‘Chaotic and deeply frightening': Once a global gold standard, U.S. government health guidance is falling apart
Many returned after a February court order. But they came with an unusual addition: a disclaimer from the Department of Health and Human Services denying facts provided by its own agencies.
'Any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female,' reads a statement now appended to several government webpages, including some discussing HIV, civil rights protections and healthcare for transgender people. 'This page does not reflect biological reality and therefore the Administration and this Department rejects it.'
Once a global leader in public health guidance, the U.S. government is now embarking on the unusual project of denying or deleting once-public information provided by its own researchers.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program's entire website went dark Monday, taking with it an extensive report on the health effects of climate change whose authors included employees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other government agencies.
Dozens of research databases maintained by the National Institutes of Health on topics such cancer and Alzheimer's disease now display a warning that they are 'under review for potential modification in compliance with Administration directives.'
Some federal sites have added new pages that at times contradict evidence-based guidance posted on the same site. CDC.gov currently hosts both a recent presentation by vaccine skeptic Lyn Redwood about the dangers of the preservative thimerosal, as well as a fact sheet published in December debunking many of the incorrect statements about thimerosal that anti-vaccine campaigners have advanced. (The site also notes that thimerosal was removed from U.S. childhood vaccines in 2001.)
The consequence, physicians and child health advocates said this week, is having fewer tools to help healthcare providers and the public make informed decisions, further eroding the public's trust in science.
'Use whatever analogy you want to use — this is a five-alarm fire,' said Dr. Sean O'Leary, a pediatric infectious-disease specialist who chairs the American Academy of Pediatrics' infectious-disease committee.
'One day the information is there, and the next day it's gone. And it's being driven purely by politics and not by science. It's dystopian, frankly,' O'Leary said. 'The CDC is a model for the world in terms of what they do for the U.S. population, and that is being harmed in a very profound way.'
O'Leary was one of several physicians The Times spoke with who stressed that the contradictory messages emerging from U.S. government agencies were not a sign of a fracturing consensus among public health professionals, but of the administration's turn away from those professionals' expertise.
The nation's various scientific societies, professional groups and medical associations 'are all in alignment,' O'Leary said. 'There is no disagreement among us that what is happening is chaotic and deeply frightening for the American people.'
For the first time since the 1990s, the American Academy of Pediatrics no longer endorses the CDC's childhood vaccination schedule. Visitors to the academy site are directed not to the CDC's most recent guidelines, which no longer suggest outright that children get the COVID-19 vaccine, but to a version published in November that retains the recommendation that it be given only to children 6 months and older.
After the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted last month to recommend only thimerosal-free flu shots and drop COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy pregnant people without the scientific input the group typically receives before such decisions, both the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued statements denouncing the committee's recommendations. (Roughly 96% of the flu shots administered last year did not contain thimerosal, according to the CDC.)
The CDC now deems the COVID shot a 'shared clinical decision-making vaccination' for children. Unlike routine or risk-based vaccine recommendations, this designation is 'individually based and informed by a decision process between the health care provider and the patient or parent/guardian,' according to CDC.gov.
But by depleting and muddying the information it makes publicly available, the administration is depriving parents of the evidence-based data they need to make responsible decisions, said Bruce Lesley, president of the child health-advocacy group First Focus on Children.
'We all should rely on some sort of expertise and protections,' Lesley said. 'There's no way to be able to put that burden on parents and to expect that it's just going to be all fine.'
The CDC website in particular has long been a resource that physicians and other healthcare providers rely on to stay abreast of evidence-based recommendations for treatment and emerging health trends around the country, doctors said.
'What all this is doing is causing a great deal of confusion, and not just for our families and our patients, but also for our providers and our doctors,' said Dr. Eric Ball, an Orange County pediatrician and the American Academy of Pediatrics' California chair. 'We rely on accurate information from our public health sources so that we can help best take care of our patients, and when we can't trust those sources, that makes it more difficult for us to do our jobs and endangers the health of our communities.'
Since Trump took office, several independent efforts have sprung up to archive what data can be saved from government websites before its withdrawn or deleted, such as the Data Rescue Project and RestoredCDC.org.
But the patchwork of alternatives can't replace what CDC.gov has long been for the U.S. public — a single-stop clearinghouse for evidence-based information presented in plain language, said Dr. Tina Tan, a professor of pediatrics at Northwestern University's Feinberg School of Medicine and the president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.
