They share an enemy, though. They dislike social media’s effects on children’s mental health. Talarico, who did not respond to a request for comment, has for kids under 16, while denouncing “predatory algorithms that divide us on an hourly, daily basis.” As a legislator, he targeting explicit deepfakes 鈥� digital imitations of individuals that are often made or manipulated by artificial intelligence and used for harassment on social media.

Paxton has been suing Big Tech, alleging the companies on their apps or from being viewed by kids. “When elected to the U.S. Senate, he will continue his proven record of advancing policies that protect children online, strengthen parental rights, and hold Big Tech accountable when it breaks the law,” Paxton campaign spokesperson Madison Cercy said in a statement to 吃瓜不打烊.

Youth mental health is in decline. Even as researchers explore what’s causing the problem, momentum is gathering among policymakers from both parties to crack down on social media companies. Several major companies are being sued, investigated, and, soon, potentially regulated. That they may be harming kids’ mental health is a key reason.

Companies are starting to feel the bite. In late August, the social media conglomerate Meta with a coalition of 48 states, the District of Columbia, and three territories and promised to change its policies and settings to protect children. Meta immediately took out advertisements in major newspapers, pressuring its competitors to adopt similar guardrails. Children’s health advocates want to go further, with federal legislation.

Indeed, at least 35 nominees for the U.S. Senate this year have sponsored bills to curb social media, initiated investigations, or publicly lambasted Big Tech companies that, in their telling, have exploited teens and kids.

“We’re protecting our children, not those profiting off their online presence,” Juliana Stratton, the Democratic lieutenant governor and Senate candidate in Illinois, , trumpeting state legislation.

Congress is edging closer to passing the Kids Online Safety Act, the vanguard social media regulation bill. The bill would require social media companies to implement various safeguards, such as limiting users’ ability to communicate with minors. to pass a version of the bill earned 91 yes votes in the Senate. Donald Trump Jr., the president’s son, that the bill needed to be passed “ASAP.”

Amid the momentum toward new federal regulations, Big Tech companies are lobbying for their preferred policy. Apple supports the bill, a spokesperson told 吃瓜不打烊, while Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, has spent $10 million on television advertising touting its teen accounts.

“Any youth safety legislation must put parents in the driver’s seat 鈥� blanket social media bans do not do that,” said Meta spokesperson Ed Patterson, who argued blanket bans push youths onto less safe platforms. “We support legislation that empowers parents 鈥� not the government 鈥� to approve the apps their teens can download from the App Store.”

Meta and other industry groups are scrambling to shape regulations for social media, and tech in general. Meta also gave some $10 million to a President Donald Trump-aligned campaign nonprofit, Securing American Greatness. Based on a 吃瓜不打烊 search of the Senate’s lobbying database, about 70 corporations, trade groups, nonprofits, and other groups have been lobbying senators about the bill.

According to The Washington Post, the Trump administration has the online safety bill to other parts of its AI agenda, which includes legislation that would make it harder to regulate the technology at the state level. The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

The public’s views of major tech companies are souring. In 2024, the 78% of Americans said tech companies had too much influence in politics, while 64% said social media had a mostly negative effect on the country.

A widespread movement encompassing much of the public health establishment, parents’ groups, attorneys general, and whistleblowers is calling for greater regulation, as parts of the tech industry fight back by spending big on lobbying and marketing.

“You have the whole industry and all their lobbying dollars,” said Allison Ivie, chief policy officer at the Eating Disorders Coalition. that social media, by showing kids images of unrealistically thin peers and by amplifying content encouraging extreme diets, helps fuel eating disorders. “It’s not a balanced fight by any means,” Ivie said of the lobbying muscle. “How do you compete against that on any given day?”

Growing Up Online, Breaking Down Offline

from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a third of youth have persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness 鈥� about 10% more than a decade earlier. But many researchers question whether social media is causing the trouble. (Other metrics tracked by the agency show improvement.)

“The science is crude and messy,” said Sandro Galea, dean of public health at Washington University in St. Louis, who previously chaired a on the effects of social media on kids’ mental health. and have proposed a wide variety of causes for the crisis, like changes in the economy, decreasing social connections, access to firearms, and the pandemic.

Despite the uncertainty, much of the public health establishment is massing against social media. In early September, the Department of Health and Human Services advising parents and children to live life off-screen. It’s only the latest in a series of warnings from the U.S. surgeon general’s office 鈥� under both the Biden and Trump administrations 鈥� about these technologies.

