logo
Trump dubbed himself the ‘father of IVF' on the campaign trail. But his pledge to mandate insurance cover has disappeared

Trump dubbed himself the ‘father of IVF' on the campaign trail. But his pledge to mandate insurance cover has disappeared

Independent4 days ago
Donald Trump's vow to expand in vitro fertilization (IVF) access to millions of Americans is on hold, with White House officials backing away from plans to require Obamacare health plans to include the service as an essential health benefit, the Washington Post reported on Sunday.
The Post reported that White House officials have privately moved away from the prospect of pushing for legislation to address the issue despite it being one of Trump's signature campaign promises, citing two persons with knowledge of internal discussions in Trumpworld.
A senior administration official also acknowledged to the newspaper that changing Obamacare to force insurers to cover new services would require congressional action, not an executive order. The president has governed largely by executive fiat in his second term as he grapples with a closely-divded Congress and an unruly GOP majority in the House of Representatives.
He's used those executive orders to dismantle whole parts of the federal government, including USAID and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The president even tried to take an axe to the Department of Education, though that battle is still being waged in the courts. The Supreme Court recently cleared the way for Trump to cut roughly a quarter of the agency's staff.
But many of Trump's campaign promises lie outside of his ability to influence via the hiring or firing of people and redirection of agency resources or agendas. In 2024, he laid out no direct path for his goal to expand IVF access, only telling voters that insurance companies would be forced to cover it. Still, he proclaimed himself the 'father of IVF' at at Fox News town hall, and promised during an NBC News interview: 'We are going to be, under the Trump administration, we are going to be paying for that treatment. We're going to be mandating that the insurance company pay.'
At the time, there was little to no acknowledgment of the fact that many if not most conservatives still oppose the Affordable Care Act and the same healthcare exchanges which Trump was now promising to utilize as he sought to use the power of the federal government to expand healthcare coverage. Now, with the passage of Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' without any provisions expanding IVF access, and with the prospect of further policy gains before the midterms growing dimmer, it's unclear when the White House would have another chance to press the issue in Congress.
In February, the president signed an executive order directing his advisers to 'submit to the President a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reducing out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.' It's been crickets on the issue since then.
In 2024, many of Trump's critics and the media pointed out that the policy would essentially amount to a reversal or at the very least coming in sharp contrast to the first Trump administration's efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which ended in failure, and a contradiction of the conservative view that government should not exercise that level of control over Americans' health care decisions.
The president's promise thrilled his party's natalists, embodied by Vice President JD Vance and an army of right-wing immigration hawks who fear the changing American demographics brought on as a result of falling birth rates and high levels of migration. It also wowed some of his Democratic and left-leaning critics, who see the policy as a means of furthering their goal of expanding access to healthcare for poorer Americans.
For Vance, the issue of declining U.S. birth rates predates his MAGA heel-turn.
In 2019, he told a gathering of conservatives in Washington: 'Our people aren't having enough children to replace themselves. That should bother us.'
'We want babies not just because they are economically useful. We want more babies because children are good. And we believe children are good, because we are not sociopaths,' the future vice president added at the time. Two years later, he'd tell a right-leaning podcast: 'I think we have to go to war against the anti-child ideology that exists in our country.'
During the 2024 campaign, those views emerged again as Vance attacked Democrats as 'childless cat ladies' and leaned heavily into attacking the left for supposedly being anti-family. Progressives fought back, pointing to efforts to expand the child tax credit and other benefits that aid young families under Joe Biden and other Democratic administrations, including the passage of Barack Obama's signature law: the Affordable Care Act.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

CureVac settles mRNA patent dispute litigation with Pfizer and BioNTech
CureVac settles mRNA patent dispute litigation with Pfizer and BioNTech

Reuters

time9 minutes ago

  • Reuters

CureVac settles mRNA patent dispute litigation with Pfizer and BioNTech

Aug 7 (Reuters) - German drugmaker CureVac ( opens new tab and GSK (GSK.L), opens new tab reached an agreement with BioNTech ( opens new tab and Pfizer (PFE.N), opens new tab on Thursday to resolve a years-long patent dispute related to mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines, CureVac said. As part of the settlement, CureVac and GSK will receive a combined payment of $740 million and single-digit royalties on sales of COVID-19 vaccines in the U.S. going forward. CureVac will also grant BioNTech and Pfizer a non-exclusive license to manufacture, use, import and sell mRNA-based COVID-19 and influenza products in the U.S. The settlement comes after BioNTech agreed to acquire its domestic peer CureVac in a $1.25 billion all-stock deal in June. Three years ago, CureVac had filed a patent lawsuit against BioNTech over its use of mRNA technology, seeking fair compensation from the company and two of its subsidiaries for infringement of its intellectual property rights. CureVac had said that its claim to intellectual property rights was based on more than two decades of work on mRNA technology, some of which was used by BioNTech and Pfizer for the development and sale of their Comirnaty coronavirus vaccine. CureVac's efforts to develop an mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine did not come to fruition during the pandemic, whereas BioNTech and its partner Pfizer chalked up more than $40 billion in combined vaccine sales in 2021 and 2022.

