OB-GYN group won't take federal funds over Trump policies
Why it matters: The decision by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists appears to be the first time a medical society has divested itself over conditions the administration has placed on government contractors and grant recipients.
Professional medical groups routinely contract with the federal health agencies to administer or contribute to public health initiatives. ACOG has about 60,000 members and lists diversity and equity among its core values.
State of play: ACOG sent an email to members last week notifying them that it will stop accepting federal funding for current contracts.
"After careful deliberation, ACOG has made an organization-wide decision to stop accepting federal funding for all ACOG programs and activities for current contracts," the organization said in a statement shared with Axios.
"Recent changes in federal funding laws and regulations significantly impact ACOG's program goals, policy positions, and ability to provide timely and evidence-based guidance and recommendations for care."
"We remain fully committed to this critical work and will allocate our own resources to continue it in a way that is centered on patient needs and grounded in evidence."
The organization will continue to engage with the federal government on policy advocacy, ACOG said.
By the numbers: The ACOG Foundation — the group's 501(c)(3) affiliate — has received $950,000 from Health and Human Services this year to oversee reviews and updates of preventive services guidelines for women, according to an HHS grant-tracking website.
ACOG wouldn't elaborate on what aspects of the work its decision will affect.
Other medical societies that contract with the federal government include the American Medical Association, which has received $750,000 from HHS this year, per federal records.
What they're saying: "This is great news for the American taxpayer," HHS communications director Andrew Nixon wrote in an email to Axios. "ACOG taking itself off the federal payroll might be the most responsible budgeting decision they've made."
HHS will make sure the preventive services guidelines "reflect gold-standard, evidence-based science and in partnership with those who can deliver this guidance in accordance with the law," he said.
Zoom out: ACOG is one of a few medical associations vocally pushing back against President Trump and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s health policy shifts.
Health care during pregnancy has become a flashpoint. Kennedy has removed the recommendation that pregnant people get COVID-19 vaccines, and a recent advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration cast doubt on the safety of antidepressants during pregnancy.
ACOG said afterward that the composition of the panel was "alarmingly unbalanced" and that there's robust evidence showing the medications are safe during pregnancy.
The American Academy of Pediatrics has also publicly opposed recent HHS actions. The group boycotted a June meeting of Kennedy's handpicked vaccine advisory committee, saying a June purge of the panel's 17 advisers compromised its credibility.
What to watch: ACOG left the door open to resuming federal contracting work in the future.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
14 minutes ago
- NBC News
Will health insurance pay for Covid vaccines this fall?
If you want a Covid shot this fall, will your employer's health insurance plan pay for it? There's no clear answer. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime anti-vaccine activist, has upended the way Covid vaccines are approved and for whom they're recommended, creating uncertainty where coverage was routine. Agencies within HHS responsible for spelling out who should get vaccinated aren't necessarily in sync, issuing seemingly contradictory recommendations based on age or risk factors for serious disease. But the ambiguity may not affect your coverage, at least this year. 'I think in 2025 it's highly likely that the employer plans will cover' the Covid vaccines, said Dr. Jeff Levin-Scherz, a primary care doctor who is the population health leader for the management consultancy WTW and an assistant professor at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. They've already budgeted for it, 'and it would be a large administrative effort to try to exclude coverage for those not at increased risk,' he said. With so much in flux, it's important to check with your employer or insurer about coverage policies before you roll up your sleeve. Here's what we know so far, and what remains unclear. What used to be straightforward is now much murkier. Last year, the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech Covid vaccines were recommended for anyone at least 6 months old. This year, the recommendation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is narrower. Although the vaccines are broadly recommended for adults 19 and older, they are no longer recommended for healthy pregnant people or for healthy children 6 months through 17 years old. Kennedy announced the changes in a video in May, citing safety risks for young people and pregnant people as justification. But his claims have been widely disputed by experts in vaccines, pediatrics, and women's health. An analysis by found that the secretary 'misrepresented scientific research to make unfounded claims about vaccine safety for pregnant people and children.' In addition, recently announced changes to the vaccine approval framework have further chipped away at eligibility. Moderna announced July 10 that the Food and Drug Administration had fully approved its Spikevax Covid vaccine — but approval is restricted to adults 65 and older, and for people from 6 months through 64 years old who are at increased risk of developing a serious case of Covid. Two other Covid vaccines expected to be available this fall, Novavax's Nuvaxovid and Moderna's mNexspike, are also restricted. They are approved for people 65 or older and those 12 to 64 who have underlying health conditions that put them at higher risk of developing severe Covid. Notably, Pfizer's Comirnaty Covid vaccine is still approved or authorized for people 6 months of age and older without any restrictions based on risk factors for Covid — at least for now. But the FDA could change that at any time, experts said. Increasing restrictions 'is definitely the direction they are moving,' said Jen Kates, a senior vice president at KFF who authored a KFF analysis of vaccine insurance coverage rules. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. HHS did not provide an on-the-record comment for this article. How might these changes alter my insurance coverage for the vaccine? That's the big question, and the answer is uncertain. Without insurance coverage, people could owe hundreds of dollars for the shot. Most private health plans are required by law to cover recommended vaccines, whether for Covid, measles, or the flu, without charging their members. But that requirement kicks in after the shots are recommended by a federal panel — the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices — and adopted by the CDC director, according to the KFF analysis. The committee hasn't yet voted on Covid vaccine recommendations for this fall. Its next meeting is expected to occur in August or September. Still, employers and insurers can opt to cover the vaccines on their own, as many did before the law required them to do so. But they may require people to pay something for it. In addition, the narrower recommendations from different HHS agencies might result in some health plans declining to pay for certain categories of people to get certain vaccines, experts said. 'I don't think an employer or insurer would deny coverage,' Kates said. 'But they could say: You have to get this product.' That could mean a 45-year-old with no underlying health conditions raising their covid risk might have to get the Pfizer shot rather than the Moderna version if they want their health plan to pay for it, experts said. In addition, up to 200 million people may qualify for the vaccines because they have health conditions such as asthma or diabetes that increase their risk of severe disease, according to a commentary published by FDA officials in the New England Journal of Medicine. Health care professionals can help people determine whether they qualify for the shot based on health conditions. Tina Stow, a spokesperson for AHIP, which represents health plans, said in a statement that plans will continue to follow federal requirements for vaccine coverage. What are the options for people who are pregnant or have children they want to have vaccinated? Many parents are confused about getting their kids vaccinated, according to an Aug. 1 KFF poll. About half say they don't know whether federal agencies recommend healthy children get the vaccine this fall. Among the other half, more say the vaccine is not recommended than recommended. Meanwhile, Kennedy's recommendation that healthy children not get vaccinated has a notable caveat: If a parent wishes a child to get a Covid vaccine and a health care provider recommends it, the child can receive it under the ' shared clinical decision-making ' model, and it should be covered without cost sharing. Some policy experts point out that this is the way care for kids is typically provided anyway. 'Outside of any requirements, vaccines have always been provided through shared decision-making,' said Amanda Jezek, senior vice president of public policy and government relations at the Infectious Diseases Society of America. There's no similar allowance for pregnant people. However, even though Kennedy has stated that Covid vaccines are no longer recommended for healthy pregnant people, pregnancy is one of the underlying medical conditions that put people at high risk for getting very sick from Covid, according to the CDC. That could make pregnant people eligible for the shot. Depending on the stage of someone's pregnancy, it could be difficult to know whether someone should be denied the shot based on their condition. 'This is uncharted territory,' said Sabrina Corlette, co-director of Georgetown University's Center on Health Insurance Reforms. How will these changes affect access to the vaccine? Will I still be able to go to the pharmacy for the shot? 'If far fewer are expected to be vaccinated, fewer sites will offer the vaccinations,' Levin-Scherz said. This could be an especially notable hurdle for people looking for pediatric doses of a covid vaccine, he said. In addition, pharmacists' authority to administer vaccines depends on several factors. For example, in some states they can administer shots that have been approved by the FDA, while in others the shots must have been recommended by the ACIP, said Hannah Fish, senior director of strategic initiatives at the National Community Pharmacists Association. Since ACIP hasn't yet recommended covid shots for the fall, that could create a speed bump in some states. 'Depending on the rules, you still may be able to get the shot at the pharmacy, but they might have to call the physician to send over a prescription,' Fish said. What do these changes mean long-term? It's impossible to know. But given Kennedy's vocal skepticism of vaccines and his embrace of long-disproven theories about connections between vaccines and autism, among other things, medical and public health professionals are concerned those views will shape future policies. 'The recommendation changes that were made with respect to children and pregnant women were not necessarily made in good science,' Corlette said. It's already a challenge to convince people they need annual covid shots, and shifting guidelines may make it tougher, some public health experts warn. 'What's concerning is that this could even further depress the uptake of the covid vaccines,' Jezek said.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
3 Medical Stocks to Consider as Markets Take a Breather
The broader indexes have cooled off in the last few trading sessions after what was another pleasant month for the stock market in July. While the market has been able to shrug off trade war concerns on the way to a historic rebound, President Trump has officially signed an executive order to hit most of the United States' trading partners with tariff hikes, which ignited a pullback on Friday as July's Jobs Report came in weaker than expected. Considering the benchmark S&P 500 and the tech-centric Nasdaq looked due for a breather after spiking more than +10% in the last three months, investors may be scoping out some defensive positions. That said, these medical sector stocks may continue to provide this defensive safety, as there will always be a constant need for health care. CVS Health Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) CVS Health's CVS transformation into an innovative pharmacy company with integrated offerings across the entire spectrum of pharmacy care is paying off. Thanks to strong earnings, raised guidance, and renewed investor confidence, CVS stock has surged over +30% this year but still trades at just 10X forward earnings and offers a very generous 4.28% annual dividend yield. In addition to sporting a Zacks Rank #2 (Buy), CVS stock currently checks an overall 'A' VGM Zacks Style Scores grade for the combination of Value, Growth, and Momentum. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Johnson & Johnson Zacks Rank #2 (Buy) Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson JNJ checks the value box, with a reasonable 15.1X forward earnings multiple and a 3.16% annual dividend yield. Furthermore, investors seemed to have flocked to Johnson & Johnson stock earlier in the year during heightened market volatility, and JNJ is still up +15% in 2025 to top the S&P 500 and Nasdaq's returns of roughly +7%. Although Johnson & Johnson's growth has slowed, steady top and bottom line expansion is still in the forecast, and the medical leader has one of the most diversified business models. Having more than 275 subsidiaries, Johnson & Johnson's pipeline of drugs/treatments covers neuroscience and mental health, oncology, immunology, pulmonary hypertension, cardiovascular, rare, and infectious diseases. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Tenet Healthcare Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy) We'll round out the list with Tenet Healthcare THC, an investor-owned health care services company that owns and operates general hospitals and health care facilities for urban and rural communities in numerous states. Boasting a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy), THC stock is benefiting from a very pleasant trend of positive earnings estimate revisions. With Tenet Healthcare's annual earnings now expected to leap 25% in fiscal 2025 to $14.92 per share, it's noteworthy that these EPS revisions have climbed 17% in the last 60 days from estimates of $12.69 two months ago. Plus, THC is up +25% YTD and trades at 10X forward earnings. Strongly suggesting Tenet Healthcare's impressive stock performance should continue, FY26 EPS is projected to expand another 4% to $15.48, and estimates have spiked 14% in the last 60 days. On top of being a 'feel-good' investment in regard to Tenet Healthcare reaching underserved communities, THC checks the fundamental trading boxes with an 'A' VGM Zacks Style Scores grade. Image Source: Zacks Investment Research Bottom Line Hopefully, the excitement for AI-driven growth will continue to push the broader market higher, but these top medical stocks can provide the defensive safety that investors may need with volatility starting to resurface amid President Trump's tariff hikes and last month's unfavorable jobs report. Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) : Free Stock Analysis Report Tenet Healthcare Corporation (THC) : Free Stock Analysis Report CVS Health Corporation (CVS) : Free Stock Analysis Report This article originally published on Zacks Investment Research ( Zacks Investment Research
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
States sue Trump administration over access to care for transgender youths
A coalition of more than a dozen states sued the Trump administration on Friday over health care for transgender young people, claiming the White House has 'relentlessly, cruelly, and unlawfully targeted transgender individuals' since President Donald Trump took office. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Massachusetts, seeks to have part of one executive order issued in January declared unconstitutional. The order targets gender-affirming care provided to people under the age of 19, such as puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgical procedures, which it refers to as 'mutilation.' The lawsuit also asks the court to declare unlawful the Justice Department's targeting of providers of gender-affirming care. The section of the order that is being challenged directs the Justice Department to use laws such as the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, those against female genital mutilation, and child custody legislation to carry out the administration's aims. 'It is the policy of the United States that it will not fund, sponsor, promote, assist, or support the so-called 'transition' of a child from one sex to another,' Trump's order says, calling the treatments 'a stain on our Nation's history.' The states of Massachusetts, California, New York, Connecticut, Illinois, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia and Josh Shapiro in his capacity as Pennsylvania governor, filed suit. The lawsuit, filed against Trump, the Justice Department and Attorney General Pam Bondi, argues that the executive order conflicts with states' remit to regulate and police medicine and violates the 10th Amendment, which protects states' powers, and is in conflict with many state antidiscrimination laws. Nearly every major medical association endorses the availability of gender-affirming care for transgender young people, citing reductions in depression, substance abuse and suicide attempts. 'Empirical evidence has demonstrated that trans and nonbinary gender identities are normal variations of human identity and expression,' the American Medical Association has said. But the issue, and others related to transgender people, has animated conservatives. Trump has said he wants the 'official policy of the United States' to be that there are only two genders and has referred to being transgender as a 'falsehood.' The administration has moved to ban transgender service members from the military, relocate incarcerated transgender women into men's prisons and bar transgender people from using restrooms that align with their gender identity in federal buildings, among a slew of anti-trans measures, many of which have been challenged in court. After the January order, the lawsuit says, the Justice Department began 'intimidating providers into ceasing care through threats of civil and criminal prosecution.' 'These threats have no basis in law,' the complaint says. 'No federal law prohibits, much less criminalizes, the provision or receipt of gender-affirming care for transgender adolescents.' Puberty blockers temporarily inhibit sex hormones, such as estrogen and testosterone, and other hormone therapies introduce them to the body. Gender-affirming surgeries, such as breast reductions for transgender men, are rarely performed on minors. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in an email that 'everyday Americans resoundingly support' the administration's actions. 'The President has the lawful authority to protect America's vulnerable children through executive action, and the Administration looks forward to ultimate victory on this issue,' she added. In June, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee.
