Health

Subterms

    More stories

    • 175 Shares169 Views

      in UK Politics

      NHS to get up to £30 billion as other services squeezed in spending review

      by

      The NHS is set to be one of the big winners in next week’s spending review – with a boost of up to £30 billion at the expense of other public services.The Department for Health and Social Care is set to get the biggest settlement in the government’s spending review next week, while other areas will face cuts.Chancellor Rachel Reeves will argue that Labour is investing in health, security and the economy, according to reports in The Times. The Department of Health is set to be handed a 2.8% annual increase in its day-to-day budget over a three-year period. This amounts to a cash increase of £30 billion by 2028 – £17 billion in real terms. However, the health services capital spending budget will only increase in line with inflation, according to the reports.Reeves will put £113 billion a year extra in infrastructure spending for projects designed to grow the economy, such as the Sizewell C nuclear power plant and a new generation of mini reactors.Bringing down NHS waiting times was one of Labour’s key commitments. Sir Keir Starmer has pledged to ensure that by the next election 92% of patients in England waiting for planned treatment are seen within 18 weeks of being referred.Latest NHS data suggests around 60% of people are currently seen in this time and figures released last month showed the overall number of patients on waiting lists had risen slightly from 6.24 million to 6.25 million.Meanwhile, in order to meet tough financial savings targets this year and reduce the NHS its deficit by around £6.5 billion, hospital leaders have warned they’re being forced to make cuts to frontline services. The NHS received £3.1 billion in additional capital investment in the 2024 budget, however, health leaders warned this was short of the £6.4 billion a year needed for the NHS to meet its productivity target of 2 per cent a year.A recent analysis by The Nuffield Trust shows that since coming into office, Labour has set healthcare spending to grow at 2.9 per cent for 2024-25 and 2025-26. Between 2011 and 2023-24, budgets grew at 2.4 per cent. For 2025-25, £1.5 billion of the additional funding for the NHS is due to cover the costs of the increase in employer National Insurance contributions, meaning for this financial year, spending growth will actually be less than 2 per cent, the Nuffield Trust estimates. Following the autumn budget, £22.6 billion extra was allocated to the DHSC however, this will be absorbed by spending pressures such as inflation and meeting waiting times targets.Matthew Taylor, chief executive of the NHS Confederation, told The Times that without big changes to the way the health service treats patients, the funding increase “is not going to enable us to achieve recovery and reform”. “Without additional capital investment, either traditional or through the private sector, I just don’t think it’s possible to combine recovery and reform,” he said. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump rescinds Emtala guidance protecting women in need of emergency abortions

      by

      The Trump administration on Tuesday rescinded Biden-era guidance clarifying that hospitals in states with abortion bans cannot turn away pregnant patients who are in the midst of medical emergencies – a move that comes amid multiple red-state court battles over the guidance.The guidance deals with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (Emtala), which requires hospitals to stabilize patients facing medical emergencies. States such as Idaho and Texas have argued that the Biden administration’s guidance, which it issued in the wake of the 2022 overturning of Roe v Wade, interpreted Emtala incorrectly.In its letter rescinding the guidance, the Trump administration said that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) “will continue to enforce Emtala, which protects all individuals who present to a hospital emergency department seeking examination or treatment, including for identified emergency medical conditions that place the health of a pregnant woman or her unborn child in serious jeopardy. CMS will work to rectify any perceived legal confusion and instability created by the former administration’s actions.”Abortion rights supporters said on Tuesday that rescinding the Biden administration’s guidance will muddy hospitals’ ability to interpret Emtala and endanger pregnant patients’ lives. Since Roe’s collapse, dozens of women have come forward to say that they were denied medical treatment due to abortion bans. A reported five pregnant women have died after having their care denied or delayed, or being unable to access legal abortions.“This action sends a clear message: the lives and health of pregnant people are not worth protecting,” Dr Jamila Perritt, an OB-GYN and the president of Physicians for Reproductive Health, said in a statement. “Complying with this law can mean the difference between life and death for pregnant people, forcing providers like me to choose between caring for someone in their time of need and turning my back on them to comply with cruel and dangerous laws.”Last year, the US supreme court heard arguments in a case involving Idaho’s abortion ban, which at the time only allowed abortions in cases where a woman’s life was at risk. In contrast, most state abortion bans permit abortions when a patient’s “health” is in danger – a lower standard that could make it easier for doctors to intervene. Idaho’s standard, the Biden administration said, blocked doctors from providing abortions in some emergencies and thus violated Emtala’s requirement that hospitals must stabilize patients.Ultimately, the supreme court punted on the issue by ruling 6-3 on procedural grounds that the case had been “improvidently granted”, indicating they should have never taken it up in the first place.“This court had a chance to bring clarity and certainty to this tragic situation and we have squandered it,” wrote Ketanji Brown Jackson, the supreme court justice, at the time. “And for as long as we refuse to declare what the law requires, pregnant patients in Idaho, Texas and elsewhere will be paying the price.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Trump administration’s Tuesday move is not unexpected. In March, the administration moved to drop out of the case over the Idaho abortion ban. A local Idaho hospital later filed its own lawsuit over the ban. More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: ‘Why are they striking? Because they can’: Readers frustrated by threat of further NHS industrial action

