Health

Subterms

    More stories

    • 163 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Why the US is burning $10m worth of birth control | Moira Donegan

      by

      There are few better metaphors for the receding status of American women than one offered up by the Trump administration at a medical waste disposal facility outside Paris this week: rather than distribute nearly $10m worth of birth control, which had been purchased by USAID and was destined to be given to women in low-income countries, primarily in Africa, the Americans decided to burn it.The incinerated contraceptives included 900,000 birth control implants, 2m doses of injectable long-acting birth control, 2m packs of contraceptive pills and 50,000 IUDs. The medicine is just the latest in the far-reaching fallout from cuts made by the so-called “department of government efficiency,” or Doge, a project in which Elon Musk and a group of his very young, overwhelmingly male acolytes unilaterally slashed congressionally appropriated funding to government programs they did not like. The cuts have been devastating for non-profits that work to improve women’s health and safety worldwide. Sarah Shaw, an associate director at the global family planning group MSI Reproductive Choices, says that the cuts will put women at risk as they strain their health with unplanned pregnancies and seek out illegal abortions; other women who are denied access to birth control will lose out on the opportunities for education, professional development or remunerative work that can help them escape abuse, rise out of poverty, pursue their talents and ambitions and better provide for the children they already have.When MSI attempted to buy the contraceptives, the administration would only accept full price, which the organization couldn’t afford, she said. Several non-profits, including MSI, had offered to pay to ship and repackage the supplies, according to another representative. But the Trump administration refused, partially due to federal rules the prohibit the US from providing such goods to groups that perform, provide referrals for or offer education about abortions. In addition to the cost of purchasing the contraceptives, American taxpayers will now be on the hook for about $167,000 for the cost of burning them.It’s just the latest in a series of signs that the Trump administration is turning against the provision of birth control, particularly the safe, effective and woman-controlled hormonal methods that have been a cornerstone of healthcare policy for decades and which were a precondition of women’s advancement in work and education over the past 60 years.In April, the Trump administration abruptly announced that it was suspending a large swath of the domestic service grants distributed under Title X, the program meant to help low-income Americans access birth control, STD treatment and other sexual and reproductive healthcare. Of the 86 Title X grants awarded for fiscal year 2024, nearly 25% were “temporarily withheld”, mostly based on highly suspect allegations that the grant-receiving institutions – including 13 Planned Parenthood affiliates – had failed to comply with Trump executive orders banning things like DEI programs. Eight states now receive zero Title X dollars: California, Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Tennessee and Utah. Alaska, Minnesota and Pennsylvania have also lost most of their contraception funding.The domestic cuts – along with the exclusion of Planned Parenthood clinics from Medicaid reimbursements – mean that American women, too, are now facing dramatically greater obstacles to accessing birth control. Clinics that relied on Title X funding are now set to close: 11 Planned Parenthood clinics already have, including in Democratically controlled states like California. Planned Parenthood says that cumulatively, the cuts could lead the organization to close about 200 of its 600 clinics nationwide – a devastating cut to abortion providers in particular that will make a wide range of reproductive services inaccessible to women regardless of where they live.But the Trump administration is not merely forcing these programs for women’s health and dignity go up in flames. They are redirecting them to better suit their preferred cultural outcome: one in which women’s lives, ambitions and talents are all subordinated to the task of childbearing. The New York Times reported last month that the White House is redirecting Title X funds that once went to birth control to instead fund an “infertility training center” and programs in something called “restorative reproductive medicine”. If Title X’s original aim was to help American women control their fertility so as to build healthier families and to enable them to pursue other aims – like learning or work – in the new administration’s version, the program exists mainly to encourage women to have more children. But the switch should not be seen as a genuine investment in infertility, an often devastating condition with which many Americans struggle. Because the new Title X priorities do not, by and large, direct more money to IVF. Trump promised, on the campaign trail, to make IVF free. But the procedure, which has opponents on the Christian right, is not included in the administration’s new priority of “restorative” reproductive medicine, a practice that avoids controversial fertility treatments; instead, doctors seek the “root cause” of a woman’s infertility, which may involve telling them they can conceive with proper diet and exercise.In government, money allocation is a statement of values. With its dramatic cuts to contraceptive funding at home and abroad, the Trump administration is making its values clear. It does not value women’s health; it does not value their dignity, their control over their own lives, their aspirations, their earning potential, their desire to be freed from ignorance, or poverty, or the abuse they suffer under the hands of husbands and fathers. It does not value their ability to control their own bodies, and by extension, it does not value their ability to enter the public sphere. It does not value their dreams, their gifts, their hard work or invention or aspiration to anything other than making babies. American women, like women everywhere, depend on birth control to live lives of freedom and to pursue their dreams. But because of the Trump administration, those dreams are going up in smoke.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 138 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge orders Trump administration to continue Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood

      by

      The Trump administration must continue reimbursing Planned Parenthood clinics for Medicaid-funded services, a federal judge ruled on Monday, in an escalating legal war between the reproductive health giant and the White House over Republican efforts to “defund” Planned Parenthood.Days after Donald Trump signed his sweeping tax bill, Planned Parenthood sued over a provision in the bill that ended Medicaid payments for one year to abortion providers that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023, such as Planned Parenthood. The new court order, from US district judge Indira Talwani in Boston, will protect Medicaid funding for all Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide while litigation in the case continues.The order also replaces and expands a previous edict handed down by Talwani, which initially granted a preliminary injunction specifically blocking the government from cutting Medicaid payments only to Planned Parenthood affiliates that did not provide abortions or did not receive at least $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in a given year.“Patients are likely to suffer adverse health consequences where care is disrupted or unavailable,” Talwani wrote in her Monday order.“In particular, restricting members’ ability to provide healthcare services threatens an increase in unintended pregnancies and attendant complications because of reduced access to effective contraceptives, and an increase in undiagnosed and untreated STIs.”More than 80 million people rely on Medicaid, the US government’s insurance program for low-income people.It is already illegal to use Medicaid to pay for most abortions, but Planned Parenthood clinics – which treat a disproportionate number of people who use Medicaid – rely on the program to reimburse it for services such as birth control, STI tests and cancer screenings.In its lawsuit, Planned Parenthood had argued that it would be at risk of closing nearly 200 clinics in 24 states if it is cut off from Medicaid funds. These closures would probably be felt most strongly in blue states, since they are home to larger numbers of people who use Medicaid. A Planned Parenthood affiliate in California has already been forced to close five clinics as a result of the “defunding” provision.Planned Parenthood estimated that, in all, more than 1 million patients could lose care.“We will keep fighting this cruel law so that everyone can get birth control, STI testing and treatment, cancer screenings and other critical healthcare, no matter their insurance,” the Planned Parenthood Federation of America’s president and CEO, Alexis McGill Johnson, said in a statement after the Monday ruling.Planned Parenthood is battling overwhelming political and economic headwinds. Even if it prevails against the Trump administration, its affiliates could still be removed from Medicaid in red states, thanks to a June decision by the US supreme court in favor of South Carolina in a case involving the state’s attempt to kick Planned Parenthood out of its Medicaid program.  On Monday, the state of Missouri also sued the Planned Parenthood Federation of America – the mothership organization that knits together Planned Parenthood’s network of regional affiliates – over accusations that the organization downplayed the medical risks of a common abortion pill, mifepristone, “to cut costs and boost revenue”. The lawsuit, which asks for more than $1m in damages, is part of an ongoing campaign by anti-abortion activists to cut off access to mifepristone.More than 100 studies, conducted across dozens of countries and over more than three decades, have concluded that mifepristone is a safe way to end a pregnancy.The Associated Press contributed reporting More

    • 175 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Top medical body concerned over RFK Jr’s reported plans to cut preventive health panel

