What Would a Second Trump Presidency Look Like for Health Care?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
On the presidential campaign trail, former President Donald Trump is, once again, promising to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act — a nebulous goal that became one of his administration’s splashiest policy failures.
“We’re going to fight for much better health care than Obamacare. Obamacare is a catastrophe,” Trump said at a campaign stop in Iowa on Jan. 6.
The perplexing revival of one of Trump’s most politically damaging crusades comes at a time when the Obama-era health law is even more popular and widely used than it was in 2017, when Trump and congressional Republicans proved unable to pass their own plan to replace it. That failed effort was a big part of why Republicans lost control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterms.
Despite repeated promises, Trump never presented his own Obamacare replacement. And much of what Trump’s administration actually accomplished in health care has been reversed by the Biden administration.
Still, Trump secured some significant policy changes that remain in place today, including efforts to bring more transparency to prices charged by hospitals and paid by health insurers.
Trying to predict Trump’s priorities in a second term is even more difficult given that he frequently changes his positions on issues, sometimes multiple times.
The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
Perhaps Trump’s biggest achievement is something he rarely talks about on the campaign trail. His administration’s “Operation Warp Speed” managed to create, test, and bring to market a covid-19 vaccine in less than a year, far faster than even the most optimistic predictions.
Many of Trump’s supporters, though, don’t support — and some even vehemently oppose — covid vaccines.
Here is a recap of Trump’s health care record:
Public Health
Trump’s pandemic response dominates his overall record on health care.
More than 400,000 Americans died from covid over Trump’s last year in office. His travel bans and other efforts to prevent the global spread of the virus were ineffective, his administration was slower than other countries’ governments to develop a diagnostic test, and he publicly clashed with his own government’s health officials over the response.
Ahead of the 2020 election, Trump resumed large rallies and other public campaign events that many public health experts regarded as reckless in the face of a highly contagious, deadly virus. He personally flouted public health guidance after contracting covid himself and ending up hospitalized.
At the same time, despite what many saw as a politicization of public health by the White House, Trump signed a massive covid relief bill (after first threatening to veto it). He also presided over some of the largest boosts for the National Institutes of Health’s budget since the turn of the century. And the mRNA-based vaccines Operation Warp Speed helped develop were an astounding scientific breakthrough credited with helping save millions of lives while laying the groundwork for future shots to fight other diseases including cancer.
Abortion
Trump’s biggest contribution to abortion policy was indirect: He appointed three Supreme Court justices, who were instrumental in overturning the constitutional right to an abortion.
During his 2024 campaign, Trump has been all over the place on the red-hot issue. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, Trump has bemoaned the issue as politically bad for Republicans; criticized one of his rivals, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for signing a six-week abortion ban; and vowed to broker a compromise with “both sides” on abortion, promising that “for the first time in 52 years, you’ll have an issue that we can put behind us.”
He has so far avoided spelling out how he’d do that, or whether he’d support a national abortion ban after any number of weeks.
More recently, however, Trump appears to have mended fences over his criticism of Florida’s six-week ban and more with key abortion opponents, whose support helped him get elected in 2016 — and whom he repaid with a long list of policy changes during his presidency.
Among the anti-abortion actions taken by the Trump administration were a reinstatement of the “Mexico City Policy” that bars giving federal funds to international organizations that support abortion rights; a regulation to bar Planned Parenthood and other organizations that provide abortions from the federal family planning program, Title X; regulatory changes designed to make it easier for health care providers and employers to decline to participate in activities that violate their religious and moral beliefs; and other changes that made it harder for NIH scientists to conduct research using fetal tissue from elective abortions.
All of those policies have since been overturned by the Biden administration.
Health Insurance
Unlike Trump’s policies on reproductive health, many of his administration’s moves related to health insurance still stand.
For example, in 2020, Trump signed into law the No Surprises Act, a bipartisan measure aimed at protecting patients from unexpected medical bills stemming from payment disputes between health care providers and insurers. The bill was included in the $900 billion covid relief package he opposed before signing, though Trump had expressed support for ending surprise medical bills.
His administration also pushed — over the vehement objections of health industry officials — price transparency regulations that require hospitals to post prices and insurers to provide estimated costs for procedures. Those requirements also remain in place, although hospitals in particular have been slow to comply.
Medicaid
While first-time candidate Trump vowed not to cut popular entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, his administration did not stick to that promise. The Affordable Care Act repeal legislation Trump supported in 2017 would have imposed major cuts to Medicaid, and his Department of Health and Human Services later encouraged states to require Medicaid recipients to prove they work in order to receive health insurance.
