COVID Learning Loss with Prof. Thomas Kane

America Dissected is brought to you by the Debeaumont Foundation. For 25 years, the Debeaumont Foundation has worked to create practical solutions that improve the health of communities across the country. The foundation advances policy, builds partnerships and strengthens systems to give everyone the opportunity to achieve their best possible health. To learn more, visit debeaumont..org.

The Biden administration names the first 10 drugs that Medicare will negotiate with pharmaceutical companies. The Department of Health and Human Services calls on the DEA to reclassify cannabis. Mental health spending jumped during the pandemic, a new study finds. This is America dissected. I'm your host, Dr.

Abdul El-Sayed.

Today, we're talking about Covid learning loss now. Look, if you follow the social media wars over this, you might be thinking, Abdul, have you gone over to the dark side? No, no, I haven't, and the fact that there's a dark side here is the problem. To understand why, let me use an analogy.

Think about a surgery, it's a pretty wild concept in order to heal someone. We put them under anesthesia, to knock them out, and they're so out cold that they can't even breathe by themselves. Which is, by the way, where most of the surgical complications happen. Then we literally take a knife to their skin and cut them open.

We do real physical harm to them. We cut their skin, then their subcutaneous tissue, then several layers of muscle, then the thin sac of the membrane that holds their internal organs, and then literally cut into their organs. And thousands of people do this willingly every single day. Why? Because we know that we have a chance to heal them by taking something out that's making them sick, even if it comes with all that trauma.

Now, if you haven't connected the dots already, here's what I'm trying to tell you. When it comes to our health, we're willing to bear pretty serious side effects if in the grand scheme, it'll do more good than harm. And surgery's not the only place in medicine where we do it. Think about chemotherapy. We literally inject people with extremely poisonous chemicals designed specifically to kill cells, in the hopes that it'll kill more of the bad cells than the good ones.

The side effects are grueling—hair loss, unbearable nausea and vomiting, pain and fatigue—But we do it because we know that if we don't kill the cancer, it could kill us. We do all that for individual health, but what about when it comes to the public's health? What about those side effects that sometimes come with efforts to save millions of lives? The reason this topic has become so controversial is because the very existence of learning loss is often used by Covid. Deniers and public health skeptics to argue that pandemic-era measures like lockdowns, masks and school closures weren't warranted.

Conveniently, the same people making these arguments usually also poo-poo. The vaccines deny Covid death rates and pretend that the entire pandemic was blown out of proportion. —you know, that same one that killed 1?

1 million people in America, Yeah, that one. But the existence of a side effect for a treatment—in this case, the treatment being unprecedented. Efforts to prevent a highly transmissible, highly deadly virus from spreading amongst us—doesn't itself suggest that the treatment wasn't justified. The question, ultimately, just like in surgery, is what that treatment was meant to prevent. And that's because a burst appendix will literally kill you if someone doesn't physically cut you open and take it out.

A cancerous growth in your abdomen will do the same if you don't hit it with high-dose poison. And so will Covid if we don't stop it from spreading. No one would use a surgical wound to argue against life-saving surgery. So why do we do it with public health? But on the other side of the argument, folks are also doing something kind of absurd.

The fact that a surgical wound was sustained to take out a burst appendix doesn't mean that it's not a wound all the same. We wouldn't ignore the wound, let it fester and get infected because someone thought that the surgery wasn't necessary and just like that wound. I worry that one side of our public debate has conveniently tried to ignore learning loss for fear that it might undermine public health. Because, let's face it, the kids are not alright.

Estimates suggest that we've wiped out nearly two decades worth of progress in American academic performance. Kids who sat at home through the pandemic can be years behind when it comes to reading and math abilities. And it's particularly bad for America's poorest kids—the kids for whom education is supposed to be a lifeline. Black and brown kids, poor rural white kids—these are the ones who are left furthest behind, with the least opportunity to catch up. Add that to an ongoing youth mental health crisis in which rates of depression, anxiety, and suicidality have skyrocketed—a trend that began well before the pandemic. But that it definitely put an exclamation point on.

