Vanderbilt Med Center 'hiding' DEI resources behind password-protected web pages: report
The conservative nonprofit organization Consumers Research unveiled a campaign Tuesday titled, "What Is Vanderbilt University Medical Center Hiding?" after finding that VUMC was not just deleting some of its references to DEI commitments and resources, but also keeping some and hiding them from public view.
The campaign includes a website, complete with screenshots and archived web links, showing the various web pages tied to DEI and climate activism that are now password-protected. The Consumers' Research campaign also includes a mobile billboard that the nonprofit has deployed at the university to raise awareness about VUMC's actions.
"Vanderbilt University Medical Center is frantically trying to conceal its radical policies by password-protecting and deleting webpages highlighting its commitment to DEI and climate activism," Will Hild, Consumers' Research executive director, said in a statement to Fox News Digital. "Until recently, VUMC proudly touted its woke ideology, showcasing DEI policies and an activist climate agenda prominently throughout its website. But now, the health system is scrambling to hide the evidence. This seemingly nefarious behavior begs the question, what is Vanderbilt University Medical Center hiding?"
While VUMC deleted several web pages related to DEI resources and programs that it offers within specific departments, VUMC's Office of Diversity and Inclusion website allegedly remains active, only to be accessed with a username and password, according to the nonprofit.
A VUMC Department of Medicine web page touting its commitment to recruit "a diverse resident and fellow population" and laying out resources for those "underrepresented in medicine" is now hidden as well.
Other web pages about prioritizing "climate care as health care" and other left-wing climate change initiatives have also become password-protected, Consumers' Research found.
In a statement to Fox News Digital, VUMC spokesperson John Howser said that in light of President Donald Trump's recent executive actions mandating an end to DEI programs, particularly in educational institutions, VUMC "is undertaking a thorough review" of its programs to figure out "where revisions may be required to remain in compliance, including updating information on websites and other public platforms."
"While we undertake that review, we have elected to take down related websites to ensure current, accurate, and factual information," Howser added. "VUMC remains committed to maintaining an environment in which all our employees, patients and visitors feel equally welcome, respected and valued."
Included in the Consumers' Research campaign is a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., calling on HHS and the Department of Government Efficiency to investigate VUMC.
"VUMC, a top research hospital in the United States, relies heavily on federal dollars," the letter states. "Taxpayer dollars should be used to prioritize patient care, not political activism. Consumers' Research stands ready to assist as needed to ensure accountability and protect consumers."
VUMC was investigated by Tennessee's Attorney General's Office in 2023 amid allegations that a doctor at VUMC was manipulating medical billing codes to evade insurance coverage-limitations for transgender treatments. The investigation followed a video released in 2022, which allegedly showed a VUMC doctor touting transgender surgeries for minors as "huge money makers" and telling anyone with a religious objection to providing them should quit.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
3 days ago
- Axios
Just 15 minutes of fast walking per day can improve longevity, study finds
Just 15 minutes of brisk walking per day can have a dramatic effect on your health and longevity, according to new research from Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Why it matters: Researchers found short bursts of quick walking were linked with a nearly 20% reduction in mortality. Between the lines: The general upsides of walking are well documented. But this research showed that walking at a quick pace delivers health benefits on a much shorter timeline. The research found slow walking for more than three hours daily was associated with a 4% reduction in mortality. Zoom in: Fast walking reduced premature death from all causes, researchers said. It was particularly effective at reducing deaths from cardiovascular disease, which is the No. 1 cause of death in the United States. Researchers said that could be because walking boosts the heart's efficiency and reduces obesity and the risks that come with it, such as high blood pressure. The intrigue: The study, published last month in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, is one of the first to measure the effect of walking speed, particularly among under-represented groups including Black and low-income populations. What they're saying: "Brisk walking offers a convenient, accessible and low-impact activity that individuals of all ages and fitness levels can use to improve general health and cardiovascular health specifically," VUMC professor Wei Zheng, the senior author for the study, said in a statement. Fun fact: Fast walking was strongly beneficial regardless of other factors like overall leisure time and physical activity, per the research. The researchers cross-checked that group for deaths logged through Dec. 31, 2022. Reality check: While the study included a large sample size and a long tracking time, there were limitations.
