♪♪ >>> HELLO, EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO "AMANPOUR & CO." HERE'S WHAT'S COMING UP.

>> I'M RUNNING AGAINST DONALD TRUMP, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT AN OBITUARY JUST BECAUSE Y'ALL THINK WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT.

I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT SAVING THIS COUNTRY.

>> THE LAST CHANCE FOR OLD-STYLE REPUBLICANS OR A DONE DEAL?

POLITICAL EXPERTS JOHN AVLON AND MARGARET HOOVER EXAMINE WHAT THE NEW HAMPSHIRE PRIMARY MEANS FOR THE WHOLE WORLD.

>>> THEN.

>> THIS IS GOING TO LEAD TO REAL CHANGES.

>> IS THERE ANY DANGER IN IT?

>> EQUALITY DOESN'T SEEM DANGEROUS TO ME.

>> A FEMINIST TRAILBLAZER WHO IS ALL BUT FORGOTTEN NOW.

FILMMAKER NICOLE NEWNHAM EXPLORES THE DISAPPEARANCE OF SHERE HITE.

>>> WHAT THAT DOES TO PATIENTS IS THEY HAVE TO PAY A LOT MORE OUT OF POCKET, WHICH FOR A POOR PERSON MAY BECOME PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE.

>> HOW PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS UNDERMINE THE ALREADY DYSFUNCTIONAL HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

HARI SREENIVASAN SPEAKS WITH FORMER WHITE HOUSE COVID OFFICIAL ASHISH JHA.

♪♪ >>> "AMANPOUR & CO." IS MADE POSSIBLE BY -- THE ANDERSON FAMILY ENDOWMENT.

JIM ATTWOOD AND LESLIE WILLIAMS.

CANDACE KING WEIR.

THE FAMILY FOUNDATION OF LEILA AND MICKEY STRAUS.

MARK J. BLECHNER.

THE FILL AMONG MONDAY D'AGOSTINO FOUNDATION.

SETON J. MELVIN.

CHARLES ROSENBLUM.

KOO AND PATRICIA YUEN.

COMMITTED TO BRIDGING CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN OUR COMMUNITIES.

BARBARA HOPE ZUCKERBERG.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THESE FUNDERS AND BY CONTRIBUTIONS TO YOUR PBS STATION FROM VIEWERS LIKE YOU.

THANK YOU.

>>> WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM, EVERYONE.

I'M CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR IN LONDON WHERE HERE ACROSS THE POND AND IN PARTS FAR AND WIDE, PEOPLE WONDER, PERHAPS WISHFULLY, WHETHER HALEY'S COMET CAN PUNCTURE TRUMP'S BALLOON, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE NEW HAMPSHIRE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY.

>> WHEN YOU'VE GOT A COUNTRY IN DISARRAY AND A WORLD ON FIRE THE WAY WE DO, YOU NEED SOMEONE AT THE TOP OF THEIR GAME THAT CAN PUT IN EIGHT YEARS, THAT CAN GO AND GET THINGS BACK ON TRACK.

THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT, IS MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THE BEST PERSON.

>> THAT'S CLEARLY TRUE, BUT WHO?

WHICH GOP CANDIDATE WOULD RESTORE STABILITY TO A WORLD THAT LOOKS UNTETHERED RIGHT NOW?

AN ISOLATIONIST CHAOS AGENT LIKE TRUMP OR A SELF-PROCLAIMED HAWK LIKE HALEY?

AND AFTER TONIGHT, AS AMERICA FACES THE PROSPECT OF ANOTHER TRUMP/BIDEN FACE-OFF, WE LOOK BEYOND THE POLLS TO CRITICAL POLICY ISSUES AT STAKE.

SO HERE TO GUIDE US THROUGH ALL OF THIS, VETERAN POLITICAL OBSERVERS AND SPARRING PARTNERS JOHN AVLON AND MARGARET HOOVER.

WELCOME BOTH OF YOU TO THE PROGRAM.

CAN I JUST GET A LAY OF THE LAND FROM BOTH OF YOU FIRST?

THERE'S A SENSE THAT THE OUTSIDE WORLD IS TRYING TO TRUMP-PROOF ITSELF.

THERE'S A SENSE THAT THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF DREAD, YOU KNOW, AFTER WHAT HAPPENED IN 2016, AND THEY DARE NOT HOPE THAT HE MIGHT NOT WIN AGAIN.

SO WHAT YOU THINK OF WHAT WE JUST POSED, THE QUESTION WE JUST POSED?

WHO WOULD BE THE BEST FOR STABILITY AROUND THE WORLD IN THESE TWO LAST-STANDING REPUBLICANS?

MARGARET, LET ME TAKE YOU FIRST.

>> LOOK, I'VE BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT DONALD TRUMP'S RETURN TO THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD BE BOTH BAD FOR AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, FOR DEMOCRACY GLOBALLY, FOR STABILITY GLOBALLY, AND FOR ALL THE VALUES THAT WE AND OUR ALLIES ESPOUSE TO CARE ABOUT.

IF YOU JUST EVEN CONCEIVE OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PRESIDENT HALEY ON UKRAINE AND WHAT THAT MEANS FOR RUSSIA, ON PRESIDENT XI, CHINESE POLICY AND THE FUTURE OF TAIWAN VERSUS A PRESIDENT TRUMP ON THE FUTURE OF TAIWAN AND CHINA AND THE FUTURE OF UKRAINE AND RUSSIA, THESE ARE DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT OUTCOMES BASED ON THEIR POSTURE, HOW THEY INTERACT WITH AUTHORITARIANS, THE THINGS WE'VE ALL DISCUSSED DONALD TRUMP SAYS SO FLATTERINGLY ABOUT PUTIN AND ABOUT XI AND ABOUT OTHER DICTATORS AROUND THE WORLD.

BUT THERE'S ALSO A MARKED DIFFERENCE IN HOW THEY WOULD -- IN HOW A PRESIDENT HALEY VERSUS A PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD MANAGE THE AMERICAN ECONOMY, WOULD PROBABLY NOT FRANKLY MAKE ENEMIES OF HER POLITICAL RIVALS IN THE UNITED STATES, DEAL WITH A BUDGET, DEAL WITH A BORDER AND IMMIGRATION CRISIS.

PRESIDENT HALEY WOULD HAVE A VERY DIFFERENT POSTURE AND HAVING ACTUALLY BEEN AN EXECUTIVE OF A STATE, UNDERSTAND A DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IS MANAGED, UNLIKE DONALD TRUMP WHO SAYS, I'VE GOT TO BE AN AUTHORITARIAN BECAUSE I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW HOW TO WORK WITH THE LEGISLATURE, JUST DAY ONE.

IT'S REMARKABLE HOW DIFFERENT THESE CANDIDATES ARE.

>> JOHN?

>> I MEAN IT'S A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT DONALD TRUMP THAT SAYS -- THAT RESONATES WITH THE WORD "STABILITY."

I LIKE WHEN TIM SCOTT, SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, ENDORSED HIM THE OTHER DAY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE, AND HE SAID, WE NEED A PRESIDENT WHO CAN UNITE US.

ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION TO WHO YOU'RE STANDING NEXT TO?

IT'S SELF-EVIDENTLY LUDICROUS.

WHAT DONALD TRUMP DOESN'T REPRESENT IS STABILITY.

HE DOESN'T REPRESENT AN ABILITY TO UNITE THE NATION.

HE IS A DIVIDER, AND HE IS PROMISING AN AUTOCRATIC SECOND TERM.

HE'S RUNNING ON AN AUTOCRATIC PLATFORM, AND THE IMPLICATIONS ARE VAST.

YOU KNOW, TRADITIONALLY NEW HAMPSHIRE HAS BEEN A PLACE WHERE THE FEVER BREAKS.

THIS GOES BACK TO 1952, EISENHOWER VERSUS TAFT, WHERE THAT REPUBLICAN INTERNATIONALIST FOREIGN POLICY TRADITION REALLY BEGAN, FIGHTING 0 OF THAT ISOLATIONIST WING OF THE PARTY, WHICH HAS BEEN BASICALLY IN PLACE THROUGH REAGAN, THROUGH BOTH BUSHES, UNTIL TRUMP.

AND, YOU KNOW, AMONG THE MANY IMPLICATIONS OF THIS VOTE TODAY, BECAUSE IT IS A HINGE OF HISTORY.

UKRAINE WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY GIVEN AWAY TO VLADIMIR PUTIN.

>> OKAY.

>> AUTOCRATS AROUND THE WORLD WOULD REJOICE.

HE ASSOCIATES HIMSELF WITH THEM.

DONALD TRUMP LOVES DICTATORS.

YOU CAN'T OVERSTATE ENOUGH THE AMOUNT OF INSTABILITY, CHAOS, AND DEGRADATION OF DEMOCRACY WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM DONALD TRUMP BEING ELECTED.

>> TO THAT POINT, I WANT TO PLAY A COUPLE OF SOUND BITES FROM TRUMP AND FROM HALEY.

FIRSTLY, TO YOUR POINT, HE HAS PUBLICLY PRAISED VIKTOR ORBAN, THE SORT OF WORLD EXAMPLE OF A LIBERAL DEMOCRACY.

HE'S A VERY GREAT LEADER, VERY STRONG MAN, ET CETERA.

BUT THEN THIS IS WHAT HE SAID ABOUT HOW HE WOULD FIX THE WORLD.

HERE'S TRUMP.

>> SO RUSSIA WOULD HAVE NEVER ATTACKED.

ISRAEL WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ATTACKED.

THE UKRAINE SITUATION IS SO HORRIBLE.

THE ISRAELI SITUATION IS SO HORRIBLE, WHAT'S HAPPENED.

AND WE'RE GOING TO GET THEM SOLVED.

WE'RE GOING TO GET THEM SOLVED VERY FAST.

