Search This Blog

Friday, November 1, 2024

"Fraudulent" Mail Ballot Request Forms Found In Another Pennsylvania County, DA Says

 by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Officials in Pennsylvania’s Monroe County announced this week that they discovered mail ballot request forms in the county that were found to be fraudulent.

Monroe County District Attorney Mike Mancuso wrote on social media that after a regular review of mail-in ballot requests and voter registration request forms, the Monroe County Board of Elections found “approximately 30 irregular forms,” which were then segregated.

“Several of the Voter Registration Applications and Mail in Ballot Request forms have been found to be fraudulent as they were not authorized by the persons named as applicants,” he said on Tuesday, noting that the named applicant in one instance “is in fact deceased.”

The fraudulent registration forms were traced to a specific individual and a company, Field and Media Corps, an Arizona-based organization and subsidiary of Fieldcorps working out of Pennsylvania’s Lancaster County.

The company “in turn was responsible for submitting the forms in question to county officials,” the district attorney’s office said.

“The broader investigation continues with reference to Fieldcorp’s involvement. Our office is in regular contact and working with investigators from the Attorney General’s Office as well as others.”

The company is a consulting firm that specializes in media and field work for its clients, its website shows. It also helps with voter registration drives, phone banking, and text campaigns, it adds.

Officials in Pennsylvania have said that Field and Media Corps, also called Field+Media Corps, was linked to voter registration forms and mail ballot applications that are being investigated in York and Lancaster counties.

Field and Media Corps has also been linked to voter registration forms and mail-in ballot applications that are being looked at by York County officials, according to a report by Harrisburg TV station FOX43.

The Epoch Times contacted Field and Media Corps for comment on Thursday but received no response by publication time.

The company released a statement to a local news outlet, the Allentown Morning Call, that it attempted to contact York County and will speak to officials in Monroe County.

“We are proud of our work to help expand access to voting through our nonpartisan voter registration program. We have not been contacted by election officials in PA counties and we have no additional information on the alleged problematic registration forms,” the company said in a statement.

“We would hope that if Field+Media Corps were the subject of any active investigation, that we would be proactively contacted by the appropriate officials. If we are contacted, we will work with local officials to help resolve any discrepancies to allow eligible people to vote.”

For the 2024 election, Pennsylvania is considered a key battleground state that could determine who wins the presidential contest between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. It is one of the most closely observed states and was the subject of considerable litigation in the 2020 election.

New Legal Challenges

The Pennsylvania Democratic Party submitted a lawsuit on Wednesday in Pennsylvania’s Erie County arguing that a number of voters have not received a mail-in ballot ahead of the Nov. 5 election.

In their lawsuit, Democrats alleged that between 10,000 and 20,000 voters who requested the mail ballots “have not received or submitted such ballots” to date and that the return rate for mail ballots in the county is 15 percentage points below Pennsylvania’s mail-ballot average.

Some 552 voters, the lawsuit also alleged, contacted a hotline that was set up by the Democratic Party in Erie County because they received “an incorrect mail-in ballot or have yet to receive any mail-in ballot whatsoever.”

Erie County’s election board released a statement on Tuesday saying it was aware of the issue and that voters haven’t received mail-in ballots after they requested them. But the board did not disclose why the mail ballots weren’t sent out.

“The Board has been working diligently with the Voter Registration Department, the Pennsylvania Department of State, and the United States Post Office to determine the origin and scope of this matter,” the statement said.

A judge this week sided with Trump’s campaign and Republicans by agreeing to extend the in-person voting option in Bucks County, a suburb of Philadelphia that saw long lines this week at early polling sites.

Judge Jeffrey Trauger wrote in a one-page order that Bucks County voters who want to apply for an early mail ballot now have until Friday, Nov. 1.

The lawsuit sought a one-day extension, through Wednesday at 5 p.m., for Bucks County voters to apply in person for a mail-in ballot, a method referred to as on-demand mail voting in Pennsylvania. The judge’s order permits applications through the close of business on Friday.