NBC News
5 days ago
- NBC News
Medicare Part D premiums are likely to go up next year. Here's why.
Medicare enrollees who buy the optional Part D drug benefit may see substantial premium price hikes — potentially up to $50 a month — when they shop for next year's coverage. Such drug plans are used by millions of people who enroll in what is called original Medicare, the classic federal government program that began in 1965 and added a drug benefit only in 2006. The drug plans are offered through private insurers, and enrollees must pay monthly premiums. It's not known whether insurers will pursue the maximum increase allowed, as premium prices for next year won't be revealed until closer to open enrollment, which starts Oct. 15. Increases are expected to mainly affect stand-alone Part D plans, not the drug coverage offered as part of Medicare Advantage, the private sector alternative to original Medicare. More on that later. Policy experts say premiums are likely to go up for several reasons, including increased use of some higher-cost prescription drugs; a law that capped out-of-pocket spending for enrollees; and changes in a program aimed at stabilizing price increases that the Trump administration has continued but made less generous. One thing is surer than ever, say many policy experts: Beneficiaries should not simply roll over their existing stand-alone Medicare drug plans. 'Everyone should shop plans in open enrollment,' said Stacie Dusetzina, a professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Here are three reasons prices would rise. 1. It's the spending! Every year, insurers keep an eye on what they're spending on drugs so they can build that into their premium estimates. Spending covers both the prices charged by drugmakers and volume, meaning how many people take the medications and how often. And it's up. Spending by insurers and government programs for prescription drugs in 2024 across the market grew more than 10%, which is slightly greater than in recent years, according to a research report published last month in the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. Estimates are not yet available for this year's trends. Still, in 2024, researchers found that drug prices overall decreased slightly. Spending rose because of drugs coming on the market and increased utilization, especially for pricey weight loss drugs and another category of medications that treat various autoimmune conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Such increased use is evident in Medicare. Many beneficiaries, for example, are treated for autoimmune conditions. And even though Medicare doesn't cover treatment for weight loss, many members have diabetes or other conditions that the new weight loss drugs can treat. The Trump administration, according to The Washington Post, is considering a five-year pilot program in which Medicare Part D plans could voluntarily expand access to the drugs, which can cost more than $1,000 a month without insurance. Details have not yet been provided, but the pilot program would not begin in Medicare until 2027. Another wild card for insurers is the Trump administration's tariffs on businesses that purchase products made overseas, which could boost drug prices because the U.S. imports a lot of its pharmaceuticals. Much, however, remains unknown about whether drugmakers will pass along any additional tariff costs to consumers. So, while rising spending is one factor, it isn't the only reason next year's premium prices are expected to go up. 2. New out-of-pocket caps for consumers Changes made to Medicare aimed at helping people with high out-of-pocket costs for expensive medications may be a bigger factor. Here's why: Starting this year, Medicare enrollees have a limit on how much they must pay out-of-pocket for prescription drugs. It's capped at $2,000, a threshold that will rise each year to cover inflation. Lawmakers in Congress set those changes in the Inflation Reduction Act under President Joe Biden. The law also shifted a larger share of the cost of drugs used by Medicare beneficiaries from the federal program to insurers. That $2,000 cap is a big change from previous years, when people taking expensive drugs had a higher threshold to meet annually and were on the hook to pay 5% of the drug's cost even after meeting that amount. Those additional 5% payments ended last year under the provisions of the IRA. Before that law passed, 'people would spend $10,000 or $15,000 out-of-pocket each year just for a single drug,' Dusetzina said. 'The Inflation Reduction Act was necessary to make Part D proper health insurance, but there's a cost to do so.' While the cap is a big help for affected consumers, the reduced amounts paid by some beneficiaries — coupled with the cost shift to insurers — could lead plans to spread their increased expenses across all policyholders through higher premiums. A growing number of health plans have also begun to require enrollees to pay a percentage of a drug's cost, rather than a flat-dollar copay, which can lead to larger-than-expected costs at the pharmacy counter, Dusetzina said. While consumers not currently taking high-cost specialty drugs may not see a benefit in the $2,000 cap initially, they might one day, say policy experts, who note that drugmaker prices continue to rise and that enrollees could fall ill with a condition like cancer or multiple sclerosis for which they need a very high-priced drug. 