      by

      Strikes by NHS doctors are once again making headlines and dividing opinion across the country.As junior doctors vote on whether to take more industrial action, Health Secretary Wes Streeting has urged them to say no, warning that more strikes will only hurt patients and stall progress. Doctors say they’ve had enough of being underpaid and undervalued, with some calling for a near 30 per cent pay rise to make up for years of real-terms cuts. But public support is slipping, and some patients are losing patience. In a poll of Independent readers, two-thirds of respondents said they felt strikes would hurt patients and should not go ahead.Bigger questions also lurk behind the pay dispute: is the NHS properly funded? Is immigration helping or hurting the system? And how do we train and keep enough staff without burning them out or driving them abroad?When we asked for your views, some readers blamed poor management, others pointed to staff shortages and rising demand. But one thing was clear: the NHS is at breaking point, and something has to give.Here’s what you had to say:User changesWe need some user charges for health care. This is to encourage people to look after their health. Despite more money being poured into the NHS than ever before, the number of people needing treatment continues to rise even faster. User charges would also enable doctors to be paid properly and prevent them from leaving for other countries.MarkAdd your view on strikes and the state of the NHS by leaving a coment hereA career, not a vocationWhen becoming a doctor became a career rather than a vocation, it seems to have become both in thrall to Big Pharma and motivated by greed rather than concern for patient or societal well-being — something else unwanted, imported from the USA.Topsham1Rising demand means rising contributionsIf we went back to the NHS of the 1950s, 60s, 70s, etc., we could probably reduce funding considerably. However, what the NHS does and the numbers it does it for consistently rises. If we really want it to meet the need comprehensively, we’ll need to increase contributions. To keep up with rising costs and modern treatments, this seems inevitable. We seem to accept rising costs in most areas of life, but think we can run the NHS on less. Go figure.Strangely EnoughStriking while patients suffer is wrongI think it is morally wrong to take industrial action that will knowingly harm patients. The dispute is not with them. Strikes are to put pressure on the employer, in this case the government, to up their offer. But if inadequate pay is causing retention problems, then the pressure is already there.EarthFirstIf you get rid of the thousands of administrators/managers on £100,000+ salaries, you can afford a pay rise for doctors and nurses. The NHS is way too top-heavy.VonGenschlerA good carpenter can out-earn most doctorsI’ve spent a lot of time in and out of hospitals in recent times and have had excellent treatment overall. It would be good if our NHS staff were the world’s highest paid, but that can’t happen because hospitals are oversubscribed with the growing number of people, many of whom are not entitled by birth to do so. Doctors and other staff are also not necessarily native in any way, but I, for one, am glad they’re here.Today, a good carpenter can out-earn most doctors up to registrar level, which must be galling for those with higher education and ambition.As an older person, I use the NHS more frequently. Sometimes I’m aware that me living means someone might not get that important appointment. Another thing is free prescriptions – I receive twelve items more or less each month. Again, I wonder how on earth I could pay the cost that others have to pay. My prescriptions are delivered free as well. I don’t know how this is financed, but someone does.I suppose, one day, they will carry out the most enormous cull to balance things up a little. I wouldn’t blame them – maybe they’re already planning it.MartynGPs failingsGPs bear a great chunk of the NHS failings that are occurring today.My recollection of GP services concerns the home birth of our second child. There were no complications – in fact, labour only lasted for three hours – but our GP at the time came to the house during the labour and returned three days after the birth to check that the baby and mother were in good fettle, which they were.Do GPs give that sort of service today?Cameron promised 24/7 GP service, but that went unfulfilled.A battle needs to take place, with GPs becoming employees of the NHS and being paid a good rate for the job. Present partnerships must be put to the sword.MORDEYAs I am in my 80s, I am lucky enough to remember when being a doctor was a vocation, not just another job. Sadly, those days are gone.It appears that greed is now what motivates our young doctors.Why are they striking? Because they can.Do they care that people may die because of their actions?No.Paqs‘Wealthfare’ state vs NHS spendingHow come we never have these “debates” when we spend on the “wealthfare” state (aka socialism for the rich), but must always have them whenever it’s time to spend on anything else? I ask because even Big Oil and Big Pharma, the arms industry, etc., apparently need subsidies, tax relief, grants and sundry other largesse, while overworked NHS workers must live on food banks, or have their relative peanuts “debated.”Ryhope1UK failed to retain its own medicsThe NHS has been subsidised by the developing world, who train its doctors and nurses since its inception.It is incapable of recruiting and retaining UK staff like me, who went to Australia as soon as I completed my training.KwameSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity. You can read the full discussion in the comments section of the original article here.The conversation isn’t over. To join in, all you need to do is register your details, then you can take part in the discussion. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

    • 88 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Has RFK Jr misdiagnosed America? – podcast

      by

      Archive: AP, ABC News, CBS News, Face the Nation, Fox News, PBS Newshour
      Read Alaina Demopoulos’s feature on Maha moms
      Subscribe to the Guardian’s new narrative series Missing in the Amazon
      Send your questions and feedback to politicsweeklyamerica@theguardian.com
      Help support the Guardian. Go to theguardian.com/politcspodus More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Woman’s life-saving treatment delayed by Trump cuts to NIH: ‘Cancer shouldn’t be political’

      by

      A 43-year-old woman and mother of two with advanced cancer says she is experiencing life-or-death delays in treatment because of the Trump administration’s cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH).Natalie Phelps, who has stage 4 colorectal cancer, has spoken publicly, raising the alarm about a setback in care for herself and others who are part of clinical trials run by the agency. Her story has made it into congressional hearings and spurred a spat between a Democratic senator and the US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr. Behind the scenes, she and others are advocating to get her treatment started sooner.So far, Phelps has been told that her treatment, which should have started around mid-June, will not begin until after mid-July.“I’ve done everything I can do,” Phelps, who lives in Washington state, told the Guardian. “There’s nothing else I can do. I’m really just out of options. There’s very limited treatments approved for colorectal cancer.”Phelps is one of many Americans whose lives have been disrupted or altered by the ongoing cuts to government services made by the Trump administration’s so-called “department of government efficiency”, or Doge. Some NIH scientists have lost their jobs, and others have seen their grants ended. Researchers told the Associated Press that cuts to the agency and its programs would end treatment for cancer patients and delay cures and treatment discoveries.View image in fullscreenPhelps was diagnosed in 2020, soon after giving birth to her second child, and after her symptoms were dismissed by doctors for months. Since then, she’s gone through 48 rounds of chemotherapy. She had an 18-hour surgery to remove her primary tumor, plus two follow-up liver surgeries. She’s had radiation therapy to her brain, leg and pelvis.Dr Steven Rosenberg’s cell-based immunotherapy trial at the NIH offered hope. The treatment uses a person’s own cells to fight cancer and has seen some promise for patients with colon, rectal and GI cancers. This was deemed an exciting step by the medical community because the process had previously worked on blood cancers, but not solid cancers, the Washington Post reported.But these promising developments are coming alongside cuts to federal agencies, including ones that have affected these trials, Rosenberg has publicly confirmed. The trial itself was not cut, but it is experiencing delays because of staff reductions, Rosenberg has said.Phelps passed the initial medical steps to enter the trial in March, then flew to Bethesda, Maryland, at the end of April this year. There, they drew her blood to use to engineer T-cells for her treatment, which she previously was told takes about four weeks. Instead, she was told it would now take eight weeks, which the doctors said was because of funding cuts imposed by Doge.“That got me motivated enough to start to really panic, because my cancer between March and April really exploded and progressed to my lymph nodes and my bones,” she said. “My oncologist was very anxious about the difference between four and eight weeks could make, waiting for those treatment products.”One month can make a huge difference in late-stage cancer treatment, but the delay also brought up major decisions for Phelps. She wouldn’t be able to do chemo for a month before the treatment began. With a delay, she could maybe do chemo for a bit, then stop a month before.Then there was the size of her tumors – which would become the subject of the spat in a congressional hearing. She needed a tumor of at least one centimeter in size to start the trial, or an exemption – her disease was spreading in the number of tumors, not in one large tumor. The tumor would help scientists track how the treatment was working.View image in fullscreenIf she underwent chemo before doing a final scan needed to start the trial, tumors could shrink, affecting her eligibility. But if she waited for two months and did nothing, the disease could keep spreading. Her oncologist thought maybe the trial would have to be placed on the back burner, given the extended timeline.Phelps posted on social media, explaining her predicament. After seeing her videos, friends suggested she reach out to her members of Congress, who could intervene with the agency and help her get treated sooner.The office of Patty Murray, a Washington Democratic senator, got involved. On 14 May, Murray questioned Kennedy during a Senate health, education, labor and pensions committee hearing, sharing Phelps’ story and asking how many staff have been cut from the NIH’s clinical center. Kennedy said to reach out to his office for specifics on Phelps and claimed no cuts had been made to clinical trials. “I don’t think that should happen to anybody,” he said.Later in the hearing, though, Kennedy said his office had looked into the case and claimed that Phelps was “medically ineligible” for the trial, so her case had nothing to do with staff reductions. “That was a canard,” he told the committee, and he told Murray: “You don’t care. You don’t care about Natalie.” The exchange became a Fox News headline.It was a “spurious statement” to say she was medically ineligible, Phelps said – she was waiting for one final scan to see if her tumor was one centimeter, but had met all other criteria. She had a scan the day after the hearing, which showed her tumor had now grown large enough to qualify.“It’s been so much extra stress. The night after the hearing, I threw up all night. I barely made it to my scan because I was so stressed out,” she said. “It’s been very intense emotionally and an extreme added stress that nobody needs. Cancer just shouldn’t be political.”In a Senate appropriations hearing the next week, Kennedy again argued with Murray, saying it was “untrue” that Phelps’ care was delayed. In statements after the second exchange, Murray said her staff has been in “constant touch” with career staff at the NIH and the FDA to get help on Phelps’ case.“I still have no answer about how many NIH clinical staff have been fired,” Murray’s 20 May statement says. “I still have no answer why Natalie was told by her NIH doctor that her care was being delayed due to staffing cuts. For weeks, my staff has been demanding answers about agency staffing cuts.”In a statement, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said cancer research is a “high priority” for the NIH and HHS.“Ongoing investments reflect our dedication to addressing both urgent and long-term health challenges,” the agency said. “There have been no cuts to clinical trials.”In another statement sent after publication, the agency said the claim that patients were seeing treatment delays because of reductions in force was “false”.“No clinical trials have been cut. No personnel involved in direct patient care were affected by the RIF,” the agency said.“Clinical trials continue to be conducted in accordance with established protocols and patient safety standards. NIH investigators are responsible for ensuring trials are appropriately staffed, that patient enrollment aligns with trial capacity, and that participants are fully informed of timelines and potential risks of experimental treatments. We do not comment on individual patient cases in accordance with the Privacy Act and to protect patient confidentiality.”But Rosenberg, the doctor leading the trial Phelps is in, confirmed to the Washington Post in April that two patients were delayed care because of staff cuts and “purchasing slowdowns”, and these delays were confirmed before big layoffs hit the agency.Rosenberg didn’t respond to requests for comment this week. He previously told the Cancer Letter, an oncology publication, that Phelps was, at the time of the hearing, not eligible because of her tumors’ size, but was scheduled for additional scans to see if they had grown. He confirmed that, if determined eligible, her case would be delayed by a month because of reductions in force.Phelps wasn’t alone, he told the publication – nearly all of the trial patients were seeing a delay of about a month, which he attributed to a “loss of technicians” as part of reductions in force done by the Trump administration. It isn’t just delays, either.“We’ve had to drop the number of pa­tients we treat by about half. We’re just having to turn away more patients,” Rosenberg said.Phelps is still waiting to hear when she can start treatment. As of last Thursday, she was told she had a spot in the queue and the agency was seeing if her treatment could be moved up. On Tuesday, she was told it would now be 21 July. The NIH told her the agency tried to hire back staff, but it hasn’t worked out.“I have nothing to lose at this point. I’m pleading for my life. I’m begging for help,” she said. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr’s ‘Maha’ report found to contain citations to nonexistent studies

