Latest news with #HHS
Medscape
6 hours ago
- Health
- Medscape
Supreme Court Ruling Preserves Access to Preventive Services
Health advocates welcomed a US Supreme Court decision announced Friday that preserves a federal mandate for insurers to cover, without copays, certain preventive medical tests and treatments. The Supreme Court split 6-3 in the decision announced Friday. While the court ruling was seen largely as a win for medical and consumer groups, some voiced concerns about its impact on the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary's power over an influential panel, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Anthony Wright, executive director of the consumer advocacy group Families USA, said the Supreme Court ruling beat back 'yet another challenge' to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and was a win in terms of guaranteeing more access to care. "While this is a foundational victory for patients, patients have reason to be concerned that the decision reaffirms the ability of the HHS secretary, including our current one, to control the membership and recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force that determines which preventive services are covered,' Wright said. Religious Objection to HIV Prevention Treatment The case stems from a complaint filed by Braidwood Management, a Christian-owned firm objecting to how a provision of the 2010 ACA has been implemented. The Texas firm wanted to exclude coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV and other preventive health services for religious objections. The ACA requires coverage without copay for tests and treatments that get 'A' and 'B' ratings from the USPSTF. The USPSTF has issued recommendations with these top marks for more than 40 tests and treatments, noted Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority opinion in this case. Services with current 'A' and 'B' ratings from USPSTF include cancer and diabetes screenings, nicotine patches for adults trying to quit smoking, statin medications to reduce the risk of heart disease and stroke, and physical therapy to help the elderly avoid falls, he wrote. Major Medical Groups Applaud Ruling The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Cancer Society, and about 30 other patient and medical professional organizations applauded the Supreme Court decision in a joint statement Friday. In February, these groups had filed a brief with the Supreme Court, arguing in favor of the mandate. In it, these groups said almost 152 million people in the US were able to get access to preventive services without cost sharing in 2020 due to the mandate. Reducing insurance coverage for preventive services would 'lead to worsening patient outcomes, resulting in preventable deaths, and creating higher long-term medical costs,' said the groups in the brief. The key question before the Supreme Court in this case focused on the view of authority of the USPSTF. In the majority opinion, Kavanaugh said the plaintiffs sought to portray the USPSTF as an independent agency wielding 'unchecked power in making preventive-services recommendations of great consequence for the healthcare and health-insurance industries and the American people more broadly.' In fact, those challenging the ACA mandate asserted that, with respect to preventive-services recommendations, the Task Force members were 'more powerful' than even the US president or the secretary of the HHS, Kavanaugh wrote. That's not the case, Kavanaugh wrote in the majority opinion. Instead, the USPSTF members serve at the will of the secretary of the HHS, who can remove them, Kavanaugh noted. In addition, federal law allows the HHS secretary to directly review and block USPSTF recommendations before they take effect, Kavanaugh wrote. Some Reservations Family USA's Wright noted how HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr recently replaced members of the CDC's independent vaccine advisory committee as an example of his concerns. The American Gastroenterological Association called the Supreme Court ruling 'positive news for patient care protections.' 'The ruling reiterates the authority that HHS has over the task force and its decisions, and we remain vigilant considering the secretary's recent actions to other expert panels,' the AGA said Friday in a statement. 'We will continue to work with our coalition partners and champions to ensure patients continue to have coverage of essential preventive screenings.' The ACA mandate also has helped make cancer screening more palatable to younger patients, which physicians note is especially important given that more cases seem to be occurring earlier in life. National Institutes of Health researchers recently reported that the incidence of 14 cancer types increased among people under age 50 between 2010 and 2019. 'To convince healthy people to undergo a test when they're feeling fine to prevent a cancer that might or might not develop years in the future, it requires reducing barriers and taking away copays and providing insurance coverage,' Jatin Roper, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University and AGA spokesman, told Medscape in recent interview. Roper reported no relevant financial disclosures.