Drug Prices
One of the issues the Trump administration was most active on was reducing the price of prescription drugs for consumers — a top priority for both Democratic and Republican voters. But many of those proposals were blocked by the courts.
One Trump-era plan that never took effect would have pegged the price of some expensive drugs covered by Medicare to prices in other countries. Another would have required drug companies to include prices in their television advertisements.
A regulation allowing states to import cheaper drugs from Canada did take effect, in November 2020. However, it took until January 2024 for the FDA, under Trump’s successor, to approve the first importation plan, from Florida. Canada has said it won’t allow exports that risk causing drug shortages in that country, leaving unclear whether the policy is workable.
Trump also signed into law measures allowing pharmacists to disclose to patients when the cash price of a drug is lower than the cost using their insurance. Previously pharmacists could be barred from doing so under their contracts with insurers and pharmacy benefit managers.
Veterans’ Health
Trump is credited by some advocates for overhauling Department of Veterans Affairs health care. However, while he did sign a major bill allowing veterans to obtain care outside VA facilities, White House officials also tried to scuttle passage of the spending needed to pay for the initiative.
Medical Freedom
Trump scored a big win for the libertarian wing of the Republican Party when he signed into law the “Right to Try Act,” intended to make it easier for patients with terminal diseases to access drugs or treatments not yet approved by the FDA.
But it is not clear how many patients have managed to obtain treatment using the law because it is aimed at the FDA, which has traditionally granted requests for “compassionate use” of not-yet-approved drugs anyway. The stumbling block, which the law does not address, is getting drug companies to release doses of medicines that are still being tested and may be in short supply.
Trump said in a Jan. 10 Fox News town hall that the law had “saved thousands and thousands” of lives. There’s no evidence for the claim.
KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Recommended
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Tahini vs Hummus – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing tahini to hummus, we picked the tahini.
Why?
Both are great! But tahini is so nutritionally dense, that it makes even the wonder food that is hummus look bad next to it.
In terms of macros, tahini is higher in everything except water. So, higher in protein, carbs, fats, and fiber. In terms of those fats, the fat breakdown is similar for both, being mostly polyunsaturated and monounsaturated, with a small percentage of saturated. Tahini has the lower glycemic index, but both are so low that it makes no practical difference.
In terms of vitamins, tahini has more of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B9, E, and choline, while hummus is higher in vitamin B6.
This is a good reason to embellish hummus with some red pepper (vitamin A), a dash of lemon (vitamin C), etc, but we’re judging these foods in their most simple states, for fairness.
When it comes to minerals, tahini has more calcium, copper, iron, magnesium, manganese, phosphorus, potassium, selenium, and zinc. Meanwhile, hummus is higher in sodium.
Note: hummus is a good source of all those minerals too! Tahini just has more.
In short… Enjoy both, but tahini is the more nutritionally dense by far. On the other hand, if for whatever reason you’re looking for something lower in carbs, fats, and calories, then hummus is where it’s at.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Take care!
Share This Post
-
Guava vs Passion Fruit – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing guava to passion fruit, we picked the guava.
Why?
There aren’t many fruits that can beat passion fruit for nutritional density! And even in this case, it wasn’t completely so in every category:
In terms of macros, passion fruit has more carbs and fiber, the ratio of which give it the slightly lower glycemic index. Thus, a modest win for passion fruit in this category.
In the category of vitamins, guava has more of vitamins B1, B5, B6, B9, C, E, and K, while passion fruit has more of vitamins A, B2, and B3. A clear win for guava this time.
When it comes to minerals, it’s a little closer, but: guava has more calcium, copper, manganese, potassium, and zinc, while passion fruit has more iron, magnesium, and phosphorus. So, another win for guava.
Adding up the sections makes for guava winning the day, but by all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
Fruit Is Healthy; Juice Isn’t (Here’s Why)
Enjoy!
Share This Post
-
We don’t all need regular skin cancer screening – but you can know your risk and check yourself
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Australia has one of the highest skin cancer rates globally, with nearly 19,000 Australians diagnosed with invasive melanoma – the most lethal type of skin cancer – each year.
While advanced melanoma can be fatal, it is highly treatable when detected early.
But Australian clinical practice guidelines and health authorities do not recommend screening for melanoma in the general population.
Given our reputation as the skin cancer capital of the world, why isn’t there a national screening program? Australia currently screens for breast, cervical and bowel cancer and will begin lung cancer screening in 2025.
It turns out the question of whether to screen everyone for melanoma and other skin cancers is complex. Here’s why.
Pixel-Shot/Shutterstock The current approach
On top of the 19,000 invasive melanoma diagnoses each year, around 28,000 people are diagnosed with in-situ melanoma.
