logo
‘Problematic' MAHA report minimizes success of lifesaving asthma medicines, doctors say

‘Problematic' MAHA report minimizes success of lifesaving asthma medicines, doctors say

Miami Herald23-06-2025
Medical experts are dismayed over a federal report's claim that kids are overprescribed asthma medications, saying it minimizes how many lives the drugs save.
Safe treatment protocols for asthma management have been carefully studied over the years, said Dr. Perry Sheffield, a pediatrician and professor at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai.
"The federal government actually has some really beautiful and clear guidelines and strategies, and things that are vetted by and carefully edited by many experts in the field," said Sheffield, who co-directs a region of the federally funded Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units that serves New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Asthma affects more than 4.6 million American children, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It's one of the most common long-term diseases in U.S. children.
The Make America Healthy Again Commission report released in late May, parts of which have been widely criticized, alleges that American children are on too much medication of various kinds, including asthma treatments.
Experts worry that the administration will set policy based on the assessment that would dissuade insurers from covering asthma prescriptions. They also say that the report's assertions could worsen disparities that affect children's access to those medications and undermine years of research around the drugs.
The MAHA commission has until August to release a strategy based on the findings in the report.
Black and Indigenous children as well as those living in inner cities or in lower-income households are among those with the highest rates of asthma. Pollution disproportionately shrouds communities of color and can be a trigger that exacerbates the disease.
The report's message could heighten those disparities, said Dr. Elizabeth Matsui, a University of Texas at Austin professor and a past chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Section on Allergy and Immunology.
"One thing that has been very clear is that kids of color are less likely to be appropriately managed in terms of their asthma medication management," she said. "So a message of overprescription that is simply not supported by the evidence also could potentially exacerbate already-existing racial and ethnic disparities in asthma that we have really not made much headway on."
The commission's claims
The report touches on childhood prediabetes, obesity and mental health. However, firearm injuries - the leading cause of death for children and teens in 2020 and 2021, according to the CDC - weren't mentioned.
The 70-page report from the commission, chaired by Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., claims four main issues are the drivers behind childhood chronic disease: poor diet, aggregation of environmental chemicals, lack of physical activity and chronic stress, and "overmedicalization."
Matsui and other experts said the report's use of that word is "problematic."
"The implication could be, unfortunately, that when a child has asthma - so, they have coughing, chest tightness, wheezing - that that is not really a disease," said Matsui. "We know for a fact that that's a disease, and we know that it is quite treatable, quite controllable, and that it has profound impacts on the child's day-to-day life."
Other scientists have similarly criticized the report, saying it makes sweeping and misleading generalizations about children's health without sufficient evidence. The White House corrected the report after nonprofit news outlet NOTUS found that it cited studies that didn't exist.
In an emailed statement to Stateline, Health and Human Services press secretary Emily Hilliard wrote: "The MAHA report discusses concerns about the potential overprescription of asthma medications - particularly in mild cases - not to question their importance, but to encourage evidence-based prescribing."
When it comes to asthma, the report says, "Asthma controller prescriptions increased 30% from 1999-2008." That sentence originally cited a broken link to a study from 2011; the link was later replaced. Controller meds include inhalers.
The MAHA report also claims that "There is evidence of overprescription of oral corticosteroids for mild cases of asthma." The original version of the report listed estimated percentages of oral corticosteroids overuse, citing a nonexistent study. The wording was changed and the citation was later replaced with a link to a 2017 study by pediatric pulmonologist Dr. Harold Farber.
