April Health And Fitness Tips.
Enter April Health And Fitness Tips.
April Health And Fitness Tips.
January 17, 2025
Rose
Health - The New York Times, NYT > Health
No commentsJanuary 17, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsThe new Trump administration could be coming for your snacks.
For years, the federal government has steered clear of regulating junk food, fast food, and ultra-processed food.
Now attitudes are changing. Some members of President-elect Donald Trump’s inner circle are gearing up to battle “Big Food,” or the companies that make most of the food and beverages consumed in the United States. Nominees for top health agencies are taking aim at ultra-processed foods that account for an estimated 70% of the nation’s food supply. Based on recent statements, a variety of potential politically charged policy options to regulate ultra-processed food may land on the Trump team menu, including warning labels, changes to agribusiness subsidies, and limits on which products consumers can buy with government food aid.
The push to reform the American diet is being driven largely by conservatives who have taken up the cause that has long been a darling of the left. Trump supporters such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose controversial nomination to lead the Department of Health and Human Services still faces Senate confirmation, are embracing a concept that champions natural foods and alternative medicine. It’s a movement they’ve dubbed “MAHA,” or Make America Healthy Again. Their interest has created momentum because their goals have fairly broad bipartisan support even amid a bitterly divided Congress in which lawmakers from both sides of the aisle focused on the issue last year.
It’s likely to be a pitched battle because the food industry wields immense political influence and has successfully thwarted previous efforts to regulate its products or marketing. The category of “food processing and sales companies,” which includes Tyson Foods and Nestle SA, tallied $26.7 million in spending on lobbying in 2024, according to OpenSecrets. That’s up from almost $10 million in 1998.
“They have been absolutely instrumental and highly, highly successful at delaying any regulatory effectiveness in America,” said Laura Schmidt, a health policy professor at the University of California-San Francisco. “It really does feel like there needs to be a moment of reckoning here where people start asking the question, ‘Why do we have to live like this?’”
“Ultra-processed food” is a widely used term that means different things to different people and is used to describe items ranging from sodas to many frozen meals. These products often contain added fats, starches, and sugars, among other things. Researchers say consumption of ultra-processed foods is linked — in varying levels of intensity — to chronic conditions like diabetes, cancer, mental health problems, and early death.
Nutrition and health leaders are optimistic that a reckoning is already underway. Kennedy has pledged to remove processed foods from school lunches, restrict certain food additives such as dyes in cereal, and shift federal agricultural subsidies away from commodity crops widely used in ultra-processed foods.
The intensifying focus in Washington has triggered a new level of interest on the legal front as lawyers explore cases to take on major foodmakers for selling products they say result in chronic disease.
Bryce Martinez, now 18, filed a lawsuit in December against almost a dozen foodmakers such as Kraft Heinz, The Coca-Cola Co., and Nestle USA. He developed diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease by age 16, and is seeking to hold them accountable for his illnesses. According to the suit, filed in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the companies knew or should have known ultra-processed foods were harmful and addictive.
The lawsuit noted that Martinez grew up eating heavily advertised, brand-name foods that are staples of the American diet — sugary soft drinks, Cheerios and Lucky Charms, Skittles and Snickers, frozen and packaged dinners, just to name a few.
Nestle, Coca-Cola, and Kraft Heinz didn’t return emails seeking comment for this article. The Consumer Brands Association, a trade association for makers of consumer packaged goods, disputed the allegations.
“Attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities,” said Sarah Gallo, senior vice president of product policy, in a statement.
Other law firms are on the hunt for children or adults who believe they were harmed by consuming ultra-processed foods, increasing the likelihood of lawsuits.
One Indiana personal injury firm says on its website that “we are actively investigating ultra processed food (UPF) cases.” Trial attorneys in Texas also are looking into possible legal action against the federal regulators they say have failed to police ultra-processed foods.
“If you or your child have suffered health problems that your doctor has linked directly to the consumption of ultra-processed foods, we want to hear your story,” they say on their website.
Meanwhile, the FDA on Jan. 14 announced it is proposing to require a front-of-package label to appear on most packaged foods to make information about a food’s saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar content easily visible to consumers.
And on Capitol Hill, Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.) are sounding the alarm over ultra-processed food. Sanders introduced legislation in 2024 that could lead to a federal ban on junk food advertising to children, a national education campaign, and labels on ultra-processed foods that say the products aren’t recommended for children. Booker cosigned the legislation along with Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.).
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions held a December hearing examining links between ultra-processed food and chronic disease during which FDA Commissioner Robert Califf called for more funding for research.
Food companies have tapped into “the same neural circuits that are involved in opioid addiction,” Califf said at the hearing.
Sanders, who presided over the hearing, said there’s “growing evidence” that “these foods are deliberately designed to be addictive,” and he asserted that ultra-processed foods have driven epidemics of diabetes and obesity, and hundreds of billions of dollars in medical expenses.
Research on food and addiction “has accumulated to the point where it’s reached a critical mass,” said Kelly Brownell, an emeritus professor at Stanford who is one of the editors of a scholarly handbook on the subject.
Attacks from three sides — lawyers, Congress, and the incoming Trump administration, all seemingly interested in taking up the fight — could lead to enough pressure to challenge Big Food and possibly spur better health outcomes in the U.S., which has the lowest life expectancy among high-income countries.
“Maybe getting rid of highly processed foods in some things could actually flip the switch pretty quickly in changing the percentage of the American public that are obese,” said Robert Redfield, a virologist who led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention during the previous Trump administration, in remarks at a December event hosted by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.
Claims that Big Food knowingly manufactured and sold addictive and harmful products resemble the claims leveled against Big Tobacco before the landmark $206 billion settlement was reached in 1998.
“These companies allegedly use the tobacco industry’s playbook to target children, especially Black and Hispanic children, with integrated marketing tie-ins with cartoons, toys, and games, along with social media advertising,” Rene Rocha, one of the lawyers at Morgan & Morgan representing Martinez, told KFF Health News.
The 148-page Martinez lawsuit against foodmakers draws from documents made public in litigation against tobacco companies that owned some of the biggest brands in the food industry.
Similar allegations were made against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and retailers before they agreed to pay tens of billions of dollars in a 2021 settlement with states.
The FDA ultimately put restrictions on the labeling and marketing of tobacco, and the opioid epidemic led to legislation that increased access to lifesaving medications to treat addiction.
But the Trump administration’s zeal in taking on Big Food may face unique challenges.
The ability of the FDA to impose regulation is hampered in part by funding. While the agency’s drug division collects industry user fees, its division of food relies on a more limited budget determined by Congress.
Change can take time because the agency moves at what some critics call a glacial pace. Last year, the FDA revoked a regulation allowing brominated vegetable oil in food products. The agency determined in 1970 that the additive was not generally recognized as safe.
Efforts to curtail the marketing of ultra-processed food could spur lawsuits alleging that any restrictions violate commercial speech protected by the First Amendment. And Kennedy — if he is confirmed as HHS secretary — may struggle to get support from a Republican-led Congress that champions less federal regulation and a president-elect who during his previous term served fast food in the White House.
“The question is, will RFK be able to make a difference?” said David L. Katz, a doctor who founded True Health Initiative, a nonprofit group that combats public health misinformation. “No prior administration has done much in this space, and RFK is linked to a particularly anti-regulatory administration.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. population is recognized as among the most obese in the world and has the highest rate of people with multiple chronic conditions among high-income countries.
