Mass General Brigham doctors press hospital leaders to stand up to Trump's Harvard threats
This is the first time that MGB, the state's largest health system, has gotten public pressure from its own employees to resist federal funding threats.
'Appeasement has never been a successful strategy, and it is not one now,' the employees said in the letter, which organizers began circulating via e-mail on Friday. 'Institutions that comply with these demands are not spared — they are only asked to give up more. What does our mission mean — what do our values truly mean — if we comply instead of standing up for what is right?'
Dr. Marjorie Curran, a pediatrician at Mass General for Children who helped write the letter, said she has no doubt that leaders of the state's biggest health system want to preserve its mission. But she feels they have been conspicuously silent in the two weeks since the Trump administration announced it was reviewing $9 billion in federal funding to Harvard and then issued a list of demands.
Advertisement
'The stuff that [the Trump administration is] doing is directly threatening public health and is going to be causing death,' Curran said in an interview. 'We need to be yelling from the rooftops that this needs to stop.'
Advertisement
MGB is the largest private employer in the state, with about 82,000 workers. Its flagship hospitals, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital, last year together
Curran said the letter went to Dr. Anne Klibanski, chief executive of MGB; Dr. David Brown, president of MGB's academic medical centers; Dr. Marcela del Carmen, president of MGH; Dr. William Curry, chief medical officer of the academic medical centers; and Dr. O'Neil A. Britton, chief integration officer of MGB.
MGB didn't have an immediate response to the letter, according to Jessica Pastore, a spokesperson for the health system.
Related
:
The Trump administration said on March 31 it was reviewing
in an effort to 'root out antisemitism,' according to the government's antisemitism task force.
The task force issued a list of demands three days later, including ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, implementing 'merit-based' admissions and hiring practices, cooperating with federal immigration authorities, and changing student disciplinary procedures. The task force didn't give Harvard a deadline.
Trump and his allies contend the measures will help combat antisemitism on campus. They allege that Harvard failed to protect Jewish students from harassment during pro-Palestinian protests.
The Trump administration said on March 31 it was reviewing federal funding for Harvard and its affiliates in an effort to 'root out antisemitism,' according to the government's antisemitism task force.
Uncredited/Associated Press
However, the letter, titled an 'MGB Call to Action,' said the demands are antithetical to the four stated pillars of the health system: patient care, cutting-edge research, education of the next generation of health care providers, and advocating for the communities MGB serves.
Advertisement
'Rather than preemptively concede to executive orders that threaten our mission, we must mount a coordinated and courageous opposition,' the letter said. 'If we stand together — with our clinical and academic colleagues across the country — we can withstand this existential threat.'
The letter said MGB must make it clear that it welcomes all patients and employees, regardless of race, gender, gender identity, religion, country of origin, sexual orientation, or economic status.
Related
:
That flies in the face of
The letter sent Monday also said MGB should defend the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Without naming anyone, the letter referred to past public statements by the nation's health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., that measles shots could cause autism and that vitamins might protect people from the virus.
'An administration that promotes vaccine skepticism, revives debunked claims linking vaccines to autism, and recommends vitamin A for a disease declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000 must be called to account, and all clinicians should be free to do so,' the letter said.
The vast majority of employees who signed the letter were physicians, but signatories also included nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurses, and social workers.
Related
:
Dr. Scott Hadland, chief of adolescent medicine at Mass General for Children and an expert on the treatment of addiction, said he signed it because he wants his patients and their families to know what MGB's values are.
Advertisement
'I especially want the communities we serve here in Boston and New England to know that we are committed to eliminating health disparities, whether they're related to race, ethnicity, nationality, LGBTQ+ community membership, or socioeconomic status,' he said in a text message.
In addition to urging MGB to enlist other teaching hospitals in a fight against the Trump administration, the letter called on leaders to 'file any needed legal challenges.'
On Friday, two groups representing Harvard professors sued the administration in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, saying the threat to cut billions in federal funding for the university violates free speech and other First Amendment rights. The suit was filed by the American Association of University Professors and the Harvard faculty chapter of the group.
Related
:
The letter sent to MGB leaders quoted Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel's 1986 Nobel Prize acceptance speech in which he said, 'There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.'
