Latest news with #RobertF.KennedyJr.
Atlantic
42 minutes ago
- Health
- Atlantic
‘I'm Not Quite Sure How to Respond to This Presentation'
The past three weeks have been auspicious for the anti-vaxxers. On June 9, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. purged the nation's most important panel of vaccine experts: All 17 voting members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which sets recommendations for the use of vaccines and determines which ones must be covered through insurance and provided free of charge to children on Medicaid, were abruptly fired. The small, ragtag crew of replacements that Kennedy appointed two days later met this week for the first time, amid lots of empty chairs in a conference room in Atlanta. They had come to talk about the safety of vaccines: to raise concerns about the data, to float hypotheses of harm, to issue findings. The resulting spectacle was set against a backdrop of accelerating action from the secretary. On Wednesday, Kennedy terminated more than $1 billion in U.S. funding for Gavi, a global-health initiative that supports the vaccination of more than 65 million children every year. Lyn Redwood, a nurse practitioner and the former president of Children's Health Defense, the anti-vaccine organization that Kennedy used to chair, was just hired as a special government employee. (She presented at the ACIP meeting yesterday.) A recently posted scientific document on the ACIP website that underscored the safety of thimerosal, an ingredient in a small proportion of the nation's flu vaccines, had been taken down, a committee member said, because the document 'was not authorized by the office of the secretary.' (A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told me in an email that this document was provided to the ACIP members in their meeting briefing packets.) What's clear enough is that, 61 years after ACIP's founding, America's vaccination policy is about to be recooked. Now we've had a glimpse inside the kitchen. The meeting started with complaints. 'Some media outlets have been very harsh on the new members of this committee,' said Martin Kulldorff, a rangy Swedish biostatistician and noted COVID contrarian who is now ACIP's chair. (Kuldorff was one of the lead authors of the Great Barrington Declaration, a controversial proposal from the fall of 2020 to isolate seniors and other vulnerable people while reopening the rest of society.) In suggesting that he and Kennedy's other appointees are opposed to vaccination, Kulldorff said, journalists were misleading the public, weakening trust in public health, and fanning 'the flames of vaccine hesitancy.' This was, in fact, the most pugnacious comment of the two-day meeting, which otherwise unfolded in a tone of fearmongering gentility. Robert Malone, a doctor and an infectious-diseases researcher who has embraced the 'anti-vaccine' label and published a conspiracy-theory-laden book that details government psyops against the American people, was unfailingly polite in his frequent intimations about the safety of vaccines, often thanking CDC staff for their hard work and lucid presentations. With his thick white beard, calm affect, and soldierly diction—Malone ended many of his comments by saying, 'Over' into the microphone—he presented less as a firebrand than as, say, the commanding officer of a submarine. When Malone alluded to the worry, for example, that spike proteins from the mRNA-based COVID vaccines linger in the body following injection, he did so in respectful, even deferential, language, suggesting that the public would benefit from greater study of possible 'delayed effects' of immune-system activation. The CDC's traditional approach—its 'world-leading, rigorous' one, he clarified—might be improved by examining this question. A subject-matter expert responded that the CDC has been keeping tabs on real-world safety data on those vaccines for nearly five years, and has not detected any signs of long-term harm. Later, Malone implied that COVID or its treatments might have, through some unspecified, bank-shot mechanism, left the U.S. population more susceptible to other illnesses. There was a 'paradoxical, sudden decrease' in flu cases in 2020 and 2021, he noted, followed by a trend of worsening harm. A CDC staffer pointed out that the decrease in flu during those years was not, in fact, a paradox; well-documented shifts in people's health behavior had temporarily reduced the load of many respiratory illnesses during that same period. But Malone pressed on: 'Some members of the scientific community have concern that they're coming out of the COVID pandemic—exposure to the virus, exposure to various countermeasures—there may be a pattern of broad-based, uh, energy,' he said, his eyes darting up for a moment as he said the word, 'that might contribute to increased severity of influenza disease.' He encouraged the agency to 'be sensitive to that hypothesis.' Throughout these and other questions from the committee members, the CDC's subject-matter experts did their best to explain their work and respond to scattershot technical and conceptual concerns. 'The CDC staff is still attempting to operate as an evidence-based organization,' Laura Morris, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Medicine, who has attended dozens of ACIP meetings in the past and attended this one as a nonvoting liaison to the committee from the American Academy of Family Physicians, told me. 