      by

      Robert F Kennedy Jr’s flagship health commission report contains citations to studies that do not exist, according to an investigation by the US publication Notus.The report exposes glaring scientific failures from a health secretary who earlier this week threatened to ban government scientists from publishing in leading medical journals.The 73-page “Make America healthy again” report – which was commissioned by the Trump administration to examine the causes of chronic illness, and which Kennedy promoted it as “gold-standard” science backed by more than 500 citations – includes references to seven studies that appear to be entirely invented, and others that the researchers say have been mischaracterized.Two supposed studies on ADHD medication advertising simply do not exist in the journals where they are claimed to be published. Virginia Commonwealth University confirmed to Notus that researcher Robert L Findling, listed as an author of one paper, never wrote such an article, while another citation leads only to the Kennedy report itself when searched online.Harold J Farber, a pediatric specialist supposedly behind research on asthma overprescribing, told Notus he never wrote the cited paper and had never worked with the other listed authors.The US Department of Health and Human Services has not immediately responded to a Guardian request for comment.The citation failures come as Kennedy, a noted skeptic of vaccines, criticized medical publishing this week, branding top journals the Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine and Jama as “corrupt” and alleging they were controlled by pharmaceutical companies. He outlined plans for creating government-run journals instead.Beyond the phantom studies in Kennedy’s report, Notus found it systematically misrepresented existing research.For example, one paper was claimed to show that talking therapy was as effective as psychiatric medication, but the statistician Joanne McKenzie said this was impossible, as “we did not include psychotherapy” in the review.The sleep researcher Mariana G Figueiro also said her study was mischaracterized, with the report incorrectly stating it involved children rather than college students, and citing the wrong journal entirely.The Trump administration asked Kennedy for the report in order to look at chronic illness causes, from pesticides to mobile phone radiation. Kennedy called it a “milestone” that provides “evidence-based foundation” for sweeping policy changes.A follow-up “Make our children healthy again strategy” report is due in August, raising concerns about the scientific credibility underpinning the administration’s health agenda. More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: Are doctors right to threaten more NHS strikes over pay? Join The Independent Debate

      by

      With ballots now open for strike action, the simmering dispute over NHS doctors’ pay has reignited tensions between the government and frontline medics, and the country is once again facing the prospect of disruption to patient care.At the heart of the row is a new government pay offer: an average 5.4 per cent rise for resident doctors, formerly known as junior doctors, and a £750 lump sum. Health Secretary Wes Streeting has insisted it is a step on a longer “journey” to fix pay and has urged doctors not to derail progress on reducing NHS waiting lists, warning that strikes should remain a “last resort.”But the British Medical Association says the offer falls far short. With real-terms pay down more than 20 per cent over 17 years, and record numbers of doctors leaving the profession, union leaders have insisted that the time for half-measures is over. While Mr Streeting has admitted the NHS has treated doctors “like crap”, without real change, many have argued that such acknowledgements ring hollow.Supporters of the strike say enough is enough: the NHS cannot be rebuilt on goodwill alone. Critics, meanwhile, fear that further walkouts risk harming patients and reversing hard-won gains on waiting lists.As the ballot continues and strike dates loom, we want to hear from you: should doctors strike, or is the cost to patients too high? How can the NHS attract – and keep – talented staff?We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts on the assisted dying bill in the comments and vote in the poll below – we’ll feature the most compelling responses and discuss the results in the coming days.All you have to do is sign up and register your details – then you can take part in the debate. You can also sign up by clicking ‘log in’ on the top right-hand corner of the screen. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Key takeaways: RFK Jr’s ‘Maha’ report on chronic disease in children