What frustrates me most is that it doesn't seem like we're rushing to make up for those gaps. That we've either accepted learning loss as a necessary cost of the pandemic that cannot be recouped, or are too afraid to admit that it even exists. Because of what it might mean for a highly online, retrospective debate about the pandemic. But instead, we should be sewing up the surgical wound left by the pandemic racing to make up that learning loss. Particularly for the kids who need it most. And that's the argument our guest today made in his recent article in The Atlantic. Professor Thomas Kane is an economist who focuses on education. He's the Walter H.

Gale, professor of Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, he's faculty director of the Center for Education Policy Research. And he joined me to share the details about Covid learning loss and what he thinks we need to do about it. It also happens to be his birthday today, so please wish him a happy one. Here's my conversation with Professor Thomas Kane. Okay, can you introduce yourself for the tape?

But in that debate, we've sort of ignored the question of, OK. So what are different communities responsibilities for helping students catch up? Normal school is not going to be enough in the areas that were closed for much of 2021 school year. And different districts made different public health decisions, and so different districts have different amount of work to do to help students catch up. And that's what's been missed.

Like, I think we. We've gone back to normal school and I think a lot of parents think, OK, now my kids are back in school. Things will be fine. But what people are missing is that, you know, if a district missed most of the 2021 school year, students are not going to catch up without substantially more instructional time. Like, we can't just ask teachers to speak faster. To cover, you know, 150 percent of the material they normally would have covered.

And, you know, we either need to drop units or give kids more time to cover that material.

Implicit in what you're sharing is that you can both believe that school shutdowns were justified and that there was Covid learning loss that resulted for them. In fact, it hinges on believing that otherwise, what you risk doing is cementing a level of learning loss for kids. And just stepping back for a second, there is no intervention, no public health or clinical intervention that is side effect free. And I think it behooves us as public health professionals to be able to fully articulate, admit and engage with the consequences of the side effect of a justifiable public health intervention. So that we learn from it and do it better next time.

And then, just like we would in clinical medicine, we need to treat that side effect, right? And the existence of the side effect does not undercut the value of the intervention, right? And so this is the hard part.

I think we keep going back. There was such a moment in our public discourse in 2020 and 2021 that we seem ossified in this. Like, we're doomed to repeat to the different talking points of that debate, rather than to learn from the choice. That was fully justifiable in the moment, given that we had a highly transmissible, highly deadly disease that was wreaking havoc in our population. And then asking, how do we do it better the next time? and how do we heal the consequence of the intervention? It'd be like saying, I'm going to do a surgery.

But you know what, because I had to cut into the patient to do the surgery. I'm going to go ahead and have to justify the surgery in the first place. And maybe not actually stitch up the patient. No, you had to do a surgery, cut the patient open, do the surgery, and then stitch the patient up. And then ask, OK, did I need that big of an incision? Did I did, I did, I? could? I use a different suture mechanism?

Are there different ways? I could have done the surgery? That's that's how we got to laparoscopic surgery, right? And we learn from those things, but it's like, we just keep rehashing whether or not the surgery was needed.

And we're missing the point, so I just really, really appreciate you making that point.

And, you know, many others did, but the people who are paying the price are kids, and and it's not just any kid. It was the higher poverty school districts that lost a lot more ground during the pandemic. They stayed closed longer and they lost more ground per week closed. And so we have this.

The longest lasting and the most inequitable consequences of the pandemic may end up falling on kids if we don't get our act together. In trying to to now help, as you say, stitch up the patient like to to to deal with the side effects that these public health measures.

And number two each state has its own definition of proficiency, so it's hard to. It's impossible to compare, you know what? A X percentage point decline in Texas is relative to an X percentage point decline in Massachusetts. And so what we did, I and my coauthor Sean Reardon at Stanford, and a group of other researchers, what? What we did was? We took all the state test scores for every school district in 41 states around the country, and we put them on the same scale.

And so we measured the losses on the same scale, and we reported the losses in terms of years of schooling loss. So we said, OK, what was the the number of test score points that were lost? But let's compare that to the typical amount of growth students make during a grade. Just to give people a sense and of just how big the losses were, and nationally, the loss. The average loss was about a half a year's worth of learning in math and about a quarter of a year's worth of learning in in reading. Now that might sound like not so bad, but those averages hide some really gigantic losses in some districts.

