The Hill's Health Next Summit
A new administration, a new Congress, and a new stance on health care that could have major implications at home and the world at large. This year is set to be so major for health care, that we are splitting our Summit into two parts.
The first installment of The Hill's Health Next Summit will be held this March as we explore the campaign promises made by the Republican Administration, dive into the promises made by the new leaders in health care and the issues at the top of the agenda, and how it could play out for women's health, mental health, AI and emerging tech in healthcare.
Join The Hill as we convene the leading minds in health care, government and the private sector to explore what's next in health.
LOCATION
Washington, DC & streaming nationwide
DATE & TIME
Wednesday, March 26
8:15 AM ET Registration & Networking
9:00 AM ET Programming begins
12:00 PM ET Programming concludes
Speakers:
Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Chair, House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health; Co-Sponsor, Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act
Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK), Chair, House Republican Policy Committee; Co-Sponsor, Protecting Health Care for All Patients Act
Rep. Kim Schrier, M.D. (D-WA), Member, House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health
Linda Goler Blount, President & CEO, Black Women's Health Imperative
Robert Egge, Chief Public Policy Officer, Alzheimer's Association
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Planned Parenthood turns to states for a lifeline
Planned Parenthood is pushing governors and legislators in California, New York and other blue states to cobble together emergency funding that will allow them to keep the lights on should the spigot of federal money run dry. The Republican budget proposal moving through Congress would in one fell swoop prohibit most abortion providers from getting any federal funding, including Medicaid dollars. The push to defund Planned Parenthood in this way is only the latest existential threat to the organization that has been in Republican cross hairs for decades. Although not mentioned by name in the mega-spending bill being pushed by Congressional Republicans, Planned Parenthood, the country's largest abortion provider, see it as a clear, intentional target. The proposed law would prohibit federal Medicaid funding from going to 'prohibited entities,' a category that includes tax-exempt organizations that primarily provide family planning but also abortions and receive over $800,000 per year from the government. 'All they needed to add was 'if your organization rhymes with wood,'' said Fabiola De Liban, the director of sexual and reproductive health at the National Health Law Program. The stakes are particularly high for Planned Parenthood in California, where its leaders have conveyed to Gov. Gavin Newsom and lawmakers that they'll need more than $25 million each month in stopgap funds if the federal cuts are enacted. Planned Parenthood chapters in other states where abortion is legal would be left reeling as well: In Massachusetts, the group's clinics stand to lose $14 million, roughly half of their operating budget. In Oregon, they receive between $15 million and $18 million each year in Medicaid payments. Federal law already prohibits states from using Medicaid dollars to pay for abortions. California, like other states, uses its own funds to cover the procedures. Now, by trying to block all Medicaid funds to abortion providers, Congressional Republicans are pursuing what critics say amounts to a 'backdoor abortion ban' in states where it remains legal. 'I don't think we need to be funding abortions, anything to do with it,' Rep. Tim Burchett (R- Tenn.) " I'd like to see us eliminate any funding for it. Let's roll. We need to do it.' Planned Parenthood has said about a third of its 600 clinics would be at risk of closing if it could no longer bill Medicaid, most of which are in states where abortion is legal. As they've fanned out in state capitols to hit up elected officials for help, Planned Parenthood leaders and other advocates for abortion access are running into mismatched deadlines and state budgets already stretched thin. In California and Massachusetts, there are still a few weeks left to possibly shoehorn in some contingency funds before their budgets are finalized at the end of this month. But in New York and other states that have already passed budgets for the coming fiscal year, the groups have been left hoping state officials will step up with additional funding outside of the regular budget process. Complicating matters for advocates in California is another budget battle they've fought over the state's $12 billion budget deficit that Newsom proposed closing in part by diverting over $500 million that was supposed to be reserved for Planned Parenthood. The group successfully lobbied the Legislature to restore the money in its budget plan and voiced optimism that the final budget hammered out between the governor and lawmakers won't include the funds shuffle. 'In a normal year that would be great, we'd consider all of that a win,' said Jodi Hicks, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California. 'Unfortunately, we are having to plan at the same time for being defunded at the federal level.' Hicks said she'd need about $27 million a month from state coffers to keep the group's 115 clinics open. She said she's talking to Newsom's office and the Legislature on plans for a short-term infusion that would give clinics a few weeks or months reprieve while Hicks and her team figure out a longer term solution that would also require at least some state funding. Newsom's office declined to comment. Planned Parenthood clinics in New York asked for a similar emergency fund, but Gov. Kathy Hochul and legislative leaders rejected the idea, saying they would respond to the federal cuts if they are passed. New York stands to lose a total of more than $13 billion in Medicaid funding from cuts currently called for in Congress' bill, a number Hochul says the state would be unable to backfill. Robin Chapelle Golston, president of Planned Parenthood Empire State Acts, said her advocacy group is working with the Hochul administration to determine what type of support the state could provide for reproductive health services if the federal cuts come down. 