      by

      Donald Trump’s health secretary and long-time vaccine skeptic, Robert F Kennedy Jr, presented a highly anticipated report on children’s health this week.The “Maha commission” report, referring to the “Make America healthy again” movement, was required by a presidential executive order in February. The report focuses on chronic disease among children.The 68-page report broadly summarizes five areas affecting children’s health, with a focus on ultra-processed foods, environmental chemical exposure, lack of physical activity, “overmedicalization”, and “capture” of regulatory agencies.It notably omits some of the most common causes of chronic disease and death in children, insinuates there could be harms where there is lack of evidence, and avoids discussing how Republicans have already changed the health system in ways researchers believe are harmful.Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, told the Guardian that the report has “interesting ideas about health and children’s health and crackpot fringe tin-hat-wearing nonsense – it’s got it all”.Here are five of the key takeaways from the report.1. The report ignores some common dangers to childrenThe most common causes of death among children are car crashes and firearm accidents. The report ignores these issues, as well as behaviors that often start in adolescence and lead to chronic disease in adulthood, such as smoking and alcohol use. It also criticizes water fluoridation, without mentioning its protective effects against cavities.Also, absent from the report is a discussion of how the administration has already changed the health department in ways that advocates argue will benefit industry and could exacerbate chronic disease.For instance, Kennedy eliminated two smoking prevention offices at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in what one former regulator told Stat was “the greatest gift to the tobacco industry in the last half century”. He also eliminated a world-leading sexually transmitted infection laboratory.In another example, one of the nation’s leading researchers of ultra-processed foods quit his “dream job” after facing what he described as censorship from the administration (the health department reportedly asked him to return). In a similar vein, the Trump administration cut a program that delivered local whole foods to schools soon after taking office, in spite of Kennedy calling for healthier school meals.2. The report focuses on issues key to Kennedy’s view of healthThe report is roughly broken up into five sections focusing on ultra-processed foods, environmental chemical exposures, children’s mental health, “overmedicalization” and “corporate capture” of regulators by the industries they are supposed to oversee.Kennedy has harped on many of the issues listed in the report for months in public appearances and even though his defunct presidential campaign – especially including ultra-processed foods and obesity. Although some of these concerns may find bipartisan support – such as the focus on “forever chemicals” such as Pfas – it also pushes into areas where the science is unsettled.For instance, the report mentions that high levels of fluoride are potentially associated with reduced IQ, but does not mention its well-established protective effects against cavities – the most common chronic condition in children, according to the National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research.Similarly, the report argues that the childhood vaccine schedule is causing concern among parents for,“their possible role in the growing childhood chronic disease crisis” – without citing evidence that vaccines are linked to any specific chronic disease.3. It’s likely to face diverse pushback – and create new alliancesEven before the report was published, congressional lawmakers were being bombarded by calls from agricultural and chemical lobbyists wary of how the report would criticize their products – and indeed it did.One of the report’s sections questions whether “crop protection tools” including “pesticides, herbicides and insecticides” could harm human health. It then specifically name-drops glyphosate, the key ingredient in Roundup, and atrazine, a common herbicide. That is sure to make for strange political bedfellows and consternation within the Republican party. Similarly, the report cites synthetic dyes and ultra-processed foods are potentially harmful.Chemicals and food additives have been issues of concern for decades on the left. However, the Maha movement has also catalyzed opposition to them on the right.4. The report’s authors are not namedThe commission’s members are made up of the heads of intersecting agencies, including Kennedy at the Department of Health and Human Services, and the heads of the departments of agriculture, housing, education, veterans affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency, among others.However, the exact authors of the report are unknown. This contrasts with Kennedy’s repeated promise at his confirmation hearing that his health department would practice “radical transparency”.The work of the “Maha” commission was reportedly spearheaded by senior Kennedy adviser Calley Means, a former food lobbyist and healthcare entrepreneur who rose to prominence as a Maha truth-teller. Means co-wrote a bestselling book with his sister, current US surgeon general nominee Casey Means, which blames many of America’s ills on sedentary lifestyle and poor diet.5. Changing any of the issues identified is likely to be toughOne of the key issues the report identifies is the influence of food, pharmaceutical and chemical companies on American policy. They are monied and powerful.As a result, getting real change through Congress is certain to be tough – especially in an administration devoted to reducing regulations. More