'The question now is who do you trust, and where do you get trusted information? And that's a major issue,' Tan said. 'The American public needs to understand that all these changes are going to have some type of impact on them.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Health savings accounts get small tweaks in tax bill
Health savings accounts were poised to get a big boost in Trump's signature tax package. That didn't happen. While the House version of the bill included several changes to enhance the use and benefits of health savings accounts (HSAs), the version that ultimately passed made only three changes, Kaye L. Pestaina, vice president and director of KFF's program on patient and consumer protection, told Yahoo Finance. 'It expands HSAs with new things people can use their HSA dollars for,' she said. Here's a rundown of the provisions included in the legislation that will be effective Jan. 2, 2026. Read more: What is a health savings account (HSA)? Concierge medical care qualifies. A Direct Primary Care (DPC) plan, often called a concierge healthcare plan, offers personalized, top-drawer healthcare services for a membership fee paid directly to a physician or practice for access to services. 'There had been some open questions about whether a consumer getting care from a DPC entity still was able to have a qualified HSA," she said. 'This will expand HSA holders' incentive to use DPC.' Under current law, many of these arrangements are not eligible to be paid for with your HSA money. In the new bill, certain DPC fees would be HSA eligible if the fee does not exceed $150 monthly for individuals, or $300 monthly where more than one individual is covered. By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy More health insurance plans can provide HSAs. Individual marketplace bronze and catastrophic plans would be treated as HSA-qualified high-deductible health plans. Under existing law, these plans offered in the individual market are not considered HDHPs, so they're ineligible to be paired with an HSA. To be HSA eligible, consumers must have an HDHP that meets specific IRS rules. Many bronze plans available on the marketplace have a high deductible, but they do not meet all of the IRS requirements (for instance, they have a different out-of-pocket maximum than the IRS requires). Now, all bronze and catastrophic plans would be treated as HSA-qualified HDHPs and allow all consumers with these plans to use their HSA to pay for out-of-pocket costs. 'This would broaden Marketplace plan choices for consumers with HSAs,' Pestaina said. Calling for care. The new legislation will allow those with an HSA to use those funds to pay for telehealth. 'These consumers would be able to access medical care (presumably any type) if provided via telehealth or remote monitoring without having to first pay the high deductible. This adds a benefit for HSA consumers that those with a high deductible plan but without an HSA do not have,' Pestaina said. An HSA offers a triple tax advantage. It's the only account that lets you put money in on a tax-free basis, lets that money build up tax-free, and lets it come out tax-free for qualified healthcare expenses. (Some states assess state taxes.) In order to put money into an HSA, you must be enrolled in a high-deductible health plan (HDHP). In those plans, you pay a lower premium per month than other types of health insurance plans, but a heftier annual deductible (the amount you pay for covered medical costs before insurance kicks in). Read more: HSA contribution limits for 2025: Here's how much you can saveFor 2025, that translates to a deductible of at least $1,650 for individual coverage and $3,300 for family coverage. You can also open an HSA as a self-employed freelancer or business owner if you have a qualified high-deductible health plan. Some employers match contributions to HSAs, similar to employer-provided retirement savings accounts. Your contributions roll over year after year and are yours to keep when you retire or change employers. There's a hefty 20% penalty on any withdrawal amount not used toward a qualified medical expense, and you'll pay income tax on the disqualified sum. For anyone 65 or older, the penalty is gone, meaning you can withdraw funds for any purpose and only pay income tax on it if it's not a qualified medical expense. Kerry Hannon is a Senior Columnist at Yahoo Finance. She is a career and retirement strategist and the author of 14 books, including the forthcoming "Retirement Bites: A Gen X Guide to Securing Your Financial Future," "In Control at 50+: How to Succeed in the New World of Work," and "Never Too Old to Get Rich." Follow her on Bluesky. Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republican megabill will mean higher health costs for many Americans
This story is from Kaiser Health News The tax and spending legislation the House voted to send to President Donald Trump's desk on Thursday, enacting much of his domestic agenda, cuts federal health spending by about $1 trillion over a decade in ways that will jeopardize the physical and financial health of tens of millions of Americans. The bill, passed in both the House and the Senate without a single Democratic vote, is expected to reverse many of the health coverage gains of the Biden and Obama administrations. Their policies made it easier for millions of people to access health care and reduced the U.S. uninsured rate to record lows, though Republicans say the trade-off was far higher costs borne by taxpayers and increased fraud. Under the legislation Trump's expected to sign on Friday, Independence Day, reductions in federal support for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplaces will cause nearly 12 million more people to be without insurance by 2034, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. That in turn is expected to undermine the finances of hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers — which will have to absorb more of the cost of treating uninsured people. Some may reduce services and employees or close altogether. Here are five ways the GOP's plans may affect health care access. Need Medicaid? Then get a job The deepest cuts to health care spending come from a proposed Medicaid work requirement, which is expected to end coverage for millions of enrollees who do not meet new employment or reporting standards. In 40 states and Washington, D.C., all of which have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, some Medicaid enrollees will have to regularly file paperwork proving that they are working, volunteering, or attending school at least 80 hours a month, or that they qualify for an exemption, such as caring for a young child. The new requirement will start as early as January 2027. The bill's requirement doesn't apply to people in the 10 largely GOP-led states that have not expanded Medicaid to nondisabled adults. Health researchers say the policy will have little impact on employment. Most working-age Medicaid enrollees who don't receive disability benefits already work or are looking for work, or are unable to do so because they have a disability, attend school, or care for a family member, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. State experiments with work requirements have been plagued with administrative issues, such as eligible enrollees losing coverage over paperwork problems, and budget overruns. Georgia's work requirement, which officially launched in July 2023, has cost more than $90 million, with only $26 million of that spent on health benefits, according to the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization. "The hidden costs are astronomical," said Chima Ndumele, a professor at the Yale School of Public Health. Less cash means less care in rural communities Belt-tightening that targets states could translate into fewer health services, medical professionals and even hospitals, especially in rural communities. The GOP's plan curtails a practice, known as provider taxes, that nearly every state has used for decades to increase Medicaid payments to hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers and private managed-care companies. States often use the federal money generated through taxes to pay the institutions more than Medicaid would otherwise pay. Medicaid generally pays lower fees for care than Medicare, the program for people over 65 and some with disabilities, and private insurance. But thanks to provider taxes, some hospitals are paid more under Medicaid than Medicare, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a health research nonprofit. Hospitals and nursing homes say they use these extra Medicaid dollars to expand or add new services and improve care for all patients. Rural hospitals typically operate on thin profit margins and rely on payments from Medicaid taxes to sustain them. Researchers from the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research who examined the original House version of the bill concluded it would push more than 300 rural hospitals — many of them in Kentucky, Louisiana, California, and Oklahoma — toward service reductions or closure. Republicans in the Senate tacked a $50 billion fund onto the legislation to cushion the blow to rural hospitals. The money will be distributed starting in 2027 and continuing for five years. Harder to get and keep ACA coverage For those with Obamacare plans, the new legislation will make it harder to enroll and to retain their coverage. Affordable Care Act marketplace policyholders will be required to update their income, immigration status and other information each year, rather than be allowed to automatically reenroll — something more than 10 million people did this year. They'll also have less time to enroll; the bill shortens the annual open enrollment period by about a month. People applying for coverage outside that period — for instance because they lose a job or other insurance or need to add a newborn or spouse to an existing policy — will have to wait for all their documents to be processed before receiving government subsidies to help pay their monthly premiums. Currently, they get up to 90 days of premium help during the application process, which can take weeks. Republican lawmakers and some conservative policy think tanks, including the Paragon Health Institute, said the changes are needed to reduce fraudulent enrollments, while opponents say they represent Trump's best effort to undo Obamacare. The legislation also does not call for an extension of more generous premium subsidies put in place during the covid pandemic. If Congress doesn't act, those enhanced subsidies will expire at year's end, resulting in premiums rising by an average of 75% next year, according to KFF. On Medicaid? Pay more to see doctors Many Medicaid enrollees can expect to pay more out-of-pocket for appointments. Trump's legislation requires states that have expanded Medicaid to charge enrollees up to $35 for some services if their incomes are between the federal poverty level (this year, $15,650 for an individual) and 138% of that amount ($21,597). Medicaid enrollees often don't pay anything when seeking medical services because studies have shown charging even small copayments prompts low-income people to forgo needed care. In recent years, some states have added charges under $10 for certain services. The policy won't apply to people seeking primary care, mental health care or substance abuse treatment. The bill allows states to enact even higher cost sharing for enrollees who seek emergency room care for nonemergencies. But if Medicaid patients fail to pay, hospitals and other providers could be left to foot the bill. Cuts for lawfully present immigrants The GOP plan could cause at least hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are lawfully present — including asylum-seekers, victims of trafficking and refugees — to lose their ACA marketplace coverage by cutting off the subsidies that make premiums affordable. The restriction won't apply to green-card holders. Because the immigrants who will lose subsidies under the legislation tend to be younger than the overall U.S. population, their exit would leave an older, sicker, and costlier population of marketplace enrollees, further pushing up marketplace premiums, according to marketplace directors in California, Maryland, and Massachusetts and health analysts. Taking health care access away from immigrants living in the country legally "will do irreparable harm to individuals we have promised to protect and impose unnecessary costs on local systems already under strain," John Slocum, executive director of Refugee Council USA, an advocacy group, said in a statement. The bill reflects the Trump administration's restrictive approach to immigration. But because it ran afoul of Senate rules, the legislation doesn't include a proposal that would have reduced federal Medicaid payments to states such as California that use their own money to cover immigrants without legal status.