'There was some tension in terms of the capacity of the committee to ask and understand the appropriate methodological questions. The CDC was trying to hold it down.' That task became more difficult as the meeting progressed. 'The new ACIP is an independent body composed of experienced medical and public health experts who evaluate evidence, ask hard questions, and make decisions based on scientific integrity,' the HHS spokesperson told me. 'Bottom line: this process reflects open scientific inquiry and robust debate, not a pre-scripted narrative.' The most vocal questioner among the new recruits—and the one who seemed least beholden to a script—was the MIT business-school professor Retsef Levi, a lesser-known committee appointee who sat across the table from Malone. A scruffy former Israel Defense Forces intelligence officer with a ponytail that reached halfway down his back, Levi's academic background is in data modeling, risk management, and organizational logistics. He approached the proceedings with a swaggering incredulity, challenging the staffers' efforts and pointing out the risks of systematic errors in their thinking. (In a pinned post on his X profile, Levi writes that 'the evidence is mounting and indisputable that mRNA vaccines cause serious harm including death'—a position entirely at odds with copious data presented at the meeting.) Shortly before the committee's vote to recommend a new, FDA-approved monoclonal antibody for preventing RSV in infants, Levi noted that he'd spent some time reviewing the relevant clinical-trial data for the drug and another like it, and found some worrying patterns in the statistics surrounding infant deaths. 'Should we not be concerned that maybe there are some potential safety signals?' he asked. But these very data had already been reviewed, at great length, in multiple settings: by the FDA, in the course of drug approval, and by the dozens of members of ACIP's relevant work group for RSV, which had, per the committee's standard practice, conducted its own staged analysis of the new treatment before the meeting and reached consensus that its benefits outweighed its risks. Levi was uncowed by any reference to this prior work. 'I'm a scientist, but I'm also a father of six kids,' he told the group; speaking as a father, he said, he personally would be concerned about the risk of harm from this new antibody for RSV. In the end, Levi voted against recommending the antibody, as did Vicky Pebsworth, who is on the board of an anti-vaccine organization and holds a Ph.D. in public health and nursing. The five other members voted yes. That 5–2 vote aside, the most contentious issue on the meeting's schedule concerned the flu shots in America that contain thimerosal, which has been an obsession of the anti-vaccine movement for the past few decades. Despite extensive study, vaccines with thimerosal have not been found to be associated with any known harm in human patients, yet an unspecified vote regarding their use was slipped into the meeting's agenda in the absence of any work-group study or presentation from the CDC's staff scientists. What facts there were came almost exclusively from Redwood, the nurse who used to run Kennedy's anti-vaccine organization. Earlier this week, Reuters reported that at least one citation from her posted slides had been invented. That reference was removed before she spoke yesterday. (HHS did not address a request for comment on this issue in its response to me.) The only one of Kennedy's appointees who had ever previously served on the committee—the pediatrician Cody Meissner—seemed perplexed, even pained, by the proceedings. 'I'm not quite sure how to respond to this presentation,' he said when Redwood finished. He went on to sum up his concerns: 'ACIP makes recommendations based on scientific evidence as much as possible. And there is no scientific evidence that thimerosal has caused a problem.' Alas, Meissner's warnings were for nought. Throughout the meeting, he came off as the committee's last remaining, classic 'expert'—a vaccine scientist clinging to ACIP's old ways—but his frequent protestations were often bulldozed over or ignored. In the end, his was the only vote against the resolutions on thimerosal. Throughout the two-day meeting, Kuldorff kept returning to a favorite phrase: evidence-based medicine. 'Secretary Kennedy has given this committee a clear mandate to use evidence-based medicine,' he said on Wednesday morning; 'The purpose of this committee is to follow evidence-based medicine,' he said on Wednesday afternoon; 'What is important is using evidence-based medicine,' he said again when the meeting reached its end. All told, I heard him say evidence-based at least 10 times during the meeting. (To be fair, critics of Kuldorff and his colleagues also love this phrase.) But the committee was erratic in its posture toward the evidence from the very start; it cast doubt on CDC analyses and substituted lay advice and intuition for ACIP's normal methods of assessing and producing expert consensus. 'Decisons were made based on feelings and preferences rather than evidence,' Morris told me after the meeting. 'That's a dangerous way to make public-health policy.'