      by

      A top US medical body has expressed “deep concern” to Robert F Kennedy Jr over news reports that the health secretary plans to overhaul a panel that determines which preventive health measures including cancer screenings should be covered by insurance companies.The letter from the the American Medical Association comes after the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Kennedy plans to overhaul the 40-year old US Preventive Services Task Force because he regards them as too “woke”, according to sources familiar with the matter.During his second term, Donald Trump has frequently raged against organizations and government departments that he considers too liberal – often without any evidence. The US president, and his cabinet members such as Kennedy, have also overseen huge cuts and job losses across the US government.The taskforce is made up of a 16-member panel appointed by health and human services secretaries to serve four-year terms. In addition to cancer screenings, the taskforce issues recommendations for a variety of other screenings including osteoporosis, intimate partner violence, HIV prevention, as well as depression in children.Writing in its letter to Kennedy on Sunday, the AMA defended the panel, saying: “As you know, USPSTF plays a critical, non-partisan role in guiding physicians’ efforts to prevent disease and improve the health of patients by helping to ensure access to evidence-based clinical preventive services.”“As such, we urge you to retain the previously appointed members of the USPSTF and commit to the long-standing process of regular meetings to ensure their important work can be continued without disruption,” it added.Citing Kennedy’s own slogan of “Making America healthy again,” the AMA went on to say: “USPSTF members have been selected through an open, public nomination process and are nationally recognized experts in primary care, prevention and evidence-based medicine. They serve on a volunteer basis, dedicating their time to help reduce disease and improve the health of all Americans – a mission well-aligned with the Make America Healthy Again initiative.”According to the Affordable Care Act, public and private insurance companies must cover any services recommended by the Preventive Services Task Force without cost sharing.In a statement to MedPage Today, Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Andrew Nixon did not confirm the reports, instead saying: “No final decision has been made on how the USPSTF can better support HHS’ mandate to Make America Healthy Again.”Reports of Kennedy’s alleged decision to overhaul the taskforce come after the American Conservative published an essay earlier this month that described the taskforce as advocating for “leftwing ideological orthodoxy”.It went on to accuse the panel of being “packed with Biden administration appointees devoted to the ideological capture of medicine”, warning that the “continued occupation of an important advisory body in HHS – one that has the capacity to force private health insurers to cover services and procedures – by leftwing activists would be a grave oversight by the Trump administration”.In response to the essay, 104 health organizations, including the American Medical Association, issued a separate letter to multiple congressional health committees in which they urged the committees to “protect the integrity” of the taskforce.“The loss of trustworthiness in the rigorous and nonpartisan work of the Task Force would devastate patients, hospital systems, and payers as misinformation creates barriers to accessing lifesaving and cost effective care,” the organizations said.In June, Kennedy removed all 17 members of a US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention panel of vaccine experts. Writing in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, he accused the committee of having too many conflicts of interest.Kennedy’s decision to overhaul the immunization panel was met with widespread criticism from health experts, with the American Public Health Association executive director Georges Benjamin calling the ouster “a coup”.“It’s not how democracies work. It’s not good for the health of the nation,” Benjamin said. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats use new tactic to highlight Trump’s gutting of Medicaid: billboards in the rural US

      by

