Trump administration moves to expand oil and gas leasing in Alaska reserve

 The Department of the Interior today announced a new step to support American energy independence and unleash the vast resource potential of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve. A draft analysis released for public comment today supports the selection of a new alternative from the 2020 plan that would reopen up to 82% of the 23-million-acre reserve to oil and gas leasing and development, consistent with the Trump administration’s commitment to Energy Dominance and regulatory reform. 

The proposal advances the Bureau of Land Management’s process to update its Integrated Activity Plan in line with the 2020 framework for managing the reserve. The draft environmental assessment reflects the latest available data and supports Executive Order 14153 and Secretary’s Order 3422, both of which prioritize maximizing Alaska’s vast resources to strengthen America’s energy and economic security. 

“This plan is about creating more jobs for Americans, reducing our dependence on foreign oil and tapping into the immense energy resources the National Petroleum Reserve was created to deliver,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management Adam Suess. “Under President Trump’s leadership, we’re cutting red tape and restoring commonsense policies that ensure responsible development and good stewardship of our public lands.” 

Congress designated the reserve for oil and gas exploration in response to the 1970s energy crisis, recognizing its critical role in national energy strategy. The BLM manages the reserve under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, which mandates an “expeditious program of competitive leasing” while safeguarding key surface resources. 

This proposed plan also builds on the Department’s efforts to reverse burdensome regulations—such as the planned rescission of the 2024 rule that restricted leasing in the reserve—ensuring the United States can meet current and future energy needs. 

The public is invited to review and comment on the draft analysis through the BLM National NEPA Register. Comments may be submitted online via the “Participate Now” button. The comment period will remain open until July 1, 2025. 

https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/department-interior-moves-expand-oil-and-gas-development-alaskas-national-petroleum

Top global universities for healthcare research: US News

 U.S. News & World Report published its 11th annual Best Global Universities rankings June 17, evaluating 2,250 top institutions across 105 countries based on their global and regional research reputation and academic research performance.

Two rankings, powered by data and metrics from the Web of Science Core Collection and InCites Benchmarking & Analytics provided by Clarivate, used a methodology that assessed 13 indicators of global research performance, such as global research reputation, as well as reputation indicators such as regional research reputation.

For the overall ranking, the media company said it included bibliometric indicators, such as publications, citations and international collaboration.

In addition to the overall ranking, there are 51 subject rankings, including some that are healthcare-related, each with their own weighting based on academic research performance in that area. More information about the methodology is available here.

Top 10 overall Best Global Universities 

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (U.S.)

3. Stanford University (U.S.)

4. University of Oxford (U.K.)

5. University of Cambridge (U.K.)

6. University of California Berkeley (U.S.)

7. University College London (U.K.)

8. University of Washington Seattle (U.S.)

9. Yale University (U.S.)

10. Columbia University (U.S.)

Top five global universities for cardiac and cardiovascular systems

(Based on research performance in the field)

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. University of Glasgow (U.K.)

3. Imperial College London (U.K.)

4. Duke University (U.S.)

5. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (U.S.)

Top five global universities for clinical medicine

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. Johns Hopkins University (U.S.)

3. (tie) Stanford University (U.S.) 

3. (tie) University of California San Francisco (U.S.) 

5. University of Toronto (Canada) 

Top five global universities for endocrinology and metabolism

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center Dallas (U.S.)

3. University of Toronto (Canada)

4. University of Copenhagen (Denmark)

5. University of Oxford (U.K.)

Top five global universities for gastroenterology and hepatology

1. University of California San Diego (U.S.)

2. Chinese University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong)

3. University of Barcelona (Spain)

4. Harvard University (U.S.)

5. Universite Paris Cite (France)

Top five global universities for immunology

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (U.S.)

3. Stanford University (U.S.)

4. Johns Hopkins University (U.S.)

5. University of Pennsylvania (U.S.)

Top five global universities for infectious diseases

1. University of Oxford (U.K.)

2. Harvard University (U.S.)

3. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (U.K.)

4. University of Hong Kong (Hong Kong)

5. Johns Hopkins University (U.S.)

Top five global universities for neuroscience and behavior

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. University of California San Francisco (U.S.)

3. Stanford University (U.S.)

4. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (U.S.)

5. University College London (U.K.)

Top five global universities for oncology

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. University of California San Francisco (U.S.)

