Latest news with #healthcarepolicy
CNN
09-07-2025
- Health
- CNN
HHS abruptly calls off meeting of expert panel on preventive care, raising questions about its future
The US Department of Health and Human Services called off an upcoming meeting of expert advisers on preventive health care, raising questions about the future of the longtime, nonpolitical advisory group. An HHS spokesperson confirmed to CNN that the US Preventive Services Task Force — which has set recommendations for cancer screenings, STI testing and other preventive care — will not meet on Thursday as previously scheduled. A notice was sent Monday afternoon saying that the office of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is postponing the July meeting, according to a person familiar with the details who declined to be named because they weren't authorized to discuss the meeting publicly. 'Moving forward, HHS looks forward to engaging with the task force to promote the health and well-being of the American people,' the notice continued. But the cancellation also arrives as Kennedy pushes to reshape the health agencies and expunge them of what he has called longtime health-care industry influence on policies. Kennedy last month dismissed a 17-member US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention vaccine advisory committee and two days later named eight new picks to guide the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Several of the new members have questioned vaccine safety; two have testified in court against vaccine manufacturers. 'There is extraordinary concern,' among those connected to the task force, 'that it's about to be dismissed, like ACIP was,' the person familiar with the meeting said. Kennedy's control over the task force was recently solidified by the US Supreme Court. Last month, in a case challenging a popular provision of the Affordable Care Act, the justices upheld the constitutionality of the task force that recommends preventive health care services that insurers must cover at no-cost. Both the Biden and Trump administrations argued that the task force was properly set up — and therefore, its recommendations should be upheld — because the Health and Human Services secretary was able to name and fire its members. The 16-member task force was set up in 1984 and provides recommendations about preventive services, such as screenings for cancer and various disorders and counseling, that help make Americans aware of illnesses and conditions earlier, when they can be easier and less expensive to treat. The Affordable Care Act mandates that those services are provided without charge to patients. While consumer advocates cheered the Supreme Court ruling, they cautioned that it gives Kennedy more power over preventive care recommendations. '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 last month. 'BUT the scheme is constitutional only because Sec Kennedy can exercise near-complete control over Task Force recommendations. A mixed bag!' Thursday's meeting agenda was to include a discussion of recommendations around 'healthy diet, physical activity, and/or weight loss to prevent cardiovascular disease in adults,' focused on 'behavioral counseling interventions,' the person familiar with the meeting said. The panel typically meets in person three times a year, and Thursday's meeting was to be in person. In addition, they typically meet virtually every week. This is a breaking news story and will be updated.
Health Line
01-07-2025
- Health
- Health Line
Will Medicare Pay For a Home Blood Pressure Monitor?
Medicare usually doesn't cover at-home blood pressure monitors, except for home dialysis or when renting an ambulatory monitor once a year under specific doctor recommendations. If your doctor recommends regular blood pressure checks, consider getting a home monitor. The two main types of monitors are a blood pressure cuff, commonly used in doctors' offices, and an ambulatory blood pressure monitor (ABPM), which automatically tracks your blood pressure for 24 hours. That said, Original Medicare (parts A and B) covers at-home monitors only in specific cases. Read on to learn about their Medicare coverage. Who is eligible for a free home blood pressure monitor through Medicare? Depending on the type of monitor, Medicare will only pay for an at-home blood pressure monitor in a few scenarios. Dialysis If you're on renal dialysis at home, accurate and regular blood pressure monitoring is crucial. When you have chronic kidney disease, high blood pressure can decrease your kidneys' ability to filter toxins out of your body. For this reason, it's important to know if your blood pressure is increasing. In this case, Medicare Part B will provide coverage for a manual blood pressure cuff and a stethoscope. White coat syndrome and masked hypertension There's a phenomenon called white coat syndrome, which occurs when a trip to the doctor's office—or just being in a doctor's office—raises one's blood pressure. Medicare Part