Every once in a while, I feel the urge to shout “women are not small men!” at inanimate objects. Today, that object is the flat-chested plastic torso typically used for CPR training. 

Breasts, it turns out, are really the bane of every woman’s existence — the back pain, the boob jail, the running. But here’s a new one: In a public cardiac arrest, they may be the reason nobody helps you.

Two years ago, an analysis of over 300,000 cardiac arrests showed that women are 14 percent less likely than men to receive CPR from a stranger if they have a cardiac arrest in public. Bystanders tend to be more hesitant and feel less comfortable providing CPR or using external defibrillator paddles, called AEDs, on people with breasts. Experts have time and again pointed, in part, to the fact that nearly everyone learns to perform CPR using the traditional, flat-chested dummies called “manikins,” which overwhelmingly represent the male anatomy. If the first time a stranger has to perform CPR on someone with breasts is in the middle of a high-stakes emergency — what else would you expect? 

For the last 20 years, not only has the survival rate for out-of-hospital cardiac arrests been around 10 percent, but also the chances of the victim surviving decrease by 10 percent every minute that interventions like CPR are not performed. It makes it all the more harrowing that women are not receiving the care they need when they experience cardiac arrests — especially in places where they are surrounded by people. 

Whether it is manikins used for CPR training, crash tests or medical care in combat, the default stand-in for what is “human” has long been male. 

But recently, researchers, advocates and governing bodies like the American Heart Association and European Resuscitation Council are pushing for better representation in CPR training and education. Increases in simulation-based research on the use of representative manikins, like ones that accurately represent female anatomy, are changing how people train to respond to cardiac arrest — and simultaneously exposing bigger gender gaps in design that systematically exclude women from experiencing the same level of safety and care as men. 

One size doesn’t fit all

The first CPR manikin was developed in 1960 by the Norwegian toy manufacturer Laerdal. The manikin, called Resusci Anne, which had the anatomy of a prepubescent teen, was ironically modeled off an unnamed girl who was thought to have drowned in the river Seine in Paris. Laerdal famously wanted a female face on the manikin since he thought men might hesitate to practice mouth-to-mouth resuscitation on a male manikin. It’s not surprising that women trainees didn’t factor into the equation at all back in the 1960s — they weren’t even included in clinical trials yet — but the norm of designing with the comfort of men at the forefront continues to this day. 

Since then, Resusci Anne has been reengineered many times over, and today’s manikins are surprisingly high-tech and interactive. However, as of 2022, about 95 percent of manikins on the market from mainstream manufacturers were still flat-chested and androgynous. 

So why does this matter?

In the past, research has hinted at three main reasons why bystanders don’t immediately rush to the aid of a woman in cardiac arrest. One, they are hesitant to expose or touch her in any way that could be misconstrued as inappropriate and are worried about sexual assault allegations after the fact. Two, they don’t want to accidentally hurt them, perceiving them as generally more fragile than the average man. And three — perhaps saddest of all: bystanders often don’t recognize that a woman is in cardiac arrest if, say, she collapses in public, misattributing it as overreacting, simply fainting or faking it. 

CPR training with female manikins would go a long way in teaching people to be comfortable with the female form.  

In one study, people at MassCPR — the free CPR certification program offered by Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the MIT community — were trained using standard manikins,  as well as a few which were retrofitted with a mold resembling breasts. At the end of the certification, participants who practiced on the manikin with breasts reported greater comfort performing CPR on women. 

If there was widespread adoption of manikins that looked and felt different, this could ultimately become the norm. 

It’s really only in the past five years or so that research on this disparity has sped up, offering some evidence for the need for more representative manikins. Even then, widespread adoption of female manikins is hindered by commercial availability of anatomically correct models and the cost of switching existing CPR training programs over to using them.   

Closing the design (gender) gap

There are two main ways to go about increasing the availability of female manikins: Either you retrofit existing standard manikins with breasts or you design completely new ones. 

When Christoph Veigl and colleagues at the Medical University of Vienna surveyed 133 training organizations across 43 countries from six continents, they found that of more than 5,000 manikins in use, only a fifth of organizations owned a female one. While that number is still low, adoption is triple what it was four years ago. The researchers acknowledge that just the availability of female manikins is not necessarily an indication of how much they are used in training — about a quarter of the organizations were also employing makeshift adaptations, like placing a bra on standard manikins, to simulate training on women. 

Dr. Pooja Nawathe, a resuscitation science researcher and pediatric critical care clinician at Cedars-Sinai Hospital, chose to focus her research on gender disparity in resuscitation for a specific reason. 

“Skin color is about implicit biases, but female breast tissue, which is a normal physical characteristic, is about the actual science of this,” she said, speaking about variations in care during cardiac arrests. “Are we teaching how to place the pads on the breast tissue?”  

She also stresses the importance of gathering good, granular data on how CPR performance changes when people are exposed to diverse populations.     

CPR manikins are just one example of the gender gap in design: Across fields like crash testing, the “human” body has long been modeled on men.

CPR manikins are just one example of the gender gap in design: Across fields like crash testing, the “human” body has long been modeled on men. But that’s starting to change, too. Last year, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) released the design details for THOR-05F, the first detailed female crash-test dummy.

Before this, the standard female crash-test dummy was a model called the Hybrid III 5th percentile female dummy — literally just a scaled-down version of the Hybrid III 50th percentile male dummy that represents the average male body dimensions. But the THOR-05F — every woman’s dream name, I’m sure — is a much more anatomically accurate female dummy, and includes a female pelvis, breasts, and a flexible spine. 

THOR-05F has arrived just as new research by the NHTSA affirmed the need for better crash-testing on women. Although the gap in vehicular accident fatality rates between the sexes has narrowed significantly in newer car models, women continue to experience a higher injury rate compared to men in multiple different types of vehicular accidents. The hope is that testing with the THOR-05F will provide a better understanding of this trend and help engineer safer vehicles and regulations for women.

Women are not small men!

Women are often referred to as the “invisible sex,” and the lack of female manikins really brings that to the forefront. It’s not like the manufacturers or policymakers intentionally excluded women from this area — they simply ignored them, accepting an androgynous body as the standard with an unchallenged assumption that what applies to it will undoubtedly apply to women too. 

In 2019, Joan Creative, the New York-based ad agency, launched the Womanikin, a universal attachment for CPR manikins, in partnership with United State of Women, a now-shuttered organization focused on gender equity. Launched during National CPR Week, the Womanikin is a neoprene vest with silicone breasts that can be zipped onto any standard manikin. Built as an awareness campaign, they open-sourced the design for the breasted vest and helped spark a broader conversation about the CPR gender gap. But we don’t have any detailed information about its success or adoption. 

More recently, other manufacturers like Prestan have come out with newly designed female manikins that can be purchased as is. They also sell “replacement female skin” that retrofits any existing Prestan adult manikins. Notably, these are now available on the American Red Cross store, increasing visibility for female manikins.

The fact that women account for 50 percent of the world’s population and yet have to mold themselves to standards not designed for them in the first place is atrocious. Not only is it frustrating to live in a world not built for you, but in cases like CPR training, the gender gap can quite literally be fatal. This is true whether it is for motor vehicle crash-test dummies or those used to train battlefield medics — another field where women injured in battle have a higher fatality rate than their counterparts.

The basic idea is that repeated exposure to female bodily characteristics during training or testing can significantly alleviate discomfort that causes dangerous hesitation. If people had more practice administering CPR to models that looked more feminine, they wouldn’t be thrown off by breasts, would understand how to cut away clothing like bras if needed, and learn how to efficiently place the pads of the external defibrillator on a female body. 

CPR techniques remain largely the same irrespective of sex. Chest compressions are performed on the sternum, which is the flat bone running down the center of your chest. For women, it lies between the breasts, so there are some additional considerations. That is what representation in training manikins is meant to address — not new skills, but familiarity. 

Ultimately, it really comes down to not feeling awkward about putting your hand in between two breasts, if it means you save a life.

The affordability and availability of healthcare is emerging as a top concern for Americans, with some recent surveys ranking it easily as the top concern. Voters are upset with rising costs, and federal cuts to Medicaid and Obamacare subsidies threaten to leave millions more uninsured. 

Progressive candidates, who have won major primaries this cycle, have been eager to offer Medicare-for-all as a solution. Polling suggests there is broad support for the idea, even if most American voters aren’t sure what the phrase means in practice.

But Democrats have also been fighting about Medicare-for-all for the last decade, with battles reaching a fever pitch in the 2020 presidential primary. The popular slogan has been most closely associated with Vermont Senator and two-time presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, whose federal Medicare for All Act would enroll virtually every American into one national plan and largely eliminate private health insurance. Six years later, plenty of Democrats still remember bitter arguments over whether to replace private insurance or build on it, dividing the party over an issue they otherwise agreed was a top priority.

Yet there are emerging signs that the party is not about to experience déjà vu when it comes to healthcare politics. In interviews over the last few weeks, activists, pollsters, and policy experts sound cautiously optimistic that the Democratic healthcare wars might finally be headed for a collaborative truce. And Abdul El-Sayed, the buzzy Michigan progressive who wrote a book on Medicare-for-all, is campaigning for US Senate on a version that would let people keep their private health insurance, a potentially major shift. In a recent interview, El-Sayed went as far as to say, “as long as it reduces the power of healthcare corporations, expands healthcare, and does so publicly, I’m for it.”

In the meantime, Democrats have been busy building a new stockpile of ideas. New and serious healthcare proposals are circulating among lawmakers and potential 2028 presidential contenders, ranging from breaking up healthcare monopolies and expanding public drug manufacturing, to regulating hospitals and establishing new public options, meaning government-run health insurance plans that people can choose to buy instead of private insurance.

Next year is shaping up to be particularly painful. Health insurers want to raise Obamacare premiums by a median of 15 percent, on top of a roughly 20 percent jump this year, and starting in January, millions on Medicaid will have to prove they’re working to keep their coverage. Higher premiums and new hurdles to staying on Medicaid will land right as the next presidential campaign gets going.