“Today’s ruling really is kind of a victory for making sure Pennsylvanians are going to have a secure and orderly process,” said Bill McGinley, an attorney for the Republican National Committee and Trump campaign.

Pennsylvania does not allow early voting on voting machines in polling places, as some states do. A RealClearPolitics aggregate of recent polls shows Trump with a 0.7 percent lead over Harris in the state, which has 19 electoral votes.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fraudulent-mail-ballot-request-forms-found-another-pennsylvania-county-district-attorney

Texas Hospitals Must Now Ask Patients Whether They Are in the U.S. Legally

 Texas hospitals must ask patients starting Friday whether they are in the U.S. legally

opens in a new tab or window and track the cost of treating people without legal status following an order by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott that expands the state's clash with the Biden administration over immigration.

Critics fear the change could scare people away from hospitals in Texas, even though patients are not required to answer the questions to receive medical care. The mandate is similar to a policy that debuted last year in Floridaopens in a new tab or window, where Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is also a frequent critic of the federal government's handling of illegal crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Texas hospitals have spent months preparing for the change and have sought to reassure patients that it won't affect their level of care.

Here's what to know:

Required to Ask, Not Required to Answer

Under the executive order announced by Abbott in August, hospitals must ask patients if they are citizens in the U.S. and whether they are lawfully present in the country.

Patients have the right to withhold the information and hospital workers must tell them their responses will not affect their care, as required by federal law.

Tracking Hospital Costs and Patient Data

Hospitals are not required to begin submitting reports to the state until March. An early draft of a spreadsheet made by state health officials to track data does not include fields to submit patient names or personal information.

Providers will fill out a breakdown of visits by inpatient and emergency care patients and document whether they are lawfully present in the country, citizens, or not lawfully present in the U.S.

The reports will also add up costs for those covered by Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program, known as CHIP, and the cost for patients without it.

"Texans should not have to shoulder the burden of financially supporting medical care for illegal immigrants," Abbott said when he announced the policy.

Texas Is Following Florida's Lead

Florida enacted a similar law last year. Healthcare advocates contend the law has made immigrants who need emergency medical care fearful and led to fewer people seeking help, even from facilities not subject to the law.

Florida's early data are -- by the state's own admission -- limited. The data are self-reported. Anyone can decline to answer, an option chosen by nearly 8% of people admitted to the hospital and about 7% of people who went to the emergency room from June to December 2023, according to Florida's state report. Fewer than 1% of people who went to the emergency room or were admitted to the hospital reported being in the U.S. "illegally."

Texas Hospitals Have Been Preparing

Immigrant and healthcare advocates have sought to educate the Texas public about their rights. In Florida, groups used text messages, posters, and emails to get the word out. But advocates there have said they didn't see fears subside for about a year.

Healthcare providers received directives from the state and guidance from the Texas Hospital Association.

"The bottom line for patients is that this doesn't change hospital care. Texas hospitals continue to be a safe place for needed care," said Carrie Williams, spokesperson for the hospital association.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/healthpolicy/112697

NCCS State of Cancer Survivorship

 The 2024 State of Survivorship report from the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship (NCCS) offers detailed insights into the experiences of cancer patients, survivors, and caregivers in the U.S., based on national surveys conducted between August and September 2024. With over 2,100 participants, including patients, caregivers, and an oversample of younger patients (aged 18-39), this report examines key areas such as treatment decisionmaking, post-treatment care, clinical trial participation, side effects, and financial burdens.

TREATMENT DECISION-MAKING 

Patient and Caregiver Roles: Most cancer patients continue to rely on their doctors to choose the best treatment options for them, with 53% of patients deferring to their doctors. While overall, 27% of patients were actively involved in researching and deciding on treatment, some demographic groups report being very involved. Almost half of both younger and Hispanic patients report they were very involved in their treatment decisions. 

Self-Advocacy: One-third of patients felt the need to advocate for themselves to receive the best treatment and care, particularly among Black patients (59%), younger patients (56%) and Hispanic patients (48%). These groups are less likely to rely solely on their doctors’ recommendation. 