I ACTUALLY SAID UKRAINE -- I KNOW PRESIDENT PUTIN VERY WELL.

I KNOW ZELENSKYY VERY WELL.

I'M GOING TO GET THEM IN.

WE'RE GOING TO GET IT SOLVED VERY QUICKLY.

IT SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED.

IT WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED.

NOW YOU HAVE ALL THAT DEATH, FAR GREATER THAN PEOPLE UNDERSTAND.

>> SO THERE'S A LOT OF SORT OF FRAGMENTS OF THOUGHTS THERE, AND I JUST WONDER BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DO TEND TO REPORT WHAT HE SAYS.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR, YOU KNOW, HE HAD PROMISED THE DEAL OF THE CENTURY FOR ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS.

OBVIOUSLY HE DIDN'T DELIVER WHEN HE WAS PRESIDENT.

HE PROMISED MAXIMUM PRESSURE TO GET AN EVEN BETTER DEAL FROM IRAN WHEN HE PULLED OUT OF THE IRAN DEAL.

THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN.

AND NOW IRAN IS EVEN CLOSER THAN EVER TO A BOMB.

YOU KNOW, HE RIPPED UP THE U.S.

BEING IN THE CLIMATE DEAL.

HE CALLED KIM JONG-UN A VERY HONORABLE LEADER AND WENT ALL THE WAY OVER THERE TO MEET HIM, AND NOW KIM JONG-UN IS SABER RATTLING IN A REALLY ALARMING WAY THAT PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP TO ALL OVER AGAIN.

I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK YOU IS WHEN TRUMP SAYS THOSE THINGS, HOW MANY PEOPLE BELIEVE THAT HE WILL FIX UKRAINE IN 24 HOURS OR, YOU KNOW, FIX THE ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN CRISIS?

>> I WOULD WAGER TO SAY PEOPLE SOMETIMES DON'T TAKE HIM PRECISELY LITERALLY.

BUT THE PROBLEM, CHRISTIANE, AND WE HAVE TO POINT THIS OUT, IS THAT HE HASN'T GOTTEN THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION YET.

BUT IF HE DOES, HE WILL BE RUNNING AGAINST JOE BIDEN, AND SPECIFICALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF FOREIGN POLICY, HE -- HE HAS SOME VALID ARGUMENTS THAT ARE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS TO MAKE ABOUT JOE BIDEN'S FAILURES ON FOREIGN POLICY.

JOE BIDEN PULLED OUT OF AFGHANISTAN.

MANY BELIEVE THAT THE PULLOUT OF AFGHANISTAN INDICATED TO RUSSIA THAT THE UNITED STATES WASN'T GOING TO STRONGLY STAND BY UKRAINE.

I MEAN THERE'S A RECORD THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT HE SAYS, WHICH IS HYPERBOLIC, OFTENTIMES POINTS TO REALLY SUBSTANTIVE POINTS THEN PEOPLE ACTUALLY -- >> I CAN SEE JOHN TWITCHING THERE, TWITCHING TO GET IN.

>> WELL -- >> I MEAN YOU'LL PROBABLY SAY THIS.

BUT ACTUALLY IT'S THE TRUMP PLAN.

I MEAN BIDEN -- IT'S TRUMP WHO GAVE AWAY AFGHANISTAN, AND BIDEN, YOU KNOW, MANY WOULD SAY MISTAKENLY FOLLOWED THAT PLAN.

>> I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

I DO DISAGREE WITH MY REPUBLICAN BRIDE HERE ON SEVERAL FRONTS BEGINNING WITH AFGHANISTAN.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION THAT WANTED TO ABANDON AFGHANISTAN, THAT DID THE DEALS IN DOHA, NEGOTIATING WITH THE TALIBAN EXCLUSIVELY, EXCLUDING THE AFGHAN GOVERNMENT.

TRUMP HAD TO BE DISSUADED FROM PULLING OUT ABRUPTLY BEFORE THE ELECTION.

AND SO WE SEE OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE RECORD OF PRAISING VLADIMIR PUTIN AT EVERY STEP, INCLUDING AFTER THE INVASION OF UKRAINE, PRAISING PRESIDENT XI ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL THIS TIME AS WELL AS VIKTOR ORBAN.

THIS IS A GIVEAWAY TO THE ILLIBERAL WORLD VIEW.

AND THE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE HE COULD COME IN IT AND SOLVE IT WITHIN 24 HOURS HAVE ALREADY DRUNK THAT RESPECTIVE FLAVOR OF KOOL-AID.

THERE'S NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST HE CAN DELIVER ON THAT.

BUT I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO HAVE A REALITY-BASED ASSESSMENT ROOTED IN HIS RESULTS.

WHAT HE TENDS TO DO WHEN HE HAS REALLY POLICY SPECIFICS RATHER THAN JUST BLUSTER SEEMS TO ALWAYS MAGICALLY LINE UP WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN'S WISH LIST.

I DO THINK IN THE 21st CENTURY, JOE BIDEN HAS GOTTEN THIS RIGHT, IN ADDITION TO STRENGTHENING NATO AND RESTORING A MULTILATERAL CONSENSUS, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY UNDER THREAT, IS THE CHALLENGE OF OUR TIMES IS DEMOCRACY VERSUS AUTOCRACY.

THE U.S.

NEEDS TO LEAD THE DEMOCRACIES, AND DONALD TRUMP IS AN ILLIBERAL PERSON AND WOULD GIVE A GREEN LIGHT TO AUTOCRACIES AROUND THE WORLD.

>> I WANT TO ASK YOU TO PASS -- OR NOT PASS -- PASS JUDGMENT ON NIKKI HALEY BECAUSE, LOOK, IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES," IT WAS BASICALLY SAID HALEY IS NOT EXACTLY A BUSH REPUBLICAN.

HE MEANS W. BUSH.

BUT OF ALL THE CANDIDATES, HALEY'S VISION REMINDS ME THE MOST OF BUSH'S WORLD VIEW, WHICH IS AT A TIME OF SEEMINGLY UNCONSTRAINED PATH SETS US OFF ON A PATH TO CRISIS AND CONSTRAINT.

THAT IS ESSENTIALLY ABOUT THE BUSH REACTION TO 9/11, THE WAR IN IRAQ AND ET CETERA.

THEN I WANT TO PLAY THIS FROM HALEY BECAUSE SHE'S QUITE TOUGH AND HAWKISH ON WHAT SHE MIGHT DO OVER CHINA.

AND CHINA WORRIES A LOT OF VOTERS.

SO LET'S JUST PLAY THIS.

>> THEN WE WILL GO AND END ALL FORMAL TRADE RELATIONS WITH CHINA UNTIL THEY STOP MURDERING AMERICANS FROM FENTANYL, SOMETHING RON HAS YET TO SAY THAT HE'S GOING TO DO.

THEN WE MODERNIZE OUR MILITARY.

WHEN WE STRENGTHEN OUR MILITARY, WHEN WE MODERNIZE IT WITH THE FOCUS OF CYBER, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, AND SPACE, WHEN WE MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE BACKS OF OUR FRIENDS, WHETHER IT'S IN ISRAEL AND WHETHER IT'S IN UKRAINE, AND WE SHOULD BE ARMING TAIWAN.

>> THAT IS QUITE HAWKISH.

HOW DO YOU JUDGE THAT BECAUSE AMERICA DOES NOT SEEM TO BE IN AN INTERVENTIONIST MOOD.

THEY'RE MUCH MORE ISOLATIONIST RIGHT NOW.

IS THAT CORRECT IN TERMS OF THE PEOPLE?

>> WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD SAY THAT BROADLY ABOUT AMERICA.

THERE'S CERTAINLY A STRAIN WITHIN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY RIGHT NOW THAT IS -- THAT HAS EMERGED IN THESE DEBATES, THAT SUGGESTS THAT WE ARE IN -- I WOULD SAY IN SORT OF NOT A NEOISOLATIONIST PERIOD BUT CERTAINLY IN A NON-INTERVENTIONIST PERIOD, HAVING LEARNED SOME LESSONS ABOUT INTERVENTION IN THE LAST TWO DECADES.

THAT SAID, SHE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT INVADING ANYONE THERE.

SHE WAS FRANKLY REPRESENTING A PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH MORE REAGANESQUE VERSION, WHICH IS WE NEED TO MODERNIZE OUR MILITARY.

UPDATE AND MODERN OUR TROOPS CAPACITIES AND CAPABILITIES AND THE TECHNOLOGIES WE NEED IN ORDER TO PREVENT WARS FROM HAPPENING.

I THINK THAT'S -- THAT'S CERTAINLY RESONANT BROADLY IN THE COUNTRY EVEN THOUGH THERE IS THIS, I WOULD SAY, YOU KNOW, NON-INTERVENTIONIST STRAIN ARISING ON THE RIGHT.

>> AND SOME FOLKS ON THE FAR LEFT AS WELL.

I THINK WHAT NIKKI -- THAT IDEA OF PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH HAS BEEN A MEASURE OF BIPARTISAN CONSENSUS.

LET'S SEPARATE OUT THE MISADVENTURE IN IRAQ BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN SEE THAT CLEARLY OVER TIME.

BUT WHAT I THINK NIKKI HALEY WAS DOING WAS EXACTLY THAT, PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH.

THE ALTERNATIVE TO THAT IS THIS, YOU KNOW, PEACE IS GIVING VLADIMIR PUTIN WHATEVER HE WANTS.

WEAKNESS INVITES AGGRESSION.

HOW MANY MORE TIMES DO WE NEED TO LEARN THAT IN THE COURSE OF HUMAN HISTORY?

AND MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATIONS LIKE NATO, WHICH WERE CREATED OUT OF THE WRECKAGE OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR, HAVE PROVEN THEIR EFFECTIVENESS TIME AND TIME AGAIN.

