CDC ends emergency response for bird flu as infections decline
The emergency response was deactivated on July 2, the agency told Reuters, adding that surveillance and response for bird flu cases will continue under the purview of its influenza division.
The updates for bird flu was merged with routine updates for seasonal influenza, the agency's website showed on Monday.
The number of people monitored and tested for bird flu will be reported on a monthly basis, the agency said, adding that it will no longer report infection rates in animals on its website.
The virus has infected 70 people, mostly farm workers, and killed one person over the past year as it spread aggressively among cattle herds and poultry flocks.
Experts have warned that further spread of bird flu raises the risk of it becoming more transmissible to humans.
The current public health risk from H5N1 bird flu remains low, CDC said, adding that it will continue to monitor the situation and scale up activities as needed.
The country's response to bird flu has faced several disruptions this year, including from staff exodus at the U.S. Department of Agriculture as part of the Trump administration's wider efforts to shrink the federal workforce and the government cancelling a more than $700 million contract awarded to Moderna MRNA.O for the late-stage development of its bird flu vaccine for humans.
Bloomberg News first reported that CDC has ended its emergency response for bird flu.
Emergency activation allows for additional support for a public health response, including staffing and other resources, to increase testing, surveillance and communications during an outbreak, according to CDC.
The CDC H5N1 bird flu response was activated on April 4, 2024.
(Reporting by Mariam Sunny in Bengaluru, additional reporting by Kamal Choudhury; Editing by Shilpi Majumdar and Shailesh Kuber)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Analysis-Struggling US healthcare stocks endure rough 2025 but draw some bargain hunters
By Lewis Krauskopf NEW YORK (Reuters) -Woes for U.S. healthcare stocks have worsened this year driven partly by Trump administration policies, although some investors are betting that the beaten-down shares are now becoming too much of a bargain to pass up. The S&P 500 healthcare sector -- which includes pharmaceutical companies, biotechs, health insurers and medical equipment makers -- has slumped 5% in 2025, lagging the over 7% gain for the overall index. Pressure to bring down U.S. prescription drug prices to overseas rates, tariffs targeted at pharmaceuticals and cuts to areas such as health research funding and Medicaid are among the Trump administration actions clouding the outlook for the shares this year, investors said. Regulatory obstacles are compounding issues, including expiring drug patents and setbacks for bellwethers including UnitedHealth Group. "You have got this constant overarching political and regulatory overhang that doesn't really seem to subside with any administration," said Jared Holz, healthcare sector strategist at Mizuho Securities. "When you have so much nebulousness around the sector, it turns people off rather than invites them to the party." In another sign of the group losing favor, healthcare exchange-traded-funds have seen 12 consecutive months of net outflows as of July for a total outflow of $11.5 billion in that time, more than for any other sector, according to State Street Investment Management. The performance picture is even dimmer over a longer period. While shares of massive technology companies pushed the benchmark S&P 500 up over 50% the past three years, the healthcare sector is little changed in that time. That gap has put the 60-stock sector at nearly its biggest discount to the broader market in 30 years, which some investors hope is an inflection point for the battered group. "The valuation is extremely cheap and the relative performance is at an extreme," said Walter Todd, chief investment officer at Greenwood Capital, whose healthcare holdings include diversified giant Johnson & Johnson and medical device maker Stryker. "So at this point, it seems like a pretty decent setup to get some outperformance." The price-to-earnings ratio for the healthcare sector, based on earnings estimates for the next year, has fallen to 16.2 times from nearly 20 a year ago, according to LSEG Datastream. Meanwhile, the S&P 500's rally to records has driven the index's P/E ratio to over 22 times -- giving the broader market a significant premium over the healthcare sector. 