I'm a doctor and there's an act women should never do - and it will make sense why 20 years from now
I'm a doctor and there's an act women should never do - and it will make sense why 20 years from now

Daily Mail​

time9 minutes ago

  • Daily Mail​

I'm a doctor and there's an act women should never do - and it will make sense why 20 years from now

An American dermatologist has shared a simple action that doesn't cost a thing - but could one day have a huge anti-ageing effect on your appearance. Dr. Sam Ellis, from California, revealed a piece of 'cosmetic advice' that if implemented now, could prevent issues 20 years down the line. And it has to do with your earlobes. Dr. Ellis explained in her TikTok video that as people age their 'earlobes get saggier' and 'looser'. 'If you wear earrings, that can become a problem, because your earrings can start to look very sad in your ear holes,' she said. 'It's not usually something you notice in your 20s or your 30s. But come 40s, come 50s, your earrings are not looking as cute in their holes as they once were.' The cosmetic dermatologist goes on to explain that there's one simple act that can help prevent the likelihood of overly saggy earlobes. 'The easiest thing you can do to prevent premature stretching of your ear holes is to not sleep in your earrings,' she recommended. The doctor explained that sleeping in earrings places 'unnecessary strain and stress on your piercing holes'. Over time, this could cause them to stretch out quicker, resulting in earrings no longer sitting well within the holes, or making the piercing hole so stretched that earrings look too low on the lobe. However, the skin expert noted that this advice wasn't applicable to earrings higher up on the ear where the cartilage is firmer - only those piercings on the 'floppy earlobe'. The video quickly attracted over 1,100 comments - many from stunned women who have been unknowingly wearing earrings non-stop for years on end. 'I didn't know people were taking off earrings every night,' read one floored reply. 'I've been wearing mine since I was a toddler for 20 years,' read another stunned response. '*Takes off my earrings while watching this video in bed*' admitted a third person. There were also follow-up questions for the doctor from women who regularly wore a certain style of earrings at nighttime. 'What about tiny stud earrings? Should those come out too?' asked one person. Another questioned if 'small hoops' were okay because 'they don't feel like they pull' while they slept. In both instances, Dr Ellis replied with her steadfast recommendation that all types of earrings should 'ideally' removed at night. A couple of commenters noted under the video that the doctor's message had confirmed their own observations. 'I thought I was imagining it!' a 52-year-old woman replied, adding that she was adamant that her 'ear lobes are floppier than they used to be'. 'For those of us where it's too late, is the surgery to sew them up worth it?' questioned another older woman. Dr Ellis assured her there were cosmetic options to refresh the appearance of the ears. 'Ear lobe repairs can be amazing,' she offered. 'A little filler in the lobes can also be helpful if the stretch is minimal.' Also among the commenters were confident replies from women who'd always adhered to the practice of removing their earrings before bed. 'I've been doing this my whole life. My earlobes will be SNATCHED,' read one reply. 'The ONE thing I've done right cosmetically LOL,' added another. 'I didn't realise sleeping with earrings in was a thing. It's like a bra for me, off the minute I get home,' said a third person. There's a general misconception that our ears (along with noses) are an area of the body that never stops growing. While our ears may appear different in shape as we age, this effect is a result of skin changes and gravity - not growth. As we get older, the cartilage and skin in the ear area begins to break down. Coupled with gravity, this can give the ears a droopy appearance. In addition to this, the rest of our face loses bone, muscle and fat. This overall loss of volume over time makes the face smaller - and therefore by comparison, the ears can appear longer and bigger. As mentioned by Dr. Ellis, cosmetic dermatologists and plastic surgeons offer a range of rejuvenation procedures for stretched earlobes. This includes using fillers like hyaluronic acid to plump the area and stimulate collagen production.