That’s part of why the drafting feels urgent. Major healthcare legislation is rare, and the groups crafting these proposals think the next window may be opening.

“People have moved on from messaging; people aren’t staking out extreme positions to move the Overton Window,” said Neale Mahoney, a Stanford healthcare economist who has been reviewing many of the new proposals and advises the Kitchen Table Project, one of the groups developing them. “I think people are very much in the ‘what is something that could actually work?’ phase.”

What Americans really think about Medicare-for-all

One reason healthcare experts are feeling hopeful that reform may play out more amicably this time is that the fight that consumed the last one — whether everyone would be forced off their private plans — may not happen. Medicare-for-all supporters themselves seem tentatively open to paths beyond the strict single-payer program outlined in Sanders’ bill.

This is also significant because to many Americans, “Medicare-for-all” means having the option to enroll in a public health insurance program, but to keep their employer health coverage if they want.

The ambiguity over private insurance became the single biggest source of confusion and infighting among Democrats the last time they debated Medicare-for-all. A 2019 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found over half of Americans thought Medicare-for-all meant you could keep your private insurance, a finding that led presidential primary candidates to finger-point and flip-flop on the question for months. Kamala Harris, for example, initially backed Sanders’ bill in her presidential run, but later renounced her support after facing questions about whether she’d back abolishing private plans. 

New polling suggests Americans’ ideas about Medicare-for-all remain largely the same today. A March 2026 survey led by the center-left Searchlight Institute and Impact Research, a progressive polling firm, found that while 60 percent of Americans agreed that Medicare-for-all would create a single-payer health system, 61 percent also said Medicare-for-all would allow people to keep their current private health insurance plan if they preferred to.

Another recent survey led by Searchlight, the Democratic polling firm Tavern Research, and the progressive media organization Zeteo found that support for government-run health insurance was least attractive to voters when it included mention of the elimination of private and employer-sponsored plans and that it would be funded through higher federal taxes. Asked directly, 70 percent said they’d rather keep their current coverage than enroll in a federal plan similar to Medicare.

Battleground state focus groups held this past spring by the Democratic research firm Navigator found that while nearly all wished the country’s healthcare system was “universal” and “affordable,” few could say what separates one healthcare reform label from the next.

Put differently, most voters, including most Medicare-for-all supporters, seem open to a range of approaches that improve access to affordable care. 

Mahoney, the Stanford health economist, thinks what’s new is that Democrats are realizing they don’t have to choose between improving the coverage people have now and building something better over time, like a strong public option. There’s a growing recognition among experts, he said, that people are being squeezed right now, while deeper structural problems keep mounting underneath, like an insurance system tied to employment that would only grow more precarious if AI drives waves of layoffs. 

Natasha Murphy, the director of health policy at the Center for American Progress,  a liberal think tank, said voter research has led them to recommend new “short-term solutions” that can bring healthcare costs down now. “Candidates and elected officials would serve themselves and their constituents by focusing on the more immediate benefits,” she told me, “while continuing to talk about universal coverage and broader-scale change” that could take a decade or more.

Adam Gaffney, a prominent single-payer advocate who previously served as president of Physicians for a National Health Program, believes Americans indicating support for “Medicare-for-all” in polls broadly support a national insurance health system, but it doesn’t mean that everyone therefore knows “everything in Bernie’s bill, or Jayapal’s bill, or [Physicians for a National Health Program] proposal” since “very few people do.” 

Gaffney says he’s not opposed to incremental reforms on the path to single-payer, though he does believe voters interpret “Medicare-for-all” as one insurance program that covers everyone, just as they generally know that Medicare covers all people above age 65.

The 2028 test

Whether Democrats can actually sustain a tentative peace on healthcare will likely depend on how the next presidential primary season shakes out.

Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, who is considering a run, is a vocal Medicare-for-all supporter closely aligned with Sanders — yet both have enthusiastically endorsed El-Sayed and continue to stump for him. Would Ocasio-Cortez campaign on Sanders’s bill specifically, or on something like El-Sayed’s broader healthcare vision? How would she handle disagreements with rival plans, which at times became heated in 2020? And where will groups like the Democratic Socialists of America draw their lines for endorsements?

Weighing in on the topic recently on his political newsletter, journalist and Vox co-founder Matt Yglesias noted that El-Sayed’s recent remarks characterizing Medicare-for-all as more aspirational than any specific piece of legislation may help build a “permission structure” for all kinds of center-left Democrats to run on worthy healthcare reform ideas. 

“The single most important thing that El-Sayed can do to win moderate support is to leverage his credibility with the left into ending the destructive Medicare for All wars that have paralyzed the Democratic Party for the past 15 years,” Yglesias argued. 

The reverse might help too. Single-payer supporters have long suspected a public option is meant to defuse pressure for bigger change, and moderates could answer that by stating plainly they want a plan that grows to cover nearly everyone — not a patch for people falling through the cracks.

In Jacobin earlier this month, the socialist writer who publishes under the pseudonym Carl Beijer urged leftists to hold the line on single-payer healthcare. He noted that El-Sayed’s position is almost identical to the stance that Democrats like Pete Buttigieg and Elizabeth Warren got slammed for by the left for proposing back in 2020. The Sanders wing of the party, Beijer stressed, held back then that any plan that allows for private insurance has no right to associate itself with Medicare-for-all. The risk now, he argued, is that rather than serve as a stepping stone to single-payer, a private option would let the rich opt out, and voters who’ve opted out don’t tend to fight to fund what they’ve left behind. He mused that socialists may be more willing to let El-Sayed off the healthcare hook because of the uncompromising stance he’s taken on Israel, but that the underlying issues had not changed. 

Beijer’s warning is that agreement this easy is agreement about nothing. The next presidential primary is where we’ll find out where the real differences remain.

Just last month, I marked my 25th year as a professional journalist, which I guess means my journalistic career is old enough to rent a car, no questions asked. Work in the news for that long, and you’ll occasionally find yourself surprised by things you published in the past. Like, I had all but forgotten that I had written this Time magazine cover story in 2008:

A couple things here. One, as the cover demonstrates, journalistic sensitivity was…less than ideal then, to say the least. And two, over a quarter-century occasionally covering obesity (both childhood and adult), that story only seemed to go in one direction: worse.

It wasn’t for lack of trying. We put calorie counts on menus, taxed soda (well, in some places), built workplace wellness programs, and funded a small library of diet research. We deplored food deserts and promoted farmers’ markets. We told people — again and again — to eat less and move more. But the lines just kept going up.

By the CDC’s measured survey, the share of US adults with obesity did not change meaningfully between 2013 and 2023. The age-adjusted obesity rate sat at 40.3 percent, while the age-adjusted severe obesity climbed from 7.7 percent to 9.7 percent over the same stretch.

While the question of weight in America is inextricably tied to body image and moralizing, those numbers had a deadly effect. One demographic model estimated that obesity was associated with roughly 18 percent of deaths among Black and white Americans ages 40 to 85 between 1986 and 2006. From diabetes to kidney failure, heart disease to sleep apnea, obesity is the delivery system for other diseases.

Which is what makes a Gallup report published in July so surprising. In Gallup’s self-reported height-and-weight series, the US adult obesity rate fell to 36.4 percent, down from a peak of 39.9 percent in 2022. Over roughly the same period, the share of adults who said they were currently taking a GLP-1 drug for weight loss rose from 3 percent in 2024 to 11 percent in 2026 — approximately 29 million people. While this only shows correlation, not causation, and Gallup’s self-reported measure should not be compared directly with the CDC’s measured rate, the timing is suggestive to say the least. 

And the weight might be the least interesting thing about these drugs. 

Semaglutide — the molecule sold as Ozempic and Wegovy — was first developed and approved as a treatment for type 2 diabetes, not obesity. It was only after earlier GLP-1 drugs and diabetes trials showed substantial effects on appetite and weight that researchers deliberately tested a higher dose for obesity, resulting in Wegovy in 2021. 

But as it turns out, the list of things that have been noticed happening on the side with GLP-1s has gotten so long it’s begun to eclipse the main event. The coverage of GLP-1s has barely kept up with this news, because weight loss is what made these drugs famous and what we continually obsess over. But it turns out, weight loss may not be what they’re best at.

Side effects may include…

Let’s start with sleep apnea, which, untreated, drives up blood pressure, strains the heart, and raises the risk of stroke. These are people whose breathing stops dozens of times an hour, all night, every night. Two year-long trials put 469 of them on tirzepatide — the drug sold as Mounjaro and Zepbound — and cut those interruptions by more than half. Roughly half the group finished the year with no apnea at all, or with so little left that they stopped being tired all day.

Then there are the kidneys. A major trial followed 3,533 people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease for a median of 3.4 years. Semaglutide reduced the relative risk of a composite of kidney failure, a sustained loss of at least half of kidney function, or death from kidney-related or cardiovascular causes by 24 percent; all-cause mortality was 20 percent lower.

And the liver: A trial, still underway, biopsied the livers of 800 people whose organs had grown fatty, inflamed and scarred and randomly assigned them to semaglutide or a placebo. After 72 weeks the inflammation had cleared in nearly 63 percent of those on the drug, with no worsening of the scarring, against 34 percent on placebo. 

And the knees: In 407 adults with obesity and moderate knee osteoarthritis, pain scores on the 0-100 WOMAC metric fell 41.7 points against 27.5 on placebo. 

And to top it off, a 17,604-person trial of participants who were overweight or obese but did not have diabetes found a 20 percent drop in major cardiovascular events.

These results may not be as grabby as cultural debates over “Ozempic face,” but they deserve far more attention.

Medicine’s happy accidents  

As GLP-1s — which in part came out of a hormone in Gila monster venom — demonstrate, medicine has long found some of its biggest wins in the margins of drugs ostensibly built to do something else entirely. 

