By David Introcaso
After having worked at DC for sixteen years, in 2013 I created The Podcast of Medical Care Policy. In part, the title intended to be sarcastic because the formulation of medical care policies in DC is very strictly drawn. Consistently, the provision of medical care is excessively marketed, reductionist and financial or, in short, anachronistic and ironically lacks purchase. If the objective of politics were health, we would be healthier. We are not. For example, it raises the anthropogenic warming of thought he Great threat to human health, we do not have a related health policy.
Among the most conventional problems, there is no serious political discussion about the HHS mission. “Compressing the morbidity among Medicare’s beneficiaries that 20% of the population soon, the HHS recently”Make our children feel again“The report expressed concern about the aerobic aptitude of children, but kept silent about the prevalence of child sexual abuse despite Jeffrey Epstein and the abusile of children in Congress The former president of the Dennis Hastert representatives. Interestingly, the Ama has not yet terminated Hastert speakers Nathan Davis Award 2006 for “outstanding contributions to the improvement of public health.” The HHS report also kept silent about the Medicaid reform only thought that the program provides medical attention for approximately half or US children. It is equally notable how rarely the names such as Arrow, Canguilhem, Farmer, Foucault, Illich, Marmot, Starfield and Virchow are rarely mentioned in health policy circles.
Now, after Obbba cuts Micahid and Medicare programs, 500 rounds shoot in six CDC buildings, one killing a police officer and seven months of Moral obligation of the HHS we face the reality that medical care. This may be due to the fact that, not having appreciated Richard Hofstadter, Humphrey Building Leadership is busy making a new chapter in Anti -Intelectualism. We stayed to ask if the enrichment of medical care has now achieved the possible leg because those responsible for health health have adopted “the subtle art of not giving a shit of Mark Manson not to give shit.”
The good news is that the storm and the stress on the HHS that no longer fit for the purpose could be effectively curved if the Congress, together with the support of Medpac, Macpac and others, would work to free the department of politicization or the partisan Yage. If the policy formulators exercised more imagination, such a simple and obvious reform would have already resorted to serious attention.
The idea of an independent HHS has been recognized. Approximately twenty years ago, Dr. Arnold Relman, the Dear former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, argued that medical care would be administered by a “National Medical Care Agency“Defined as a public-private hybrid entity as, he said, the Federal Reserve. Similarly, the HHS would be governed by an independent board whose members would be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for periods of 14 years.
The idea appeared again in some detail in 2016 when six former FDA commissioners, four appointed by Republican presidents, recommended the FDA becomes an independent agency. The commissioners argued that the independence of the FDA was necessary to firmly substantiate decisions on scientific evidence, speed innovation, promote the ability to act quickly and improve responsibility, transparency and public trust.
Six years after that, the government responsibility office (GAO) ran into the idea. In early 2022, GAO added HHS leadership to its Congress “High -risk“That identifies the operations and programs of the Executive Department that face poor management and need for transformation. HHS leadership was appointed because GAO learned from the response of the CDC, the FDA, the NIH and the administration of the strategic response of Interfers (ASPR) that Politresm Covid-19.
As a result, Gao Published a report That December that examined how agencies are subject to political influence and how, if it can be minimized. The GAO concluded that the HHS agencies had a growing number of appointed politicians who served in key senior leadership positions that included participating in the process of reviewing the weekly Morbidity and Mortality Report of the CDC. However, HHS had “few structural characteristics,” GAO found, “that can help areolate them from political interference.”
For example, the HHS cannot overlook its budget, regulatory rules and communications with the Congress to the White House Management and Budget Office (OMB) for review. To mitigate or avoid political influence, Gao Naïdyce waited for the agency leadership and advice committees, a culture of scientific integrity and regulatory processes, pairs and authorizations, would work. On an independent FDA, the GAO was not compromised.
Beyond avoiding the political demagogy of huge bananas: vaccines, evidently, they are no longer a miraculous designed of Medical. 154 million deaths In Recent Memory – An Independent Hhs Might Be Less Corrupted By Regulatory Capture and the Congress Largely Unburdened from Having to Make Healthcare Policy for a science and a market about What Litte or Ostar to Know and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Frequently and Bowy and Bowy and Bowy and Bowy and Bowy and Bowy and Bowy and Bowy, beat and beat and beat and Beaty and Beaty They hit Stity and it knew that medical care is not important enough to transcend politics. The problem, of course, is that the health lobby spent $ 650 million last year. If the HHS was released from the policy of special interest, the department could fulfill its Independence Avenue speech.
David Introcaso is a research consultant and medical care policy based in Washington, DC