B will also cover the rental of an ABPM once a year when your blood pressure is measured at 130/80 to 160/100 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) during at least two visits, but consistently measures below 130/80 mm Hg outside the office. You can also experience masked hypertension, which means your blood pressure is lower in the doctor's office than during daily life. Part B will also pay to rent a monitor when your systolic or diastolic blood pressure is measured between 120 and 129 mm Hg or between 75 and 79 mm Hg on two separate office visits, but your out-of-office blood pressure is consistently measured at 130/80 mm Hg or higher. Other coverage Part B also covers blood pressure checks that take place in your doctor's office as long as your doctor is enrolled in Medicare. Your annual wellness visit should include a blood pressure check, which is covered under Part B as preventive care. If you have a Medicare Part C (Medicare Advantage) plan, your plan should generally cover blood pressure monitors for use at home under the same criteria. This is because Part C plans must provide the same benefits as Original Medicare. Some plans will cover extra benefits, which means they may pay for monitors under additional circumstances as well. If you have Medicare Part A, your benefits will cover any blood pressure monitoring needed while you're an inpatient at a hospital. How can I get a free blood pressure monitor? Medicare doesn't provide a home blood pressure monitor for free. Under Part B, Medicare will pay 80% of the cost of buying or renting either a manual monitor or an ABPM when you qualify for coverage under the approved criteria. You are then responsible for the remaining 20%. That said, you'll need to meet the Part B deductible of $257. You also have to pay a monthly premium, which starts at $185, depending on your income. If you need monitoring while hospitalized, you must meet a $1,676 deductible. Once you do, Part A should cover this. Most people have no premium for Part A. Part C plans are managed by private insurers and have different premiums, deductibles, and coinsurance, depending on your plan. How do I choose an at-home blood pressure monitor? Many people buy blood pressure monitors online, from a local store, or from a pharmacy. The American Heart Association (AHA) recommends using an automatic, cuff-style monitor on your upper arm (around the bicep area) for the most accurate readings. It's a good idea to research the manufacturers of cuffless blood pressure monitors, such as wrist and finger devices, as some brands may not be as reliable. It's important to make sure whichever device you use is properly validated. You can check whether a particular monitor brand is validated at It's also important to measure around your upper arm to ensure the cuff fits properly before making a purchase. It's also advisable to bring your new monitor to your next appointment so your healthcare professional can check its accuracy. Frequently asked questions Do you need a prescription for a blood pressure monitor at home? You can purchase an ordinary cuff monitor from a pharmacy without a prescription. However, to get the cost reimbursed by Medicare, you will need a prescription or a letter from your doctor stating that the monitor is medically necessary. You can purchase an ordinary cuff monitor from a pharmacy without a prescription. However, to get the cost reimbursed by Medicare, you will need a prescription or a letter from your doctor stating that the monitor is medically necessary. Will Medicare pay for an Omron blood pressure monitor? While Medicare does not guarantee coverage for any particular brand of blood pressure monitor, it is more likely to cover validated brands such as Omron. While Medicare does not guarantee coverage for any particular brand of blood pressure monitor, it is more likely to cover validated brands such as Omron. Does Medicaid cover blood pressure monitors? Whether or not you can get a home blood pressure monitor through Medicaid depends on your state. Whether or not you can get a home blood pressure monitor through Medicaid depends on your state. Takeaway Medicare does not pay for at-home blood pressure monitors unless you are undergoing renal dialysis in your home or if your doctor wants you to take your blood pressure somewhere other than a clinical setting. If you are on at-home renal dialysis, Medicare Part B will pay for a manual blood pressure monitor and a stethoscope. If you have white coat syndrome or masked hypertension, Medicare will pay for you to rent an ABPM once a year to monitor your blood pressure over about 24 hours. If you have a Medicare Advantage plan, you'll need to find out whether your plan covers at-home blood pressure monitors. Each plan is different. Taking your blood pressure home is a good idea, especially if you're concerned about hypertension. You can find inexpensive blood pressure cuffs with a wide range of features online or in retail stores.
