Health

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing titled Legislative Proposals to Maintain and Improve the Public Health Workforce, Rural Health, and Over-the-Counter Medicines. Subcommittee Chairman Griffith’s opening statement as prepared for delivery: “Today’s legislative hearing is necessary to continue essential programs that are vital to our health care infrastructure.  “Many of the bills before us expire at the end of this fiscal year and must be reauthorized.   “One of the bills that will be discussed today is H.R. 4273, the Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Amendments, led by Mr. Latta and Ranking Member DeGette.   “The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which passed in 2020, modernized the regulation of over-the-counter monograph drugs and products. It also created a new user fee program to support this new framework, also known as OMUFA.   “Generally, a company can market an over-the-counter drug if they either submit a new drug application or go through the over-the-counter monograph process.   “Prior to 2020, this involved a lengthy, burdensome three-phase, rulemaking process.  “This led to Congress creating a new regulatory framework that allows FDA to issue administrative orders determining that a product is generally recognized as safe and effective, or GRASE (GRACE), and simultaneously establishing a new user fee program to help ensure this process is effective and streamlined.   “This is the first reauthorization of OMUFA.  “We hope to work in a bipartisan way to address any outstanding issues to ensure this program is functioning how Congress initially intended, including minimizing regulatory burdens, supporting innovation, and increasing access to products in a safe and efficient manner.   “We will also consider other legislation that will help encourage the FDA to be more flexible in their review processes.   “H.R. 3686, the SAFE Sunscreen Standards Act, led by Dr. Joyce and Mrs. Dingell, would require the FDA to consider the use of certain real-world, evidence-based and non-animal testing methods when it comes to evaluating new sunscreen active ingredients in the United States.   “We are behind other countries in bringing innovative sunscreens to market, and this bill would help to bridge that gap.  “During our last hearing on OMUFA, we had a robust discussion around the need for more innovative sunscreens to be available in the United States.   “I look forward to the discussion around these policies today.  “Along similar lines, the FDA must keep pace with current technological advancements, which includes greater utilization of non-animal testing methods.   “H.R. 2821, led by Reps. Carter and Barragan, would help support FDA’s efforts to do just that.   “Congress gave FDA this ability in 2022 when the FDA Modernization 2.0 was signed into law, but the FDA has failed to fully implement these practices.   “This legislation would require the FDA to finally update its regulations to account for non-animal testing. “This bill does not require non-animal testing; it simply provides the option if companies wish to pursue less costly methods, such as computer AI modeling or organ chip testing.   “There are also two important reauthorizations in front of us today that serve a vital role in helping our medical workforce, which are the Title VII and Title VIII reauthorizations.   “These programs allocate resources for scholarships and educational assistance, so students from underserved backgrounds, who are often from rural areas, can pursue medical careers and help support the medical workforce that Americans widely rely upon.   “It is crucial for Congress to take a close look at these programs to ensure resources are going to areas and patients who need it most.  “We are also discussing legislation that will continue grants for certain health care services in rural areas and help to increase the use of telehealth, so patients can access care more easily.  “Reauthorizing the Telehealth Resource Centers Grant Program will support our telehealth infrastructure that has become a lifeline for both providers and patients across the country– especially in rural areas.   “Considering each of these reauthorizations is an important step forward to ensure each program is working as intended.  “I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today regarding the importance of these programs, and to ensure they are reauthorized in a timely manner.”   ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Today, Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, issued the following statement after President Trump signed the HALT Fentanyl Act into law.  “Today, America celebrates the passage of legislation that equips law-enforcement officers with necessary tools needed to combat the fentanyl crisis, promotes effective research of schedule I substances, and works to keep extremely lethal and dangerous drugs off of our streets,” said Chairman Guthrie . “I want to thank President Trump for his continued commitment to keeping illicit substances out of our country, and the HALT Fentanyl Act works directly in line with that mission. As the Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, I’m proud to have been a part of creating such critical legislation that permanently places fentanyl-related substances into schedule I of the Controlled Substance Act to ensure law enforcement can crack down on drug traffickers that have wrought havoc on our communities for too long.”   ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, led a hearing titled Legislative Proposals to Maintain and Improve the Public Health Workforce, Rural Health, and Over-the-Counter Medicines .   “Today’s legislative hearing is necessary to continue essential programs that are vital to our health care infrastructure. Many of the bills before us expire at the end of this fiscal year and must be reauthorized,” said Chairman Griffith. “Considering each of these reauthorizations is an important step forward to ensure each program is working as intended.”   Watch the full hearing here . Below are key excerpts from today’s hearing: Chairman Brett Guthrie (KY-02): “We’re estimated to be over 170,000 physicians short in the next decade. Title VII and Title VIII were created to help increase participation in the health care workforce. How can these programs be improved?” Dr. Candice Chen, MD, MPH: “I think the most important thing is that they are reauthorized. These programs have been very impactful. We find that our health profession training programs rely on them to support training that is focused on areas of need– whether it's specialties and professions, as well as integrating content into curriculum and training.” Congressman Bob Latta (OH-05): “Five years ago, I worked with my Energy and Commerce colleagues to modernize how the FDA regulates most OTC medicines with the enactment of the OMUFA program. These revolutionary changes made the 40-year-old system more efficient, transparent, and open to innovation. I'm very proud to once again be leading this reauthorization of such a critical program. The OMUFA program has drastically reduced the burden on our health care system by lowering the number of visits consumers need to make to a doctor to obtain a prescription for a simple treatment.” Congressman Michael Rulli (OH-06): “I’m proud to join as an original co-sponsor to Chairman Carter's bipartisan H.R. 2493, the Improving Care in Rural America Reauthorization Act. It extends grants and helps rural residents who have trouble accessing health care. I think this is a really interesting bill for myself because I think this is one of the first times that I've actually seen on the hill– versus the state House years that I did– where we have bipartisan support for our cause. I think it's really reassuring and refreshing to see such a bipartisan approach to this problem.”   ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, along with Reps. Palmer (AL-06), Carter (GA-01), Bilirakis (FL-12), and Obernolte (CA-23), penned a letter to the Executive Director of Covered California (CoveredCA), Jessica Altman, to request further information related to the potentially unauthorized transmission of sensitive personal health information involving Covered California’s website. Key Letter Excerpt: “According to public reports and agency statements, tracking technology was embedded on Covered California's website beginning in February 2024, as part of a broader digital advertising effort, and in direct contravention of the tracking platform’s user agreement, which prohibits the use of such tools on pages that collect sensitive health information. Although the tags were reportedly removed in April 2025, following external scrutiny and a vendor transition, the extended period of data exposure raises serious questions about the adequacy of safeguards that Covered California had in place. Forensic testing by investigative reporters identified the trackers in operation and confirmed that user-entered health information was being transmitted to third parties without consent. These circumstances warrant examination of Covered California’s actions under federal privacy standards.” “Ensuring the confidentiality of health information is a foundational obligation for entities operating within the health insurance ecosystem. Federal privacy protections, particularly the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), establish expectations for how covered organizations handle sensitive data. Recent reports and public filings raised questions about whether those expectations were met in this case, and whether existing oversight mechanisms are sufficient to detect and prevent improper disclosures.” Background: Forensic testing shows Covered California —the State of California’s official health insurance marketplace—has been sending sensitive user health data to third-party websites through several online data trackers. Prior to removal of the trackers, CoveredCA had more than 60 trackers active on its website; the average number of trackers on a government website is three. Some types of information sent to such websites include: Searches for doctors in network with specific plans/specializations Demographic information, including gender, ethnicity, and marital status Length of treatment a patent received by a provider Frequency of doctor visits If the user indicated they were blind, pregnant, a victim of domestic abuse, or used prescription medications. The State of California independently operates CoveredCA. As the state’s official ACA marketplace, CoveredCA falls under the purview of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). The disclosure of information such as pregnancy or prescription drug use without proper consent—even for “marketing purposes”—may violate HIPAA. This Congress, the Committee has sent letters to 23andMe and DeepSeek over potential data privacy concerns: The Committee also held a hearing last Congress on the Change Healthcare hack, where personal health information was also jeopardized. CLICK HERE to read Fox News coverage of the letter. CLICK HERE to view the full letter. ###

Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General Christi Grimm, House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans requested an investigation into the strength, quality, and types of evidence-based scientific and pediatric medical literature relied on by the department to promote gender transition procedures for children.  KEY LETTER EXCERPT:  “As the agency responsible for safeguarding the health and well-being of Americans, all of HHS’s medical treatment recommendations, especially medical treatment recommendations for children, should be based on rigorous and well-established research, such as randomized controlled trials, that have definitively illustrated the long-term benefits of gender affirming care treatments.”  BACKGROUND:  Under the Biden administration, HHS has advocated for sex reassignment procedures on minors, including the use of serum puberty blockers, which have historically been used to treat children with precocious puberty (i.e., early onset puberty affecting about one percent of U.S. children) and sex offenders.   Puberty blockers, however, are known to stunt normal childhood development in children unaffected by precocious puberty.  HHS officials contend that sex reassignment procedures on minors are an unanimously accepted medical practice.  HHS Secretary Becerra testified before Congress that “every major medical association,” “medical journals,” and “scientific and medical evidence” has demonstrated the benefits of transitioning children’s biological sex.  When asked, via a Freedom of Information Act request, for the underlying scientific or medical basis for its position, HHS was only able to produce a two-page brochure that was already publicly available.  In contrast to HHS, a growing body of literature from medical experts and authorities around the world, including those in Europe, caution against performing such procedures on minors.   Courts and government health agencies responsible for determining child welfare have sought to limit child sex reassignment procedures.   Other countries have banned these interventions and surgeries on minors altogether.  An article published in the British Journal of Medicine found “there is great uncertainty about the effects of puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries in young people.”   A court in the United Kingdom noted the obvious about administering puberty blocking chemicals onto children: “[i]t is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.”  In April 2024, the Cass Review , an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people, commissioned by the National Health Service England, found “[w]hile a considerable amount of research has been published in this field, systematic evidence reviews demonstrated the poor quality of the published studies, meaning there is not a reliable evidence base upon which to make clinical decisions, or for children and their families to make informed choices.”   The Cass Review also found that “[t]he rationale for early puberty suppression remains unclear, with weak evidence regarding the impact on gender dysphoria, mental or psychosocial health,” as well as unknown effects on cognitive and psychosexual development.  In August 2024, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) became the first major U.S. medical association to express caution on the use of gender surgery for gender dysphoria in adolescents. In its formal statement, the association stated: “ASPS currently understands that there is considerable uncertainty as to the long-term efficacy for the use of chest and genital surgical interventions for the treatment of adolescents with gender dysphoria, and the existing evidence base is viewed as low quality/low certainty. This patient population requires specific considerations.”   The letter was signed by Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL), Rep. Neal Dunn (R-FL), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), Rep. Troy Balderson (R-OH), Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), Rep. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN), and Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL).  CLICK HERE to read the letter.

House Republicans scrutinize government grant funding recipients that fail to protect individuals from antisemitism Washington, D.C. — In a new letter to J. David Gladstone Institutes President Dr. Deepak Srivastava, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (E&C) and House Committee on Education and the Workforce (E&W) have requested information about ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic harassment and intimidation at Gladstone and its leadership’s insufficient response to these acts. The letter is signed by E&C Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), E&C Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie (R-KY), E&C Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Chair Morgan Griffith (R-VA), E&W Chair Virginia Foxx (R-NC), and E&W Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Development Chair Burgess Owens (R-UT).  KEY LETTER EXCERPTS: “The Gladstone Institutes, an independent biomedical research organization, claims that it takes an active stance against serious issues like discrimination and harassment and aims to ‘ensure all community members at Gladstone feel included’ and that the Institutes will aim to ‘implement accountability measures and reinforce Gladstone’s commitment to having an environment free of harassment.’ However, these values do not seem to be reflected in the actions of leadership in response to recent concerns of antisemitic harassment and discrimination within the Institutes.” [...] “The reports of antisemitic harassment at Gladstone coupled with the inadequate response by leadership is concerning to the Committees. Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe environment for all trainees, faculty, and staff is a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of Gladstone.” “Failing to comply with basic safety protections for members of Gladstone or failure to respond appropriately to and prevent harassment and discrimination, no matter the cause, may be grounds to withhold federal funds from the university. Congress has an obligation to exercise oversight of recipients of federal funds when blatant and ongoing Title VI violations appear to be happening. If Congress determines an institution of higher education/research is blatantly ignoring its legal responsibilities, we may consider rescinding research and development funds previously appropriated.” BACKGROUND ON TAXPAYER FUNDING: Gladstone received more than $41 million in funding from the NIH in Fiscal Year 2023, not including potential taxpayer funding that individual faculty may have received through their affiliation with the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) or any other affiliated universities.   According to the NIH’s Grant Policy Statement, any institution receiving federal funds must assure work environments are free of discriminatory harassment and are safe and conducive to high-quality work.  Institutions receiving federal taxpayer financial assistance—such as NIH grants—are prohibited from discriminating based on a variety of categories, including national origin.   These laws also protect members of the institution who are or are perceived to be members of a group with shared ancestry, such as students/trainees of Jewish heritage. BACKGROUND ON INSTANCES OF ANTISEMITISM : Two days after the October 7, 2023, Hamas terrorist attack, a graduate student working in a lab within Gladstone sent an antisemitic email to all Gladstone faculty, trainees, and staff falsely stating that the attack on innocent Israeli civilians was “the resistance in Gaza launch[ing] a surprise attack against Israel, taking occupation soldiers hostage, taking over Israeli military vehicles, and gain[ing] control over illegal Israeli settlements.”  The email goes on to claim that all casualties resulting from Palestinian actions are the responsibility of Israel.  Immediately following this mass email, members of the Gladstone faculty began contacting the Gladstone Institutes’ President and other leadership, appalled by the language of the email, concerned for their safety and worried that the email could be seen as an incitement to violence.  Jewish members of the Institutes also expressed their deep, personal pain following the Hamas attack, as some members had family or friends reported killed or missing directly after the attack.  These fears—including fears of being attacked in the lab by the author of this cruel and antagonistic email—were shared directly with President Srivastava.  Despite this, Gladstone leadership did not issue a public statement or position against antisemitism to quell fears of Jewish faculty and trainees.  In May 2024, the Center for Combatting Antisemitism sent President Srivastava a letter requesting administrative action to address the hostile environment and disparate treatment of Jewish members at Gladstone.  This letter noted that Gladstone refused to acknowledge Jewish American Heritage Month, Passover, or Holocaust Remembrance Day, despite sending official celebratory emails and holding events for other religious, ethnic, or national holidays, including Black History Month, International Women’s Day, and Ramadan.  The Center followed up with Gladstone several times, but never received a response.  Jewish faculty and trainees have conveyed to leadership within Gladstone instances of antisemitic harassment and discrimination, which faculty and trainees believe were not taken seriously, making some feel uneasy about speaking out.  For example, per a publicly available Fair Employment and Housing Act complaint to the California Civil Rights Division, a Jewish faculty member openly discussed fellow faculty using racial stereotypes, including comments about a “Jewish nose.”  When these comments were brought to human resources, no investigation occurred.  Instead, the complainant was subsequently targeted with an investigation ultimately deemed to be unwarranted.  Then, following the complainant’s post-October 7th advocacy on behalf of Jewish faculty and trainees, the complainant was threatened repeatedly with career-ending termination, allegedly in an attempt to extort a resignation.  When the threats did not have their desired effect, Gladstone placed the complainant on administrative leave and removed the complainant’s electronic access to email and files but also physical access to the complainant’s lab, removing all ability to conduct work on an NIH-funded grant.  Gladstone ultimately paid an undisclosed sum to settle the matter and avoid litigation.  To elevate concerns regarding widespread, ongoing discrimination, Jewish faculty and trainees requested permission to bring in a speaker related to antisemitism.  Other minority groups had previously been given permission to bring in similar anti-racism speakers.  However, while leadership stated it would look into the idea, ultimately no speaker was brought, and no program was launched regarding antisemitism. BACKGROUND ON AFFILIATIONS WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS UNDER INVESTIGATION : Gladstone Institutes is affiliated with other institutions under congressional investigation.  For example, Gladstone is an affiliate of the UCSF, which is undergoing congressional investigation for reports of antisemitism within the university, medical school, and medical centers.  Most of Gladstone’s principal investigators are also faculty at UCSF, and the Institutes provide research positions and opportunities for graduate students from UCSF.  Moreover, there is a joint institute—the Gladstone-UCSF Institute of Genomic Immunology—further linking the two institutions.  Gladstone is also affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University, both of which are also under investigation for concerns related to antisemitism. CLICK HERE to read the full letter.