Health

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – This week, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is holding two Subcommittee Hearings, one Subcommittee Markup, and a Full Committee Business Meeting. Read more below. FULL COMMITTEE BUSINESS MEETING:  The House Committee on Energy and Commerce will hold a Full Committee Business Meeting to enact new Subcommittee leadership and changes to its memberships. DATE:  Tuesday, July 15, 2025 TIME:  10:15 AM ET LOCATION:  2123 Rayburn House Office Building SUBCOMMITTEE MARKUP:  The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce Manufacturing, and Trade will hold a markup of H.R. 4312, the  SCORE Act , a bipartisan piece of legislation that will standardize Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) for student-athletes. DATE:  Tuesday, July 15, 2025 TIME:  10:30 AM ET LOCATION:  2123 Rayburn House Office Building SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING:  The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health is holding a legislative hearing on preserving access to timely and affordable care. DATE:  Wednesday, July 16, 2025 TIME:  10:00 AM ET LOCATION:  2123 Rayburn House Office Building SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING:  The Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment is holding a hearing to discuss advanced recycling. DATE:  Wednesday, July 16, 2025 TIME:  10:15 AM ET LOCATION:   2322 Rayburn House Office Building ###

WASHINGTON, D.C.  – Congressman Brett Guthrie (KY-02), Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congressman Morgan Griffith (VA-09), Chairman-Designate of the Subcommittee on Health, announced a hearing titled Legislative Proposals to Maintain and Improve the Public Health Workforce, Rural Health, and Over-the-Counter Medicines.   "These vital public health programs play a critical role in improving health care for Americans,” said Chairman Guthrie and Chairman-Designate Griffith . “Programs like the Over-the-Counter Monograph Drug User Fee Program are crucial to ensure patient access to safe over-the-counter products. The Health Subcommittee remains committed to priorities like bolstering health care workforce development, as well as lifting up rural communities to ensure all Americans can live healthier lives."   Subcommittee on Health hearing titled Legislative Proposals to Maintain and Improve the Public Health Workforce, Rural Health, and Over-the-Counter Medicines.   WHAT: Subcommittee on Health Hearing on Preserving Access to Timely and Affordable Care.  DATE: Wednesday, July 16, 2025  TIME: 10:00 AM ET LOCATION: 2123 Rayburn House Office Building.  This notice is at the direction of the Chairman. The hearing will be open to the public and press and will be livestreamed online at energycommerce.house.gov . If you have any questions concerning this hearing, please contact Annabelle Huffman at Annabelle.Huffman@mail.house.gov . If you have any press-related questions, please contact Katie West at Katie.West@mail.house.gov .   ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In case you missed it, the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote the following op-ed this week in defense of the commonsense provisions included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.   Key Takeaways:   Medicaid spending has risen by roughly 60 percent since 2019, and the bill’s intent is to slow Medicaid spending amidst continued growth in the program.  In a letter penned last month about the House bill, CBO said 4.8 million individuals covered by Medicaid won’t comply with the bill’s part-time work requirement. That should be a warning about the country’s social condition.  The work requirement provisions don’t apply to anyone who is disabled, pregnant or caring for a child younger than age 14. You will still receive Medicaid coverage by volunteering 20 hours a week or enrolled in school.  Don’t buy the Democratic talking point that the working poor will be lost in red tape as they try to prove they’re on the job; these provisions are intended to protect our most vulnerable Americans.   Since the Biden Administration waved millions onto health entitlements, the GOP bill includes sensible measures such as asking states to check their Medicaid expansion rolls every six months and more scrutiny on Obamacare subsidies.   America is a generous society that cares for the vulnerable. But it should also be a land of opportunity, not a European welfare state.  In Case You Missed It…   “Democrats and their media collaborators always distort GOP policy, but the coverage about the big budget bill has kicked free of the earth. Allow us to temper the histrionics about gutting the social safety net with a few facts about Medicaid, food stamps and Republican priorities.   “By now you’ve seen the headline in every outlet: The Republican law will soon toss millions from Medicaid and cut the program to the bone. But annual spending on the health entitlement will grow over the next decade even with the bill’s roughly $1 trillion in estimated savings. Medicaid spending has risen by roughly 60% since 2019, and the bill’s intent is to try to bend Medicaid’s trajectory closer to the bad old days of 2020.   “Democrats and some Republicans have offered cynical distortions that pregnant women in poverty and disabled children will suffer. But Republicans are trying to address the program’s enormous ObamaCare expansion to prime-age adults above the poverty line, and note the details of those who will allegedly lose coverage.   “CBO, in an letter last month about the House bill, said 4.8 million won’t comply with the bill’s part-time work requirement. That should be a warning about the country’s social condition. The work requirement doesn’t apply to anyone who is disabled, pregnant or caring for a child younger than age 14. Volunteering 20 hours a week or enrolled in school? You can get Medicaid.   “Don’t buy the Democratic talking point that the working poor will be lost in red tape as they try to prove they’re on the job. States have handled work requirements in food stamps and cash assistance for decades.   “As the Foundation for Government Accountability notes, when Arkansas experimented with such requirements in Medicaid, enrollees only had to report work once, and it was easy to do so. The state cross-referenced wage and employment data and folks could also self-attest online or call a hot line. The Democratic position is that Medicaid should be a free universal benefit for men who refuse to work.   “The other main provision is tamping down state scams to hoover up more federal dollars. The main losers here are large hospital systems that have been doing well on the largesse.   “The GOP bill also includes sensible measures such as asking states to check their Medicaid expansion rolls every six months and more scrutiny on ObamaCare subsidies. That is necessary because the Biden Administration waved millions onto health entitlements. The Paragon Institute estimates that 6.4 million people are enrolled in fully subsidized ObamaCare plans but don’t meet the eligibility criteria. Apparently this is what Democrats support.   “The bill’s changes to food stamps are also modest and rooted in the tenet that work is central to upward mobility. As a refresher, the program currently requires able-bodied adults without dependents to work about 20 hours a week—or lose benefits after three months. That 90-day dispensation allows those who suffer a setback time to get back on their feet.   “But here is the not at all radical reform proposition: More of those who rely on benefits for longer need to be working. The GOP bill would expand the current work requirement to cover more able-bodied adults, including some parents with older children in school and those in their 50s and early 60s. The law also tries to tighten up waivers that states have abused to eliminate the work rules. The other major change is asking states with high improper payment rates to have skin in the game and pick up a share of benefit costs, which are currently billed 100% to the federal taxpayer.   “These are common-sense ideas that have public support, though most voters aren’t hearing a defense from Republicans. Here is the abiding lesson for the GOP: Ducking the hardest reforms, public groveling, the bill’s eleventh-hour $50 billion blowout for rural hospitals—none of it will stop dishonest Democratic attacks. There is no substitute for defending your own ideas.   “Democrats think they can ride the Medicaid scare into a midterm victory, but there’s still time for the GOP to lay out the facts. Roughly a quarter of Americans are on Medicaid, which is worse than private insurance. Food aid tops $100 billion a year and no longer shrinks as it once did when the economy is growing.   “America is a generous society that cares for the vulnerable. But it should also be a land of opportunity, not a European welfare state.”   ### 

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.