AND WE SHOULD SAY VERY CLEARLY THAT A TRUMP RE-ELECTION WOULD BE DESIGNED TO UNDERCUT NATO, IF NOT WITHDRAW THE UNITED STATES OUTRIGHT, TO WEAKEN ITS RESOLVE.

MULTILATERAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE DOVETAILED PERFECTLY WITH THE GOAL OF PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH.

THAT'S HOW THE INTERNATIONAL ORDER IS ESTABLISHED AND SECURED ON LIBERAL PRINCIPLES, CLASSICALLY LIBERAL PRINCIPLES.

>> JUST TO REMIND PEOPLE THAT IT'S ACTUALLY THE TRUMP MAGA REPUBLICANS WHO ARE DOING PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE IN CONGRESS RIGHT NOW BY NOT GIVING THE UKRAINIANS THE WEAPONS THEY NEED TO FACE DOWN THE PUTINS OF THE WORLD, WELL, PUTIN SPECIFICALLY AND THE OTHERS WHO MIGHT TAKE LESSONS FROM THAT.

I WANT TO SWITCH A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE THERE'S THIS ETERNAL DEBATE ON HOW THE PRESS SHOULD COVER TRUMP.

SO I WAS SPEAKING TO A VERY, YOU KNOW, WELL-KNOWN BRITISH CORRESPONDENT, EMILY MAITLIS.

SHE WAS A FORMER BBC BROADCASTER, AND SHE SAID THE FOLLOWING.

SHE SAID ONE REALLY HAS TO KEEP IN MIND ALL THE TIME AS A REPORTER EXACTLY WHO AND WHAT TRUMP STANDS FOR.

HERE'S WHAT SHE SAID.

>> I THINK ALL THE REPORTING THAT WE DO SHOULD COME ACTUALLY FROM THAT, THAT HE IS AN ELECTION DENIER, THAT HE HAS MANAGED TO CONVINCE PEOPLE OF THE LIES HE'S BEEN TELLING FOR THE LAST 3 1/2 YEARS, THAT HE'S USING HIS 91 INDICTMENTS AS A FUND-RAISING TOOL.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT ANY OF US CAN BE COVERING YOUR ELECTION, THE AMERICAN ELECTIONS, WITHOUT ACTUALLY STARTING FROM THAT PLACE.

IF THAT IS NOT A SORT OF BLACK CLOUD ACROSS YOUR FOREHEAD OF EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE SAYING ON AIR, EVERYTHING THAT YOU'RE WRITING AND THINKING ABOUT, THEN WE'RE NOT DOING OUR JOBS PROPERLY.

>> WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO THAT?

>> I AGREE.

I AGREE.

LOOK, I THINK THAT TRUTH AND FACTS ARE THE NORTH STAR OF INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE JOURNALISM.

NOT DOING MORAL EQUIVALENTS ON BOTH SIDES.

LOOK, THIS IS A COMPLICATED REAL-TIME EXERCISE, BUT WE'VE ALSO HAD EIGHT YEARS TO LEARN THE RIGHT LESSON.

I THINK JOURNALISTS SHOULD HAVE A PRO-DEMOCRACY BIAS, A PRO-FACT BIAS.

I DO NOT THINK AS A MATTER OF PERSONAL BELIEF THAT YOU CAN COVER DONALD TRUMP LIKE ANY OTHER CANDIDATE WITHOUT AMPLIFYING DISINFORMATION AND MISINFORMATION FOR FEAR OF OFFENDING HIS SUPPORTERS.

I THINK YOU NEED TO BE GUIDED BY THE NORTH STAR OF TRUTH AND FACTS AND RESOLUTE ABOUT THAT, AND YOU NEED TO TAKE ALL THE HISTORY OF COVERING THIS GUY TO DATE AND TAKING HIM UNEDITED OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME, I THINK AMPLIFIES PROPAGANDA AS OPPOSED TO CLARIFYING AND FACT-CHECKING IN REAL TIME AS MUCH AS THAT'S HUMANLY POSSIBLE.

THAT SERVES THE GOALS OF LIBERAL DEMOCRACY.

>> I WANT TO PLAY THIS SOUND BITE AND GET MARGARET'S REACTION TO THIS BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS -- I MEAN ON BIDEN'S CASE FOR GAFFES IN AGE.

BUT TRUMP OFTEN MAKES GAFFE.

HERE'S THE LATEST ONE.

HE BASICALLY IN NEW HAMPSHIRE CONFUSED NIKKI HALEY, IT SEEMS, WITH NANCY PELOSI.

LET ME JUST PLAY THIS.

>> THE CROWD ON JANUARY 6th, YOU KNOW, NIKKI HALEY, NIKKI HALEY, NIKKI HALEY -- YOU KNOW THEY -- DO YOU KNOW THEY DESTROYED ALL OF THE INFORMATION, ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, EVERYTHING?

DELETED AND DESTROYED ALL OF IT.

ALL OF IT BECAUSE OF LOTS OF THINGS, LIKE NIKKI HALEY IS IN CHARGE OF SECURITY.

WE OFFERED HER 10,000 PEOPLE, SOLDIERS, NATIONAL GUARD, WHATEVER THEY WANT.

THEY TURNED IT DOWN.

>> SO, MARGARET, AFTER ALL THESE YEARS, DO YOU THINK THE PRESS ACTUALLY FOCUSED ON THAT ENOUGH?

>> WELL, THEY CERTAINLY COULD BE FOCUSED ON IT MORE, CHRISTIANE, BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING.

FOR PEOPLE WHO WATCH TRUMP WITH AN EAGLE EYE, WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING HIM IN HIS RALLIES, WHO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING HIM CLOSELY, THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING MORE AND MORE.

I THINK THE MAINSTREAM COVERAGE OF THE PRIMARIES HASN'T PICKED UP ON THIS AS MUCH.

PART OF IT IS HE HASN'T DONE IT IN THESE MULTI-CANDIDATE FORUMS BECAUSE HE'S REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE IN MULTI-CANDIDATE FORUMS.

SO THE THINGS THAT CNN AND PBS AND NATIONAL NEWS ORGANIZATIONS HAVE COVERED WITH OTHER CANDIDATES, HE HASN'T HAD A MAJOR FLUB IN FRONT OF OTHERS.

THIS WAS REALLY THE FIRST ONE I THINK THAT'S GOTTEN TRACTION.

BUT THERE HAVE BEEN MANY OVER THE LAST FOUR TO SIX MONTHS.

AND THERE WILL BE MORE.

SO AS HE SECURES THE REPUBLICAN NOMINATION, IF THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER TODAY AND ONWARD PAST SUPER TUESDAY, I THINK AMERICANS WILL BE INTRODUCED TO A NEWER OLDER VERSION OF DONALD TRUMP THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO THEN MEASURE UP AGAINST JOE BIDEN, WHO IS ALSO OLDER.

AND, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THE STAKES, AND THESE ARE THE CANDIDATES.

THIS IS, YOU KNOW, SADLY WHAT HAPPENS.

>> VERY LAST QUESTION BECAUSE OUR INTERNATIONALS ARE GOING TO WANT TO KNOW, OUR AUDIENCE AROUND THE WORLD, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

IS HE GOING TO WIN?

SO WE HAVE POLL NUMBERS WHICH SUGGEST THAT, AS YOU MENTIONED, JOHN, HE HAS PROBLEMS WITH GOP MODERATES AND ALSO INDEPENDENTS.

THIS IS TRUMP.

AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT WILL HIS COURT CASES DO?

HOW WILL THAT AFFECT HIS ELECTABILITY?

>> WELL, POLLS HAVE SHOWN, INCLUDING CNN'S, IF HE IS CONVICTED IN ANY OF THESE CASES, PARTICULARLY THE JANUARY 6th, BUT NOT ONLY THAT, THAT THAT MAKES A LOT OF REPUBLICANS SORT OF SAY, HOLD ON.

WE CAN'T NOMINATE A CONVICTED CRIMINAL.

WE CANNOT ELECT A CONVICTED CRIMINAL.

AND TO SOME EXTENT, DONALD TRUMP IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT TO STAY OUT OF PRISON.

BUT THE DYNAMIC THAT'S DIFFICULT -- REMEMBER, HE HAS NEVER WON THE POPULAR VOTE IN THE UNITED STATES.

THE DYNAMIC THAT'S DIFFERENT AND DIFFICULT IS WITH MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES RUNNING RIGHT NOW.

THAT CREATES AN X FACTOR WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FIGURE OUT WHICH WAY THE BALL BOUNCES IN THESE HANDFUL OF SIX TO EIGHT SWING STATES.

THAT'S WHERE THE REAL DANGER COMES IN.

BUT I WILL SAY THE SORT OF SELF-PROTECTIVE DEFEATISM THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT CREEPS INTO THE CONVERSATION OR THE FIXATION ON HORSE RACE POLLING AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING AT THE UNDERLYING POLICIES AND THE STAKES OF THE RACE, NOT JUST THE -- YOU KNOW, THE TOP LINE.

THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE NEED TO KEEP THE EYE ON THE BALL.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO.

I'M SORRY.

WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU, BUT WE'RE OUT OF TIME.

MARGARET, JOHN, THANK YOU SO MUCH INDEED.

>> THANK YOU, CHRISTIANE.

THANKS FOR DOING EVERYTHING YOU DO.

>>> NOW, IN THE '70s, THE 1970s, AN AMERICAN RESEARCHER NAMED SHERE HITE HAD A BRILLIANT IDEA.

IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WOMEN'S SEXUALITY, WHY, ASK WOMEN.

THOUSANDS OF WOMEN, IN FACT.

THE RESULTS PUBLISHED AS THE HITE REPORT.

SO WHY IS SHE ALL BUT FORGOTTEN TODAY?

A NEW DOCUMENTARY CALLED "THE DISAPPEARANCE OF SHERE HITE" ASKS THAT VERY SAME QUESTION.