      The road to four struggling rural hospitals now hosts a political message: “If this hospital closes, blame Trump.”In a series of black-and-yellow billboards erected near the facilities, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) seeks to tell voters in deep red states “who is responsible for gutting rural healthcare”.“UNDER TRUMP’S WATCH, STILWELL GENERAL HOSPITAL IS CLOSING ITS DOORS,” one sign screams. The billboards are outside hospitals in Silex, Missouri; Columbus, Indiana; Stilwell, Oklahoma; and Missoula, Montana.The fate of rural hospitals has become a politically contentious issue for Republicans, as historic cuts pushed through by the GOP are expected to come into effect over the next decade. Donald Trump’s enormous One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) cut more than $1tn from Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans, insuring more than 71 million adults.“Where the real impact is going to be is on the people who just won’t get care,” said Dave Kendall, a senior fellow for health and fiscal policy at Third Way, a center-left advocacy organization.“That’s what used to happen before we had rural hospitals – they just don’t get the care because they can’t afford it, and they can’t get to the hospital.”In response to criticism, Republicans added a $50bn “rural health transformation fund” just before passage of the OBBBA. The fund is expected to cover about one-third of the losses rural areas will face, and about 70% of the losses for the four hospitals where Democrats now have nearby billboards. The rural health fund provides money through 2030, while the Medicaid cuts are not time-bound.That is already becoming a political football, as Democrats argued in a letter that the money is a “slush fund” already promised to key Republican Congress members.“We are alarmed by reports suggesting these taxpayer funds are already promised to Republican members of Congress in exchange for their votes in support of the Big, Ugly Betrayal,” wrote 16 Democratic senators in a letter to Dr Mehmet Oz, Trump’s head of Medicare and Medicaid.View image in fullscreen“In addition, the vague legislative language creating this fund will seemingly function as your personal fund to be distributed according to your political whims.”Rural hospitals have been under financial strain for more than a decade. Since 2010, 153 rural hospitals have closed or lost the inpatient services which partly define a hospital, according to the University of North Carolina Sheps Center for Health Services Research.“In states across the country, hospitals are either closing their doors or cutting critical services, and it’s Trump’s own voters who will suffer the most,” said the DNC chair, Ken Martin, in a statement announcing the billboards.The OBBBA is expected to further exacerbate those financial strains. A recent analysis by the Urban Institute found rural hospitals are likely to see an $87bn loss in the next 10 years.“We’re expecting rural hospitals to close as a result – we’ve already started to see some hospitals like, ‘OK, how are we going to survive?’” said Third Way’s Kendall.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionA June analysis by the Sheps Center found that 338 rural hospitals, including dozens in states such as Louisiana, Kentucky and Oklahoma, could close as a result of the OBBBA. There are nearly 1,800 rural hospitals nationally, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), a healthcare research non-profit.That perspective was buttressed by the CEO of the National Rural Health Association, Alan Morgan, who in a recent newsletter said 45% of rural hospitals are already operating at a loss.“When you remove $155bn over the next 10 years, it’s going to have an impact,” he said.In the fragmented US healthcare ecosystem, Medicaid is both the largest and poorest payer of healthcare providers. Patients benefit from largely no-cost care, but hospitals complain that Medicaid rates don’t pay for the cost of service, making institutions that disproportionately rely on Medicaid less financially stable. In rural areas, benefit-rich employer health insurance is harder to come by; therefore, more hospitals depend on Medicaid.But even though Medicaid pays less than other insurance programs, some payment is still better than none. Trump’s OBBBA cut of more than $1tn from the program over the coming decade is expected to result in nearly 12 million people losing coverage.When uninsured people get sick, they are more likely to delay care, more likely to use hospital emergency rooms and more likely to struggle to pay their bills. In turn, the institutions that serve them also suffer.“This is what Donald Trump does – screw over the people who are counting on him,” said Martin, the DNC chair. “These new DNC billboards plainly state exactly what is happening to rural hospitals under Donald Trump’s watch.” More

    • 188 Shares109 Views

      in US Politics

      RFK Jr wants bright artificial dyes out of food. Are Americans ready to let go?

      by

      The Make America Healthy Again (Maha) movement celebrated this month after the US dairy industry voluntarily pledged to remove all artificial dyes from ice-cream by 2028. In April, US health secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr prevailed upon the food industry to stop using artificial dyes, and many of the nation’s largest food manufacturers, including Nestle, Kraft Heinz and PepsiCo, have already promised to comply. But the ice-cream pledge made Kennedy especially happy because, he said, ice-cream is his favorite food.Prepare to say goodbye to the brilliant pink (from red dye No 40) that signifies strawberry, the cool green (yellow 5 and blue 1) of mint chocolate chip, and the heroic combination of red 40, blue 1, and yellow 5 and 6 that makes up Superman.One of the goals of the Maha movement is to prevent childhood diseases, which Kennedy argues can be accomplished by, among other things, addressing the use of additives in ultra-processed foods. A recent study published in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics calculated that, in 2020, 19% of food products contained artificial dyes – “the most egregious” additive, according to Kennedy. Those dyes, he claims, are responsible for a host of health issues, including cancer, hyperactivity and possibly autism.“The American people have made it clear – they want real food, not chemicals,” Kennedy said in a statement.View image in fullscreenAside from jokes on social media about Donald Trump’s skin tone and Kennedy’s alleged use of methylene blue (an artificial dye that some claim boosts “mitochondrial efficiency” and longevity), the initiative has faced little political opposition. In January, when Joe Biden was still president, the FDA announced a ban on red dye No 3 scheduled to go into effect in 2027. Red 3, the FDA explained, was shown to cause cancer in rats, and while it does not show up in food in large enough quantities to affect humans, it still violates a law forbidding additives that contain carcinogens.Meanwhile, states as politically varied as West Virginia, Texas and California have already established their own bans or requirements that foods containing artificial dyes carry warning labels, citing the need to protect kids. (In the UK and the EU, restrictions on artificial dyes have been in place for years.)Why the fuss over food coloring? Are natural dyes really that much better for our health?“They’re better for some people’s health,” says Jamie Alan, a professor of pharmacology and toxicology at Michigan State University. “There is a very small percentage of children who are very sensitive to these dyes. And when they eat these dyes, they display behaviors that we sometimes associate with ADHD.”Alan stresses that there is no evidence that those kids actually develop ADHD. But research has found that after eating foods containing certain dyes, children, including those diagnosed with ADHD or autism, can show signs of hyperactivity, moodiness and inattentiveness. However many of these foods, particularly candy and soda, also contain sugar, which has also been connected to hyperactive behavior.Alan recommends that parents talk to a pediatrician and try an elimination diet to make sure the dye and not another ingredient is to blame. But she largely supports phasing out artificial dyes; most public health advocates think this is a good idea. “In my opinion,” Alan says, “because we’re talking about children and because they are a vulnerable population, I do think this is a great thing to do. But I will recognize that it is not going to impact the vast majority of the population.”One group that the change in dyes will certainly affect is the food manufacturers themselves. Switching from artificial to natural dyes is a complex process, says Travis Zissu, the co-founder and innovation lead of Scale Food Labs in Golden, Colorado, which offers a program to help manufacturers with the dye conversion.View image in fullscreenUnlike artificial dyes, which are derived from petroleum, natural dyes come mostly from plants: turmeric, for example, is used for yellows; algae and butterfly pea flower for blues; lycopene from carrots and tomatoes for reds. These dyes can be less stable, so Scale’s program begins with finding natural pigments that will not be affected by heat and other chemicals, followed by tests to determine which combination of dyes will produce the most reliable color. Next, Scale helps companies lock in contracts that will not force them to raise their prices too much and secure light-sensitive packaging to protect the colors. Finally, there are nine to 12 months of product testing to make sure production runs smoothly and that there are no adverse effects for consumers, such as red-dyed feces (something that has been known to happen with beet powder and extract; Alan says it’s harmless, but admits it can be unnerving).But Zissu’s biggest concern is that there won’t be enough to go around. Natural color demand is already up between 30-50% across the industry since food companies began announcing their intentions to stop using artificial color, he says, and the earliest deadline – 2027 – is still years away.