Indianapolis Star
4 hours ago
- Health
- Indianapolis Star
RFK Jr. says there may be 'more cavities' under fluoride bans: 'It's a balance'
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on Thursday that nixing fluoride from public drinking water may result in more cavities. "It's a balance," Kennedy said during interview on Fox News' "The Faulkner Focus" on Thursday, June 26. "You're going to see probably slightly more cavities. Although in Europe, where they ban fluoride, they did not see an uptick in cavities. The issue is parents need to decide because the science is very clear on fluoride." Fluoridation is not banned in Europe, according to the American Dental Association (ADA). However, adding fluoride to drinking water is not as widespread in European countries as in the U.S. Some European countries fluoridate their water, while others do not and the reasoning and result of those actions varies, according to BBC reporting. USA TODAY has reached out to ADA for more information. Kennedy's response came after anchor Harris Faulkner asked him how removing fluoride from public drinking water would affect children who don't have access to dentists or proper oral healthcare. Kennedy has been pushing to ban fluoride in public drinking water. In April, during a meeting with President Donald Trump, he said that kids get "stupider" the more fluoride they take in. Kennedy's remarks were met with backlash, as the study he pulled from was criticized for inadequate statistical rigor and other methodological flaws. A Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson told USA TODAY on June 27 that Kennedy's comments reflect an effort to balance reducing exposure to unnecessary chemicals while maintaining protections, like preventing cavities in children. The Department of Health and Human Services has advised the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to meet with the Community Preventative Services Task Force to study and make a new recommendation on fluoride, the spokesperson added. Fluoride bans: Two states have now passed fluoride bans. These other ones introduced bills. Fluoride is a naturally-occurring mineral found in many foods and water and has been long thought to help prevent tooth decay, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Throughout the day, the protective outer layer of our teeth, called enamel, breaks down. Natural minerals within the enamel are broken down by bacteria, plaque and sugar. This is called demineralization. To gain these minerals back, people must consume food and water that contains chemicals like fluoride, calcium and phosphate, the Cleveland Clinic states. This is known as remineralization. The Cleveland Clinic says with too much demineralization and not enough remineralization, tooth decay may begin. Exclusive: As RFK Jr. targets fluoride, Texas is coming for kids toothpaste In 1945, Grand Rapids, Michigan, became the first city to fluoridate its community water, adjusting existing levels in the supply to the therapeutic 1.0 parts-per-million (ppm). Since then, the levels have been adjusted to a maximum of 0.7 ppm or 0.7 milligrams of fluoride per liter of water, which is considered optimal for preventing tooth decay. Health risks from exposure to fluoride require a much higher concentration, according to the American Dental Association. To get fluoride toxicity from drinking treated water, a person would have to consume 5 liters of water per kilogram of body weight, meaning the average person would die from drinking too much water before fluoridation of that water could hurt them, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Utah and Florida have banned fluoride from public drinking water – Utah in March and Florida in May. Kennedy has championed these states, and others looking to pass bans, including Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, South Carolina, North Dakota, Arkansas, Tennessee, Montana and New Hampshire. After Utah passed its fluoride ban in March, the ADA released a statement saying dentists "see the direct consequences fluoride removal has on our patients." "It's a real tragedy when policymakers' decisions hurt vulnerable kids and adults in the long term. Blindly calling for a ban on fluoridated water hurts people, costs money and will ultimately harm our economy," ADA President Dr. Brett Kessler said in a news release. The ADA has also pointed to studies, like one 2024 study conducted by the University of Queensland, which found that children exposed and not exposed to fluoride showed no difference in IQ testing. This story was updated to add more information. Contributing: Natalie Neysa Alund, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy and Mary Walrath-Holdridge, USA TODAY
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Wants Every American To Wear A Health-Tracking Device, And Security Experts Have Serious Concerns