Mint
8 hours ago
- Health
- Mint
Trump Officials Met with Walmart on Direct-to-Patient Drug Sales
US health officials met with with Walmart Inc. and other retailers this week as part of an effort to help Americans get their medicines more directly from companies that make them, according to people familiar with the talks. The conversations between the Trump administration and experts from the nascent straight-to-consumer drug industry are intended to explore streamlining the way Americans get their medicines, said the people, who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter. Officials at the US Department of Health and Human Services conducted the meeting to discuss options, the people said. It was unclear what the department's approach and timeline would be in pursuing such a venture. Walmart and HHS declined to comment. Reducing America's drug prices, currently the highest in the world, is one of President Donald Trump's top health policy goals. In May, he signed an executive order calling on the pharmaceutical industry to cut costs to the lowest level paid by similar countries. Part of that proposal instructed HHS to help Americans directly buy their medicine at those lower prices. One reason drugs are so expensive in the US is because they go through so many bureaucratic steps before they reach a patient. Most Americans get their drugs from pharmacies, which are paid primarily by insurance companies. The insurers work with other companies, called pharmacy benefit managers, to negotiate the prices with manufacturers. That process involves rebates, a fee that critics say inflates costs and the industry says is essential to prevent drugmakers from charging exorbitant prices. Trump has been talking about cracking down on PBMs since his first administration. Walmart started offering prescription delivery in October, making it a competitor to Inc. in the space. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
What the Supreme Court Obamacare decision means for RFK Jr.
The U.S. Supreme Court preserved a key element of the Affordable Care Act that helps guarantee that health insurers cover preventive care at no cost to patients. The justices reversed a lower court's ruling that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which under the 2010 law has a major role in choosing what services will be covered, is composed of members who were not validly appointed. The suit started in Texas, where two Christian-owned businesses and individuals argued that health insurance plans they buy shouldn't have to cover medical tests and drugs they object to on religious grounds, such as the HIV-prevention drug PrEP. But the legal question at the heart of the Supreme Court case was whether the task force is so powerful that, under the Constitution, its members must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the 6-3 majority that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can remove task force members at will and can review their recommendations before they take effect. 'The Task Force members are removable at will by the Secretary of HHS, and their recommendations are reviewable by the Secretary before they take effect,' he wrote. 'So Task Force members are supervised and directed by the Secretary, who in turn answers to the President preserving the chain of command.' The Health and Human Services secretary has always appointed task force members and ratified their recommendations, said MaryBeth Musumeci, teaching associate professor of health policy and management at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health. But the ruling expanded on that authority by clarifying that the secretary also could remove members and block recommendations, she said. Given that Kennedy had recently fired all 17 original members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, another expert panel that issues health recommendations, Musumeci said 'there is reason to be worried.' The secretary has never removed access to preventive services that have been proven to help people stay healthy, nor has the secretary "sought to shape the membership of our expert panel in any way," task force chair Dr. Michael Silverstein said in a statement emailed to USA TODAY. 'While the HHS Secretary has long had authority over the USPSTF, historically they have only acted to increase access to preventive care, occasionally going beyond the evidence to secure enhanced coverage for preventive services," he said. "Given our shared focus on preventing cancer and chronic disease, we certainly hope that the Secretary will allow our current work to continue unimpeded, as it has thus far.' Surprise move? RFK Jr.'s vaccine committee votes to recommend RSV shot for infants Katherine Hempstead, senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a health nonprofit, praised the high court's decision because it meant that millions of Americans still have access to preventive care such as mental health screenings, cancer screenings, STI testing and important medications. But she also called the ruling both an 'ending and a beginning.' 'It's the ending of the challenge, but now it's the beginning of something that's going to unfold where we're going to see someone exercise control over this expert panel that has very strong opinions about … many aspects of medical care,' she said. More details: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage If Kennedy plans to target the preventive services task force, it's unclear what preventive services could be at risk, Musumeci said. But insurance companies ultimately have the final decision. Even if the secretary vetoes a new recommendation or revokes an existing one, insurance companies can still decide to cover the preventive service. America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade association representing health insurance companies, plans to closely monitor the legal process but affirms that the court's ruling will not affect any existing coverage, according to an emailed statement sent to USA TODAY. Contributing: Maureen Groppe and Bart Jansen, USA TODAY; Reuters. Adrianna Rodriguez can be reached at adrodriguez@ This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Obamacare Supreme Court decision: What it means for RFK Jr.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
As new variant spreads, what's the latest COVID-19 vaccine guidance? It's complicated.