“There is a big grassroots effort out there because of how sick we are,” said Jerold Mande, who served as deputy undersecretary for food safety at the Department of Agriculture from 2009 to 2011. “A big part of it is people shouldn’t be this sick this young in their lives. You’re lucky if you get to 18 without a chronic disease. It’s remarkable.”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).
January 17, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 16, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsSACRAMENTO, Calif. — As the nation braces for potential policy shifts under President-elect Donald Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” mantra, the nation’s most populous state and largest health care market is preparing for a few changes of its own.
With supermajorities in both houses, Democrats in the California Legislature passed — and Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed — laws taking effect this year that will erase medical debt from credit reports, allow public health officials to inspect immigrant detention centers, and require health insurance companies to cover fertility services such as in vitro fertilization.
Still, industry experts say it was a relatively quiet year for health policy in the Golden State, with more attention on a divisive presidential election and with several state legislators seeking to avoid controversial issues as they ran for Congress in competitive swing districts.
Newsom shot down some of legislators’ most ambitious health care policies, including proposals that would have regulated pharmaceutical industry middlemen and given the state more power to stop private equity deals in health care.
Health policy experts say advocates and legislators are now focused on how to defend progressive California policies such as sweeping abortion access in the state and health coverage for immigrants living in the U.S. without authorization.
“I think everyone’s just thinking about how we’re going to enter 2025,” said Rachel Linn Gish, a spokesperson with the consumer health advocacy group Health Access California. “We’re figuring out what is vulnerable, what we are exposed to on the federal side, and what do budget changes mean for our work. That’s kind of putting a cloud over everything.”
Here are some of the biggest new health care laws Californians should know about:
Medical debt
California becomes the eighth state in which medical debt will no longer affect patients’ credit reports or credit scores. SB 1061 bars health care providers and debt collectors from reporting unpaid medical bills to credit bureaus, a practice that supporters of the law say penalizes people for seeking critical care and can make it harder for patients to get a job, buy a car, or secure a mortgage.
Critics including the California Association of Collectors called the measure from Sen. Monique Limón (D-Santa Barbara) a “tremendous overreach” and successfully lobbied for amendments that limited the scope of the bill, including an exemption for any medical debt incurred on credit cards.
The Biden administration has finalized federal rules that would stop unpaid medical bills from affecting patients’ credit scores, but the fate of those changes remains unclear as Trump takes office.
Psychiatric hospital stays for violent offenders
Violent offenders with severe mental illness can now be held longer after a judge orders them released from a state mental hospital.
State officials and local law enforcement will now have 30 days to coordinate housing, medication, and behavioral health treatment for those parolees, giving them far more time than the five-day deadline previously in effect.
The bill drew overwhelming bipartisan support after a high-profile case in San Francisco in which a 61-year-old man was charged in the repeated stabbing of a bakery employee just days after his release from a state mental hospital. The bill’s author, Assembly member Matt Haney (D-San Francisco), called the previous five-day timeline “dangerously short.”
Cosmetics and ‘forever chemicals’
California was the first state to ban PFAS chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” in all cosmetics sold and manufactured within its borders. The synthetic compounds, found in everyday products including rain jackets, food packaging, lipstick, and shaving cream, have been linked to cancer, birth defects, and diminished immune function and have been increasingly detected in drinking water.
Industry representatives have argued that use of PFAS — perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances — is critical in some products and that some can be safely used at certain levels.
Immigration detention facilities
After covid-19 outbreaks, contaminated water, and moldy food became the subjects of detainee complaints and lawsuits, state legislators gave local county health officials the authority to enter and inspect privately run immigrant detention centers. SB 1132, from Sen. María Elena Durazo (D-Los Angeles), gives public health officials the ability to evaluate whether privately run facilities are complying with state and local public health regulations regarding proper ventilation, basic mental and physical health care, and food safety.
Although the federal government regulates immigration, six federal detention centers in California are operated by the GEO Group. One of the country’s largest private prison contractors, GEO has faced a litany of complaints related to health and safety. Unlike public prisons and jails, which are inspected annually, these facilities would be inspected only as deemed necessary.
The contractor filed suit in October to stop implementation of the law, saying it unconstitutionally oversteps the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration detention centers. A hearing in the case is set for March 3, said Bethany Lesser, a spokesperson for California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The law took effect Jan. 1.
Doctors vs. insurance companies using AI
As major insurance companies increasingly use artificial intelligence as a tool to analyze patient claims and authorize some treatment, trade groups representing doctors are concerned that AI algorithms are driving an increase in denials for necessary care. Legislators unanimously agreed.
SB 1120 states that decisions about whether a treatment is medically necessary can be made only by licensed, qualified physicians or other health care providers who review a patient’s medical history and other records.
Sick leave and protected time off
Two new laws expand the circumstances under which California workers may use sick days and other leave. SB 1105 entitles farmworkers who work outdoors to take paid sick leave to avoid heat, smoke, or flooding when local or state officials declare an emergency.
AB 2499 expands the list of reasons employees may take paid sick days or use protected unpaid leave to include assisting a family member who is experiencing domestic violence or other violent crimes.
Prescription labels for the visually impaired
Starting this year, pharmacies will be required to provide drug labels and use instructions in Braille, large print, or audio for blind patients.
Advocates of the move said state law, which already required translated instructions in five languages for non-English speakers, has overlooked blind patients, making it difficult for them to monitor prescriptions and take the correct dosage.
Maternal mental health screenings
Health insurers will be required to bolster maternal mental health programs by mandating additional screenings to better detect perinatal depression, which affects 1 in 5 people who give birth in California, according to state data. Pregnant people will now undergo screenings at least once during pregnancy and then six weeks postpartum, with further screenings as providers deem necessary.
Penalties for threatening health care workers (abortion clinics)
With abortion care at the center of national policy fights, California is cracking down on those who threaten, post personal information about, or otherwise target providers or patients at clinics that perform abortions. Penalties for such behavior will increase under AB 2099, and offenders can face felony charges, up to three years in jail, and $50,000 in fines for repeat or violent offenses. Previously, state law classified many of those offenses as misdemeanors.
Insurance coverage for IVF
Starting in July, state-regulated health plans covering 50 employees or more would be required to cover fertility services under SB 729, passed and signed last year. Advocates have long fought for this benefit, which they say is essential care for many families who have trouble getting pregnant and would ensure LGBTQ+ couples aren’t required to pay more out-of-pocket costs than straight couples when starting a family.
In a signing statement, Newsom asked legislators to delay implementation of the law until 2026 as state officials consider whether to add infertility treatments to the list of benefits that insurance plans are required to cover.
It’s unclear whether legislators intend to address that this session, but a spokesperson for the governor said that Newsom “clearly stated his position on the need for an extension” and that he “will continue to work with the legislature” on the matter.
Plans under CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, would have to comply by July 2027.
This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).
January 15, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 15, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsIt takes a lot of courage to grow old.
I’ve come to appreciate this after conversations with hundreds of older adults over the past eight years for nearly 200 “Navigating Aging” columns.
Time and again, people have described what it’s like to let go of certainties they once lived with and adjust to new circumstances.