The study was not a randomized controlled trial, which increases reliability. Farber told NOTUS that the report made an "overgeneralization" of his research. Stateline also reached out to Farber, whose public relations team declined an interview request.
Oral corticosteroids are liquid or tablet medications used to reduce inflammation for conditions including allergies, asthma, arthritis and Crohn's disease. For asthma, they're used to treat severe flare-up episodes. The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America says the medications have been shown to reduce emergency room visits and hospitalizations, and that while they do come with risk of side effects, they're mostly used in acute flare-ups. And while rare, asthma-related deaths in kids do occur, and are often preventable.
"Asthma medications, including oral steroids, are lifesaving," said Dr. Elizabeth Friedman, a pediatrician at Children's Mercy Kansas City. "I believe that physicians, not politicians, are best equipped and most effectively trained to make the determination of whether or not these medications are needed for our patients."
Friedman worries that federal characterizations of asthma meds will affect how state Medicaid agencies cover the drugs. When Medicaid coverage changed for a common prescribed inhaler last year, many of her Missouri Medicaid patients were suddenly without the drug. They ended up hospitalized, she said.
Friedman directs Region 7 of the Pediatric Environmental Health Specialty Units, a network of experts that works to address reproductive and children's environmental health issues. Region 7 provides outreach and education in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska.
She also said she's concerned that the report is "making a broad, sweeping statement based on one epidemiologic study from one state."
Increased use
An increase in inhaler prescriptions is not necessarily a bad thing, experts say. It's a sign that kids are getting their medication.
There has been an increase in inhaler prescriptions, along with a corresponding decrease in the oral corticosteroids, which is what experts would want to see, said Chelsea Langer, bureau chief of the New Mexico Department of Health's Environmental Health Epidemiology Bureau. She said that means kids are "following their asthma action plans and taking the controller medications to prevent needing the relief or treatment (oral) meds."
Asthma prevalence has increased over the years, meaning more people need medication, noted Dr. Alan Baptist, division head of Allergy and Clinical Immunology at Henry Ford Health in Michigan.
He said that because steroid tablets come with risk of side effects, it is best to limit them.
But for kids without access to a regular pediatric provider or to health insurance that covers an inhaler, cost can be an obstacle, he said. Fluticasone propionate, an FDA-approved medicine for people 4 and older, costs on average $200 or more for one inhaler without insurance.
"What often happens with kids, and especially kids who are in Medicaid, or who are in an underserved or disadvantaged population, they are not given appropriate asthma controller medication," said Baptist, who helped write federal guidelines for asthma treatment best practices as part of a National Institutes of Health committee.
Baptist noted that while he was glad to see pollution mentioned in the report as a danger for kids, it's at odds with the recent cuts to environmental health grants that aimed to address such asthma triggers.
"They're somewhat cherry-picking some of the data that they're putting down," he said. "It says the U.S. government is 'committed to fostering radical transparency and gold-standard science' to better understand the potential cumulative impacts of environmental exposure. If that's what they're saying, then they should be funding even greater studies that look at the effects."
Dr. Priya Bansal, an Illinois pediatrician and past president of the Illinois Society of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, said she's concerned the report doesn't define mild, moderate or severe asthma to differentiate the different best-practice treatment plans.
Bansal also said she worries that federal officials' characterization of an FDA-approved drug will lead to insurance companies refusing to cover inhalers or oral steroids for her patients who rely on them.
"I'm going to be worried about coverage for my asthmatics," she said. "The question is, what's the next move that they're going to make? If they think that, are they going to now say, 'Hey, we're not going to cover inhalers for mild asthmatics'?"
_____
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Ultraprocessed Foods Make Up More Than 50% of American Calories
Ultraprocessed Foods Make Up More Than 50% of American Calories