“There is simply not enough supply to replace every single item in the market,” he says. “You’ll see the largest companies locking down colors soon, but there will not be enough until 2030.”There is also the worry that American consumers will reject the new colors altogether. While their counterparts in Europe, Canada and Japan have peacefully accepted the duller hues of natural dyes, Americans remain stubbornly attached to neon-bright candy and cereal.Case in point: in 2015, General Mills pledged to remove all artificial colors and flavorings from its products. The following year, it rolled out a natural version of Trix, the kid-friendly fruity breakfast cereal. But the muted Trix, colored by radishes, purple carrots and turmeric, was a flop. Customers missed the vibrant colors and complained that the new version didn’t taste right. By 2017, “classic Trix” had returned to grocery stores.On the other hand, when Kraft reformulated the powder for its macaroni and cheese and quietly began selling the all-natural version in December 2015, there was much less protest. As an Eater headline at the time put it: “Kraft Changed Its Mac and Cheese and Nobody Noticed.” Perhaps it was the marketing strategy – Kraft did not bother to make a big announcement until after it had sold 50m boxes – or maybe it was because the natural dyes were just as orange as the original. (Alan recalls that her young nieces and nephews were slightly worried about the change but accepted the new mac and cheese without much fuss.)As the adage goes, we eat with our eyes. The appearance of food should not change our perceptions of how it tastes, but, as anyone who has ever bought produce knows, it definitely does. In nature, brighter colors indicate that foods are ripe and will taste good. This principle also applies to human-made food.As far back as the middle ages, according to Ai Hisano, a professor of business history at the University of Tokyo and author of Visualizing Taste: How Business Changed the Look of What You Eat, dairy farmers would mix carrot juice and annatto from achiote trees into their butter to make it a more appetizing yellow. When scientists discovered petroleum-based dyes in the mid-19th century, the dairy industry was one of the earliest adopters: the artificial dyes were cheaper, and they helped create uniform yellows for butter and cheese that appealed to shoppers.Other food producers quickly followed suit. Meat would be red! Sandwich bread would be white! Oranges – which sometimes stayed green, even when they were ripe – would be orange! By the early 20th century, the US government had started regulating food coloring to make sure it didn’t kill anyone.This was also the beginning of the golden age of industrial food such as candy, breakfast cereal and, most notoriously, Jell-O, which came in colors never seen in nature. Food dye became vital for branding, Hisano writes. Even if brighter color didn’t really affect flavor because the food was entirely manufactured, people perceived that it did, and that was what mattered. Would a beige Flamin’ Hot Cheeto taste as spicy?View image in fullscreen“I assume many consumers in the early 20th century were frightened by those bright-red foods,” Hisano told the Atlantic in 2017. “But one reason consumers liked them is because they were excited about these colors they had never seen before.” And the knowledge that they were regulated by the FDA made them feel they were safe to eat.Because the identity of their products depends on color, the most resistance to Kennedy’s initiative has come from America’s candy manufacturers. A spokesman for the National Confectioners Association said that candy makers will not adopt natural dyes until federal regulations compel them to. Of all the biggest US food companies, only Mars, maker of M&Ms, Skittles and Starburst (incidentally, Trump’s favorite candy), has not yet pledged to give up artificial dye, except for the already banned red 3. However, FDA commissioner Marty Makary told Fox News that he thinks Mars will come around sooner than later.Zissu, the food dye consultant, foresees “an R&D sprint” to develop natural dyes before the 2027 deadline. And indeed, since May, the FDA has approved four new natural colors – three blues and one white – for a wide range of food, including juices, milk-based meal replacements, cereal, chips, sugar and ready-to-eat chicken products.But Zissu does not think that a transition to natural dyes means that the color of food will revert to a pre-industrial dullness. “I believe we will always see the bright colors in candy and other items that consumers come to expect,” he says. “There will just be a lot more research dedicated to getting those colors if artificial [dye] is banned.”It may also help if America’s food manufacturers act en masse, as they appear to be doing: the change will be so overwhelming that, as Zissu puts it, “neon synthetics will look as dated as trans fats.” Perhaps in a few years, we will look back at green mint chip ice-cream in wonder. (Some people already do: many ice-cream producers, including Ben & Jerry’s and Häagen-Dazs, don’t use green as the signifier for mint.)It seems Maha is poised to help shake America of its affair with artificial colors. But it celebrates this victory at the same time as the Trump administration guts public health infrastructure.The ice-cream industry’s pledge came just 11 days after Congress passed a spending bill that will cut Medicaid spending, and therefore healthcare for millions of children, and slash Snap food assistance for US families. It came the same day that the Department of Health laid off thousands of employees. Under Trump, the government has also cut research grants to scientists studying, among other things, disease prevention and vaccines (of which Kennedy is a notorious skeptic). Underlying issues such as food and housing insecurity and child poverty that devastate children’s wellbeing are likely to worsen.Alan thinks that if Kennedy is serious about improving the health of America’s kids, there are much more pressing issues than food dye to work on. “I just can’t believe that someone would be given a chance to make such an impact,” she says, “and this is what they choose to do.” More

    • 225 Shares159 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: ‘They work long, unsocial hours – for what?’ Frustration over doctor pay boils over as strikes begin

      by

      Public opinion on whether resident doctors are fairly paid is sharply divided – but nearly half of Independent readers agree with the government’s stance that their current salaries are reasonable.In our poll, 49 per cent said the doctors’ pay is fair given NHS budget pressures. Just over a quarter said they could be paid more but felt a 29 per cent increase is too high, while a further 25 per cent backed the BMA’s demand for significantly higher pay, especially in light of rising inflation and real-terms wage cuts since 2008.“The answer to this is quite simple,” wrote one reader. “Pay them more or they will leave in droves… Does anyone believe healthcare can function without doctors?”But some readers felt the scale of the strike is unreasonable, with one arguing that “old-school union militancy has no place in our NHS.”The walkout comes despite last-minute appeals from Sir Keir Starmer and health secretary Wes Streeting, who warned that the five-day strike could derail NHS recovery efforts and harm patient care. With hospitals bracing for widespread disruption and ministers urging the BMA to return to talks, the question remains: are doctors fighting for fairness – or pushing too far?Here’s what you had to say:This is just another aspect of a failing countryOf course these doctors deserve a higher rate of pay, I cannot see solicitors working for what they get.However, this is just another aspect of a failing country.A country run by politicians who could play internal political games with an EU referendum, which has destroyed businesses and lives, to say nothing of GDP… and for what, may I ask?All public services are now in freefall, and on top of this, we have to increase spending on defence.Thank goodness that the public can still go holidaying in Spain and vote for a snake oil salesman!Until we wake up to who and what we are in the world, this will continue… downwards.PateleyladDo you support the strike, or do you think resident doctors have already had a fair deal? Share your views in the comments.Pay them more, or they will leave in drovesThe answer to this is quite simple. Pay them more, or they will leave in droves (already are leaving in droves) to countries that pay them properly.Does anyone believe healthcare can function without doctors?AndrewBAccountants versus doctorsAverage pay for a newly qualified accountant: approx. £40k – very similar to a newly qualified junior doctor, who does more hours, has more stress, and does a much more important job in a much more challenging environment.I was an accountant. Throughout my career, I held various roles, many of which involved managing or saving money for individuals who already had more than they could spend in several lifetimes. By and large, I worked in warm, well-lit offices, and the only blood I ever saw was when I audited a veterinary practice and they (quite deliberately, I’m sure) walked me through a theatre while a dog was being operated on.WokeUpLong, unsociable hoursThese are not medical students – they are qualified doctors!They pay for their own training, amassing around £100,000+ in debt – more if they specialise.It takes maybe 12 years to get to consultant level and requires even more studying.They work long, unsociable hours and have to keep studying.For £15 an hour?That’s not to say I trust the medical profession anymore – I don’t – but that is more down to the culture of the NHS Trusts (what a misnomer that is!), who now seem to spend more on legal claims than they do on care…lottageladyAnything less for doctors cannot be considered fairOf course they aren’t paid fairly.Fairness in pay is relative. When footballers, rock stars, movie stars, and C-suiters are paid millions, anything less for doctors cannot ever be considered fair by anyone able to think.TrevSmith82Public servants are underpaidJunior Drs (so-called until they start behaving like adults) need to appreciate that the vast majority of public servants are underpaid in comparison to their predecessors before austerity.Many were in primary school at the pay reference point they use for comparative purposes, so would have had plenty of time to choose another profession if income was of primary importance.Finally, pay differentials with other health professions should be accepted as an honest appraisal of whether they are being treated fairly.Frankly, large educational debt is borne by many others who don’t see it as a legitimate cause to take industrial action.RedpawnJust now, they have 25 per cent public support in the poll above.Nearly everybody has suffered a decline in living standards since 2008, due to the financial crash and indeed, due to Brexit.We don’t all have the option of pointing a gun at the government’s head and saying “Bwaaa! Don’t like this! Gimme!”That gun is pointed at our heads: their gain is the taxpayers’ loss.For kids just leaving university in their very first jobs, they are very well paid. If they turn out to be any good, they will end up very rich, and they know it.Enough. Go away. Old-school union militancy has no place in our NHS.SteveHillTheir pay is abysmalHow anyone can say their pay is fair is beyond me.By the time you’ve taken tax, NI, and pension contributions off that figure, they are working all hours for not much more than the basic wage!Do you really think doctors are worth only that? These people save your lives, for goodness’ sake – and their pay is abysmal!deadduckThe UK spend per capitaHealth spend per capita [US $], private and state system:United Kingdom: $5,493 Ireland: $6,047 – 10% more than UK Switzerland: $8,049 – 46% more Germany: $8,011 – 45% more France: $6,630 – 21% more US: $10,644 – 93% more Australia: $6,372 – 16% more Source is OECD. The average spend of all members is $4,986. India has the lowest spending at just $212.The UK Government’s spending is just $4,479.wolfieSome of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment click here. More

    • 225 Shares169 Views

      in UK Politics

      Voices: Poll of the day: Do you think resident doctors are fairly paid for the work they do?

      by

      Resident doctors are staging a walkout – but are they justified in demanding higher pay?Talks between the British Medical Association (BMA) and the government have broken down, triggering a five-day strike starting on Friday and the threat of monthly walkouts until a deal is reached.The government has already awarded a 5.4 per cent pay rise this year, bringing salaries for foundation doctors to between £38,831 and £44,439, and up to £73,992 for those in specialist training. But the BMA argues this still falls short of where pay should be, after more than a decade of real-terms decline.It is calling for pay to rise to between £47,308 and £54,274 for foundation doctors, and up to £90,989 at the top end of specialist training – a 29 per cent increase phased in over time.Health Secretary Wes Streeting has described the strike as “completely unjustified” and stated that the current pay offer is fair. But the BMA insists current salaries don’t reflect the demands of the job or the debt many junior doctors carry from medical school.The NHS Confederation warns that each 0.1 per cent pay rise across the service costs an extra £125 million a year, and with 75,000 junior doctors in England, meeting the BMA’s request could run into the billions.So, are resident doctors being underpaid – or is their demand simply unaffordable?Vote in our poll and share your views in the comments below. More

    • 200 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Health experts raise alarm over RFK Jr’s ‘war on science’ amid mass firings and budget cuts