Second Opinions: Only 29% of patients sought a second opinion during their cancer care. Younger patients (47%), Hispanic patients (43%), and LGBTQ+ patients (42%) were more likely to do so. Among those who did not seek a second opinion, the overwhelming reason is trust in their health care team (82%), followed by not wanting to wait to start treatment (26%).

CLINICAL TRIAL PARTICIPATION 

Participation Rates and Barriers: Participation in clinical trials remains consistent, with key drivers being the doctor’s recommendation (51%), wanting to contribute to science (41%), and the prospect of access to new treatments (28%). Among patients who did not participate in clinical trials, 74% of patients said that they were not asked, which is the largest barrier. 

Reasons for Not Participating: Patients also cited concerns about side effects, treatment protocols, and location as secondary barriers, with these concerns being more prominent among younger patients and patients of color.

POST-TREATMENT CARE AND SURVIVORSHIP PLANS 

Post-Treatment Care: Two-thirds of patients who are within five years of completing treatment report receiving post-treatment care. At the same time, majorities of those who are over 5 years out are not receiving post-treatment care, with most saying their doctor told them it was no longer needed. 

Oncologists vs. PCP for Post-Treatment Care: Most survivors see an oncologist (54%) or other specialist (26%) for post-treatment care. The share of patients seeing a primary care physician (PCP) for post-treatment care has dropped significantly in recent years, with only 19% reporting they are currently seeing a PCP, though 38% indicated they would consider it. Some have concerns about PCP’s knowledge and ability to detect a recurrence. 

Survivorship Plans: Less than half of the patients who completed treatment received a survivorship care plan. Among those who received a plan, most indicated it was provided through a verbal discussion (63%) or as a hard copy (63%). However, many patients desire more detailed information in their plans, including side effects and future screenings. 

FINANCIAL IMPACTS OF CANCER 

Financial Burdens: Over 40% of patients reported being financially impacted by their cancer diagnosis, with caregivers (69%), Black (55%), Hispanic (68%), people with Stage IV cancer (62%) and LGBTQ+ patients (69%) disproportionately affected. By far the most burdened by financial concerns are young adults, 90% of whom report at least one financial impact. These patients were more likely to have borrowed money, delayed significant life events, or applied for government assistance to cover costs.

Prescription Costs: On average, patients spent $935 out-of-pocket on prescription drugs in the past year. Younger patients reported higher out-of-pocket costs at $2,482, and over 70% of younger patients expressed interest in a monthly payment plan to spread the cost of their prescription medications.

SIDE EFFECTS AND QUALITY OF LIFE 

Most Common Side Effects:

 Fatigue remains the most reported side effect (46%), followed by fear of recurrence (42%) and pain (37%). Mental health issues such as depression and anxiety are also prevalent, particularly among younger patients (57%), with nearly half (47%) of LGBTQ+ patients reporting mental health challenges during treatment.

 Symptom Management: Despite 92% of patients reporting at least one side effect, the vast majority did not discontinue treatment because of them. Still, managing the impact of side effects on quality of life remains a significant concern. 

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK IMPACT 

Employment Challenges: Over half of the patients surveyed (51%) continued working during their treatment, with nearly a third indicating they felt they had no choice but to do so. This pressure was especially high among younger patients, 48% of whom felt obligated to keep working during their treatment. 

Work Productivity: The cancer diagnosis significantly affected the productivity of both patients and caregivers. More than two-thirds of younger patients (67%) said their work or school productivity was “largely” or “completely” impacted. Patients reported missing an average of 21 hours per week of work, and caregivers missed an average of 15 hours per week.

