Latest news with #ParagonHealthInstitute
Politico
23-07-2025
- Business
- Politico
Trump's new AI action plan
OPERATING ROOM President Donald Trump's announcement Wednesday about his plans for artificial intelligence include a push to grow AI adoption in health care and across the federal government by testing it in regulatory free zones. The White House AI Action Plan says the government should set up regulatory sandboxes, or regulation-free environments, where AI can be tested in real world scenarios with heavy oversight. Kev Coleman, a fellow at the Trump-aligned Paragon Health Institute, suggested such an approach last year. The strategy could allow developers to demonstrate their products' utility, he told Ruth at the time, while also giving policymakers insight that could help shape future policy. Outside the government: AI Centers of Excellence around the country will enable 'researchers, startups, and established enterprises' to test AI tools with the understanding that they will have to publicly share the data and results of their experiments. The Food and Drug Administration will oversee testing of tools related to health care with support from the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The action plan also charges NIST with convening a broad range of health care industry stakeholders — academics, company executives, nonprofits, and industry groups — to develop national standards for AI systems, including measurements for understanding how much AI increases productivity. It calls on both NIST, the National Science Foundation, and federal agencies to develop methods for evaluating the performance and reliability of AI systems using regulatory sandboxes. Inside the agencies: The action plan establishes a Chief Artificial Intelligence Officer Council to coordinate interagency collaboration on AI. This group would work with the White House's Office of Personnel Management to create a talent exchange program that would allow federal employees to be quickly detailed to other agencies in need of expertise. It would also develop an AI procurement toolbox, managed by the General Services Administration in coordination with the White House Office of Management and Budget, that would allow any federal agency to adopt a model already in use within the federal government and customize it for its own purposes. The new council is also supposed to set up a technology and capability transfer program, such that agencies can more easily share knowledge and tools. Finally, the plan requires agencies to ensure employees who could benefit from AI tools have access to them. And it asks that agencies facilitate uses of AI that could improve delivery of services to the public. The big picture: Health systems want to be sure AI tools are safe before deploying them but there is no established framework for doing that. Several industry groups are trying to get consensus on the issue. Trump has largely pursued a deregulatory approach to advancing AI, but his new plan acknowledges the industry's desire for guardrails. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. According to Science, researchers developing a new type of dental floss to protect against the flu ran into a challenge while testing their needleless vaccine: trying to floss a mouse. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@ Ruth Reader at rreader@ or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@ Want to share a tip securely? Message us on Signal: CarmenP.82, RuthReader.02 or ErinSchumaker.01. AROUND THE AGENCIES The National Institutes of Health is capping the number of grant applications researchers can submit each year. The agency posted a notice last week about the new restrictions, which limit principal investigators to six new, renewal, resubmission or revision applications each calendar year. The stated reason behind the change: the risk of researchers overwhelming reviewers with artificial intelligence-generated applications. The NIH said it had identified instances of principal investigators who submitted large numbers of applications that might have leaned heavily on AI. In one instance, an investigator submitted more than 40 different applications in one submission round. 'While AI may be a helpful tool in reducing the burden of preparing applications, the rapid submission of large numbers of research applications from a single Principal Investigator may unfairly strain NIH's application review processes,' the notice says. Since NIH policy requires that grant applications be the original work of the applicants, the agency won't consider applications 'substantially developed' by AI or with sections that are AI-generated. Reality check: The percentage of investigators submitting an average of more than six applications has been low, according to NIH. Carrie Wolinetz, a lobbyist at Lewis-Burke Associates and former senior adviser to NIH director Francis Collins, told Erin that she thinks the impact of the cap will vary by institution. 'I don't think it's a bad idea as a matter of policy. If funding is robust, it could increase the quality of applications,' Wolinetz said. 'I am a little skeptical that limiting applications somehow disincentivizes the use of AI,' she said, adding, 'Although I also don't think limiting the use of AI for application writing is a bad idea.' Do as I say: The White House acknowledged in May that a Make America Healthy Again report spearheaded by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. contained 'formatting issues' and pledged to correct them. The acknowledgment came after the news outlet NOTUS reported that the MAHA report cited sources that didn't exist, a hallmark of AI use. What's next: The policy goes into effect on Sept. 25.
