David Intocaso
After 16 years in Washington, D.C., in 2013, I created the Healthcare Policy Podcast. The title section is intended to be ironic because health care decisions in DC are very narrow. Thus, healthcare provides overcommercialization, reductive and financialization, or outdated, ironically lack of purchase. If the policy objectives are healthy, we will be healthier. We are not. For example, although artificial warming posture this The biggest threat to human health, we do not have relevant health care policies.
In more conventional questions, there is no mission about HHS “enhances… the well-being of all Americans. We treat the well-being of the disease. We treat the disease. We no longer define health as lack of health. The number of deaths with excessive deaths is the same, with a relatively expected life expectancy dropping, and more than 20% of health care beneficiaries will have children’s health status that exceeds that of children’s illness. Aerobic exercise, but silent on the prevalence of sexual abuse in childhood, despite Jeffrey Epstein and former House Speaker of Molester, former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, the AMA has not yet revoked Hastert Hastert’s 2006 Nathan Davis Award for “a remarkable contribution to improving public health.” ” The HHS report also remains silent on Medicaid reform, even though the program provides health care for about half of our children, it is also obvious.
Now, with 500 rounds of bullets fired at six CDC buildings after OBBBA cuts Medicaid and Medicare plans, one kills a policeman and seven months of moral tilt, the reality we face is that health care policies are now nowhere to be found. This may be because the Humphrey Architectural Leadership failed to appreciate Richard Hofstadter, busy inciting a new chapter in anti-intellectualism. We want to ask if health care confirmation has been achieved, as health care decision makers have adopted Mark Manson’s “subtle art of not giving F*ck.”
The good news is that if Congress, as well as the support of MEDPAC, MACPAC and others, can effectively heal the storm and pressure about HHS no longer fit for purpose, will lift the department away from politicization or partisan influence by redefining it as an independent agency. Such a simple and obvious reform would have received serious attention if policymakers put forward more imagination.
The idea of independent HHS has at least been recognized. About two decades ago, Arnold Relman, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, believed that health care was managed by the National Health Care Agency, defined as the Federal Reserve, which is defined as a mixed public-private private entity. Similarly, HHS will be administered by an independent committee whose members will be nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate for 14 years.
The idea was introduced in detail again in 2016, when four former FDA commissioners appointed by the Republican president recommended that the FDA become an independent agency. The Commissioner believes that FDA independence must be made firmly in terms of scientific evidence, accelerate innovation, promote rapid action and enhance accountability, transparency and public confidence.
Six years later, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stumbled upon the idea. In early 2022, GAO added HHS leadership to its Congressional “high risk list” that identified operations and plans for the executive department that were seriously mismanaged and required transformation. HHS leaders are named because GAO learns from the CDC, FDA, NIH and Policy Preparation and Response (ASPR) that political interventions may have damaged HHS’ COVID-19 response.
As a result, Gao published a report that looked at December, which explored how HHS institutions are politically affected and how they can be minimized. GAO concluded that HHS agencies are increasingly serving in key senior leadership positions, including their participation in the CDC’s weekly report review process for morbidity and mortality. GAO found that HHS “had few structural features and very few structural features that could help them avoid political intervention.”
For example, HHS cannot bypass budgets, regulatory rules and communications with Congress for review by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). To mitigate or avoid political influence, high naive hopes for agent leadership and advisory committees, a culture of scientific integrity and regulation, peer review and liquidation processes. Regarding the independent FDA, GAO is non-committee.
In addition to avoiding the use of huge banana political incitement, although vaccine estimates estimated 154 million deaths in recent memory, vaccines are clearly no longer a medical miracle – independent HHS may be less harmed by regulatory capture, and Congress largely does not have any inadequate health care policies for members and not enough to make your health inadequate and/or insufficient to apply, or no longer/or insufficient to make up, or no longer a scientific and/or insufficient market. Beyond politics. The problem, of course, is that health care halls spent $650 million last year. If HHS gets rid of the special interests politics, the department may live up to its Independence Avenue address.
David Introcaso is a healthcare research and policy consultant in Washington, D.C.
