Health And Human Services Secretary Research Articles

NACSD RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OLDER ADULT DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

Abstract This presentation shares the recommendations drafted by the National Advisory Committee on Seniors and Disasters (NACSD). This federal advisory committee provides advice and guidance to the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the HHS Secretary. The NACSD is comprised of seven non-federal members with expertise in geriatric disaster planning, preparedness, response, or recovery and ten federal (non-voting) members who are ex officio representatives from agencies within HHS and other Executive Branch departments. The voting members drafted recommendations intended to address the immediate and persistent challenges in public health emergency preparedness, response, and recovery affecting older adults in the United States. Numerous meetings with federal and non-federal subject matter experts from various disciplines were held to develop the recommendations. The NACSD was also tasked with evaluating issues and programs and providing findings, advice, and recommendations to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to support and enhance all-hazards public health and medical preparedness, response, and recovery activities related to meeting the unique needs of older adults and their families across the entire spectrum of their wellbeing. The NACSD evaluated and provided input concerning the medical and public health needs of older adults related to preparation for, response to, and recovery from all-hazards emergencies; and may provide advice and consultation with respect to State emergency preparedness and response activities relating to older adults.

HHS publishes national model standards for BH, family peer worker certifications

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), on June 6 published its National Model Standards for Peer Support Certification for substance use, mental health and family peer workers, an HHS news release stated. The national model standards were created to accelerate universal adoption, recognition, and integration of the peer workforce across all elements of the health care system. “These new national standards will help advance President Biden's strategy to tackle the nation's behavioral health crisis,” HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra stated in the release. “We can improve health outcomes for people with behavioral health issues by better integrating the peer workforce into our health care system. Getting help from a person who has been successful in the recovery process can be life‐changing.” SAMHSA collaborated with federal, state, tribal, territorial and local partners, including peer specialists, and also requested and incorporated public comments to develop the national model standards.

APA Files Another Amicus Brief in Ongoing Texas Case on Banning Trans Care for Youth

APA Files Another Amicus Brief in Ongoing Texas Case on Banning Trans Care for Youth

The National Clinical Care Commission Report: Improving Federal Programs That Impact Diabetes Prevention and Care.

Ideas and OpinionsApril 2022The National Clinical Care Commission Report: Improving Federal Programs That Impact Diabetes Prevention and CareThe National Clinical Care Commission Writing Group*The National Clinical Care Commission Writing Group*Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/M21-4175 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail In 2017, Congress passed the National Clinical Care Commission Act (Public Law 115-80). It directed the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to convene a committee to evaluate and make recommendations to Congress and the HHS Secretary regarding federal programs that impact diabetes and its complications. The National Clinical Care Commission (NCCC) was charged with evaluating and making recommendations regarding federal programs that prevent and reduce diabetes and its complications, support clinicians, provide education and awareness for health care professionals and the public, and identify opportunities to consolidate overlapping or duplicative programs related to diabetes. ...

The opioid-impaired provider: A call for national guidance to maximize rehabilitation while protecting patient safety.

The opioid-impaired provider: A call for national guidance to maximize rehabilitation while protecting patient safety.

Federal Policy for Lowering Prescription Drug Prices

Both Republicans and Democrats are determined to lower the escalating cost of prescription drug prices, which is projected to reach $605 billion/yr by 2026 (Committee on Ways and Means 2019). In this memorandum, we explore the possible outcomes of, 1) linking U.S. drug prices to the international median incentivized by re-importation of the U.S.-made drugs from other countries, 2) allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to negotiate Medicare part D drugs incentivized through patent exemption and, 3) funding drug discovery through prizes instead of market-exclusive patents. We recommend that the next presidential candidate approve Option 2 and advocate for HHS Secretary negotiation powers with patent exemptions for non-compliant companies.