The Hill
08-07-2025
- Health
- The Hill
Why Democrats don't care about most health care fraud
One thing has become clear in the debate over President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill': Democrats don't really care about waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid or Affordable Care Act coverage (i.e., ObamaCare). That's obvious from their opposition to Republican efforts to audit those programs to ensure only eligible people are enrolled. To be fair, Democrats do care about health care fraud if a private health insurer or drug company is accused of defrauding a government health care program, regardless of how tenuous or unsubstantiated the accusations. But the real fraud arises from millions of ineligible people being enrolled in Medicaid and Obamacare. That's why it's important to regularly audit means-tested health care programs, just as it's important to regularly audit voter rolls — which Democrats and liberal groups also oppose — because populations change. Some Medicaid or Obamacare beneficiaries or their spouses may take jobs that provide health coverage. Or their incomes may rise above the limit. Or they may turn 65 and enroll in Medicare, or they move out of state without notifying officials. And, of course, some die. There can be honest mistakes, but fraud appears to be widespread. For example, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General published a report in 2022 covering four states — New York, California, Colorado and Kentucky — estimating the number of ineligible Medicaid beneficiaries in 2014 and 2015. The Office of Inspector General discovered federal Medicaid payments for new beneficiaries 'totaling almost $1.4 billion for more than 700,000 ineligible or potentially ineligible beneficiaries.' For those who weren't newly enrolled, the Office of Inspector General found Medicaid spent '$5 billion for almost 5 million ineligible or potentially ineligible beneficiaries.' Note the study covered only four states, and it was five years before the pandemic-related Medicaid expansion. We can assume from the report that there're likely millions of ineligible Medicaid beneficiaries across the country. As for ObamaCare, the Paragon Health Institute recently released its 2025 update of a 2024 report looking at ineligible people enrolled in the program. 'We estimate, conservatively, that improper [ACA] enrollment — defined as enrollees who claimed but did not actually have income between 100 and 150 percent of [the federal poverty level] — increased from 5.0 million enrollees in 2024 to 6.4 million enrollees in 2025. We estimate that the taxpayer cost of improper enrollment will exceed $27 billion this year.' Elected leaders who care about program integrity and fiscal responsibility should want regular checks to ensure people aren't gaming the system and abusing taxpayer dollars. So, why do Democrats generally oppose efforts to identify ineligible beneficiaries in government health insurance programs? First, Democrats increasingly embrace government-run health care. According to a December Gallup poll, '90% of Democrats who now say the government should ensure health coverage for all is the highest Gallup has measured for the group to date.' Republicans polled at 32 percent. Most Democrats don't care if millions of ineligible people are in ObamaCare or Medicaid because they think everyone should be in a government-run health plan. What's a little fraud, if the end goal is being achieved? So, they respond to Republican eligibility checks by claiming 'people will die' and changes will hurt rural hospitals that depend on Medicaid. The real problem facing rural hospitals is government-imposed Medicaid price controls. The Texas Hospital Association explains that Medicaid hospital reimbursement, on average, 'covers 72 percent of inpatient care costs and 75 percent of outpatient care costs for Medicaid clients. This underpayment leaves Texas hospitals with a multibillion-dollar Medicaid shortfall.' Second, there are significant economic benefits in ignoring health care fraud. Both Medicaid and Obamacare come with substantial taxpayer-funded subsidies. Nearly every state games the Medicaid system to increase its share of federal subsidies. The more Medicaid recipients a state has, the more money it can siphon from Washington. As for Obamacare, there are economic incentives to ignore, and even promote, fraud. Paragon writes that there are 'powerful incentives for individuals, brokers, and insurers to misestimate applicant income to qualify for larger subsidies. Insurers benefit from larger enrollment and government subsidies, and brokers benefit from higher commissions.' States have little incentive to check Obamacare fraud, since it costs them nothing. Speaking of which, there are political incentives to ignore health care fraud. Many Democratic-led blue states brag about their larger enrollment numbers in Medicaid and Obamacare, and therefore lower uninsured rates. It gives Democrats virtue-signaling opportunities to claim they are doing a better job providing health coverage. And their friendly media megaphone reinforces the virtue-signaling by their critical reporting on states, like Texas, with higher uninsured rates. Republicans' 'One Big Beautiful Bill' includes changes to improve Medicaid and ObamaCare program integrity and reduce fraud. But the fight isn't over, because a large portion of the country benefits both economically and politically from health care fraud. Merrill Matthews is a public policy and political analyst and the co-author of 'On the Edge: America Faces the Entitlements Cliff.'
Wall Street Journal
19-06-2025
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
Exposing ObamaCare Subsidy Fraud
Bigger government invariably creates more opportunities for fraud. Exhibit A is the ObamaCare insurance subsidy racket, which a new Paragon Health Institute report finds has resulted in some 6.4 million people this year receiving free health insurance to which they aren't entitled. Enrollment in the ObamaCare exchanges ballooned after Democrats sweetened subsidies in 2021. The 2021 law capped how much households are required to pay toward their premiums as a share of income on a sliding basis. Households get a tax credit that covers the difference between their plan premium and what they are required to pay.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - States should cut the federal cord and end dependency on Washington
In most blue states at least, President Trump's second term is creating a battle over how the states can use federal money. Many Democratic governors are suddenly defending state control and pushing back against Washington's influence. But the reality is that too many states resemble satellites orbiting Washington rather than sovereign governments charting their own course. In 2022, more than half of Louisiana and Alaska's budget came from federal funds. Twenty states receive more than 40 percent of their dollars from Washington. North Dakota is the supposed bright light at just over 22 percent. To regain federalism's footing, states need to reassert more political courage and financial independence from Washington's tentacles. Trump, who found a winning electoral issue on opposing transgender ideology, threatens to pull education funds from states that fail to comply. Trump quickly repositioned the intent of the Title IX law back to its original purpose, calling for only biological females to compete against biological females in athletics. States like Maine strongly oppose the requirement. Rather than reform their reliance on federal dollars, however, states typically respond by suing to keep the federal spigot flowing, reinforcing perpetual dependence over fiscal disentanglement. Some states use federal dollars to mask over budget shortfalls, even using money to indirectly subsidize state tax cuts. Federal aid too often lets states avoid the hard budgeting and governance decisions that should fall to lawmakers. The most obvious example is the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, where the federal government sweetened the pot for states by covering 100 and then 90 percent of the cost for able-bodied, working-age, childless adults. It's important to remember that while states were receiving these 90 percent reimbursement rates from the Feds for this population, another group of Americans were being pushed to the back. The disabled, pregnant women, and children — those for whom Medicaid was originally designed — have had to fight for healthcare access as the result of federal interference. Some states even enshrined expansion into their state constitutions while looking the other way when it comes to unsustainable federal spending levels. It remains unclear whether the federal government will make a serious effort to achieve meaningful Medicaid savings — even if it means limiting coverage for able-bodied but nonworking childless adults. Medicaid expansion has become an elaborate money-making endeavor for states to harness more and more from taxpayers with no skin in the game. 'All these tactics let states rake in massive federal dollars without any state cost and reduce the pressure on state policymakers to responsibly govern and weigh tradeoffs between spending and tax policies,' wrote Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute. Although fraud and abuse under expansion is too lengthy to document, a 2019 Pelican Institute report after expansion in Louisiana noted that 1,672 Medicaid recipients had incomes over $100,000, and at least one household had an income higher than then-Gov. John Bel Edwards (D). A 2025 report from the Foundation for Government Accountability reveals how California exploits funding loopholes to cover illegal immigrants under Medicaid, costing federal taxpayers nearly $10 billion in clear violation of federal law. Disaster relief is another example. So much aid comes from the federal government, often 75 percent when an emergency declaration is made, that it can heavily disincentivize states from building their own rainy-day funds. It also reduces the incentive to invest in infrastructure resilience or take proactive steps to mitigate risk. The result is greater dependence on Washington, rather than increased responsibility. After Hurricane Helene, some federal lawmakers tried to deregulate disaster relief, but as North Carolina's John Locke Foundation warns, 'the fiscally unstable federal government cannot be counted on to be a reliable partner in disaster relief efforts.' Ultimately, given Washington's dysfunction and inability to prioritize spending, the political environment provides not just an opportunity to question federal funds, but lower the political temperature by making more decisions at the state and local level. Federalism is more than a dusty concept to admire from afar. It's a set of common-sense principles to restore trust in government and give people real power over their communities and destiny. The alternative is for Americans to continue watching their states orbit as satellites of expanding federal power, letting Washington's dysfunction pull us further away from self-government. Ray Nothstine is a senior writer and editor and a Future of Freedom Fellow at the State Policy Network. He manages and edits American Habits. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
States should cut the federal cord and end dependency on Washington
In most blue states at least, President Trump's second term is creating a battle over how the states can use federal money. Many Democratic governors are suddenly defending state control and pushing back against Washington's influence. But the reality is that too many states resemble satellites orbiting Washington rather than sovereign governments charting their own course. In 2022, more than half of Louisiana and Alaska's budget came from federal funds. Twenty states receive more than 40 percent of their dollars from Washington. North Dakota is the supposed bright light at just over 22 percent. To regain federalism's footing, states need to reassert more political courage and financial independence from Washington's tentacles. Trump, who found a winning electoral issue on opposing transgender ideology, threatens to pull education funds from states that fail to comply. Trump quickly repositioned the intent of the Title IX law back to its original purpose, calling for only biological females to compete against biological females in athletics. States like Maine strongly oppose the requirement. Rather than reform their reliance on federal dollars, however, states typically respond by suing to keep the federal spigot flowing, reinforcing perpetual dependence over fiscal disentanglement. Some states use federal dollars to mask over budget shortfalls, even using money to indirectly subsidize state tax cuts. Federal aid too often lets states avoid the hard budgeting and governance decisions that should fall to lawmakers. The most obvious example is the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, where the federal government sweetened the pot for states by covering 100 and then 90 percent of the cost for able-bodied, working-age, childless adults. It's important to remember that while states were receiving these 90 percent reimbursement rates from the Feds for this population, another group of Americans were being pushed to the back. The disabled, pregnant women, and children — those for whom Medicaid was originally designed — have had to fight for healthcare access as the result of federal interference. Some states even enshrined expansion into their state constitutions while looking the other way when it comes to unsustainable federal spending levels. It remains unclear whether the federal government will make a serious effort to achieve meaningful Medicaid savings — even if it means limiting coverage for able-bodied but nonworking childless adults. Medicaid expansion has become an elaborate money-making endeavor for states to harness more and more from taxpayers with no skin in the game. 'All these tactics let states rake in massive federal dollars without any state cost and reduce the pressure on state policymakers to responsibly govern and weigh tradeoffs between spending and tax policies,' wrote Brian Blase, president of Paragon Health Institute. Although fraud and abuse under expansion is too lengthy to document, a 2019 Pelican Institute report after expansion in Louisiana noted that 1,672 Medicaid recipients had incomes over $100,000, and at least one household had an income higher than then-Gov. John Bel Edwards (D). A 2025 report from the Foundation for Government Accountability reveals how California exploits funding loopholes to cover illegal immigrants under Medicaid, costing federal taxpayers nearly $10 billion in clear violation of federal law. Disaster relief is another example. So much aid comes from the federal government, often 75 percent when an emergency declaration is made, that it can heavily disincentivize states from building their own rainy-day funds. It also reduces the incentive to invest in infrastructure resilience or take proactive steps to mitigate risk. The result is greater dependence on Washington, rather than increased responsibility. After Hurricane Helene, some federal lawmakers tried to deregulate disaster relief, but as North Carolina's John Locke Foundation warns, 'the fiscally unstable federal government cannot be counted on to be a reliable partner in disaster relief efforts.' Ultimately, given Washington's dysfunction and inability to prioritize spending, the political environment provides not just an opportunity to question federal funds, but lower the political temperature by making more decisions at the state and local level. Federalism is more than a dusty concept to admire from afar. It's a set of common-sense principles to restore trust in government and give people real power over their communities and destiny. The alternative is for Americans to continue watching their states orbit as satellites of expanding federal power, letting Washington's dysfunction pull us further away from self-government. Ray Nothstine is a senior writer and editor and a Future of Freedom Fellow at the State Policy Network. He manages and edits American Habits.