These older adults’ lives are filled with change. They don’t know what the future holds except that the end is nearer than it’s ever been.
And yet, they find ways to adapt. To move forward. To find meaning in their lives. And I find myself resolving to follow this path as I ready myself for retirement.
Patricia Estess, 85, of the Brooklyn borough of New York City spoke eloquently about the unpredictability of later life when I reached out to her as I reported a series of columns on older adults who live alone, sometimes known as “solo agers.”
Estess had taken a course on solo aging. “You realize that other people are in the same boat as you are,” she said when I asked what she had learned. “We’re all dealing with uncertainty.”
Consider the questions that older adults — whether living with others or by themselves — deal with year in and out: Will my bones break? Will my thinking skills and memory endure? Will I be able to make it up the stairs of my home, where I’m trying to age in place?
Will beloved friends and family members remain an ongoing source of support? If not, who will be around to provide help when it’s needed?
Will I have enough money to support a long and healthy life, if that’s in the cards? Will community and government resources be available, if needed?
It takes courage to face these uncertainties and advance into the unknown with a measure of equanimity.
“It’s a question of attitude,” Estess told me. “I have honed an attitude of: ‘I am getting older. Things will happen. I will do what I can to plan in advance. I will be more careful. But I will deal with things as they come up.’”
For many people, becoming old alters their sense of identity. They feel like strangers to themselves. Their bodies and minds aren’t working as they used to. They don’t feel the sense of control they once felt.
That requires a different type of courage — the courage to embrace and accept their older selves.
Marna Clarke, a photographer, spent more than a dozen years documenting her changing body and her life with her partner as they grew older. Along the way, she learned to view aging with new eyes.
“Now, I think there’s a beauty that comes out of people when they accept who they are,” she told me in 2022, when she was 70, just before her 93-year-old husband died.
Arthur Kleinman, a Harvard professor who’s now 83, gained a deeper sense of soulfulness after caring for his beloved wife, who had dementia and eventually died, leaving him grief-stricken.
“We endure, we learn how to endure, how to keep going. We’re marked, we’re injured, we’re wounded. We’re changed, in my case for the better,” he told me when I interviewed him in 2019. He was referring to a newfound sense of vulnerability and empathy he gained as a caregiver.
Herbert Brown, 68, who lives in one of Chicago’s poorest neighborhoods, was philosophical when I met him at his apartment building’s annual barbecue in June.
“I was a very wild person in my youth. I’m surprised I’ve lived this long,” he said. “I never planned on being a senior. I thought I’d die before that happened.”
Truthfully, no one is ever prepared to grow old, including me. (I’m turning 70 in February.)
Chalk it up to denial or the limits of imagination. As May Sarton, a writer who thought deeply about aging, put it so well: Old age is “a foreign country with an unknown language.” I, along with all my similarly aged friends, are surprised we’ve arrived at this destination.
For me, 2025 is a turning point. I’m retiring after four decades as a journalist. Most of that time, I’ve written about our nation’s enormously complex health care system. For the past eight years, I’ve focused on the unprecedented growth of the older population — the most significant demographic trend of our time — and its many implications.
In some ways, I’m ready for the challenges that lie ahead. In many ways, I’m not.
The biggest unknown is what will happen to my vision. I have moderate macular degeneration in both eyes. Last year, I lost central vision in my right eye. How long will my left eye pick up the slack? What will happen when that eye deteriorates?
Like many people, I’m hoping scientific advances outpace the progression of my condition. But I’m not counting on it. Realistically, I have to plan for a future in which I might become partially blind.
It’ll take courage to deal with that.
Then, there’s the matter of my four-story Denver house, where I’ve lived for 33 years. Climbing the stairs has helped keep me in shape. But that won’t be possible if my vision becomes worse.
So my husband and I are taking a leap into the unknown. We’re renovating the house, installing an elevator, and inviting our son, daughter-in-law, and grandson to move in with us. Going intergenerational. Giving up privacy. In exchange, we hope our home will be full of mutual assistance and love.
There are no guarantees this will work. But we’re giving it a shot.
Without all the conversations I’ve had over all these years, I might not have been up for it. But I’ve come to see that “no guarantees” isn’t a reason to dig in my heels and resist change.
Thank you to everyone who has taken time to share your experiences and insights about aging. Thank you for your openness, honesty, and courage. These conversations will become even more important in the years ahead, as baby boomers like me make their way through their 70s, 80s, and beyond. May the conversations continue.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).
January 15, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsJessie Mazar squeezed the grab handle in her husband’s pickup and groaned as contractions struck her during the 90-minute drive from her home in rural northeastern California to the closest hospital with a maternity unit.
She could have reached Plumas District Hospital, in Quincy, in just seven minutes. But it no longer delivers babies.
Local officials have a plan for a birth center in Quincy, where midwives could deliver babies with backup from on-call doctors and a standby perinatal unit at the hospital, but state health officials have yet to approve it.
That left Mazar to brave the long, winding road — one sometimes blocked by snow, floods, or forest fires — to have her baby. Women across California are facing similar ordeals as hospitals increasingly close money-losing maternity units, especially in rural areas.
Midwife-operated birth centers offer an alternative for women with low-risk pregnancies and can play a crucial role in filling the gap left by hospitals’ retreat from obstetrics, maternal health advocates say.
Declining birth rates, staffing shortages, and financial pressures have led 56 California hospitals — about 1 in 6 — to shutter maternity units over the past dozen years.
But midwives say California’s regulatory regime around birth centers is unnecessarily preventing new centers from opening and leading some existing facilities to close. Obtaining a license can take as long as four years.
“All they’ve essentially done is made it more dangerous to have a baby,” said Sacramento midwife Bethany Sasaki. “People have to drive two hours now because a birth center can’t open, so it’s more dangerous. People are going to be having babies in cars on the side of the road.”
Last month, state Assembly member Mia Bonta introduced legislation to streamline the regulatory process and fix what she calls “a broken system” for licensing birth centers.
“We know that alternative birth centers lead to often better outcomes, lower-risk births, more opportunity for children to be born healthy, and also to lower maternal mortality and morbidity,” she said.
The proposed bill would remove various bureaucratic requirements, though many details have yet to be finalized. Bonta introduced the bill in its current form as a jumping-off point for discussions about how to expedite licensing.
“It’s a starting place,” said Sandra Poole, health policy advocate for the Western Center on Law & Poverty, a co-sponsor of the legislation.
For now, birth centers struggle with a gantlet of rules, only some clearly connected to patient safety. Over the past decade, the number of licensed birth centers in California dropped from 12 to five, according to Bonta.
Plumas County officials are trying to address one key issue: how far a birth center can be from a hospital with a round-the-clock obstetrics unit. State regulations say it can be no more than a 30-minute drive, a distance set when many more hospitals had maternity units.
The first-of-its-kind “Plumas model” aims to take advantage of flexibility provisions in the law to address the obstacle in a way that could potentially be replicated elsewhere in the state.
But the hospital’s application for a birth center and a perinatal unit has been “languishing” with the California Department of Public Health, which is “looking for cover from the legislature,” said Robert Moore, chief medical officer of Partnership HealthPlan of California, a Medi-Cal managed-care plan serving most of Northern California. Asked about the application, a CDPH spokesperson said only that it was under review.