'If they kick us out of the Medicaid program, we are going to have to work closely with the state,' Golston said to POLITICO. 'We're already starting to push to have conversations with the [Department of Health] and Department of Budget, to really kind of discuss next steps…they know that we serve in a lot of healthcare deserts that will really devastate access to sexual reproductive healthcare across the state.' The New York state budget included a $25 million grant to bolster access to medication abortion and an additional $4 million to support training clinics' staff. Dominique Lee, CEO of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said she is discussing the potential for a similar fund in the state. Lee, Hicks, Golston and Planned Parenthood leaders in other states where abortion is legal have attended regular conference calls to discuss strategies for convincing state officials to come to their aid. While reproductive health systems in each state are different, Lee said there is a lot they have to learn from one another. 'My colleagues bring a great sense of community when we need it most, it's talking about practices, learning about public health policies,' Lee said. 'I think the biggest thing is just how we make sure that our doors stay open, we certainly don't want to abandon our patients, so we're like, 'How do we activate other funding sources?' ' The likelihood of Planned Parenthood being cut from federal funding remains uncertain. Congress is attempting to defund the group through budget reconciliation, a legislative process that can expedite budget decisions, but comes with restrictions on how it can be used. When Republicans attempted a similar move against Planned Parenthood in 2017, it was found to be outside the bounds of reconciliation. Rep. Eric Burlinson (R-Mo.) told POLITICO the decision was 'not just a policy.' 'It's an important part of the bill has a serious financial impact,' Burlison said. Arizona's Rep. Andy Biggs agreed, saying the defund was necessary to pay for other programs. 'I think certainly you have to have it in, because it's a pay for, right?' Biggs said. 'There's a whole lot of spending going on, so there needs to be a whole lot of payfors going on.' The threat to defund Planned Parenthood is part of a broader effort to restrict abortion access through the spending bill. Elsewhere in it are provisions to boot out private insurers that include abortion in their coverage plans from insurance marketplaces. It's a little more complicated than just asking for money. Clinics will have to figure out how to provide care without billing one of their main payers, but will also have to untangle a host of other federal funding streams like grants and proceeds from provider taxes currently being used to fund family planning services. In Oregon, Planned Parenthood is the main provider of all reproductive health care, and around 70 percent of its patients are on Medicaid. Already, state reimbursement rates only pay for about 45 percent of the cost of care, said Sara Kennedy, the CEO of Planned Parenthood Columbia Willamette in Oregon. She's spent the legislative session, which ends in June, trying to advocate for increased rates. 'I can understand why people are reluctant to have really detailed conversations or make any promises or pledges until we know for sure what's happening,' Kennedy said. For now she's bracing for a period of uncertainty if the bill passes, when there are likely to be legal challenges and her clinics will continue to see patients while not being paid. Long term, she's hoping state agencies can pull together a funding program outside of Medicaid to cover low-income Oregonians. In the long run, if clinics can't bill Medicaid, De Liban said there's no way states would be able to make up for all the lost money, especially not on an ongoing basis. 'The answer is very easy and it's also very complicated,' De Liban said. 'It's easy in the sense that they just need more money, and it's very complicated in that I don't know where the money's going to be coming from.'
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
RFK Jr to encourage Americans to use 'wearable' tech to track their health
U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on Tuesday that it is his vision "that every American is wearing a wearable within four years." He made the comments regarding devices like smartwatches, smart rings and fitness trackers to members of Congress, adding that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is "about to launch one of the biggest advertising campaigns in HHS history to encourage Americans to use wearables." Kennedy said during a hearing before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Health that wearables are a way "people can take control of their own health." "They can see, as you know, what food is doing to their glucose levels, their heart rates, and a number of other metrics as they eat it," he told members of Congress. "And they can begin to make good judgments about their diet, about their physical activity, about the way that they live their lives." The health secretary said he has had friends who have "utterly changed their lives just from wearing a glucose meter," who have lost weight while monitoring their diabetes. Shares of continuous glucose-monitoring device makers Abbott and Dexcom were up 3.6% and 10%, respectively, in afternoon trading, Reuters reported. While he has been critical of the diabetes drug Ozempic, which is often used for weight-loss, he has expressed support for the prescription of such weight-loss drugs for adults with morbid obesity and diabetes, provided they are accompanied by exercise. "You know the Ozempic is costing $1300 a month, if you can achieve the same thing with an $80 wearable, it's a lot better for the American people," Kennedy said, adding, "We're exploring ways of making sure that those costs can be paid for." J.P. Morgan analyst Robbie Marcus commented, "We think it's premature to interpret this as a direct comment on whether Medicare and other commercial payors will move towards covering non-intensive Type II diabetes patients or other areas of proactive monitoring." Kennedy has long promoted healthy eating over medicine as a way to combat obesity, and has been a prominent skeptic of vaccine safety. He added, both in person and on X, that the forthcoming wearables campaign is "a key part of our mission to Make America Healthy Again."