As a new COVID-19 variant takes over in the U.S., guidance surrounding vaccines has become increasingly confusing. Changes in vaccination guidelines, ever-evolving variants and strains, along with threats to health insurance, have sent average Americans looking for the latest recommendations as members of the federal government often conflict with independent medical agencies and healthcare professionals. In the two weeks leading up to June 21, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported just shy of 14,500 positive COVID tests, and while hospitalizations and deaths are fortunately down significantly since the pandemic's peak, vulnerable people are still grappling with limiting their risk amid changing practices. Having trouble keeping track of variants and vaccines? Here's what we know. NB.1.8.1 is one of the latest variants of COVID-19, a "slightly upgraded version" of the LP.8.1 variant that is prominent right now, Subhash Verma, microbiology and immunology professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, previously told USA TODAY in May. Verma previously stated that NB.1.8.1 may be transferred more easily than LP.8.1. Additionally, he noted that NB.1.8.1 can evade antibodies created by vaccines or past infections more easily than LP.8.1. In early April, NB.1.8.1 accounted for 0% of COVID cases in the U.S. In the two weeks ending June 21, it accounted for the majority of cases at 43%, according to the CDC. The variant has similar symptoms to other strains, including fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, sore throat, congestion or a runny nose, new loss of taste or smell, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, nausea or vomiting. One of its more unique features is "razor blade throat," reported by patients as an exceptionally sore throat. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on May 27 that the COVID-19 vaccine would no longer be included in the CDC's recommended immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women, a move that broke with previous expert guidance and bypassed the normal scientific review process. Under the changes, the only people who will be recommended for COVID-19 vaccines are those over 65 and people with existing health problems. This could make it harder for others who want the COVID-19 vaccine to get it, including health care workers and healthy people under 65 with a vulnerable family member or those who want to reduce their short-term risk of infection. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), among other organizations, issued statements condemning the change, with the ACOG saying it was "...concerned about and extremely disappointed by the announcement that HHS will no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy." "It is very clear that COVID-19 infection during pregnancy can be catastrophic and lead to major disability, and it can cause devastating consequences for families. The COVID-19 vaccine is safe during pregnancy, and vaccination can protect our patients and their infants after birth," President Steven J. Fleischman said in a statement. Insurance coverage typically follows federal recommendations, so anyone who is healthy and under 65 is likely to have to pay out of pocket to get the shot, which runs about $200, if they can get it. It's not clear what insurance companies will do about the new recommendations. The American Medical Association (AMA) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), in partnership with other professional medical organizations, broke from RFK and HHS after this announcement, sharing plans to develop their own guidelines independent of the government organization. In an open letter signed by 80 medical organizations across the country and published on June 25, the AMA called for physicians, healthcare networks and insurance companies to continue supporting "evidence-based immunizations to help prevent severe disease and protect public health." "Vaccines for influenza, RSV, and COVID-19 remain among the best tools to protect the public against these illnesses and their potentially serious complications—and physicians are among the most trusted voices to recommend them. We come together as physicians from every corner of medicine to reaffirm our commitment to these