Trump’s surprise rebate executive order would affect pharmacists and patients if enacted

Trump’s surprise rebate executive order would affect pharmacists and patients if enacted

Briefly Noted

Last week, a letter from Senators Edward J. Markey (D‐Mass.), Elizabeth Warren (D‐Mass.), Jeanne Shaheen (D‐N.H.), Dianne Feinstein (D‐Calif.) and Maggie Hassan (D‐N.H.) asked the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to immediately increase the patient cap — the maximum number of patients a physician can prescribe buprenorphine for — from 275 to 500. In addition, the letter requests that SAMHSA immediately process requests for emergency patient‐limit increases. “You can and should take immediate action to ensure that patients with OUD [opioid use disorder] are not denied the medication they need, do not exacerbate the strain on our nation's emergency departments and hospitals, and, most importantly, are not added to the COVID‐19 death count,” write the senators in their letter to HHS Secretary Alex Azar and SAMHSA Assistant Secretary Elinore McCance‐Katz, M.D. “We must empower our heroic health care providers to treat and save as many lives as possible in this time of crisis.” For the letter, go to https://www.markey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/HHS%20SAMHSA%20Letter%20re%20Buprenorphine%20Prescriber%20Limits.pdf.

A Mental Health Summit Meeting at the White House

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article From the PresidentFull AccessA Mental Health Summit Meeting at the White HouseBruce Schwartz, M.D.Bruce SchwartzSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:28 Jan 2020https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2020.2a24In December APA participated in the White House Summit on Transforming Mental Health Treatment to Combat Homelessness, Violence, and Substance Abuse. I chose to represent APA knowing that our membership has very mixed opinions about this presidential administration, and some would have preferred that APA not participate. However, I feel strongly that we must not pass up any opportunity to advocate for our patients and for policies that address the failures and deficiencies of our mental health care system.The group of speakers was diverse, and much credit belongs to Dr. Elinore McCance-Katz, assistant secretary for mental health and substance use in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for putting together an excellent program. I’d like to highlight some of the most impactful presenters as there is much to learn from their points of view.D.J. Jaffe is the executive director and founder of the Mental Health Policy Organization. He is a long-standing advocate for people with serious mental illness (SMI) and believes the mental health system is failing to serve these individuals. Homelessness, incarceration, and violence characterize their existence. Forty percent of people with SMI receive no treatment, 140,000 or more are homeless, 400,000 are incarcerated, and 750,000 are on probation and parole. There are 10 times as many people with SMI in jails and prisons than in hospital beds. He believes we should be messaging the truth that it is the untreated people with SMI who are at risk of violence, and it is not stigma that stops them from seeking care but rather the unavailability of treatment.For those of us who care for these patients, we know there are not enough hospital beds, we are not able to keep patients hospitalized long enough, and outpatient resources and alternatives for housing are dangerously inadequate. Mr. Jaffe took aim at the legal system, which advocates that individuals have the right to choose to be psychotic and delusional and that right must be protected. Nowhere else in medicine is imminent dangerousness to self a consideration for acute care rather than the illness requires immediate hospitalization for effective treatment. All clinicians have been in the situation where we know someone needs hospitalization but does not meet the requirement that they are a danger to self or others. We really do not have mental health parity as long as this different standard exists!John Snook, executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center, followed up on these themes and spoke of the preventable tragedies brought on by restrictive laws and the absence of a full continuum of services. Sheriffs and other law enforcement officers spend 20% of their time responding to and transporting people with SMI at an annual cost of over $1 billion. I think it was especially significant that Alex Azar, secretary of HHS, and Ben Carson, secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), participated in the summit and discussed their efforts to bring more federal resources to addressing these crises. It is an indication that mental health and substance use are now high priorities for their agencies. It is HHS and HUD with which APA needs to advocate especially hard to secure more resources directed to helping people with SMI and substance use disorders.President Trump addressed the summit as well. His remarks were focused on the crisis regarding the lack of access to care, and he thanked attendees for their participation in the summit and efforts to care for people with SMI.There have been many federal mental health committees, task forces, and reports over the past six decades, yet still we have not made enough progress. But one of the last speakers was Kellyanne Conway, assistant to the president and senior counselor, who made a very important point that should give us all hope. Despite today’s rigid political lines, on Capitol Hill there is one topic on which Democrats and Republicans overwhelmingly agree: We have a mental health crisis in this country, and it’s time to take steps to resolve it. Let’s hope partisanship doesn’t prevent real progress. ■ ISSUES NewArchived