“The evidence keeps building on the real and potential dangers of unregulated access for children,” Jerome Adams, Trump’s first surgeon general, told 吃瓜不打烊. These include, he said, “serious risks like higher rates of anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and developmental concerns. Kids spending too much time on these platforms face real challenges during key stages of growth.”

The policy backlash against social media has extended worldwide. The United Kingdom and Australia recently banned social media for kids under 16. The European Union has with a potential fine, up to 6% of revenue, for pushing “addictive designs” in a breach of the confederation’s regulations.

Besides the $17 billion settlement with Meta, other lawsuits in the United States have targeted Snapchat, owned by Snap, and TikTok, a short-video app owned by a consortium of American and Chinese companies. A won a $27 million settlement from social media companies; , including in Los Angeles, have , citing alleged addictive effects on youth, among other harms.

Coalitions of state attorneys general, including Paxton, have sued Big Tech companies, in some cases winning settlements related to allegations of mental health harm and addiction. In early August, to pay nearly $950 million after a New Mexico state court found it to be a “significant contributing factor to the current mental health crisis.” This preceded the multibillion-dollar settlement.

And a broad base of companies are feeling effects from the government and civil suits. The online gaming company Roblox in legal settlements, including expenses targeting “youth-related consumer protection and digital safety matters,” in the first half of 2026. YouTube, the video hosting website, multiple youth-related cases this year.

Taking Big Tech to Task

Yet the push in Congress has garnered much of the attention. Congressional committees on occasion have summoned tech company executives 鈥� sometimes with a friendly ear, but more often to berate them.

Accompanying the push for legislation are ongoing investigations, many of which collect testimony from whistleblowers. In 2025, Sarah Wynn-Williams 鈥� a former United Nations diplomat who later joined Meta 鈥� testified before the Senate about the company’s record.

Asked about allegations the company covered up or denied its knowledge of harms, : “Facebook was targeting 13- to 17-year-olds. It could identify when they were feeling worthless or helpless or like a failure, and they would take that information and share it with advertisers.”

For example, Wynn-Williams told lawmakers, “if a 13-year-old girl would delete a selfie, that’s a really good time to try and sell her a beauty product.”

Meta has been dogged by claims it has attempted to hide relevant internal research, including from the government. In a series of rulings in 2025 and 2026, a judge in Washington, D.C., found the company’s lawyers directed employees to “remove portions of research showing Meta’s knowledge of teen users’ developmental vulnerability because the research could be used by government enforcers investigating Meta.” But it has approved three dozen studies on social issues related to young people, and that they have “made real changes to protect teens online,” like creating teen accounts, whose settings parents can control.

Complicating any regulatory push, though, are protections for speech and privacy. For the legislation to work, said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, “the platforms are going to want to know who is a kid and who isn’t.” Simply asking users will not be enough, she said. “I know when I was a kid, I always said I was older than I was to try to create accounts.”

But the momentum for constraints continues. Over time, Ivie said, “we get all this damning evidence. It shifts perspectives.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

As that campaign has unfolded, administration officials have granted tech companies an unusual opportunity to nudge the nation’s health department toward a loosely regulated future for AI health apps in which the government reimburses them for services as it does medical professionals.

In February, federal health officials invited those businesses — including tech giants Microsoft, Anthropic, OpenAI, Apple, and Google — to a listening session on conversational AI products for patients, such as chatbots. Representatives from at least 35 industry organizations attended the meeting held by the Food and Drug Administration, which is responsible for regulating health apps as medical devices. Companies were prompted in advance to explain their AI products and how they access patients’ sensitive medical information.

But the meeting did not appear on the FDA’s public calendar or regulatory notices, nor was the public invited. Rather, the invitation for a select group to help shape federal policy governing AI in healthcare was extended in a chat room on the messaging service Slack.

“This is a great opportunity to support HHS’ goals and share your state-of-the-art understanding of safe Conversational AI development and monitoring to help FDA shape future guidance,” CMS senior policy adviser Morgan Taylor wrote in the Slack workspace.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has not formally announced the chat room through federal regulatory channels, though CMS officials have talked about it at industry conferences. Legal experts said the chat room resembles a federal advisory panel, which would be required to operate in public view.