HERE'S A CLIP.

>> EVERY WOMAN'S GOING TO WANT TO READ THIS, AND MEN SHOULD TOO.

>> THEY HATED THE BOOK.

THEY TRIED TO SABOTAGE IT.

KEEP IT DOWN.

>> IT SOLD LIKE HOTCAKES.

>> THE 30th BEST-SELLING BOOK OF ALL TIME.

>> HOW CAN YOU SHUT SOMEBODY LIKE THIS UP?

>> NICOLE NEWNHAM'S FILMS INCLUDE THE DOCUMENTARY CRIP CRAMP KWIEGS, AND SHE IS THE DIRECTOR OF "AMANPOUR & CO." "THE DISAPPEARANCE OF SHERE HITE."

NICOLE NEWNHAM, WELCOME TO THE PROGRAM.

APART FROM THE FACT THAT SHERE HITE HAD ONE OF THE BEST-SELLING BOOKS AND THE MOST FORWARD-LOOKING EXAMINATIONS OF WOMEN'S SEX LIVES, WHAT MADE YOU CLOCK ONTO HER?

WHAT MADE YOU WANT TO REMIND PEOPLE ABOUT HER?

>> WELL, YOU KNOW, I DISCOVERED "THE HEIGHT REPORT IN MY MOTHER'S BEDSIDE CHEST AND READING THE BOOK WAS A REVELATION.

IT BROUGHT ME INTO THIS WORLD OF FEMALE SEXUALITY AND THE VOICES OF THOUSANDS OF WOMEN AND THEIR REAL EXPERIENCES, NOT ONLY, YOU KNOW, THE SORT OF BIOLOGICAL FACTS OF SEX BUT HOW WOMEN WERE REALLY EXPERIENCING IT IN A MALE-DOMINATED SOCIETY.

AND THE THINGS I LEARNED IN THAT BOOK AND THE STORIES I READ STAYED WITH ME FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.

SO WHEN I SAW HER OBITUARY IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" IN 2020, AND THE HEADLINE SAID, SHERE HITE, SHE EXPLAINED HOW WOMEN ORGASM, AND SHE WAS HATED FOR IT, I IMMEDIATELY WANTED TO KNOW WHO WAS THIS WOMAN?

HOW DID SHE DO HER WORK?

AND WHY WAS SHE HATED, AND HOW HAS SHE BEEN FORGOTTEN?

THE FILM IS REALLY AN ATTEMPT TO ANSWER ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

>> I WANT TO START BY WHO IS THIS WOMAN.

SHE WAS CLEARLY A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN, JUST STAGGERINGLY BEAUTIFUL.

PEOPLE WHO MET HER WERE MESMERIZE BID HER.

SHE WAS ALSO AN INCREDIBLY BRIGHT, CLEVER WOMAN, WHO WAS TRYING DO, I THINK, A Ph.D. AT COLUMBIA.

AND YOUR DOCUMENTARY HAS HER -- OR THE NARRATOR QUOTING HOW SHE WAS DISSED FROM THE BEGINNING.

TELL ME ABOUT HOW THAT SHAPED HER.

>> YEAH.

I MEAN I THINK SHE HAD THIS EXPERIENCE OF COMING TO COLUMBIA.

SHE HAD WANTED TO BE A CONCERT PIANIST AT ONE POINT.

SHE HAD REALLY HUGE AMBITION.

I THINK SHE WAS ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO KIND OF COMES INTO THE WORLD AND EVEN FROM A VERY YOUNG AGE, BECAUSE WE EVEN, YOU KNOW, KIND OF KNOW WHAT SHE WAS THINKING ABOUT AS A VERY YOUNG WOMAN.

SHE WAS THINKING, WHY ARE PEOPLE BEING OPPRESSED BY SOCIETAL STRUCTURES AND NOT ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, LIVE THE BEST LIVES THEY COULD?

SO SHE WAS THINKING ABOUT PATRIARCHY, AND SHE WAS THINKING ABOUT RACE AND ALL OF THESE THINGS.

AND WHEN SHE GOT TO COLUMBIA, SHE REALIZED THAT BECAUSE SHE CAME FROM A HUMBLE BACKGROUND AND SHE WAS THIS INCREDIBLY ATTRACTIVE WOMAN, SHE WAS NOT GOING TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY IN ACADEMICS.

AND FURTHERMORE, THAT EVEN THE QUESTIONS SHE WAS ASKING ABOUT FEMALE SEXUALITY WERE NOT REALLY ON THE TABLE FOR THE DEPARTMENT THAT SHE WAS IN.

AND SO SHE QUIT.

SHE DROPPED OUT OF COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AND WAS WORKING AS A MODEL, INCLUDING AS A NUDE MODEL, AND THINKING A LOT ABOUT THE DYNAMICS OF THAT CULTURALLY.

AND THEN SHE FOUND HER WAY INTO THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT, AND THIS WAS KIND OF LIKE THE HEYDAY OF THE SECOND WAVE OF THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT.

AND SHE FOUND HERSELF IN A REALLY INTERSECTIONAL MILIEU IN NEW YORK CITY.

SHE WAS ABLE TO REALLY UNPACK A LOT OF WHAT SHE HAD EXPERIENCED IN ACADEMICS AND IN HER MODELING CAREER, AND REALLY "THE HITE REPORT" GREW OUT OF THIS.

IT GREW OUT OF CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN WOMEN AND THIS INCREDIBLE KIND OF CREATIVE COLLECTIVE ENERGY THAT WAS HAPPENING AT THE TIME.

THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY WANTED TO TRY TO BRING ALIVE IN THE FILM TOO BECAUSE I THINK, YOU KNOW, TODAY AS WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE INCREASINGLY UNDER ATTACK, IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THAT KIND OF COLLECTIVE MOVEMENT CAN REALLY BRING ABOUT CULTURAL CHANGE.

AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE RESEARCH THAT WAS -- THE KIND OF BOMBSHELL THAT WAS "THE HITE REPORT" REALLY DID CHANGE THE WORLD AND WAS BROUGHT ABOUT BY THIS DETERMINED WOMAN AND HER COLLEAGUES IN THE FEMINIST MOVEMENT.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BOMBSHELLS THAT SHE BROUGHT TO THE WORLD WITH "THE HITE REPORT."

SHE BASICALLY TURNED UPSIDE DOWN WHAT EVERYBODY THOUGHT THEY KNEW ABOUT FEMALE PLEASURE.

SHE TALKED ABOUT ORGASM.

SHE TALKED ABOUT MASTURBATION.

SHE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HOW ALL OF THIS WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAD BEEN PRODUCED FOR THE PUBLIC UP UNTIL NOW.

ALL THESE WORDS THAT WERE TABOO THAT SOMETIMES WE EVEN HAVE TO STILL BLEEP.

BUT HERE'S A CLIP ALL THE WAY BACK ALL THOSE YEARS AGO WHEN THE INTERVIEWER USES THESE WORDS AND ACTUALLY IS TALKING TO HER ABOUT THEM, WHEN THE REPORT CAME OUT.

LET'S JUST PLAY THIS CLIP.

>> AT THE START OF YOUR BOOK, YOU WRITE, MASTURBATION IS IN A VERY REAL SENSE ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT SUBJECTS DISCUSSED IN THIS BOOK AND A CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION.

WOULD YOU TALK ABOUT THAT?

>> WELL, MASTURBATION IS REALLY A CAUSE FOR CELEBRATION BECAUSE IT REPRESENTS FEMALE SEXUALITY UNDERGROUND.

THE MAJORITY OF WOMEN, EVEN SINCE KENNEDY'S TIME, KNOW HOW TO MASTURBATE TO ORGASM, EASILY, REGULARLY WITH GREAT PLEASURE.

SO THIS SHOWS THAT WOMEN KNOW HOW TO HAVE ORGASMS WHEN THEY WANT, CONTRARY TO THE POPULAR STEREOTYPE THAT WOMEN HAVE A PROBLEM, IN QUOTES, WITH SEX.

>> THAT'S PRETTY RADICAL STUFF FOR 1976.

>> YES, IT WAS.

I LOOK SORT OF NERVOUS, YEAH.

>> DID YOU FEEL NERVOUS?

I MEAN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THINGS PEOPLE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT.

>> I SUPPOSE I WAS NERVOUS, OF COURSE.

>> NICOLE, TALK ABOUT THE REVOLUTIONARY STUFF.

WHAT WAS IT THAT SHE DISCOVERED THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THE KINSEY REPORT BEFORE HER HADN'T SAID, AND BEFORE THAT, MASTERS AND JOHNSON.

SHE TOOK THE WHOLE EXPLORATION OF WOMEN'S SEX MUCH FURTHER.

>> SHE REALLY DID.

THERE WAS STILL THIS PREVAILING NOTION AT THAT TIME THAT THE MAJORITY OF WOMEN WERE HAVING ORGASMS FROM INTERCOURSE, AND THE IDEA WAS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE CLITORIS HAD BEEN TARGETED AS THE WAY THAT WOMEN ORGASM, THERE WAS STILL THIS IDEA THAT WOMEN SHOULD HAVE INDIRECT STIMULATION AND THAT THAT SHOULD PRODUCE AN OORGASM.

AND SHERE HITE BY ASKING 3,000 WOMEN IN THESE KIND OF BEAUTIFULLY CONDUCTED ANONYMOUS SURVEYS FOUND OUT THAT 70% OF WOMEN WERE NOT HAVING ORGASMS THROUGH INTERCOURSE.

THAT REALLY DID KIND OF REVOLUTIONIZE EVERYTHING.

BUT ALSO SHE REALLY TALKED ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF WOMEN'S VOICES AND WOMEN'S AGENCY.

