NIH's unfinished business

The ideas and innovators shaping health care
Jan 15, 2025 View in browser
 
POLITICO Future Pulse Newsletter Header

By Erin Schumaker, Gregory Svirnovskiy and Daniel Payne

IDEAS LAB

National Institutes of Health Director Monica Bertagnolli gives an interview in her office.

Departing NIH Director Monica Bertagnolli had constructive conversations with GOP members about agency reform. | Francis Chung/POLITICO

National Institutes of Health Director Monica Bertagnolli wishes she’d had the opportunity to help shape GOP plans to overhaul her agency.

"I found that once we got in a room together and really sat down and discussed the pros and cons of different approaches, we made great progress working together,” Bertagnolli told Erin on Tuesday, after she announced she’s leaving the agency on Friday.

Bertagnolli definitely isn’t endorsing some of congressional Republicans’ more far-reaching plans, like consolidating the agency’s divisions, and certainly not Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s threat to fire hundreds of NIH workers. But she does see reason for a serious-minded rethink of the way the $47 billion agency pursues health care breakthroughs.

"I had a great relationship with Sen. Cassidy," she said, referencing Bill Cassidy, the Louisiana Republican who now oversees the agency as chair of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Cassidy put out an NIH overhaul plan last year. Bertagnolli calls their conversations “very positive" and "very productive." She said she’d hoped to have the same opportunity to work with Republicans in the House who are pursuing their own plans for the agency.

Those plans include balancing the NIH’s portfolio of early- and late-stage research, streamlining the grant review process, instituting term limits on NIH leaders and consolidating the agency from 27 institutes and centers – the divisions responsible for research in specific areas of disease and health – to 15.

There were areas of agreement in both proposals, she pointed out, some of which she’d already moved to implement.

"One of the first things I did on taking over the position was to stand up the Scientific Management Review Board," she said, referring to the board Congress created in the 2006 NIH Reform Act and charged with evaluating the agency’s structure and research portfolio and making recommendations to the NIH director. Reviving it was a key part of the GOP proposals.

The board fell dormant under Bertagnolli’s predecessor, Francis Collins, sparking criticism from House and Senate Republicans interested in increasing NIH oversight and a directive in the 2024 omnibus appropriations law to restart it.

"I was looking forward to working with Congress on those recommendations and I feel we could have made great progress and made some very good improvements," she said.

Not all of the current GOP proposals sit well with Bertagnolli.

During the review board meetings she attended, she spoke against the House proposal to consolidate the agency.

She also defended the agency on Tuesday against a more radical suggestion from Kennedy, Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services: firing hundreds of NIH staffers.

Given those workers’ civil service protections, that will be hard to do without Congress passing a law. Only two people at the agency — the director and the head of the cancer institute — are appointed by the president.

Protections aside, Bertagnolli thinks firing her staff is short-sighted. "The brain trust here is unparalleled worldwide. I very much hope that whoever comes in as the new director preserves that," she said.

WELCOME TO FUTURE PULSE

Brasov, Romania

Brasov, Romania | Carmen Paun/POLITICO

This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care.

Spending so much time alone is changing our personalities, our politics and our grasp on reality, The Atlantic reports.

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.

SAFETY CHECK

A doctor examines MRI scans.

Wealthy hospitals are more likely to test their AI tools for bias, a new study suggests. | Shutterstock

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. hospitals use artificial intelligence tools, but whether or not they test the tools for bias may depend on how wealthy the hospital is.

That's according to a new study by researchers at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, whose work sheds light on the health care system's haves and have-nots.

The goods: The study, which was published in the journal Health Affairs this month, analyzed data from the American Hospital Association's 2023 survey of 2,425 acute-care hospitals.

— Roughly 65 percent of hospitals surveyed said they use AI-predictive models, predominantly for modeling inpatients' health outcomes, flagging high-risk outpatients and for scheduling.

— Forty-four percent of hospitals test their AI for bias and 61 percent test for accuracy.

— Wealthier hospitals that have enough money to build out their own predictive tech are more likely to monitor for accuracy and bias than less well-resourced hospitals that rely on outside models.

Why it matters: Hospitals with less money may be using technology that's not designed for their patients, the study authors note.

“Critical-access hospitals, rural hospitals, and other hospitals with fewer resources are buying these products ‘off the shelf,’ which can mean they’re designed for a patient population that may look very different from their actual patients and may not reflect the needs of local patient populations,” Paige Nong, lead study author and assistant professor at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health, said in a statement.

Big picture: “By focusing on the differences in evaluation capacity among hospitals, this research highlights the risks of a growing digital divide between hospital types, which threatens equitable treatment and patient safety,” Nong added.

WASHINGTON WATCH

Illustration shows a doctor at his desk in a group medical practice of general practitioners in Ronse, Monday 27 April 2020. BELGA PHOTO DIRK WAEM (Photo by DIRK WAEM/BELGA MAG/AFP via Getty Images)

Republicans are optimistic about health care after the election. Democrats and independents, not so much. | BELGA MAG/AFP via Getty Images

Americans’ views on the future of health care are colored by partisanship — and the results of the 2024 election.

That’s what new polling from West Health and Gallup found, noting that depending on their party, respondents have new perspectives on where the U.S. health system is going. Post-election, Republicans are significantly more optimistic that access to affordable health care will improve in the next five years, while Democrats’ hopes are dashed.

Independents tend to be skeptical about the direction of U.S. health policy.

Nearly half believe health policies are going in the wrong direction post-election, compared to just under a quarter of respondents who say policy is going in the right direction.

Why it matters: Much like their view of the economy, how Americans see health policy is deeply influenced by their personal politics. That may provide cover for policymakers with loyal bases to push for policies that, on their own, wouldn’t get broad support.

Even so: Lawmakers in competitive races, who are often key to passing significant health reform, are still sensitive to policies that could jeopardize health access or be seen as extreme.

 

Follow us on Twitter

Carmen Paun @carmenpaun

Daniel Payne @_daniel_payne

Ruth Reader @RuthReader

Erin Schumaker @erinlschumaker

 

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Instagram Listen on Apple Podcast
 

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

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post