吃瓜不打烊 reviewed thousands of Slack messages, meeting transcripts, and video recordings that reveal how the Trump administration has granted the industry a direct line to top government officials — including former head of the Department of Government Efficiency .

The conversation took place behind the scenes as federal health officials publicly worked to integrate AI and other technology into nearly every aspect of healthcare, a plan they’ve branded the “.”

“We wanted to give industry a chance to play in the sandbox of government-supported healthcare,” CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz at the public launch of an initiative that allows health apps to bill Medicare for AI services such as wearable device tracking. Last week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered an enthusiastic endorsement of AI in healthcare, claiming it is “much better informed than any doctor in the country.”

Meanwhile, HHS staff even promised that a recently launched would serve as a lucrative pipeline for those businesses to get new users. The library’s webpage currently promotes only two dozen commercial apps to millions of American seniors and those with disabilities.

, Americans will get easier access to their medical records so apps can swiftly provide health or wellness advice. In practice, however, so will the tech companies.

Doctors, meanwhile, are increasingly worried about how patients use and share their medical records with the nascent technology.

“Some of these tools just aren’t ready for primetime,” said John Whyte, CEO of the American Medical Association. “We don’t have enough data about them. We don’t understand how they work, how they’re using the information. There’s no liability if these tools get things wrong.”

CMS officials declined to answer several questions about the Slack workspace, including about its legality.

“CMS is focused on giving Medicare beneficiaries greater access to their health information and useful digital tools while promoting an open, interoperable healthcare system,” Gleason, now chief product officer for the newly created Office of Health Technology and Products at CMS, wrote in an emailed statement. “The Health Technology Ecosystem is an open, voluntary technical collaboration. CMS will continue working with patients, providers, payers, technology organizations, and other stakeholders to make health information more accessible and useful to the Americans it serves.”

The FDA did not respond to a request for comment.

The Conversation Begins

The behind-the-scenes effort to funnel more Americans to AI-powered health apps began in August 2025 in the Slack workspace.

“Welcome all!” Gleason wrote. “Please be sure to read the Code of Conduct and see the Channel list as well to help you find channels that are relevant to you.”

Gleason is best known as the acting administrator of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, as it to millions of Americans’ sensitive personal and financial data, including at the Social Security Administration.

As her work with DOGE wound down last year, Gleason welcomed a variety of tech leaders, investors, and entrepreneurs to the chat room.

The Slack workspace’s participants include representatives from major digital wellness companies like Oura Health, AI companies like Palantir, and investment outfits like 8VC, associated with Kennedy’s . While the Slack’s member count has ballooned to 1,700 over the past year, only a handful of patient advocates, doctors, and hospital representatives are in it.

The code of conduct Gleason shared on Slack in August 2025 documented that CMS had quietly established a technology working group.

The document also set ground rules for the Slack workspace, noting that the group does not constitute an “advisory committee,” nor would it be used “to obtain advice or recommendations for HHS, CMS, or any HHS/CMS officials.” The code also advises that federal employees “are prohibited from endorsing any product, service, or enterprise.”

Joseph Daval, a former FDA lawyer who is now a research specialist at Harvard Medical School, reviewed messages from the Slack workspace at the request of 吃瓜不打烊. He said the chat room in some ways resembles a federal advisory committee — an independent panel that can be formally stood up by an agency head, Congress, or the president to ensure agencies act in the best interest of the public rather than industry.

The law on advisory committees “was passed in part out of a concern about interest group capture, about anticompetitive capture of agency policymaking, about corruption,” he said.

Daval said the chat group looks like a committee, with members interacting with one another and building consensus on preferred courses of action.

If it were a formal advisory committee, though, Daval said, it would be subject to certain “membership requirements having to do with independence and fair balance.”

A ‘Sales Engine’

Over a series of video calls, CMS officials promised tech leaders participating in the Slack workspace that the agency would promote their health apps.

Jacob Shiff, the chief AI and technology officer at CMS’ Innovation Center, told industry representatives in a Zoom meeting in February that he hoped the agency’s work would be a “sales engine” for the health apps.

“We’re going to have a directory of all the organizations,” Shiff said in a video recording reviewed by 吃瓜不打烊. “The people on this call who hopefully will have amazing solutions that work will be the winners, and you have every incentive to obviously drive down your costs so you can be extremely profitable and scale. So hopefully we’re selling — or enabling you guys to thrive.”