'It's important to think not just in context of those groups who hit the cap every year, but also people are paying more in premiums to protect their future selves as well,' said Casey Schwarz, the senior counsel for education and federal policy at the Medicare Rights Center, an advocacy group. The new prescription drug cap and other changes apply to both the stand-alone Part D drug plans and Medicare Advantage plans. But those Medicare Advantage plans are not expected to increase the drug portion of their premiums, partly because the private sector plans are paid more per member than what it costs taxpayers for the traditional program. That means Advantage plans have far more money to add benefits, such as vision and dental coverage, which traditional Medicare does not include, or to use them to cushion the impact of rising spending on drug costs, thus limiting premium increases. Those additional benefits are advertised to attract customers to Medicare Advantage, which also sometimes offers plans with minimal or no monthly premium costs. There are other differences between traditional Medicare and private sector plans. For example, Advantage members must stick to doctors and hospitals in the plan's networks, and they may face more prior authorization or other hurdles than in the traditional program. The growing difference between premiums — fueled by the extra rebates flowing to the private sector plans — 'is increasingly tilting coverage toward Medicare Advantage and making traditional Medicare plus a stand-alone PDP [prescription drug plan] unaffordable for many enrollees,' said Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the program on Medicare policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. 3. Trump administration reduced funding meant to slow premium growth The final factor in the premium increase equation is a program set up to slow the rise of premiums in stand-alone Part D plans. It began under the Biden administration to offset premium increases tied to changes in the Inflation Reduction Act by temporarily injecting additional federal dollars to help insurers adjust to the new rules. That plan sent just over $6 billion this year to Part D insurers. And it had an effect. The average monthly premium for a stand-alone Part D drug plan dropped 9%, from $43 last year to $39 this year, according to KFF, even when factoring in that some plans raised prices by up to $35 a month, the maximum increase allowed under the stabilization plan for this year. In a memo released in late July, the Trump administration said it would continue the program for next year, while shaving about 40% of the funding. A government official told The Wall Street Journal that the administration felt that keeping the full funding would have mainly benefited the insurers and cost taxpayers an 'enormous, excess amount.' The stabilization effort next year will send $10 a month per enrollee to Part D insurers to help keep premiums in check, down from $15 this year. Among other changes, it allows insurers to raise premiums by as much as $50 a month, up from the $35 allowed this year. That would be a substantial increase, Cubanski noted, although it is not clear just how many insurers would pursue the full amount. 'We did see some plans this year were taking premium increases of that $35 amount in 2025, and I fully expect we will see some plans with increases up to $50 a month' next year, she said. Another reason to take a close look at all the options once open enrollment begins.
Boston Globe
03-08-2025
- Boston Globe
‘Great news but a weird twist.' After the NIH moved to restore hundreds of grants, researchers remain in limbo.
Advertisement In New England, 63 of those grants, worth $126 million, are set to be restored, according to a Globe analysis based on the The grants were restored as the result of a lawsuit filed by the American Public Health Association and 16 state attorneys general arguing that the NIH improperly ended funding tied to topics like gender identity, health disparities, vaccine hesitancy, and DEI efforts. The judge in the case ruled in June that the terminations were 'illegal and void' and ordered the government to immediately make the funds available. The Trump administration has appealed the decision. Advertisement The grants are a fraction of the more than $3.1 billion in funding from the National Science Foundation and the Department of Health and Human Services that the Trump administration has canceled across New England. At a status hearing on the case Monday, attorneys representing the public health association said that more than 50 of its roughly 300 affected research grants across the country have not been reinstated, and that the NIH has not provided a timeline for when all grants will be restored. Researchers face other obstacles as well. At Harvard, virtually all federal funding remains frozen as part of the administration's broader assault on the university. Others face reduced staffing, due to layoffs, and shortened deadlines to complete their research. And funding at the federal level remains subject to sudden reversals, as shown Tuesday night when the White House In a statement Thursday, the NIH told the Globe it 'has been working to reinstate grants to comply with the court's order.' Scott Delaney, a Harvard scientist and co-creator of Grant Watch, said many researchers remain wary despite the win because of further appeals and reviews. 