RNZ News
19-06-2025
- Health
- RNZ News
Private hospitals' use of publicly-funded cancer drugs will widen inequities, warn doctors
Under 'transitional access' private patients won't have to shift to the public system for 12 months. Photo: 123RF A move to allow private patients to access publicly-funded cancer drugs threatens to increase wait times for those in the public system, warn senior doctors. Under "transitional access", which comes into effect on 1 July, private patients who are already receiving treatment - or about to start treatment - with a newly funded medicine will not have to shift to the public system for 12 months. Associate Health Minister David Seymour, who has championed the rule change, said it would lessen stress on private patients by enabling continuity of care, and pressure on the public system which would no longer have to deal with a sudden influx of patients. However, the move has been criticised by opposition politicians as "a subsidy for private insurers", which already cover the cost of medicines newly funded by Pharmac, and of little benefit to patients. The Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, which represents 6500 senior hospital doctors and dentists, said its members working in oncology and haematology had "significant concerns" the change would widen inequities for patients. In a letter on June 13 to Pharmac's acting chief executive Brendan Boyle, the union's director of policy and research, Harriet Wild, quoted a briefing to the minister saying the policy change "would not increase volumes of cancer medicines provided in New Zealand, as only the location of treatments will change". "It will simply shift some of the existing capacity to the private system, where patients will need to fund infusion costs out-of-pocket," Wild wrote. "There will be pressure on the public system to ensure a smooth transition in treatment regime, which may mean delaying treatment for other people already waiting on the public list and unable to self-fund to start in private. "This potentially creates a two-tier waiting list and a system where those with more financial resources, will be prioritised for treatment." Furthermore, the shift of resources and inevitable increase in demand was likely to speed up the exodus of staff to the private sector, making public waiting lists even longer. A "back-pocket Q&A" provided to Seymour ahead of a Cabinet meeting on April 7 noted that the current eligibility criteria in the Pharmaceutical Schedule (excluding patients in private settings) was "designed to ensure public funding for medicines was prioritised for those managed in the public health system for cancer treatment, assessed by need, rather than public funding supporting those who chose to access treatment in private facilities. "Often the private treatment is funded from private health insurance that people have paid premiums into." In the same document, the minister said there was no plan to expand the policy to include other types of medicines or treatments "at this stage". "With that said, I've asked the Ministry [of Health] to do further work in this area to explore the possibility of broadening access to all publicly-funded medicines in private facilities - not just newly funded cancer medicines. "I encourage the private health providers and insurance companies to work closely with the ministry to support their understanding of how this might work in practice." Wild said opening access to publicly-funded drugs even wider would pull more staff away from the public system, reducing access for the majority who relied on it. "That would establish a system where a patient's ability to receive timely cancer care would depend on whether they could afford the out-of-pocket infusion costs." The government's 2024 Budget boost to Pharmac to widen access to medicines for patients had not been accompanied by extra resources for Te Whatu Ora to deliver the treatments, when public oncology services were already swamped with demand, Wild said. "Our members are increasingly needing to manage deteriorating patients, who are unable to access chemotherapy infusions in clinically acceptable timeframes. "This is unacceptable and represents a significant failure to invest in a planned and co-ordinated way to enable the public system to meet the needs of cancer patients, including those eligible for newly funded cancer medicines. "Whenever a new cancer drug is funded, it must be accompanied by an increase in the full package of care (staffing, infusion space, pharmacy) so that patients can actually receive the medicines within clinically acceptable timeframes." The Health Minister and David Seymour's office have been approached for comment. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Japan Times
06-06-2025
- Politics
- Japan Times
Foreign tourists with unpaid medical bills in Japan to be denied entry
The government on Friday revised its policy on foreign residents and visitors, which includes denying entry to foreign tourists who have failed to pay medical fees during visits to Japan and rejecting visa extensions for foreign nationals who fail to pay premiums for the national health care and pension system. Details of when and how it will be implemented have yet to be hammered out. The policy changes were made during a meeting of relevant ministers at the Prime Minister's Office. Alongside an increasing number of foreign visitors to Japan, there have been growing calls for reform from politicians to address unpaid medical fees and health care premiums — deficits filled by taxpayers' money. During the meeting, Ishiba said the government plans to establish a liaison office at the Cabinet Secretariat to tackle the wide range of issues across different ministries. 'If our current systems are unable to address the realities of globalization and fail to dispel public anxiety, then drastic reforms must be undertaken,' Ishiba said. 'We will make sure to consider the rights of foreign nationals are ensured and provide necessary support so they won't be isolated in our country,' Ishiba said. 