So, like Richmond, Virginia lost the equivalent of more than a year and a half in math, they lost almost a year and a half in reading. Same in St. Louis, same in New Haven, Connecticut. You know, very large losses in Baltimore, so many districts saw very large losses. Even while you know, Newton, Mass. where I'm sitting right now, lost more. Like, you know, a quarter of a year.

So there were very unequal losses. It's not just that the average was about a half a year. What parents should be doing is focusing on learning. OK, what were the losses in my district? Because it could be that the losses in my district were much, much larger than than these national average losses. That I'm reading about in the newspaper.

You can imagine some of the potential reasons for that related to internet access, the kinds of jobs parents had, things like that, but there were other factors too. So so our team put together data on, you know, throughout the pandemic, Facebook was doing a survey of, you know. I think it was twenty five thousand households each week asking them about their activities in the prior week. And we saw that in the areas where there was a greater disruption to families, social and economic lives. Like, so, where families were reporting that they basically didn't leave home during the prior week and that they, you know, were not attending social gatherings, those places saw larger losses.

And it also seemed like the areas with higher death rates saw somewhat larger losses. So a part of it was schools, but another part of it was just, you know, what was happening in to families in the, you know, in the social, and their social and economic.

And so there's, there's not just an interaction between these two things, there's actually mutual causality of these two things, right, that, that, that. When the pandemic takes a higher toll on a community, the implications of being able to open a school back up become a lot more dire. Whether that's because of staffing or teaching. And the impact on those children who are more likely to have watched a family member or or a friend or peer affected by the pandemic.

Even in those circumstances, it changes their ability to learn and the consequences of that experience on them. I want to ask also, you know, this is, this is not, this is a global experience. But how bad does American learning loss look relative to other peer countries?

I'm saying that that existed before, and it got worse during the pandemic, that the inequality that existed in 2019 was worse by 2022. And that there really were substantial losses in some communities, much larger losses than others. And that's that's the tragedy is, we're not, you know? The recovery effort has been undersized from the very beginning. And we and we can talk some about, like, why that's the case, but that that's. The shame here is that while we're sorting out, you know whether or not schools should have closed, or we're squandering an opportunity in our obligation to help students catch up.

It's hard to get him to wake up in the morning, his grades were horrible. His, you know, there's no question that had a gigantic impact on on his mental health during that year. And certainly, I still see lingering effects.

Now, that's just an anecdote, but we see it in the data too. That attendance, you know, absenteeism has been higher since the pandemic. That that chronic absenteeism rates are much higher now than they were in twenty nineteen. That I think has consequences for poor achievement. Like, so, there was a report that came out a few weeks ago that I found extremely alarming, and that was during the twenty to twenty three school year.

There was one assessment company that a lot of school districts use, the NWEA Map assessment. They reported that during the twenty to twenty three school year, students were not only not catching up, they were learning at a somewhat slower pace than before the pandemic. Which which I don't have the evidence for this yet. But but one thing I'd like to investigate is to what extent was that related to attendance like that? If you know five percent of students are absent each day, it's just a different five percent every day.

You know, that's going to be really hard to manage a classroom and keep people, you know, moving forward. Because you'd be constantly reteaching and trying to help. Students who were absent yesterday catch up. So that's that's the main place I see it is. In terms of of absence rates, I know that, you know, disciplinary incidents were way up in that first year back. I think those have started to settle down again, but absence rates remain quite high.

Book recommendations on Bookshop.

Org come from real people who love books, not algorithms. And the best part, when you purchase from Bookshop..org, you're supporting local independent bookstores, so they'll be around for all of us to enjoy in the future. Bookshop.org has raised over twenty seven million dollars for local bookstores, and they're unapologetically anti-Amazon. They believe local bookstores are essential community hubs that foster culture, curiosity and a love of reading, and they're committed to helping them survive and thrive. Bookshop.org is a certified B Corp. and named Best for the world by B Labs.

Visit Bookshop.

Org slash crooked and use code A.

D To get 10 percent off your next order, that's code A.D at checkout for 10 percent off your next order. America Dissected is brought to you by article.

Listen, whether it's the Scandi or the Boho design, or it's the affordable pricing, or it's the easy hassle free shipping. Or it's the fact that your furniture will last a long time. Article really is the choice for you, and that's because Article believes in delightful design for every home. And thanks to their online only model, they have some really delightful prices too. They're curated.