The goal should be for all women to be within an hour’s drive of a hospital with an obstetrics unit, Moore said. Data shows the complication rate goes up after an hour and even higher after two hours, he said, while the benefit is less compelling between 30 and 60 minutes.
Numerous other regulations have made it difficult for birth centers to keep their doors open.
Since August, birth centers in Sacramento and Monterey have had to stop operating because their heating ducts failed to meet licensing requirements. The facilities fall under the same state Department of Health Care Access and Information regulations as primary care clinics, though birth centers see healthy families, not sick ones, and don’t need hospital-grade ventilation, said midwife Caroline Cusenza.
She had spent $50,000 remodeling the Monterey Birth & Wellness Center to include state-required items, such as nursing and hand-washing stations and a housekeeping closet. In the end, a requirement for galvanized steel heating vents, which would have required opening the ceiling at an unaffordable cost, prompted her heart-wrenching decision to close.
“We’re turning women away in tears,” said Sasaki, who owned Midtown Birth Center in Sacramento. She bought the building for $760,000 and spent $250,000 remodeling it in a way she believed met all licensing requirements. But regulators would not license it unless the heating system was redone. Sasaki estimated it would have cost an additional $50,000 to bring it into compliance — too much to keep operating.
She blamed her closure on “regulatory dysfunction.”
Legislation signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last year could ease onerous building codes such as those governing Sasaki’s and Cusenza’s heating systems, said Poole, the health policy advocate.
The state has taken two to four years to issue birth center licenses, according to a brief by the Osher Center for Integrative Health at the University of California-San Francisco. The state Department of Public Health “works tirelessly to ensure health facilities are able to be properly licensed and follow all applicable requirements within our authority before and during their operation,” spokesperson Mark Smith said.
Bonta, an Oakland Democrat who chairs the Assembly’s health committee, said she would consider increasing the allowable drive time between a birth center and a hospital maternity unit as part of her new legislation.
The state last updated birth center regulations more than a decade ago, before hospitals’ mass exodus from obstetrics. “The hurdle is the time and distance standards without compromising safety,” Poole said. “But where there’s nothing right now, we would say a birth center is certainly a better alternative to not having any maternal care.”
Moore noted that midwife-led births in homes and birth centers are the mainstay of obstetric care in Europe, where the infant mortality rate is considerably lower than in the U.S. More than 98% of American babies are born in hospitals.
Babies delivered by midwives are more likely to be born vaginally, less likely to require intensive care, and more likely to breastfeed, the California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative has found. Midwife-led births also lead to fewer infant emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and neonatal deaths. And they cost far less: Birth centers generally charge one-quarter or less of the average cost of about $36,000 for a vaginal birth in a California hospital.
If they catered only to private-pay clients, Cusenza and Sasaki could have continued operating without licenses. They must be licensed, however, to receive payments from Medi-Cal and some private insurance companies, which they needed to remain in business. Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid health insurance program, which covers low-income residents, paid for about 40% of the state’s births in 2022.
Bonta has heard reports from midwives that the key to getting licensed is hunting down the right state health department advocate. “I don’t believe that we should be building resources based on the model of ‘Where’s Waldo?’ in finding a champion inside CDPH,” she said.
Lori Link, director of midwifery at Plumas District Hospital, believes the Plumas model can turn what’s become a maternity desert into an oasis. Jessie Mazar, whose son was born in September without complications at a Truckee hospital, would welcome the opportunity to deliver her planned second child in Quincy.
“That would be convenient,” she said. “We’re not holding our breath.”
This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).
January 15, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 14, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 14, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 14, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsIn November, Montana voters safeguarded the right to abortion in the state’s constitution. They also elected a new chief justice to the Montana Supreme Court who was endorsed by anti-abortion advocates.
That seeming contradiction is slated to come to a head this year. People on polar sides of the abortion debate are preparing to fight over how far the protection for abortion extends, and the final say will likely come from the seven-person state Supreme Court. With the arrival of new Chief Justice Cory Swanson, who ran as a judicial conservative for the nonpartisan seat and was sworn in Jan. 6, the court now leans more conservative than before the election.
A similar dynamic is at play elsewhere. Abortion rights supporters prevailed on ballot measures in seven of the 10 states where abortion was up for a vote in November. But even with new voter-approved constitutional protections, courts will have to untangle a web of existing state laws on abortion and square them with any new ones legislators approve. The new makeup of supreme courts in several states indicates that the results of the legal fights to come aren’t clear-cut.
Activists have been working to reshape high courts, which in recent years have become the final arbiters of a patchwork of laws regulating abortions. That’s because the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned federal abortion protections, leaving rulemaking to the states.
Since then, the politics of state supreme court elections have been “supercharged” as fights around abortion shifted to states’ top courts, according to Douglas Keith, a senior counsel at the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice.
“Because we’re human, you can’t scrub these races of any political connotations at all,” said former Montana Supreme Court Justice Jim Nelson. “But it’s getting worse.”
The wave of abortion litigation in state courts has spawned some of the most expensive state supreme court races in history, including more than $42 million spent on the nonpartisan 2023 Supreme Court race in Wisconsin, where abortion access was among the issues facing the court. Janet Protasiewicz won the seat, flipping the balance of the court to a liberal majority.
In many states, judicial elections are nonpartisan but political parties and ideological groups still lobby for candidates. In 2024, abortion surfaced as a top issue in these races.
In Michigan, spending by non-candidate groups alone topped $7.6 million for the two open seats on the state Supreme Court. The Michigan races are officially labeled as nonpartisan, although candidates are nominated by political parties.
An ad for the two candidates backed by Democrats cautioned that “the Michigan state Supreme Court can still take abortion rights away” even after voters added abortion protections to the state constitution in 2022. The ad continued, “Kyra Harris Bolden and Kimberly Thomas are the only Supreme Court candidates who will protect access to abortion.” Both won their races.
Abortion opponent Kelsey Pritchard, director of state public affairs for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, decried the influence of abortion politics on state court elections. “Pro-abortion activists know they cannot win through the legislatures, so they have turned to state courts to override state laws,” Pritchard said.
Some abortion opponents now support changes to the way state supreme courts are selected.
In Missouri, where voters passed a constitutional amendment in November to protect abortion access, the new leader of the state Senate, Cindy O’Laughlin, a Republican, has proposed switching to nonpartisan elections from the state’s current model, in which the governor appoints a judge from a list of three finalists selected by a nonpartisan commission. Although Republicans have held the governor’s mansion since 2017, she pointed to the Missouri Supreme Court’s 4-3 ruling in September that allowed the abortion amendment to remain on the ballot and said courts “have undermined legislative efforts to protect life.”
In a case widely expected to reach the Missouri Supreme Court, the state’s Planned Parenthood clinics are trying to use the passage of the new amendment to strike down Missouri’s abortion restrictions, including a near-total ban. O’Laughlin said her proposal, which would need approval from the legislature and voters, was unlikely to influence that current litigation but would affect future cases.
“A judiciary accountable to the people would provide a fairer venue for addressing legal challenges to pro-life laws,” she said.
Nonpartisan judicial elections can buck broader electoral trends. In Michigan, for example, voters elected both Supreme Court candidates nominated by Democrats last year even as Donald Trump won the state and Republicans regained control of the state House.
