Latest news with #DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices
The Sun
13 hours ago
- Health
- The Sun
US FDA approves Moderna's next-gen Covid vaccine for adults 65 or older
THE U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Moderna's next-generation COVID-19 vaccine for everyone aged 65 and above, the company said on Saturday, the first endorsement since the regulator tightened requirements. The vaccine has also been approved for people aged 12 to 64 with at least one or more underlying risk factors, Moderna said in a statement. The Department of Health and Human Services, under the leadership of long-time vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is increasing regulatory scrutiny on vaccines. The FDA said on May 20 it planned to require drugmakers to test their COVID booster shots against an inert placebo in healthy adults under 65 for approval, effectively limiting them to older adults and those at risk of developing severe illness. The Moderna vaccine, branded mNEXSPIKE, can be stored in refrigerators rather than freezers, to offer longer shelf life and make distribution easier, especially in developing countries where supply-chain issues could hamper vaccination drives. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which Kennedy also oversees, said on Thursday that COVID vaccines remain an option for healthy children when parents and doctors agree that it is needed, stopping short of Kennedy's announcement days earlier that the agency would remove the shots from its immunization schedule.
The Sun
13 hours ago
- Health
- The Sun
FDA approves Moderna's new Covid shot for seniors, at-risk
THE U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Moderna's next-generation COVID-19 vaccine for everyone aged 65 and above, the company said on Saturday, the first endorsement since the regulator tightened requirements. The vaccine has also been approved for people aged 12 to 64 with at least one or more underlying risk factors, Moderna said in a statement. The Department of Health and Human Services, under the leadership of long-time vaccine skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is increasing regulatory scrutiny on vaccines. The FDA said on May 20 it planned to require drugmakers to test their COVID booster shots against an inert placebo in healthy adults under 65 for approval, effectively limiting them to older adults and those at risk of developing severe illness. The Moderna vaccine, branded mNEXSPIKE, can be stored in refrigerators rather than freezers, to offer longer shelf life and make distribution easier, especially in developing countries where supply-chain issues could hamper vaccination drives. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which Kennedy also oversees, said on Thursday that COVID vaccines remain an option for healthy children when parents and doctors agree that it is needed, stopping short of Kennedy's announcement days earlier that the agency would remove the shots from its immunization schedule.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion: Why Dems Have a Secret Super-Spreading Epidemic: Trump Envy
Senior-level Democrats across the country are facing an epidemic. Some cases are benign, but in others it is quite acute, with symptoms resembling insanity. And in every instance, unless properly treated the consequences can be severe—not just for Democrats but for the whole country. The disease is Trump-envy. And according to the best minds at the Department of Health and Human Services—which is admittedly setting the bar pretty low these days—there is no known vaccine. Of course, that's their response to everything so best to take it with a grain of salt. Or, per our new surgeon general nominee Casey Means, perhaps a microdose of shrooms? Nonetheless, the disease is real. I've seen it myself up close. It's not pretty. It is important to be able to distinguish between the milder forms of this 'mind virus,' which have some symptoms which are actually beneficial, and the more severe forms, which can have you talking like a CNN political consultant overnight. I've witnessed the former even among close friends and respected colleagues. These are smart people with lengthy public service careers and a proven dedication to our national interests. They understand the threat Trump poses to our democracy and to our standing in the world; his corruption, his racism, misogyny and general odiousness. In other words, their reasoning powers are unimpaired. But here's what I have heard from them. Often even those who served at high levels in the Biden Administration and were deeply loyal to our former president will say, sotto voce, 'I wish that we could have acted as decisively as Trump does.' Or, 'We would really be better off if we could keep our party in line the way he does.' Or, 'Yes, he may be a dictator, gutting the constitution, and stripping away our human rights but we should have taken more aggressive steps to reduce the size of some bloated cabinet departments too.' (Yes, some DC-lifers get wistful about bureaucratic reorganizations. It's a sign of a different disease. But let's leave that for another column.) Sometimes their begrudging appreciation for what Trump has done is more