Assortment of mid-century, modern, coastal, industrial, Scandi and Boho designs make furniture shopping simple. Article's team of designers are all about finding the perfect balance between style, quality and price. They're dedicated to thoughtful craftsmanship that stands the test of time and looks great doing it. Article offers fast, affordable shipping across the U.S. and Canada, plus they won't leave you waiting around.

You pick the delivery time, they'll send you updates every step of the way. Article's knowledgeable customer care team is there when you need them to make sure your experience is smooth and stress free. Article is offering our listeners fifty dollars off your first purchase of one hundred dollars or more. To claim, visit Article dot com. Slash 80 and a discount will be automatically applied at checkout.

That's a r t i c l e dot com. Slash 80 for fifty dollars off your first purchase of one hundred dollars or more. Support for this podcast comes from Marguerite Casey Foundation. What fuels and sustains activism and organizing? When it feels like our worlds are collapsing around us, let this radicalize you. Organizing and the revolution of reciprocal care.

A new book out now at Haymarket Books share stories that illustrate possible answers to that urgent question. Now you can hear directly from the co-authors of the book at Marguerite. Casey Foundation's virtual book club, Reading for a Liberated Future Together, their series of more than a dozen book club events offers a course toward a liberated future. Learn more and sign up for the book club at Casey grants dot. org Slash Book Dash Club.

So we're here at the start of a new school year. And we know that for a whole generation of kids, they've been academically stunted to some degree or another. And let's not forget, right, that the point that you made about the widening of those disparities. Poverty is the biggest predictor, but because race is a predictor of poverty in this country. You're talking about achievement gaps that are going to take on a very clear racial disparity and exacerbate that disparity in this country. And the schools that are best equipped to actually catch up are the ones that suffered least, and the ones that are least equipped to catch up are the ones that suffered most.

What are some of the policy proposals that have been floated to actually try and catch kids up from what happened during the pandemic?

School districts did get more federal money to help with the catch up, but the tragedy is the catch up efforts have been undersized. So school districts have done things they've boosted summer school enrollment from, say, 10 percent to 15 or 20 percent.

They provided tutors to like 5 percent of kids and might provide like 20 sessions over the course of the school year. And that might sound like a lot, but it's nowhere near enough. Like, so here would be what? Here's one example. Richmond, Virginia, as I mentioned before, lost more than a year and a half in math.

Their school superintendent in the spring of 2021, while schools were still closed, proposed lengthening the school year. He saw at that time, Gosh, kids are losing a ton of ground. There's very high absence rates, low quality instruction while kids are learning remotely. We're going to have to extend the school year to help kids catch up. And thank goodness, we have all this federal money.

Let's do it. The school board turned him down. They said. Look, teachers, parents, everybody's too worn out. Let's not extend the school year during the 21-22 school year, they said. Let's do it in 22-23..

Then when 22-23 came around, they again said, Yeah, you know, we're not ready to do that. Finally, just a couple of weeks ago, they added 20 school days, so four weeks for two out of 54 schools in Richmond. So let's do the math on that. So kids lost the equivalent of 270 weeks days, 270 days, so 180 days is a year.

So a year and a half is about is 270 days. They added 20 days for two out of 54 schools. So that's less than a day for the average student in Richmond, which is one 270th of what they lost. Every district can tell you, OK, here's what we're doing. Richmond. We added 20 school days in a couple of our schools.

Everybody can describe what they're doing, but nobody can say that, even on paper. Their plans are going to add up to the magnitude of the learning loss students have received. And I don't see any way that most districts are going to catch up without adding to the regular school year. They already have the teachers, they already have the buildings. That was one of the challenges with trying to hire enough tutors.

They were trying to do it in the midst of a hot labor market. And it's hard to go out and hire that many new tutors and get them trained and deploy them. So we already have the buildings, we already have the teachers, we already have the schools.

We have the dollars to pay teachers more. It was just that most school districts just didn't realize they needed to do that. It was less politically popular, and what districts didn't realize is they were going to have to get down to the less politically popular options if they were ever going to catch up.

They did the politically easier things to do, like tutors and voluntary summer school, without realizing, gosh, that's not going to be anywhere close to enough.