lifesaving vaccines," the letter said. "Recent changes to federal immunization review processes raised concerns across the medical and public health community. In this moment of uncertainty, physicians must align around clear, evidence-based guidance for patients." The AAP likewise said in a June 26 statement that it will "continue to publish its own evidence-based recommendations and schedules." AAP President Susan J. Kressly said the creation of federal immunization policy is 'no longer a credible process," adding, "...we're not stepping back, we're stepping up. The AAP will continue to publish our own immunization schedule just as we always have, developed by experts, guided by science, trusted by pediatricians and families across the country.' These latest independent guidelines have yet to be released. Meanwhile, the new Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) gathered for the first time on June 25 in a meeting that drew criticism from some experts. RFK fired all 17 original members of the committee on June 9, replacing them with members that critics have called unqualified. Some of the members, like Kennedy, have a history of anti-vaccine advocacy, prompting backlash that had doctors and organizations calling for a delay in the meeting. Anti-vaccine sentiments were repeated by ACIP Chair Martin Kulldorf at the meeting, who said the panel will be "investigating" MMR and childhood vaccines. The CDC panel also reviewed data about COVID-19 vaccines, questioning their safety and effectiveness. They also raised questions about the study design, methodologies and surveillance monitoring systems behind the data, which Dr. Pamela Rockwell, clinical professor of family medicine at the University of Michigan Medical School, addressed as a standard of medical research. "Our efforts, through a very robust system of checks and balances, are to create vaccines and vaccination programs that result in the most benefit with the least harm," said Dr. Gretchen LaSalle, a family physician in Spokane, Washington, who represented the American Academy of Family Physicians. Despite this, the committee didn't vote on COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for the fall and isn't expected to reconvene until 'September/October,' according to the CDC website. ACIP commitee: Inside the unusual, RFK-appointed panel that's deciding on childhood vaccines The FDA likewise announced updated requirements for mRNA COVID-19 vaccine warning labels on June 25, which apply to Comirnaty by Pfizer Inc. and Spikevax by ModernaTX Inc. Prescribing information will now include warnings of the connection between the vaccines and a rare side effect that causes inflammation of the heart muscle and lining. The new warning label discloses the risk of myocarditis, which appeared in 8 cases per 1 million people who got the 2023-2024 COVID shots between the ages of 6 months and 64 years old, mostly commonly among males aged 12 to 24. The previous label, which also disclosed the risk, said the problem mostly occurred in minors aged 12-17. Despite the back-and-forth in the U.S., the World Health Organization (WHO) has kept its recommendation consistent. Currently approved COVID-19 vaccines are expected to remain effective against the NB.1.8.1 variant, it said. In a webpage dated Jan. 7, the CDC advised that everyone over the age of six months get the 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine, specifically the 2024-2025 Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine. The page has since been updated with a banner, reading "COVID-19 vaccine recommendations have recently been updated for some populations. This page will be updated to align with the updated immunization schedule." The original recommendations align with the WHO's current guidelines. WHO, AMA, AAP and existing standards recommend that people who have never received a COVID-19 vaccine, are age 65 and older, are immunocompromised, live at a long-term care facility, are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant, and/or want to avoid getting long COVID, should get the vaccine, especially. Contributing: Greta Cross, Adrianna Rodriguez, USA TODAY This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: What are the latest COVID vaccine guidelines for this summer?
