Receive your daily insights into health and medicine every weekday with STAT’s complimentary newsletter, Morning Rounds. Sign up here.
Good morning. We have reached the final stages of our annual STAT Madness competition. In one matchup, research on an Alzheimer’s biomarker is currently leading over a project involving AI cell modeling. In another matchup, smart floss designed to track hormones is trailing a study on the link between triglycerides and aneurysms. Cast your votes today and tomorrow!
1 in 4
A recent special report reveals that a quarter of U.S. scientists have been affected by the Trump administration’s restrictions on research collaborations with foreign institutions. The NIH announced ten months ago that researchers could no longer share federal grants with international partners. According to a STAT survey, 25% of respondents experienced significant impact from this policy, while an additional 20% reported minor effects.
NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya emphasized reducing administrative burdens and improving the grant application process as key priorities. However, researchers argue that the process has become more cumbersome. A malaria researcher noted that the new system for foreign subawards requires more work for less effective scientific results. Learn more about the global impact of these changes.
Last month, Daniel Payne and I discussed the American Society of Plastic Surgeons’ new guidelines on gender-affirming surgery for minors, recommending procedures like top surgery be delayed until age 19. Subsequently, a comment from the American Medical Association suggested agreement with these recommendations, saying that “in the absence of clear evidence, the AMA agrees with ASPS that surgical interventions in minors should be generally deferred to adulthood.”
However, an AMA Board newsletter issued yesterday clarified that media coverage mischaracterized the AMA’s stance as aligning with the ASPS statement. The newsletter stated that the AMA’s wording was not an endorsement of the ASPS position. The AMA has requested a correction from The New York Times and reiterated its commitment to gender-affirming care, emphasizing the intention to maintain access rather than restrict it. Despite previous inquiries, the AMA has not provided a response regarding these issues.
Medical school accreditor drops requirement to teach about health equity
According to STAT’s Anil Oza, the leading medical accreditation body in the U.S. has removed the mandate for teaching health inequities to medical students. The Liaison Committee on Medical Education, responsible for setting accreditation standards, now encourages schools to focus on “self-directed learning” skills, omitting specific language on health disparities and inequities.
The reasons behind these changes are unclear, but the LCME has faced political pressure during the Trump administration. Meanwhile, the DOJ has initiated investigations into three medical schools, seeking admissions data. Anil Oza provides further insight into these developments, though the LCME has declined to comment. The psychiatrist who introduced the concept of “structural competency” has shared their perspective.
(In other medical school news, three nutrition experts argue for more comprehensive nutrition education for future doctors, distinct from the MAHA approach. Read more.)
In Los Angeles, a jury awarded a 20-year-old woman $3 million, holding social media giants Google and Meta accountable for her mental health issues. In this week’s STATus Report video, Alex Hogan converses with health and science influencers about social media’s impact on well-being and how it influences their behavior.
“The algorithms are designed for clicks and eyeballs,” said Jessica Malaty Rivera. “And the content that performs well is the content that elicits those big, strong emotional reactions.” Often, these reactions are anger and agitation. Watch the video to discover how influencers combat misinformation while navigating the algorithm.
A new strategic plan for disability research
The National Institutes of Health has unveiled a five-year strategic plan for disability research in the U.S. Released yesterday, the document marks a shift from the traditional medical model that aims to “cure” or “normalize” individuals, focusing instead on the social and environmental factors affecting disabilities.
Consider this relevant to you or someone you know: over 25% of Americans have a disability, and the NIH allocated more than $619 million to disability health research in 2024. That’s a significant investment! Read the report. — O. Rose Broderick
How rampant is home care fraud, actually?
Wrapping up the week, more from Rose: The Trump administration has clearly targeted health care fraud through executive orders, statements, and social media, particularly focusing on Medicaid. Despite portraying home care services as fraud-ridden, these services are increasingly vital and costly for the health care system.
Experts, however, caution against oversimplifying the issue. “This is being painted with a really broad brush,” said Alison Barkoff, previously with the Administration for Community Living. Explore what the data truly indicates.
What we’re reading
-
After working as a janitor at Yale Hospital for a decade, she is now a doctor there, Washington Post
-
They don’t have lip filler, they just have lip filler accent, Defector
- First Opinion: Spreading out elective admissions could save lives, strengthen hospitals, and reduce health spending, STAT
- Transgender women athletes banned from female Olympic events by new IOC policy, AP
- Decades after the Vietnam War, research links Agent Orange exposure to MDS blood cancer, STAT
What’s the word? Test your knowledge with today’s STAT Mini crossword.