In Kentucky’s nonpartisan race, Judge Pamela Goodwine, who was endorsed by Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear, outperformed her opponent even in counties that went for Trump, who won the state. She’ll be serving on the bench as a woman’s challenge to the state’s two abortion bans makes its way through state courts.
Partisan judicial elections, however, tend to track with other partisan election results, according to Keith of the Brennan Center. So some state legislatures have sought to turn nonpartisan state supreme court elections into fully partisan affairs.
In Ohio, Republicans have won every state Supreme Court seat since lawmakers passed a bill in 2021 requiring party affiliation to appear on the ballot for those races. That includes three seats up for grabs in November that solidified the Republican majority on the court from 4-3 to 6-1.
“These justices who got elected in 2024 have been pretty open about being anti-abortion,” said Jessie Hill, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio, who has been litigating a challenge to Ohio’s abortion restrictions since voters added protections to the state constitution in 2023.
Until the recent ballot measure vote in Montana, the only obstacle blocking Republican-passed abortion restrictions from taking effect had been a 25-year-old decision that determined Montana’s right to privacy extends to abortion.
Nelson, the former justice who was the lead author of the decision, said the court has since gradually leaned more conservative. He noted the state’s other incoming justice, Katherine Bidegaray, was backed by abortion rights advocates.
“The dynamic of the court is going to change,” Nelson said after the election. “But the chief justice has one vote, just like everybody else.”
Swanson, Montana’s new chief justice, had said throughout his campaign that he’ll make decisions case by case. He also rebuked his opponent, Jerry Lynch, for saying he’d respect the court’s ruling that protected abortion. Swanson called such statements a signal to liberal groups.
At least eight cases are pending in Montana courts challenging state laws to restrict abortion access. Martha Fuller, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Advocates of Montana, said that the new constitutional language, which takes effect in July, could further strengthen those cases but that the court’s election outcome leaves room for uncertainty.
The state’s two outgoing justices had past ties to the Democratic Party. Fuller said they also consistently supported abortion as a right to privacy. “One of those folks is replaced by somebody who we don’t know will uphold that,” she said. “There will be this period where we’re trying to see where the different justices fall on these issues.”
Those cases likely won’t end the abortion debate in Montana.
As of the legislative session’s start in early January, Republican lawmakers, who have for years called the state Supreme Court liberal, had already proposed eight bills regarding abortion and dozens of others aimed at reshaping judicial power. Among them is a bill to make judicial elections partisan.
Montana Sen. Daniel Emrich, a Republican who requested a bill titled “Prohibit dismembering of person and provide definition of human,” said it’s too early to know which restrictions anti-abortion lawmakers will push hardest.
Ultimately, he said, any new proposed restrictions and the implications of the constitutional amendment will likely land in front of the state Supreme Court.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).
January 13, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 12, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 11, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsKFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discussed the Department of Health and Human Services, the federal workforce, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on WAMU’s “1A” on Jan. 8.
KFF Health News video producer and visual reporter Hannah Norman discussed PFAS contamination in well water on KVPR’s “Central Valley Daily” on Jan. 7.
KFF Health News public health local editor and correspondent Amy Maxmen discussed the bird flu outbreak on KMOX on Jan. 8.
KFF Health News editor-at-large for public health Céline Gounder discussed a new rule banning medical debt from credit reports on CBS Evening News on Jan. 7. Gounder also discussed the increase in covid, flu, respiratory syncytial virus, and norovirus cases across the U.S. as well as what to know about norovirus on CBS News 24/7 on Jan. 6 and Dec. 31, respectively.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).
January 10, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsLos incendios forestales que se propagan rápidamente y han transformado gran parte del condado de Los Ángeles en un infierno en llamas no solo están alterando las vidas de decenas de miles de residentes y dueños de negocios. También están poniendo a prueba a los hospitales, clínicas de salud, socorristas y hogares de adultos mayores de la región.
Al menos una clínica médica se ha incendiado por completo. Pacientes mayores han sido evacuados de hogares de vida asistida en ambulancias, mientras las brasas volaban alrededor de ellos y de sus proveedores. Consultorios médicos han cerrado y se han cancelado citas de rutina.
Algunos proveedores han perdido sus hogares o han tenido que ser evacuados, lo que en muchos casos les impide trabajar y dificulta que algunos centros de salud tengan el personal suficiente para atender.
Pero en medio del caos, médicos, enfermeros y otros cuidadores no dejaron de hacer su trabajo.
El martes 7 de enero por la noche, Ravi Salgia, oncólogo del City of Hope Duarte Cancer Center, vio cómo la casa situada más arriba de la suya, en Eaton Canyon, se incendiaba. Mientras caían escombros y chispas, él, su esposa y su hija mayor calcularon que solo tenían unos siete minutos para salir.
En plena noche, Salgia recibió una llamada informándole que el hospital se había convertido en un centro de comando de emergencias y que corría el riesgo de tener que evacuar, lo que significaba que debía ayudar a evaluar a los pacientes y preparar las altas.
Salgia llegó al hospital a las 2:30 am del miércoles. Lo acompañaron sus colegas, muchos de los cuales también habían sido evacuados de sus hogares.
“Todos sentimos con fuerza que necesitábamos cuidar a nuestros pacientes, sin importar lo que nos estuviera pasando física y emocionalmente, o lo que les estuviera pasando a nuestras casas. Necesitábamos asegurarnos de que las personas a las que servimos recibieran atención”, dijo Salgia en una entrevista.
Al cierre de este artículo, todavia no sabia si su casa seguía en pie.
En Pacific Palisades, se quemó por completo la St. John’s Physician Partners, una clínica de atención primaria y pediátrica afiliada a Providence Health & Services, según informó Patricia Aidem, vocera de la gran cadena de hospitales católicos con sede en Renton, Washington.
No lejos del extremo este del incendio de Palisades, Providence St. John’s Health Center en Santa Mónica, uno de los principales hospitales del grupo en el área de Los Ángeles, estuvo tan cerca de evacuar que llamó a otros hospitales de la zona para encontrar espacio para pacientes que iban a ser desplazados, dijo Aidem. El hospital USC Verdugo Hills, en Glendale, también enfrentó una posible evacuación, junto con otros centros de salud de la región.
“Todos los hospitales ubicados cerca de los incendios siguen en alerta máxima y están preparados para evacuar si las condiciones empeoran”, dijo la Hospital Association of Southern California en un comunicado.
“Los incendios están creando obstáculos operativos significativos”, agregó la entidad.
También informó que los servicios de emergencia se han visto afectados por un alto volumen de llamadas, mientras que los cierres de carreteras han dificultado el traslado de pacientes, suministros y trabajadores de salud.
Algunas instalaciones de salud se han quedado sin luz, a la vez que “muchos miembros del personal están directamente afectados por las evacuaciones y las interrupciones relacionadas con los incendios, lo que complica aún más las operaciones”.
El jueves, el Departamento de Atención Médica Administrada de California ordenó a los planes de salud que garantizaran el acceso de sus miembros afectados por los incendios a todos los servicios médicos necesarios, incluido el surtido de medicamentos recetados.
Aidem dijo que algunos médicos y otros trabajadores de salud de Providence St. John’s en Santa Mónica y Providence Holy Cross Medical Center en el Valle de San Fernando han perdido sus casas o han sido evacuados: por todo esto tener suficiente personal se ha vuelto un desafío.