Sildenafil, better known as Viagra, began life at Pfizer as a candidate treatment for the heart disease angina. It failed at that, and its now-famous use turned up in data as a side effect in what must have been a very interesting trial for its subjects. Minoxidil (Rogaine) was a blood pressure pill that turned out to help patients grow hair. Finasteride (Propecia) was approved for enlarged prostates before anyone thought to sell it for baldness — and then a trial of more than 18,000 men found it cut prostate cancer diagnoses by about 25 percent, a benefit that took 20 years of follow-up to fully vindicate. 

Perhaps the most famous example is aspirin, which spent most of a century as a painkiller before a doctor in California named Lawrence Craven noticed that the patients he’d given aspirin gum to after tonsillectomies bled more than they should. He guessed the aspirin thinned the blood, and started handing it out to middle-aged men, who were at higher risk of heart attacks. Craven died in 1957; the trial that ultimately proved that he was onto something — showing that aspirin in heart attack victims cut vascular deaths by a fifth — didn’t run until 1988. 

The strange morality of Ozempic

Viewed this way, GLP-1s can seem like miracle drugs — but even miracle drugs can’t cure everything.

There had been great hope that GLP-1 might reduce dementia rates, but when Ozempic maker Novo Nordisk ran a proper trial, it didn’t show evidence of slowing clinical progression of Alzheimer’s. Much the same happened with cancer. Observational data had hinted that GLP-1 users developed tumors less often, but when a Harvard team pooled 48 placebo-controlled trials covering 94,245 people, they found the drugs have little to no effect on the risk of thyroid, breast or kidney cancer, though evidence for other cancers was less certain, leading to FDA boxed warnings. One plus: In some early animal studies, high doses of GLP-1 drugs caused thyroid tumors in rodents, but further research largely hasn’t validated the fears that it could be more widespread, though uncertainty about some rare thyroid cancers remains.  

For many people, weight loss isn’t the end of what these drugs seem able to do. It’s where the benefits begin.

The bigger concerns largely remain the known ones, starting with muscle loss. Across 22 randomized trials, about 25 percent of the weight lost on these drugs turns out to be lean muscle mass. Some of that is simply unavoidable in any weight loss, but too much can mean a great deal, especially if you’re 75. 

And cost remains a barrier: In a 2025 KFF poll, 56 percent of adults who had ever used a GLP-1 said the drugs were difficult to afford; 27 percent said they had insurance but paid the full cost themselves. In a separate Cleveland Clinic chart review of 288 adults without diabetes who stopped injectable semaglutide or tirzepatide within a year, 47.6 percent stopped because of cost or insurance problems, compared with 14.6 percent because of side effects. (The money, at least, is improving. An oral GLP-1 drug was approved in April, and it starts at $149 a month for people paying cash, while Medicare trial pricing of $50 a month for some GLP-1s went live in July.)

A stickier obstacle is the one that can’t seem to be divorced from questions about weight: judgment. As my colleague Dylan Scott wrote recently, researchers at Rice University found that people rate a GLP-1 user more harshly than someone who never lost weight at all. That makes perfect sense when you consider how contentious weight is in America — and none at all when you think about just how many people have benefited from these drugs in so many different ways.

I sometimes wonder how we would view GLP-1s if they could do everything they’ve been shown to do, but somehow not change a person’s appearance. 

So much of the discourse around these drugs has been shaped by the fact that many of the earliest and most public and apparent users were already thin people, often celebrities, using them to get even thinner. But that framing has become increasingly difficult to square with reality. 

Two things can be true at once: American culture has a toxic relationship to weight, and millions of Americans can and are benefiting from these drugs. For many people, weight loss isn’t the end of what these drugs seem able to do. It’s where the benefits begin.

A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!

Over the weekend, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) announced on Instagram that she had joined the thousands of American women who freeze their eggs every year, a number that has been steadily growing for the past decade.

“This is a choice that I am making to feel more in control of my life,” Ocasio-Cortez said in her Instagram story sharing her decision. 

As politicians in the public eye often do, Ocasio-Cortez turned her personal choice into a statement:

Usually I keep my private life quite private, but I have made the decision to start freezing my eggs, and I want to share this because I was weighing it for a very long time. I was saving for it for a very long time, and there just isn’t a ton out there, I feel, and sometimes it can feel very daunting. As women in general, we are not taught about our own bodies. We are not prepared for our own lives. … We need to show more depictions of women having full lives.

At the same time, she acknowledged being “in a very privileged position” to be able to take advantage of egg freezing. The process still typically costs $10,000 or more — and most insurance still doesn’t cover it. Not even AOC’s federal health plan. Egg freezing is a luxury afforded only to the people who can pay for it and take on the significant burden of the treatment and all of the uncertainty that comes with it.

Ocasio-Cortez’s announcement underscores the awkward place that egg freezing still occupies in the landscape of fertility access — at a moment when Republicans in power are lamenting falling birth rates and searching for ways to encourage more people to start families. In theory, egg freezing gives women the flexibility to take more control of their decisions about having kids and preserve that possibility for themselves in the future. But in reality, the promises of this important procedure have often been unfulfilled. 

Beyond the intimidating price tag, as AOC alluded to, many young women don’t know some of the basics about age-related fertility decline and how to maximize their chances that egg freezing will lead to an actual pregnancy. There are some “significant gaps in fertility knowledge amongst Gen Z women in particular,” said Danielle Melfi, CEO of Resolve, a fertility treatment advocacy group. 

“That points to why someone like AOC who has such broad awareness and broad reach across her channels,” Melfi told me, “specifically younger people who aren’t tuned into any politician but would be tuned into her. Her sharing her story and journey matters.”

Egg freezing is not a panacea, and it never will be. But it can give individuals options and a sense of empowerment. And right now, as AOC acknowledged in her video, those are privileges reserved for the people who are in the know and have the means to take advantage of it. For everyone else, significant barriers still remain.

Freezing time doesn’t come cheap — or easily

On average, the cost of egg freezing averages between $10,000 and $20,000. And, for most people, including AOC, who makes $174,000 a year on her congressional salary alone, health insurance coverage is not an option. According to a 2024 KFF employer survey, just 12 percent of large employers who offer health insurance provide egg or sperm freezing.

That’s not for lack of trying.

As of now, 21 states have mandates requiring health insurers to provide some level of coverage for “fertility preservation” when it is deemed medically necessary — for a younger cancer patient who is about to undergo chemotherapy, for example, a more and more common scenario these days. But coverage for what is viewed as elective freezing, as AOC is doing, is still generally not included in those requirements.

But even the state-level mandates come with a huge carveout. Under America’s Frankenstein healthcare system, there is a very important type of health insurance plan that is exempt from such state laws: self-funded employer plans, meaning those that fully cover their workers’ medical expenses without relying on an outside insurance company. They are governed only by a federal law known as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and that law provides no guarantees for egg freezing or other reproductive care. 

About half of Americans get their insurance through their work, and of those employer plans, more than 60 percent are self-funded. That is a lot of people who have no guarantees for this kind of service, even when a serious medical reason is motivating them to freeze their eggs. The select few who can get egg freezing covered are typically higher-income, too, adding to the disparity between the US healthcare system’s haves and have-nots.

Support for IVF among the American public has been rising, with 70 percent saying in 2024 that access to IVF was a good thing. And fertility coverage is having a political moment, too: the HOPE With Fertility Services Act, which would require insurers to cover some basic fertility treatment when it is deemed medically necessary, was introduced this year with a bipartisan slate of more than 20 sponsors, though it remains stuck at the committee level for now. The Trump administration has fixated on dropping fertility rates, but, beyond a limited IVF executive order, they have not seriously pursued plans to expand access to egg freezing. A national mandate to cover egg freezing, even only when medically necessary, could end up being opposed by both health insurers (which have fought all kinds of benefit requirements in the past) and the religious right (which has specifically challenged mandates for reproductive healthcare, like the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate).

It will likely take a variety of policy changes to give people more financial support for this important but expensive service. So what now? Unfortunately, I think we are stuck with patchy coverage and can expect only incremental improvements for the foreseeable future. On the plus side, Melfi said, more employers may increasingly offer these benefits as a competitive advantage.

But access isn’t the only problem.

Egg freezing works best when people actually know how to take advantage of it

Even if a person is able to access egg freezing, it doesn’t always pay off. 

A study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in February found that fewer than 6 percent of people who froze their eggs electively had come back to thaw them within five to seven years. Of those people, 79 percent had a usable embryo after warming and 29 percent had a pregnancy that resulted in a live birth.

Of course, just because some people haven’t warmed their eggs within seven years doesn’t mean they won’t come back in nine: The point of this service is you could freeze your eggs at 30 even if you’re not ready for kids until you are 40. Those numbers will likely grow with time. And some of those people might end up successfully getting pregnant on their own the old-fashioned way, which means they won’t need their frozen eggs at all. 

“Typically, people who are coming in to freeze their eggs haven’t actually tried to conceive yet. When they are ready to start conceiving, a lot of people may not have any issues conceiving,” said Dr. Mabel Lee, a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist at HRC Fertility in Pasadena, California who led the published study. 

What is true is that getting pregnant is difficult no matter how you go about it — even conceiving through intercourse only results in a 20 to 25 percent success rate on a given try, Lee said — and success with frozen eggs depends on how young the person was when their eggs were preserved: The younger they are, the higher the chances of success. That makes it all the more important that people — particularly younger people — know about the realities of egg freezing and how to make the most of it, whether they are spending thousands of dollars of their own money or whether they are using insurance to pay for it. Awareness among young people of the basic relationship between age and fertility remains discouragingly low. Lee said she has patients come in all the time who say they wish they had known more about egg freezing sooner.

The likelihood of a live birth may go up if the eggs were younger, but is that enough to convince someone in their mid-20s to pay out of pocket to freeze their eggs? In the midst of an affordability crisis, is that even an option? It might not be; in the meantime, Lee said women could get a blood test to measure their ovarian reserves, which estimates a person’s egg count, and use that to make an informed decision about egg freezing in consultation with their doctor.

Once you have decided to freeze your eggs, using a high-quality clinic is a must: That’s the other major variable in success, Lee told me. The Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology maintains a national database covering clinics across the country and tracking birth success rates and other metrics. It’s like a report card of sorts, so you can hopefully choose the best provider for you.