Senators seek UnitedHealth records on push to curb nursing home hospitalizations
Senators seek UnitedHealth records on push to curb nursing home hospitalizations

The Guardian

time35 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Senators seek UnitedHealth records on push to curb nursing home hospitalizations

US lawmakers are asking UnitedHealth Group, the nation's largest healthcare conglomerate, to disclose internal documents about its efforts to reduce hospital transfers for nursing home residents and the bonuses it has given to nursing homes which help it to do so. In a 6 August letter, the Democratic senators Ron Wyden and Elizabeth Warren asked UnitedHealth's CEO, Stephen Hemsley, to hand over a trove of company records about a partnership program it has with nursing homes across the country, which aims to decrease hospitalizations and thereby coverage expenses for the conglomerate. The document demand letter follows a Guardian investigation into the initiative. 'Put simply, these allegations suggest that UHG [UnitedHealth Group] appears to be prioritizing its bottom line at the expense of the health and safety of nursing home residents enrolled in UHG I-SNPs,' Wyden and Warren wrote, referring to a type of UnitedHealth plan for long-term nursing home residents. 'Nursing home residents and their families should not live in fear of a for-profit health care company withholding care when it is most critical.' UnitedHealth argues the program is designed to curb 'unnecessary' hospitalizations. The company has vigorously denied the allegations in the Guardian's 21 May investigation, which was based on thousands of confidential corporate and patient records, public records requests and court files, interviews with more than 20 current and former UnitedHealth and nursing home employees, and two whistleblower declarations submitted to Congress in May through the non-profit legal group Whistleblower Aid. 'We stand firmly behind the integrity of our I-SNP program, which consistently receives high satisfaction ratings,' said a UnitedHealth Group company spokesperson. 'The allegations stem from an article that misrepresents a program that provides high-quality care, personalized on-site clinical care and enhanced coordination among caregivers. The US Department of Justice extensively reviewed these allegations and found no evidence of wrongdoing.' Wyden's and Warren's offices received a briefing from UnitedHealth on 29 July about the program. Both lawmakers, who sit on the powerful Senate finance committee, said they 'remained concerned' about several aspects of the UnitedHealth nursing home initiative, according to the 6 August letter. The senators pointed out, for example, that UnitedHealth pays some nursing homes bonuses based on their residents' rate of hospital transfers, as the Guardian previously reported. But that bonus metric 'does not take into account avoidable versus unavoidable hospitalizations, but rather sets a cap on hospitalizations for any reason, potentially making it a poor measure of quality of care', the letter notes. The company has previously said that its bonus payments to nursing homes help prevent unnecessary hospitalizations, which can be costly and dangerous, to patients and that its partnerships with nursing homes improve health outcomes. Wyden and Warren are also seeking information about how the company markets its plans under Medicare Advantage, a privatized alternative to traditional Medicare, to nursing home residents, and about how its employees talk to residents about advanced care directives which can affect their ability to access hospital care. The senators are requesting information, too, on whether federal regulators have sanctioned certain UnitedHealth Medicare Advantage plans geared toward long-term nursing home residents within the last five years. The healthcare conglomerate has faced lawsuits alleging its employees have improperly attempted to enroll nursing home residents into its Medicare Advantage plans and have risked or harmed residents' health by helping to delay or avoid critical hospital transfers. Under Medicare Advantage, the federal government pays insurers fixed sums to cover the care of seniors, a model which critics contend can encourage inappropriate tactics to slash coverage expenses. UnitedHealth has previously alleged that the Guardian's reporting was 'blatantly false and misleading' and said that the suggestion that its employees have prevented hospital transfers 'is verifiably false'. UnitedHealth sued the Guardian for libel shortly after the outlet informed the company it was publishing a follow-up investigation into the nursing home program. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion The document demand letter from Wyden and Warren comes just a few months after lawmakers from both parties expressed rare bipartisan concern about UnitedHealth's activities inside nursing homes. In June, two congressional Democrats – representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Lloyd Doggett of Texas – sent a letter to the Department of Justice asking it to 'thoroughly review new revelations from investigative reporting and whistleblower complaints, which suggest that UnitedHealth may have engaged in illegal activities'. Likewise, Josh Hawley, a Missouri Republican on the Senate investigations subcommittee, vowed to secure 'justice for patients, policyholders and whistleblowers alike who've been harmed by insurance companies'. In their letter on Thursday, Wyden and Warren asked UnitedHealth to provide 'a provide a full, written response' to their inquiry by 8 September. In its statement, UnitedHealth said it would 'continue to educate their staff and share information on the I-SNP model and its proven benefit for seniors'.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store