If you don't yet wear a smartwatch or smart ring to monitor your health and fitness, you may soon be encouraged to do so by some of the highest-ranking members of the government. During a House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said he'd like all Americans to use wearable health products, such as Fitbits, Apple Watches, Oura Rings, WHOOP and glucose monitors, to 'control' their health and 'take responsibility' for it. According to Poltico, Kennedy said people can use wearables to track 'what food is doing to their glucose levels, their heart rates and a number of other metrics as they eat it, and they can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way that they live their lives.' While this remains just a suggestion and not a mandate, it's been announced that the Department of Health and Human Services will launch a campaign to encourage Americans to wear these devices. Wearables can track your heart rate, menstrual cycle, fitness regimen, blood sugar levels, sleep patterns, location and more. They're a great way to understand your health (for example, the Oura Ring lets you know when it thinks you're getting sick) and to stick to a workout regimen (the Apple Watch is both loved and hated for its 'close your rings' reminders). While they can be helpful for the average person, these devices store lots and lots of our data — is it safe for all of this information to be out there? And what happens if this data ends up in the wrong hands — including the government's? Experts weigh in. First, know that no one has said the government will actually collect this health data. Related: It Turns Out That Most People Wipe Their Butts Completely Wrong, But This Doctor Is Here To Teach Us The Right Way There is a major difference between the government having access to health data and the government simply encouraging folks to use wearables for their own health tracking, said Alex Hamerstone, the advisory solutions director for TrustedSec, an ethical hacking company. 'Those are obviously two very different questions, and there's no indication at this point that they're looking to have the government have access to that data,' he noted. The government does, though, already have access to lots of health data. 'If you look at the percent of people who receive health care through Medicare and Medicaid and state programs, and so on and so forth, they already have a lot of very detailed information,' Hamerstone noted. 'I know there are guardrails around it and things like that, but not to get into any kind of political thing, but a lot of those guardrails seem to be falling down,' he noted. You should also understand that no matter who is privy to it, health data is very valuable. You've probably heard the phrase 'data is the new currency,' meaning your personal data has inherent value to companies. It's how they sell you ads and understand your needs. But 'health data is just kind of a different category of data,' said Hamerstone. Having your credit card hacked is temporarily annoying, but you're not liable, and typically, after some phone calls and logistics, your life will go back to normal. 'But if someone gets access to your private health care data, that's much different. It's a different kind of data,' Hamerstone said. 'So, somebody knowing how many steps you take is one thing, but if you start to get into things like glucose levels or very detailed medical information, those things could start to affect other parts of your life,' he added. This could impact insurance rates and insurance options, Hamerstone said. Some experts are worried about the government's ability to protect health data because of past breaches. Related: Older Women Are Revealing Their Biggest "Life Regrets," And Every Young Person Needs To Hear This Kevin Johnson, the CEO of Secure Ideas, a security testing and consulting company, has concerns about the government's ability to protect any data that is gathered through the use of wearables. For instance, in 2018, there was a major security breach involving the Strava fitness app and the U.S. government in which soldiers' locations at military bases were shared via Strava. 'So, the idea that the government is saying we're going to encourage ... wearing of these when the government had a significant security problem due to this, that's one of the concerns that I just don't understand how we forgot that happened,' said Johnson. Overall, Johnson said, there are 'significant security issues with wearable devices.' 'My company and other companies have tested these devices. We've found vulnerabilities. We have found ways that the wearable technology gives an attacker access to your data because of security lapses in the hardware and software. We've seen multiple cases where attackers are able to gain access to things that are unrelated to the health care data because of security problems,' Johnson said. There have also been privacy violations when data brokers get access to this data, whether they gain access illegitimately or legitimately, Johnson said. (And the companies collecting the data from wearables do often sell your data to data brokers, Johnson noted.) You may not care if someone has your heart rate data from your smartwatch, but it's so much more than 'just' that. 'There are always security concerns when it comes to connected technology,' said Dave Chronister, the CEO of Parameter Security. And your wearable device is most likely connected to your smartphone — meaning it has access to lots of your personal data, according to Johnson. 'No device or platform is completely secure,' Chronister noted. 'Attackers often target the backend systems, such as cloud servers, via compromised employee credentials or software vulnerabilities.' 