'BAD NEWS IS PRICED IN' Some high-profile healthcare names are at even cheaper valuations. For example, Merck is trading at a forward P/E of 8.7, against its long-term average of 14.5, while fellow drugmaker Bristol Myers Squibb trades at 7.4 against its average of 15.8, according to LSEG. Year-to-date, shares of both Merck and Bristol Myers are down roughly 20%. The group is drawing bets from some value investors such as Patrick Kaser, portfolio manager at Brandywine Global, whose portfolio is overweight the sector including owning shares of CVS Health and European drugmakers GSK and Sanofi. "Our perspective is a lot of this bad news is priced in and then some," Kaser said. "To bet against the sector from here, you're essentially continuing to bet on the valuation gap, which is already large, continuing to widen." The group's decline means the total market value of the S&P 500 healthcare sector is about $4.8 trillion, not much higher than the $4.3 trillion value of Nvidia, the semiconductor company that has symbolized the artificial intelligence boom. Indeed, some investors said a shift in capital away from Nvidia and other massive tech companies could spark healthcare shares. Such a move appeared to occur in the first quarter, investors said, when the healthcare sector rose 6% while declines in tech and megacap stocks dragged indexes lower. Fears of an economic downturn also could help healthcare shares, at least on a relative basis. The group is often viewed as a defensive area in rockier economic times. Economic fears flared following last Friday's weaker-than-expected employment report, while some strategists say the market could be due for a pullback after surging over 20% since its April lows. "During the first quarter, healthcare did great even as tech rolled over, as the fears of an economic slowdown got to more economically sensitive stocks," said Chris Grisanti, chief market strategist at MAI Capital Management, adding he expects healthcare "will perform better in a more difficult market." More clarity on regulatory issues, including tariffs, also could support healthcare, investors said. But some value investors are hesitant to dive into the group. Michael Mullaney, director of global markets research at Boston Partners, said he is wary some healthcare shares could be "value traps," preferring to overweight areas including industrials or financials. "There's been just so much of an overhang in the sector," Mullaney said. "There are better places to go with cleaner stories." Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Los Angeles Times
39 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Millions of Californians may lose health coverage because of new Medicaid work requirements
The nation's first mandated work requirement for Medicaid recepients, approved by the Republican-led Congress and signed by President Trump, is expected to have a seismic effect in California. One estimate from state health officials suggests that as many as 3.4 million people could lose their insurance through what Gov. Gavin Newsom calls the 'labyrinth of manual verification,' which involves Medi-Cal recipients proving every six months that they are working, going to school or volunteering at least 80 hours per month. 'It's going to be much harder to stay insured,' said Martha Santana-Chin, the head of L.A. Care Health Plan, a publicly operated health plan that serves about 2.3 million Medi-Cal patients in Los Angeles County. She said that as many as 1 million people, or about 20% to 40% of its members, could lose their coverage. The work requirement will be the first imposed nationwide in the six-decade history of Medicaid, the program that provides free and subsidized health insurance to disabled and low-income Americans. It's relatively uncharted territory, and it's not yet clear how the rules will shake out for the 5.1 million people in California who will be required to prove that they are working in order to qualify for Medi-Cal, the state's version of Medicaid. After the 2026 midterm elections, millions of healthy adults will be required to prove every six months that they meet the work requirement in order to qualify for Medicaid. The new mandate spells out some exceptions, including for people who are pregnant, in addiction treatment or caring for children under age 14. Democrats have long argued that work requirements generally lead to eligible people l osing their health insurance due to bureaucratic hurdles. Republicans say that a work requirement will encourage healthy people to get jobs and preserve Medicaid for those who truly need it. 'If you clean that up and shore it up, you save a lot of money,' said House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana. 