GOP WANTS FAUCI’S PERSONAL EMAILS — Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), chair of the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, on Wednesday asked Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s former top infectious disease official, for his personal emails and phone records containing communication about Covid-19’s origin and other related matters, Carmen reports. Why it matters: The request is an escalation of Fauci scrutiny ahead of his appearance before the panel Monday in what’s expected to be a testy hearing. Fauci’s public testimony is part of the subcommittee’s investigation into the origins of Covid-19 and the federal government’s response to the pandemic. Background: It comes after Dr. David Morens, a former Fauci aide, testified last week that he may have sent information on government business to Fauci’s personal email address. “I can either send stuff to Tony on his private gmail, or hand it to him at work or at his house,” Morens wrote in an April 2021 email made public before his hearing. “He is too smart to let colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble,” the email read. Fauci told POLITICO he always complies with the subcommittee’s request. PRIOR AUTHORIZATION UNDER THE MICROSCOPE — The Government Accountability Office is calling for more scrutiny of the prior authorization decisions that Medicaid managed care plans make for kids. In a report requested by Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, released Wednesday, the watchdog found scant state oversight of plans’ prior authorization decisions. It found that none of the states sampled scrutinized a representative sample of claim denials or leaned on data to determine “the appropriateness of the full scope of plans’ prior authorization decisions.” The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services conducts oversight by making sure states evaluate plans’ prior authorization policies, but the GAO said the agency must go further. “Without efforts to help ensure that plans’ prior authorization decisions are appropriate and that requirements are clear, plans may deny children access to medically necessary … services,” the watchdog wrote. Pallone said the report “underscores the need for heightened oversight” and will inform his prior authorization investigation with Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Recommendations: The GAO called on CMS to offer written expectations for state monitoring and to “clearly define” when plans can mandate prior authorization for screening, diagnostic and treatment services when the state doesn’t require such review. The response: The report said HHS “partially concurred” with the recommendations. It said it’s collecting information on states’ prior authorization denial review and plans to use it to determine whether more oversight is needed, according to the GAO. HHS also agreed that more clarity is needed on prior authorization for screening, diagnostic and treatment services. FDA FUNDING PROSPECTS — Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), chair of the House Appropriations Agriculture-FDA funding panel, told POLITICO’s Jennifer Scholtes and Caitlin Emma that passing his fiscal 2025 measure this summer is possible but not certain. “It’ll pass out of subcommittee and committee easily. When it goes to the floor, I suspect it might,” Harris said, noting that last year’s bill had a “much, much lower” overall total. “And obviously that was too low. But that’s not going to be a problem this year.” Last summer, a proposed rider that would ban the mail delivery of abortion pills snarled House GOP funding ambitions. Harris said not to assume that a push for a ban would be revived this year. That’s a win for moderate Republicans, who have pushed leadership to avoid controversial policy riders. “The appropriations committee knows a good number of us have concerns. We’re hopeful that they can consider that as they draft,” Rep. Marc Molinaro (R-N.Y.) said, noting that his stance hasn’t changed since last year on partisan restrictions like anti-abortion riders in the Labor-HHS-Education bill and others. Still, it doesn’t mean that appropriators will forgo all controversial earmarks.
| 