Hospitales en todo el condado informaron que sus salas de emergencia habían atendido pacientes con quemaduras, problemas por inhalación de humo e irritación en los ojos.
Más de 700 personas —y posiblemente muchas más— han sido evacuadas de hogares de adultos mayores y de otras instalaciones de atención, según el Departamento de Salud Pública de California.
El miércoles, el West Valley Health Center, operado por el Departamento de Servicios de Salud del condado de Los Ángeles, cerró a causa de un corte de luz, dijo el departamento. Y UCLA Health informó que el cierre de algunas de sus clínicas en Pasadena y en el lado oeste de Los Ángeles se debió en parte a “cortes de servicios públicos”.
El Hospital Infantil de Los Ángeles informó que dos de sus clínicas de atención especializada, en Encino y Santa Mónica, estuvieron cerradas el jueves “a causa de los impactos de la tormenta de viento, los cortes de luz y los incendios”.
Providence también cerró varias clínicas esta semana.
Los dos incendios más grandes, el de Palisades en las áridas colinas costeras del oeste del condado de Los Ángeles y el de Eaton en el lado este, han quemado juntos más de 50 millas cuadradas, destruido miles de estructuras, reducido a cenizas importantes sitios culturales, matado al menos a 10 personas y herido gravemente a muchas más.
Los vientos descomunales que alimentaron la explosión de los incendios el martes y miércoles han comenzado a menguar, aunque se esperan ráfagas significativas que seguirán complicando la tarea de los bomberos.
Por todo esto, es probable que miles de personas no puedan recibir atención de rutina en los próximos días.
Kaiser Permanente, el gigante proveedor de atención médica, dijo que el jueves tuvo que cerrar múltiples sitios médicos por los incendios, incluidas una farmacia, un laboratorio y una clínica oftalmológica.
El Hospital Huntington en Pasadena, cerca del incendio de Eaton, informó que algunas de sus oficinas ambulatorias se vieron afectadas por avisos de evacuación y por el denso humo.
Dignity Health, otro gran sistema de salud, informó que algunos de sus hospitales estaban operando con generadores debido a los fuertes vientos, y algunos, como el Glendale Memorial Hospital, habían cancelado cirugías electivas.
Otros hospitales, como USC Verdugo Hills y Providence St. John’s, suspendieron temporalmente las cirugías no urgentes a causa del impacto de los incendios forestales.
La enfermera Christine Kirmsse evacuó su hogar en Santa Mónica el miércoles por la noche y está en un hotel a una hora de distancia. Pero dijo que siente la necesidad de ir a trabajar.
“Obviamente se necesita mucha ayuda”, dijo Kirmsse. “Y es importante para mí porque tengo la capacidad para poder ayudar. En momentos como este, es cuando la comunidad es más poderosa”.
Chaseedaw Giles y Tarena Lofton de KFF Health News colaboraron con este artículo.
Esta historia fue producida por Kaiser Health News, que publica California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la California Health Care Foundation.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).
January 10, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsThe rapidly spreading wildfires that have transformed much of Los Angeles County into a raging hellscape are not only upending the lives of tens of thousands of residents and business owners, but also stressing the region’s hospitals, health clinics, first responders, and nursing homes.
At least one medical clinic burned down. Senior patients were evacuated by ambulance from nursing facilities as embers swirled around them and their providers. Medical offices have closed, and routine appointments have been canceled. Some providers have lost homes or had to evacuate their neighborhoods, keeping them from work in many cases and making it a challenge for some health care centers to maintain sufficient staffing.
Amid the maelstrom, doctors, nurses, and other caregivers did their jobs.
On Tuesday night, Ravi Salgia, an oncologist at City of Hope Duarte Cancer Center, saw the house above his Eaton Canyon home go up in flames. As debris and sparks fell, he, his wife, and their older daughter estimated they had no more than seven minutes to get out. In the middle of the night, Salgia got a call that the hospital had become an emergency command center and was at risk of evacuation, meaning he needed to help evaluate patients and make discharge preparations.
Salgia arrived at the hospital at 2:30 a.m. Wednesday. He was joined by colleagues, many of whom had also evacuated their homes.
“We all felt very strongly that we needed to take care of our patients — no matter what’s happening to us physically and emotionally, what’s happening to our houses — that we need to make sure that the people we serve were taken care of,” Salgia said in an interview.
He doesn’t know if his house is still standing.
In Pacific Palisades, St. John’s Physician Partners, a primary care and pediatric clinic affiliated with Providence Health & Services, burned down, said Patricia Aidem, a spokesperson for the large Catholic hospital chain based in Renton, Washington.
Not far from the eastern edge of the Palisades Fire, Providence St. John’s Health Center in Santa Monica, one of the group’s major LA-area hospitals, was so close to evacuating that it called other hospitals in the area to find space for patients who would be displaced, Aidem said. USC Verdugo Hills Hospital, in Glendale, also faced potential evacuation, along with other hospitals in the region.
“All hospitals in close proximity to the fires remain on high alert and are prepared to evacuate if conditions worsen,” the Hospital Association of Southern California said in a statement. “The fires are creating significant operational hurdles,” the association added.
The association also said emergency services have been strained by high call volumes, while road closures have impeded the transport of patients, supplies, and health care workers. Some health facilities have been hit by power outages, the association said, while “many staff members are directly impacted by evacuations and fire-related disruptions, further complicating operations.”
The California Department of Managed Health Care on Thursday ordered health plans to ensure enrollees affected by wildfires have access to all needed medical services, including prescription drug refills.
Aidem said some doctors and other health workers at Providence St. John’s in Santa Monica and Providence Holy Cross Medical Center in the San Fernando Valley have lost homes or been evacuated, making them miss work and creating challenges to ensure adequate staffing.
Hospitals across the county said their emergency rooms had treated patients for burns, smoke inhalation, and eye irritation.
Over 700 people — and possibly far more — have been evacuated from nursing homes and other care facilities, according to the California Department of Public Health.
On Wednesday, West Valley Health Center, operated by Los Angeles County’s Department of Health Services, closed due to a power outage, the department said. And UCLA Health said the closure of some of its clinics in Pasadena and on L.A.’s Westside was due partly to “utility shutoffs.”
Children’s Hospital Los Angeles said two of its specialty care clinics, in Encino and Santa Monica, were closed Thursday “due to the impacts from the wind storm, power outages and wild fires.”
Providence also has shut several clinics this week.
The two biggest blazes, the Palisades Fire in the parched coastal hills of western L.A. County and the Eaton Fire on the Eastside, have together torched more than 50 square miles, burned thousands of structures, reduced beloved cultural landmarks to ashes, killed at least 10 people, and severely injured many more.
The monster winds that fueled the explosion of the fires on Tuesday and Wednesday have begun to quiet down, though significant gusts are still expected to complicate the task of firefighters for the next several days.
Routine medical care will likely be disrupted for thousands in the days ahead.
Kaiser Permanente, the giant HMO and medical provider, said it closed multiple medical sites Thursday due to the fires, including a pharmacy and laboratory and an eye clinic.
Huntington Hospital in Pasadena, close to the Eaton Fire, said some of its outpatient offices were affected by evacuation notices and heavy smoke.