NCCS represents more than 18 million Americans who share the survivorship experience – living with, through, and beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our 2024 State of Survivorship Survey shows us where there are gaps in care and support, resulting in unequal outcomes for cancer survivors. Our work has never been more urgent. This survey was supported by Pfizer, Stupid Cancer, Genmab, The Anna Fuller Foundation, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Eisai, Kite a Gilead Company, and PhRMA.

https://canceradvocacy.org/wp-content/uploads/NCCS-2024-State-of-Survivorship-Executive-Summary.pdf


'Why Some Prostate Cancers Shouldn’t Be Called ‘Cancer’'

 Men could benefit from fewer unnecessary treatments and reduced anxiety if their doctors stopped calling certain changes in the prostate “cancer,” according to prominent UC San Francisco prostate cancer expert Matthew Cooperberg, MD, MPH. In fact, the changes are a low-grade, extremely common condition among older men that won’t metastasize or kill, but should be actively monitored, he says.

Cooperberg, who has won awards for his contributions to the field, helped launch a national registry for patients with prostate cancer and other urologic diseases. He is a prostate cancer specialist and surgeon, and part of the urologic oncology team at the UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center.

He explains the reasoning behind the change and the importance of monitoring low-grade disease.

Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among men in the U.S., but you and other national experts believe that some instances should not be classified as cancer at all. Why?

That’s right. Low-grade prostate cancer, called grade group 1, or GG1, never spreads or kills. But GG1 isn’t normal and should be actively monitored. GG1 can co-exist with or evolve into “real” prostate cancer, but patients with pure GG1 should not be burdened with a cancer diagnosis that has zero capacity to harm them.

How could patients benefit?

There are a host of social, psychological and financial implications. Patients would benefit from less stress and anxiety, and excessive treatment rates would drop. Also, hopefully, they would no longer be denied or overcharged for life and health insurance policies. This would all lead to a public health improvement.

What should early-stage prostate cancer be called instead?

There have been multiple alternatives proposed over the years. The alternative that seems to have the most traction among clinicians and pathologists is “acinar neoplasm,” which describes GG1 as an abnormal growth visible under the microscope, but not one with the potential to spread or kill.

A microscopic image showing small levels of carcinoma in prostate tissue.

This is low grade (GG1) prostate cancer – this cancer has low risk of metastasizing.

A microscopic image showing higher levels of carcinoma in prostate tissue.

This is high grade (GG4) carcinoma which has spread to soft tissue.

Images by UCSF

 

Would some patients still prefer aggressive treatment by thinking they are “doing something?”

This phenomenon – treatment without strong clinical indication, based on anxiety – definitely does happen but is becoming less common, and, principally, represents a failure of counseling. It is our job to help patients understand that low-risk prostate cancers often do not progress. If they do, it’s usually slowly, over many years and, in most cases, can be picked up by active monitoring well within the window of opportunity for cure.

Do you have any worries about changing the name?

A subset of GG1s will progress over time to potentially lethal cancer, so active monitoring with blood tests, imaging and biopsies is essential. One concern is that patients may not take seriously the need to monitor the progression of the condition if their doctor doesn’t use the word “cancer” in explaining the diagnosis. But this is only a theoretical concern, and colleagues and I were recently awarded a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) specifically to address this concern with diverse patients across California.

Has active monitoring made strides in recent years?

A dozen years ago, active monitoring was still largely an academic enterprise, used in only 10% to 20% of low-risk cases; the rest were treated immediately. Today active monitoring is endorsed as the preferred management for low-risk prostate cancer by all major guidelines, and monitoring rates have risen past 60%. This figure is still too low, but we’re making rapid progress. We are also starting to personalize active monitoring protocols, tailoring intensity based on clinical criteria and are avoiding repeat biopsies in particular when safe to do so. However, there is still major variation in the adoption of monitoring crossing urology practices and individual urologists.

How far have we come in understanding prostate cancer?

We used the word “cancer” literally for millennia to describe a disease characterized by inexorable spread and lethality. In the modern era, the term describes a huge spectrum of abnormal growth patterns among cells in different parts of the body. Some are rapidly lethal, and others completely indolent, and this huge heterogeneity exists within the spectrum of prostate cancers as well. We’ve made huge progress in understanding prostate cancer’s typical progression in people. We’ve grown quite accurate in being able to determine when it is aggressive and when not, and can improve this accuracy even more with emerging genomic and other tests.