HHS Proposes Plan to Import Lower-Cost Drugs

HHS Proposes Plan to Import Lower-Cost Drugs

The New HHS Kidney Innovation Accelerator: When Innovation Stalls, HHS Says Floor it!

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes

Strong Evidence from the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) charged an external federal advisory committee to review the scientific literature and provide independent recommendations to the government to inform the development of the second edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. PURPOSE: To present a selection of conclusions with evidence graded as ‘strong’ from the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee (Committee) systematic literature review. METHODS: The Committee asked 38 questions on relationships between physical activity and health outcomes in systematic literature reviews. A grading rubric was used to evaluate the strength of evidence - Strong, Moderate, Limited, or Grade Not Assignable (insufficient evidence). A grade of ‘strong’ indicated that evidence from the literature directly applied to the systematic review question; was free from serious doubts about generalizability; limited the risk of bias; showed consistency in the direction and approximate size of the effect across studies; and provided considerable confidence in the accuracy of the findings. The Committee presented its conclusions during five public meetings. RESULTS: The Committee concluded there was strong evidence that physical activity has a beneficial effect on many health outcomes, including improvements in weight and bone health in children under age six, physical function in older adults, and incidence of seven types of cancer. Examples are provided in Table 1. CONCLUSION: The Committee’s systematic reviews will be compiled into a Scientific Report and submitted to the HHS Secretary. The Department will use the Committee’s evidence-based recommendations, as well as public and federal agency comments, to develop the second edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. The Committee’s work firmly grounds the second edition of the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans in the current science on physical activity and health.Table 1: Selected conclusion statements for ‘strong’ evidence.

Evaluating Harms in the Assessment of Net Benefit: A Framework for Newborn Screening Condition Review.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children ("Advisory Committee") makes recommendations to the HHS Secretary regarding addition of new conditions to the national Recommended Uniform Screening Panel for newborns. The Advisory Committee's decision-making process includes assessing the net benefit of screening for nominated conditions, informed by systematic evidence reviews generated by an independent Condition Review Workgroup. The evidence base regarding harms associated with screening for specific conditions is often more limited than that for benefits. The process for defining potential harms from newborn screening reviewed the frameworks from other public health evidence-based review processes, adapted to newborn screening by experts in systematic review, newborn screening programs and bioethics, with input from and approval by the Advisory Committee. To support the Advisory Committee's review of nominated conditions, the Workgroup has developed a standardized approach to evaluation of harms and relevant gaps in the evidence. Types of harms include the physical burden to infants; psychosocial and logistic burdens to families from screening or diagnostic evaluation; increased risk of medical treatment for infants diagnosed earlier than children with clinical presentation; delayed diagnosis from false negative results; psychosocial harm from false positive results; uncertainty of clinical diagnosis, age of onset or clinical spectrum; and disparities in access to diagnosis or therapy. Estimating the numbers of children at risk, the magnitude, timing and likelihood of harms will be integrated into Workgroup reports to the Advisory Committee.

Science, politics, and the end of the lifelong gay blood donor ban.

Science, politics, and the end of the lifelong gay blood donor ban.

Searching for a child health policy in a post-reform world.

Searching for a child health policy in a post-reform world.

HHS--supporting global immunization through policies, programs, and partnerships.

HHS--supporting global immunization through policies, programs, and partnerships.