HER HOPE WAS THAT WHAT SHE SAID WAS UNDEFINE SEX AND ENCOURAGE US HOW TO RETHINK HOW WE DEFINE IT AS JUST A LITTLE BIT OF FOREPLAY, INTERCOURSE, THE MALE HAS AN ORGASM, AND THERE'S AN ASSUMPTION THAT THE WOMAN DOES, BUT REALLY SAY HOW COULD WE HAVE BETTER SEXUAL RELATIONS, BETTER CONVERSATIONS, AND UNDERSTAND WHAT EACH OTHER ARE FEELING.

AND THAT WAS INCREDIBLY RADICAL AT THE TIME.

AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT WE KIND OF LIVE IN A POST-SHERE HITE WORLD, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY IT'S SO STUNNING THAT HER WORK AND HER CONTRIBUTION HAVE BEEN FORGOTTEN.

>> WHAT WAS SO STUNNING TO BE REACQUAINTED WITH WATCHING THE DOCUMENTARY WAS THE IMMEDIATE BACKLASH, AND IT WAS FIERCE EVEN FROM CERTAIN WOMEN, EVEN ON CERTAIN FEMALE-DRIVEN DAYTIME TELEVISION PROGRAMS, MOST PARTICULARLY ON THOSE WITH MALE HOSTS.

I MEAN IT WAS FIERCE.

AND I WAS -- I MEAN IT WAS ALMOST TRAUMATIC TO WATCH.

FOR INSTANCE, THE CLIP YOU PUT OF OPRAH WINFREY HOSTING HER WITH AN ALL-MALE AUDIENCE.

I MEAN SHE WAS -- I MEAN IT WAS REALLY, REALLY DIFFICULT TO WATCH ACTUALLY.

BUT THEY DECIDED THAT SHE WAS AGAINST MEN.

SHE WAS WRITING, YOU KNOW, SCIENCE OR NOT SCIENCE THAT MEANT THAT MEN WERE DISPENSABLE AND WOMEN DIDN'T NEED MEN.

BUT SHE ACTUALLY WAS WRITING ABOUT MEN AS WELL AND MEN'S EMOTIONAL LIVES.

TALK TO US ABOUT THE BACKLASH.

>> THAT WAS ONE OF THE EXTRAORDINARY THINGS IN LOOKING THROUGH THE FOOTAGE AND CONSTRUCTING THE FILM WAS JUST TO SEE SORT OF HOW HORRIFIC IF WAS IF YOU WERE TO FOLLOW ONE WOMAN THROUGH THE PROCESS OF SORT OF BEING SILENCED THROUGH THIS BACKLASH THAT HAPPENED TO THE GAINS OF THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT IN THE 1970s.

AND THIS WAS SORT OF THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE 1980s.

SHERE WROTE THIS BOOK ABOUT MALE SEXUALITY AS YOU MENTIONED, AND THAT BOOK WAS ASKING MEN THE SAME KINDS OF QUESTIONS SHE ASKED WOMEN.

AND THE BIGGEST TAKEAWAY REALLY WAS THAT MEN FELT ISOLATED AND ALONE AND DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THEY COULD ACTUALLY EXPRESS THEIR FEELINGS, EVEN TO THEIR WIVES AND PARTNERS.

AND YOU WOULDN'T THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE SUCH A CONTENTIOUS TOPIC, BUT MEN REALLY DID NOT WANT TO HEAR THAT.

AND THERE WAS, I THINK AT THE SAME TIME, A SORT OF CONSOLIDATION AND RISE OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT.

THERE WAS MEDIA CONSOLIDATION, AND SHE REALLY BECAME A PUNCHING BAG, KIND OF, YOU KNOW, STANDING IN FOR THIS IDEA OF A, YOU KNOW, RADICAL FEMINIST AND WAS REALLY ATTACKED.

HER METHODOLOGY WAS ATTACKED.

HER CHARACTER WAS ATTACKED.

THE OLD, YOU KNOW, NUDE PLAYBOY PHOTOS SHE HAD TAKEN IN HER EARLIER MODELING CAREER WERE RESUSCITATED.

SHE RECEIVED DEATH THREATS.

IT WAS REALLY HORRIFIC, AND A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID TO ME WHY DID SHE KEEP GOING ON THESE SHOWS JUST TO BE ATTACKED, AND AND I REALLY BELIEVE IT WAS SHE BELIEVED IN HER MESSAGE.

I THINK WE FORGET HOW HOSTILE THE MEDIA ENVIRONMENT WAS FOR WOMEN AT THAT TIME WHO WERE SPEAKING OUT AND SUGGESTING THAT WE CHANGE THINGS AND CHALLENGE THE PATRIARCHY.

BUT IT REALLY WAS, AND IT EVENTUALLY BECAME, YOU KNOW, JUST TOO MUCH FOR HER.

>> I WANT TO JUST PLAY A SMALL CLIP ABOUT THE MODELING BECAUSE A LOT OF THE INTERVIEWERS AND A LOT OF PEOPLE SAID, WELL, WHO IS THIS WOMAN WHO IS TALKING ABOUT AND WANTS TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY?

SHE'S DONE ALL THIS MODELING AND SOME NUDE MODELING AS YOU MENTIONED.

BUT THIS IS HOW SHE PUT IT.

>> HAVING TO SUPPORT MYSELF, WHAT WERE MY ALTERNATIVES?

TO BECOME AN OUT-AND-OUT PROSTITUTE?

TO BE A SECRETARY?

TO GET MARRIED?

OF ALL FORMS OF PROSTITUTION, ANY JOB WITHIN THE SYSTEM, I PREFERRED THIS.

MODELING ALLOWED ME THE MOST INDEPENDENCE OF ALL WITH PERHAPS THE LEAST PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT.

>> I MEAN IT'S SUCH A CLEAR ANSWER TO THOSE CRITICS, AND SURELY IT DID GIVE HER THE MONEY WHEN SHE NEEDED IT.

BUT THEN BECAUSE OF THE BACKLASH, YOU FOLLOW HER THROUGH THE FACT THAT HER PUBLISHERS WOULDN'T PUBLISH HER ANYMORE.

SHE WAS RUNNING OUT OF MONEY.

SHE WAS BEING, YOU KNOW, VERBALLY ABUSED AND DEATH THREATS AND THIS AND THAT, AND SHE BASICALLY LEFT.

SHE SOLD HER APARTMENT AND WENT TO EUROPE, EVENTUALLY RENOUNCING HER CITIZENSHIP IN 1995, HER U.S.

CITIZENSHIP.

WHAT KIND OF REACTION DID SHE FIND OVER HERE IN EUROPE?

>> SHE FOUND A BETTER REACTION IN EUROPE.

I MEAN I THINK WHAT SHE FOUND WAS A CULTURE IN WHICH SHE COULD REALLY EXPRESS HERSELF IN KIND OF THE FULLNESS OF WHO SHE WAS.

I CAME TO SORT OF SEE HER ENTIRE -- THE CREATION OF HER PERSONA AND KIND OF HER OWN IDENTITY AND WHO SHE WAS IN THE WORLD AS SORT OF A BIG PIECE OF PROTEST ART IN A WAY.

I MEAN ALL THE WAY ALONG, SHE COMPLETELY REFUSED TO NOT BE WHO SHE WAS, WHICH WAS A BEAUTIFUL, SEXUAL WOMAN WHO LIKED TO STRESS UP, WHO LIKED TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, RED NAIL POLISH ON AND SEXY CLOTHES AND GO ON TV AND TALK ABOUT INTELLECTUAL THINGS.

AND SHE WAS, YOU KNOW -- SHE WAS REALLY A VICTIM OF THIS DOUBLE STANDARD THAT WE STILL HOLD FOR WOMEN.

AND IN EUROPE, I THINK IT WAS -- IT WAS LIGHTER.

SHE COULD PLAY AROUND WITH HER IDENTITY.

SHE GOT INVOLVED IN THE SORT OF FEMINIST ART PROJECTS, AND SHE WAS ON, YOU KNOW, KIND OF VERY CREATIVE TV SHOWS IN ENGLAND.

SHE HAD A GREAT TIME IN PARIS.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU KNOW, IN WATCHING A LOT OF THE MEDIA THAT SHE CONTINUED TO DO ONCE SHE MOVED TO EUROPE, AND SHE KEPT WRITING AND PUBLISHING BOOKS, INCLUDING BOOKS, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE NUCLEAR FAMILY, WHICH NEVER GOT PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT THAT'S AN INCREDIBLY INTERESTING WORK.

YOU KNOW, SHE DID CONTINUE TO RECEIVE A LOT OF MISOGYNISTIC TREATMENT ON TV SHOWS, AND HER FRIENDS WOULD TELL ME THAT, YOU KNOW, SHE WOULD JUST GO ON AND WAIT UNTIL THEY STARTED TALKING ABOUT HER APPEARANCE OR FLIRTING WITH HER OR NOT TAKING HER SERIOUSLY.

BUT SHE NEVER STOPPED -- SHE WAS UNCOMPROMISING IN HOW SHE WANTED TO REPRESENT HERSELF, AND I THINK IN THAT WAY SHE'S KIND OF AN ICON FOR A YOUNGER GENERATION.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I ASSUME YOU WANTED FOR THE PEOPLE WHO WATCHED THIS, PARTICULARLY YOUNG GIRLS AND MEN.

NICOLE NEWNHAM, THANK YOU SO MUCH INDEED.

>>> AS WE HEARD YESTERDAY ON THE SHOW FROM LEADING SCIENCE AND HEALTH JOURNALIST DONALD McNEIL, COVID SHOOK THE PUBLIC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IN THE UNITED STATES TO ITS VERY FOUNDATIONS, AND IT'S STILL STRUGGLING WITH HIGH PRICES AND STRAINED BUDGETS.

DR. ASHISH JHA LED THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S RESPONSE TO THE CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC, AND NOW HE'S BACK TO HIS OLD JOB AT DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AT BROWN UNIVERSITY.