'And you return the dignity of work to young men who need to be out working instead of playing video games all day.' Only three U.S. states have tried to implement work requirements for Medicaid recipients: New Hampshire, Arkansas and Georgia. One study found that in the first three months of the Arkansas program, more than 18,000 people lost health coverage. People can lose coverage a variety of ways, said Joan Alker, a Georgetown University professor who studies Medicaid. Some people hear that the rules have changed and assume they are no longer eligible. Others struggle to prove their eligibility because their income fluctuates, they are paid in cash or their jobs don't keep good payroll records. Some have problems with the technology or forms, she said, and others don't appeal their rejections. Of the 15 million people on Medi-Cal in California, about one-third will be required to prove they are working, the state said. Those people earn very little: less than $21,000 for a single person and less than $43,000 for a household of four. The state's estimate of 3.4 million people losing coverage is a projection based on what happened in Arkansas and New Hampshire. But those programs were brief, overturned by the courts and weren't 'a coordinated effort among the states to figure out what the best practices are,' said Ryan Long, the director of congressional relations at the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank that has become influential among congressional Republicans. Long said advancements in technology and a national emphasis on work requirements should make work verification less of a barrier. The budget bill includes $200 million in grants for states to update their systems to prepare, he said. Arguments from liberal groups that people will lose healthcare are a 'straw man argument,' Long said: 'They know that the public supports work requirements for these benefits, so they can't come out and say, 'We don't support them.'' A poll by the health research group KFF found this year that 62% of American adults support tying Medicaid eligibility to work requirements. The poll also found that support for the policy drops to less than 1 in 3 people when respondents hear 'that most people on Medicaid are already working and many would risk losing coverage because of the burden of proving eligibility through paperwork.' In June, Newsom warned that some Californians could be forced to fill out 36 pages of paperwork to keep their insurance, showing reporters an image of a stack of forms with teal and gold accents that he described as 'an actual PDF example of the paperwork that people will have to submit to for their eligibility checks.' Many Californians already are required to fill out that 36-page form or its online equivalent to enroll in Medi-Cal and Covered California, the state's health insurance marketplace. Experts say it's too soon to say what system will be used for people to prove their work eligibility, because federal guidance won't be finalized for months. Newsom's office directed questions to the Department of Health Care Services, which runs Medi-Cal. A spokesperson there said officials are 'still reviewing the full operational impacts' of the work requirements. 'The idea that you are going to get a paper submission every six months, I'm not sure people have to do that,' Long said. Georgia is the only state that has implemented a lasting work requirement for Medicaid. Two years ago, the state made healthcare available to people who were working at least 80 hours per month and earned less than the federal poverty limit (about $15,000 for one person or $31,200 for a household of four). More than 100,000 people have applied for coverage since the program's launch in July of 2023. As of June of this year, more than 8,000 people were enrolled, according to the state's most recent data. The Medicaid program has cost more than $100 million so far, and of that, $26 million was spent on health benefits and more than $20 million was allocated to marketing contracts, KFF Health News reported. Democrats in Georgia have sought an investigation into the program. The Inland Empire agency that provides Medi-Cal coverage for about 1.5 million people in San Bernardino and Riverside counties estimated that 150,000 members could lose their insurance as a result of work requirements. Jarrod McNaughton, the chief executive of the Inland Empire Health Plan, said that California's 58 counties, which administer Medi-Cal, 'will be the ones at the precipice of piecing this together' but haven't yet received guidance on how the eligibility process will be set up or what information people will have to provide. Will it be done online? Will recipients be required to fill out a piece of paper that needs to be mailed in or dropped off? 'We don't really know the process yet, because all of this is so new,' Naughton said. In the meantime, he said, the health plan's foundation is working to make this 'as least burdensome as possible,' working to improve community outreach and connect people who receive Medi-Cal insurance to volunteer opportunities.