3. Cornell University (U.S.)

4. Johns Hopkins University (U.S.)

5. University of California Los Angeles (U.S.)

Top five global universities for pharmacology and toxicology 

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. University College London (U.K.)

3. Fudan University (China)

4. (tie) King Saud University (Saudi Arabia)

4. (tie) Shanghai Jiao Tong University (China)

Top five global universities for psychiatry and psychology

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. King’s College London (U.K.)

3. University of Oxford (U.K.)

4. Stanford University (U.S.)

5. Yale University (U.S.)

Top five global universities for public, environmental and occupational health

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (U.K.)

3. University of Oxford (U.K.)

4. Johns Hopkins University (U.S.)

5. University College London (U.K.)

Top five global universities for radiology, nuclear medicine and medical imaging

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. Stanford University (U.S.)

3. Radboud University Nijmegen (Netherlands)

4. Ruprecht Karls University Heidelberg (Germany)

5. University College London (U.K.)

Top five global universities for social sciences and public health

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. University of Oxford (U.K.)

3. University College London (U.K.)

4. Johns Hopkins University (U.S.)

5. University of Toronto (Canada) 

Top five global universities for surgery

1. Harvard University (U.S.)

2. Johns Hopkins University (U.S.)

3. University of Amsterdam (Netherlands)

4. University of Toronto (Canada)

5. (tie) Erasmus University Rotterdam (Netherlands)

5. (tie) Stanford University (U.S.)

Full rankings are available here.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/rankings-and-ratings/top-global-universities-for-healthcare-research-us-news/

Ascension to acquire AmSurg

 St. Louis-based Ascension said June 17 that it has entered an agreement to acquire AmSurg, an ASC operator with more than 250 facilities across 34 states. 

Six things to know: 

1. The move will significantly expand the Catholic nonprofit system’s outpatient footprint upon the deal’s closing, adding centers that specialize in gastroenterology, ophthalmology, orthopedics and other services to Ascension’s network.

2. With this expansion, Ascension is deepening its outpatient footprint in what the system described as a milestone in its journey to transform healthcare delivery and expand access to compassionate, high-quality outpatient care nationwide. 

“We have 58 ASCs. This is going to add another 250, so it’s going to give us a good presence in 34 states,” Ascension President Eduardo Conrado told Becker’s. “And AmSurg has a great management team. They’ve got an operational platform that mirrors their areas of focus, which is quality, clinical engagement, and patient experience — in a segment [the ASC market] that’s growing 9% to 12% over the next five years. So, everybody’s very excited about coming up on this next step.”

3. The transaction comes as more complex procedures continue to move out of hospitals and into lower-cost, outpatient settings; it also takes a page out of Tenet Healthcare’s playbook.

Dallas-based Tenet has focused heavily on scaling its ASC platform — United Surgical Partners International — and Nashville, Tenn.-based AmSurg supports approximately 2,000 physicians and is the second-largest ASC chain in the ASC market, behind USPI.

4. Mr. Conrado said Ascension plans to continue the strategy that AmSurg has had in terms of physician-led joint ventures and governance.

“It also serves as a platform for other nonprofit systems to accelerate that ASC growth,” he said. “AmSurg is one of the large five [ASC operators] in the U.S., and once the Ascension deal closes, we’ll continue with that strategy to be able to serve other systems. So that is a win for us, it’s a win for physicians and a win for the other nonprofits in the U.S.”

5. Ascension is targeting late 2025 or early 2026 for the transaction’s closing, which remains subject to customary closing conditions and regulatory approvals.

“This acquisition is deeply aligned with Ascension’s Mission to provide compassionate, personalized care to all, especially those most in need,” Ascension CEO Joe Impicciche said in a news release. “It reflects our steadfast commitment to expanding access to care in a way that is more affordable, more local, and more centered around the dignity and well-being of those we serve.”

6. The health system has not disclosed nor confirmed the purchase price. 

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-transactions-and-valuation/ascension-to-add-250-ascs-with-amsurg-acquisition/

'How Cleveland Clinic is expanding virtual 2nd opinions'

 The Clinic by Cleveland Clinic has been providing virtual second opinions to tens of thousands of patients a year — and is expanding.

The Clinic, a joint venture between Cleveland Clinic and telehealth company Amwell, recently grew its number of physician licensures around the country, allowing it to see more patients, and rolled out concierge cancer care.

