Latest news with #USDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Health
- Time of India
Mass firings rock US health department after Supreme Court's decision; RFK Jr fires two top aides
The US Department of Health and Human Services is moving forward with mass layoffs after the Supreme Court lifted a pause on Trump's administration's sweeping efforts to cut the workforce at federal agencies. Thousands of employees across US federal health agencies received an email on Monday telling them they were out of a job as of the close of business, reports CNN. Most of the employees were told about the firings on April 1 but the process got delayed owing to a legal battle. That culminated in a US Supreme Court decision July 8 that, the US Department of Health and Human Services said in the email, means the agency 'is now permitted to move forward with a portion of its [reduction in force].' In April this year, the US health department started a wave of terminations as part of the plan to slash 10,000 jobs and many more across the federal government. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston in San Francisco halted the layoffs, ruling on May 22 that approximately 20 affected agencies, including HHS, wouldn't be able to function as Congress intended. The Supreme Court, in a July 8 ruling, allowed the job cuts to proceed. ALSO READ: Heat advisory issued for New York, temperatures expected to skyrocket in several counties : Check tips to stay safe Mass firings at US health department begins US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has fired two of his top aides- chief of staff Heather Flick Melanson and deputy chief of staff for policy Hannah Anderson- in an abrupt shakeup of the leadership at the nation's sprawling health department, two people familiar with the matter told CNN. Live Events The decision came after Kennedy lost confidence in them as part of his leadership team, one of the people familiar with the matter said, although it was unclear whether there was a single triggering event that prompted the firings. In a statement, an HHS spokesman confirmed the moves and said the department's White House liaison, Matt Buckham, would serve as acting chief of staff. The move leaves Kennedy needing to fill key senior positions at HHS just months into his tenure, and at a moment when the department has come under growing scrutiny over its efforts to overhaul the nation's vaccine policies and advance a range of major health and food priorities. ALSO READ: 'Playing around with Fed can...': JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon gives message to Trump at earnings call of the America's biggest bank The Department of Health and Human Services has started formally laying off thousands of staffers, setting in motion Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s sweeping reorganization of the agency. 'You are hereby notified that you are officially separated from HHS at the close of business on July 14, 2025,' read Monday's notice to dismissed HHS employees, according to copies obtained by CNN. 'Thank you for your service to the American people.' 'HHS previously announced our plans to transform this department to Make America Healthy Again and we intend to do just that,' HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in an email to CNN after the Supreme Court's ruling last week. HHS announced mass layoffs in March It was in March when RFK Jr announced that some 10,000 jobs across the agency would be cut. The FDA—a subdivision of HHS which the Secretary has criticized for being a 'sock puppet' to the pharma industry—would suffer the heaviest blow, with 3,500 roles put at risk. Under Kennedy's restructuring scheme, the CDC would lose 2,400 employees, while 1,200 jobs at the NIH would be eliminated. ALSO READ: 'You are with..': Melania's unexpected fiery response when asked if she was just with Donald Trump for money But RFK Jr's plan hit a roadblock with a slew of lawsuits and in May, a coalition of unions, employee groups and local governments sued HHS to stop the action and won. A California judge wrote 'agencies may not conduct large-scale reorganizations and reductions in force in blatant disregard of Congress's mandates.' That ruling was overturned last week when the US Supreme Court found that the government is 'likely to succeed' in arguing that its overhaul of HHS is 'lawful.' HHS pointed to this ruling in its termination emails to its employees, noting that the agency 'is now permitted to move forward with a portion' of its reduction-in-force initiative.