AFP
10 hours ago
- Health
- AFP
Experts say HHS document misrepresents studies on Covid-19 vaccine
Kennedy, who has a long history of promoting vaccine misinformation, is using his role as health secretary to shake up the country's approach to immunization. He has deflected questions from lawmakers about measles vaccination, despite an outbreak that has killed three children, and misrepresented the position of European health agencies regarding vaccines against chickenpox during Congressional testimony. In late May, he circumvented the usual channels for updating vaccine recommendations and announced that the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which operates under his department, would stop recommending routine Covid-19 shots for pregnant and "healthy children." Image US Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks during a news conference to discuss health insurance at the Department of Health and Human Services Headquarters in Washington, DC, on June 23, 2025 (AFP / SAUL LOEB) Maria Velez, an associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Canada's (archived here), told AFP the findings of her paper, "Miscarriage after SARS-CoV-2 vaccination: A population-based cohort study," were misinterpreted in the text (archived here). "Our study shows that SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is not associated with an increased risk of miscarriage, either for remotely vaccinated or recently vaccinated women," she said in an email on June 23. AFP reached out to HHS for comment and did not receive a response, but the department previously told other publications it included Velez's research because it showed a higher occurrence of miscarriage among vaccinated individuals. Velez said the raw data included in her study showed a slightly higher incidence of miscarriage among pregnant people who received the shot, but pointed out when the results were adjusted for other variables which could result in loss of pregnancy, her findings did not show an increased risk associated with vaccination. Additionally, a reproductive endocrinologist and infertility specialist based in New York City (archived here), told AFP her study looking at Covid-19 vaccination in people undergoing in-vitro fertilization cited in the document did not find an association between the shots and adverse stimulation or early pregnancy outcomes (archived here). "Our study provides evidence to support safety of Covid-19 vaccination in women who are trying to conceive," she said in a June 26 email. said the document misused data and incorrectly quoted findings, sowing doubt about the safety of vaccines. "The latest correspondence from HHS regarding the decision to rescind the Covid-19 vaccine recommendation for pregnant women further confirms that the decision was not made based on any new research or latest scientific evidence, Research has demonstrated that the Covid-19 vaccine is generally safe during pregnancy and a meta-analysis of 66 studies found vaccination reduced the odds of infection and hospitalization, while the most common adverse side effect was pain at the injection site (archived here and here). Children and Covid-19 vaccines The Covid-19 vaccines are estimated to have saved millions of lives (archived here). Physicians and immunology experts have continually told AFP the risks of being infected with the virus far outweigh potential, infrequent side effects from the shots (archived here). Age raises the risk of serious illness and the World Health Organization only recommends vaccination beyond an initial series for children and adolescents with comorbidities (archived here and here). According to the CDC website, the agency still recommends boosters for children who are sed and The HHS memo sent to lawmakers put a particular emphasis on myocarditis and pericarditis, inflammations of the tissue around the heart. While these are noted as possible side effects of Covid-19 vaccination, with a slightly higher prevalence of the reaction observed among younger male recipients of mRNA shots, the papers cited in the memo included a study previously featured in misleading claims debunked by AFP (archived here). The research only found the inflammatory conditions among vaccinated youth, but one of the paper's authors noted to AFP at the time that the observational study may have missed cases in unvaccinated patients which would have been picked up in a randomized trial. The study also found the cases of myocarditis and pericarditis were mild and fast resolving, while vaccination reduced hospitalization from Covid-19. Another study looking at data from the HHS run Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System claimed a strong association between vaccination and myocarditis and death (archived here), but one of the authors has a history of spreading false information about the shots. Additionally, the journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety, where the study appeared, issued an expression of concern about potential issues with the methodology and conflicts of interest (archived here). Dubious evidence The misrepresentation of studies' findings in the document fits into a larger pattern of HHS overhauling health policy while citing dubious evidence. The highly anticipated "Make America Healthy Again" report released on May 22 investigating children's health was initially published citing several sources that did not exist. It was updated, but experts said it still contained errors, including the misrepresentation of research findings. Kennedy also dismissed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), of being compromised by financial ties to pharmaceutical companies. He replaced them with several individuals known to spread vaccine misinformation, including controversial researcher Robert Malone, who has promoted the antiparastic drug ivermectin to treat Covid-19. The former ACIP members published an editorial in the JAMA medical journal, saying their removal and the reduction Image Robert Malone speaks during a first meeting of the CDC's Advisory Committee On Immunization Practices on June 25, 2025 in Atlanta, Georgia (GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA / Elijah Nouvelage) The committee said it plans to revisit the childhood vaccine schedule and voted to bar thimerosal, a rarely used ingredient that can prevent bacterial contamination in multidose vials of influenza vaccines. ging from the anti-vaccine movement, which regularly questions shot ingredients despite no evidence of harm. Read more of AFP's reporting on health misinformation here.
