You’re reading the web edition of D.C. Diagnosis, STAT’s twice-weekly newsletter about the politics and policy of health and medicine. Sign up here to receive it in your inbox on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Hello and happy Election Day, D.C. Diagnosis readers. Important polling question from the D.C. office on this hectic day: What is the best soup? Related ballot initiative: Should chili be considered a soup? Let me know, and send news and tips to [email protected].
It’s Election Day
We’re finally here. Both VP Harris and former President Trump made their closing arguments to voters across swing states over the weekend and Monday, each promising vastly different health care agendas. Trump continued his assurances that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would take a prominent role, while RFK Jr. pledged to advise water systems to remove fluoride on the first day of the presidency. (ICYMI: Another Kennedy weighs in on Trump and health care).
Harris has hit rally stages with an emphasis on her fight for reproductive freedom. Everyone is abuzz over the latest Iowa Poll showing the state is tipping in Harris’ favor, especially among older women. Twenty-two percent of Democrats polled said abortion is their top issue — Iowa has a total ban.
Before we settle in for a long night watching election maps, revisit STAT’s primers on Harris’ health care proposals, from medical debt plans to Medicare long-term care support; and Trump’s plans from potential Obamacare reform to a public health overhaul. And if you want more results to track, there’s health-related ballot measures before voters in more than a dozen states.
Plus: Regardless of the outcome of this election, people in the scientific community are increasingly concerned about how wading into partisan politics might further erode trust in their institutions. My colleague Anil Oza spoke to scientific journal editors, contributors, and science communication experts about the role of science in politics, and where they go from here.
A Q&A with FDA’s Peter Marks
Vaccine policy in the United States could be in line for some fundamental changes if Donald Trump is reelected. But even if he doesn’t win the presidency, Helen Branswell writes, vaccine fatigue and disinformation abound in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Helen spoke with Peter Marks, the FDA’s top vaccine regulator, on Monday about disinformation, vaccine skepticism, and the impact it’s having on public health — like declines in routine vaccinations.
“We just don’t know the extent of the damage that’s been done to date,” he said. Read more.
Anti-pharma group targets Sen. Tammy Baldwin
A dark-money group espousing anti-pharma rhetoric is now running ads opposing Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), criticizing her for accepting donations from the industry, Rachel Cohrs Zhang reports.
The ad claims that Baldwin has “refused to take on Big Pharma,” without providing details. Baldwin voted for the Inflation Reduction Act and its program that allows Medicare to negotiate drug prices, which the pharmaceutical industry hated. The group also hosted a town hall with Baldwin’s Republican opponent, Eric Hovde, and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), which featured free pizza.
The group endorsed three Republican House candidates on its Facebook page and shared clips from a podcast with Joe Rogan and Trump’s vice presidential pick Sen. JD Vance, further evidence of the group’s GOP ties.
Another interesting tidbit related to the group’s origins: its Facebook profile is now connected with the same address that was used for the “Ardleigh Impact Group,” the subject of a Campaign Legal Center complaint to the Federal Election Commission. The complaint alleges that organization was used as a “straw donor” by one or more people seeking to make $2.75 million in federal political contributions while concealing the donors’ identities, and that the “scheme violates federal campaign finance laws that uphold basic electoral transparency and protect Americans’ right to know who is spending money to influence our elections.”
The address is tied to Staci Goede, who is listed as a “campaign finance professional” on LinkedIn, and who previously worked for the Republican State Leadership Committee. Goede is also listed as treasurer of the group, called Americans for Pharma Reform.
Private Medicare plans collect billions despite VA-provided care
There’s a problem with the sharp growth of Medicare Advantage plans among veterans: Researchers say in a new study that the federal government is effectively paying twice for the same patient’s care.
It’s because Medicare pays MA plans a set monthly rate for each person they enroll, whether they get care through their MA plan or not. If Veterans Affairs pays for the care instead, those MA rates don’t change, Tara Bannow writes.
A new Health Affairs study found that MA plans didn’t cover any care for 10% of their veteran members in 2020. At the same time, Medicare paid those plans over $1.3 billion to cover those members. One author told Tara that’s just the “tip of the iceberg.” Read more.
Who health care execs are donating to
A vast majority of CEOs of major health systems and insurers are steering clear of donating money to either Harris or Trump. But there are some exceptions, according to Bob Herman’s review of federal campaign contribution filings.
Similar to past elections, CEOs who are willing to make political donations are shunning Trump and supporting Harris and other Democrats, who would keep the Affordable Care Act intact.
Bob looked at campaign donation filings that cover the 2024 election period for more than 40 CEOs of major health insurance companies, hospital systems, and other provider groups. Many executives either didn’t make political donations or gave to their companies’ political action committees, similar to pharmaceutical CEOs. Read what he found there.
Senators propose potential ‘site-neutral’ fix
Two key senators on Friday released a plan to tackle one of the biggest barriers to so-called site-neutral payment reforms: That equalizing payments across providers would hurt rural hospitals, as provider organizations argue.
The proposal would reinvest some of the money saved from payment reforms to help rural and safety-net hospitals. Hospitals that keep providing services like trauma centers, labor and delivery units, and burn units would also get financial bonuses, Rachel reports.
This could be the compromise that gets stalled site-neutral legislation restarted. One of the two senators, after all, is in line to lead the Senate’s health committee if Republicans win control of the chamber this election. More from Rachel.
What we’re reading
- First Opinion: How to bring more Black Americans into clinical research: Address the root causes of medical skepticism, STAT
- No evidence Trump’s drug program for terminal patients saved ‘thousands’ of lives, KFF Health News
- What really happens to drug prices when patents expire, STAT
- Texas OB-GYNs urge lawmakers to change abortion laws after reports on pregnant women’s deaths, The Texas Tribune