There are still no guarantees. Fertility is too fickle. But by improving access and raising awareness, there are clear steps we can take to try to maximize egg freezing’s potential.

AI is the hottest thing in medical care right now — but many of us feel trepidation about it. Just one illustrative public survey sample: An October 2025 KFF poll found just 8 percent of Americans reported feeling a “great deal” of trust in AI managing their appointments or analyzing their health records, and only 32 percent said they would trust an online health tool that uses AI to access their medical records to provide personalized health information.

But many clinicians and healthcare administrators see AI as a powerful new tool that offers myriad opportunities to streamline and improve treatment. A 2026 survey found that more than 80 percent of US doctors use AI professionally — doubling the share from 2023. Physicians are excited by AI’s potential to keep more accurate notes of interactions with patients, to act as a second pair of eyes for human doctors, and to monitor people at risk of deteriorating and ending up in a dangerous situation.

The disconnect between what people and their providers want from AI could create more distrust, at a time when faith in the healthcare system and the medical profession have slid. Patients today want to feel empowered and in control. How can that be possible when these seemingly godlike machines are becoming more and more entrenched in our hospitals and doctors offices?

The answer comes in four words: “human in the loop.” It’s the principle upon which the ethical integration of AI depends and it could help to bridge the gap between lay people and the professionals on AI in medicine. In surveys, people are much more comfortable with the idea of their doctor using AI as an assistant than with AI acting on its own. And most clinicians want to use AI in that way, as a second opinion or passive monitor, not as a replacement for their judgment. There are real fears among the healthcare workforce about that possibility: A group of NYC nurses who were recently laid off claim it’s because their labor was going to be replaced by AI. “Human in the loop” appears to be a point of agreement between doctors and patients at this pivotal moment.

“Doctors…and nurses and staff always have been interested in primarily making the best decision for the people under their care — and these tools can help with that,” Alison Callahan, a research scientist at Stanford University who works on AI programs used in the university’s health system, told me. “The interest in making sure those tools are accurate is high.”

But what does “human in the loop” really mean in practice? How can you know when and how your doctor is using AI? And what is the best way to talk to your provider about the sudden influx of artificial intelligence in healthcare before a robot starts taking appointment notes or analyzing your MRI? I called some leading experts to find out. 

How AI is currently being used in medicine

Patients and providers alike are incorporating AI into healthcare. Individuals are using commercial AI chatbots to ask about their symptoms or the health metrics tracked by their Apple Watch, while large academic medical centers are developing sophisticated programs and protocols to try to improve medical care at the population level.

It starts with ChatGPT, Claude, etc. — the large language models that are available to the public. People are increasingly turning to them to try to understand what’s going on with their own bodies. Individual physicians are also consulting with large language models to answer questions or get up-to-date on the latest research as they figure out how to best care for their patients. 

Then there are ways in which hospitals and doctors offices are adopting AI at the institutional level. Many facilities are using AI as a way to take, collate, and summarize notes on a patient; in theory, it’s a more organized way to keep track of the informal interactions and observations that doctors have when checking on their own patients. Hospitals are also using AI to handle some administrative tasks, like scheduling follow-up appointments; some health systems have even started to use AI to help patients get ready for appointments — to send reminders about colonoscopy prep, for example.

And finally, you have maybe the most ambitious use of AI by health systems right now: as a diagnostic and risk prediction tool. In these cases, AI might offer a second opinion when, for example, a doctor is triaging a patient in the emergency room. It might help the ER staff figure out how to prioritize patients. Or these programs could monitor people either during a hospital stay or out in the real world (by drawing data from the person’s wearable) and make predictions about who may be at higher risk of complications and require further care. AI could recommend that somebody would benefit from seeing certain specialists or receiving a specific medicine or lab test, and generally offer proactive advice about the patient’s medical care.

But at this point, AI adoption is still “highly localized,” said Jennifer Goldsack, CEO of the Digital Medicine Society, a nonprofit that works with healthcare providers, drug makers, and government agencies on how to incorporate new tech (including AI) into clinical care. It depends on the individual doctor or health system. A lot of them are setting up their own programs and their own protocols for how to use these tools.

That is a big reason why it is so important for patients to be proactive about understanding how AI is being used for their health care. You can’t make assumptions; the only way you’re going to know for sure is to ask.

The questions you should ask your doctor about AI

By and large, experts say, patients should feel confident: Doctors and nurses want to keep a human in the loop, even as they integrate AI into their workflows.

“It will be a doctor who is going to be reading that summary or a nurse who is going to be reading that summary and then taking an action to order a lab or put a recommendation in for a follow-up appointment,” Callahan said. “There is high interest in making sure that that is the right decision for that person. That hasn’t changed.” 

Still, many patients say they’d be more comfortable with AI use if their doctor fully explained it in advance. And health systems may have their own priorities that push their facilities toward more rapid AI adoption and delegating more tasks to these AI tools, as seen in the recent NYC nurse layoffs.

So if you want to be informed on exactly where this technology is present and have the ability to consent to its use, you have every right to ask your doctor, experts say. 

“AI is new, but the trust that serves as the foundation of the physician-patient relationship is not,” Timothy Keyes, a machine learning scientist at Stanford Health Care, told me over email. “To that end, I think that conversations about medical AI use should be open, honest, and transparent — just like any other conversations about shared decision-making in the clinical environment should be.”

For some things, your doctor should be asking you proactively if you consent to AI use — note-taking, for example. At my most recent primary care appointment, my doctor asked me if it’d be okay for him to use AI to take and summarize notes from our conversation; Goldstack told me she’d experienced the same at recent physician visits. (This is probably the most common AI use that you will encounter, and Keyes said it’s worth considering giving your consent: “There is growing evidence that they reduce physician burnout and save them at least a bit of time each day writing notes.”)

There are also a number of direct questions that you can ask:

• Will AI be used in my care and how?
• How is my data being protected?
• Can I opt out of any AI services that I do not feel comfortable with? (Keyes noted that patients should be allowed to opt out of any care, AI-related or not; if opting out is not an option, ask how a human provider will be involved.)
• How is the health system or clinic making sure that any AI system they use is working as intended?

And the transparency goes both ways. If you’re asking a question because you consulted ChatGPT before your appointment, tell your doctor. If you’ve talked with a chatbot because of mental health struggles, tell your doctor. And at the same time, feel free to ask your physician how you yourself could actually use AI in a responsible and productive way to improve your health.

“This opens up the opportunity for both the physician and the patient to be humans-in-the-loop,” Keyes said, “in different parts of the loop, with different perspectives, using an AI system to better understand the bigger picture.”

In a way, the novelty of AI and its rapid adoption is an opportunity for all of us to be nosier and more inquisitive patients. What all of these questions really come down to, Callahan said, is how your doctor is making decisions about your health care. That is relevant to all of us, no matter how AI is involved or even if there is no AI being used at all. 

Callahan said she always has a list of questions for her doctor when they recommend a course of treatment: “What are the factors in my health that are informing this recommendation that you have? Would you be making this recommendation for other patients who are similar to me? What can you tell me about the outcomes that I might expect to experience if I say yes to this?”

“I actually think if they can point to the part of your health that is connected to the decision, whether or not an AI tool helped to make that connection is secondary to their ability to communicate effectively to me about it, and help me to feel engaged in making a decision about my own care,” she said.

AI is changing medicine quickly, for both patients and their doctors. The best way to stay ahead is to talk about it.

Last week, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a small pill called enlicitide. It is a tablet you swallow once a day on an empty stomach with a sip of black coffee, water, or tea. But it does something that until now took a needle and a specialist’s prescription: It lowers the most dangerous kind of cholesterol by nearly 60 percent, about as much as the strongest injectable drugs on the market.

If that sounds less innovative than some of the medical advances I sometimes cover here — there’s no AI or gene editing involved — you’re missing the story. Enlicitide is just the latest example of how medicine has been quietly making progress against the deadliest thing in the modern world.

That thing is heart disease. It has been the leading cause of death in the United States for essentially a century, and in 2025 it killed 694,708 Americans — about one in five deaths — more than every form of cancer combined. Around the world, cardiovascular disease kills roughly 20 million people a year, the biggest cause of death on the planet.

But today, our enemy is on the retreat. In the US, the age-adjusted death rate from cardiovascular disease has fallen about three-quarters since 1950. In plain terms: A 60-year-old today is roughly four times less likely to die of heart disease this year than a 60-year-old was when Harry Truman was president. As I wrote last year, deaths specifically from heart attacks are down 89 percent since 1970.

That progress comes down to a single number. Low-density lipoprotein, or LDL, aka the “bad” cholesterol your doctor always wants you to lower. Until recently, a high LDL score was all but inescapable, something you could nudge lower with a better diet and willpower but struggle to really fix. What has changed is that we can now lower LDL for nearly anyone who needs it — further, more easily, and earlier in life than before.

A lifesaving genetic mutation

It’s a story that goes back 20 years. In the early 2000s, two geneticists at University of Texas Southwestern, Helen Hobbs and Jonathan Cohen, wanted to solve a medical mystery: Why did some individuals have striking low cholesterol levels? They combed the Dallas Heart Study for an answer. They found a handful — many of them Black Americans — carrying a broken copy of a gene called PCSK9. Their bodies cleared LDL from the blood with unusual efficiency, and the payoff was staggering: carriers of the strongest variant had about 28 percent lower LDL and roughly 88 percent lower risk of heart disease than people who did not carry the mutation.

That finding proved lowering LDL prevents heart attacks, and it handed drugmakers a target: copy that gene. Every PCSK9 drug since — including the new enlicitide — imitates a mutation a few people in Dallas were simply born with.

Millions of Americans still take the old cholesterol-lowering workhorses, statins, and they’ve proven highly effective at reducing heart disease for most people. But not everyone: Some people can’t tolerate the muscle aches; others take them faithfully and still don’t get their LDL low enough. Enlicitide is built for exactly those people: a pill as cholesterol-lowering as an injection but without the needle, and a drug that spares them the statin muscle aches.

