| | | |  | | By Ruth Reader and Daniel Payne | A Note to Our Readers from POLITICO's CEO and Editor-in-Chief POLITICO has been the subject of debate on X this week. Some of it has been misinformed, and some of it has been flat-out false. Let’s set the record straight POLITICO is a privately owned company. We have never received any government funding — no subsidies, no grants, no handouts. Not one dime, ever, in 18 years. Millions of people around the world read our journalism on POLITICO.com, POLITICO.EU and in newsletters like this one. It is supported by advertising and sponsorships. POLITICO Pro is different. It is a professional subscription service used by companies, organizations, and, yes, some government agencies. They subscribe because it makes them better at their jobs — helping them track policy, legislation and regulations in real-time with news, intelligence and a suite of data products. At its core, POLITICO Pro is about transparency and accountability: Shining a light on the work of the agencies, regulators and policymakers throughout our vast federal government. Businesses and entities within the government find it useful as they navigate the chaotic regulatory and legislative landscape. It’s that simple. Most POLITICO Pro subscribers are in the private sector. They come from across the ideological spectrum and subscribe for one reason: value. And 90 percent renew every year because they rely on our reporting, data and insights. Government agencies that subscribe do so through standard public procurement processes — just like any other tool they buy to work smarter and be more efficient. This is not funding. It is a transaction — just as the government buys research, equipment, software and industry reports. Some online voices are deliberately spreading falsehoods. Let’s be clear: POLITICO has no financial dependence on the government and no hidden agenda. We cover politics and policy — that’s our job. We are so proud of our journalists and so proud of the connection we have with you, our readers. We stand by our work, our values and our commitment to transparency, accountability and efficiency — the same principles that drive great journalism and great business. Now, back to work. Goli Sheikholeslami and John Harris | | | 
Doctor meets with his patient. | AP | Artificial intelligence could transform health care, but without robust safeguards, companies could put profit over patient well-being, writes Dr. Kenneth Mandl, director of the Computational Health Informatics Program at Boston Children’s Hospital in the New England Journal of Medicine AI. Health systems are constantly under financial pressure — as companies selling AI tools are well aware, often touting how they can save or bring in more money. Mandl is concerned that AI tools will be configured to generate the largest financial reward. He cites revenue-cycle management products as one example, since they promise to boost reimbursements by exploiting every billing opportunity. AI can lead to more profits in other ways, he told Ruth. For example, depending on how specific the AI is or the criteria it uses to make recommendations, it could lead to people to schedule doctor appointments or take medications they don’t need. “You can drive revenue by choosing diagnostics that have more false positives,” Mandl said. What’s next: He said that industry can do a lot on its own to safeguard against some of those potential issues. He suggests electronic health record companies adopt standard application programming interfaces that enable small developers to build tools for health systems. Mandl’s paper also suggests creating a federated data ecosystem that will allow small and large health systems equal access to the data they need to test AI tools. As far as federal rules go, existing regulations can address some perverse business practices, like anti-kickback laws and the False Claims Act, he said. He added that the Department of Health and Human Services also has introduced some good, basic AI transparency rules. “But it doesn’t really address fully unseen commercial influences that could shape the way decision support behaves in the real world.” New rules, he said, particularly ones that create structures for monitoring adverse events driven by AI, could be needed. | 
Blue Ridge Mountains, North Carolina | Ruth Reader | | | This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care. One idea that’s being explored by the president of Colombia: that cocaine is no worse than whiskey — and selling it worldwide “like wine” would dismantle illegal drug trafficking. 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.
| | | | We’ve re-imagined and expanded our Inside Congress newsletter to give you unmatched reporting on Capitol Hill politics and policy -- and we'll get it to your inbox even earlier. Subscribe today. | | | | | | | | 
Researchers have found that the Covid-19 pandemic likely exacerbated lower access to primary. | AP | Primary care has changed substantially since the pandemic, according to new research published in JAMA Health Forum. The study, conducted by researchers at Dartmouth; University of California, Berkeley; and Johns Hopkins, reviewed several measures across more than 700 primary care practices, comparing their characteristics from 2017 to 2018 and 2022 to 2023. The researchers said the pandemic likely exacerbated lower access to primary care, suggesting staffing shortages and clinician burnout could be to blame. Why it matters: Primary care access shortages have concerned policymakers and patients alike. Primary care is the key to the early detection and treatment of a vast number of diseases, public health experts say, which creates better outcomes and lower care costs. Even so: On average, primary care practices increased their capabilities, scored by practices’ abilities to provide behavioral and chronic care or to integrate clinical and technological tools, such as screening techniques or electronic health records. Those scores varied widely between individual practices, but on average, primary care delivered by physician groups and those participating in value-based payment models, such as being an accountable care organization, had better outcomes than their counterparts.
| | | | A new era in Washington calls for sharper insights. Get faster policy scoops, more congressional coverage, and a re-imagined newsletter under the leadership of Jack Blanchard. Subscribe to our Playbook Newsletter today. | | | | | | | | | Follow us on Twitter | | | | Follow us | | | |