HE JOINS HARI SREENIVASAN TO LAY OUT HOW PRIVATE EQUITY IS DISRUPTING THE MEDICAL INDUSTRY ACROSS AMERICA.

>> CHRISTIANE, THANKS.

DR. ASHISH JHA, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

YOU WROTE A RECENT OP-ED IN "THE WASHINGTON POST" TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE EQUITY AND THE IMPACT IT IS HAVING ON U.S. HEALTH CARE TODAY.

LAY IT OUT A LITTLE BIT FOR US.

>> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY, HARI.

WE HAVE SEEN THIS EXPLOSION OF PRIVATE EQUITY INTO HEALTH CARE.

WHAT DO I MEAN?

PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS BUYING UP DOCTORS OFFICES, HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES.

AND THE IMPACT HAS BEEN TWOFOLD.

WE HAVE SEEN THAT THAT DRIVES UP PRICES AND MAKES HEALTH CARE MORE INACCESSIBLE, MORE COSTLY.

AND NOW WE'RE SEEING EMERGING EVIDENCE, AT LEAST FROM THE HOSPITAL SECTOR, THAT WHEN PRIVATE EQUITY BUYS UP HOSPITALS, HEALTH CARE OUTCOMES FOR PATIENTS IN THOSE HOSPITALS MAY ACTUALLY GET WORSE.

SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY VERY CONCERNING.

THIS IS REALLY A VERY BIG PHENOMENON WITH A LARGE ENTRY OF PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS INTO THE HEALTH CARE MARKETPLACE.

>> SO THIS IS NOT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LAY OUT THE DIFFERENCE FOR US.

THERE ARE A LOT OF TOWNS IN AMERICA WHO SEE A LARGE HOSPITAL CHAIN COME IN AND TAKE OVER THEIR KIND OF FACILITIES.

AND THEN THERE HAVE BEEN CONSEQUENCES ON WHETHER THOSE FACILITIES HAVE BECOME PROFITABLE OR NOT AND CHANGES HAVE HAPPENED.

BUT WHAT IS THE ROLE THAT PRIVATE EQUITY IS PLAYING?

WHAT PART OF THE HEALTH CARE MARKET ARE THESE COMPANIES GOING AFTER?

>> YEAH.

SO WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THAT PHENOMENON OF HEALTH CARE CHAINS COMING IN ALSO CAN HAVE DELETERIOUS EFFECTS, AND WE'VE SEEN THAT.

PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS, LOOK, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY'RE IN IT FOR ONE REASON AND ONE REASON ONLY, WHICH IS THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY OUT OF THIS.

AND THEIR STRATEGY GENERALLY HAS BEEN SHORT-TERM.

COME IN A FEW YEARS, TURN IT AROUND.

AND WHEN I SAY TURN IT AROUND, I DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN TURN THE HEALTH SYSTEM AROUND.

WHAT I MEAN IS THEN FLIP IT, SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE, MAKE A PROFIT.

BUT OFTEN THAT HAS REAL NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE SYSTEM THEY BOUGHT, WHETHER IT WAS A HOSPITAL, A DOCTOR'S OFFICE, NURSING HOME.

SO IT LEAVES THAT COMMUNITY OFTEN MUCH WORSE OFF EVEN THOUGH THAT PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM MADE A VERY NICE PROFIT OUT OF IT.

>> YOU WRITE AN EXAMPLE OF ONE OF YOUR FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES WHO HAD KIND OF GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

THERE ARE LOTS OF DOCTORS WHO HAVE PRACTICES, WHO WANT TO LOOK AT RETIREMENT, AND THEN THEY GET AN OPPORTUNITY FROM A PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM TO BUY THE PRACTICE.

SO WHAT HAPPENS TRADITIONALLY IN THESE CASES?

>> YEAH.

THE SITUATION I DESCRIBE IS VERY TYPICAL.

MY FRIEND HAD OWNED A PRACTICE, PRIVATE PRACTICE, FOR A LONG TIME.

PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM MADE HIM AN OFFER.

HE EVENTUALLY AGREED, SOLD IT.

INITIALLY HIS LIFE GOT BETTER.

HE DIDN'T HAVE TO MANAGE THE PRACTICE ANYMORE.

HE GOT A NICE PAYOUT.

THINGS SEEMED GREAT.

THEN THAT FIRM BOUGHT UP OTHER PRACTICES, GOT A LOT OF MARKET POWER, RAISED PRICES.

HE WALKED OUT OF THIS WITH MIXED FEELINGS BECAUSE FOR HIS PATIENTS IT WAS NOT A VERY GOOD DEAL EVEN THOUGH HE, HIMSELF, HAD PERSONALLY BENEFITED.

>> SO IF A PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM BUYS A GROUP OF PRACTICES, WHERE IT'S CARDIOLOGY OR PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, DON'T THEY HAVE A GREATER OPPORTUNITY TO DECREASE PRICES, TO BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES AND SO FORTH?

WOULDN'T THEORETICALLY THAT BE BETTER FOR THE PATIENT?

>> IT COULD.

BUT HERE'S ACTUALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING IN PRACTICE.

LET'S SAY THERE ARE A LOT OF CARDIOLOGY PRACTICES IN A COMMUNITY.

A PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM BUYS THEM ALL.

THEN IT GOES TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND SAYS, IF YOU WANT CARDIOLOGY IN THIS TOWN, WE OWN ALL THE PRACTICES.

YOU HAVE TO PAY US A LOT MORE.

OF COURSE INSURANCE COMPANIES WILL THEN JUST PASS ON THOSE EXTRA COSTS TO EMPLOYERS AND TO INDIVIDUALS.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IS PEOPLE SEE THEIR PRICES GO UP.

PROFITS FOR PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS ALSO GO UP.

AND EVENTUALLY IT TENDS UP HAVING A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON THAT COMMUNITY.

SO WHILE THEORETICALLY PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS CAN PLAY ALL SORTS OF ROLES, THEY'RE GENERALLY DRIVING PRICES UP.

>> SO HOW DOES THAT IMPACT, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PATIENTS THAT YOU SAID, FOR EXAMPLE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN COMING TO YOUR FRIEND FOR YEARS COULDN'T AFFORD TO COME ANYMORE?

IS THAT BECAUSE THE INSURANCE COMPANIES ARE SAYING, HEY, THE PRICES ARE JUST TOO HIGH, AND THIS IS NOW OUT OF NETWORK?

HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN?

>> THERE ARE TWO WAYS THIS CAN HAPPEN.

ONE IS SO IMAGINE YOU'RE THE PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM.

YOU NOW OWN ALL THESE PRACTICES.

YOU RAISE YOUR PRICES.

AN INSURANCE COMPANY MAY SAY, YOU'RE NO LONGER IN NETWORK.

ALL THE PATIENTS WHO HAVE THAT INSURANCE NO LONGER CAN COME SEE THAT PHYSICIAN.

OR THEY'LL SAY YOU'RE STILL IN NETWORK BUT YOUR DEDUCTIBLES ARE NOW MUCH, MUCH HIGHER.

SO WHAT THAT DOES TO PATIENTS IS THEY HAVE TO PAY A LOT MORE OUT OF POCKET, WHICH FOR A POORER PERSON MAY BECOME PROHIBITIVELY EXPENSIVE.

THE BIGGER PICTURE POINT HERE IS THAT HIGH PRICES OF HEALTH CARE ARE CAUSING REAL PROBLEMS, REAL STRAINS FOR BUDGETS FOR INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

AND PRIVATE EQUITY HAS BECOME A PART OF THAT PROBLEM, MAKING THAT PROBLEM WORSE.

>> ASIDE FROM THE MONEY, THE THING MOST PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS HOW DOES IT ACTUALLY AFFECT HOW SAFE I AM GOING TO A DOCTOR OR A HOSPITAL?

IS THERE A DIFFERENCE THAT CAN BE MEASURED ON HOW THE FUNCTIONING OF MEDICINE IS HAPPENING?

>> YEAH.

SO THIS IS A QUESTION THAT I THINK A LOT OF US HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME, BUT WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD DATA UNTIL RECENTLY.

A REALLY GOOD STUDY LOOKED AT 50 HOSPITALS THAT WERE BOUGHT OUT BY PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS COMPARED TO CONTROL HOSPITALS THAT WEREN'T.

WHAT THEY FOUND ESSENTIALLY WAS MEDICAL ERRORS GOING UP IN PRIVATE EQUITY HOSPITALS.

PEOPLE HAVE OFTEN SAID, WHAT EXPLAINS THAT?

HOW COULD THAT BE?

IT'S PROBABLY THE SAME DOCTORS AND NURSES WORKING THERE.

THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS.

PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS, WHEN THEY TAKE OVER, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THEY TRY TO DO IS REDUCE COSTS.

ONE OF THE EASIEST WAYS IS REDUCING YOUR STAFFING.

CUT BACK ON NURSING STAFFING.

IT WILL SAVE YOU MONEY.

IT CAN PUT PATIENTS AT RISK.

OF THE MECHANISM.

THE OTHER THING IS IF YOU THINK ABOUT ALL THE PROGRESS WE'VE MADE IN MAKING HEALTH CARE SAFER OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, A LOT END UP PUTTING IN SAFETY PROTOCOLS, DOING A LOT OF IMPORTANT THINGS THAT MAKE SURE ERRORS DON'T HAPPEN.

THOSE ALL COST MONEY.

AND MY, YOU KNOW, BEST HYPOTHESIS HERE IS COMPANIES COME IN.

THEY BUY UP THESE HOSPITALS.

THEY'RE TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO SAVE MONEY, AND THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS THAT ARE HARMING PATIENTS.

>> AND THIS STUDY THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING IS FROM THE JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION.