      by

      The Trump administration’s “war on science” appears to have entered a new phase in the aftermath of a recent supreme court decision that empowered health and human services secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, a prominent vaccine sceptic, and other agency leaders, to implement mass firings – effectively greenlighting the politicization of science.The decision comes as Kennedy abruptly canceled a scheduled meeting of a key health care advisory panel, the US Preventive Services Task Force, earlier this month. That, combined with his recent removal of a panel of more than a dozen vaccine advisers, signals that his dismantling of the science-based policymaking at HHS is likely far from over.“The current administration is waging a war on science,” warned Celine Gounder, a professor of medicine and an infectious disease expert at New York University in a keynote talk in May to graduates of Harvard’s School of Public Health.“Today we see rising threats to the public health institutions that have kept our world safe for generations,” she said, citing “cuts to research that benefits the lives of millions, looming public health emergencies that are not being addressed with the urgency they demand, and a continued coordinated attack on the very idea of the scientific process.”Gounder added: “Over the past few months, we have seen the Trump administration engage not only in medical misinformation, but in active censorship of scientific discourse.”Since he took the helm at HHS, Kennedy’s unscientific views on vaccines and some other medical matters coupled with the agency’s widespread research and staff cuts, have prompted protests from scientists inside and outside HHS plus lawsuits.Medical experts say Kennedy’s policies are helping “sow distrust in vaccines” as measles cases soar to a more than three decade high, hurt vital healthcare research with draconian cuts, and helped foment a Trump administration “war on science” mentality.Kennedy sparked a firestorm in June by ousting 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which recommends vaccines to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and votes to provide updates to its vaccine schedule. He then named a new eight person vaccine panel – half of whom share Kennedy’s distrust of vaccines – who quickly retracted recommendations for flu vaccines containing an ingredient which many anti-vaxxers have falsely connected to autism.That move sparked sharp criticism from veteran doctors with a national pediatric group, which opted to boycott its first meeting.“Among the reasons we decided not to participate was because it clearly appeared to be an orchestrated effort to sow distrust in vaccines,” Sean O’Leary who chairs a committee on infectious diseases with the American Academy of Pediatrics, told the Guardian.Dissent has also spread at the National Institutes of Health, where dozens of science researchers and other staff in June released a detailed document, dubbed the Bethesda Declaration, warning that key missions of the premiere research agency at HHS were being damaged by the Trump administration’s budget cutting.Even before these moves, prominent healthcare scholars were sounding loud alarms about some HHS policies and the administration’s anti-science mentality – including its draconian budget cuts for research and staff cuts totaling over 10,000.Gounder said there has been a “flood of Orwellian doublespeak from public health agencies”, contributing to declining vaccination rates and making Americans more susceptible to diseases like measles, which recently hit a level not seen since 2000 when measles was declared eliminated in the US.Her critique has been amplified by public protests from healthcare experts troubled by its vaccine policies and large cuts to research and staff at the Food and Drug Administration, the NIH and other parts of HHS.On a separate legal front, a Rhode Island federal court in July ruled against HHS and Kennedy and put a temporary stop to the drastic revamping of HHS and some of its staff cuts.The ruling provided a court victory to a group of 19 Democratic state attorneys general, plus the District of Columbia, which in May sued Kennedy – plus other HHS leaders such as the FDA commissioner and the CDC’s acting director – attacking the restructuring as an “unconstitutional and illegal dismantling” of the agency. Kennedy, they alleged, has “systematically deprived HHS of the resources necessary to do its job”.The Rhode Island judge wrote that as members of the executive branch, Kennedy and the HHS do “not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress”.For his part, Kennedy in March issued a statement defending the early HHS move to cut 10,000 full-time jobs: “We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic.”Those jobs have since been cut, as of Monday 14 July, after an 8 July order from the supreme court that allowed the restructuring plans to proceed. Many employees who were supposed to be laid off during the agency’s first round of 10,000 layoffs in April have been in limbo as the order made its way through the court system and later paused by federal judges. The reorganization, in addition to cutting staff, was supposed to consolidate the department’s 28 divisions into 15 and cut regional offices from 10 to five.Democrats in Congress too have voiced strong alarms about the thousands of HHS job cuts and their adverse impacts on healthcare and science.Ten congressional Democrats led by congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland, whose district is home to thousands of NIH and FDA workers, wrote to Kennedy in March demanding the rehiring of thousands of illegally fired workers, warning of the “harmful consequences” for patient healthcare and science research.Raskin told the Guardian that Kennedy and the Trump administration’s actions reveal a “complete disregard for the law making powers of Congress. Trump wants to be both the implementer of the laws and the legislative branch, but that is not his job. It’s totally unconstitutional. They’re trying to cut off funds that have been lawfully appropriated by Congress”.O’Leary and many other medical experts warn that the dangerous ideologically driven cuts at HHS will have long-term consequences.“What we’re seeing across HHS is deeply concerning,” said O’Leary “NIH funding has never been politically or ideologically driven, but clearly that’s what we’re seeing now. Those cuts are going to have serious consequences for our country and healthcare.” More