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2024/10/428666/why-some-prostate-cancers-shouldnt-be-called-cancer

'What Will CDC, FDA, and CMS Look Like After the Election?'

 What will the health agency landscape look like if former President Donald Trump is elected on Tuesday, and what about if Vice President Kamala Harris is the winner? MedPage Today asked several health experts for their opinions.

CDC

Under a possible Trump administration, "I think the biggest risk is that CDC will be weaker, and if CDC is weaker, that means we are less safe, [and] we are less healthy," Tom Frieden, MD, president and CEO of Resolve to Save Lives, a global health organization focused on addressing heart disease and epidemics, told MedPage Today. Frieden served as CDC director from 2009 to 2017.

A number of conservatives, from current lawmakers to former officials, have argued that many of the CDC's programs are duplicative and out of step with the agency's core mission. They say the agency should focus solely on infectious diseases.

On Oct. 17, Scott Gottlieb, MD, a former FDA commissioner under President Trump from 2017 to 2019, penned an editorial in JAMA Health Forumopens in a new tab or window supporting the idea of rethinking the CDC's responsibilities.

Gottlieb argued that many of the CDC's activities duplicate or overlap with those of other agencies -- for example, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's work on addressing opioid use and overdose trends.

"Allowing certain activities to be transferred to other agencies in exchange for a strengthened infectious disease control budget could set the stage for a revitalization of CDC," Gottlieb wrote, calling this a "political compromise," which he suggested would "create a stronger, more coordinated framework for public health."

Other former Trump officials, including Joseph Grogan, JD, nonresident senior scholar for the USC Schaeffer Center in Los Angeles, and an assistant to Trump and director of the Domestic Policy Council during his first term, have also suggested that the agency needs an overhaul.

In an interview during a summit hosted by STATopens in a new tab or window in mid-October, Grogan said, "CDC is spending a whole bunch of money and distracted in areas where it's not their core mission. I mean, they should be focused on fighting infectious and communicable diseases. They are far too bogged down in chronic disease."

Frieden and seven former CDC directors published an editorial in STATopens in a new tab or window in September, arguing that drastically cutting the agency's budget would be a "prescription for disaster." In an interview with MedPage Today, Frieden said the claim that the CDC's core mission is to focus on infectious diseases is a "harmful" misconception. "I think Gottlieb is saying, 'Just deal with infectious diseases and don't bother your little head with all these other problems.' Well, that means not addressing the leading causes of illness, injury, disability, and death in the U.S."

"The CDC's mission is healthier, safer people, and that means dealing with injury. That means dealing with data on road safety ... That means dealing with opiates. If Congress allows, that means dealing with how can we improve gun safety," Frieden added.

Georges Benjamin, MD, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said he believes that the talk of moving chronic disease programs out of the CDC belies an ulterior motive "to cripple the agency. Chronic diseases are the leading causes of death and disability in this country, right? And we know that health promotion and disease prevention can go a long way to reducing the morbidity and mortality" from those diseases, he said in an interview.

"But if you look at how CDC is funded for chronic diseases, it's totally inadequately funded," he noted. The Biden administration, for example, has tried for several years to allocate funding to the CDC for a "Vaccines for Adults" program to pay for vaccines for uninsured and low-income adults, but has gotten nowhere.

In general, said Benjamin, "the Trump administration looks at the health system [with the idea that] government should be minimally involved in the system and that the market will take care of it. The Harris administration has a view that healthcare is a market failure and requires more regulation and more engagement in order to control it."

"I hope that both administrations promote people in those jobs that are well-trained, competent, and experts in their fields," he added. "That means you want an [HHS] secretary with a health background that's run big systems. You want a CDC director who is skilled in public health, broader than just infectious diseases. I would prefer to see someone who's actually worked at a state or local health department and knows how to make trains run."

