By Helen Branswell
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Tuesday announced that the government’s emergency preparedness agency will no longer fund work on messenger RNA vaccines, delivering a crippling blow to the country’s capacity to develop vaccines during the next pandemic or public health emergency.
Kennedy said the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority was terminating 22 grants supporting development of mRNA vaccines because “data show these vaccines fail to protect effectively against upper respiratory infections like COVID and flu.” Studies dispute Kennedy’s claim.
Vaccine experts and people steeped in pandemic preparedness expressed horror at the news.
For doctors, patient complaints beget … industry payments?
The more unsolicited complaints from patients that doctors receive, the more likely they are to take higher payments from industry, according to a study published yesterday in JAMA Network Open.
Researchers analyzed data from almost 72,000 doctors whose clinics participate in the Patient Advocacy Reporting System Index. Complaints logged there were cross-referenced with data on the same physicians in the Open Payments Program database. Those who had higher PARS scores — which are calculated with the number and the severity of patient complaints — were significantly more likely to accept general payments (meaning not for research), particularly for higher amounts.
Male physicians and those practicing in nonacademic settings were also more likely to accept larger general payments. The results demonstrate an urgent need for clinics to address conflict and trust between physicians and patients and to strengthen the management of financial conflicts of interest.
from AXIOS:
🧠 Longevity firms are pushing Montana to become a medical tourism hub for trying unapproved experimental treatments. (WSJ)
🚫 Planned Parenthood is shutting down operations in Louisiana, citing “relentless political assaults.” (Axios)
🍊 Orange juice could be made with slightly less sugary oranges under a regulation proposed yesterday by the Trump administration. (WashPost)
from Politico:
CUTS INCOMING — Hospitals are preparing for a major hit to their bottom lines as Republicans’ sweeping megabill, containing more than $1 trillion in health care cuts, is implemented over the next few years.
Patients could see a cutback in services sooner rather than later, said Bruce Siegel, president and CEO of America’s Essential Hospitals, a trade group for safety-net hospitals, who’s retiring at the end of the year.
Kelly caught up with Siegel to talk through how the “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” signed into law on the Fourth of July, will impact safety-net and rural hospitals. The law sets limits on provider taxes — which states levy to generate Medicaid revenue, which often gets passed back to hospitals — and includes Medicaid work requirements and provisions targeting Medicaid directed payments.
Here’s some of the conversation, edited for length and clarity.
How deeply do you expect the cuts in the new law to impact hospitals?
The impact will be catastrophic. The [law] is an unfortunate, self-inflicted wound. You’re talking about easily a trillion dollars coming out of the health care system, with 17 million people probably losing their coverage, between the [law] and if the [enhanced Obamacare] premium tax credits expire at the end of the year. That is going to have huge ramifications for the health care system, especially hospitals.
We have estimated that we’re probably looking at about over $400 billion total in additional uncompensated care for U.S. hospitals over 10 years.
What specific services could take a hit?
I have talked with several health system CEOs who have pretty detailed contingency plans about what happens and what they’re going to have to do going forward.
You have to close things that lose money, and very often, the things that lose money are the things we really want to keep in our communities. You wind up closing outpatient clinics, which are access points near people’s homes. You close behavioral health services and mental health services that we so desperately need as a country. You close the trauma center, you close the maternity center. That is the sad mathematics of trying to make it through something like this.
Are you starting to see hospitals make any changes in preparation for the cuts?
We are starting to see some cutbacks already. I suspect that we’ll be seeing some layoff announcements in the next [few weeks] from some health systems.
Republicans included a $50 billion rural hospital fund in the law to help mitigate some of the impact of cuts on rural hospitals. How much will that help?
It’s better than nothing, but it’s not much. That $50 billion is equal to 5 percent of the cuts. So it’s like somebody took $100 from you and gave you $5 back.
I’m not sure where it’s going to go and what it’s going to be used for. If you read the language, it doesn’t say this money is going to replace the Medicaid cuts. It could go to a lot of things, and the [HHS] secretary has huge discretion in how it’s distributed. The proof will be in the pudding as to what actually happens.
At the Agencies
NIH’S MISSTEP — The Trump administration broke the law by illegally withholding funds lawmakers required the National Institutes of Health to spend, the Government Accountability Office said Tuesday.
The investigative arm of Congress found in a new report that the Trump administration failed to adhere to the requirements of a 1974 law, the Impoundment Control Act, which determines when a president can cancel federal funding appropriated by Congress, POLITICO’s Erin Schumaker reports.
What happened: According to the report, the NIH “withheld funds from obligation and expenditure” after implementing a communications pause this winter at HHS and complying with President Donald Trump’s various executive orders.
Trump’s orders included directives to cancel NIH grants, contracts and other funding related to diversity, equity and inclusion. That resulted in the agency terminating more than 1,800 grants between February and June. And it didn’t publish grant review meeting notices between late January and early March, effectively freezing funding.
Key context: When asked by POLITICO about the report, an HHS spokesperson pointed to a response the agency sent to GAO detailing the NIH’s attempts to comply with the administration’s directives and to get back on track with peer review, advisory council meetings and grant application reviews.
What’s next: The deadline for the NIH to spend its budget is nearing fast. The fiscal year ends on Sept. 30.
PHARMA WATCH
TARIFF THREATS — President Donald Trump said Tuesday that his tariffs on pharmaceutical imports could reach up to 250 percent, the highest rate he’s threatened so far, POLITICO’s Doug Palmer reports.
During an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Trump said he plans to impose tariffs on pharmaceuticals in the coming weeks, starting at a low rate and rising to 150 percent or 250 percent after 18 or so months.
In early July, Trump floated imposing a tariff of up to 200 percent on pharmaceuticals imported into the U.S. “very soon.” The tariffs are aimed at incentivising drug companies to manufacture more pharmaceuticals in the U.S.
Meanwhile: Drug companies have warned that the tariffs could disrupt the supply chain, impede research and development and drive up costs for patients.
