Senators send letter to RFK Jr. warning that HHS cuts could hurt Indian Health Service
A bipartisan group of senators sent a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warning him that cuts to the agency could severely impact the Indian Health Service (IHS).
The letter -- delivered on Tuesday from Sens. Jeff Merkley (D- Ore.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) -- expressed concern over the IHS' ability to take care for more than 2.8 million American Indians and Alaska Natives.
In April, HHS began laying off about 10,000 workers and consolidating 28 institutes and centers into 15 new divisions. Including the roughly 10,000 people who have left over the last few months through early retirement or deferred resignation programs, the overall staff at HHS is expected to fall from 82,000 to around 62,000 -- or about a quarter of its workforce.
MORE: HHS firings, questioning safety of vaccines: How the Trump administration may be 'attacking' science
IHS has been exempted from probationary employee staffing reductions, but the senators noted that cuts to other agencies within HHS that serve Native communities are impacting IHS.
They added that the hiring freeze is exacerbating existing critical staffing issues, including a need for laboratory technicians and administrative personnel.
PHOTO: A small child walks toward the front door of the Public Health Service Indian Hospital on the Standing Rock Reservation in Fort Yates, N.D., Oct. 14, 2008. (Will Kincaid/AP)
"We urge you to take immediate action to ensure that the IHS programs serving Native communities have the resources and staffing necessary to fulfill their missions and halt any further actions affecting Tribal health care delivery without first engaging in meaningful Tribal consultation," the letter read.
Merkley, Schatz and Murkowski also described in the letter how American Indians and Alaska Natives are an incredibly vulnerable population "falling behind in nearly every health metric."
In the 2023 National Health Interview Survey -- run by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) -- 21.8% of those who identify as only American Indian or Alaska Native reported being in fair or poor health, which was the highest rate seen among any racial or ethnic group.
NCHS data show American Indians and Alaska Natives are disproportionately affected by diabetes, angina -- which is chest pain caused by reduced blood flow to the heart -- and disability.
MORE: Why Native American children have higher rates of disability
Additionally, American Indians and Alaska Natives have the lowest life expectancy of any racial or ethnic group in the U.S. with an average expectancy of 67.9 years as of 2022, according to the CDC.
"Native communities deserve reliable access to quality health care, and we urge you to reevaluate all actions that jeopardize delivery of any health care services for American Indians and Alaska Natives," the senators wrote.
HHS did not immediately reply to ABC News' request for comment
ABC News' Cheyenne Haslett and Will McDuffie contributed to this report.
Senators send letter to RFK Jr. warning that HHS cuts could hurt Indian Health Service originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hiltzik: MAHA report's misrepresentations will harm public health and hit consumers' pocketbooks
Serious followers of healthcare policy in the U.S. didn't expect much good to emerge from its takeover by Donald Trump and his secretary of Health and Human Services, the anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. But the agency and its leadership managed to live down to the worst expectations May 27, when HHS released a 73-page "assessment" of the health of America's children titled "The MAHA Report" (for "Make America Healthy Again"). A sloppier, more disingenuous government report would be hard to imagine. Whatever credibility the report might have had as a product of a federal agency was shattered by its obvious errors, misrepresentations and outright fabrications of source materials, some of it plainly the product of the authors' reliance on AI bots. I, and my co-authors, did not write that paper. Epidemiologist Katherine Keyes says a citation to her work by the MAHA report was fabricated At least seven sources cited in the report do not exist, as Emily Kennard and Margaret Manto of the journalism organization NOTUS uncovered. HHS hastily reissued the report with some of those citations removed, but without disclosing the changes — an extremely unkosher action in the research community. "I, and my co-authors, did not write that paper," epidemiologist Katherine M. Keyes of Columbia told me by email, referring to a citation to a purported paper about anxiety among American adolescents resulting from the COVID pandemic. "It does make me concerned given that citation practices are an important part of conducting and reporting rigorous science." Keyes said she has done research on the topic at hand: "I would be happy to send this information to the MAHA committee to correct the report, although I have not yet received information on where to reach them," she said. We'll go deeper into the fabrication fiasco in a moment. What's important is its context: concerted attacks by Kennedy and his associates on the fundamentals of public health in America. Those attacks have profound