Patient groups criticize RFK Jr.’s move toward secret rule making

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has recently made a controversial decision to cut the public out of the decision-making process at the Department of Health and Human Services. This move has sparked concern among patient groups, lawmakers, and the private sector.

The Richardson Waiver, adopted in 1971, allowed for public notices and feedback on proposals that were previously excluded from the Administrative Procedure Act. This waiver was seen as a way to involve the public more often than required by law. However, Kennedy’s recent decision would move much of the agency’s deliberation behind closed doors, limiting transparency and public participation.

A coalition of nearly two dozen patient advocacy groups has called on HHS to revoke this decision, citing the importance of public input in developing health care regulations that address patient needs and improve access to quality care. Organizations such as the American Kidney Fund, Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, and American Lung Association have joined in urging HHS to reconsider the policy change.

While some lawmakers have expressed concerns about the decision, few have publicly opposed it. Senator Andy Kim questioned nominees for leadership positions at NIH and the FDA about the Richardson Waiver, emphasizing the importance of public comment on federal agency activities.

The lack of clarity on how HHS will conduct its business moving forward has raised concerns in the private sector as well. Investment advisors and attorneys have warned clients about potential outcomes, including changes to public health guidance, regulations, and policies affecting programs like Medicaid.

Critics of the decision argue that it could lead to less effective policies and more lawsuits, as the federal government may not fully understand the implications of proposals without public input. For the private sector, it means less opportunity to make their positions known publicly, potentially leading to more informal, private appeals to HHS officials.

Overall, the move to eliminate public participation in HHS decisions has sparked widespread concern and calls for the agency to reconsider its decision in order to ensure transparency and accountability in the decision-making process. Our financial supporters play a crucial role in sustaining our journalism, but it is important to note that they are not involved in any decisions about the content we produce. This separation ensures that our reporting is unbiased, independent, and free from any external influence.

At our organization, we prioritize integrity and transparency in our journalism. We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards and maintain the trust of our readers. This means that our editorial team has full control over the stories we cover, the angles we take, and the sources we use. Our financial supporters do not have a say in what we publish or how we present the news.

While our supporters provide the necessary funding to keep our operations running, they do not dictate our editorial agenda. We are committed to providing accurate, fair, and balanced reporting to our audience, and we take our responsibility to deliver quality journalism seriously.

It is our mission to serve the public interest and provide a platform for diverse voices and perspectives. We believe that a free press is essential for a functioning democracy, and we are dedicated to upholding the principles of journalism in everything we do.

So rest assured, when you read our articles and reports, you can trust that they are the result of independent and ethical journalism. Our financial supporters may help sustain us, but they do not influence the stories we tell or the way we tell them. Thank you for supporting our mission and being a part of our community.