue last month’s ruling as a formal, final decision, given it didn’t address other aspects of the GOP challenge. At the request of the Democratic attorneys general, on Dec. 30 the judge finalized his findings for this part of the case, and clarified that the law would remain in effect during the appeals process.

Separately, the brand-new Democratic majority in the U.S. House voted to support the appeal of the decision on their first day in charge of the chamber.

They approved language authorizing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “to intervene, otherwise appear, or take any other steps in any other cases involving the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” better known as the ACA.

House Democrats also filed a motion to intervene in the defense of the ACA against the GOP-led lawsuit.

Republicans on the House floor were not impressed. “That effort does not preserve preexisting conditions,” Rep. Greg Walden (R-Ore.), now the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said on the floor. Walden, who helped lead the GOP’s unsuccessful “repeal-and-replace” effort in the last Congress, suggested that lawmakers should instead pass a law reaffirming the preexisting condition protections.

Some backers of the law agreed with Walden. “The House should pass a bill. Send it to the Senate. See what happens,” tweeted University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley.

In an op-ed written with fellow Michigan law professor Richard Primus, Bagley said Congress could more effectively remove the legal threat to the law by raising the mandate penalty to a dollar, by repealing the mandate entirely or by clarifying that eliminating the mandate penalty does not require the invalidation of the rest of the law.

“Any of these solutions could be accomplished in a one-sentence statute, and any one of them would end the Texas lawsuit,” they wrote.

California Healthline’s California politics correspondent Samantha Young contributed to this report.

Must-Reads Of The Week From Brianna Labuskes

Happy New Year! Welcome to 2019 and the 116th Congress! I hope everyone had a wonderful and restful break, because now the fun (or something in that neighborhood) starts again.

Democrats are raring to go now that the new class has been sworn in and Nancy Pelosi has retaken the House gavel. They’re setting the stage to put Republicans in the political hot seat with a vote to formally intervene in the Affordable Care Act lawsuit currently moving through the courts.

I’m pretty sure everyone at this point realizes that vowing to protect preexisting conditions was (and will be) a winning issue on the campaign trail. The Democrats’ move will (and, let’s be honest, is designed to) put the GOP in the awkward position of voting against those popular provisions.

The Washington Post: The New Congress: Pelosi Retakes House Gavel As Shutdown Continues

The Washington Post: House Democrats Vote to Defend ACA in Court — and Jam Republicans

Then on the states’ side of things, the attorneys general leading the defense of the health law have filed an appeal against the federal judge’s ruling (from December, I know it feels ages ago) that the ACA can’t stand without the individual mandate penalty. The filing was, obviously, completely expected, but it does continue to move the case down a long legal path likely to end at the Supreme Court.

The Wall Street Journal: Democratic-Led States Appeal Ruling Invalidating Affordable Care Act


Stories about excessive human waste piling up in national parks are grabbing headlines, but when it comes to the shutdown the issues go much deeper than that for Native Americans. Because of treaties, tribes receive a significant amount of the funding they need to provide basic services (like running health clinics) from the federal government. So, the shutdown cuts deeper for them than in other places in the country.

“The federal government owes us this: We prepaid with millions of acres of land. We don’t have the right to take back that land, so we expect the federal government to fulfill its treaty and trust responsibility,” said Aaron Payment, the chairman of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe, in The New York Times’ coverage.

The New York Times: Shutdown Leaves Food, Medicine and Pay in Doubt in Indian Country

P.S. If you’re confused about the shutdown and what health programs are affected, 1) you’re not alone, and 2) read KHN’s roundup, which, without bias, is the most comprehensive health-related breakdown I’ve seen. Cliff notes, though: Most big-ticket items (like Medicaid and Medicare) were already funded by Congress earlier in the year and are insulated from the standoff’s dramatics.

Kaiser Health News: How The Government Shutdown Affects Health Programs


Bristol-Myers Squibb kicked off the year with a huge $74 billion deal with Celgene. The experts at Stat break down exactly what the acquisition means for the industry. A big takeaway is that one of the sector’s largest companies will essentially cease to exist. The deal could also spark more megamergers and further consolidation of the biotech landscape — which, as you can imagine, will not be good for drug prices.

Stat: 9 Big Takeaways From the $74 Billion Bristol-Celgene Deal

Next week, movers and shakers in the biotech industry will be flocking to San Francisco for the annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference. It’s the place to see and be seen, but some attendees want to be anywhere but there. Why? The location.

Stat: Will San Francisco’s Issues Push People Away From J.P. Morgan?


Adding work requirements to Medicaid has proven to be the honey it takes to make expanding coverage more palatable to Republican states. But, in Arkansas — the testing ground for what exactly those rules look like in practice — thousands of residents are getting kicked off the Medicaid rolls. A picture of confusion, flawed technology and basic human error is emerging as advocates try to figure out what is going wrong.

Politico: Conservative Health Care Experiment Leads to Thousands Losing Coverage


If you managed to tune out a bit from the news over the holidays, here are some developments you should know about:

A second migrant child died in U.S. custody, prompting President Donald Trump to attempt to shift blame to the Democrats. The administration has been under ever-increasing scrutiny for the quality of care the young migrant children are receiving.

The New York Times: Trump Blames Democrats Over Deaths of Migrant Children in U.S. Custody

Hospitals were handed a major victory when a judge blocked cuts to the 340B drug program, which requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to sell drugs at discounts to hospitals serving large proportions of low-income and vulnerable people, such as children or cancer patients. The judge said the administration overstepped its authority in its push to try to lower drug prices.

Stat: Judge Blocks Trump Administration Cuts to 340B Hospital Payments

A damning investigation into the nation’s major hospital watchdog found that more than 100 psychiatric hospitals have remained fully accredited by the commission despite serious safety lapses, some of which were connected to the death, abuse or sexual assault of patients.

The Wall Street Journal: Psychiatric Hospitals With Safety Violations Still Get Accreditation


And in my miscellaneous file: 

• The old and powerful veteran advocacy groups — aka the “Big Six” — have been major players on Capitol Hill for years. But their power is diminishing as leaner, more efficient and more tailored groups chip away at the establishment and reflect the priorities of a new generation of veterans.

The New York Times: Their Influence Diminishing, Veterans Groups Compete With Each Other and Struggle With the V.A.

• The prominent Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center has not been having a good fall. That’s in part due to the fabulous reporting done by The New York Times and ProPublica, which revealed conflicts of interest among the organization’s leaders. If you haven’t kept up with the story, this offers a great overview on how this ethical morass is playing out not only there but across the country as well.

The New York Times: Memorial Sloan Kettering’s Season of Turmoil

• Does medication-assisted treatment for opioid addiction simply replace one drug with another? Or is it necessary to stop a relentless and sweeping epidemic that has claimed far too many victims? That’s the raging debate as experts try to get their arms around the crisis.

The New York Times: In Rehab, ‘Two Warring Factions’: Abstinence Vs. Medication

• An outbreak of cancer in children is pitting families deep in Trump Country against the president’s agenda to roll back health and environmental restrictions.

The New York Times: A Trump County Confronts the Administration Amid a Rash of Child Cancers

• Between salmonella in turkeys and E. coli in romaine lettuce, the country was beset with foodborne illness outbreaks last year. But one of the biggest recalls is one you probably haven’t even heard about.

New Food Economy: The Listeria Scare That Hit Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, and Walmart Led to 100 Million Pounds of Recalled Product — And No One Noticed


Apparently, New Year’s resolutions won’t bring you joy (whether you achieve them or not), but if one of yours is to switch up your diet, check out the newly released rankings from U.S. News & World Report.