Los Angeles Times
44 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Here's how to get GLP-1 drugs covered by employer health insurance
While the new anti-obesity medications known as GLP-1s are only one tool to combat obesity and cardiometabolic disease, they have changed the medical landscape and are clinically important in treating these diseases. Yet most Americans who have health insurance cannot get coverage for them. For some, the only option has been to resort to compounded drugs for which the Food and Drug Administration has not assured the safety, and for which the main pharmaceutical ingredient is made in Chinese chemical factories without the quality standards of FDA-approved branded drugs. Even that inferior option is going away, as the FDA has declared that the name-brand drugs are no longer in short supply and so the off-brand drugs are no longer allowed. President Trump recently called out 'the fat shot' when he told pharmaceutical companies to offer the United States the same pricing they offer other peer nations. He related a story of a friend in London who told him the price of GLP-1s there is about one-tenth of what it would cost in the U.S. The average listed price in the U.S. is more than $1,000 a month. In England, it is about $150. There is not yet legislative authority to require pharmaceutical companies to sell prescription drugs in the United States at lower prices, but there is a straightforward way that these medications can become affordable to many in the United States. Most employee health insurance coverage is through employer-sponsored plans, in which the budget is based on premiums contributed by both the employer and employee. Few plans provide coverage for any weight loss treatment, but if they did, it would have to fit in that budget — which would probably necessitate raising premiums. Toxic fat is the cause of many cardiometabolic conditions, and GLP-1 drugs can help people reclaim their health. Improving access and affordability could be transformative for public health, given that about 88% of Americans are metabolically unhealthy. Increasingly, employees are telling their employers that they want access to these medications, and many employers would like to offer plans that cover them. The brand-name manufacturers themselves provide a clue to how this could be possible. They offer their drugs directly to patients for around $500 a month. The sticking points? People whose employee-sponsored health insurance would cover even part of the cost of weight loss drugs are not eligible for that reduced price. Also, at $500 a month, even the discounted direct-to-consumer price still makes the drugs unaffordable to many. Drug pricing in the United States is not transparent, and many entities get a share of the dollars that the health plans have budgeted. Simplifying the system with the GLP-1 drugs could make these drugs more accessible. Today, a drug bought from the drug company at $1,000 can include around a $300 rebate negotiated by a pharmacy benefit manager (working on behalf of the employer-sponsored health plan) and is often accompanied by a $150 manufacturer's discount coupon. The resulting price is similar to the around $500 price that drug companies offer directly to patients who don't have coverage for these drugs. If we eliminate the rebates and coupons, so that manufacturers only charge employer-sponsored health plans the same $500 price they charge consumers directly, and then allow employers to contribute part of the cost (say $300 a month), we can get the out-of-pocket costs for employees close to the price at which these drugs are sold in other countries. It would be a rebate-free, coupon-free system with reasonable cost sharing by the employer. The only reason that system of rebates even came to exist was to create enticements so certain manufacturers could persuade pharmacy benefit managers and employee-sponsored health plans to favor their drug over others'. But in this case, where only two main drugs exist and both have publicly available clinical trial data that physicians can use to make informed prescribing decisions, rebates aren't needed. In reality, recent agreements between pharmacy benefit managers and drug manufacturers have prioritized financial interests over clinical appropriateness, determining drug preference based on what benefits the companies, not what's best for the patient. Getting the price of the drugs to an affordable level would significantly remove one of the most despised aspects of the healthcare system — prior approval authorization. Doctors' offices are expending resources to get around barriers erected to limit the use of healthcare plan dollars on expensive medications for those the insurance plan and its managers determine do not need the drug, even when the doctors believe they do. GLP-1s are highly effective for most people, but they also have some serious risks. We should leave it to doctors to make shared decisions with their patients about whether the risks outweigh the benefits. To further create incentives for the pharmaceutical companies to reduce their prices and for employers to share in the cost of these drugs, the Trump administration should agree, as the Biden administration did, to cover them under Medicare. (Trump reversed that effort this year, barring Medicare and Medicaid from using them to treat the disease of obesity.) This plan to simplify payments and expand access would not make all drugs affordable in the United States, but increasing accessibility to GLP-1s can get us on the road to eliminating the significant problem of cardiometabolic disease and improving our health. David A. Kessler, a former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, is the author of 'Diet, Drugs, and Dopamine: The New Science of Achieving a Healthy Weight.'