Also on Monday, lawyers for Harvard said the school
Read the full letter from MGB employees below:
Jonathan Saltzman can be reached at
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump to force NHS to pay for wonder drugs
NHS patients have been given new hope of accessing wonder drugs previously blocked in Britain as Donald Trump pressures the health service to spend more with US suppliers. Ministers are understood to be reviewing the value-for-money rules that govern which drugs the NHS can buy, amid demands from the Trump administration for the UK to be more welcoming to US pharmaceutical companies. Under the trade agreement signed between the two nations earlier this year, the Government agreed to 'endeavour to improve the overall environment for pharmaceutical companies operating in the UK'. Earlier this week, The Telegraph revealed that this could result in the NHS paying more for US drugs to see off criticism of the differences in medicine prices between the two nations. However, it is understood that discussions include not only paying more for treatments already supplied on the NHS but also making it easier for US drug giants to sell their most cutting-edge treatments to the health service. It follows a wave of high-profile rejections of so-called 'wonder' drugs in recent years. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (Nice), which approves new NHS drugs for purchase, has blocked treatments including one which stopped the progression of Alzheimer's disease and another that doubled the life expectancy for terminal breast cancer patients. Nice has rejected them based on assessments of how long they would extend a patient's lifespan and improve quality of life. To qualify under Nice rules a new treatment must deliver one extra year of perfect health, or longer for less perfect health, for no more than £30,000. This figure has not increased in line with inflation since 1999. If it had, it would be just over £53,000. Nice has maintained that, to get approval for use on the NHS, medicines 'must not only provide benefits to patients but also represent a good use of NHS resources and taxpayers' money'. However, critics say a failure to raise the threshold in-line with inflation meant life-changing drugs were being blocked. Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said: 'There is growing evidence that it is becoming harder to bring new medicines to NHS patients. Increasingly, some new medicines may not be launched in the UK at all.' Companies including US giant Eli Lilly have said the regulator must rethink how 'value-for-money' is assessed. On Monday, a spokesman for the company said: 'The UK has historically focused on medicines as a cost to the NHS rather than evaluating their social and economic value.' Ministers are understood to be listening to demands from the industry for Nice to shake up its formula, with medicines such as AstraZeneca's breast cancer treatment Enhertu likely to be resubmitted for approval for NHS use if the formula is updated. Nice and AstraZeneca previously failed to reach an agreement over a price for the drug, which costs an estimated £118,000 per course of treatment. The NHS typically gets discounts, although the level is commercially sensitive. The Nice formula is being discussed after President Trump took a personal interest in the NHS issue. In trade documents between the US and UK, it said the NHS would review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president'. US officials are particularly concerned by an arrangement that sees companies pay revenue back to the NHS if costs rise faster than expected. Drug companies paid £3bn back to the NHS last year. In April, Wes Streeting, the Health Secretary, said he was proud that the UK had kept prices of medicines low. However, he admitted that the UK had become too focused on cost rather than the benefits in some cases. Mr Streeting said: 'We've moved from quite rightly trying to drive a good bargain on the price of drugs and treatment to a position where sometimes people view medicine spend as a dead weight cost'.
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Sudden Cardiac Arrest Is Highly Preventable: Here's How
This transcript has been edited for clarity. This is Dr JoAnn Manson, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women's Hospital. I'd like to talk with you about a recent report in the Canadian Journal of Cardiology that addressed the modifiable risk factors for sudden cardiac arrest, the extent to which this outcome is preventable, and the percentage of cases that could be averted by changes in modifiable risk factors. There's been surprisingly little research on this subject. Most of the research on sudden cardiac arrest has looked at genetic factors and clinical risk factors that are managed with pharmacologic agents, such as hypertension, high cholesterol, and diabetes, and proximate risk factors like what the patient was doing shortly before the sudden cardiac arrest. However, there's been very little research on the role of behavioral and lifestyle factors in long-term studies. It's important to have this research because we know that sudden cardiac arrest is highly fatal in about 90% of cases. In the US alone, there are more than 200,000 cases per year, and more than double that if we include total cardiac arrest inside and outside of the hospital. In the present study, researchers leveraged the large-scale UK Biobank, which included more than 500,000 participants whose mean age was 56 years and about 50% of whom were women. Over a follow-up of 14 years, there were about 3100 cases of incident sudden cardiac arrest. The researchers looked at about 125 risk factors and linked 56 of those factors to the risk for sudden cardiac arrest. These included lifestyle, behavioral, adiposity, psychosocial, and environmental factors. What they found was that the American Heart Association Life's Essential 8 factors were generally strongly related to risk for sudden cardiac arrest. For example, sedentary