One person that the Trump campaign has said will be involved in healthcare policy in some capacity if Trump wins is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.opens in a new tab or window, who recently debuted his Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) agendaopens in a new tab or window, calling for a renewed focus on chronic diseases, improving life expectancy, and eliminating ultra-processed foods.

In a videoopens in a new tab or window for the MAHA initiative, Kennedy said his "big priority will be to clean up the public health agencies like CDC, NIH, FDA, and U.S. Department of Agriculture."

"Those agencies have become sock puppets for the industries they're supposed to regulate," he added.

Frieden noted that in a Wall Street Journal editorialopens in a new tab or window, Kennedy "didn't say it explicitly, but the implication was that it's a bad thing that 30% of people in this country are on treatment for a chronic disease. I think you can say, in an ideal world, we would all be perfectly healthy without medicines, but to suggest that medicine is bad and a symptom of failure is dangerous," he said.

For example, with hypertension, "the problem isn't that too many people are treated, it's that too few people are treated ... Only about half of people with high blood pressure in the U.S. have it under control. That's a stunning indictment ... of the lack of primary healthcare in our healthcare system, and the result of it is a lot of heart attacks, a lot of strokes, a lot of kidney failure, a lot of dementia that was preventable. And the treatment is all generic and low cost. So I worry when there's this idea of 'medicine bad, natural good,'" Frieden said.

FDA

The FDA under a Harris administration is not likely to undergo many changes, according to Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a conservative think tank. "I view her as very much a status quo candidate ... She will take the path of least resistance."

Trump, on the other hand, "has not been the biggest advocate for pharmaceutical manufacturers," Holtz-Eakin, who served as director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2003 to 2005, said in a phone interview. "I'd expect much tougher use of the existing FDA," including more after-market surveillance of new products and more scrutiny of drug approvals, "and not letting things skate by with emergency use authorizations."

Although the Biden administration has minimized the role of FDA's advisory committees, "I think a Trump regime would flip that," he said, instead adopting a philosophy of "let's have strong authority of outside committees and have the authority to stop things they think are inappropriate." Holtz-Eakin also predicted hikes in the user fees that drug companies are required to pay FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA): "I think they would be happy to extract more money."

Although Project 2025 -- a proposed blueprint for a Trump administration written by former Trump associates -- has suggested a major overhaul for FDA, Holtz-Eakin seemed skeptical. "Is that real? It's hard for me to tell," he said, noting that Trump has "kept at arm's length" from Project 2025. But he added that it was likely Trump would take action in another area: negotiating lower prescription drug prices.

Although classic Republican philosophy argues for fewer restrictions on businesses, including drug companies, "this administration is not a classic Republican one," Holtz-Eakin said. "This is a man who [lobbied for an] international [drug] price index and went for all these things that essentially looked a lot like the Biden regime." And Trump could use CMS' new drug price negotiation program "for whatever he wanted to get ... if I'm pharma, that would make my blood run cold."

CMS

When it comes to CMS, although there are a few issues where Trump's and Harris' approaches would be different, "for some of the most important issues like drug pricing and Medicare Advantage, it's really difficult to discern how the two campaigns would be different," said Paul Ginsburg, PhD, former vice chair of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) and now a professor of health policy at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles.

One of the areas of difference will likely be the Affordable Care Act (ACA) -- specifically with regard to the continuation of enhanced subsidies for low-income enrollees, said Ginsburg, who is also a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Although the Biden administration extended the subsidies, "the Republicans are not in favor of that and won't be in favor of that," he said, adding that it's possible some deals will be made depending on which party wins the presidential and congressional elections.

The other big issue is Medicaid, Ginsburg continued. "Traditionally, Republicans talk about block granting; I wouldn't be surprised if there would be some attempt to do that," he said. Block grants refer to the idea of allocating lump-sum payments to states to spend on Medicaid as they see fit, within broad guidelines. "The Democrats would never propose that type of approach and will certainly be against it."