Closing the loop

If the pill is today, gene editing is tomorrow — and it may be the answer to a problem no pill can reliably solve: getting people to keep taking their medicine.

About half of patients on statins quit them within a year, and a daily pill, however potent, only helps the people who actually take it. So that demands a fix you can’t forget. A company called Verve Therapeutics, now owned by Eli Lilly, has been testing a treatment that makes a single-letter edit to the PCSK9 gene in the liver — one infusion, in theory for life. In its first human trial, published over the spring in the New England Journal of Medicine, a single dose cut LDL by as much as 62 percent, and held it there for more than a year. Instead of a pill mimicking the effects of the genetic mutation that protected those people in Dallas, gene editing just switches off the gene.

As important as it is, cholesterol isn’t the whole story when it comes to heart disease. There’s smoking, which declined from about 40 percent of US adults in the 1960s to under 15 percent today, sparing countless arteries. High blood pressure — the silent condition that killed President Franklin D. Roosevelt at 63 in 1945, when doctors had few effective ways to treat it — can now be caught early and treated with cheap generic pills.

And then there are the GLP-1s. More than one in 10 US adults say they are currently on an anti-obesity drug, and whatever else you may think of them, they’ll make a significant dent in heart disease. In one major trial semaglutide cut cardiovascular events by 20 percent.

The war continues

Still, the war on heart disease won’t be easy to win.

Just because a pill like enlicitide has been proven to lower a lab value does not mean it’s yet proven to lower deaths. They should — the injectable versions of these drugs cut heart attacks and strokes by about 20 percent in long trials. But enlicitide’s own outcomes study won’t conclude for years.

Precisely because the condition itself so widespread, treatments for heart disease will only be effective if they are equally widespread.

Heart disease is shifting, too. The same research showing heart-attack deaths down 89 percent found deaths from other heart conditions — heart failure, arrhythmias, hypertensive disease — up 81 percent since 1970, though because heart attacks were killing several times as many people, overall heart-disease deaths have still dropped by about two-thirds since 1970.  Some of that shift is perversely the result of success: people who might have died of an initial heart attack now live long enough for the heart to wear out in other ways. And some of this is the reverse of progress: As smoking and cholesterol fell, obesity climbed to about 40 percent of US adults, pulling diabetes and high blood pressure with it.

And then there’s perhaps the biggest problem in medicine: access. A 60 percent drop in cholesterol helps only the people who can actually get the drug. Half of patients abandon cheap statins within a year. Enlicitide arrives at about $300 a month with uncertain insurance coverage. The gene edit, whenever it becomes available, will certainly cost far more, and at first will reach only the sickest.

More than 60 percent of US adults are projected to have some form of heart disease over the course of their life. Precisely because the condition itself so widespread, treatments for heart disease will only be effective if they are equally widespread.

Which brings us back to that unassuming little pill. It’s just a tablet, doing what a generation of scientists spent their careers trying to do: turning one of the deadliest numbers in medicine into one you can change. It’s the kind of progress that’s too easy to miss — until it saves your life.

A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!

Abdul El-Sayed is among America’s most prominent proponents of Medicare-for-all. 

The frontrunner in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary literally wrote the book on that policy (or at least, a book on it). In El-Sayed’s view, Medicare should cover “all necessary healthcare” for every American — without co-pays, premiums, or deductibles — and be “accepted everywhere.”

Alas, despite his many years of advocacy, El-Sayed has seemingly failed to persuade his wife of that last point: According to a recent report from the Washington Free Beacon, El-Sayed’s partner, the psychiatrist Sarah Jukaku, does not accept Medicare as a form of payment at her private practice.

This bit of gossip is of little importance, in and of itself. The Free Beacon’s story does nothing to refute the case for El-Sayed’s candidacy or his healthcare plan (his wife’s business is, well, her business). As hit pieces go, it’s weak tea.

Nevertheless, the tension between El-Sayed’s healthcare proposals and his wife’s business practices is real. And it is illustrative of a major challenge facing anyone who wishes to reform our nation’s misbegotten healthcare system: To meet the medical needs of all Americans, reformers will need to defy the interests of most doctors — and in many cases reduce their compensation. 

And that won’t be easy. Few people feel a deep fondness for insurance companies. But El-Sayed is far from the only American who loves a physician.

The biggest obstacle to Medicare-for-all

To understand why Medicare-for-all would be bad news for many doctors — and how the Free Beacon’s story illustrates that point — we must first dwell on one fundamental fact about America’s healthcare system: It’s a rip-off. 

The US spends about twice as much per person on medical goods and services as other wealthy countries. And yet, all that money does not actually buy us much more care. Compared to our peers abroad, Americans are less likely to see a doctor, secure a long hospital stay, or access a timely appointment for medical treatment. On the other hand, we do have the privilege of paying radically higher healthcare prices.

To take just one telling example: In the United States, a coronary bypass surgery will typically cost more than $89,000; in Australia, it costs just $17,741.

Such exorbitant prices are the chief obstacle to any version of universal healthcare. Even with one-third of working-age Americans uninsured or underinsured — and thus, consuming too little medical care — the bill for America’s health sector ran to $5.7 trillion in 2025. 

In El-Sayed’s vision, Americans would consume vastly more medical services than they do today: The uninsured would suddenly have access to every doctor in the country, while everyone else would see their co-pays and deductibles drop to zero, encouraging them to schedule far more doctors’ visits.

This would be a costly proposition in any country. At America’s current healthcare prices, it would be prohibitively expensive. There is simply no way to realize anything approaching the left’s healthcare ambitions without slashing the amount of money that Americans pay per medical service. 

Doctors will pay a price for universal healthcare

Medicare-for-all advocates are aware of this fact. And they’re typically eager to talk about one source of America’s high healthcare prices: The inefficiencies of our private health insurance model. 

In America’s byzantine system, each insurer needs its own teams of auditors, claims reviewers, and myriad other specialists, while every major healthcare provider needs a horde of administrators to navigate the idiosyncratic rules of all these different insurance companies. Americans pay dearly for this bureaucratic bloat. By one estimate, our system’s administrative costs are $500 billion higher than they would be if the insurance industry was consolidated into a single public insurer. 

And yet, as large as that figure may seem, it still represents a fraction of America’s excess healthcare costs. The primary cause of our nation’s exorbitant medical prices is simpler than administrative redundancies: our healthcare providers charge exceptionally high rates.

Hospitals are the biggest culprits on this front. But physicians are also part of the problem.

According to a 2026 study from economists at the University of Chicago, Stanford, and the US Census Bureau, American physicians earn about twice as much as Canadian ones — and four times as much as Swedish doctors. 

Critically, this does not merely reflect America’s greater wealth or wage inequality. It is true that educated professionals of all kinds — financial analysts, lawyers, software engineers, etc. — earn more in the US than they do in other rich countries. But American doctors don’t just earn unusually high absolute incomes — they also occupy an atypically rarified place within their own country’s class hierarchy. About 42 percent of American specialty physicians are in the top 1 percent of their nation’s income earners. Among Canadian specialists, that figure is just 27 percent; for Swedish ones, it is 7 percent.

The main driver of these disparities is straightforward: America imposes fewer price controls on its healthcare sector than other nations do. 

And this is where Jukaku’s practice reenters the picture. 

The public parts of America’s insurance system — Medicare and Medicaid — pay rates that are only modestly above international norms. It is when American doctors bill private insurers — or the rich consumers of boutique medicine — that they really make bank.

As a result, top clinicians like Jukaku often decline to take Medicare. If you’ve got affluent patients beating down your door, accepting Uncle Sam’s rates just doesn’t pay.

Unless the government forces doctors and hospitals to swallow steep pay cuts, however, Medicare-for-all won’t pencil out. According to a widely cited 2018 analysis by the economist Charles Blahous, if a single-payer system kept provider payments constant, national health spending would rise by $3.25 trillion over a decade, even with administrative savings taken into account. By contrast, if all providers were forced to accept Medicare’s rates, health spending would actually fall by $2.05 trillion over the same period.

Soaking physicians is tough politics

Thus, there is a clear conflict between progressives’ healthcare ambitions and medical providers’ material interests. 

Yet the left is often reluctant to acknowledge this reality. El-Sayed tends to portray insurers as the sole economic beneficiaries — and political defenders — of America’s inequitable healthcare system. The fact that hospitals and doctors also profit off the status quo’s dysfunctions does not feature prominently in his rhetoric. To the contrary, El-Sayed suggested in 2020 that doctors like his wife are actually underpaid, even though American psychiatrists earn far higher salaries than their counterparts abroad. 

To be fair, progressives aren’t alone in eliding providers’ culpability. Virtually all Democratic politicians do the same. And not without reason. Politically speaking, it is one thing to denounce the greed of private insurers — the faceless bureaucracies standing between Americans and their desired treatments. It’s quite another to call for reducing the wages of doctors, men and women who perform laudatory work and enjoy widespread admiration. 

Precisely for this reason, however, reformers must grapple with healthcare providers’ investment in the current system. The American Medical Association (AMA), the lobby representing our nation’s physicians, was instrumental in killing past attempts to move toward single-payer. And at least some segments of the medical profession would surely mobilize against any contemporary Medicare-for-all bill that imposed substantial cost controls on the healthcare sector. What’s more, in doing so, they would be able to draw on a resource the private insurance industry lacks — the public’s trust.

How to make healthcare less expensive right now

There is no easy answer to the problems all this presents. But part of the solution is to chip away at providers’ payment rates where progressives already have the power to do so. This would not only help drive down costs for existing healthcare in the short term, an urgent priority all its own, but also would smooth the path to universal coverage in the long run.

That project can take many forms. One would be state-level payment regulations. In Maryland, hospitals receive the same rates, no matter whether their patients pay with Medicare, private insurance, or cash. And their budgets are also fixed, so that they aren’t able to milk fees out of unnecessary care. Rhode Island, meanwhile, caps the growth of its hospital reimbursement rates at the pace of overall inflation. Other states could follow their lead. 