“Tens of thousands of people make better medical decisions thanks to our second-opinion program,” Frank McGillin, CEO of The Clinic by Cleveland Clinic, told Becker’s. “We’ve found that two-thirds of the time we’re helping identify an alternative treatment pathway for the individual, and we’ve been able to support and help health plans and employers reduce the cost of unnecessary surgery or unnecessary care.”

The Clinic by Cleveland Clinic recently partnered with credentialing company Baton Health to grow its provider licenses to more than 10,000, spanning the entire country. The Clinic also launched a cancer concierge program to offer virtual consults with oncology subspecialists as well as cancer care navigation.

“We’re able to take advantage of the multidisciplinary approach that Cleveland Clinic takes to cancer. We’re able to access tumor boards to ensure you’re not just being looked at, for example, by a medical oncologist, but your case is being looked at by medical-surgical as well as a radiation oncologist to make sure it’s a very holistic approach to your care pathway,” Mr. McGillin said. “Research recently has shown that cancer is one of the fastest-growing cost burdens for employers. And over half the counties in the U.S. don’t have an oncologist available. So we were looking to really help fill that gap with this new program.”

The Clinic debuted in 2020 to offer virtual second opinions from Cleveland Clinic’s roughly 3,500 specialists to patients anywhere in the U.S. If the provider is licensed in the patient’s state, he or she can provide a video visit and treatment plan; otherwise, he or she can deliver a written report in collaboration with a local physician.

“One of the important goals of Cleveland Clinic is to increase the number of lives touched,” Mr. McGillin said. “And through this program, we’re able to provide access to Cleveland Clinic expertise to people around the globe. We’re helping patients in all 50 states, as well as significant international volumes.”

Patients can access the program either through an employer health plan or the self-pay rate of just under $2,000. The Clinic estimates it saves about $8,700 per patient by getting them on the right treatment plan.

“We’ve been able to really innovate in terms of how we deliver the second opinion to dramatically reduce the time from initiation to delivery,” Mr. McGillin said. “A few days after we get medical records, we’re able to deliver that second opinion. For a patient, that’s a critical time when they really are dealing with a lot of stress and looking to move forward.”

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/healthcare-information-technology/telehealth/how-cleveland-clinic-is-expanding-virtual-second-opinions/

Senate bill aims to rebuild drug manufacturing infrastructure

 A bipartisan group of U.S. senators has reintroduced a bill designed to address ongoing shortages of generic drugs by expanding domestic stockpiles and manufacturing capacity. 

Here are three notes: 

1. The Rolling Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient and Drug Reserve Act, reintroduced by Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Ted Budd, R-N.C., would require HHS to award contracts to manufacturers in the U.S. or allies to maintain stockpiles of essential medications and ingredients, according to a June 12 news release from Mr. Peters’ office. 
   

2. A 2023 report cited in the release showed that at least 15 medications remained in shortage for more than a decade, with many generics being low-cost but complex to manufacture. 
   

3. In addition to expanding the federal drug stockpile, the senators also requested the Government Accountability Office investigate unused domestic manufacturing and federal efforts to scale up advanced production. 

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/supply-chain/senate-bill-aims-to-rebuild-drug-manufacturing-infrastructure-3-notes/

Vistagen Social Anxiety Treatment Phase 3 Trial Results Coming Q4 2025

Vistagen (Nasdaq: VTGN), a late clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company pioneering neuroscience with nose-to-brain neurocircuitry to develop and commercialize a new class of intranasal product candidates called pherines, today provides an update on the timeline for the ongoing clinical trials in its U.S. registration-directed PALISADE Phase 3 Program evaluating fasedienol for acute treatment of social anxiety disorder (SAD). The Company’s PALISADE-3 Phase 3 clinical trial remains on track for expected topline data in the fourth quarter of this year. Topline results for its PALISADE-4 Phase 3 clinical trial are expected in the first half of 2026.

https://www.stocktitan.net/news/VTGN/vistagen-on-track-to-deliver-topline-data-from-fasedienol-palisade-3-6r9vbji5v7h9.html

Media Cheers a Monarch, Mocks a President

 On June 14, two very different parades took place on opposite sides of the Atlantic. In London, thousands gathered Saturday for the Trooping the Colour, also known as the King’s Birthday Parade. Although King Charles III will not turn 77 until Nov. 14, the royal family traveled through central London by carriage, flanked by military bands, horseback soldiers, and a cheering crowd.

