Republicans appear to be on track to confirm Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court before Election Day, cementing a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court regardless of what happens Nov. 3. Democrats, meanwhile, lacking the votes to block the nomination, used the high-profile hearings to batter Republicans for trying to overturn the Affordable Care Act.
Meanwhile, a number of scientific journals that typically eschew politics, including the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, threw their support to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, citing what they call the Trump administration's bungling of the coronavirus pandemic.
This week's panelists are Julie Rovner of Kaiser Health News, Mary Ellen McIntire of CQ Roll Call, Shefali Luthra of The 19th and Sarah Karlin-Smith of Pink Sheet.
Among the takeaways from this week's podcast:
- The lack of progress on a bipartisan coronavirus relief package is making both Democrats and Republicans nervous as they approach Election Day without something to help voters.
- During hearings on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court, Democrats were consistently on message, seeking to focus public attention before the election on the threat that Republicans pose to the Affordable Care Act as the law goes before the court next month. Four members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which will vote on the nomination, are up for reelection. Also on the committee is Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democrats' vice presidential candidate.
- The public health optics of the hearing were jarring for some viewers. Although the committee chairman said the room was set up to meet federal health guidelines, Republican senators often did not wear masks, including Sens. Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Mike Lee (Utah), who both were diagnosed with COVID-19 after attending a White House celebration for Barrett.
- The lack of masks could add to confusion about public health messages. And voters sometimes find it insulting that politicians play down risks that the public is called upon to assume.
- Barrett's testimony did not change many perceptions of her. Although she was extremely careful not to reveal her personal views on issues that could come before the court, including the ACA and abortion, both Democrats and Republicans highlighted her strong conservative credentials.
- Scientific American and the New England Journal of Medicine have published stinging critiques of the current administration's policies on science and medicine. Although it's not clear what impact the editorials will have, they are a sign of the further politicization of public health.
This week, Rovner also interviews Dr. Ashish Jha, dean of the Brown University School of Public Health. Jha talked about the challenges public health professionals have faced in trying to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read too:
Julie Rovner: The Atlantic's "How to Tell If Socializing Indoors Is Safe," by Olga Khazan
Shefali Luthra: The New York Times' "A $52,112 Air Ambulance Ride: Coronavirus Patients Battle Surprise Bills," by Sarah Kliff
Mary Ellen McIntire: KHN's "Making Money Off Marks, COVID-Spawned Chain Store Aims to Become Obsolete," by Markian Hawryluk
Sarah Karlin-Smith: Politico's "Health Officials Scrambling to Produce Trump's 'Last-Minute' Drug Cards by Election Day," by Dan Diamond
Also mentioned in this week's podcast:
Bill of the Month update: KHN's "Moved by Plight of Young Heart Patient, Stranger Pays His Hospital Bill," by Laura Ungar
Scientific journal endorsements: The New England Journal of Medicine's "Dying in a Leadership Vacuum"
"Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden," by The Editors
To hear all our podcasts, click here.
And subscribe to What the Health? on iTunes, Stitcher, Google Play, Spotify, or Pocket Casts.
This article was reprinted from khn.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.