IT SAID PRIVATE EQUITY ACQUISITION WAS ASSOCIATED WITH A 25.4% INCREASE IN HOSPITAL-ACQUIRED CONDITIONS, WHICH WAS DRIVEN BY FALLS AND CENTRAL LINE-ASSOCIATED BLOODSTREAM INFECTIONS.

HOW DID SOMETHING LIKE CENTRAL LINE-ASSOCIATED BLOODSTREAM INFECTIONS INCREASE AT ONE HOSPITAL VERSUS ANOTHER?

>> SO CENTRAL LINE INFECTIONS, BY THE WAY, A CENTRAL LINE IS A BIG IV CATHETER USUALLY USED IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS.

WHEN THOSE GET INFECTED, CAN BE VERY DANGEROUS.

WE HAVE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS AS A HEALTH CARE COMMUNITY ELIMINATING OR REDUCING THOSE INFECTIONS.

AGAIN WHAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE, FOLLOWING PROTOCOLS, HAVING PLENTY OF NURSES, MAKING SURE YOU'RE REALLY DOING THINGS TO PREVENT THOSE INFECTIONS.

WE KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.

IF YOU MAKE CUTBACKS ON NURSE STAFFING OR OTHER TYPES OF CUTBACKS, YOU CAN POTENTIALLY SET UP PEOPLE AT RISK FOR THAT.

FALLS ARE SIMILAR.

ELDERLY PEOPLE, HIGH RISK PEOPLE IN THE HOSPITAL, THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH NURSES AROUND, THEY GET UP IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT.

THEY CAN HAVE THAT FALL.

STAFFING IS REALLY CRITICAL TO KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE IN THE HOSPITAL.

>> SO WHEN YOU THINK OF MARKET POWER AT WORK HERE, IS THERE INCREASED CONCENTRATION?

I MEAN THERE'S AN ARTICLE I'M LOOKING AT HERE THAT SAID THAT 13% OF METRO AREAS, THAT A SINGLE PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM OWNS MORE THAN HALF OF THE PHYSICIAN MARKET FOR CERTAIN SPECIALTIES.

NOW, OBVIOUSLY 13%, WE STILL HAVE 87 % LEFT IN THE COUNTRY WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A MORE HEALTHY MARKET.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS?

IS IT IN SMALL TOWNS, MIDSIZED TOWNS, BIG CITIES?

WHERE DO WE FIND THESE KINDS OF TRENDS?

>> MARKET CONCENTRATION FIRST OF ALL IS A BAD THING.

WHEN THERE'S NOT ENOUGH COMPETITION, THERE'S NOT COMPETITION FOR QUALITY.

THERE'S NOT COMPETITION FOR PRICING AND COST.

WHAT WE TEND TO SEE IN CONCENTRATED MARKETS IS COSTS GO UP.

QUALITY GOES DOWN.

THAT EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMINGLY CLEAR.

IN THOSE 13% OF THE MARKETS WHERE A PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM HAS MORE THAN HALF THE MARKET, THEY'RE NOT FACING MUCH COMPETITION TO DELIVER BETTER CARE AT LOWER COST FOR PATIENTS.

IN THOSE OTHER 87%, YOU STILL HAVE A LOT OF CONCENTRATION.

THAT 13% CONTINUES TO RISE.

WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS NOT JUST WHERE WE ARE TODAY, BUT WHERE WE WILL BE IN TWO, FOUR, FIVE YEARS IF WE DON'T PAY VERY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THIS TREND AND REALLY WORK ON TURNING IT AROUND.

>> I'M NOT TRYING TO PAINT PRIVATE EQUITY KIND OF WITH ONE BRUSH.

I MEAN OBVIOUSLY THEY MIGHT HAVE DIFFERENT STRATEGIES IN WHAT THEY'RE DOING, AND YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY ADVOCATING FOR THE END OF PRIVATE EQUITY HERE.

I MEAN YOU THINK THERE IS A ROLE FOR THEM TO PLAY?

>> YEAH.

THE WAY I LOOK AT THIS IS WE'RE SEEING SOME BAD BEHAVIOR BY SOME PRIVATE EQUITY FIRMS, NOT EVERY PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM.

THERE'S ALSO BAD BEHAVIOR BY MAJOR HOSPITAL CHAINS.

SO INSTEAD OF ASKING IS THIS A PRIVATE EQUITY PROBLEM, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS HEALTHY COMPETITION IN THE MARKETPLACE.

BY THE WAY, WE HAVE FEDERAL LAWS ON THAT.

WE NEED TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE MONOPOLISTIC BEHAVIOR.

WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS MORE FOCUS ON MAKING SURE PATIENTS ARE SAFE IN THE HOSPITAL.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT MEDICARE AND OTHER PAYERS CAN DO TO REALLY DRIVE THAT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT WE CARE ABOUT IS QUALITY, SAFETY, AFFORDABILITY.

WHAT I ARGUE FOR IS LET'S PAY ATTENTION TO THOSE METRICS AND IF A PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM CAN DO THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON.

>> ON THE ONE HAND, YOU'RE ASKING FOR SOME KIND OF FINANCIAL SUPERVISION ON, SAY, WHEN IS THERE A CERTAIN THRESHOLD THAT PRIVATE EQUITY TAKES OVER, IT TIPS OVER INTO KIND OF A MONOPOLY STATUS IN A PARTICULAR SUBGROUP OF HEALTH CARE.

BUT THEN HOW DO WE KIND OF ENFORCE JUST THE SAFETY PART OF IT?

HOW DO WE LOOK AT THE DATA AND SAY, HEY, WAIT, THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON HERE.

THE INFECTIONS OR DEATHS OR FALLS ARE RISING, AND WE SEE THE SORT OF CORRELATION MIGHT BE THIS.

I MEAN CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION, SO HOW DO WE TEASE THAT OUT?

>> SO THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT ROLE FOR AN AGENCY LIKE MEDICARE.

MEDICARE IS THE LARGEST PAYER OF HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA.

FOR A LONG TIME, MEDICARE HAS BEEN DEVELOPING METRICS ON QUALITY AND SAFETY FOR HOSPITALS, FOR DOCTORS.

AND WHAT I CALL FOR IS WHEN YOU HAVE A NEW TRANSACTION, A PRIVATE EQUITY FIRM BUYS A HEALTH SYSTEM, THAT SHOULD BE MONITORED.

MAKE SURE THAT PRICES DON'T GO UP.

MAKE SURE THAT QUALITY DOESN'T SUFFER.

MAKE SURE ADVERSE PATIENT EVENTS DON'T GO UP.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE VERY REASONABLE ROLES FOR REGULATORS, STATE REGULATORS AS WELL AS MEDICARE TO DO.

I THINK THEY SHOULD BE DOING THAT MUCH MORE BROADLY ACROSS THE ENTIRE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

BUT GIVEN WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH PRIVATE EQUITY, IT PROBABLY DESERVES A LITTLE EXTRA ATTENTION TO MAKE SURE PATIENTS ARE NOT BEING HARMED BY THIS KIND OF WORK.

>> GIVEN HOW STRAPPED MEDICARE IS, WHAT'S THE LIKELIHOOD THAT THEY CAN DO THIS?

>> WELL, THESE ARE POLICY DECISIONS WE HAVE TO MAKE AS A COUNTRY.

I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT.

CERTAINLY STATES ALSO OFTEN STRAPPED WITH THEIR REGULATORS.

I THINK THAT'S A PLACE WHERE, LOOK, IF WE UNDERFUND OUR GOVERNMENT ON THESE ISSUES, IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE WORKING AT FTC, IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH REGULATORS OVERSEEING AND MAKING SURE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT LEADING TO HARM, THEN WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW A LOT OF BAD BEHAVIOR TO HAPPEN, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THE MARKETS TO FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY.

MY VIEW IS MARKETS CAN BE A VERY IMPORTANT WAY TO MANAGE COSTS AND QUALITY, BUT THEY HAVE TO BE ENFORCED, AND THE RULES AROUND MONOPOLY BEHAVIOR HAVE TO BE ENFORCED.

IF WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY, WE HAVE TO BOLSTER THAT ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY.

>> HOW DO WE FIX THAT IN A POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT WHERE MONEY IS SPEECH, SO TO SPEAK, AND THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY PRETTY ACTIVE EFFORTS BY THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN PERPETUATING THE STATUS QUO?

>> THIS IS A PROBLEM I THINK ACROSS ALL OF OUR ECONOMY.

LOOK, WHEN COMPANIES BECOME MONOPOLIES, THEY LOVE BEING MONOPOLIES.

THEY CAN CHARGE MONOPOLY PRICES, AND THE WHOLE POINT OF OUR FEDERAL LAWS AGAINST MONOPOLIES IS THAT WE KNOW CONSUMERS DO BETTER WHEN THERE IS HEALTHY COMPETITION.

AND THAT SHOULD BE, BY THE WAY, TOTALLY BIPARTISAN.

I MEAN THE IDEA THAT MARKETS NEED TO FUNCTION AND THEY NEED TO FUNCTION EFFECTIVELY SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET BEHIND.

SO I'M HOPEFUL, AND WE HAVE SEEN BY THE WAY FOR FTC ENFORCEMENT, WE'VE SEEN GOOD ENFORCEMENT BOTH UNDER REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC ADMINISTRATIONS.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE REALLY AGGRESSIVELY ENFORCING THE RULES AND LAWS THAT ALREADY EXIST.

THAT, I THINK, IS REALLY IMPORTANT AND IT SHOULD REALLY BE BIPARTISAN.

>> DR. JHA, WHILE WE HAVE YOU HERE, THERE HAVE BEEN SEVERAL REPORTS RECENTLY ABOUT UPTICKS IN CANCERS IN PEOPLE UNDER 50.

MORE THAN 10%.

WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS?

>> YEAH.

THIS IS A CONCERNING TREND THAT WE'VE NOTICED.