Dignity Health, another large health system, said some of its hospitals were operating on generator power due to high winds, and some, including Glendale Memorial Hospital, had canceled elective surgeries. Other hospitals, including USC Verdugo Hills and Providence St. John’s, temporarily halted nonemergency surgeries due to the impact of the wildfires.
Christine Kirmsse, a registered nurse, evacuated her Santa Monica home on Wednesday night and is staying at a hotel an hour away. But she said she feels strongly that she needs to come into work.
“There’s obviously so much help that’s needed,” Kirmsse said. “And it’s important to me because I have the skills to be able to help. In times like this, this is when community is the most powerful.”
KFF Health News’ Chaseedaw Giles and Tarena Lofton contributed to this report.
This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).
January 10, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 10, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsPreparing cancer patients for difficult decisions is an oncologist’s job. They don’t always remember to do it, however. At the University of Pennsylvania Health System, doctors are nudged to talk about a patient’s treatment and end-of-life preferences by an artificially intelligent algorithm that predicts the chances of death.
But it’s far from being a set-it-and-forget-it tool. A routine tech checkup revealed the algorithm decayed during the covid-19 pandemic, getting 7 percentage points worse at predicting who would die, according to a 2022 study.
There were likely real-life impacts. Ravi Parikh, an Emory University oncologist who was the study’s lead author, told KFF Health News the tool failed hundreds of times to prompt doctors to initiate that important discussion — possibly heading off unnecessary chemotherapy — with patients who needed it.
He believes several algorithms designed to enhance medical care weakened during the pandemic, not just the one at Penn Medicine. “Many institutions are not routinely monitoring the performance” of their products, Parikh said.
Algorithm glitches are one facet of a dilemma that computer scientists and doctors have long acknowledged but that is starting to puzzle hospital executives and researchers: Artificial intelligence systems require consistent monitoring and staffing to put in place and to keep them working well.
In essence: You need people, and more machines, to make sure the new tools don’t mess up.
“Everybody thinks that AI will help us with our access and capacity and improve care and so on,” said Nigam Shah, chief data scientist at Stanford Health Care. “All of that is nice and good, but if it increases the cost of care by 20%, is that viable?”
Government officials worry hospitals lack the resources to put these technologies through their paces. “I have looked far and wide,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf said at a recent agency panel on AI. “I do not believe there’s a single health system, in the United States, that’s capable of validating an AI algorithm that’s put into place in a clinical care system.”
AI is already widespread in health care. Algorithms are used to predict patients’ risk of death or deterioration, to suggest diagnoses or triage patients, to record and summarize visits to save doctors work, and to approve insurance claims.
If tech evangelists are right, the technology will become ubiquitous — and profitable. The investment firm Bessemer Venture Partners has identified some 20 health-focused AI startups on track to make $10 million in revenue each in a year. The FDA has approved nearly a thousand artificially intelligent products.
Evaluating whether these products work is challenging. Evaluating whether they continue to work — or have developed the software equivalent of a blown gasket or leaky engine — is even trickier.
Take a recent study at Yale Medicine evaluating six “early warning systems,” which alert clinicians when patients are likely to deteriorate rapidly. A supercomputer ran the data for several days, said Dana Edelson, a doctor at the University of Chicago and co-founder of a company that provided one algorithm for the study. The process was fruitful, showing huge differences in performance among the six products.
It’s not easy for hospitals and providers to select the best algorithms for their needs. The average doctor doesn’t have a supercomputer sitting around, and there is no Consumer Reports for AI.
“We have no standards,” said Jesse Ehrenfeld, immediate past president of the American Medical Association. “There is nothing I can point you to today that is a standard around how you evaluate, monitor, look at the performance of a model of an algorithm, AI-enabled or not, when it’s deployed.”
Perhaps the most common AI product in doctors’ offices is called ambient documentation, a tech-enabled assistant that listens to and summarizes patient visits. Last year, investors at Rock Health tracked $353 million flowing into these documentation companies. But, Ehrenfeld said, “There is no standard right now for comparing the output of these tools.”
And that’s a problem, when even small errors can be devastating. A team at Stanford University tried using large language models — the technology underlying popular AI tools like ChatGPT — to summarize patients’ medical history. They compared the results with what a physician would write.
“Even in the best case, the models had a 35% error rate,” said Stanford’s Shah. In medicine, “when you’re writing a summary and you forget one word, like ‘fever’ — I mean, that’s a problem, right?”
Sometimes the reasons algorithms fail are fairly logical. For example, changes to underlying data can erode their effectiveness, like when hospitals switch lab providers.
Sometimes, however, the pitfalls yawn open for no apparent reason.
Sandy Aronson, a tech executive at Mass General Brigham’s personalized medicine program in Boston, said that when his team tested one application meant to help genetic counselors locate relevant literature about DNA variants, the product suffered “nondeterminism” — that is, when asked the same question multiple times in a short period, it gave different results.
Aronson is excited about the potential for large language models to summarize knowledge for overburdened genetic counselors, but “the technology needs to improve.”
If metrics and standards are sparse and errors can crop up for strange reasons, what are institutions to do? Invest lots of resources. At Stanford, Shah said, it took eight to 10 months and 115 man-hours just to audit two models for fairness and reliability.
Experts interviewed by KFF Health News floated the idea of artificial intelligence monitoring artificial intelligence, with some (human) data whiz monitoring both. All acknowledged that would require organizations to spend even more money — a tough ask given the realities of hospital budgets and the limited supply of AI tech specialists.
“It’s great to have a vision where we’re melting icebergs in order to have a model monitoring their model,” Shah said. “But is that really what I wanted? How many more people are we going to need?”
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).
January 09, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 09, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsJan. 2
This week on the KFF Health News Minute: Hyperthermia deaths are rising, and millions of people could lose Medicaid if the incoming Republican-controlled Congress follows through on proposed cuts to federal funding.
The KFF Health News Minute is available every Thursday on CBS News Radio.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).
January 09, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsWe’ve all read the stories and seen the images: The life-threatening heat waves. The wildfires of unprecedented ferocity. The record-breaking storms washing away entire neighborhoods. The melting glaciers, the rising sea levels, the coastal flooding.
As California wildfires stretch into the colder months and hurricane survivors sort through the ruins left by floodwaters, let’s talk about an underreported victim of climate change: the emotional well-being of young people.
A nascent but growing body of research shows that a large proportion of adolescents and young adults, in the United States and abroad, feel anxious and worried about the impact of an unstable climate in their lives today and in the future.
Abby Rafeek, 14, is disquieted by the ravages of climate change, both near her home and far away. “It’s definitely affecting my life, because it’s causing stress thinking about the future and how, if we’re not addressing the problem now as a society, our planet is going to get worse,” says Abby, a high school student who lives in Gardena, California, a city of 58,000 about 15 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.
She says wildfires are a particular worry for her. “That’s closer to where I live, so it’s a bigger problem for me personally, and it also causes a lot of damage to the surrounding areas,” she says. “And also, the air gets messed up.”
In April, Abby took a survey on climate change for kids ages 12-17 during a visit to the emergency room at Children’s Hospital of Orange County.
Rammy Assaf, a pediatric emergency physician at the hospital, adapted the survey from one developed five years ago for adults. He administered his version last year to over 800 kids ages 12-17 and their caregivers. He says initial results show climate change is a serious cause of concern for the emotional security and well-being of young people.