Wall Street Journal

time3 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Ultraprocessed Foods Make Up More Than 50% of American Calories

Ultraprocessed foods make up the majority of calories Americans are eating, according to a report released Thursday by the federal government. But there are signs this consumption might be declining. Sandwiches, baked goods, salty snacks and other ultraprocessed foods accounted for 55% of the calories Americans age 1 and older consumed from August 2021 to August 2023, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics study.

Food companies make promises while MAHA looks for more
Food companies make promises while MAHA looks for more

Axios

time2 hours ago

  • Axios

Food companies make promises while MAHA looks for more

Coca-Cola, Steak 'n Shake, Mars and other food companies earned valuable exposure for pledging to remove certain ingredients and align themselves with Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s bid to clean up what America eats. But some of Kennedy's "Make America Healthy Again" base question if the companies deserve a celebration. Why it matters: The commitments aren't enforceable. And nutritionists and influencers say they largely don't address the primary drivers of chronic diseases that Kennedy has made his cause. State of play: Companies including General Mills, PepsiCo, Conagra, Nestle, Hershey and Kraft Heinz have said they'll remove artificial dyes from their products within the next two years. Coca-Cola pledged to roll out a product that uses cane sugar instead of high-fructose corn syrup. Starbucks is looking to remove canola oil from products on its menu. Steak 'n Shake was among the earliest to get on board, agreeing to cook its fries in beef tallow instead of seed oils. "Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized that the Department's top priority is ensuring the health and transparency that American families deserve," a Health and Human Services spokesperson said in an email to Axios. "Recent food industry commitments to remove artificial dyes, seed oils, and high fructose corn syrup are a positive step." Some MAHA faithful question whether the resulting fanfare amounts to a free pass, akin to a dubious healthy food claim. "They are not big MAHA wins," said Rob Houton, founder of the MAHA Coalition, an advocacy group that builds support for the MAHA agenda. "Those companies want to trumpet that, right? [It's] very clever of them to say, 'Oh, we're in agreement.' But what they are trumpeting as a big deal is not transformative." "The analogy I would make is it's like you have a dilapidated house, the foundation is crumbling and you think that you can correct everything by just putting a new coat of paint on it all," said Arden Anderson, a physician, agriculture consultant and MAHA supporter. As for the two-year window some companies have to make good on their commitments, "what I want to see is that they are doing it," said Ana-Maria Temple, a holistic pediatrician and an influencer aligned with MAHA. Between the lines: Some activists say the most substantive changes would be in regulating agriculture — a touchy proposition for an administration eager not to alienate farm interests. MAHA discontent is building around the House Interior spending bill, which includes language that would offer liability protections for the makers of pesticides. There's also frustration with agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency, which removed regulations against pesticides and "forever chemicals." "We are extremely disappointed with some of the actions taken by this administration to protect the polluters and the pesticide companies," Zen Honeycutt, the founder of Moms Across America, told Vox. What to watch: Kennedy is set to release a blueprint within days for how the administration intends to address issues raised in a MAHA Commission report that was released in May. Supporters say it will be a test of the administration's willingness to impose new standards on food ingredients, as well as transparency requirements about what's in their products. "Under the MAHA agenda, HHS supports real accountability and science-based standards to ensure that any promised changes are both transparent and truly meaningful for consumers," the HHS spokesperson said in the emailed statement. The bottom line: These moves are creating awareness and pressure that the food industry has never had to respond to before, and that's important, Temple said. "Is it the final answer? Of course not," Temple said of the commitments the administration has extracted from industry. "More people are going to be asking questions. That's a huge win." "The small changes that have been made ... you might think, 'Well, that's not making that big of a difference,'" said Hilda Labrada Gore, a health coach, podcast host and MAHA supporter. "But it's a start."

'Traditionally, it was a Democrat issue': How RFK Jr. is getting left-leaning food laws into deep-red states

time2 hours ago

'Traditionally, it was a Democrat issue': How RFK Jr. is getting left-leaning food laws into deep-red states