Matthew Fiedler, PhD, a senior fellow with the Center on Health Policy at the Brookings Institution, said any changes to the ACA and Medicaid would depend heavily on the balance of power in Congress. As for whole-cloth repeal, nothing "branded as ACA repeal" would be introduced, Fiedler said; however, proposals mirroring past repeal efforts that reduce the generosity of ACA marketplace plans or the generosity of the Medicaid program, including per-capita caps or block grants, could be put forward.

On a separate issue, a possible Trump administration would be likely to once again support state work requirement waivers. Such waivers were previously blocked by the courtsopens in a new tab or window, but the Supreme Court never issued a final decision on the matter, he noted. Were a Trump administration to try again, one might "see the litigation unfold differently."

As for insurance regulation, the Trump administration "substantially liberalized rules" related to short-term limited-duration coverage with regard to how long plans can last and the terms under which they can be sold, Fiedler said. The Biden administration, which referred to the plans as "junk insurance plans" tightened requirementsopens in a new tab or window, but Fiedler expects the Trump administration to reverse those actions.

Asked about a possible repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act -- a law that, for the first time, allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices -- Fiedler said while many Republican lawmakers are hostile to price negotiation, the Trump administration's own record is "confusing."

During Trump's first term, he put forward his "most favored nations" model,opens in a new tab or window a proposal that tied U.S. drug prices to those of other advanced industrialized countries. That proposal, had it been implemented, would have substantially lowered drug prices, Fiedler said. But the law was enacted "in a way that it was almost certain to be blocked in court," he added, in a move that he believes is reflective of disagreement within the administration.

Marsha Simon, PhD, an expert in legislative strategy and an independent drug industry analyst in Washington, D.C., took a different view. She argued that "in terms of taking on the drug manufacturers, [Trump] went much further than any Democratic administration," pointing to his attempt to implement re-importation of drugs from other countries and his "most favored nations" proposal.

Recently, the Trump administration backed off its support for the previously sought-after drug pricing plan, STAT reportedopens in a new tab or window, but Simon said she is still hearing rumors it could make a comeback.

One other area where the Trump administration took the lead is in hospital price transparency and in transparency of reimbursement rates by commercial health plans, Simon said. "And every indication suggests that they'll lean in on that" again, she added.

Disclosure: Former CDC Director Tom Frieden is a cousin of Joyce Frieden, one of the authors, but she did not interview him for this story. The interview was done by co-author Shannon Firth.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/washington-watch/electioncoverage/112715

Staffing Firm Can't Pay Its Doctors

 Staffing firm NES Health told emergency physicians that it doesn't have enough money to pay them this month, sources told MedPage Today.

The company sent an email from CEO Jose Aguirre, MDopens in a new tab or window, to emergency physicians explaining that due to "necessary operational transitions," the company experienced a "temporary shortfall in monthly revenue."

It intended to bridge the shortfall with a loan, but that loan "did not come through in time for payroll."

Instead, NES Health said it would make weekly partial payroll payments "until regularly scheduled payrolls can resume," and it promised that "everyone will be paid and be made whole."

Emergency physicians interviewed by MedPage Today -- who asked to remain anonymous -- said they were concerned about the potential for deeper financial instability at the company.

"I'm worried that one day they will say, 'Sorry, it's over, best of luck,'" said one emergency physician, who noted that it seemed like the company may have been rejected from receiving the loan.

The doctor was also concerned that the company didn't specify how long it would take to pay the money owed.

"How much do I lose?" the physician asked, noting that should they walk away right now, they would be out only 2 months' salary. Doctors are paid at the end of the month for the previous month's work -- so the October pay date would compensate doctors for hours worked in September, the physician explained. "Next month I could be even further in the hole."

Robert McNamara, MD, chair of emergency medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia, said doctors are rightly concerned because it "seems like a replay of APP," or American Physician Partners, which filed for bankruptcy in 2023opens in a new tab or window -- not long after another physician staffing firm, Envision, had done the sameopens in a new tab or window.

The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) posted a statement to Instagramopens in a new tab or window noting that it is "aware of potential concerns regarding NES Health" and was "working to find out more details about how emergency physicians and their patients might be impacted."