Implementing Health Reform: Improved Data Collection and the Monitoring of Health Disparities

The relative lack of standards for collecting data on population subgroups has not only limited our understanding of health disparities, but also impaired our ability to develop policies to eliminate them. This article provides background about past challenges to collecting data by race/ethnicity, primary language, sex, and disability status. It then discusses how passage of the Affordable Care Act has provided new opportunities to improve data-collection standards for the demographic variables of interest and, as such, a better understanding of the characteristics of populations served by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The new standards have been formally adopted by the Secretary of HHS for application in all HHS-sponsored population health surveys involving self-reporting. The new data-collection standards will not only promote the uniform collection and utilization of demographic data, but also help the country shape future programs and policies to advance public health and to reduce disparities.

Why the Common Rule Is Hard to Amend

Information-based studies that use people’s health data and biospecimens are set to play an important role in 21st-century biomedical discovery, public health, and healthcare system improvement. There is wide agreement that the Common Rule needs to be modernized to provide better protection for people whose data and biospecimens are used in such studies. Unfortunately, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is in the position of trying to keep the Common Rule up-to-date using authorities granted by an outdated statute. This article explores statutory constraints that appear to limit the Secretary’s authority to make some of the changes proposed in the July 2011 ANRPM. Some of the proposed revisions to the Common Rule seemingly would require legislative action to alter the Secretary’s rulemaking authority. This does not, however, mean that it will be impossible to modernize the Common Rule in the absence of legislative action. As noted at the end of this article, the Secretary of HHS has significant discretion to make the Common Rule function better without amending the regulatory text itself. The Common Rule is hard to amend, but there are promising pathways for implementing improved policies within the framework of the existing regulation. Skillful use of these other approaches may avoid the need for hasty regulatory amendments that may, in the end, prove unlawful.

The “Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2013 Update” and the Need for a National Cardiovascular Surveillance System

The “Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2013 Update,” published by the American Heart Association (AHA) in this issue of Circulation ,1 and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, “A National Framework for Surveillance of Cardiovascular and Chronic Lung Diseases,” published last year,2 attest to the importance and value of timely, high-quality, population-based data on the incidence of heart disease and stroke and their risk factors. The annual Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics Update is the authoritative source of annual estimates of incidence, prevalence, and risk factor distribution in the country. It is carefully crafted from a wide variety of separate federally and privately funded studies of various designs, reach, and sample size. In its breath, quality, and style it represents a national treasure of the best available information on the burden of heart disease and stroke events and risk factors that is a highly valued resource in the medical and public health communities. Indeed, the Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics Update is cited nearly 2000 times each year in the scientific literature. However, even this compilation of the best data available does not have national representative or timely data on heart disease and stroke incidence at its disposal. It is our best guess at questions for which we should not be guessing. More comprehensive monitoring of the occurrence of cardiovascular diseases (CVD), which cause more death and disability than any other medical conditions, is important to the physical and economic health of the country. The IOM report is clear in its overall message and resolute in its vision; we need to strengthen our ability to monitor the cardiovascular health of the country and create a national system to capture information on heart disease and stroke. The Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics Update appearing in this issue is our best …

Why the Common Rule is Hard to Amend

Information-based studies that use people’s health data and biospecimens are set to play an important role in 21st-century biomedical discovery, public health, and healthcare system improvement. There is wide agreement that the Common Rule needs to be modernized to provide better protection for people whose data and biospecimens are used in such studies. Unfortunately, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is in the position of trying to keep the Common Rule up-to-date using authorities granted by an outdated statute. This article explores statutory constraints that appear to limit the Secretary’s authority to make some of the changes proposed in the July 2011 ANRPM. Some of the proposed revisions to the Common Rule seemingly would require legislative action to alter the Secretary’s rulemaking authority. This does not, however, mean that it will be impossible to modernize the Common Rule in the absence of legislative action. As noted at the end of this article, the Secretary of HHS has significant discretion to make the Common Rule function better without amending the regulatory text itself. The Common Rule is hard to amend, but there are promising pathways for implementing improved policies within the framework of the existing regulation. Skillful use of these other approaches may avoid the need for hasty regulatory amendments that may, in the end, prove unlawful.