Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Subterms

    More stories

    • 150 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      ‘Like a Hand Grasping’: Trump Appointees Describe the Crushing of the C.D.C.

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }The Coronavirus OutbreakliveLatest UpdatesMaps and CasesThe Latest Vaccine InformationU.S. Deaths Surpass 300,000F.A.Q.AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main story‘Like a Hand Grasping’: Trump Appointees Describe the Crushing of the C.D.C.Kyle McGowan, a former chief of staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and his deputy, Amanda Campbell, go public on the Trump administration’s manipulation of the agency.“Every time that the science clashed with the messaging, messaging won,” said Kyle McGowan, a former chief of staff of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.Credit…Audra Melton for The New York TimesDec. 16, 2020Updated 9:36 a.m. ETATLANTA — Kyle McGowan, a former chief of staff at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and his deputy, Amanda Campbell, were installed in 2018 as two of the youngest political appointees in the history of the world’s premier public health agency, young Republicans returning to their native Georgia to dream jobs.But what they witnessed during the coronavirus pandemic this year in the C.D.C.’s leadership suite on the 12-floor headquarters here shook them: Washington’s dismissal of science, the White House’s slow suffocation of the agency’s voice, the meddling in its messages and the siphoning of its budget.In a series of interviews, the pair has decided to go public with their disillusionment: what went wrong, and what they believe needs to be done as the agency girds for what could be a yearslong project of rebuilding its credibility externally while easing ill feelings and self-doubt internally.“Everyone wants to describe the day that the light switch flipped and the C.D.C. was sidelined. It didn’t happen that way,” Mr. McGowan said. “It was more of like a hand grasping something, and it slowly closes, closes, closes, closes until you realize that, middle of the summer, it has a complete grasp on everything at the C.D.C.”Last week, the editor in chief of the C.D.C.’s flagship weekly disease outbreak reports — once considered untouchable — told House Democrats investigating political interference in the agency’s work that she was ordered to destroy an email showing Trump appointees attempting to meddle with their publication.The same day, the outlines of the C.D.C.’s future took more shape when President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr. announced a slate of health nominees, including Dr. Rochelle Walensky, the chief of infectious diseases at Massachusetts General Hospital, as the agency’s new director, a move generally greeted with enthusiasm by public health experts.“We are ready to combat this virus with science and facts,” she wrote on Twitter.Mr. McGowan and Ms. Campbell — who joined the C.D.C. in their early 30s, then left together in August — said that mantra was what was most needed after a brutal year that left the agency’s authority crippled.In November, Mr. McGowan held conversations with Biden transition officials reviewing the agency’s response to the pandemic, where he said he was candid about its failures. Among the initiatives he encouraged the new administration to plan for: reviving regular — if not daily — news briefings featuring the agency’s scientists.Mr. McGowan and Ms. Campbell, both 34, say they tried to protect their colleagues against political meddling from the White House and Department of Health and Human Services. But an agency created to protect the nation against a public health catastrophe like the coronavirus was largely stifled by the Trump administration.The White House insisted on reviewing — and often softening — the C.D.C.’s closely guarded coronavirus guidance documents, the most prominent public expression of its latest research and scientific consensus on the spread of the virus. The documents were vetted not only by the White House’s coronavirus task force but by what felt to the agency’s employees like an endless loop of political appointees across Washington.Mr. McGowan recalled a White House fixated on the economic implications of public health. He and Dr. Robert R. Redfield, the C.D.C. director, negotiated with Russell T. Vought, the White House budget director, over social distancing guidelines for restaurants, as Mr. Vought argued that specific spacing recommendations would be too onerous for businesses to enforce.“It is not the C.D.C.’s role to determine the economic viability of a guidance document,” Mr. McGowan said.They compromised anyway, recommending social distancing without a reference to the typical six-foot measurement.One of Ms. Campbell’s responsibilities was helping secure approval for the agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports, a widely followed and otherwise apolitical guide on infectious disease renowned in the medical community. Over the summer, political appointees at the health department repeatedly asked C.D.C. officials to revise, delay and even scuttle drafts they thought could be viewed, by implication, as criticism of President Trump.“It wasn’t until something was in the M.M.W.R. that was in contradiction to what message the White House and H.H.S. were trying to put forward that they became scrutinized,” Ms. Campbell said.Dr. Tom Frieden, the C.D.C. director under President Barack Obama, said it was typical and “legitimate” to have interagency process for review.“What’s not legitimate is to overrule science,” he said.Often, Mr. McGowan and Ms. Campbell mediated between Dr. Redfield and agency scientists when the White House’s requests and dictates would arrive: edits from Mr. Vought and Kellyanne Conway, the former White House adviser, on choirs and communion in faith communities, or suggestions from Ivanka Trump, the president’s daughter and aide, on schools.“Every time that the science clashed with the messaging, messaging won,” Mr. McGowan said.Episodes of meddling sometimes turned absurd, they said. In the spring, the C.D.C. published an app that allowed Americans to screen themselves for symptoms of Covid-19. But the Trump administration decided to develop a similar tool with Apple. White House officials then demanded that the C.D.C. wipe its app off its website, Mr. McGowan said.Ms. Campbell said that at the pandemic’s outset, she was confident the agency had the best scientists in the world at its disposal, “just like we had in the past.”“What was so different, though, was the political involvement, not only from H.H.S. but then the White House, ultimately, that in so many ways hampered what our scientists were able to do,” she said.Top C.D.C. officials devised workarounds. Instead of posting new guidance for schools and election officials in the spring, they published “updates” to previous guidance that skipped formal review from Washington. That prompted officials in Washington to insist on reviewing updates.Brian Morgenstern, a White House spokesman, said that “all proposed guidelines and regulations with potentially sweeping effects on our economy, society and constitutional freedoms receive appropriate consultation from all stakeholders, including task force doctors, other experts and administration leaders.”A C.D.C. spokesman declined to comment.Mr. McGowan and Ms. Campbell both attended the University of Georgia and saw their C.D.C. positions as homecomings. Mr. McGowan said the two institutions he revered most during his Georgia childhood were the C.D.C. and Coca-Cola.He arrived with a résumé that made the agency’s senior ranks suspicious, he said. Like Ms. Campbell, he worked for former Representative Tom Price, first in his House office, then when he was health secretary under Mr. Trump. When he arrived at the C.D.C., Mr. McGowan told his new colleagues that he was there not to spy on or undermine them, but to support them.Mr. McGowan and Ms. Campbell, who have since opened a health policy consulting firm, said they saw themselves as keepers of the agency’s senior scientists, whose morale had been sapped. Dr. Redfield, whose leadership has been criticized roundly by public health experts and privately by his own scientists, was rarely in Atlanta, consumed by Washington responsibilities.The Coronavirus Outbreak More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in Elections