IT'S NOT A BRAND-NEW PHENOMENON.

IT'S BEEN GOING UP FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME.

A LOT OF IT DRIVEN BY COLON CANCER RATES GOING UP PARTICULARLY AMONG YOUNGER PEOPLE.

IN TERMS OF WHAT WE SHOULD DO, IT MEANS WE SHOULD BE SCREENING PEOPLE EARLIER, LOOKING AT RISK FACTORS MORE.

THE QUESTION OF WHAT'S CAUSING IT, NOT COMPLETELY CLEAR.

WE DO KNOW FOR OTHER KINDS OF CANCER, OBESITY IS A MAJOR RISK FACTOR.

OBVIOUSLY RATES OF OBESITY HAVE GONE UP.

SMOKING CAN BE A RISK FACTOR.

THANKFULLY SMOKING RATES HAVE DECLINED IN THE COUNTRY, BUT THAT HAS ALSO FLATTENED IN CERTAIN GROUPS.

WE NEED TO DO MORE RESEARCH TO UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THE SOLUTION HERE IS WE'VE GOT TO MOVE TOWARDS MORE AGGRESSIVE SCREENING EARLIER IN CERTAIN POPULATIONS TO IDENTIFY THESE CANCERS EARLY AND DEAL WITH IT.

>> THIS IS NOT JUST HAPPENING IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT IT WAS ALSO HAPPENING IN PARTS OF WESTERN EUROPE AND AUSTRALIA.

WHILE THERE MIGHT BE SPECIFIC DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCES, I MEAN IS THERE SORT OF A SOCIOLOGICAL SIMILARITY THAT WE CAN START TO SAY, HEY, BUT HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO SOUTH ASIANS OR SOUTH AMERICANS OR AFRICANS?

>> YEAH.

IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

WHAT I WOULD ARGUE IS THAT RIGHT NOW, MOST OF THE DATA THAT IS LOOKING AT THIS IS BEING COLLECTED IN THE U.S., COLLECTED IN WESTERN EUROPE, AUSTRALIA.

SO THIS PHENOMENON MAY VERY WELL BE HAPPENING IN OTHER PLACES LIKE CHINA OR SOUTH ASIA OR LATIN AMERICA.

THE SCREENING SYSTEMS FOR CANCER ARE NOT AS ROBUST IN THOSE PLACES.

IT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK COUNTRIES LIKE INDIA, FOR INSTANCE, NEEDS TO DO MORE OF IS STARTING TO PUT MORE ATTENTION ON SCREENING FOR CANCER.

MY SENSE IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN THESE COUNTRIES IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE LOOKING.

AND THIS IS PROBABLY MORE OF A BROADER PHENOMENON, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE SCREENING SYSTEMS SET UP IN OTHER PLACES TO KNOW FOR SURE WHETHER IT'S HAPPENING IN OTHER PLACES AS WELL.

>> WHEN YOU LOOK FROM LIKE A 30,000 OR MAYBE A FIVE MILES UP VIEW, CONSIDERING HOW MUCH AMERICANS AND THE AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM PAYS, AND THE FACT THAT AS GOOD AS WE ARE, WE STILL HAVE SO MANY GLARING INEFFICIENCIES, DEFICIENCIES, CRACKS WHERE PEOPLE SLIP THROUGH, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE ALTER THAT?

I MEAN HOW DO WE TRY TO MAYBE MAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A PROACTIVE AND PREVENTIVE SYSTEM VERSUS A REACTIVE SYSTEM AFTER THE PEOPLE HAVE THE DISEASES?

>> YEAH.

THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS.

ONE IS WE'VE HAD A PAYMENT SYSTEM THAT HAS PAID PIECEMEAL.

IT PAYS FOR VISITS.

IT PAYS FOR A DOCTOR'S VISIT OR THE HOSPITALIZATION.

WE HAVE STARTED A SHIFT THAT ACTUALLY BEGAN IN THE GEORGE W. BUSH ADMINISTRATION, ACCELERATED UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA, BUT STILL NOT AS FAR ALONG AS IT NEEDS TO BE, WHICH IS TO MOVE PAYMENTS TOWARD A POPULATION LEVEL PAYMENT.

YOU PAY THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TO TAKE CARE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION, AND YOU PAY THEM TO KEEP THAT POPULATION HEALTHY.

THAT HAS BEEN A TRAJECTORY, BUT I THINK IT HAS GONE TOO SLOW.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ACCELERATED.

THE SECOND PART IS SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT, WHICH IS THE IMPORTANCE OF COMPETITION IN HEALTH CARE.

IT TURNS OUT IN MOST AMERICAN HEALTH CARE MARKETS, HEALTH CARE IS VERY, VERY CONCENTRATED.

THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH DIFFERENT TYPES OF DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS.

WHAT THAT HAS MEANT IS THAT THAT FOCUS ON QUALITY AND PREVENTION JUST HASN'T REALLY BEEN THERE.

AND I THINK MORE COMPETITION IN THE MARKETPLACE, MORE OF A FOCUS ON A DIFFERENT WAY OF PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE, ALL OF THOSE THINGS CAN DRIVE IT.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A ROLE FOR GOVERNMENT IN A LOT OF EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

WE SEE VERY CLEAR REGULATORY APPROACHES THAT COUNTRIES TAKE ON THESE ISSUES.

THAT HAS BEEN LESS POPULAR, I WOULD SAY, IN THE UNITED STATES.

THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF GETTING THERE, BUT THAT IS ANOTHER MECHANISM WE COULD BE USING.

>> DR. ASHISH JHA, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.

>>> AND FINALLY, OSCAR NOMINATIONS HAVE HIT HOLLYWOOD AS PEOPLE'S FAVORITE FILMS BATTLE IT OUT NOW FOR THE BIG PRIZES.

MANY OF THEM WE'VE SHOWCASED ON THIS VERY PROGRAM.

IT WAS A GOOD DAY TO BE SANDRA HULA.

NOT ONLY DID SHE BECOME THE FIRST GERMAN WOMAN TO BE NOMINATED FOR BEST ACTRESS SINCE THE 1930s, BOTH OF HER FILMS, ANATOMY OF A FILM, AND THE ZONE OF INTEREST, WERE NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE, BEST DIRECTOR, AND BEST SCREENPLAY.

THE ZONE OF INTEREST IS GAINING MAJOR BUZZ FOR ITS TIMELY PORTRAYAL OF THE HOLOCAUST FROM THE JARRING ADJACENT PERSPECTIVE OF THE AUSCHWITZ COMMANDS ANT'S FAMILY.

HERE'S WHAT HULA TOLD ME ABOUT WHAT SHE AND THE DIRECTOR DID NOT WANT TO EXPLOIT THE TRAUMA OF THAT TIME, BUT INSTEAD SHOW HOW MUCH PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY IGNORE IN EXCHANGE FOR DAILY COMFORTS.

>> HE WAS INTERESTED IN OUR CONNECTION TO THE PERPETRATORS.

WHAT CONNECTS US TO THEM?

WHAT IS THERE NOT SO MUCH DIFFERENCE MAYBE, BECAUSE WHAT WOULD WE DO TO HAVE A LITTLE COMFORT IN OUR LIVES, TO HAVE OUR LITTLE GARDEN AND SEND OUR CHILDREN TO SCHOOL AND NOT BE BOTHERED BY ANYTHING THAT GOES ON BEYOND THE WALL?

SO HE CHOSE THIS PERSPECTIVE TO SHOW THAT, YEAH, THEY ARE CONNECTED TO US TODAY.

>> AND IT IS AN EXTRAORDINARY TAKE.

NOW, IN THE BEST ACTOR CATEGORY, COLMAN DOMINGO GOT HIS FIRST NOMINATION IN "RUSS TIN."

HE TOLD HARI SREENIVASAN ON THIS PROGRAM THAT HE HAD POURED 32 YEARS INTO THE ROLE OF MARTIN LUTHER KING'S GOOD FRIEND AND ORGANIZER OF THE MARCH ON WASHINGTON.

AND OVER IN DOCUMENTARIES, WE'RE DELIGHTED TO HAVE FEATURED THREE OF THE NOMINATIONS.

BOBI WINE, 20 DAYS IN MARIUPOL, ABOUT THE TERRIBLE RUSSIAN SIEGE AND ZRUKZ OF THAT UKRAINIAN CITY.

AND TO KILL A TIGER, ABOUT SEEKING JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF SEXUAL ABUSE IN INDIA.

AND FINALLY WE COULDN'T TALK ABOUT CINEMA IN 2023 WITHOUT MENTIONING THE "B" WORD.

THAT'S RIGHT, "BARBIE."

THE MEGA HIT NABBED EIGHT NOMINATIONS, INCLUDING SUPPORTING ACTRESS FOR AMERICA FERRERA, WHO DELIVERED THE MOVIE'S KNOCKOUT MONOLOGUE.

HERE'S WHAT SHE TOLD ME ABOUT WHY SHE HAD TAKEN A CHANCE ON THAT ROLE.

>> WHEN I -- WHEN I FIRST READ THE SCRIPT, EVERYTHING BEFORE AND AFTER AND INCLUDING THE MONOLOGUE, I KNOW THAT I WAS JUST BLOWN AWAY, AND IT WAS ALL JUST SO UNEXPECTED.

AND AS A WOMAN, I WAS JUST SO EXCITED, YOU KNOW, THAT IT'S THE BARBIE MOVIE THAT NO ONE ASKED FOR, THAT NO ONE THOUGHT WE NEEDED.

>> AND I WONDER WHAT SHERE HITE WOULD HAVE MADE OF THIS.

THAT'S IT FOR OUR PROGRAM TONIGHT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT'S COMING UP ON THE SHOW EVERY NIGHT, SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER AT PBS.ORG/AMANPOUR.

THANKS FOR WATCHING AND GOODBYE FROM LONDON.

♪♪