Meanwhile, in Washington, D.C., another parade unfolded: President Donald Trump’s 250th Anniversary of the U.S. Grand Military Parade and Celebration. Like the British ceremony, it was staged with grandeur and symbolism. There were troops, flags, and patriotic fanfare — and it happened to coincide with Trump’s 79th birthday and Flag Day.

The juxtaposition couldn’t have been more striking: a king and a populist, each leading the nation in a moment of public ritual. But only one parade was hailed by the media as dignified tradition; the other was condemned as egotistical pageantry. 

A Crown for Them, Contempt for Us

Nowhere was the contrast more glaring than in the American response to Trump’s parade. Hours before the evening event, thousands of “No Kings” protesters clogged the streets of major cities, small towns, and countries beyond our borders, including Canada and Mexico. Funded by dark money NGOs like Indivisible, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and 50501, the movement showed not just a coordinated resistance to Trump himself, but a broader hostility to the very idea of American exceptionalism. What was advertised as a protest against “authoritarianism” quickly revealed itself to be a rejection of patriotism, military honor, and the founding ideals that built this nation.

Contrast this with the media’s glowing coverage of the British monarchy — a literal blood-based ruling class — and the hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore. When King Charles dons his crown and rides in a fancy carriage, CBS News headlines photos of Princess Kate and celebrates the royal family’s commemoration of Air India plane crash victims.

When Trump shines his birthday spotlight on America’s defenders, the same outlet headlines how “rare” such displays are in the U.S. while running multiple articles providing readers city-specific “what to know” guides for “No Kings” demonstrations in Michigan, New York City, Northern California, Los Angeles, and Texas. CBS News, which is still facing a lawsuit from President Trump over the network’s edited 60 Minutes interview clip of Kamala Harris, even promoted “No Kings” day merch in a story published Friday.

The media reduced the U.S. celebration to three words: “Trump’s military parade.” That shorthand, adopted by outlets like CNN, NBC News, and the New York Times, wasn’t unbiased reporting. It was a loaded dismissal, meant to frame the event as a self-aggrandizing, militaristic, and vaguely un-American spectacle. Stripped of context, the propaganda press made America’s parade sound like something out of North Korea instead of a patriotic tribute that transcended party lines and marked 250 years of constitutional liberty.

British papers weren’t any better. The BBC’s preemptive reporting attached the “No Kings” protest to its headline about “Trump’s military parade,” featuring an image of a woman running past a large tank in D.C. — an obvious attempt to evoke Tiananmen Square, not the National Mall. Meanwhile, in its coverage of the Trooping the Colour, the same BBC’s story said King Charles III was “cheered by crowds” celebrating the monarch’s official birthday. And while the Guardian ran a piece tracing the U.S. parade “from Mesopotamia to MAGA,” its coverage of the King’s parade was out of sight.

They Don’t Hate Kings — They Just Hate America

Let’s be honest: Democrats and their media allies don’t actually hate kings. They just hate leaders who govern with the consent of the governed, especially if those voters are from the heartland, flyover states, or wear a uniform. Trump’s parade didn’t bother them because it looked regal. It bothered them because it was proud. It refused to apologize for America’s strength, for its history, or for the men and women who still believe this country is worth defending.

Ironically, the people waving “No Kings” signs are the very ones most eager to be ruled by elite, unelected institutions: international bodies, activist judges, and administrative state agencies. They claim to hate tyranny, but they’re perfectly content being governed by “experts” they never voted for, just so long as those “experts” hate the same people they do

In reality, it’s not the monarchy they oppose — it’s independence. Trump’s parade celebrated 250 years of defiance, of choosing self-rule over hereditary power. The Trooping the Colour celebrated a family lineage. One looked to the Constitution; the other to a crown.

Two Parades. One Choice.

So yes, there were two parades on June 14. One celebrated the symbolism of hierarchy. The other celebrated the spirit of a republic — messy, loud, proud, and free. And only one of them sent the media into a meltdown.

Let them praise the King. We’ll keep the Constitution.

Julianna Frieman is a writer based in North Carolina. She got her bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She is pursuing her master’s degree in Communications (Digital Strategy) at the University of Florida. Her work has been published by the Daily Caller, The American Spectator, and The Federalist.

https://spectator.org/two-parades-one-king-cheer-monarch-mock-president/