implications not only for Americans' health, but on pocketbook issues and the U.S. economy generally. HHS bowed toward the latter issue by asserting in the report that the health profile of American children poses "a threat to our nation's health, economy, and military readiness." Read more: Hiltzik: RFK Jr.'s plans for vaccine testing are highly unethical and a danger to your health. Here's why As it happens, the recent actions at HHS and its subagencies, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, increase those threats. Take the agencies' May 20 decision to remove COVID boosters from the CDC's list of recommended vaccinations for healthy children and pregnant women. The decision opens the door for insurance companies to start charging full price for the shots, rather than covering them without copays as the law requires for preventive services. That could mean out-of-pocket charges of $100 or more each booster, which could itself discourage families from getting vaccinated. This is a reminder of how family economics affect health. The MAHA report attributes the rise in childhood obesity and diabetes in part to ultraprocessed foods, or UPFs. But it's silent on what experts call the "social determinants of disease," which are heavily related to economics. The report doesn't mention "food deserts," mostly low-income neighborhoods in which "children do not have access to anything other than UPFs, ... or the cost of fresh food vs. the hyperpalatable and cheap UPFs," observed the Delaware Academy of Medicine in its gloss on the report. And although the report mentions that safety net programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — SNAP, or food stamps, school lunch and breakfast programs, and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC, could play a role in promoting healthy eating, it doesn't mention that those programs face severe budget cuts from the Trump White House. Last month, HHS canceled nearly $800 million in grants to the pharmaceutical company Moderna for the development of a human vaccine against bird flu, part of a Biden administration effort to prepare for possible future pandemics, the potential social and economic impact of which should be self-evident, given our experience with COVID. Bird flu already has devastated the dairy and poultry industries in many regions and sickened dozens of farmworkers. Read more: Hiltzik: RFK Jr.'s views on autism show that anti-science myths are rampant at the agency he leads There was some hope in the research community that sound science might still live at HHS because some HHS appointees had scientific or medical credentials that Kennedy lacked. Those hopes get dashed on a regular basis. On Sunday, for instance, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary — a former professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins — was reduced to incoherence when CBS' "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret Brennan reminded him that on May 20 he co-authored a report in the New England Journal of Medicine that identified pregnancy as factor increasing the risk of "severe COVID-19" — warranting that pregnant women get the vaccine. "Yet seven days later," Brennan said, Makary joined with Kennedy in a video announcement recommending against giving pregnant women the booster. "So what changed in the seven days?" Makary argued that only 12% of pregnant women got the shot last year, "so people have serious concerns." What he didn't say was that those concerns have been ginned up by FDA critics — including Makary — and vaccine opponents, even though clinical trials involving tens of thousands of subjects have validated the recommendation that pregnant women get the vaccine. That brings us back to the MAHA report. Let's start with its core assertion — that "today's children are the sickest generation in American history." As soon as the report was issued, this trope was picked up uncritically by the news media, before the report's citation errors were discovered. But it's undoubtedly wrong, the product of cherry-picking official statistics and ignoring what they really say. An attack on childhood vaccination gets a subject heading all its own in this report, which asserts that the number of recommended vaccines for children by 1 year of age has increased from three in 1986 to 29 now, including vaccines for pregnant mothers. Read more: Hiltzik: Trump's appointment of anti-vaxxer RFK Jr. to his Cabinet has scientists fearing a catastrophe for public health Pediatrician Vincent Iannelli has ably punctured this claim, which he identifies as anti-vax "propaganda." The report reaches its count of 29 by including some vaccines given to children older than 1 year and double-counting shots such as the RSV vaccine, given to either the mother or the infant, not both. An honest count would be as few as 17, not all of which are injections. The report also counts combination vaccines such as MMR and TDaP as three shots rather than one. In pushing the "sickest generation" trope, the report glides over the heath threats faced by children — and adults — before vaccines were available for specific diseases. In the U.S., measles cases averaged more than 530,000 per year throughout the 20th century; as of 2023, the average was 47, according to the CDC. Mumps fell from more than 162,000 cases