But policymakers should also address the supply constraints that undergird American doctors’ high salaries. US physicians’ ability to command high pay doesn’t just reflect America’s weak cost controls but also a persistent shortage of working doctors. The US has roughly 2.7 physicians for every 1,000 of its residents; the average among comparable countries is 3.9, according to a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis.

In this context, forcing down doctors’ pay might seem perilous. After all, doing so would reduce young people’s incentive to pursue a medical career, potentially deepening the shortage. 

In reality, however, there is no dearth of qualified people who want to practice medicine in the US. We just don’t let many of them do so.

This is partly because American policymakers consciously sought to restrict the number of doctors in the country, beginning in the 1980s. As Robert Orr of the Niskanen Center explains, the US government issued a report in 1981 warning of an imminent “physician surplus” and recommending “immediate action to curtail both the domestic training of physicians as well as the admittance of those trained outside of the country.”

The report’s argument rested on false premises; it failed to anticipate that Americans’ demand for healthcare would rise sharply as they grew wealthier. Nonetheless, its recommendations were largely implemented: Federal support for medical-school scholarships was pared back while funding for residencies has been capped since 1997. 

At the same time, policymakers maintained high barriers to the immigration of fully-trained foreign doctors: Even physicians with years of experience, and credentials in nations with high medical standards, are typically required to complete a multi-year residency before being able to practice in the US.

Ending the federal freeze on residency funding will require congressional action. But states can immediately make it easier for foreign doctors to practice within their borders. In fact, Tennessee established a pathway for such physicians to ply their trade in the state, without having to repeat a residency, in 2023. And many states subsequently enacted similar reforms.

Removing the bottlenecks on America’s doctor supply won’t eliminate the political hurdles to Medicare-for-all. But it would put downward pressure on doctors’ salaries, reduce the risks of capping physician pay, and make the left’s vision of healthcare abundance more feasible. After all, you can’t actually eliminate the care rationing that so many Americans resent by extending insurance coverage or enacting price controls alone. No matter how we pay for our medical services, we can only deliver as much care as our health sector’s resources allow. 

Don’t hate the doctor, love the sick

In saying all this, I don’t mean to convey disdain for the medical profession. Like El-Sayed, some of my best friends are doctors! In fact, my mother, father, brother, and sister-in-law are all physicians. And they all have contributed far more to American society than I ever will. My brother spends his workdays providing lifesaving treatments to cancer patients; I often spend mine sitting at a desk in my pajamas, arguing about politics on the internet. 

Physicians deserve to be well-paid for their strenuous labor. But if we want healthcare in America to be universally affordable and widely accessible, we will need to pay many of them a bit less.

What caused the ongoing outbreak of cyclospora, the diarrhea-causing parasite currently spreading across the United States? Michigan officials have been saying for weeks that they believed the outbreak may be linked to bagged salad or salad kits. What we were waiting to learn was the specific brands and specific products in question. 

And late last week, it looked like we finally had the answer — but then things quickly got cloudy. 

On July 16, the Washington Post reported, citing anonymous sources, that the outbreak had been linked to shredded iceberg lettuce supplied to Taco Bell by Taylor Farms. A day later, Taylor Farms said it was withdrawing products from US stores and restaurants based on information from the FDA.

But then on July 19, per NBC News, the FDA said that there had been a false positive for cyclospora when testing a sample of Taylor Farms iceberg lettuce; Taylor Farms said in its own statement that the FDA had “apologized” for the mix-up. The next day, the company and the federal government were stuck in a semantic argument: Per NOTUS, the FDA insisted it did not “officially apologize” to Taylor Farms but “explain[ed] factually the issues” with the false positive. 

So where does that leave us right now? Officials still believe that Taylor Farms iceberg lettuce was the source of the Michigan outbreak. But whether those are the only products driving the outbreak remains unclear, with almost every state now reporting at least one cyclospora case in 2026. And on Thursday afternoon, the FDA announced that it was tracking a second outbreak linked to other unspecific products, though details were otherwise scarce.

Any outbreak of food-borne illness requires careful public communication. Officials need to tell people how to avoid contaminated food without scaring them away from eating fresh fruits and vegetables altogether.

But instead, many Americans have been left wondering what, exactly, they’re supposed to do. As one frustrated Reddit user put it: “So is the damn lettuce bad or not????” (If you need some advice on what foods are safe and what foods to be cautious about, we have a story for you.)

It may sound like a funny question, but it’s a profoundly serious one. The problem isn’t just that people are confused about their lettuce. The Trump administration’s handling of the cyclospora outbreak — from its conflicting public messages to accusations of political favoritism — has left many Americans even more confused about whether they can trust anything they’re hearing from the government. That’s a dangerous place to be during any public health emergency.

The cyclospora outbreak has become a communications nightmare

We are approaching 10,000 cyclosporiasis cases across the US this year: Michigan alone has recorded 7,664 as of this morning, Ohio has seen more than 1,200, and more than 40 states have now reported at least one case in 2026. The country usually sees a few hundred cases at most in a given year. Cyclosporiasis, the disease caused by the cyclospora parasite, leads to what public health experts describe as “watery” and “frequently explosive” diarrhea. While it isn’t typically life-threatening, it can cause serious complications: 160 people have been hospitalized in Michigan since the outbreak began.

And so for those of us who very much hope to eat fresh produce but do not want diarrhea, there’s a bit of urgency to figure out where the cyclospora is coming from. Food-borne illness investigations are already inherently difficult because of how globalized our food supply has become: Produce can travel all over the country and the world before it comes to your grocery shelf, and the process of government health workers interviewing the people who get sick and cross-checking to identify the shared foods that they might have in common is laborious.

Once investigators find a source, the information has to be shared clearly and responsibly. That is where the Trump administration has tripped up this week. 

Trump — and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in particular — came into office criticizing the public health establishment. They accused officials of misleading the public about the novel coronavirus and the vaccines developed to fight it, while failing to convey the nuances of the pandemic. But now, as they grapple with the incomplete picture of the cyclospora emergency, they are making many of the same mistakes.

“They’re very similar problems, even if on the outside, they don’t look quite the same,” said Michael Mackert, director of the Center for Health Communication at the University of Texas at Austin. “The underlying commonality is very much that we are dealing with imperfect information all the time.”

In any outbreak, some uncertainty is to be expected. Investigators have struggled to identify the source of earlier cyclosporiasis outbreaks too. And the FDA maintains that the likely source of the outbreak is Taylor Farms iceberg lettuce, based on the information they have gathered from sick patients and other sources, no matter the false positive result that has sparked so much confusion.

“The epidemiological evidence is so strong that the lack of a positive test is almost meaningless,” said Francisco Diez-Gonzalez, director of the Center for Food Safety at the University of Georgia. 

But the mistake that the Trump administration made was in sharing preliminary results and then having to issue a seemingly contradictory statement shortly afterward.

“FDA should have waited for confirmation of the presumptive results before going public,” Diez-Gonzalez said.

The larger stakes of the Trump administration’s poor communication

Investigations like these are hard enough — but when you add in the public health funding cuts of the past 18 months and the casual and widespread corruption characteristic of the Trump administration, trust in the government’s public health apparatus has sunk even lower.

It’s created just the conditions for conspiracies to bloom. “Unfortunately our FDA is compromised,” wrote one top commenter on Reddit. “I would not trust what comes out of it during this administration.” 

Several news outlets and influential social media accounts noted that Taylor Farms had donated $1 million to Trump’s MAGA super PAC and, in the middle of the controversy, received a private White House meeting. According to the New York Times, Taylor Farm officials used that meeting to dispute the findings that their products were responsible for the outbreak — and shortly thereafter, the FDA made its “false positive” announcement.

The administration insists that their decision-making is being guided by science, but even the appearance of impropriety has become a common theme in the press coverage. The broader uncertainty and distrust may help to explain why it’s not only Taco Bell and Taylor Farms taking a hit right now: According to Market Watch, Chipotle and the fast-casual salad chain Chopt have also seen a decline in traffic in recent weeks.

Public health requires public confidence. Perceived influence from special interests is a problem, even if the interactions didn’t alter the FDA or CDC’s actions.

Kennedy, who helms our government’s health department, should understand this well: His Make America Healthy Again movement made restoring public trust a central part of its message while accusing the existing public health establishment as being in league with special interests. 

The cyclospora outbreak has revealed how difficult that is to do in practice. 

In trying to communicate nuanced information during an active outbreak — while consulting interested parties like Taylor Farms itself — the administration has instead fueled doubts about the credibility of its messaging

Even before cyclospora turned eating salad into a leap of faith, Trump had a poor track record: His administration has slashed CDC staff, brought on vaccine skeptics to set vaccine policy, and clashed with the scientific establishment on a number of high-profile issues, like the time Trump held a televised press conference to argue a disproven theory that Tylenol can cause autism.

“Unfortunately, this is another example of a missed opportunity to establish credible and trusted communications to prepare the public to understand the real risks from the pathogen and confidence in the food safety and information from the FDA,” Scott Ratzan, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives, told me. “Faith in our institutions continues to erode. We could do better.”

We are lucky cyclospora is not a deadly disease. Next time, the stakes for these miscues could be much higher.

This story was originally published in The Highlight. To get access to member-exclusive stories like this every month, become a Vox Member today.

Emily Hoffman was walking home from lunch in the Pittsburgh neighborhood of Squirrel Hill in February 2023, when a driver turning left struck her on the crosswalk.

Hoffman was 34. By the time paramedics arrived on the scene, she had gone into a traumatic cardiac arrest. They strapped her onto a machine that delivered automated chest compressions and rushed her to UPMC Presbyterian, a major trauma hospital in Pittsburgh.

Over the next several days, doctors performed multiple surgeries, kept Hoffman on a ventilator, and waited until she was stable enough for an MRI. The scans showed multiple strokes and severe traumatic brain injury. She was alive, but her family understood that she was not going to make a meaningful recovery to a life she would have wanted.

