The Trump administration wants to ‘kill the clipboard'
Roughly 60 entities in the health care sector will pledge to making patient data more accessible and speeding its delivery among patients, clinicians and payers, according to an HHS employee granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive plans. The White House and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are expected to announce the commitments on Wednesday, Ruth reported last week.
The agency hopes the commitments will stoke companies to make it easier for patients to import their data into an app of their choice, where they can manage their day-to-day health and easily share their history with doctors.
Pledges, not rules: The Trump administration has sought such commitments to compel the industry to make changes without having to engage in a lengthy rulemaking or guidance process.
But the federal government has tried similar tactics in the past.
In 2016, the then-secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Sylvia Burwell, under President Barack Obama, announced at a health IT conference that dozens of health industry organizations would commit to easing the flow of health information to patients. Nearly 10 years later, those voluntary commitments haven't materialized into better data access.
Still, the Trump administration thinks it can appeal to the private sector more effectively.
A joint effort: In a video posted Friday, Amy Gleason, strategic adviser to HHS and CMS and the acting administrator of the Department of Government Efficiency, asked viewers to envision the ability to instantly share their medical history via a QR code or manage their medications with an app.
'The future of health care technology can't come only from the government,' said Gleason. 'The apps, services and tools that make this data useful in people's lives comes from you, the private sector.'
Even though evidence that public pledges are more effective than regulation is scarce, industry might welcome the approach.
'The risk of … incremental regulatory compliance stuff is that you wind up spending all of your time trying to check boxes,' said Joe Ganley, vice president of regulatory affairs at electronic health record company Athenahealth.
What to watch for on Wednesday: The White House announcement is largely being driven by CMS, but the event could have implications for the ONC.
Health providers, data networks and payers are committing to expanding their use of Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources, an open standard for transmitting data, according to a partial draft of a document obtained by POLITICO.
The increased use of FHIR may portend a shift in ONC's regulatory scope.
In her announcement, Gleason called on the health industry to help the government 'kill the clipboard.'
'Kill the Clipboard' is the name of a 2025 white paper by Ryan Howells, a one-time contender to lead the ONC and a principal at health management association Leavitt Partners based in Washington. It proposed ONC oversee how health care entities use FHIR.
Could ONC shift how it regulates and will this come up at the event? We'll be watching.
More to watch for: The draft also mandates data networks — entities that facilitate data exchange — create record-locating services. Requiring such services could be a boon for the ONC-supported data network, the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement, also known as TEFCA. Requiring those services could enable doctors to quickly access their patients' complete medical histories across providers, eliminating time-consuming record requests to multiple clinics.
WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE
This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care.
Exercise, diet and socializing are key to slowing cognitive decline as people age, according to a new study, CNN reports.
Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@politico.com, Ruth Reader at rreader@politico.com or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@politico.com.
Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01.
WORLD VIEW
Dr. Jean-Claude Mulunda is concerned that the halt of U.S. funding for contraceptives will lead to an increase in the number of unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, his home country.
Mulunda leads the country's chapter of IPAS, an international nonprofit that aims to expand access to legal abortion and contraception.
Women there 'see themselves becoming pregnant just because there's no [contraceptive] method available,' Mulunda told Future Pulse.
Why it matters: The DRC has depended almost entirely on foreign-funded family-planning commodities, such as birth control pills, intrauterine devices, long-acting injectable drugs and condoms.
But since the Trump administration cut foreign aid and dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, which funded contraceptives, many clinics across the vast African country have been left without any stock, Mulunda said.
He's also worried that more women will seek unlicensed contraceptives from unauthorized suppliers, which could lead to potentially dangerous consequences if the products are unsafe.
That could also lead women to lose trust in contraception, Mulunda worries.
Meanwhile: The U.S. government is set to destroy 'certain [abortion-inducing] birth control commodities from terminated Biden-era USAID contracts,' a State Department spokesperson told Future Pulse.
The spokesperson didn't specify the types of contraceptives covered but added that no HIV drugs or condoms would be destroyed.
The Mexico City Policy: The federal government can't provide the contraceptives, including those it considers to be non-abortion-inducing, to entities that don't abide by the U.S.'s Mexico City Policy, the spokesperson said.
The policy prohibits U.S. funding from going to so-called foreign non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, that provide or promote abortion with funding from non-U.S. sources. President Donald Trump reinstated the policy — which all Republican presidents since Ronald Reagan have done — upon his return to office in January.
Going to waste? The contraceptives, stored in Belgium and set to be destroyed in France, have prompted calls for interventions from those countries' governments.