annually to 429 and rubella from nearly 48,000 to three. Whooping cough, or pertussis, fell from nearly 201,000 cases to 5,611. And polio, the fearsome nemesis of American families in the 1950s, from 16,300 to zero. One can trace the "sickness" of children in bygone generations through child mortality statistics. In 1900, the average life expectancy of a 1-year-old in the U.S. was about 56 years; that bespeaks a morbid population of infants. In 1950 it was still only about 70. Now it's 79. For all that the MAHA report purports to identify the leading health threats to America's kids — processed foods, environmental chemicals, vaccines — it totally ignores what we know to be the single biggest cause of childhood mortality in the U.S.: firearms. Read more: Hiltzik: Trump and RFK Jr. want to make the world safe again for polio and measles. You should be terrified The CDC has reported that in 2021, firearm injuries killed 2,571 children. That rate of 3.7 deaths per 100,000 children aged 17 and younger was an increase of 68% since 2000. The firearm death rate of 6.01 per 100,000 children aged 1-19 was 10 times the rate in Canada and 20 times the rates in France and Switzerland. Why the silence in the MAHA report? What does that say about how far you should trust the MAHA team at HHS? As for the multiple false citations in the report, they point to the sheer irresponsibility of a federal agency's outsourcing of research to AI. I asked HHS for an explanation of how these errors got into the MAHA report, but I received no reply. White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, however, responded to a reporter's question about the fiasco by claiming there were "formatting issues" with the report. Her excuse made me laugh, because it was the same excuse offered by the big law firm Latham and Watkins when it was caught submitting AI fabrications to a judge as part of a legal filing, as I reported recently. In neither case did the excuses explain how "formatting issues," whatever that means, resulted in the fabrication of source citations. HHS attributes the report to a 14-member "Make America Healthy Again" commission, composed mostly of cabinet members and other officials with no responsibility for or expertise in public health, such as the secretaries of Housing and Urban Development, Education, Agriculture and Veterans Affairs and directors of White House budget and economic offices. Makary and Bhattacharya are on the panel. They lent their names and reputations to this product, much to their discredit. But it's unclear about who actually put pen to paper. Some of its language can be traced back to Kennedy's own words. The report's assertion that "today's children are the sickest generation in American history" was picked up and amplified by media coverage of the report's release, even though it's not supported by the facts. It is a verbatim echo of a claim Kennedy has made repeatedly, however, mostly as a plank in his anti-vaccination platform. It was part of the title of a book his anti-vaccine organization, Children's Health Defense, issued in 2018 ("The Sickest Generation"). The most frightening aspect of the MAHA report is that it's likely to be the blueprint for a comprehensive attack on public health; scarier in that news media and political leaders are citing it as though it has scientific value. It's so infected with falsehoods, misrepresentations and ideological blinkers that it will only subject the health of American children to the greatest risk they've faced in, yes, American history. Get the latest from Michael HiltzikCommentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize me up. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Washington Post
16 minutes ago
- Washington Post
The right simply can't let go of this deworming medication
In recent months, Republican governors in Idaho, Arkansas and Tennessee have signed bills allowing over-the-counter sales of the antiparasitic medicine ivermectin. Lawmakers from many other states, including West Virginia, South Carolina and Louisiana, are rushing to follow suit. Proponents hail these moves as a win for the 'medical freedom' movement. In reality, they symbolize the deep distrust of public health that resides at the heart of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda. It's worth reviewing how ivermectin, a decades-old livestock dewormer, became such a hot-button political issue. Initially developed for veterinary care, the medication prevents and treats heartworms in dogs, cats and farm animals such as horses, cattle and pigs. It can also cure human parasitic infections and is the treatment of choice for onchocerciasis, also known as river blindness, which is the second-most common infectious cause of blindness worldwide. In the United States, ivermectin pills are approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat onchocerciasis and another parasitic infection, strongyloidiasis. Early in the covid-19 pandemic, ivermectin joined the list of possible treatments for the novel coronavirus because laboratory data showed the drug could stop virus replication in cell culture. But these findings were not replicated in human trials. Two New England Journal of Medicine articles concluded that ivermectin did not reduce emergency department visits, hospitalizations or deaths due to covid. A