Earlier this month, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. notched one of his biggest wins of the "Make America Healthy Again" movement when West Virginia became the first state in the country to ban artificial food dyes in school lunches. Since then, a handful of other Republican governors have raced to join in, banning certain food colorings from kids' lunches -- sometimes prohibiting other chemical additives, too. Some GOP leaders have gone further, slapping warning labels on certain food additives statewide. Historically the focus of Democrats, including former first lady Michelle Obama -- and derided as "nanny state" politics by anti-regulation conservatives -- food laws have lately had a windfall of support from the other side of the aisle. Kennedy's "Make America Health Again" crusade against food additives, with its strong backing from President Donald Trump, has taken hold in deeply Republican states such as Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma. "Traditionally, it was a Democratic issue," Kennedy told ABC News at a press conference on Monday, adding that he is hopeful that Democrats will continue pass food laws in their states despite the "partisan brand" the movement brings. West Virginia -- which has the second-lowest life expectancy rate in the nation, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention -- has taken one of the most stringent approaches, intending to further its ban on artificial dyes and other additives to the whole state by 2028. Its law closely mirrors those passed by California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom, who signed similar bills into law before Kennedy and Trump took office. The California Food Safety Act passed in 2023, which banned four additives statewide, and a second California law passed in 2024, which banned six specific synthetic food dyes from school lunches. Both take effect in 2027. "Sometimes you find that there are unorthodox partners, but the key is what you're able to accomplish," West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrissey, a Republican, told ABC News. If the changes improve health outcomes for West Virginians, it'll be "a win," he said. West Virginia is one of 10 Republican states that have taken steps to regulate food since Kennedy took office. Just two Democratic governors, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs and Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer, have signed similar laws in that same timeframe. At the same time, 11 Republican states have applied to the federal government for waivers to prohibit soda or candy from the food benefits program for low-income Americans, SNAP. The sole Democrat-led state to join in on the SNAP policy change is Colorado. More states are waiting in the wings, said John Hewitt, senior vice president of state affairs for the Consumer Brands Association, which represents major food companies such as Kraft Heinz. There's been at least a tenfold increase in the number of food bills introduced or discussed at the state level, he said, and there's been a "substantial shift" in which states are interested. 'Copy and pasting' Democrats' food laws into red states Thomas Galligan, principal scientist for food additives and supplements at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, has worked with states such as California and New York on systemic food reform. And although CSPI has frequently clashed with Kennedy on his policies at HHS, particularly around vaccines, Galligan said on food, "it's fair to give credit where it's due." "I mean, the Trump administration, under RFK Jr., has really elevated this issue on the national stage," he said. But Galligan pushed back on the characterization that it's part of Kennedy's "Make America Health Again" movement, pointing to California's laws, before Kennedy's tenure, as the blueprint. "Most of the bills that we're seeing are really copy and pasting," Galligan said. Six Republican states -- Tennessee, Virginia, Utah, Arizona, Louisiana and Texas -- have passed laws to remove artificial dyes from school lunches, with some states going further and prohibiting additives such as potassium bromate and propylparabens. Texas and Louisiana will also do more -- seeking to warn consumers when they're buying food with additives that are banned in other countries, such as Europe. West Virginia and Arkansas will outright ban certain additives statewide. Some nutritionists and dietitians say that it's best to avoid artificial food dyes, which have been linked in some studies to behavioral changes in children, as well as to cancer in animals, but others say more research needs to be done about the potential negative effects, which are still unclear. Why are food laws different for Republicans this time? For conservatives such as Jeff Singer, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who studies health policy, the new Republican-led laws around food are a far cry from the days of protesting Obama's "Lets Move!" campaign and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's attempt to ban Big Gulp soda. "I clearly remember all of the criticism, particularly on right-wing media, of Mayor Bloomberg," Singer said. "All the attacks on Michelle Obama for trying to dictate how people should eat, and dictate what should be in school lunches." "They were basically saying, 'keep your nose out of our private affairs, this is not a role for government, we don't need a nanny state.' But all of a sudden, they're all for a nanny state because it was a very good political move to bring RFK into the MAGA movement," Singer said. The lack of conservative pushback this time around has left the food industry, a powerful lobbying force, as the primary barrier to passing legislation, said Meghan Enslow, policy associate for the Center for Science in the Public Interest. "In all of these states, blue and red, there's been immense lobbying and money spent by the food industry against these bills. And I do wonder if that MAHA narrative is part of what's allowed red states to ignore that money and the voice of the food industry and pass these bills," Enslow said. Kennedy said that a few Democratic governors have told him privately that they intend to get on board. "They don't want to call it MAHA because they think that that's become kind of a partisan brand. I don't care what they call it," Kennedy said. "They want to protect their children. And there's no such thing as Democratic children or Republican children. They're our children, and we should all care about them."

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