lifestyle, higher adiposity, higher waist circumference, short sleep duration (less than 7 hours per night), and tobacco use were associated with an increased risk. Other factors that were also linked to sudden cardiac arrest risk included psychosocial factors (eg, depressive symptoms, low mood, social isolation), dietary factors (eg, low fruit and vegetable intake), and air pollution. The researchers used Mendelian randomization to evaluate the likelihood of a causal relationship. In these analyses, about nine factors were determined to be causally related. These factors included adiposity factors, low fruit intake, low educational level, and some of the mood-related factors. Overall, they estimated that between 40% and 63% of sudden cardiac arrest cases could be preventable by reducing or even fully eliminating these risk factors. These findings underscore the importance of primary prevention, not only to nonfatal or total coronary heart disease and cardiovascular events, but also to sudden cardiac arrest. These results suggest that more could be done in terms of informing our patients about these risk factors in order to lower their risk — both informing them in the clinic and through community-based and public health campaigns.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Making America healthy begins with farmers
In January 2019, at the age of 36, I was diagnosed with metastatic cancer. Amid all of the fear and worry over my health and my future, my biggest question was, 'why did this happen?' Now, President Trump's Make America Healthy Again Commission has been established to uncover the causes of the epidemic of chronic disease in our nation's young people, particularly children, and to do something about it. The MAHA Commission's assessment report marks a historic recognition of a crisis decades in the making: The American diet, shaped by a highly consolidated food system dominated by a handful of corporations, is fueling a chronic-disease crisis. Crucially, the report emphasizes that American farmers must be at the center of the nation's health. As the sixth-generation on my own family's farm, I couldn't agree more. American farmers have contributed to an abundant and affordable food supply, but a growing share of the value created by farmers' work has been captured by major food manufacturers, processors and retailers. This concentration of corporate power has not only weakened rural economies and limited market access for farmers, it has reshaped the American diet around government-subsidized, ultra-processed products that contribute to rising rates of chronic illnesses. This crisis would not be what it is without decades of unchecked mergers and acquisitions. A handful of companies now control most of the U.S. food and farm sectors, so they decide how farmers farm and what consumers eat. The way out is by investing in healthier local food systems and enforcing antitrust laws. The government, the nation's largest food purchaser, should spend its funds with producers who use regenerative, organic and grass-fed practices. Pairing this with stronger country-of-origin meat labeling and forcing the breakup of multinational monopolies will help reshape our system and allow farmers to feed their neighbors again. The MAHA Commission's report notes how powerful corporate interests have manipulated public policy to serve industry profits over public health. To undo that influence, we must reject current attempts by pesticide companies to shield themselves from accountability; oppose legislation (such as the EATS Act) that strips local governments of their authority; and reform USDA's commodity checkoff programs, which feed farmer dollars into the pockets of lobbying groups, including many of those opposing the work of the MAHA Commission. And we should implement a mandatory cooling-off period for those employees moving between USDA and the agribusinesses the agency regulates. As the administration examines pesticides for its 2026 health assessment, the process must be free of conflicts of interest. In the meantime, we can gain independence from multinational chemical suppliers by putting a priority on diversified, low-input systems (such as organic, non-GMO and regenerative) that offer similar or greater productivity and profitability compared to conventional models. Moreover, practices like cover cropping, rotational grazing and composting help build long-term soil health, improve water retention and increase farm resilience. With the right policy support, these models can form the backbone of a food system that enables farmers to be the drivers of improved health outcomes. Finally, if we want more healthy foods, the government must invest in them. Current taxpayer-backed farm programs drive the production of commodity field crops such as corn and soybeans. Farmers have shown up to the task of producing these crops, but it's been at the expense of more nutritious crops such as fruits, vegetables, nuts and whole grains, which are deemed 'specialty crops.' These programs are undermining food security and increasing our agriculture trade deficit as we rely on other countries for fruits and vegetables. The crops the government chooses to subsidize with our tax money will be most accessible for Americans. Today, those are ingredients for ultra-processed foods and feed for livestock. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has said, 'a healthy person has a thousand dreams; a sick person only has one.' I know too well the truth in these words. There is nothing more important for the future of our country than for our elected officials to set aside political differences, shake off undue corporate influence and rise to this opportunity to put American farmers, not corporate profits, at the center of our nation's health. Angela Huffman is a co-founder and president of Farm Action. She has spent 15 years in food and agriculture policy reform and market development, and raises sheep on her family's sixth-generation farm in Ohio.