In-situ melanoma refers to a very early stage melanoma where the cancerous cells are confined to the outer layer of the skin (the epidermis).
Instead of a blanket screening program, Australia promotes skin protection, skin awareness and regular skin checks (at least annually) for those at high risk.
About one in three Australian adults have had a clinical skin check within the past year.
Those with fairer skin or a family history may be at greater risk of skin cancer. Halfpoint/Shutterstock Why not just do skin checks for everyone?
The goal of screening is to find disease early, before symptoms appear, which helps save lives and reduce morbidity.
But there are a couple of reasons a national screening program is not yet in place.
We need to ask:
1. Does it save lives?
Many researchers would argue this is the goal of universal screening. But while universal skin cancer screening would likely lead to more melanoma diagnoses, this might not necessarily save lives. It could result in indolent (slow-growing) cancers being diagnosed that might have never caused harm. This is known as “overdiagnosis”.
Screening will pick up some cancers people could have safely lived with, if they didn’t know about them. The difficulty is in recognising which cancers are slow-growing and can be safely left alone.
Receiving a diagnosis causes stress and is more likely to lead to additional medical procedures (such as surgeries), which carry their own risks.
2. Is it value for money?
Implementing a nationwide screening program involves significant investment and resources. Its value to the health system would need to be calculated, to ensure this is the best use of resources.
Narrower targets for better results
Instead of screening everyone, targeting high-risk groups has shown better results. This focuses efforts where they’re needed most. Risk factors for skin cancer include fair skin, red hair, a history of sunburns, many moles and/or a family history.
Research has shown the public would be mostly accepting of a risk-tailored approach to screening for melanoma.
There are moves underway to establish a national targeted skin cancer screening program in Australia, with the government recently pledging $10.3 million to help tackle “the most common cancer in our sunburnt country, skin cancer” by focusing on those at greater risk.
Currently, Australian clinical practice guidelines recommend doctors properly evaluate all patients for their future risk of melanoma.
Looking with new technological eyes
Technological advances are improving the accuracy of skin cancer diagnosis and risk assessment.
For example, researchers are investigating 3D total body skin imaging to monitor changes to spots and moles over time.
Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms can analyse images of skin lesions, and support doctors’ decision making.
Genetic testing can now identify risk markers for more personalised screening.
And telehealth has made remote consultations possible, increasing access to specialists, particularly in rural areas.
Check yourself – 4 things to look for
Skin cancer can affect all skin types, so it’s a good idea to become familiar with your own skin. The Skin Cancer College Australasia has introduced a guide called SCAN your skin, which tells people to look for skin spots or areas that are:
1. sore (scaly, itchy, bleeding, tender) and don’t heal within six weeks
2. changing in size, shape, colour or texture
3. abnormal for you and look different or feel different, or stand out when compared to your other spots and moles
4. new and have appeared on your skin recently. Any new moles or spots should be checked, especially if you are over 40.
If something seems different, make an appointment with your doctor.
You can self-assess your melanoma risk online via the Melanoma Institute Australia or QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute.
H. Peter Soyer, Professor of Dermatology, The University of Queensland; Anne Cust, Professor of Cancer Epidemiology, The Daffodil Centre and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney; Caitlin Horsham, Research Manager, The University of Queensland, and Monika Janda, Professor in Behavioural Science, The University of Queensland
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Share This Post
Related Posts
-
When supplies resume, should governments subsidise drugs like Ozempic for weight loss? We asked 5 experts
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Hundreds of thousands of people worldwide are taking drugs like Ozempic to lose weight. But what do we actually know about them? This month, The Conversation’s experts explore their rise, impact and potential consequences.
You’ve no doubt heard of Ozempic but have you heard of Wegovy? They’re both brand names of the drug semaglutide, which is currently in short supply worldwide.
Ozempic is a lower dose of semaglutide, and is approved and used to treat diabetes in Australia. Wegovovy is approved to treat obesity but is not yet available in Australia. Shortages of both drugs are expected to last throughout 2024.
Both drugs are expensive. But Ozempic is listed on Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule (PBS), so people with diabetes can get a three-week supply for A$31.60 ($7.70 for concession card holders) rather than the full price ($133.80).
Wegovy isn’t listed on the PBS to treat obesity, meaning when it becomes available, users will need to pay the full price. But should the government subsidise it?
Wegovy’s manufacturer will need to make the case for it to be added to the PBS to an independent advisory committee. The company will need to show Wegovy is a safe, clinically effective and cost-effective treatment for obesity compared to existing alternatives.
In the meantime, we asked five experts: when supplies resume, should governments subsidise drugs like Ozempic for weight loss?