The next Thursday, a week after the crash, Emily’s parents and her sister Beth Hoffman met with the care team and decided to remove ventilator support to allow her to die naturally. Organ donation came up only afterward. Emily was already a registered donor, and Beth knew it was what her sister wanted.

For most of the short history of organ transplantation, Emily would not have been the usual kind of organ donor.

Almost all transplanted organs once came from patients who died in one specific and rare way called brain death, in which the brain has irreversibly stopped functioning, even as machines keep the heart beating and the organs supplied with oxygen. Brain death is extraordinarily rare,  but it happens often enough to create a workable — though far from sufficient — supply of life-saving organs.

But Emily was not one of the brain-death donors. Even after the strokes and brain injury, she still had some reflexes. She was dying, but not brain dead.

Her donation followed a different path, one that has transformed American transplantation in the last decade. It is called donation after circulatory death, or DCD. Instead of death being declared because the brain has stopped functioning, in DCD, death is declared after circulation ceases and the heart stops beating. Many more people die this way than by brain death.

Death by circulatory criteria has been legally recognized since the 1980s, but for decades, doctors rarely recovered organs this way, because, once blood stops moving through the body, organs begin to deteriorate within minutes. In recent years, however, new machines and surgical techniques have helped change that, giving doctors the ability to preserve organs outside the body, making DCD far more viable.

↗ Explore the interactive version of this chart.

Hoffman’s donation is hardly an outlier anymore. In the last decade, DCD has gone from a rare practice to something that now accounts for nearly half of all organ donors who have died in the United States. In 2000, DCD donors supplied just 219 organs (kidneys, livers, lungs, hearts, and pancreas combined) to the transplantation system in the US. In 2025, DCD brought in close to 17,000 organs. (Most transplanted organs, about 85 percent, come from dead donors, though some organs, most often kidneys, can also come from living donors.)

That growth has saved lives, but it has also pushed transplant medicine into an unusually sensitive moment: the time after a family has decided to let their loved one die but before death has actually occurred.

In brain-death donation, a patient has already been declared dead before the possibility of donation is raised with the family. Because most brain-dead donors are on ventilators, with machines supplying oxygenated blood to their organs, transplant teams can take their time with the donation process.

DCD doesn’t offer that same cushion. Because organs deteriorate so quickly after circulation ceases, the work of donation — the testing, matching, surgical teams flying in — has to be set in motion once the family has decided to withdraw life support but before the patient has died.

This is where the tension in DCD begins. The process pushes transplantation into the narrow interval between that decision to let someone die and the moment death occurs. It creates a situation with almost no parallel in medicine: one set of hands caring for the dying, even as another prepares to recover and transplant their organs.

The medical system tries to manage that complexity with a strict procedural sequence. First, hospital doctors and family conclude that no treatment will bring the patient back to a life they would have wanted. Only then, and only from a separate team, does the word donation come up. The firewall is in place so that the need for organs never shapes the decision to let someone die. 

“Ethically, you want to make sure that those two are uncoupled,” said Wade Smith, director of the Neurovascular Service at the University of California San Francisco.

But as DCD has scaled up, more weight is put on that narrow interval. What was once a rare event is now routine in hospitals across the country, carried out by teams with different levels of experience and overseen through rules that can vary from one place to another. At the same time, the organizations that handle organ donations are under new federal pressure to acquire and distribute more organs from eligible donors.

DCD has saved thousands of lives by making donations possible from patients who once wouldn’t have been donors. Hoffman’s donation improved several lives at once: Her kidneys went to two men, her liver to a third recipient, and her corneas helped give sight to a nine-month-old baby. 

But its growth has also made the fragile period before death more consequential: how families are told, which steps can be taken while the patient is still alive, how consistently hospitals and organ donation teams follow safeguards, and who has the authority to stop the process if something feels wrong.

When DCD was still rare, these questions stayed at the edges of transplantation. Now, they are moving towards its center, as a lifesaving practice becomes a routine part of how Americans die and donate.

The breakthrough

Modern transplantation is a relatively young field, only about 70 years old. And from the beginning, transplantation has depended on the novel medical achievement of keeping organs functional after a person had been declared dead.

The mechanical ventilator, developed in the 1950s, made that possible. It could keep a body breathing, and its heart beating, even after the brain had stopped for good. That created, for the first time, a situation where patients were deceased by every older measure, even as their organs were still functional.

Surgeons were initially wary of recovering organs, largely because the legal lines between life and death had never been clearly drawn. Then, in 1968, a Harvard committee proposed a definition of brain death. By 1981, a model law gave states the language to recognize two ways of legal death. Your heart and lungs could stop for good (circulatory death) or your entire brain could (brain death). Today, every state recognizes some version of that framework.

With those lines in place, transplant teams could work with more confidence, and brain death turned out to be close to ideal for them. Because a ventilator kept the heart beating and blood moving through the organs, even after death, there was no ticking clock to race against. The hospital staff had time to evaluate the organs, sometimes convince families to donate them, find the right recipients, and bring in surgical teams before recovery began.

The problem was always with the math. Brain death is rare — only about three in 1,000 deaths happen in a way that leaves organs usable for transplant. That puts a hard biological ceiling on how many ideal donors there could ever be.

But demand for the organs had no such ceiling. Nearly a million Americans are diagnosed with heart failure each year, while surgeons performed just 4,636 heart transplants in 2024, after DCD became a widely used part of transplantation, up 81.5 percent from 2013. There are “just not enough organs to go around,” said Ashish Shah, chief of cardiac surgery at Vanderbilt University. The kidney numbers are even bleaker. Over 500,000 people are on dialysis in the US, but only a fraction will ever reach the waiting list, and even among those who do, many will die before receiving a transplant offer, said Dorry Segev, a transplant surgeon and researcher at NYU Langone.

The modern DCD boom grew out of this desperation, presenting the possibility of donation in far more common cases of death that transplantation surgeons had rarely been able to draw on before: catastrophic strokes, car crashes, cardiac arrests, and other injuries that left patients with no meaningful chance of recovery but short of brain death. But with DCD, the clock suddenly became a factor. Once circulation stopped, the organs deteriorated fast, and, in many cases, they were ruined before surgeons could recover them. 

Because of those challenges, DCD stayed marginal for decades, at well under a tenth of all donations. Those numbers ultimately spiked because of several things that happened almost simultaneously.

The first was technological. New machines, like TransMedics’ Organ Care Systems — which were first used in 2015 in the UK — could keep a recovered organ alive outside the body, pumping it with warm, oxygenated blood instead of packing it in ice, allowing a heart to beat and function as normal inside a box. This meant that even if there was delay in recovering an organ, that damage could be limited, even reversed, once the organ was put in the machine. 

Other teams found ways to use machines originally developed to support failing hearts and lungs to restart circulation inside the bodies of donors after death had been declared. Transplant teams in Spain and the UK began adapting that technology before American programs picked it up for DCD hearts around 2019. Both approaches helped extend the time to successfully perform DCD.

“As soon as the results were good, the big American centers took it on,” said John Dimarakis, a cardiac transplant surgeon at the University of Washington.

Policy changes also helped push DCD further. In Hoffman’s case, the donation process was coordinated by CORE, the nonprofit responsible for organ donation in the Pittsburgh region. Organ procurement organizations, or OPOs, cover a particular region in the US, and they work with hospitals in that region to evaluate potential donors, speak with families, arrange testing, and offer organs to transplant centers. There are 54 such OPOs in the US, which are certified and regulated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). 

For years, critics argued that OPOs were judged according to weakly defined standards based on numbers they reported themselves, and poor performers were rarely penalized. But in 2020, new federal rules began ranking them against one another, with a mechanism to strip the worst performers of their territory. Facing the threat of losing their monopolies, many OPOs began pursuing harder cases they would’ve earlier passed over, according to Greg Segal, who founded patient advocacy group Organize. A larger share of those more complicated donors were DCD.

Still, no single force explains the speed of DCD’s rise. “Technology plays a big role in it,” said Nader Moazami, a cardiac surgeon at NYU Langone who helped pioneer one of the new techniques. “But it doesn’t explain how suddenly 50 percent of our donors are DCD.” In 2000, there were only 118 DCD donors in the United States. By 2025, there were 8,137. Brain death donation grew over that same period but far more slowly — from 5,867 donors a year to 8,416.

↗ Explore the interactive version of this chart.

Whatever the mix, it’s clear that DCD has led to more organs, shorter waits, and saved thousands of lives that otherwise would have ended on a list. “People who have been waiting now wait less,” Dimarakis said.

On a chart, it looks like an unambiguous triumph — until you step into a hospital room.

The passage

Beth Hoffman remembers her sister Emily’s last morning. She read aloud an email from Bradley Whitford, Emily’s favorite actor from the TV drama The West Wing, who had written after hearing what had happened. Then, a playlist of Emily’s favorite songs played as the breathing tube came out. Within about 10 minutes, while “For Good” from Wicked filled the room, her sister was gone.

What Beth mostly didn’t see was the second sequence unfolding around her: the referrals, tests, calls, and scheduling that would turn Emily from a dying patient into an organ donor. 

Federal rules require every hospital to alert their organ procurement organization whenever a person may be nearing death. The OPO screens those referrals, and most go nowhere. Alexandra Glazier, who runs the OPO that covers most of New England, says hers get about 50,000 such referrals a year. Only 2 or 3 percent turn out to have any medical possibility of donation at all. 

Emily was one such possible case for her Pittsburgh hospital’s OPO. The organization had to reach out to her family; explain what DCD would involve; and, then, start the work that had to happen while she was still alive: reviewing her medical history, testing whether her organs could be used, matching them to recipients, and arranging the surgical teams who might fly in to recover them.

Most families never see much of that work, but some do. Smith, the UCSF neurologist, watched a family agree to withdraw life support and donate, set a time, and gather relatives for a final goodbye, only to learn that the withdrawal had to wait because the OPO still needed more tests. Some families, after being told their dying relative must stay on machines longer for donation’s sake, walk away.