Teachers had their plans now, of course, I'm not going to say like, teachers deserve more pay for a longer school year. A time and a half, or maybe even double time for the extra, no doubt those extra weeks. And the good news was districts had the money. It just has not happened.

There are a few places that have done it. Ironically, you know, you know, one of the states that has done more than other states, believe it or not, is Texas, the state said. We will, we will provide extra funding for school districts to extend their school year from 180 days to 210 days. We'll pay for half the cost of that additional 30 days. If the district is willing to use their own money, or maybe the federal money to pay for those extra days.

And a number of districts around Texas did it. And we're going to see when the Spring 23 results come back, if if the Texas schools are are catching up faster than other schools.

Because I know that, you know, even even my kids progress on the things that she had been making progress on. She clearly backslid over the summer. And as much as Sara and I try and substitute, we're just. We're just not the same thing as as school for the day. And so I'd vote for in a heartbeat. I guess. I wonder if there is an opportunity, in this moment, given this issue, to more permanently transform the nature of a school day. Like, you know, the notion that that high school kids are starting at seven thirty and elementary kids who wake up at six thirty are starting at nine makes zero sense.

Like, the notion that we are not thinking about school time and school activities as being sort of baked in and things that we should just fund. Doesn't make any sense. The fact that we have an insanely long summer vacation. That harkens back to a time when kids used to have to go and partake in the harvest. And I understand that in some communities, that's still the case and that would be fine, they could make those, those decisions for themselves. But that this is still a norm in the United States of America, where, you know, some infinitesimally small number of people are involved in farming on a year to year basis.

All of these things that make zero sense, and they're just anachronisms. That you'd think that in this moment of a huge educational crisis, we might be willing to solve, but it seems to me like, we're just not. What is your perspective on that?

This is an opportunity to rethink our basic assumptions about what's the right school calendar, and here's a hopeful spin on this. And that is, I think the hundred and ninety billion dollars in federal money. Had people focused on temporary solutions, got people focused on, OK, how are we going to spend that money in the next couple of years? You know, there's only one more year, so they'll they'll need to obligate those funds by September of twenty four. So basically we've got one more school year and one more summer to spend those dollars.

And that's been the focus. But we need to start talking now about the policy changes we need to have in place. In the fall of twenty four, when those dollars run out. Because there'll be a lot of kids who are still behind at that point. And lots of that stuff would require legislation, so to extend the school year would either require school board votes or or state legislative votes. And we just need to get started now.

So I hope more states think about this, this kind of policy that that Texas did. They didn't require districts to extend the school year, the state said. OK, we'll pay for up to 30 additional days, we'll pay half the cost of up to 30 additional days. And a lot of local school boards took them up on that.

And I hope more states think about that, and there are other things that we ought to be planning for in the future. Because it's crystal clear to me, and it's going to become crystal clear in the coming weeks when these state test scores come back. That a lot of kids have not caught up and people will start to realize, Oh my goodness, we really underdid it. Mm hmm.

And so just think about it. If you were in graduating from high school, say you were a senior in the 2021 school year, you didn't have your high school guidance counselor to talk to about college. And even if you did, like, you were looking at online classes. So their kids are out there, in jobs and or at home, and there's no adult's responsibility to reach out to them. So the long term consequences are already out there.

And we need to help reconnect those folks to college. But for everybody else who's still in K-8 and in high school, there will be other consequences. So we've already seen, for instance, there's been about a. I think it's a 9 percent decline in the number of kids taking AP calculus courses. There's been a 20 percent decline in the number of kids taking AP Chemistry. I think it's 10 percent or 12 percent in the number of kids taking AP Bio.

So those courses that have, like precursor courses, that require you to have taken and passed earlier grades, courses and earlier grades. We're already seeing declines in those areas and so a lot of those things will have. I think we're likely to see a decline in the proportion of people majoring in science and engineering and math in college as a result of it. So those are like the very concrete measures to get a broader picture of it. We looked and we said, OK, when these same test scores were going up. I think a lot of people don't realize that we were making progress from about 1990 to 2013 or so.

There were there were substantial increases in achievement in some, much larger in some states than others, and we did an analysis. It's available on our this website. We created educationrecoveryscorecard..org, where we said, OK, well, what happened to the income, educational attainment, arrest rates? Teen motherhood rates? For students born in states where test scores were rising, and how did those improvements compare to the students born in states where test scores didn't rise as much?