A recording of the call had been publicly available through a Google Drive link but was made private the day after 吃瓜不打烊 asked about comments made during the meeting.

CMS did not respond to queries about how the agency has decided which AI-powered health apps appear in the Medicare App Library or why federal employees have promised to promote the products.

Days before publicly launching the Medicare App Library, CMS officials promised AI tech leaders during an informal meeting that the new webpage would become an important distribution channel for health apps because Medicare enrollees would place trust in products listed on the CMS website.

“If medicare.gov is promoting it, for lack of a better word, then yeah, it would be an app that I would trust and explore,” CMS’ Taylor said during the April 7 meeting, channeling enrollees, according to a transcript of the call.

The Medicare App Library’s webpage encourages older and disabled Americans to manage health conditions such as obesity, cancer, or diabetes using two dozen AI-driven apps developed by some of the world’s largest corporations, including Microsoft and Google. Many of the apps promise in their product descriptions to give insight, perform analyses, or develop plans that will help patients lose weight or manage diabetes.

CMS officials have suggested to tech representatives during at least two meetings this year that those apps will be prioritized for a new agency program that reimburses companies for AI chatbot advice or wearable device tracking, according to video recordings.

CMS has not publicly divulged all the criteria it uses to decide which apps are listed in its library, but the webpage promotes apps still in their infancy.

Among them is Slothwise, a health app launched this year from a San Francisco apartment by a young, biotech entrepreneur and triple citizen of Russia, Israel, and the U.S. says it “knows your whole health” by analyzing medical records and tracking health data, offering users a free option with limited functionality or its full features for $9.99 a month. It has been reviewed on the Apple and Google app stores only a handful of times.

“I trusted slothwise with my health info because it was endorsed by medicare,” one reviewer wrote in a in August. “Connecting info was smooth and I learned a lot about my health.”

In a statement, Slothwise CEO Sofia Sigal-Passeck did not answer questions about the size and medical expertise of her current team, nor about the availability of a doctor to consult with patients who use the app. The app, she said, is only “informational” at this time.

“I’ve spent years building at the intersection of AI and complex biological data,” Sigal-Passeck wrote in an email. “A small team is not the same thing as an inexperienced team. Slothwise is built by physicians, PhD researchers and engineers.”

‘No Regulation, No Rulemaking’

What’s often less clear — and buried deep in lengthy privacy policies — is that these apps are tapping into the intimate details of patients’ medical records to fuel their AI-driven analyses.

Tech vendors have to treat these apps, once they are vetted and authorized by a third-party organization, like a patient requesting records. That position gives apps sweeping access to pull sensitive health data from the national network through which providers electronically exchange medical records, called the , or TEFCA.

A small but influential group of those tech company executives directly made the case to federal health officials during a in May, arguing that when health apps request medical records they should be treated as if they are standing “in the shoes” of a patient.

On Slack, tech vendors have lobbied for a “frictionless pathway” for verified users, after they’ve consented once, that allows the app to gain limitless access to patients’ medical records from the TEFCA network.

Ryan Howells, a healthcare management consultant who lobbies for a Washington, D.C.-based digital health tech organization called the CARIN Alliance, has spearheaded an effort for patients — vis-à-vis apps — to more easily access medical records. He has regularly noted in Slack that health apps accessing TEFCA must be vetted by a third-party organization — one of which he sits on the board of — and agree to a code of conduct, developed by the alliance he lobbies for.

“What more can you do to have trust in these apps?” he wrote in a March Slack message, responding to concerns about how much patient consent is needed for apps to access medical records on the network.

Kristen Valdes, the CEO of b.well, a company that also connects apps to the TEFCA network, made a similar argument.

“My opinion is that we need to stop protecting patients from themselves,” she wrote in the same message thread. “Full stop.”

Howells did not respond to an emailed list of questions from 吃瓜不打烊. In an interview, Valdes told 吃瓜不打烊 that her comment reflected her frustration at the “paternalism” of the healthcare system, which she said has historically made it difficult for patients to access their records. Although, she said, “there are going to be good and bad apps.”

Other tech leaders worried in Slack about the approach.

One startup founder cautioned the group to think about the pitfalls of giving health apps broad leeway to pull medical records.

“We might all be good, honest actors here but security & privacy systems have to be designed around the presence of malicious actors – especially if we want this system to scale up to thousands of apps,” wrote Jason Kulatunga, who runs Fasten Health, a medical records management platform.