For the Hoffmans, things proceeded more quietly. When the time came, Emily was wheeled into the operating room, and the breathing tube was removed there. The surgeons who would recover her organs were kept away from the withdrawal and death declaration. They often fly in from their own hospitals — sometimes several at once for different organs — but they’re walled off from everything that comes before. “We are not involved in that process,” said Dimarakis, the cardiac transplant surgeon at the University of Washington, “because it’s not ethical for us to be involved.”

That separation is the line DCD depends on. One team cares for the dying patient, withdraws support, and declares death. The other waits outside that decision and recovers the organs only after. The OPO stands between them, coordinating the donation without letting the firewall be breached.

Then comes the waiting. Once the ventilator is out, the clock starts ticking. If the heart doesn’t stop within a window — often about two hours — the organ recovery may be called off, and the patient is returned to end-of-life care. But when circulation does stop, as it did for Emily, the team counts exactly five more minutes to make sure it won’t restart on its own. Only then can a hospital physician declare death, and only then can the transplant surgeons begin.

DCD rests on a simple promise: The need for organs never causes the death. The death is already coming, and donation only changes what can come from it. 

But a new frontier in DCD complicates that promise.

The reversal

Normally, after death is declared, most DCD organs are removed and preserved outside the body, either on ice or on machines that circulate oxygenated fluid or blood. The goal is to slow the damage that begins the moment circulation stops.

Then, around the mid-2010s, transplant teams in Spain and the UK began using a newer technique that restores circulation inside the dead donor’s body, before the organs are removed. It’s called normothermic regional perfusion, or NRP.

In one version of NRP, called abdominal NRP, blood is meant to be restored only below the diaphragm to preserve organs such as the kidneys and liver. In a more controversial version called thoracoabdominal NRP, it runs through the chest, as well, and the heart starts beating again.

For the transplant team, especially heart surgeons, the appeal is clear. Kidneys and livers can survive a stretch without circulation, but a heart is harder to preserve. Once it has stopped, there’s no easy way to know whether it will beat reliably again. NRP helps answer that question by restarting it inside the donor’s body after death has been declared, where surgeons can watch it work before deciding whether to recover it.

Shah, the Vanderbilt cardiac surgeon, says the technique lets doctors take hearts from donors who otherwise would not be able to yield a workable one.

But this kind of NRP is unsettling for the very reason that it is useful. If a death is declared because the heart has stopped, what does it mean to start it again inside a donor’s body, often only minutes later? Is that still death? Or something else?

The controversy isn’t simply that the heart beats again. A beating heart is not, by itself, the same as a living person. The heart of a brain-dead patient can beat, too, can be kept going by machines, and that doesn’t mean the person is alive. The deeper concern is whether restored circulation in the body could reach the brain, which could potentially restore consciousness.

To prevent blood from reaching the brain, surgeons clamp or cut the vessels that carry blood to the head before circulation is restored. That distinction is central to the defense of NRP, and it lets surgeons say they are restoring circulation and restarting the heart, not the person. 

But those safeguards haven’t always worked. In a safety notice last November, the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (OPTN), the federal system that oversees transplant policy and data, said it had received “verified reports” that blood had unintentionally reached the brain and brainstem during NRP. Such events are extremely rare, the notice said, but can occur when a clamp fails or blood reaches the head through an unrecognized route. The notice asked transplant programs using either form of NRP to strengthen their safeguards and report any failures. But those recommendations were not national requirements and as of May 2026, the OPTN was still developing formal standards for NRP. For Claire Morgan, a transplant surgeon from North Carolina who has criticized NRP’s rollout, that is a central weakness. “It’s a bulletin. It’s not a policy,” she said. “There’s no punishment for not reporting.”

But even if blood never reaches the brain, NRP can still introduce deeper ambiguity into our understanding of circulatory death. In the first few minutes after a heart stops, it can often be brought back, an event that happens every day in a busy emergency department. In conventional DCD, however, doctors don’t try to restart the heart, because a patient or family has already decided against being revived. It is that decision, not just the stopped heart itself, that turns the moment into a death. The same goes for anyone who dies under a do-not-resuscitate order.

NRP puts pressure on that logic. The circulation declared permanently gone is deliberately brought back. “There’s a misalignment between NRP practices and the legal standard for how death is defined,” said Glazier. You cannot, critics argue, pronounce someone dead because the circulation will never return — and then return it.

Robert Truog, professor of Medical Ethics, Anaesthesia, & Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, supports NRP but thinks the possibility of blood returning to the brain is the issue that matters most. “The only questions are, is there a risk of pain or suffering in the procurement of the organs?” he said. And there’s a possibility of that if the circulation is restarted in the brain.

None of this is settled, which is why some hospitals refuse to perform NRP at all. Moazami pioneered the NRP heart technique in the US and practices it at NYU Langone. “But you cannot do it at Columbia,” he said, “just five miles away.” Glazier’s OPO, one of the country’s largest, said her organization has done roughly 650 NRP cases since adopting the practice — but only the abdominal kind, holding off on the heart version until the national protocols are better standardized.

Claire Morgan, a transplant surgeon from North Carolina who has criticized the rollout of NRP, is more worried about what happens if something goes wrong. The donor cannot complain, families may never know if there was a concern, and clinicians who speak up may have limited protection if they challenge what happened in the operating room. 

All of that matters, because NRP is already far from marginal. The Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network (OPTN), the federal system that oversees transplant policy and data, only began collecting data on whether NRP was used in a DCD recovery in October 2025. In the first five months of that reporting, from October 1, 2025, through February 28, 2026, 3,463 DCD donors were recovered nationally, according to data shared by the OPTN with Vox. More than half of those involved NRP; though, OPTN doesn’t collect data on which kind.

Vox’s analysis also found that NRP cases were concentrated among some organ procurement organizations. The top 10 OPOs accounted for 47 percent of all DCD recoveries that used NRP.

The patchwork

The core safeguard in DCD — that the decision to withdraw life support must come before questions about donation — is widely accepted. But many of the details around that sequence that shape a family’s experience, or a patient’s protection, are still handled differently from hospital to hospital, OPO to OPO.

“The entire process of DCD or donor withdrawal is not very standardized across the United States or even within states, even within different hospitals in the same city,” Moazami said.

That can mean differences in what families are told about the donation process, what medications are considered appropriate before death, whether NRP is allowed and how it is performed, and who has the clear authority to pause or stop the process if someone believes something is wrong.

That unevenness matters more now, because the transplant system has been trying, with good reason, to recover more organs. For years, many in the field, and those who depended on it, argued that the organ procurement organizations were leaving transplantable organs on the table. Greg Segal, whose advocacy group Organize helped push for stronger OPO accountability, compared the old system to a canvassing campaign where you only knock on the easiest doors. “The problem with OPOs is they were only doing the much easier ones,” he said.

A 2020 rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the federal agency that oversees OPOs, was meant to change that. It ranked OPOs against one another and created a path to penalize low performers by stripping them of their territories. That policy appears to have had some impact, but it is hard to separate from other forces driving DCD’s rise including new preservation technology, like NRP and broader clinical adoption. Jeffrey Trageser and Charles Strom from the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations, the trade group that represents OPOs, argued that the metrics are too broad, evaluating OPOs partly on whether transplant centers ultimately accept organs and not fully accounting for regional differences such as age of potential donors, local rates of cancer, or how far organs must travel to reach transplant centers.

This pressure to recover more organs has also made some OPOs seem more aggressive to the clinicians working besides them. “Some people view them as vultures, which is horrible,” said Smith, the UCSF neurologist who has experienced the tension from the hospital side. “They’re trying to do their job.” Still, he added, “when you impose that [pressure], then it changes how aggressive they are.”

Both things can be true. The old system needed pressure to perform better. And pressure can create risks, or perceived risks, in a process that depends on careful judgement around a dying patient.

And the safety question isn’t a theoretical concern either. A March 2025 investigation from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the federal agency that oversees the national transplant system, documented what can happen when those safeguards fail. In a review of attempted DCD cases at Kentucky Organ Donor Affiliates, an OPO that covered Kentucky and parts of Ohio and West Virginia, HRSA found recurring problems about staff missing vital signs in patients that raised concerns, failed to work collaboratively with hospital medical teams, failed to respect family decision-making, and documented medical data poorly. HRSA said the pattern suggested “organizational dysfunction” and a weak safety culture.

One OPO’s failure does not prove that DCD is broadly unsafe or that OPOs across the country behave the same way. But the Kentucky review showed how badly things can go when the line between patient care and organ recovery is not honored.

Since then, federal officials have been trying to close some of the gaps. HRSA has pushed for clearer family education around DCD and more standardized reporting on ventilated patients referred to OPOs, as well as opened up a reporting channel that sends misconduct concerns directly to HRSA. In a separate case, the Department of Health and Human Services also moved to shut down an OPO in South Florida after finding unsafe practices, underperformance, and paperwork errors.

Organ donation is a touchy subject, because it relies so much on the goodwill and the trust of the people who agree to give their organs so they can live on in others. But the procedural issues also matter, because there are lives at stake on both sides of the process. 

Around 13 people die each day in the US waiting for organs. In that desperate landscape, the rise in DCD has led to many lives saved and helped several more live better, fuller lives. The dearth of organs even compelled my former Future Perfect colleague Dylan Matthews to sign up as a living donor and donate his kidney to a complete stranger. (You can read his story here).

And the value of the donation is not just measured in recipients saved. For the Hoffmans, the knowledge that Emily’s organs helped others offered a solace they had not expected. Emily “gave the gift of life in her death,” Beth told me.

That is the highest ideal organ donation — and DCD – can achieve: a death already coming that still changes the lives of others in need. The case for DCD is clear, but its future depends on its proponents’ ability to protect both patients and public trust.

Clarification, July 1, 6 pm ET: A previous version of this post described how the NRP process intends to stop blood from reaching the brain, but did not acknowledge cases where that does not go according to plan. The post has been updated to include a safety notice from the Organ Procurement & Transplantation Network, which said it had received “verified reports” that blood had unintentionally reached the brain and brainstem during NRP. The post has also been updated to clarify that Dorry Segev and Nader Moazami are doctors at NYU Langone.