An ACEP spokesperson did not return a request for further comment.

At least twoopens in a new tab or window Reddit threadsopens in a new tab or window discussed the inability of the company to pay its physicians.

NES Health staffs 35 emergency departments across the country, according to data from Ivy Cliniciansopens in a new tab or window. For comparison, the largest emergency medicine staffing companies, TeamHealth and U.S. Acute Care Solutions, staff 562 and 301 emergency departments in the nation, respectively.

While the exact ownership of NES Health is unclear, physicians have raised concerns about the impact of private equity firmsopens in a new tab or window becoming involved in ownership of physician staffing companies.

NES Health did not return a request for comment to MedPage Today as of press time.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/112710

Thousands of Britons 'permanently disabled' by AstraZeneca Covid jab could get payouts

 Covid vaccine compensation could be given to thousands left 'disabled' by the AstraZeneca jab, it has emerged.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting is understood to be considering plans to set up a programme for those suffering from life-changing conditions as a result of the Covid jab.

There are concerns that the existing government-funded Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme (VDPS) is struggling to cope with an overwhelming number of people claiming they are suffering side-effects from the injection.

Campaigners from the Vaccine Bereaved and Injured UK group argue the VDPS is no longer fit for purpose, and officials are thought to be looking at whether the scheme should be reformed or overhauled.

Some of the families represented by the group are involved in legal action against AstraZeneca, which admitted in court documents earlier this year that its Covid vaccine can 'in very rare cases' cause a side effect that leads to blood clots and a low platelet count.

The pharmaceutical company is being sued in a class action over claims that the jab, developed with Oxford University, caused death or serious injury in dozens of cases

The pharmaceutical company is being sued in a class action over claims that the jab, developed with Oxford University, caused death or serious injury in dozens of cases

Health Secretary Wes Streeting is understood to be considering plans to set up a programme for those suffering from life-changing conditions as a result of the Covid jab

Health Secretary Wes Streeting is understood to be considering plans to set up a programme for those suffering from life-changing conditions as a result of the Covid jab

The pharmaceutical company is being sued in a class action over claims that the jab, developed with Oxford University, caused death or serious injury in dozens of cases.

Shadow attorney general Sir Jeremy Wright attended a meeting with Wes Streeting and Andrew Gwynne, a health minister, along with campaigners last month.

He has another follow-up meeting with the health secretary scheduled in the coming weeks.

'The two options are reforming the VDPS and also setting up a bespoke compensation scheme,' he told the Sunday Telegraph.

'But it is not an option for the government to put its head in the sand and do nothing.

'If you are in the very small minority of those injured [by the Covid vaccine], those people have a right to expect the state to look after them properly - they were only doing what the state asked them to do.'

More than 15,000 people have applied for compensation from the VDPS for alleged harm caused by Covid vaccines, but only 188 have been told they are entitled to payout.

More than 15,000 people have applied for compensation from the VDPS for alleged harm caused by Covid vaccines

More than 15,000 people have applied for compensation from the VDPS for alleged harm caused by Covid vaccines

Researchers believe the rare side effect occurs due to the modified cold virus lurking in the jab having an adverse effect on platelets in the blood, triggering clotting

Researchers believe the rare side effect occurs due to the modified cold virus lurking in the jab having an adverse effect on platelets in the blood, triggering clotting

Figures show the majority of successful claims relate to the AstraZeneca jab with fewer than five in connection to Pfizer and Moderna.

Those awarded so far include for conditions such as stroke, heart attack, dangerous blood clots, inflammation of the spinal cord, excessive swelling of the vaccinated limb and facial paralysis.

The VDPS awards a one-off £120,000 tax-free payment to people who have been severely injured, and to the families of those who have died, as a result of vaccination against certain diseases including Covid.

In order to qualify, individuals have to be deemed 60 per cent disabled.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14008715/Compensation-thousands-disabled-AstraZeneca-Covid-jab-health-wes-streeting.html