Four out of five said yes
This is the last article in The Conversation’s Ozempic series. Read the other articles here.
Disclosure statements: Clare Collins is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Leadership Fellow and has received research grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Australian Research Council (ARC), the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF), the Hunter Medical Research Institute, Diabetes Australia, Heart Foundation, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, nib foundation, Rijk Zwaan Australia, the Western Australian Department of Health, Meat and Livestock Australia, and Greater Charitable Foundation. She has consulted to SHINE Australia, Novo Nordisk (for weight management resources and an obesity advisory group), Quality Bakers, the Sax Institute, Dietitians Australia and the ABC. She was a team member conducting systematic reviews to inform the 2013 Australian Dietary Guidelines update, the Heart Foundation evidence reviews on meat and dietary patterns and current co-chair of the Guidelines Development Advisory Committee for Clinical Practice Guidelines for Treatment of Obesity; Emma Beckett has received funding for research or consulting from Mars Foods, Nutrition Research Australia, NHMRC, ARC, AMP Foundation, Kellogg and the University of Newcastle. She works for FOODiQ Global and is a fat woman. She is/has been a member of committees/working groups related to nutrition or food, including for the Australian Academy of Science, the NHMRC and the Nutrition Society of Australia; Jonathan Karnon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment; Nial Wheate in the past has received funding from the ACT Cancer Council, Tenovus Scotland, Medical Research Scotland, Scottish Crucible, and the Scottish Universities Life Sciences Alliance. He is a fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute, a member of the Australasian Pharmaceutical Science Association and a member of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Nial is the chief scientific officer of Vaihea Skincare LLC, a director of SetDose Pty Ltd (a medical device company) and a Standards Australia panel member for sunscreen agents. Nial regularly consults to industry on issues to do with medicine risk assessments, manufacturing, design and testing; Priya Sumithran has received grant funding from external organisations, including the NHMRC and MRFF. She is in the leadership group of the Obesity Collective and co-authored manuscripts with a medical writer provided by Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly.
Fron Jackson-Webb, Deputy Editor and Senior Health Editor, The Conversation
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Figs vs Passion Fruit – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing figs to passion fruit, we picked the passion fruit.
Why?
Both are top-tier fruits! But the passion fruit is just that bit more passionate about delivering healthy nutrients:
In terms of macros, passion fruit has slightly more carbs, notably more protein, and a lot more fiber, giving it the win in this category.
In the category of vitamins, figs have more of vitamins B1, B5, B6, E, and K, while passion fruit has more of vitamins A, B2, B3, B9, C, and choline, making for a marginal win by the numbers for passion fruit here.
When it comes to minerals, figs have more calcium, manganese, and zinc, while passion fruit has more copper, iron, magnesium, phosphorus, potassium, and selenium. A clearer win for passion fruit this time.
Adding up the sections makes for an easy overall win for passion fruit, but again, figs are really a top-tier fruit too; passion fruit just beats them! By all means enjoy either or both; diversity is good!
Want to learn more?
You might like:
Top 8 Fruits That Prevent & Kill Cancer ← figs have antitumor effects specifically, while removing carcinogens too, and additionally sensitizing cancer cells to light therapy
Enjoy!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
-
Black Beans vs Pinto Beans – Which is Healthier?
10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.
Our Verdict
When comparing black beans to pinto beans, we picked the pinto beans.
Why?
Both of these beans have won all their previous comparisons, so it’s no surprise that this one was very close. Despite their different appearance, taste, and texture, their nutritional profiles are almost identical:
In terms of macros, pinto beans have a tiny bit more protein, carbs, and fiber. So, a nominal win for pinto beans, but again, the difference is very slight.
When it comes to vitamins, black beans have more of vitamins A, B1, B3, and B5, while pinto beans have more of vitamins B2, B6, B9, C, E, K and choline. Superficially, again this is nominally a win for pinto beans, but in most cases the differences are so slight as to be potentially the product of decimal place rounding.
In the category of minerals, black beans have more calcium, copper, iron, and phosphorus, while pinto beans have more magnesium, manganese, selenium, and zinc. That’s a 4:4 tie, but the only one with a meaningful margin of difference is selenium (of which pinto beans have 4x more), so we’re calling this one a very modest win for pinto beans.
All in all, adding these up makes for a “if we really are pressed to choose” win for pinto beans, but honestly, enjoy either in accordance with your preference (this writer prefers black beans!), or better yet, both.
Want to learn more?
You might like to read:
What’s Your Plant Diversity Score?
Take care!
Don’t Forget…
Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!
Learn to Age Gracefully
Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:
