Reading RFK Jr.’s tea leaves

The ideas and innovators shaping health care

Nov 22, 2024 View in browser   By Daniel Payne, Erin Schumaker, Carmen Paun and Ruth Reader WASHINGTON WATCH RFK Jr. hasn’t taken a public position on myriad health policy concerns. | AP Photo/Jose Juarez Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decisions as HHS secretary could have major implications for the health sector’s future. If the Senate confirms him, that is. But industry leaders, analysts and lobbyists are still not sure what to expect from Kennedy regarding the policy issues most important to them. That point, made to Daniel by industry representatives in recent weeks, is cemented in a new report from policy consulting firm Capstone: — Capstone analysts predict Kennedy will be confirmed and assigned a 90 percent probability to that outcome. — But his impact on hot policy issues like Medicare Advantage, pharmacy benefit manager reform and new payment models is uncertain, the report concluded. Kennedy hasn’t taken a public position on those issues or myriad other health policy concerns driving Beltway conversations in recent years. Land of Oz (and Trump): Kennedy’s lack of a clear policy record has left industry groups looking to Dr. Mehmet Oz, the celebrity physician and TV personality who Trump tapped to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services this week, as well as to Trump’s previous term, to make sense of what’s ahead. — Oz is a major supporter of Medicare Advantage, the private alternative to Medicare heralded by Republicans. — Trump has a history of rolling back regulations and shifting responsibility to the private sector across several policy areas. Even so: Kennedy continues to argue that industry groups have too much power over regulation and that the regulatory agencies he’s slated to oversee need to be upended and overhauled. But several key health appointments remain unfilled, and each selection could signal the incoming administration’s approach to regulatory strategies. WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE Phoenix, Ariz. | Erin Schumaker/POLITICO This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care.  New York Magazine makes the case that deli meats are among the riskiest things you could eat. Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Carmen Paun at cpaun@politico.com, Daniel Payne at dpayne@politico.com, Ruth Reader at rreader@politico.com, or Erin Schumaker at eschumaker@politico.com. Send tips securely through SecureDrop, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp.    Want to know what's really happening with Congress's make-or-break spending fights? Get daily insider analysis of Hill negotiations, funding deadlines, and breaking developments—free in your inbox with Inside Congress. Subscribe now.     TECH MAZE Introducing AI into health systems could raise cybersecurity costs. Thomas Samson | AFP via Getty Images Health systems are optimistic about the possibility of artificial intelligence systems streamlining work and cutting large expenses, like labor costs. But AI’s rise might come with less-discussed costs, according to a new report from Moody’s. Introducing AI could raise cybersecurity costs, as the tech opens up opportunities for attacks by hackers and potentially makes patient data more valuable. Navigating regulations that come with AI’s rise in American health care could be tricky. Federal and state governments haven’t fully set rules about the technology — and forthcoming regulations could shift the costs and benefits of some AI systems. Rising denials from insurers using AI tools threaten to lower providers’ bottom lines. It could also make revenue cycles less predictable, a concern lobbyists have already brought to lawmakers and agency leaders. Even so: Health systems are making huge investments in AI tech — or developing it themselves — because they believe it will be a key component in the future of health care. The upside of those investments is top of mind for providers, who are asking vendors how their products will be financially sustainable.   Don't just read headlines—guide your organization's next move. POLITICO Pro's comprehensive Data Analysis tracks power shifts in Congress, ballot measures, and committee turnovers, giving you the deep context behind every policy decision. Learn more about what POLITICO Pro can do for you.     WORLD VIEW Harm-reduction advocates say supervised consumption sites save lives and prevent public drug use. | AP Photo Former world leaders advocating for a new global drug policy raised concerns this week about plans in the Canadian province of Ontario to close 10 supervised drug-consumption sites. The facilities, where people use their own drugs in the presence of trained staff to avoid overdoses and the spread of infectious diseases, “mitigate public drug use, reduce discarded paraphernalia and enhance community safety,” said the Global Commission on Drug Policy, led by former New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark. What’s happening: The Ontario government argues the opposite is the case. It introduced legislation earlier this month to prohibit the operation of such sites within 200 meters (or about 650 feet) of schools or child-care centers. Led by the Progressive Conservative Party, the Ontario government said crime near the sites “is significantly higher compared to surrounding neighborhoods.” For example, it said the crime rate near a site in Ottawa, Canada’s capital, was 250 percent higher than in the rest of the city. If the bill passes — which is likely — it would lead to the closure of 10 supervised drug consumption sites across the province of Ontario, which also includes Toronto, by March. The measure is part of a wider public safety bill, which aims to crack down on auto theft, enhance the tools police can use to manage sex offenders, tackle illegal cannabis sales and support access to justice. Why it matters: Harm-reduction advocates, which include the members of the Global Commission on Drug Policy, say supervised consumption sites save lives and prevent public drug use. “Supervised consumption sites have been shown to reduce overdose deaths by 35 percent in areas where they operate,” the commission said. But in many places, including the U.S., they remain controversial or even illegal, as communities reject them, and some argue it encourages illicit drug use. What’s next: The Ontario government plans to oppose new consumption sites from opening. Instead, it will invest 378 million Canadian dollars (about $270 million) in more than a dozen new homelessness and addiction recovery treatment hubs, which will connect people with treatment and other services, including housing and employment support.   Follow us on Twitter Carmen Paun @carmenpaun Daniel Payne @_daniel_payne Ruth Reader @RuthReader Erin Schumaker @erinlschumaker   Follow us

To change your alert settings, please log in at https://login.politico.com/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politico.com/settings This email was sent to salenamartine360.news1@blogger.com by: POLITICO, LLC 1000 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA, 22209, USA Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service