'Devices that rely on Bluetooth or Wi-Fi can also be exploited, and if the device supports messaging or sync features, phishing or spoofing attacks are possible,' noted Chronister. These devices can also get stolen or lost, which also puts your data at risk, Chronister added. Johnson said he's often heard people say things like, 'Oh, it's just my heart rate data, that's not a big deal,' but it's actually so much more than that. 'The issue is, we're not just talking about heartbeat. We're not just talking about your sleep schedule. We're talking about your location. We're talking about most of these apps tie into your contacts so that you can invite friends,' said Johnson. More, it also may include your reproductive health data, glucose levels or heart irregularities, Chronister said. 'These can paint a sensitive, personal portrait of someone's health and behavior,' Chronister added. Health data from wearables isn't protected like your medical records. 'It's important to understand that data from wearables is not protected under HIPAA like your medical records are,' said Chronister. HIPAA protects patient health records from things like doctor's appointments. 'Instead, it is governed by the company's terms of service ... which often include loopholes that allow for data sharing or sale, especially in the event of a merger or acquisition,' Chronister explained. This is true even if the company says they'll never sell your data. 'That promise can be overridden by fine print or future policy changes,' he added. 'Consumers should be aware that once their data is out there, they may lose control over how it is used,' Chronister said. What can you do to protect your security if you use wearables? 'Almost all of these types of devices have some level of privacy controls in them that you're able to select what data you give,' said Johnson. If you decide to get a wearable, make sure you check your privacy settings and adjust them accordingly, he noted. 'And this is very important — regularly go in and validate that the privacy settings are still set the way you want them to be,' Johnson added. This is really the most you can do to protect your data, and it certainly won't totally protect you from data breaches or data brokers. 'Unfortunately, individual users have very limited control. You are largely at the mercy of the device manufacturer and app provider,' Chronister noted. While you can follow privacy precautions, such as by 'turning off unnecessary Bluetooth connections, using strong account passwords, and checking app permissions ... those measures only go so far,' Chronister said. 'The real issue is how companies store, share and protect your data behind the scenes,' Chronister noted. Chronister stressed that 'it's critical to understand the long-term implications of voluntarily handing over personal health data to private companies. This information can be sold to marketers, shared with third parties, or exposed in a breach.' He voiced specific concern about how this data can be combined via different apps and companies over time to build 'incredibly detailed personal health profiles.' So while it may not be a big deal if one company has your sleep data and another has your activity levels, these companies can be acquired, or data can be combined to create a fuller picture of your private health information. 'And AI is really a wild card. Going forward, it will increasingly be able to draw conclusions and make predictions about your current and future health. This raises serious questions about how such insights could affect things like insurance eligibility, premium rates, or even creditworthiness,' Chronister said. When it comes to health data (and data of any sort), 'the risks are inherent even with the government not involved,' Hamerstone said. Once that data exists, it's at risk of being lost or stolen by bad actors, he added. Keep that in mind before you start using wearable health technology, and if you're already a user, it's important to be aware of the risks so you can make informed decisions and do what you can to protect your article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in Goodful: This Woman Is Going Viral For Begging Women Not To Get Married Right Now, And Personally, I Couldn't Agree More Also in Goodful: People Are Sharing Their Biggest "How Doesn't Everyone Know This?" Facts, And I'm Honestly Embarrassed I Never Realized Some Of These Also in Goodful: "I Can't Wait For This To Go Out Of Style": People Are Sharing Popular Modern Trends That Are Actually Pretty Toxic
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare health coverage