Los Angeles Times
39 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
A proposed California bill aims to protect coverage for HIV prevention despite federal threats
State lawmakers are considering a bill meant to protect access to HIV prevention drugs for insured Californians as threats from the federal government continue. Assembly Bill 554 would require health plans and insurers to cover all antiretroviral drugs used for PrEP and PEP regimens. The drugs just have to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration, and would not require prior authorization. The bill would also prevent health plans from forcing patients to first try a less expensive drug before choosing a more expensive, specialty option. The bill requires insurance providers to cover these drugs without cost-sharing with patients, and it limits the ability of insurers and employers to review treatments to determine medical necessity. To streamline reimbursements and expand the range of PrEP medications doctors can pick for their patients, the legislation allows providers to directly bill insured patients' pharmaceutical benefit plans. LGBTQ+ public health advocates worry that the Trump administration's recent attempt to slash $1.5 billion in HIV prevention funding from the federal budget — along with its decisions to stop offering suicide-prevention counseling for LGBTQ+ individuals through the national 988 lifeline and to restrict gender-affirming care for transgender Americans — amounts to an assault on the queer community. The state bill would act 'as a shield against this administration's cruelty,' said California Assemblymember Mark González (D-Los Angeles) who co-sponsored AB 554 with Assemblymember Matt Haney (D-San Francisco). A recent cause for alarm among LGBTQ+ health advocates, first reported in the Wall Street Journal, is news that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to replace the entire U.S. Preventive Services Task Force because its 16 appointed members are too 'woke,' according to unnamed individuals cited by the Journal. At a news conference Monday, Kennedy confirmed that he is reviewing the makeup of the panel, adding that he hasn't made a final decision. The bill was introduced earlier in the year out of fear that Kennedy's skepticism about vaccines might spill over into HIV/PrEP drug coverage and because of worries that President Trump would dismantle the task force, González said. The task force wields immense influence, making recommendations about which cancer screenings, tests for chronic diseases and preventive medications are beneficial for Americans and therefore should be covered by insurers — including drugs for HIV/AIDS prevention. Drugs prescribed in a PrEP regimen — short for pre-exposure prophylaxis — block the virus that causes AIDS from multiplying in a person's body. They can be taken in either pill or injection form on an ongoing basis. PEP refers to post-exposure prophylaxis and involves taking medication within 72 hours of potential exposure and for a short period of time, in order to prevent infection and transmission of the virus. Both regimens are recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as effective ways to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS when used correctly. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was created in 1984 by congressional authorization to issue evidence-based advice to physicians on which screenings and preventive medicines are worth considering for their healthy patients. The panel's recommendations are closely watched by professional societies when adopting guidelines for their clinician members. In many cases, when insurers are on the fence about whether to cover a given screening or diagnostic test, they'll turn to the panel's recommendations. The panel, made up of doctors, nurses, health psychologists, epidemiologists and statisticians who are experts in primary care and preventive medicine and who serve four-year terms on a voluntary basis, is meant to be free from conflicts of interest and outside influences. Some of its past recommendations, however, such as its advice on prostate cancer screenings, have been met with criticism. When it comes to HIV prevention, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to back up the task force with its July 11 ruling in Kennedy vs. Braidwood Management, which upheld a key mandate in the Affordable Care Act requiring insurers to cover preventive care, including for HIV. However, in the same ruling, the court also declared that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the power to review decisions made by the task force, and to remove members at his or her discretion. Kennedy abruptly postponed the task force's July meeting, sparking concern among public health advocates and Democratic leaders. 'The task force has done very little over the past five years,' Kennedy said at Monday's news conference. 'We want to make sure that it is performing, that it is approving interventions that are actually going to prevent the health decline of the American public.' González said he worries that the Supreme Court gave the administration a new way to meddle in the healthcare decisions of LGBTQ+ people. 'The Braidwood decision was both a relief and a wake-up call,' González said. 'While it upheld the Preventive Services Task Force's existing recommendations — keeping protections for PrEP, cancer screenings, and vaccines intact — it handed unprecedented authority to RFK Jr. to reshape that very task force and place existing protections under direct threat once again.' González described AB 554 as 'a measure to protect LGBTQ+ Californians and ensure we never return to the neglect and devastation of the HIV/AIDS crisis.' The state Senate Appropriations Committee is expected to vote on whether to advance the bill on Aug. 29. 'These attacks aren't isolated,' the lawmaker said. 'They are coordinated, deliberate, and aimed squarely at our most vulnerable communities.'
