RFK Jr plans placebo-trial testing for 'all new vaccines'
In a statement first given to the Washington Post, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said this week, "All new vaccines will undergo safety testing in placebo-controlled trials prior to licensure — a radical departure from past practices".
The agency did not provide details on which "new vaccines" would be included.
But officials have suggested that updated Covid-19 shots may be included, which vaccine experts say could slow down vaccine access.
Peter Lurie, a former official with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), said "it's hard to tell exactly what is being proposed."
"But, broadly, if they mean that every modification to an existing vaccine would require a new placebo-controlled trial, they are treading in ethically dubious territory and likely to deny Americans life-saving vaccines at some point."
HHS has not offered details on the timing of the placebo plan or specify the vaccines involved.
An HHS spokesperson told the BBC in a statement that health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr's goal of "radical transparency" means being "honest and straightforward about what we know — and what we don't know — about medical products, including vaccines".
The statement said none of the childhood vaccines recommended in the US - except the Covid shot - had undergone "inert placebo" testing, meaning "we know very little about the actual risk profiles of these products".
But public health experts say the statement is misleading, as childhood vaccinations, including ones for Hepatitis A and B, rotavirus, polio and the mumps, were all initially tested against a placebo. In fact, all new immunizations already go through the trials - a type of random testing where one test group receives the immunization, and the other gets a placebo, like a saline shot.
But newer versions of the shots may not go through the same process, because it is considered unethical to withhold a shot known to be safe from a particular group, and because the shot is only being tweaked in a minor way, vaccine experts said.
The coronavirus shot, for example, already has gone through rigorous safety testing, said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.
"We have a lot of information about the safety of the vaccine," he said. "All we're doing this year is using a different Omicron variant that we used last year and the year before that."
Still, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said this week that the agency was "taking a look" at updated coronavirus shots, telling the BBC's US partner CBS News that there is a "void of data".
An HHS spokesperson told the BBC that "significant updates to existing vaccines" may be considered "new products" requiring additional clinical evaluation.
"A four-year-old trial is also not a blank check for new vaccines each year without clinical trial data, unlike the flu shot which has been tried and tested for more than 80 years," the spokesperson said.
Requiring companies to conduct placebo tests for simple upgrades of established vaccines would be costly - and the drug makers could ultimately decide to forgo making the newer, more effective versions of the vaccine altogether, said Dr Lurie.
Before taking office - and since assuming the role as secretary - Kennedy has spread false claims about vaccine safety. His tenure has coincided with one of the worst measles outbreaks in a decade; two children have died and 660 people have been infected in Texas.
This week, he encouraged parents to "do their own research" about the measles vaccine - which has been considered safe and 97% effective for decades - and raised questions about whether the shot could cause seizures or neurological issues.
For months, he has at times endorsed the MMR shot, and at other times, called it a "personal" decision. Kennedy also promoted alternative treatments, which doctors say patients should not use without medical supervision.
Deadly measles outbreak does little to counter vaccine scepticism in Texas
Love on the Spectrum cast questions RFK Jr's comments about autistic people
RFK Jr pledges to find the cause of autism by September
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Business News
11 minutes ago
- Time Business News
HIPAA Compliance in Dental Billing: What You Must Know
Navigating the complexities of dental billing requires not just accuracy in codes and patient communication, but also an unyielding commitment to privacy and security regulations. One of the most crucial of these regulations is the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, more commonly known as HIPAA. For dental practices, understanding HIPAA Compliance in Dental Billing is not merely a legal obligation—it's a cornerstone of patient trust and practice integrity. HIPAA, enacted in 1996, was designed to protect sensitive patient health information from being disclosed without the patient's consent or knowledge. For dental professionals, this law extends far beyond clinical procedures. Every touchpoint that involves patient information—from appointment scheduling to claims processing—falls under HIPAA's jurisdiction. Given that dental billing involves the transfer of protected health information (PHI) between multiple entities, including dental offices, insurers, and clearinghouses, compliance becomes both intricate and essential. A single slip in handling PHI could lead to hefty penalties, reputational damage, and even legal actions. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), HIPAA violations can result in fines ranging from $100 to $50,000 per violation, depending on the level of negligence. In severe cases, criminal charges may also be brought against non-compliant entities. HIPAA's requirements are generally divided into five main rules: the Privacy Rule, the Security Rule, the Breach Notification Rule, the Enforcement Rule, and the Omnibus Rule. Each of these applies in specific ways to dental billing. The Privacy Rule sets the standards for when PHI can be used and disclosed. In the context of dental billing, this means that any sharing of patient data for insurance claims, eligibility checks, or pre-authorizations must be conducted under strict guidelines. Staff involved in billing must be trained to access only the information necessary for their role and ensure it is transmitted securely. The Security Rule mandates safeguards for electronic PHI (ePHI). Dental billing systems that store or transmit patient data electronically must have administrative, physical, and technical safeguards in place. This includes secure logins, access controls, encryption, and regular audits of software and systems. The Breach Notification Rule outlines what must be done in the event of a data breach. If unprotected PHI is accessed or disclosed in a way that violates HIPAA, affected patients must be notified, and the breach may also need to be reported to the HHS. Dental billing departments must have a response plan in place to quickly address any potential breaches. The Enforcement Rule details the penalties for violations, while the Omnibus Rule enhances patient rights and strengthens privacy protections. Together, these rules ensure a comprehensive framework that dental practices must follow to remain compliant. Many dental practices, especially smaller ones, struggle to implement comprehensive HIPAA protocols. One of the most common mistakes is the use of outdated software for managing claims and patient records. Older systems may lack the necessary encryption or user access controls required by HIPAA, putting patient data at risk. Another frequent issue arises from third-party vendors. Outsourcing dental billing services can be efficient, but it also introduces new compliance risks. All vendors who handle PHI must sign a Business Associate Agreement (BAA) and adhere to HIPAA standards. Without such agreements, the dental practice remains liable for any data mishandling by the third party. Staff training also plays a pivotal role in ensuring compliance. Billing teams must be aware of what constitutes PHI, understand how to recognize phishing attempts, and know the proper procedures for disposing of patient information. Unfortunately, inconsistent or inadequate training often leads to accidental disclosures or breaches. To build a HIPAA-compliant dental billing process, practices must start with a risk assessment. This involves identifying where PHI is stored, how it is used, and who has access to it. Once the vulnerabilities are mapped out, security measures such as firewalls, secure backups, and regular software updates can be put in place. Encryption is non-negotiable. Whether PHI is being emailed to an insurance provider or stored in a cloud-based system, it must be encrypted both in transit and at rest. This ensures that even if data is intercepted or accessed without authorization, it cannot be read or misused. Access management is another key pillar. Each employee should have their own login credentials, and access to billing software should be granted based on role and necessity. Logs should be maintained to track who accessed what information and when. Regular HIPAA training sessions should be mandatory for all staff, especially those involved in billing. Refresher courses, simulated phishing emails, and updates on regulatory changes can go a long way in maintaining a culture of compliance. Additionally, when using dental billing services from external providers, ensure they are HIPAA-compliant by checking certifications, data handling protocols, and their incident response policies. A reliable vendor should be transparent and cooperative in demonstrating their adherence to HIPAA guidelines. Documentation is often overlooked but is vital in demonstrating HIPAA compliance. Dental practices must maintain records of HIPAA training sessions, internal audits, risk assessments, breach response plans, and signed BAAs. In the event of an investigation or audit by the HHS, this documentation serves as proof that reasonable efforts were made to comply with the law. Further, patient consent forms and notices of privacy practices should be updated regularly and stored securely. Patients must be informed of their rights regarding their information, including how it will be used, who it may be shared with, and how they can access their records. Modern dental billing platforms are increasingly equipped with HIPAA-compliant features. These tools can automate encryption, generate access logs, and facilitate secure communication between providers and payers. Integration with electronic health record (EHR) systems allows for seamless and secure data flow. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are also being integrated into some billing systems to detect anomalies that may indicate a potential breach or compliance issue. For example, if an employee suddenly begins accessing an unusually high number of patient records, the system can flag this for review. However, technology alone is not a silver bullet. It must be supported by policy, training, and human oversight. Relying too heavily on automation without proper protocols can lead to gaps in compliance. Staying compliant with HIPAA in the context of dental billing is both a regulatory requirement and a professional responsibility. The path to compliance is multifaceted, involving secure systems, informed staff, diligent documentation, and continuous monitoring. As patient expectations around data privacy continue to grow and regulatory scrutiny intensifies, dental practices that prioritize HIPAA Compliance in Dental Billing will not only avoid penalties but also build lasting trust with their patients. For more comprehensive resources and updates, practices should consult the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website, which offers official guidance, training materials, and compliance checklists tailored to healthcare providers. By embedding compliance into the fabric of billing operations, dental practices can ensure they are not only protecting themselves from risk but also upholding the ethical standards that define quality patient care. TIME BUSINESS NEWS
Boston Globe
40 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
A delicious irony: Why Trump prefers Mexican Cola-Cola
Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Why are Mexican Cokes sweetened with sugar and US Cokes sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup? Because in the United States, high-fructose corn syrup is cheaper than sugar thanks to a long history of corn subsidies and sugar tariffs. In my home state of Illinois, I live surrounded by fields growing corn not for eating but for processing — into ethanol, animal feed, and high-fructose corn syrup. Advertisement Outside this country, however, cane sugar is the default sweetener. That's why Mexican Coke tastes different — some say it's more authentically sweet. The soft drink has become a cult favorite, a symbol of nostalgia and purity in a market saturated with manufactured sweetness. It's also a reminder of how deeply our food systems are shaped by policy decisions, not just taste. Advertisement This isn't the first time Coca-Cola has been the subject of national discussion. In the early 20th century, the US government took Coca-Cola to court under the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 for 'misbranding' and 'adulteration.' At the time, the drink contained negligible amounts of both coca and kola (with their implied medicinal claims as stimulants) but significant amounts of caffeine. The case went all the way to the Fast forward to today and we're in a very different moment. The Trump administration is working to gut and undermine many of the very institutions that protect our health. The National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and yes, the FDA, have all faced budget cuts, staff reductions, and political interference. The American Public Health Association has warned that these rollbacks threaten the health and safety of all Americans. Advertisement At this moment we may want to import something else from Mexico: leadership in public health. There, health advocates and regulators have developed education campaigns and public policy about sugar-sweetened beverages, including those Mexican Cokes, the products of a business model exported from the US, and their links to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease. They've As a historian, I won't weigh in on whether cane sugar is healthier than corn syrup. That's a question for nutritionists and scientists. But I do know this: a president's personal preferences are no substitute for robust public institutions. You can't regulate a food system by tweet. You can't protect consumers with nostalgia. You can't set policy by piecemeal targeting of products based on particularistic agendas and transactional politics. And you certainly can't build a healthier nation by dismantling the very agencies tasked with safeguarding it. If we're serious about health, we might take a page from Mexico. Because in the end, it's not about which Coke tastes better. It's about which country is doing more to protect its people from the consequences of unchecked sweetness and power.
Medscape
3 hours ago
- Medscape
Me-Too Cancer Drugs Not Often Compared to Original
TOPLINE: In an analysis of all FDA approvals for anticancer drugs from 2009 to 2020, only about 29% of next-in-class drugs were evaluated in head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs) against their first-in-class counterparts. And in these head-to-head RCTs, only 22% of the 'me-too' agents showed a survival benefit compared to the originals. METHODOLOGY: Next-in-class, or 'me-too,' oncology drugs may theoretically offer improved efficacy, safety, or broader indications, yet little is known about how often RCTs directly compare these me-too agents with first-in-class drugs, leaving their true therapeutic value uncertain. Researchers looked at all 332 FDA approvals for anticancer drugs between 2009 and 2020. After excluding supportive care treatments, biosimilars, and drugs with novel routes of administration, 94 RCTs for me-too agents that received FDA approvals were included. The researchers then identified which next-in-class drugs had RCTs comparing them with their first-in-class counterparts, both at and after approval. Among RCTs with head-to-head comparison, primary endpoints varied across trials, with 63% using progression-free survival, 11% using overall survival, and 11% using response rate as their primary endpoint; 77.8% of trials were designed as superiority trials. TAKEAWAY: Only 27 RCTs that led to FDA approvals for me-too drugs — just under 29% — directly compared the new agent to the first-in-class drug (23 regular approvals and four accelerated approvals). Of these 27 RCTs, 12 trials were published at the time of FDA approval and 15 were published after approval. The median time to publication of post-approval trials was 2.8 years for regular approvals and 3.3 years for accelerated approvals. Overall, only six of the 27 trials (22.2%) demonstrated survival benefits, 14 trials (51.9%) met nonsurvival primary endpoints, and six trials (22.2%) failed to meet their primary endpoints. One trial is still ongoing. Among regular approvals designed as superiority trials, only 11 of 17 (64.7%) met their endpoints. Among accelerated approvals designed as superiority trials, three of four achieved their primary endpoints. The remaining six trials were not designed as superiority trials but met their primary endpoints. IN PRACTICE: 'These results suggest a need for regulatory bodies to incentivize within-class RCTs,' the authors wrote, adding that 'in cases where head-to-head RCTs were lacking, it is difficult to assess the true therapeutic value of next-in-class drugs.' SOURCE: This study, led by Timothée Olivier, MD, Geneva University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland, was published online in JAMA Internal Medicine. LIMITATIONS: Drug development often occurred in parallel, limiting the feasibility of head-to-head comparisons. Some comparative trials published after the analysis period may not have been captured. DISCLOSURES: This project received funding from Arnold Ventures through a grant to the University of California San Francisco. One author reported receiving grants from Arnold Ventures and personal fees from John Hopkins University Press, MedPage, The Free Press, UnitedHealthcare, and other sources, outside the submitted work. Another author disclosed receiving honoraria from MashupMD and Medscape and research funding for his institution from Janssen, outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