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 27 rejected the latest conservative challenge to the 2010 Affordable Care Act, an attack on free access to cancer screenings, drugs that prevent HIV, cholesterol-lowering medication and other preventive health care services. Two Christian-owned businesses and some people in Texas argued that the experts recommending some of the services health insurance must cover are so powerful that they must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court disagreed, meaning a task force proposing these Obamacare services can continue to do so. But their ruling could give more power to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to decide which services must be available without copays or deductibles. "While today's ruling allows many Americans to breathe a sigh of relief, coverage for this vital care remains at risk," Zachary Baron and Andrew Twinamatsiko, directors of the Center for Health Policy and the Law, said in a statement. "All eyes will turn to the Trump administration to see if Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. directs the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to revisit or issue new recommendations that could erode access to preventive care.' The benefit is one of the most popular provisions of the Affordable Care Act − commonly referred to as Obamacare − which has largely survived more than 2,000 lawsuits and multiple trips to the Supreme Court. The latest challenge came from Texans who objected to the requirement that insurers cover the HIV-prevention drug PrEP. They raised religious objections to the drug, saying it encourages same-sex relationships. A federal judge ruled the Christian businesses do not have to include PrEP in their insurance plans. But the judge also said the makeup of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which recommended coverage of PrEP and other preventive services, violates the Constitution's appointments clause. The clause requires presidential appointment and Senate confirmation for officials in significant positions of authority – such as cabinet secretaries and other top agency officials. The Justice Department – both under the Biden and Trump administrations – fought back. The government argued it's the Health and Human Services secretary, and not the task force, that has the 'ultimate responsibility' for whether the experts' recommendations become final. The secretary can fire task force members, review their recommendations and prevent recommendations from taking effect, the Justice Department said during April's oral arguments. The attorney for the Christian businesses said the secretary doesn't have complete control over the task force. Under the law, he noted, tasks force members are supposed to be 'independent and, to the extent practicable, not subject to political pressure.' The government said that independence requirement merely means the task force is supposed to make recommendations based on their impartial medical and public-health judgments. The task force typically updates its recommendations every five years to account for medical advances or reflect new evidence of risk. For example, in 2021, the task force extended recommendations for colon cancer screening to people 45 and older, instead of 50 and up, because of increased diagnoses in younger people. Other services recommended since the ACA was passed include medications like statins to prevent heart disease, lung cancer screenings for certain adults, physical therapy for older people at risk of falling, and testing for hepatitis. Before Obamacare, Americans used preventive services at only about half the recommended rate, according to the federal government. Other services, such as vaccines, that are recommended by different experts, are in dispute under another aspect of the case that is still in the lower courts. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Supreme Court rejects conservative challenge to Obamacare
CNN
8 hours ago
- Health
- CNN
Challenge to panel that recommends no-cost preventive health care is rejected by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Friday upheld a task force that recommends preventive health care services that insurers must cover at no-cost, turning away the latest legal challenge to Obamacare to reach the high court. The opinion indicated that the panel's recommendations – including pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, a medication which vastly reduces a person's risk of getting HIV from sex or injection drug use – would remain in effect, some experts said. However, the case is being remanded to a lower court, where the recommendations could be challenged again. Though the appeal never threatened to take down the Affordable Care Act, it could have had a sweeping impact on millions of Americans and their access to preventive services. Keeping the cost of preventive care free makes it more likely that people will get screenings and other services that are aimed at detecting disease at an earlier stage. 'This is a big win for preventive services,' Andrew Twinamatsiko, a director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at Georgetown University's O'Neill Institute. 'Over 150 million people have been able to access preventive services because of this provision. So this decision ensures that they can keep accessing those services without cost sharing, which is good for health and for minimizing death and disease.' The Supreme Court ruled that members of the panel are 'inferior' officers, meaning they do not need to be appointed by the president. The ruling confirms Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and his predecessor in the Biden administration, had the ability to name the experts who sit on the panel. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the opinion for a 6-3 majority that included both liberal and conservative justices. The 16-member US Preventive Services Task Force, made up of volunteers, has since 1984 provided recommendations to the government about preventive services – like cancer screenings and statin medications to help reduce the risk of heart disease – that can improve Americans' health. As part of the nationwide health care law enacted 15 years ago during President Barack Obama's administration, those recommendations are used to determine which services insurers must cover without charge. At issue in the case were newer recommendations the panel made after the Affordable Care Act was enacted in March 2010. Preventive services recommended before then were not at stake, nor were certain immunizations and preventive care for women and children, which are recommended by other government entities. The more recent recommendations include lung cancer screenings for certain adults, hepatitis screenings and colorectal cancer screenings for younger adults, according to a brief submitted in the case by Public Citizen and several public health groups. Physical therapy for certain older adults to help prevent falls and counseling to help pregnant women maintain healthy body weights are also among the other newer recommendations. A leading health insurance industry group said policies won't change, at least for the time being. 'With this ruling, there are no impacts to existing coverage, and we will closely monitor the ongoing legal process,' AHIP, formerly America's Health Insurance Plans, said in a statement. The Supreme Court's ruling comes at a time when Kennedy has started exerting his authority over panels that offer health care recommendations for the public. Earlier this month, he removed all 17 members of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which guides the federal government's vaccine recommendations, and then added eight new ones. The move has sparked concerns that the new panel's recommendations could be more in line with the views of Kennedy, who has a history of vaccine skepticism. 'The big takeaway here is that the Task Force's recommendations are binding, just as the ACA's drafters intended,' Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, posted on X. 'BUT the scheme is constitutional only because Sec Kennedy can exercise near-complete control over Task Force recommendations. A mixed bag!' The task force structure was challenged by a Texas business, Braidwood Management, that objected on religious grounds to covering certain preventive services, including PrEP. Braidwood argued that, under the Constitution, task force members must be appointed by the president with Senate confirmation. At the very least, the company said, Congress needed to affirmatively vest the appointment power in the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Before 2023, the task force members were appointed by the director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or AHRQ, an agency that is part of HHS. The case, on appeal from the conservative 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, created an unusual political dynamic. Though initially appealed by the Biden administration, President Donald Trump's administration has defended the task force since taking power this year – despite the president's years-long campaign to repeal the 2010 health care law. On the other side of the litigation, Braidwood was represented at the Supreme Court by Jonathan Mitchell, a veteran conservative lawyer who successfully argued against an effort in Colorado to remove Trump from that state's primary ballot during last year's election. The fight over Braidwood's religious objections to PrEP were spun off into separate proceedings. The dispute at the Supreme Court focused on the Constitution's appointments clause, which establishes the president and Senate's role in appointing and confirming officials that wield significant government power. The Trump administration argued that the task force members were 'inferior officers,' because they could be removed at-will by the HHS secretary and because the department appeared to have at least some oversight of the group's recommendations. But if that's true, Mitchell pointed out, then its members needed to be appointed by the secretary of the department, not the director of a subagency. The law is unclear on who actually appoints the board noting and notes only that the AHRQ should 'convene' the group. The Department of Justice said that, through a series of other congressional actions, the secretary effectively had the power to appoint the task force since the position oversees the AHRQ director. During the course of the litigation, then-HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra 'ratified' the earlier appointments during the Biden administration, but Braidwood argued that move wasn't enough to overcome the fact that the law doesn't specifically vest the power of appointment in his office. The 5th Circuit sided with Braidwood, ruling that members of the task force are 'principal officers' who must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Kennedy v. Braidwood was the fourth major appeal to reach the Supreme Court involving Obamacare since the law was enacted during Obama's first term and became a target for conservatives. In 2021, the high court ruled that conservative states challenging a key provision of the law did not have standing to sue because they were not directly harmed. The conservative court also rejected challenges to other provisions of Obamacare in 2012 and 2015.