'Every indication is that NIH will continue to cut research on trans health and on DEI. They still remain hostile to broad bodies of research, and they continue to ask researchers to rewrite their grants to avoid certain topics,' said Delaney, who lost his own NIH funding and received a But many are pressing ahead despite the obstacles and hoping for the best. Advertisement Nancy Krieger, a professor of social epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, learned this month that her funding would be restored. She said that despite feeling vindicated by US District Court Judge William G. Young's ruling, she cannot access the funds due to the federal freeze on funds to Harvard. Since 2019, Krieger and her team have been working to measure the impact of six types of discrimination — including racism, sexism, and ageism — on health. The researchers enrolled 699 patients who completed two study questionnaires online and at three Boston community health centers — including Fenway Health, Mattapan Community Health Center, and Harvard Street Neighborhood Health Center in Dorchester — to test how discrimination contributes to psychological distress and sleep disorders. 'We can resume the work because we had completed all data collection and we were in the phase of data analysis and manuscript preparation,' Krieger said. 'Whether or not the funding ever truly gets reinstated for my grant — and I would like that it is — it's important, given the complexities, to make sure these things go from a court order to reality.' At Tufts, the school lost and then suddenly regained a pipeline for young talent, though several young scientists lost out in the process. The university hosts one of just 22 NIH-sponsored programs in the country that trains a diverse group of postdoctoral scholars in both research and teaching. The program, called the Institutional Research Career and Academic Development Award, or IRACDA, focuses on underrepresented groups. 'We were ramping up for another five years after earning highly competitive funding last fall,' said Mitch McVey, program director and professor of biology at Tufts. 'Then the new administration came in, and everything changed.' Advertisement When the NIH terminated funding, four incoming applicants had their offers rescinded just one day after receiving them. Marissa Maroni, 28, celebrated the news with her husband and prepared to move back to her home state. 'It felt like the right next step, personally and professionally,' said Maroni, who is finishing her PhD at the University of Pennsylvania. 'But just a day later, I got an email saying the program was canceled. It was incredibly disheartening.' The loss also affects Bunker Hill Community College, University of Massachusetts Boston, and Suffolk University, where IRACDA scholars like Maroni were slated to teach next year. McVey said Tufts might extend the offers again to the four applicants but, 'We're trying to balance the risk involved here, which would be that if the government wins the appeal, the funding will likely be terminated again. We don't want to put the scholars in a position where their job security is always in jeopardy, so we're trying to figure out how to best navigate this situation. It's not easy.' At Yale, nine NIH grants that were terminated are in the process of reinstatement. Four of those belong to John Pachankis, a Yale School of Public Health professor who has spent the past 20 years investigating why people in the LGBTQ+ community are at higher risk for depression, anxiety, and suicide. The sudden March terminations not only disrupted years of research but also halted the rollout of promising mental health interventions. One of Pachankis's halted trials aimed to train front-line mental health providers working at 90 LGBTQ+ community centers across 35 states in cognitive-behavioral therapy to treat depression, anxiety, and substance use. Advertisement 'Right before the funding termination, we learned that our trained mental health providers had started delivering our cognitive-behavioral therapy to over 4,000 LGBT people in just four months,' he said. The funding cut prevented them from studying the longer-term impact of the therapy and ways to sustain it in local communities. Restarting the work has been slow and resource-intensive, he said. It requires updating ethics approvals, reconvening data safety review boards, updating clinical trials registries, drafting now-overdue progress reports, and restarting trials enrollment while no longer having sufficient staff to do this work. 'The research infrastructure took years to build, was collapsed in a day, and will take months if not longer to rebuild,' Pachankis said. 'My confidence in future federal funding for this research remains shaken, but my team's commitment to asking and answering important scientific questions isn't going away.' Meanwhile, at Brown, Moitra is figuring out how to move forward with his research. Between 2022 and early 2024, he and his team recruited 240 LGBTQ+ participants, offering two counseling sessions to study the mental health impacts from the pandemic. After funding was pulled, Moitra said, they lost 40 participants' worth of data that had timed out after those participants received just one counseling session. Now that the grant has been reinstated, Moitra's team is left racing against the clock as the deadline for the funding to be used remains Aug. 31. The researchers are applying for a no-cost extension to allow them to complete the work without requesting additional funds. 'After five-plus months of uncertainty, we were moving on,' Moitra said. 'It's hard to scramble it all back together.' Advertisement Sarah Rahal can be reached at
