As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office for a second, non-consecutive term, the landscape of American healthcare appears poised to undergo a seismic transformation—albeit one that bodes ill for its future.
President Trump has vowed to inject new energy into his administration by selecting like-minded individuals for key government roles. His most contentious decision thus far was choosing to lead the Division of Health and Human Services, a sprawling agency that oversees a broad array of entities responsible for public health, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health. President Kennedy has signalled a desire to overhaul the country’s public health system, following recent efforts to dismantle water fluoridation and potentially remove certain vaccines from circulation.
Several nominees chosen by Trump for crucial public health roles have raised concerns. Mehmet Oz, a former TV personality and surgeon, was unexpectedly appointed by President Trump to oversee Medicare’s operations, despite a long history of promoting products with questionable evidence supporting their purported benefits. Like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Trump’s proposed candidate to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Dr. Dave Weldon, also perpetuates a discredited theory linking childhood vaccinations to autism spectrum disorder. The most chilling prospect may arise from the Republican party’s openly declared agenda, which has encompassed measures aimed at curbing the ever-increasing burden of high drug prices.
None of its predecessors have faced such a vast array of misleading and inaccurate information regarding public health matters.
With monumental implications at play, a chorus of researchers and healthcare experts has sounded alarm bells regarding the potential threats posed by Trump’s policies to the nation’s wellbeing.
Gizmodo recently interviewed Nicole Huberfeld, Professor of Health Law at Boston University’s School of Public Health and Co-Director of the BU Program in Reproductive Justice. In September, Huberfield et al published a paper in a prestigious journal exploring the potential impact of a hypothetical second Trump administration on the future of medicine in the United States?
Huberfeld discussed with us the most egregious healthcare-related reforms proposed by Trump and the GOP, the reason why RFK’s potential nomination to HHS alarms experts, and what measures can be taken to mitigate the worst impacts on public health during the Trump era? The next dialog has been evenly edited for readability and grammar.
A potential Trump administration could shape the future of healthcare by building upon the comprehensive coverage proposals outlined by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, as well as the candidate’s own goals and plans for medical innovation. We considered all aspects of global sustainability in Challenge 2025, including environmental, social, economic, and technological factors that will shape the future.
Roger Severino, author of Chapter 14 in Challenge 2025, expresses concern about three specific priorities in his letter to the Division of Health and Human Services. He advocates renaming it the “Division of Life,” reflecting a shift from health care goals to prioritizing fetal life and religious freedom.
The three primary categories of concern encompass privatizing public medical insurance and healthcare programs, thereby offering companies greater flexibility, a policy selection with a history of harming patients; eroding the healthcare safety net by defunding federal healthcare programs and reverting to a discriminatory dichotomy between those deemed “worthy” of government assistance in healthcare by attacking Medicaid eligibility and the program as a whole; and cultivating discrimination in healthcare by penalizing patients and their physicians for care that does not conform to traditional, cisgender, or socially conservative family formations.
While seemingly impersonal, these encounters have a profound impact on patients’ daily lives, as well as those of healthcare providers and the broader community’s overall wellbeing.
Despite his claims of supporting science, has President Trump’s administration demonstrated a discernible shift away from its antipathy towards scientific evidence and fact-based policy making since winning the election?
Since taking office, the Trump administration has consistently demonstrated a commitment to an anti-science, anti-data, and anti-medicine approach. Trump’s naming of RFK Jr. For one notable example among many, consider his nomination of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. RFK Jr. Acknowledges concepts that stray significantly from mainstream public health, medical, and scientific understanding, including anti-vaccination misinformation and a flawed comprehension of the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory processes.
While he acknowledges that many processed meals contain unhealthy ingredients, he argues that the problem lies not with the companies themselves but rather with the regulatory landscape – specifically, the FDA’s limited authority to address these issues; the food industry is at fault, not individual companies. The FDA’s reliance on trade funding stems from Congress’s failure to provide sufficient funding for the agency’s scientific endeavors, necessitating a crucial solution: increased funding, rather than dismantling the organization. As powerful as a metaphorical megaphone, a political appointee like an HHS Secretary can amplify misleading information and disinformation to a wider audience. No previous nominee has faced such a significant volume of misinformation and disinformation related to public health matters.
Keeping a strong connection to credible sources and skillfully distinguishing between opinions and facts are crucial.
Individuals may experience significant alterations in their well-being under a potential Biden administration, with probable implications for healthcare reform, economic stability, and environmental sustainability.
The general public can expect significant changes in healthcare regulations, insurance coverage, and access to care. This significant change is more probable to occur through distinct, officially sanctioned routes, encompassing the President’s policy inclinations, which arise from actions such as executive orders and the appointment of officials heading federal agencies.
Significant modifications to insurance policies and staffing structures may have far-reaching consequences, similar to the impact of withdrawing regulatory guidelines and altering existing legal stances. The President also has the authority to recommend insurance policies to Congress, which can ultimately become legislation; however, Congress has faced productivity challenges in recent years, with the exception of COVID-related assistance measures. Unless the Senate modifies its existing filibuster rules, Republican majorities are likely to require Democrats to adhere to core constitutional guidelines, effectively limiting their legislative scope to budget reconciliation measures that focus exclusively on taxation and spending. It is crucial that pathways to authorized and coverage changes prioritize the public’s overall health and wellbeing; however, individual officials, such as the HHS Secretary, lack the authority to unilaterally disrupt industries. As the chief administrative officer of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Secretary’s role often blurs the line between policy-making and public health coverage, sparking concerns about the potential prioritization of politics over medical care. However, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is responsible for administering healthcare programs that cover more than 40% of the United States’ population. inhabitants. The Trump administration’s initial actions on issues such as Medicaid work requirements may quickly resurface.
The Department of Health and Human Services Secretary may consider rescinding guidance issued by the Biden administration, which clarifies that under the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, hospitals are obligated to provide emergency medical care that includes abortion services, even in states where abortion is criminalized, as seen in Idaho v. U.S. case over EMTALA). A newly appointed FDA commissioner could potentially reassess guidelines governing the use of mifepristone, potentially limiting access to this medication-based abortion option, which accounted for over 60% of all abortions in the US following the Dobbs decision. Despite seeming disparate, these encounters will have a lasting impact on the daily experiences of patients, providers, and ultimately, the public’s health.
What concrete actions can be taken to alleviate some of these negative impacts?