specifically policy-driven. Many have come to the view that Democrats should have been tougher on immigration. They wouldn't have gone as far as Trump has done. But in retrospect they think that we would have been better off if Biden had been as tough on immigration as say, America's toughest president on the issue, Barack Obama—who deported people at twice the current rate being achieved by Trump. Many top national security professionals with whom I have spoken also appreciated the swiftness of Trump's decision to change America's approach to Syria in ways that might give the new government in that country a chance. They were happy to see Trump give the cold shoulder to Netanyahu during his recent Middle East trip. They were glad to see him moving toward a nuclear deal with Iran and actively promoting AI leadership in the US. Yes, they'll be the first to admit, the Syria decision may have been premature. Yes, Trump's chill with Netanyahu is playing out alongside a continuation of Biden's policy in support of war crimes in Gaza. Yes, it was Trump who blew up the original Iran deal that he now seems intent on putting back into place (in some form or another). And yes, it may be that Trump's stance on AI is influenced by the interests of some of his big donors. But nonetheless, veterans of the last Democratic administration are saying—quietly, behind closed doors—that they appreciate some of what Trump has been doing even as the excoriate much of the rest. And while such open-mindedness can be dangerous if it loses its moorings in facts and morality, a willingness to admit when the opposing side gets something right, even if it happens infrequently, is pretty healthy. What is downright dangerous is when Trump envy takes over the organs which directly control political ambition. If you don't know what I mean, turn on any cable news channel where you will hear chin-stroking political greybeards positing that the only way forward for Democrats is to mimic Trump—finding the party's own Joe Rogan, rebuilding its relationship with young men, maybe building out a few migrant detention camps, but more comfortable. Maybe with some bottled water and wifi? Never mind that a left-wing Rogan-stein is a terrible idea. That there are a lot more sensible young voters concerned about issues like climate change or gun control or having an economic future or control over their own bodies than there are Three Percenter gamers who might switch sides. That Trump is already alienating many who voted for him and the best thing Democrats can do is shine a light on the pain his presidency is causing—and underscore that basic principles like creating opportunity, promoting tolerance, helping those who can't help themselves and defending the rule of law are precisely the right agenda for the moment. Those suffering from acute Trump envy have lost their bearings. Yes, Democrats need to evolve. Yes, there are things we could learn from Trump's victories—like embracing patriotism and strength. But we should not forget that over the past thirty years Democrats have won the popular vote in 1992, 1996, 2000, 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2020. That's seven of the last nine elections. Yes, we have to win the electoral vote but the prospects look very good in 2026 and 2028. Furthermore, the Democrats who understand Trump's true strengths—clear communication, speaking in terms his base can understand—are out there. As it happens, they are not the ones triangulating victories and offering to meet fascism halfway (yes, I mean you Gavin Newsom). They are people with the one gift politicians can't hire a consultant to teach them: authenticity. Of course, many of these that the Trump-envy sufferers are targeting most for criticism are progressives like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, one of the strongest, clearest, most effective voices in the Democratic Party now. Such criticism is a big mistake. AOC gets it. That said, if AOC is not for you, there are other prospective candidates who have properly learned the lessons of the past few years without completely going off their heads—like J.B. Pritzker or Gretchen Whitmer or Jasmine Crockett or Wes Moore. What is important is this: In politics there is no cure for some degree of envy toward those who have actually won. It's the nature of the beast. But too much envy can result in losing touch with reality—and with your base; with who you are and why you are in politics in the first place. For every Democrat at the top levels of the party, and even for those of us whose role is not to strategize but to vote, to donate, to work for wins in the years ahead, it is vital we learn how to tell the difference.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Rotten result? Kids' cavities would increase by millions if every state banned fluoride
The long-term effects of banning fluoride from public drinking water across the country could cost families billions of dollars and result in millions of rotten teeth, a new analysis predicts. The study, published Friday in JAMA Health Forum, shows that if all 50 states stopped community water fluoridation programs, kids in the U.S. could expect to develop 25.4 million more cavities within the next five years. That's the equivalent of a decayed tooth in 1 out of every 3 children. The number of cavities would more than double in 10 years, to 53.8 million. 'That is a tremendous increase,' said Dr. Tom Reid, president of the Wisconsin Dental Association. 'It's another bit of proof that what we've been saying for over 80 years is 100% accurate: Proper dosing of community water fluoridation prevents cavities.' Reid was not involved with the new research. Fluoride is under increasingly intense fire despite its dramatic ability to prevent tooth decay. Two states, Utah and Florida, have already banned the addition of fluoride to public water systems. Others, including Kentucky, Massachusetts and Nebraska, could follow — all buoyed by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s new role as head of the Department of Health and Human Services. Under Kennedy's leadership, HHS gutted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's oral health division, which provides funds to states and local jurisdictions to promote good dental health practices, including the use of fluoride. 'We thought this was a really important time to be able to put some numbers to the discussions' about fluoride, said Dr. Lisa Simon, an author of the study and internal medicine physician at Mass General Brigham in Boston. She and a colleague analyzed data on 8,484 children, from birth through age 19, from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. NHANES is conducted every year by the CDC and includes interviews about what people eat and extensive details about their blood work, doctor's exams — and dental visits. The team created a model to predict what could happen under two scenarios: if every public water system had optimal fluoride levels, and if there is a total national ban on fluoride in water systems. Filling those cavities to fix that level of decay would cost money: $9.8 billion within five years, and $19.4 billion within a decade. 'It's actually a pretty conservative estimate,' Simon said, because it doesn't take into account related issues, like whether a child has to go under general anesthesia, the lifetime costs of replacing fillings and implants, or if parents have to miss work to take children to the emergency room because of extreme toothaches. Tooth decay goes beyond a simple cavity that needs to be filled. In severe cases, teeth crack, making it difficult for people to chew food properly. It can also lead to gum disease and widespread infection. Simon said that low-income families who struggle to afford dental care and kids on Medicaid would be disproportionately affected. 'It harms everyone to eliminate fluoride, but harms those children and families the most,' she said. The potential fallout from fluoride bans isn't just mathematical magic. The Canadian city of Calgary, for example, experienced a significant rise in kids' cavities after its leaders removed fluoride from public water systems in 2011. Within a decade, they voted to reinstate community water fluoridation. 'I hate to see us not learn from history,' Reid said. 'It doesn't take immense intellectual ability to realize that, boy, there are communities that have done this and regretted their decisions.' The U.S. has been adding fluoride to drinking water for decades. The CDC, as well as doctors and dentists, heralds the mineral as one the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century. But fluoride has been demonized, particularly among conservative groups who maintain that it's a toxin that, at best, is causing tooth discoloration and, at worst, driving down kids' intelligence. Kennedy frequently cites a study published in 2019 that suggested IQ levels were slightly lower in kids whose mothers had higher measures of fluoride in their urine during pregnancy. The JAMA study is also included in the 'Make America Healthy Again' report recently released by the health secretary. The research, however, was far from conclusive. Similar studies were done in other countries with much higher levels of water fluoridation than the U.S. No studies in the U.S. have flagged any measurable decreases in children's cognitive development since fluoride was introduced. The new analysis didn't include possible cognitive effects — good or bad — of a total ban on fluoride because current levels of fluoride in public water systems, the authors wrote, 'are not definitively associated with worse neurobehavioral outcomes.' They did look at the issue of tooth discoloration. Excessive amounts of fluoride can cause white or sometimes brown marks on teeth called fluorosis. It's a cosmetic problem, not a physical one. The modeling study found that banning community water fluoridation wouldn't make a big splash in reducing fluorosis: just 200,000 fewer cases over five years. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
How to protect your assets from nursing home costs
As you or your parents get older, it's natural to start thinking about the future and the financial impact of long-term care. Many people worry that nursing home costs and medical expenses could affect their life savings and the legacy they want to leave for their families. But by familiarizing yourself with the law, you can learn how to protect assets from a nursing home and create a stable future for yourself and your loved ones, LegalZoom says. Protecting assets from nursing home costs isn't about avoiding the costs of care—rather, it's about legally preserving your assets according to your wishes. According to the National Council on Aging, the average cost of a private nursing home room in the U.S. is just over $9,700 per month—or more than $100,000 per year—and it's only expected to rise. Many people rely on Medicaid benefits for long-term care, but Medicaid has strict asset eligibility limits, and you may have to 'spend down' your assets to qualify. The Medicaid system also has a five-year "look-back" period that's designed to keep applicants from giving assets away or selling them at less than fair market value in order to qualify. That's why many of these strategies for protecting assets from nursing home costs require advance planning—as in, at least five years before you'll need nursing home care. There are several strategies you can use to protect assets from nursing home costs. Here are some of the most effective ways to afford the end-of-life care you or your loved ones need. 1. Purchase long-term care insurance Long-term care (LTC) insurance covers the cost of a nursing home, assisted living facility, adult day care, or home health care for people who are unable to take care of themselves. With an LTC plan in place, you'll have a way to pay nursing home care costs without emptying out your savings account. There's a price for that coverage, though. "The cost of long-term care insurance has gone up dramatically and many people hesitate to purchase a product which is available if they need it, but much like term life insurance, has no cash value if they do not need to go into a nursing home," says elder law attorney Steven Weisman. When purchasing this protection, keep in mind that the Department of Health and Human Services says 22 percent of adults will need care for more than five years. Only 12% will need care for less than a year. Long-term care needs can add up, making LTC insurance worth it in the eyes of many. 2. Purchase a Medicaid-compliant annuity A Medicaid-compliant annuity is a special type of annuity that helps protect assets by turning them into regular monthly income payments that Medicaid can't count against you. Both individuals and married couples can purchase these annuities, but they're especially relevant for married couples when there's a healthy spouse who isn't in a care facility. If a couple has assets that would disqualify the applicant spouse from Medicaid, they can invest those funds into a Medicaid-compliant annuity to create a monthly income stream for the healthy spouse. When properly structured, it's a way to 'spend down' and reduce the income Medicaid considers when deciding if you qualify for that assistance. "Annuity purchasers are effectively giving a lump sum of money to an annuity company in exchange for equal amounts of monthly payments to a healthy spouse while the other unhealthy spouse is receiving medical assistance subsidized by Medicaid," explains Shawn Plummer, CEO of The Annuity Expert. People tend to make this purchase when they're in a last-minute or crisis planning situation, notes Plummer. However, not all annuities are Medicaid-compliant, and those that are have specific requirements, such as being non-transferable, irrevocable, and set to pay out over your life expectancy. It's important not to rush into an annuity, and consult with an elder law attorney who understands Medicaid rules. 3. Form a life estate Wondering how to avoid a nursing home taking your house? A life estate is a legal arrangement that allows a homeowner to transfer ownership of their primary residence to another person (usually a family member) while also remaining an owner until they die, even if death occurs in a nursing home. It protects the home from being counted as an asset for Medicaid purposes, so you get more coverage for nursing home costs. With a life estate, 'The home passes to the 'remainderman,' who is the person listed on the deed as the person to inherit the property upon the death of the 'life tenant,'" says Weisman. He adds that it differs from a joint tenancy in that until the homeowner dies, the 'remainderman' has no interest in the property. 4. Put your assets in an irrevocable trust An irrevocable trust is a legal entity that holds and protects assets for designated beneficiaries. When you place assets in an irrevocable trust, you no longer maintain control over them directly. Instead, the assets are managed by a trustee, who can make distributions according to the trust's terms. You can put your home, business, investments, and other assets into the trust. You can even put your life insurance death benefit into an irrevocable life insurance trust (ILIT). Because the trust owns the assets, not you, the assets aren't counted as a resource toward Medicaid eligibility. They also offer better asset protection from creditors, minimizing the chance they'll be used for nursing home costs—that's why an irrevocable trust is also sometimes called an asset protection trust. The downside of an irrevocable trust is that, unlike a revocable trust, it doesn't allow you to make changes or cancel the trust except under certain circumstances. "Assets placed in the trust are legally no longer yours, and you must name an independent trustee," says Certified Estate Planner Chuck Czajka, founder of Macro Money Concepts. Also keep in mind that the five-year Medicaid lookback period applies, so you'll need to plan well before you or your loved ones need to enter a nursing home. With an asset protection trust, you're revoking your rights to the assets, so consider this option carefully. Trusts can be complicated legal documents, so it's best to work with an elder law attorney, estate planning attorney, or professional trust service to be sure it's set up correctly. 5. Consider financial gifts to family members Making financial gifts to family members is a popular asset protection plan. The IRS allows you to gift $18,000 per person each year without having to pay the federal gift tax. By gradually transferring wealth through gifts, you can reduce the size of your estate, which may help with Medicaid eligibility down the line. The more Medicaid benefits you receive, the more nursing home costs will be covered when you need care, and the better asset protection you'll have. Keep in mind that Medicaid's five-year look-back period applies to gifts, so any gifts made within five years of applying for Medicaid could result in penalties. If you're considering this asset protection strategy, start planning as early as possible, and keep detailed records of any gifts. 6. Start saving statements and get expert advice If you want to protect assets from nursing home costs, don't wait to take action. The documentation required for spending during the five-year lookback period means you will need to keep bank records and receipts for large expenses, including financial gifts. Keep a clear record of your financial history to make the Medicaid application process smoother. Also, keep a thorough list of all your assets—including your life insurance policies, investments, and titles to homes and vehicles—in case you want to create a trust. Finally, be certain to consult an elder law attorney or estate planning attorney. They will help you understand the best options and strategies for your life stage and assets, whether you want to learn how to protect parents' assets from a nursing home or your own. They'll also help you navigate complex Medicaid rules, set up trusts, and make sure all your documents are in order. Taking a proactive approach to protecting assets from nursing home costs makes a big difference in your success—and your peace of mind. Does a trust protect assets from a nursing home? Yes, certain types of trusts, like irrevocable trusts, can protect assets from nursing home costs. By placing your assets in an irrevocable trust, you remove them from your direct ownership, so it's more difficult for creditors to claim them. It can also help reduce the size of your estate for Medicaid purposes. What is the Medicaid look-back period? The Medicaid look-back period is a five-year timeframe during which Medicaid reviews your financial history for any large transfers or gifts. If you've given away money or assets within this period, Medicaid may delay your eligibility for benefits. The penalty period is based on the value of the transferred assets, so you'll want to plan ahead to avoid major transfers within five years of applying. What types of assets are exempt from Medicaid eligibility calculations? Medicaid exempts certain assets when it calculates the size of your estate to determine your eligibility for benefits. Typically, your primary residence, one vehicle, household goods, personal belongings like clothing or jewelry, certain life insurance policies, and some burial funds are not counted. Retirement accounts may also be exempt, depending on the state and whether you're drawing income from them. Asset exemption rules vary by state, so you should consult an estate planning or elder law attorney. How do you avoid a nursing home taking your house? To protect your house from nursing home care costs, consider transferring it to an irrevocable trust or creating a life estate. An irrevocable trust removes your ownership, and a life estate allows you to transfer the house to a family member while keeping the right to live there. Both strategies require advance planning due to Medicaid's five-year look-back period. Consulting an elder law or estate planning attorney can help you decide the best option for your situation. How do spousal protection rules help preserve assets for a healthy spouse? Medicaid has rules in place to protect the healthy spouse—known as the 'community spouse'—when the other spouse requires nursing home care. These rules allow the community spouse to keep certain assets, including a portion of the couple's combined assets, the primary home, and some income. This helps ensure the healthy spouse isn't left without resources while the other spouse receives care. Spousal asset protection rules vary by state, so working with a professional can help you understand what's allowed in your situation. Sandra Beckwith contributed to this article. This story was produced by LegalZoom and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.