A Belgian foreign ministry spokesperson told NPR on Monday that the country is exploring possible avenues to prevent the contraceptives from being destroyed.
And in France, four members of the left-wing green political coalition, the Ecologists, asked President Emmanuel Macron in a public letter to find a way to impede the contraceptives' destruction and supply the products to NGOs interested in bringing them to their intended beneficiaries in low-income countries.
'Mister President, our country cannot become an accomplice, even indirectly, to backward policies, and cannot tolerate that vital medical resources be destroyed when they could save lives, prevent unwanted pregnancies and contribute to women's autonomy,' the lawmakers wrote.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
a few seconds ago
- CNN
‘It's just PR': Skittles, Hershey and Nestle are removing artificial colors
Food & health Chronic diseases Donald Trump Federal agenciesFacebookTweetLink Follow The Trump administration declared victory after Kraft Heinz, Skittles and General Mills made splashy announcements to remove artificial colors — even taking credit for Coca-Cola's plan to replace high-fructose corn syrup with US cane sugar in a new version this fall. 'President Trump delivers on MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) push,' the White House said last month, touting the companies' changes to 'confront the chronic health crisis plaguing Americans.' But nutritionists and public health researchers don't buy the hype. So far, companies have only made performative changes, they say, many of which were long in the works due to consumer demand for natural ingredients. Meanwhile, the administration's funding cuts for health care, food stamps, research and public health programs run contrary to its goal of making Americans healthier. 'These are cosmetic changes with no health impact. They just allow the MAHA people to say they had a victory,' said Dr. Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. 'It's just PR.' Health advocates do credit Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services Department secretary, and his MAHA movement for bringing attention to unhealthy foods, chronic disease and major companies' influence on the food system in America. But researchers say Kennedy's focus on synthetic dyes misses the larger problem of the prevalence of cheap, convenient foods loaded with salt, sugar and fat. Ice cream is still ice cream and soda is still soda, even without artificial flavors, Popkin said. A spokesperson for the HHS said Kennedy is 'dismantling the status quo that fueled a nationwide chronic disease epidemic' and 'eliminating bureaucracy and restoring integrity to federal health programs.' 'HHS is confronting the root causes of chronic illness that previous administrations were too timid to address,' the spokesperson added. But for Kennedy and the administration to make a substantive impact on Americans' diets, researchers say they will have to implement policies that tightly regulate ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods account for up to 70% of the US food supply, and include many popular brands of chips, cookies, candy, ice cream and pre-made meals. Studies have frequently linked them to obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other health disorders. Kennedy has called the easy availability of these foods a 'crisis,' and oversaw the White House's Make America Healthy Again Commission report released in May that identifies ultraprocessed foods as a key contributor to a national rise in chronic illnesses — particularly among children. The agency has yet to enact any significant measures to cut down on ultraprocessed foods. 'Right now, they're not going after the real food culprit,' Popkin said. 'If Kennedy does anything significant on ultraprocessed foods, it will be hugely important for health.' Synthetic dyes, made from petroleum, are often used to make food and beverages brightly colored and appealing to customers, especially children. But they have potential negative effects on animal and human health, including possible increased risk of cancer and neurobehavioral issues in some children. In January, the US Food and Drug Administration banned red dye No. 3 in food, beverages and ingested drugs. Kennedy has been pressuring food companies to voluntarily remove all food dyes from their products. But many have been moving away from synthetic dyes for years due to pressure from consumers, health advocates and bans or restrictions in states like California, Virginia and West Virginia. For example, both Kraft Heinz and General Mills — which the administration recently celebrated for pledging to remove synthetic colors — have already removed the additives from most of their products. '(As) much as I love the idea of getting rid of artificial colors, doing so is a nutritionally meaningless way of giving compliant junk foods the aura of health foods,' said Dr. Marion Nestle, an emeritus professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University. Roughly 64% of consumers now actively look for snacks perceived as 'good for them,' a figure that has increased sharply in recent years, according to market research firm Circana. Yogurt, cheeses and foods and drinks with protein have proliferated due to their nutritional appeal. This is also not the first time companies have made voluntary pledges to remove artificial dyes from their products. But many have backtracked on their commitments. 'We hope industry will voluntarily improve the food supply this time around,' said Aviva Musicus, the science director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group. 'There has to be a plan to hold industry accountable for when they inevitably don't cooperate. I haven't seen that for this administration.' The Consumer Brands Association, a trade group representing major food, beverage and household product companies, did not respond directly to this criticism. But the group pointed to an April statement that said the industry has 'always prioritized transparency and it will continue to lead the way to ensure consumers have the information they want and need to make informed purchasing decisions.' And slapping foods with a broad definition of ultraprocessed may result in 'demonizing safe, shelf-ready foods' that will limit consumers' access to nutritious foods, the group said. While HHS focuses on food additives, many of the Trump administration's other policies weaken government efforts to improve the food supply and Americans' health, critics say. Trump's sweeping tax and spending cuts package is expected to leave 10 million more people without health insurance in 2034, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate. More than 22 million families will lose some or all of their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, according to the Urban Institute. The law eliminated funding for programs that offer cooking classes and nutrition education for SNAP recipients, and the Agriculture Department cut two pandemic-era programs that help schools and food banks buy from local farmers. 'While MAHA leadership celebrates hollow wins, we've seen the federal government cut SNAP benefits for millions of Americans, rip millions from their health insurance coverage (and) slash programs to help farmers bring local foods into schools,' Musicus said. The administration is not just cutting health care and food benefits — it also slashed billions in research funding and fired thousands of employees at the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and other agencies. The top nutrition researcher at NIH, who focused on studying ultraprocessed foods, left the agency, citing censorship under Kennedy. (HHS previously denied the claims.) These research cuts and layoffs may make it impossible to enact stricter rules or investigate the food industry, said Dr. Jerold Mande, an adjunct professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and a senior policy official in the Obama and Clinton administrations. 'They've also lost tens of thousands of people across government to do these investigations,' he said. At the same time, some health experts are hopeful Kennedy will seize on political momentum to make major policy changes to improve Americans' diets. 'I do give RFK Jr. a lot of credit for making chronic disease caused by our food, principally obesity, a political priority,' Mande said. 'I give them an incomplete in terms of what they're going to do about it.' In August, the MAHA Commission will release the second report on its strategy for improving childhood chronic obesity. Advocates will be looking to see if the report signals the administration may try to mandate front-of-package warning labels or crack down on marketing junk food to children. The report may also provide clues to whether the administration will create dietary guidelines with recommendations for limits to ultraprocessed foods. These would be major moves, but they may clash with the administration's deregulatory agenda. 'People are right to question what the lasting policy change is going to be,' Mande said, noting that removing artificial colors matters only if Kennedy is 'laying the groundwork to take on ultraprocessed food broadly.' CNN's Kristen Rogers contributed to this article.
CBS News
a few seconds ago
- CBS News
New Medicaid federal work requirements mean less leeway for states
When President Trump signed a law adding work requirements for some Medicaid recipients, he may have undercut lawmakers in at least 14 states who were designing their own plans, according to health industry observers. Georgia is the only state with a work requirement in place for Medicaid, but several states have been pursuing such a policy for years, only to be blocked by courts or, most recently, the Biden administration. Some seek state-specific touches to the new rules. Others aim to implement work requirements before the federal law takes effect at the end of 2026. These states' moves and Mr. Trump's massive tax-and-spending law share one demand: To keep their Medicaid health coverage, adults who can work must prove they're logging a minimum number of hours at a job or school, or else qualify for one of the few exemptions. But now, states that jumped ahead need to ensure their proposals, which require federal approval, don't stray too far from Mr. Trump's law. "The statute sets both the floor and ceiling" for work requirements, said Sara Rosenbaum, a health law and policy professor with George Washington University. South Dakota, for example, announced in July that it would not submit an application for work requirements as previously planned amid concerns that the state's laxer rules would not be allowed under the new federal law. The state's Department of Social Services secretary had warned that working on a state proposal while the federal rules are being hashed out could be "an exercise in futility." Arkansas' plan, on the other hand, is more stringent than the federal law. There are no exemptions to its work requirements in the application, which is pending with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Arizona's proposal also includes something that's not in the federal law: a ban on "able-bodied adults" receiving Medicaid benefits for longer than five years total in their lives. Arkansas and Arizona government officials said they were working with federal officials to square their plans with the new standards. Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, said the department is analyzing how the new federal standards interact with state waivers. The federal health department must release rules by next June that outline how states are to implement work requirements, according to Elizabeth Hinton, who has been tracking such waivers as part of the Program on Medicaid and the Uninsured at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. "We don't exactly know what that will cover," Hinton said. It's unclear how federal officials will respond to the states' requests, she added, but "we are aware that some folks think there is no wiggle room here." States can tweak their Medicaid programs through what are known as demonstration waivers, which are subject to federal approval. The waivers are designed to test new ideas in policy gray areas. The states that have filed or plan to file such applications with work requirements include Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. Congressional Republicans who passed the budget reconciliation bill left room for states to use waivers to fast-track the national standards. Tara Sklar, a professor leading the University of Arizona's Health Law & Policy Program, said she expects states seeking certain stricter requirements to have a chance of approval, while more lenient ones may face denials. Federal officials may look favorably on Arizona's plan, Sklar said, as a five-year lifetime Medicaid limit is different from work requirements. Even if the federal government greenlights stricter work requirements than the federal law calls for, those programs are likely to face legal challenges, she added. The federal law includes an 80-hour-per-month minimum for work or education, with exemptions for certain adults, including people who are medically frail and parents with young, dependent children. Montana is the first state to draft a waiver application since Congress finalized national work requirements. State lawmakers first approved work requirements — called "community engagement" standards under the state plan — in 2019, but the state's application stalled through the end of the first Trump term and the Biden administration. After Mr. Trump was elected again, Montana lawmakers lifted the 2025 expiration date of its Medicaid expansion program, making permanent the program that covered more than 76,000 adults in April, with the expectation that the Trump administration would approve work requirements. In mid-July, state officials released their draft plan to make that a reality "as soon as is practicable." The Montana plan largely aligns with the federal law, but it would create additional exemptions, including for people who are homeless or fleeing domestic violence. Republican state Sen. Gayle Lammers said work requirements that also protect such people who need Medicaid were a big part of persuading legislators to keep the expansion program. At the time, officials didn't know where the federal government would land on work requirements. And now, Lammers said, it makes sense for Montana to stick to its plan. "The state should have a say," Lammers said. "We're very independent, and everyone is different." In South Carolina, state officials are seeking to roll out work requirements for a limited number of newly eligible Medicaid beneficiaries. South Carolina is one of 10 states that has not expanded Medicaid eligibility under the Affordable Care Act, and yet the state submitted a request with the federal government in June for a partial Medicaid expansion that includes a work requirement component that largely reflects the new federal standards. In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, a Republican, called South Carolina's proposal "a state-specific solution." The only state with an active work requirement program now wants to scale it back and awaits federal approval to do so. "Georgia Pathways to Coverage" expires at the end of September unless CMS greenlights an extension of the program with a key change: requiring enrollees to document once a year that they're working, not monthly. That's a pivot away from the program's initial design but also differs from the new federal rules, which call for checks every six months. Fiona Roberts, a spokesperson for Georgia's Medicaid agency, said the state is still waiting to hear whether it needs to alter its plan. So Georgia is among the states in limbo, awaiting guidance from the federal government. KFF Health News correspondents Sam Whitehead and Lauren Sausser contributed to this report. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
CNN
21 minutes ago
- CNN
‘It's just PR': Skittles, Hershey and Nestle are removing artificial colors
The Trump administration declared victory after Kraft Heinz, Skittles and General Mills made splashy announcements to remove artificial colors — even taking credit for Coca-Cola's plan to replace high-fructose corn syrup with US cane sugar in a new version this fall. 'President Trump delivers on MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) push,' the White House said last month, touting the companies' changes to 'confront the chronic health crisis plaguing Americans.' But nutritionists and public health researchers don't buy the hype. So far, companies have only made performative changes, they say, many of which were long in the works due to consumer demand for natural ingredients. Meanwhile, the administration's funding cuts for health care, food stamps, research and public health programs run contrary to its goal of making Americans healthier. 'These are cosmetic changes with no health impact. They just allow the MAHA people to say they had a victory,' said Dr. Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina. 'It's just PR.' Health advocates do credit Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services Department secretary, and his MAHA movement for bringing attention to unhealthy foods, chronic disease and major companies' influence on the food system in America. But researchers say Kennedy's focus on synthetic dyes misses the larger problem of the prevalence of cheap, convenient foods loaded with salt, sugar and fat. Ice cream is still ice cream and soda is still soda, even without artificial flavors, Popkin said. A spokesperson for the HHS said Kennedy is 'dismantling the status quo that fueled a nationwide chronic disease epidemic' and 'eliminating bureaucracy and restoring integrity to federal health programs.' 'HHS is confronting the root causes of chronic illness that previous administrations were too timid to address,' the spokesperson added. But for Kennedy and the administration to make a substantive impact on Americans' diets, researchers say they will have to implement policies that tightly regulate ultraprocessed foods. Ultraprocessed foods account for up to 70% of the US food supply, and include many popular brands of chips, cookies, candy, ice cream and pre-made meals. Studies have frequently linked them to obesity, cancer, diabetes, heart disease and other health disorders. Kennedy has called the easy availability of these foods a 'crisis,' and oversaw the White House's Make America Healthy Again Commission report released in May that identifies ultraprocessed foods as a key contributor to a national rise in chronic illnesses — particularly among children. The agency has yet to enact any significant measures to cut down on ultraprocessed foods. 'Right now, they're not going after the real food culprit,' Popkin said. 'If Kennedy does anything significant on ultraprocessed foods, it will be hugely important for health.' Synthetic dyes, made from petroleum, are often used to make food and beverages brightly colored and appealing to customers, especially children. But they have potential negative effects on animal and human health, including possible increased risk of cancer and neurobehavioral issues in some children. In January, the US Food and Drug Administration banned red dye No. 3 in food, beverages and ingested drugs. Kennedy has been pressuring food companies to voluntarily remove all food dyes from their products. But many have been moving away from synthetic dyes for years due to pressure from consumers, health advocates and bans or restrictions in states like California, Virginia and West Virginia. For example, both Kraft Heinz and General Mills — which the administration recently celebrated for pledging to remove synthetic colors — have already removed the additives from most of their products. '(As) much as I love the idea of getting rid of artificial colors, doing so is a nutritionally meaningless way of giving compliant junk foods the aura of health foods,' said Dr. Marion Nestle, an emeritus professor of nutrition and food studies at New York University. Roughly 64% of consumers now actively look for snacks perceived as 'good for them,' a figure that has increased sharply in recent years, according to market research firm Circana. Yogurt, cheeses and foods and drinks with protein have proliferated due to their nutritional appeal. This is also not the first time companies have made voluntary pledges to remove artificial dyes from their products. But many have backtracked on their commitments. 'We hope industry will voluntarily improve the food supply this time around,' said Aviva Musicus, the science director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer advocacy group. 'There has to be a plan to hold industry accountable for when they inevitably don't cooperate. I haven't seen that for this administration.' The Consumer Brands Association, a trade group representing major food, beverage and household product companies, did not respond directly to this criticism. But the group pointed to an April statement that said the industry has 'always prioritized transparency and it will continue to lead the way to ensure consumers have the information they want and need to make informed purchasing decisions.' And slapping foods with a broad definition of ultraprocessed may result in 'demonizing safe, shelf-ready foods' that will limit consumers' access to nutritious foods, the group said. While HHS focuses on food additives, many of the Trump administration's other policies weaken government efforts to improve the food supply and Americans' health, critics say. Trump's sweeping tax and spending cuts package is expected to leave 10 million more people without health insurance in 2034, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate. More than 22 million families will lose some or all of their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, according to the Urban Institute. The law eliminated funding for programs that offer cooking classes and nutrition education for SNAP recipients, and the Agriculture Department cut two pandemic-era programs that help schools and food banks buy from local farmers. 'While MAHA leadership celebrates hollow wins, we've seen the federal government cut SNAP benefits for millions of Americans, rip millions from their health insurance coverage (and) slash programs to help farmers bring local foods into schools,' Musicus said. The administration is not just cutting health care and food benefits — it also slashed billions in research funding and fired thousands of employees at the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and other agencies. The top nutrition researcher at NIH, who focused on studying ultraprocessed foods, left the agency, citing censorship under Kennedy. (HHS previously denied the claims.) These research cuts and layoffs may make it impossible to enact stricter rules or investigate the food industry, said Dr. Jerold Mande, an adjunct professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and a senior policy official in the Obama and Clinton administrations. 'They've also lost tens of thousands of people across government to do these investigations,' he said. At the same time, some health experts are hopeful Kennedy will seize on political momentum to make major policy changes to improve Americans' diets. 'I do give RFK Jr. a lot of credit for making chronic disease caused by our food, principally obesity, a political priority,' Mande said. 'I give them an incomplete in terms of what they're going to do about it.' In August, the MAHA Commission will release the second report on its strategy for improving childhood chronic obesity. Advocates will be looking to see if the report signals the administration may try to mandate front-of-package warning labels or crack down on marketing junk food to children. The report may also provide clues to whether the administration will create dietary guidelines with recommendations for limits to ultraprocessed foods. These would be major moves, but they may clash with the administration's deregulatory agenda. 'People are right to question what the lasting policy change is going to be,' Mande said, noting that removing artificial colors matters only if Kennedy is 'laying the groundwork to take on ultraprocessed food broadly.' CNN's Kristen Rogers contributed to this article.