Mint
07-07-2025
- Health
- Mint
Medical groups sue RFK Jr., health department: ‘Current Covid-19 vaccine policies pose imminent threat to public health'
Several leading medical organizations on Monday filed a suit against the US Department of Health and Human Services and its Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., arguing that the current policies on Covid-19 vaccine pose an imminent threat to public health. According to a Reuters report, the group has asked the court to vacate Kennedy's recent directive removing the Covid-19 vaccine from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) childhood and pregnant-women immunisation schedules. The group includes the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American Public Health Association, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and others, the report said. (This is a developing story. Please check back for updates)
India Today
04-07-2025
- Business
- India Today
University of California bans student boycotts of Israel-linked firms amid probe
The president of the University of California this week reiterated that student governments are prohibited from financial boycotts of companies associated with any particular country, including Israel, as the Trump administration continues its probe of alleged antisemitism on college Drake did not mention Israel by name, but he did single out student governments in a letter he sent to chancellors of the university system. He said that while freedom of speech and inquiry are core commitments of the university, its policies also require that financial decisions be grounded in sound business practices, such as competitive principle also applies to student governments,' he wrote. 'Actions by University entities to implement boycotts of companies based on their association with a particular country would not align with these sound business practices.' UC spokesperson Rachel Zaentz said in a statement that the letter is in keeping with the university's opposition to financial boycotts of companies associated with a particular country.'While our community members have the right to express their viewpoints, financial boycotts are inconsistent with UC's commitment to sound business practices, academic freedom and the free exchange of ideas,' she said. College campuses exploded with pro-Palestinian protests in the wake of the war in Gaza, including a particularly brutal clash involving police at the University of California, Los Angeles last year. At the start of his term this year, President Donald Trump launched antisemitism probes at several universities, including the University of California, US Department of Health and Human Services and National Science Foundation are requiring research grantees to certify they will not engage in boycotts of Israel or promote diversity, inclusion and equity or risk federal California chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Drake's letter is yet another example of the university system's attempts to silence student and faculty support of Palestinian human rights.'It sends a chilling message that financial interests and political pressure outweigh free expression and moral responsibility to take a stand against a foreign nation committing a genocide,' said Oussama Mokeddem, the group's government affairs UC Student Association, which represents students across the campuses, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. But its president, Aditi Hariharan, told the Los Angeles Times that she disagreed with the ban.'Students already have little influence on how the university works, and student government is one of the few places where they can really get involved and have their voices heard,' she said in an interview before the letter was released.- EndsTrending Reel
Gulf Today
03-07-2025
- Health
- Gulf Today
Immigrants weigh health coverage against deportation risk
Claudia Boyd-Barrett, Tribune News Service For months, Maria, 55, a caregiver to older adults in California's Orange County, has been trying not to smile. If she opens her mouth too wide, she worries, people will see her chipped, plaque-covered front teeth. An immigrant without legal status, Maria doesn't have health or dental insurance. When her teeth start to throb, she swallows pain pills. Last summer, a dentist said it would cost $2,400 to fix her teeth. That's more than she can afford. 'It's so expensive,' said Maria, who often works 12-hour days lifting clients in and out of bed and helping them with hygiene, medication management, and housework. 'I need money for my kids, for my rent, for transport, for food. Sometimes, there's nothing left for me.' KFF Health News connected with Maria through an advocacy organisation for immigrant workers. Fearing deportation, she asked that only her first name be used. Maria is among what the federal government estimates are 2.6 million immigrants living in California without legal status. The state had gradually sought to bring these immigrants into its Medicaid programme, known as Medi-Cal. But now, facing a state enrolment freeze, low-income California residents in the US without legal permission — along with the providers and community workers that help them — are anxiously weighing the benefits of pushing forward with Medi-Cal applications against the risks of discovery and deportation by the federal government. Seeking to close a projected $12 billion budget deficit, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, signed a balanced state budget on June 27 that will end new Medi-Cal enrollment in January 2026 for those over 19 without legal status. Meanwhile, federal immigration raids — which appear to have targeted at least one health clinic in the state — are already making some people afraid to seek medical care, say immigrant advocates and health providers. And the recent news that Trump administration officials are sharing Medicaid enrollee data, including immigration status, with deportation authorities is expected to further erode trust in the program. US Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon said the agency, which oversees the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, had the legal authority to share the data to address 'unprecedented systemic neglect under the Biden-Harris administration that allowed illegal immigrants to exploit Medicaid while millions of Americans struggle to access care, particularly in states like California.' Further complicating matters, the Trump administration has threatened to withhold funds from states that provide health coverage to people without legal status. Currently, about 1.6 million people in the country without authorization are enrolled in Medi-Cal. In 2016, California began opening Medi-Cal to low-income people lacking legal status, starting with children, then gradually expanded it to young people, older adults, and — in January of this year — those ages 26 to 49. The state Department of Health Care Services, which oversees Medi-Cal, partnered with community health clinics to help get eligible people enrolled. It's too early to tell what impact the latest state and federal developments are having on enrollment numbers, since data is available only through March. But many health care providers and advocates said they expect a chilling effect on immigrant enrollment. Seciah Aquino is executive director of the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, which supports community health workers — also called promotores — who help spread awareness about Medi-Cal's expansion to adults lacking legal status. Just over half of public health insurance recipients in California are Latino, compared with just 30% of Medicaid enrollees nationwide. Aquino said her coalition will tell promotores to disclose data-sharing risks so community members can make informed decisions. 