      After 4 Years of Trump, Medicare and Medicaid Badly Need Attention

      by

      President-elect Joe Biden has pledged to “marshal the forces of science” in his administration. Undoubtedly he needs to start by bolstering the credibility of the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.But a third health agency, central to the lives of older Americans, low-income families and the disabled, is sorely in need of his attention. Science has also been under assault at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which provides federal health insurance to more than 130 million Americans at a cost of more than $1 trillion, nearly twice the Pentagon’s budget.C.M.S. does more than just write checks for medical care. Its scientists and analysts determine which treatments should be offered — I am the chairman of the committee that advises Medicare on those decisions — and how best to care for the patients it serves.Unfortunately, the Trump White House has steadily eviscerated the agency’s dispassionate approaches to making those determinations.Recently, for instance, the Trump administration set in motion a plan to strip C.M.S. of its ability to assess for itself whether new medical devices approved by the F.D.A. are appropriate for the older patients it covers. This is important because the benefits and risks of such devices and procedures, which range from implantable hips and cardiac stents to digital apps and laboratory tests, can vary widely based on patient age and disability.The proposed rule requires Medicare to pay for any new device so long as the F.D.A. labels it a “breakthrough.” And that word does not mean what you think it does.The F.D.A. calls a device a “breakthrough” when it is expected — though not yet proved — to be helpful to patients with serious conditions. The designation has nothing to do with how the device works in older patients, or even if it was studied in that population at all. The proposed rule would also require Medicare to cover any new drug or device if at least one commercial insurer covers it for its members, even if its members are young and healthy.Already, companies seldom generate enough data on their products for C.M.S. to assess their value for its patients. In 2019, for instance, data was insufficient in just under half of new F.D.A. drug approvals to assess benefits or side effects in older patients. The proposed rule would drain the last remaining motivation that companies have to study their treatments in the patients who are likely to ultimately receive them.C.M.S. scientists and analysts do more than evaluate new treatments. They also test alternative ways to organize and pay for patient care. The agency has found, for example, that enrolling people at risk of diabetes in gym sessions reduced how often they were hospitalized. But some seemingly obvious ways to improve health care don’t work: C.M.S. also found it could not reduce hospitalizations for cancer patients by paying their doctors to actively manage their patients’ care.The fact that so many promising ideas don’t work as expected is the reason C.M.S. needs to double down on evaluations of how medical care is delivered to its patients.This administration has gone in the other direction. Just before the election, the White House conjured up a plan to send older people a $200 prescription drug discount card in the mail. Research has already demonstrated that if you give people money to buy prescription drugs, they will buy more of them. The pharmaceutical industry knows this, too. That’s why it hands out coupons worth billions of dollars.These same studies also show that when people are indiscriminately given cash for medicines — instead of only those who need that money the most — it costs much more overall than it saves. No wonder the discount card giveaway would have cost around $8 billion. Fortunately, the president has yet to follow through with it.In another troubling development, the administration announced on Nov. 20 that it would run an experiment in which reimbursements to physicians will be cut for dozens of high-cost drugs they administer in the office, such as chemotherapies and treatments for inflammatory diseases.C.M.S. financial analysts warned that the cuts will lead many Medicare patients to lose access to these important treatments. Scientists should evaluate this prediction by including a comparison group of patients whose doctors would not receive a cut in payment. But the agency administrator made it clear that she didn’t believe the warning. No comparison group is planned. That is no way to evaluate whether our nation’s vulnerable would be helped or hurt by this significant policy change.Another example of a poorly designed experiment involved taking Medicaid coverage away from able-bodied people who are not working or going to school, under an ill-founded theory that doing so would inspire them to seek employment. Such a study is best done narrowly, so that any harms are minimized. Instead, the administration invited multiple states in 2018 to test the outcome.A Harvard study found that a work requirement in Arkansas led to a rise in the number of uninsured people and no significant changes in employment. Thousands of Medicaid beneficiaries in Michigan and New Hampshire were set to lose their coverage before work requirements in those states were ended. Given those results, the overall program should have been canceled. The administration broadened it.Through its reliance on scientific evaluation of what it should pay for, and how, C.M.S. has remained financially viable for more than half a century. As the new president plans to fix the damage done by the current president, this vital agency demands his attention.Peter B. Bach is a physician at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. He served as a senior adviser to the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2005 and 2006.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More