Assaf has followed up with the kids to ask more open-ended questions, including whether they believe climate change will be solved in their lifetimes; how they feel when they read about extreme climate events; what they think about the future of the planet; and with whom they are able to discuss their concerns.
“When asked about their outlook for the future, the first words they will use are helpless, powerless, hopeless,” Assaf says. “These are very strong emotions.”
Assaf says he would like to see questions about climate change included in mental health screenings at pediatricians’ offices and in other settings where children get medical care. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that counseling on climate change be incorporated into the clinical practice of pediatricians and into medical school curriculums, but not with specific regard to mental health screening.
Assaf says anxiety about climate change intersects with the broader mental health crisis among youth, which has been marked by a rise in depression, loneliness, and suicide over the past decade, though there are recent signs it may be improving slightly.
A 2022 Harris Poll of 1,500 U.S. teenagers found that 89% of them regularly think about the environment, “with the majority feeling more worried than hopeful.” In addition, 69% said they feared they and their families would be affected by climate change in the near future. And 82% said they expected to have to make key life decisions — including where to live and whether to have children — based on the state of the environment.
And the impact is clearly not limited to the U.S. A 2021 survey of 10,000 16- to 25-year-olds across 10 countries found “59% were very or extremely worried and 84% were at least moderately worried” about climate change.
Susan Clayton, chair of the psychology department at the College of Wooster in Ohio, says climate change anxiety may be more pronounced among younger people than adults. “Older adults didn’t grow up being as aware of climate change or thinking about it very much, so there’s still a barrier to get over to accept it’s a real thing,” says Clayton, who co-created the adult climate change survey that Assaf adapted for younger people.
By contrast, “adolescents grew up with it as a real thing,” Clayton says. “Knowing you have the bulk of your life ahead of you gives you a very different view of what your life will be like.” She adds that younger people in particular feel betrayed by their government, which they don’t think is taking the problem seriously enough, and “this feeling of betrayal is associated with greater anxiety about the climate.”
Abby believes climate change is not being addressed with sufficient resolve. “I think if we figure out how to live on Mars and explore the deep sea, we could definitely figure out how to live here in a healthy environment,” she says.
If you are a parent whose children show signs of climate anxiety, you can help.
Louise Chawla, professor emerita in the environmental design program at the University of Colorado-Boulder, says the most important thing is to listen in an open-ended way. “Let there be space for kids to express their emotions. Just listen to them and let them know it’s safe to express these emotions,” says Chawla, who co-founded the nonprofit Growing Up Boulder, which works with the city’s schools to encourage kids to engage civically, including to help shape their local environment.
Chawla and others recommend family activities that reinforce a commitment to the environment. They can be as simple as walking or biking and participating in cleanup or recycling efforts. Also, encourage your children to join activities and advocacy efforts sponsored by environmental, civic, or religious organizations.
Working with others can help alleviate stress and feelings of powerlessness by reassuring kids they are not alone and that they can be proactive.
Worries about climate change should be seen as a learning opportunity that might even lead some kids to their life’s path, says Vickie Mays, professor of psychology and health policy at UCLA, who teaches a class on climate change and mental health — one of eight similar courses offered recently at UC campuses.
“We should get out of this habit of ‘everything’s a mental health problem,’” Mays says, “and understand that often a challenge, a stress, a worry can be turned into advocacy, activism, or a reach for new knowledge to change the situation.”
This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).
January 09, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 08, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 08, 2025RoseHealth - The New York Times, NYT > HealthNo commentsJanuary 08, 2025RoseHealth News, KFF Health NewsNo commentsOn the heels of a scuttled hospital merger between rivals in Terre Haute, Indiana, a state senator introduced a bill that would forbid similar mergers in the future.
Last year, nonprofit Union Health tried to acquire the only other acute care hospital in Vigo County by leveraging a state law it helped create that allows hospital monopolies. Now, Sen. Ed Charbonneau, a key architect of the 2021 law, which allows what is known as a “Certificate of Public Advantage,” or COPA, wants to repeal it.
“I didn’t think I was doing 100% the right thing last time,” the Republican, who chairs the Senate health committee, said of co-authoring Indiana’s 2021 COPA law. “I do think I am this time.”
Indiana is one of 19 states that have COPA laws, which allow hospital mergers that the Federal Trade Commission otherwise considers illegal because they reduce competition and often create monopolies.
In exchange for allowing these deals, the merging hospitals typically agree to meet a number of conditions imposed by the state to mitigate the harms of a monopoly. But health care economists and the FTC have said that state oversight cannot replace competition and that these mergers ultimately harm patients.
The public and the FTC pressured Indiana health regulators to block Union’s merger with its rival, Terre Haute Regional Hospital. Just days before a December deadline for the state to issue a decision on whether to approve the deal, Union Health and Terre Haute Regional Hospital pulled their application.
Union Health and Tennessee-based HCA Healthcare, which owns Terre Haute Regional, declined to answer questions about what prompted the decision to scuttle the deal. In a November statement, Union said it planned to submit a new application.
In 2021, Union Health leaders were instrumental in the passage of Indiana’s COPA law. They supplied draft language for the bill, according to legislative testimony, and Union Health CEO Steve Holman testified before lawmakers that the merger would improve Vigo County’s poor public health rankings.
But Charbonneau’s bill would prevent such deals and make Indiana the sixth state to repeal its COPA law.
In 2023, Maine ended its COPA after heeding warnings from the FTC about the harmful effects of such mergers. Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, and North Dakota have also repealed such laws.
In comments to Indiana regulators, the FTC referenced KFF Health News’ reporting on Ballad Health, a 20-hospital monopoly in Tennessee and Virginia, as a cautionary tale against such mergers.
COPAs, such as the one under which Ballad operates, “have proven unwieldy,” are “difficult to manage,” and “have failed to protect local communities from the harmful effects of anticompetitive hospital mergers,” the FTC said in its comments on the proposed Union-Regional merger.
Ballad declined to respond to KFF Health News inquiries regarding the FTC’s comments.
Since Ballad launched in 2018 and became the nation’s largest state-approved hospital monopoly, it has not lived up to some of its promises, KFF Health News has reported. It has fallen short of quality and charity care goals, according to annual reports from Ballad and the Tennessee Department of Health. After years of problems and complaints from patients, the state is now trying to hold Ballad more accountable for its quality of care.
In a November interview with KFF Health News, Ballad Health CEO Alan Levine attributed the quality-of-care slump to covid-19 and workforce challenges. He said these issues are unrelated to the COPA merger and the monopoly it created.
In Indiana, Republican Gov.-elect Mike Braun has said tackling health care issues will be a top policy priority. Braun’s policy agenda to “protect Hoosiers from consolidation” calls for rooting out regulations that “promote consolidation” and pose a “barrier” to competition.
Republicans control the state legislature. Charbonneau, a high-ranking senator, has co-authored several bills to combat consolidation, including through restricting noncompete agreements for primary care physicians and requiring hospitals and other health care businesses to notify Indiana’s attorney general of pending mergers and acquisitions.
If Charbonneau’s bill to repeal Indiana’s COPA law passes during the legislative session beginning Jan. 8, it may prevent Union from acquiring Regional. Union would need to submit a new application and get it approved before Charbonneau’s bill would take effect July 1. Both Union and HCA declined to comment on the proposed bill and their future application plans.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
This story can be republished for free (details).