'But we will take strict measures for those who don't follow the rules.' The government also plans to check whether social welfare premiums have been paid by host organizations employing foreign workers with the specified skilled worker residential status. If they have been found to have a certain amount of unpaid premiums, they will not be allowed to employ those workers, according to the revised policy. On Thursday, the ruling Liberal Democratic Party committee submitted a proposal to Ishiba calling for a better dissemination of tax and social insurance information to foreign residents. The plans for revisions were also included in a draft of the honebuto annual economic basic policy guidelines, which sets the tone for the national budget planning process for the coming fiscal year. Foreign nationals who stay in Japan for more than three months are required to join the national health care program, known as kokumin kenkō hoken. Those who are hired as full-time employees at companies in Japan will have their and their family members' health insurance covered. However, those who are not — such as exchange students — are sometimes unaware they need to join the national health care program. The current rules state that invoices are mailed out after enrollment, but many foreign residents fail to follow through with payments. According to a health ministry survey of 150 municipalities from April to December 2024, only 63% of the foreign residents who need to pay the premium have done so — far below the 93% overall rate that includes Japanese citizens. Information from Jiji added
Associated Press
06-06-2025
- Health
- Associated Press
A judge tells federal agencies they can't enforce anti-trans bias policies against Catholic groups
BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Two federal agencies cannot punish Catholic employers and health care providers if they refuse for religious reasons to provide gender-affirming care to transgender patients or won't provide health insurance coverage for such care to their workers, a federal judge ruled Thursday. The ruling from U.S. District Judge Peter Welte, the chief federal judge in North Dakota, bars the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing a health care rule it imposed in 2024 under Democratic President Joe Biden. The rule said that existing policies against sex discrimination covered discrimination based on gender identity, so that health care providers risked losing federal funds if they refused to provide gender-affirming care. Welte also barred the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from telling employers that a failure to have health plans cover gender-affirming care for their workers would represent discrimination based on sex that could lead to a lawsuit against them and penalties. The judge rejected a request from an order of nuns, two Catholic homes and the Catholic Benefits Association, which represents employers, to impose similar bans on each agency covering abortion and fertility treatments Catholic organizations consider immoral. He said those claims were 'underdeveloped' and not ready for court review. But he concluded that allowing the two agencies to enforce policies on gender-affirming care or health coverage for it would restrict employers' and health care providers' ability to live out their religious beliefs, violating a 1992 federal law meant to provide broad protections for religious freedoms. The HHS rule had a provision allowing the agency to make case-by-case exceptions based on religious beliefs, but Welte said that would be insufficient. 'The case-by-case exemption procedure leaves religious organizations unable to predict their legal exposure without furthering any compelling antidiscrimination interests,' wrote Welte, who is based in Fargo. The two agencies did not immediately respond to email messages seeking comment Thursday. The Catholic Benefits Association serves more than 9,000 employers and about 164,000 employees enrolled in member health plans, according to its website. The group, founded in 2013, says it 'advocates for and litigates in defense of our members' First Amendment rights to provide employee benefits and a work environment that is consistent with the Catholic faith.' The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects religious freedoms. Association General Counsel Martin Nussbaum welcomed the ruling, saying the organization's members 'want to do the right thing in their health plan and in their medical services that they provide for those medical providers, and this gives them protection to doing that.' And he said the judge's ruling suggests there are no mandates from the federal government on abortion or fertility treatments, so there is 'no need to provide protection.' The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that the Civil Rights Act's protections against discrimination based on sex also cover anti-LGBTQ+ bias in employment. The landmark 1964 act doesn't have specific provisions dealing with bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. But courts also have intervened to limit how far the federal government can go in combating anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination when religious organizations or employers with religious beliefs against LGBTQ+ rights are involved. Both the HHS rule and the EEOC's policy on sex discrimination have their roots in efforts by President Barack Obama to protect LGBTQ+ rights in 2016, in his last year in office. When President Donald Trump began his second term in January, he issued an order saying the federal government would not recognize transgender people's gender identities. In April, two employees said the EEOC was classifying all new gender identity-related discrimination cases as its lowest priority, essentially putting them on indefinite hold. The 2024 HHS rule also covered bias based on 'pregnancy or related conditions,' and the Catholic health care providers argued that they might face losing federal funds if they refused to perform abortions, in line with Catholic opposition to abortion. But HHS said the rule wouldn't have forced them to perform abortions or provide health coverage for abortions — only that it couldn't refuse to care for someone because they'd had one, according to Welte. ___ Hanna reported from Topeka, Kansas.