And because based on that, we might say, OK, let's use those to predict what's going to happen. Now that test scores have seen a big decline. And so based on that, we predict there'll be about a 900 billion dollar loss in lifetime earnings, not per year, but in the present value of lifetime earnings for the people who are enrolled during the 2021 school year. If we don't reverse it, and we're already seeing in the short, if you don't believe that, we're already seeing in the short term. These declines in community college enrollment, declines in the number of kids taking. AP Bio and AP Calculus, the kinds of courses that get you into the higher paying stem careers. So there will be long term consequences, and so a lot of parents might say, well, wait a minute.

Everybody's in the same boat, so maybe we shouldn't be worried. Well, not everybody's in the same boat. Remember, the kids in Newton, Mass. didn't lose very much, and it was the kids in Boston and Lynn and Lawrence and Richmond and St.

Louis and New Haven. That lost a lot of ground. And so it's not just that there's a loss in earnings, it's a very inequitable impact. It's primarily on the lower income kids.

You know, in organic chemistry, molecules interact in a particular kind of way. You either know how they do or you don't. And so you can't just grade the class on a curve, because, well, you kind of just have to know it. And the point that you're making is an important one, especially considering. I think the more sinister aspect of this is not just that the learning loss took place, it's that it seems that kids are learning at a slower pace.

Thereafter, the ability to catch up on these stem fields becomes that much harder. And then people just don't take those classes, right? And when people don't take those classes, they miss out on all those opportunities and all the career trajectory that that opens up for them.

And, you know, it's an interesting externality of this outcome on a public health podcast. Because, well, we kind of rely on people knowing science to explain science, right? Which is kind of what got us here in the first place, right? Is that so?

Much of what differentiated our Covid outcome and Covid process was a function of having an incompetent public health work, not workforce. Our workforce was fantastic. it was an incompetent public health infrastructure to support our workforce. Not enough people, not enough support for those people. And that itself is what led us to having to take some drastic actions in particular circumstances.

And it's funny because, you know, everybody is quick to blame the public health apparatus for a lot of these choices. But I'd argue that had the public health community felt more confident in its ability to respond at scale, we may have been able to buy ourselves out of some of these more drastic interventions. And that's the thing that people don't really think through is that. In other countries, they were able to open schools back up a lot faster because their public health infrastructure was better funded. To be able to handle the rates and keep them low, to be able to open up school in the next year. In our country, we didn't have that ability, and so a lot of folks looked at it and said, we are not controlling this virus adequately.

We cannot allow the schools to potentially be anitis and therefore the best measure here is to close them down, which is ultimately it is a hail Mary throw. And I believe that given where we were with the virus, it was a very justifiable decision. But I also believe that we were where we were with the virus in the first place. Because we had not invested adequately, which is a function of being able to train. And so part of what you're sharing here is that, unfortunately, there's a recursion effect of all of this. Which is, there's a whole generation of young kids who are just going to be less prepared for fields like this one.

And we may suffer the consequences yet again as a society.

In fact, like the American Rescue Plan, law gave states very little authority to either approve or disapprove a district's plan. So if a district, you know, came in and said, you know, we're going to spend it on across the board. Salary increases, or we're going to spend it on an HVAC, or we're going to spend it on, you know. Basically, allowing districts to bank some of the dollars for future expenditures. There was very little a state could do about it, so every district was out there. Trying to find its own vaccine, trying to find its own answer to the problem of learning loss. And we got the predictable result from that.

Actually, if anything, the federal guidance was misleading because at the time the American Rescue Plan passed, districts were only required. Nobody knew at that point just how bad the learning loss would be. That was March of 21. I think a lot of people were still hoping, Well, gosh, like, you know, maybe remote schooling will be 75 percent as good as in person, you know, we just didn't know. So districts were only required to spend 20 percent of the dollars they got on academic recovery.

There's no way that many districts were going to catch up spending only 20 percent of that on academic recovery. It was going to be way too little, like many districts would have had to spend all of it and more on academic recovery. In the end, and following the federal guidance, they didn't.

Thank you so much for your time.