'They take it very personally that advice that they provided to a fellow community member could now hurt them,' Aquino said. Newsom condemned the data sharing, calling the move 'legally dubious,' while US Sens. Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, both Democrats, have demanded that the Department of Homeland Security destroy any data shared. California's Department of Health Care Services announced June 13 that it is seeking more information from the federal government. The agency said it submitted monthly reports to CMS with demographic and eligibility information, including name and address, as required by law. Medicaid enrollee data from Illinois, Washington state, and Washington, DC, was also reportedly shared with DHS. Jamie Munks, a spokesperson for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, the state's Medicaid agency, said the department was 'deeply concerned' by the news and that the data was regularly passed along to CMS with the understanding that it was protected. In Sacramento, Democratic lawmakers found themselves in the uncomfortable position of rolling back health benefits for low-income residents with unsatisfactory immigration status, including people without legal status, people who've held green cards for under five years, and some others who are in the process of applying for legal status or have statuses meant to protect them from deportation. In addition to the Medi-Cal enrolment freeze for immigrants 19 and older in the country without authorisation, all enrolled residents with unsatisfactory immigration status from 19 to 59 years old will be charged $30 monthly premiums starting in July 2027. 'What I'm hearing on the ground is folks are telling me they're going to have a really hard time making these premium payments,' said Carlos Alarcon, health and public benefits policy analyst with the California Immigrant Policy Center, an advocacy group. 'The reality is most people already have limited budgets.' The legislature rejected a proposal from the governor to bar immigrants with unsatisfactory immigration status from receiving long-term nursing home and in-home care through Medi-Cal but went along with eliminating dental benefits starting in July 2026. Health care providers said that without Medi-Cal coverage, many immigrants will be forced to seek emergency care, which is more expensive for taxpayers than preventive and primary-level care. Sepideh Taghvaei, chief dental officer at Santa Cruz County's Dientes Community Dental Care, saw this play out in 2009 when the state cut adult Medi-Cal dental benefits. Patients came in with swollen faces and excruciating pain, with conditions so advanced that they required hospital treatment. 'It's not cost-effective,' she said. State Sen. Roger Niello, a Republican who serves as vice chair of the Senate budget committee, said he believes California shouldn't be funding Medi-Cal for people who lack legal status, particularly given the state's fiscal challenges. He also said he worries that coverage of people in the country without authorization could encourage others to move to California. 'If we maintain that expense to the noncitizen,' he said, 'we're going to have to cut someplace else, and that's undoubtedly going to affect citizens.' Californians, too, are going through a change of heart. In a May poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, 58% of adults opposed the benefit. For Maria, shifting health care policies have left her feeling paralysed. Since she arrived here five years ago, the caregiver's focus has been on earning money to support her three children, whom she left with her parents in her home country, she said. Maria didn't learn she might be eligible for Medi-Cal until earlier this year and hadn't yet found time to complete the paperwork. After a friend told her that the state could freeze enrollment in January, she began rushing to finish the sign-up process. But then she learned that Medi-Cal data had been shared with immigration authorities. 'Disappointed and scared' was how she described her reaction. Suddenly, she said, enrolling in Medi-Cal doesn't seem like a good idea.
India Today
19-06-2025
- Health
- India Today
US judge strikes down Biden-era rule protecting privacy for abortions
A federal judge on Wednesday struck down a rule adopted by the administration of former President Joe Biden that strengthened privacy protections for women seeking abortions and patients who receive gender transition District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, said the US Department of Health and Human Services exceeded its powers and unlawfully limited states' ability to enforce their public health laws when it adopted the rule last rule prohibits healthcare providers and insurers from giving information about a legal abortion to state law enforcement authorities who are seeking to punish someone in connection with that abortion. "HHS lacked clear delegated authority to fashion special protections for medical information produced by politically favoured medical procedures," wrote Kacsmaryk, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, a Republican, during his first in December blocked HHS from enforcing the rule against a Texas doctor who had brought the lawsuit, Carmen Purl, pending the outcome of the case. Wednesday's decision blocks the rule did not immediately respond to a request for is represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group. Matt Bowman, senior counsel with the group, praised the decision in a statement, saying the 2024 rule "would have weaponised laws about privacy that have nothing to do with abortion or gender identity."advertisementThe Biden administration issued the rule as part of its pledge to support access to reproductive healthcare after the conservative-majority US Supreme Court in 2022 overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that made access to abortion a constitutional right came in response to efforts by authorities in some Republican-led states that ban abortion, including Texas, to restrict out-of-state travel for has filed a separate lawsuit challenging the rule, which is pending in federal court in Lubbock, Texas. HHS in a court filing last month said agency leadership appointed by Trump is evaluating its position in this a Democrat, said in announcing the rule that no one should have their medical records "used against them, their doctor, or their loved one just because they sought or received lawful reproductive health care."Must Watch