JAMA report examining higher doses of ivermectin also found no effect on preventing hospitalization or reducing symptom duration. A Cochrane analysis, considered the gold standard of medical reviews, assessed 11 trials and concluded there was no evidence to support the use of ivermectin for treating or preventing covid. This is how science should be done: A promising hypothesis is subjected to rigorous tests. All findings are considered equally, included the negative ones. If a drug is found to be ineffective against a certain disease, its use for that purpose is not warranted. But not everyone agreed with these core scientific principles. Despite evidence to the contrary, a group called America's Frontline Doctors continued to promote ivermectin as a 'safe and effective treatment' for covid-19. Another group, now called Independent Medical Alliance, promoted a conspiracy theory that drug companies were suppressing data that ivermectin could be repurposed for covid treatment. Legislators eager to end pandemic precautions invited these providers to speak at hearings. One physician told a Senate committee that ivermectin offered miraculous prophylaxis against the coronavirus, saying, 'If you take it, you will not get sick.' Many right-wing media influencers talked up ivermectin, including Fox News's Laura Ingraham and podcaster Joe Rogan, who said he took it himself when he had covid. By late 2021, ivermectin sales had increased to more than 10 times their pre-pandemic rates. People unable to acquire prescriptions from their doctor started buying products intended for animals, prompting the FDA to issue warnings that people were becoming seriously ill from consuming formulations meant for horses, cattle and sheep. Families desperate to save loved ones dying from covid sued hospitals to compel them to give the drug against their doctors' recommendation. In other words, ivermectin had entered the covid-19 culture war. Like masking and vaccines, the drug became a shorthand for one's political allegiance. Skeptics of vaccines began to see ivermectin as their fail-safe. If they contracted covid, they would just take it as their 'treatment.' Heck, they could even take it to prevent catching the virus, so they didn't even need masks or vaccines. They didn't trust research showing that ivermectin wasn't effective; they believed mainstream medicine was in cahoots with drug companies to 'force' vaccinations. And they could point to plenty of 'experts' who touted ivermectin as much as they did. It's not surprising that these sentiments have culminated in legislation permitting access to ivermectin without a doctor's prescription or even a pharmacist consultation. Now that advocates have notched this success, they are applying the same playbook to reduce vaccine availability. Many states have attempted to pass legislation to ban or even criminalize administration of mRNA vaccines, referring to the technological advancement that allowed scientists to develop coronavirus shots at record speed. The hypocrisy here is mind-boggling. The same people pushing for unrestricted availability to a medication also want to take away the choice to access others. Apparently, 'medical freedom' only applies to therapies that mainstream medicine advises against. These advocates are gaining ground. The federal government has announced plans to limit who can receive coronavirus vaccines, and just last week, Kennedy's Department of Health and Human Services pulled hundreds of millions of dollars previously committed to developing bird flu vaccines. We have entered the upside-down world where unproven treatments are celebrated and prevention is sacrificed on the altar of contrarianism.
Axios
23 minutes ago
- Axios
New COVID subvariant cases detected in Washington
More than a dozen cases of a new COVID-19 subvariant — NB.1.8.1 — have been detected in Washington, according to federal surveillance data. Why it matters: The variant has been gaining ground globally, according to the World Health Organization, and first appeared in the U.S. in March and April. Driving the news: Fourteen cases of NB.1.8.1 have been genetically sequenced in Washington based on global tracking data as of last week, according to an emailed statement from the Washington Department of Health. The earliest sample was collected on April 7, and the most recent on May 20, per DOH. One of the cases was detected in a traveler at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport after the person voluntarily provided a nasal swab on May 15 for the CDC's variant tracking program, the Washington State Standard reported. State of play: Washington's ability to spot new COVID variants early is more limited than in past years due to a steep drop in community testing and a shift toward at-home antigen tests, DOH said Monday in an emailed statement. Thirteen of the 14 detections came from Ginkgo Bioworks, which screens travelers at Sea-Tac for the CDC. One case was flagged by the U.S. Air Force School of Medicine. It's unclear in all 14 detections whether the individuals live in Washington or spent time in the state after testing, per DOH. Threat level: NB.1.8.1 has been flagged by WHO as a variant under monitoring because of its rising spread, but health officials say the public risk remains low, with no signs of increased disease severity.