But not all prescription drugs are eligible. The Department of Health and Human Services can pick 10 drugs every year that meet very specific criteria. They have to have been on the market for a while, seven years for traditional drugs and 11 years for biologics. There can't be a generic or biosimilar on the market, and they have to be covered by the Medicare prescription drug program.

And the negotiated rate, by the way, only applies for Medicare beneficiaries. But that hasn't stopped Big Pharma from throwing a fit. They're telling us that the program will stop them from innovating new medications. That it'll raise the prices of other drugs, and that it'll lead to shortages in the drugs that are negotiated. It's all, of course, bullshit. Pharma companies spend more on marketing than they do on research and development.

They very well might raise other drug prices, but that'll get harder to do because of a few key stipulations. In the Inflation Reduction Act, specifically, it restricts annual increases in drug prices beyond the rate of inflation. And basic logic dictates that if you make less profit for a unit of a certain product, then you might want to make it up by selling more of that product. The new drugs that HHS named include some really important ones.

They include commonly used medications for arthritis, diabetes, and heart disease. These are drugs that millions of beneficiaries use every single day. And there are some really important spillover effects, too. Meaning what this policy does, even if it doesn't touch other folks, could affect the prices that they pay. Even though the negotiated rates may only apply to people on Medicare, the posted rate could help insurers of all types negotiate similar rates, too.

So this, in the words of one Joseph Robinette Biden III, is a big, effing deal. In other news, the Department of Health and Human Services has called on the DEA to reclassify cannabis from its current Schedule 1 down to Schedule 3. Schedule 1. Drugs are those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That's not cannabis. But it does illustrate the catch-22 here.

Because cannabis is currently schedule 1, it's nearly impossible to do research on its medical benefits, even though there's current evidence that shows several possible benefits, including for pain relief and seizure disorders. And it's so hard to do that research because designing definitive randomized trials requires federal funding, which, of course, you can't get for research on cannabis, which is currently a Schedule 1 drug. Why? Because there are no proven medical benefits. You get the picture here.

And yet, medical marijuana is legal in 39 states, if I have to remind you, that's 39 out of 50, 4 out of 5, and recreational marijuana is legal in 23. And the fact that so many states have legalized cannabis? Despite the fact that it remains a Schedule 1 drug, well, it's created an increasingly untenable situation. Schedule 3 drugs, on the other hand, are those that have moderate to low potential for physical or psychological dependence. Which is a much better fit.

That said, this move wouldn't solve the fact that cultivation, production and sale of cannabis would still be illegal under federal law, nevertheless, it would ease several restrictions. The DEA has yet to ever go against a recommendation from HHS. So that's really good news and we can expect a rescheduling decision in mid-2024. We'll be watching.

This next piece of news should come as a surprise to just about nobody. But a new study in JAMA found that mental health spending jumped during the pandemic. It's not just about people needing more of it, see. The pandemic also ushered in major changes in policy that facilitated the expansion of tele-mental health, which vastly increased the availability of online mental health treatment. Tele-mental health has a lot of advantages.

It's not just that it's more convenient, but it sidesteps a lot of the unfortunate stigma that still exists when it comes to mental health. Because you can access your therapy from the comfort of your own home, you're not worried about who might find out. Efforts to pull back on some of these pandemic-era regulatory changes have been met with major pushback from providers and patients alike. And I'd be willing to bet that they're here to stay. That's it for today. On your way out, don't forget to rate and review the show.

It really does go a long way. Please do me a kindness, please. Also, if you love the show and want to rep us, don't forget. You've got one more day to take advantage of the Labor Day sale at the crooked Media Merch store.

America dissected is a product of crooked media. Our producer is Austin Fisher. our associate producers are Tara Terpstra and Emma Lickfrank. Vasilis Fotopoulos mixes and masters the show. Production support from Ari Schwartz.

Our theme song is by Takashi Zawa and Alex Uguiera. our executive producers are Leo Duran, Sarah Geismer, Michael Martinez and me. Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, your host. thank you for listening.

This show is for general information and entertainment purposes only. It's not intended to provide specific health care or medical advice and should not be construed as providing health care or medical advice. Please consult your physician with any questions related to your own health. The views expressed in this podcast reflect those of the host and his guests, and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of Wayne County, Michigan, or its Department of Health, Human and Veteran Services.