Washington Post
3 hours ago
- Washington Post
RIP, MAHA
RIP, MAHA. We hardly knew ye. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 'Make America Healthy Again' agenda has a simple premise: Americans don't need more access to medical care. Instead, the best way to improve our country's health is through better nutrition and exposure to fewer environmental toxins. Alas, as was evident from the health and human services secretary's congressional testimony Tuesday about the administration's budget requests, his boss is currently A) taking away nutritional assistance and B) expanding use of environmental toxins. That should underscore the obvious: The Trump administration's MAHA agenda was never really about making America healthier. In addition to purging the 'deep state' of medical experts, it has served as cover for broader GOP efforts to shrink federal spending on health care coverage. To partly offset the cost of regressive tax cuts, Republicans' budget bill would slash nearly $800 billion from Medicaid and cause almost 11 million more people to become uninsured, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects. Kennedy, other Trump officials and Republican congressional leaders have repeatedly denied that this would harm Americans. Kennedy has instead emphasized that societal factors, including too much medical intervention, are the main causes of poor health outcomes. For example, his 'MAHA Report' (the one citing all those nonexistent studies) blamed the rise in childhood chronic disease on four factors: poor diet, environmental toxins, lifestyle changes in the digital age and 'overmedicalization.' GOP lawmakers have backed his message. As Kansas Sen. Roger Marshall, a physician, put it in January: 'By the time you come to my office as a doctor, I can impact maybe 10 or 20 percent of your health outcomes. ... We need to make these healthy foods affordable, available as well — and then try to eliminate and minimize the toxins that we're exposed to.' He's not wrong that health outcomes are influenced by access to good nutrition and a clean environment, among other societal factors. The problem is the GOP agenda makes these factors worse. Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, for instance, would slash nutritional assistance nearly every way possible. It would escalate so-called work requirements (really, paperwork requirements) for food stamps. It also would eliminate a 30-year-old, evidence-based nutrition education program called SNAP-Ed. This program partners with schools, churches and other local organizations to help people receiving food assistance learn how to shop for and cook healthier meals and lead more active lifestyles. Exactly the kind of thing that MAHA partisans should support. Another measure in the legislation would force states to either make up for large federal cuts to food stamp funding, take food assistance away from a substantial number of families or end the program entirely. Moreover, this bill is hardly the only vehicle Republican politicians are using to take healthy food away from people who need it. As Kennedy was calling for better nutrition in school lunches, for example, the Trump administration cut funding for the program. (Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins described it as 'nonessential.') And in a separate bill, House Republicans plan to hobble a 50-year-old program known as WIC, which gives food assistance to low-income pregnant women, new moms, babies and young children who are diagnosed as being at nutritional risk. WIC has historically had strong bipartisan support, but in accordance with Trump's latest budget request, the bill would begin slashing the fruit and vegetable benefit for recipients. In addition to being anti-MAHA (and generally cruel), this funding cut might well cost the government money in the long run. Research has shown that spending on prenatal nutrition and healthier food for poor kids offers a huge return on investment. Each dollar spent on WIC saves more than a dollar on other government spending programs later on because those kids grow up to be more productive adults who need fewer government services. Similar arguments apply to government investments in the removing of lead from pipes as well as other programs that reduce young children's exposure to neurotoxins. These also offer a huge bang for the buck and are among the more compelling parts of the MAHA philosophy. Unfortunately, the administration fired everyone at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tasked with fighting lead poisoning. (It has since tried to rehire them.) Officials also attempted to purge toxicology researchers from the Environmental Protection Agency. (Litigation is ongoing.) And they paused a Biden-era rule that provided safeguards to prevent accidents at chemical plants and have proposed shuttering the agency tasked with investigating chemical accidents after the fact. Meanwhile, the EPA is rolling back restrictions on how much mercury, arsenic, lead and other carcinogens power plants can emit. Last week, the agency also told a court that it was reconsidering a Biden-era ban on asbestos. This might contradict the MAHA agenda, but it should please Russia, which is a major exporter of asbestos. Make mesothelioma great again! 'Our cuts are designed to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, redundancies,' Kennedy assured lawmakers on Tuesday. Apparently, that 'waste' includes the few goods parts of his MAHA agenda, too.