Gleason, the CMS official, has publicly championed the vision shared by Howells and Valdes. In her speeches, she frequently urges doctors to accept patient medical records directly from apps and calls on them to “,” also the title of a 2025 co-authored by Howells that urges doctors’ offices to abandon paper records.

Last month, Gleason spoke to a crowd gathered at a swanky hotel in Washington for an event hosted by the MAHA Institute, a think tank that supports Secretary Kennedy’s agenda. She laid out her work with tech companies over the past year as she discussed the Trump administration’s efforts to make medical records more digitally accessible.

As she told it, more Americans can now download an app and access their medical records.

“Once you’ve verified your identity you can just click a simple button and say, I’d like my medical records into whatever app I choose,” Gleason said.

She continued: “That was all done just — no regulation, no rulemaking — just by challenging industry to work together.”

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

吃瓜不打烊 first reported that the Consumer Product Safety Commission 鈥� a federal agency tasked with monitoring injuries from household items 鈥� was pressuring hospitals to provide a private company with personally identifiable health information for analysis. The rollout of the program has inspired broad pushback from hospitals and privacy advocates.

The CPSC’s goal is to obtain millions of Americans’ medical records from emergency rooms for most injuries, even when a consumer product is not involved, internal emails and documents reviewed by 吃瓜不打烊 revealed. The agency instructed hospitals to share detailed patient information for more than 10,000 types of injuries or conditions, such as vaccine reactions, suicide attempts, or stingray stabs.

The scope of data CPSC is collecting far exceeds the agency’s mission and should be immediately suspended, Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey, who sits on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and other House and Senate Democrats to CPSC acting Chairman Peter Feldman.

“This unprecedented and sweeping effort to collect identifiable patient data is untethered from the Commission’s statutory mission and authority, and is ripe for misuse by an administration that has repeatedly sought access to Americans’ most personal information,” the letter stated. “Americans should be able to seek medical care without fear that their personal health information will be swept into a federal database and repurposed for political ends.”

Among other Democrats signing the letter were Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, and Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee.

CPSC spokesperson Steve Roney did not answer several questions about the program and the call for it to be suspended.

“We received the letter, and will respond directly, through the appropriate channels,” he said in a statement.

The CPSC is one of several agencies that have launched broad acquisitions of Americans’ sensitive medical records during Trump’s second term. The Office of Personnel Management has requested federal workers’ sensitive health information. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. deputized at least one private organization to collect more medical records for his studies on vaccines and autism.

The CPSC has operated a voluntary program for decades that enables trained hospital workers based in about 70 hospitals nationwide to report injuries involving consumer products, called the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, or NEISS. Compared with the current initiative, the agency’s data collection has historically been far narrower, and previously requested patients’ identifiable information, generally for follow-up, in fewer than 1% of cases.

Without public notice, CPSC staffers overhauled the program early this year 鈥� rebranding it as NEISS-R 鈥� and told hospital executives that participation is mandatory, requiring they report far more identifiable patient details from more injuries to a private company called Konza Health. The Kansas-based company won a five-year contract last year worth up to $15.9 million with the CPSC.

In emails and contract language reviewed by 吃瓜不打烊, Konza representatives described hospital participation as “mandatory” or “required.” Emails sent this year by CPSC chief data officer Elizabeth Puchek said hospitals would need to apply for an exemption from participation or face penalties. Those penalties, for what’s called unlawful “information blocking,” were established in a federal data-sharing regulation designed to make sure patients could access their medical records. The agency’s website reiterated that threat, claiming information-blocking regulations require hospitals “to make electronic health information (EHI) available to public health authorities, such as CPSC, upon request, unless a specific exception applies.”

The power play inspired widespread resistance. The American Hospital Association asking for modifications to the program, citing “confusion and concern about the scope of patient information” demanded by the agency.

Now the agency is backtracking, removing in recent weeks mentions of “information blocking” penalties from its public page.

The CPSC’s Feldman, a Trump appointee, said in an interview last month with Nextgov/FCW that the new program would .

The Democrats highlighted these discrepancies and changes, also noting that the agency has bypassed regulations and failed to publicly lay out any detailed plan for its data collection, as required by law.

“The Commission has since quietly removed the information blocking rationale from its public NEISS webpage, without any public correction or acknowledgment that the claim it spent months promoting was without basis,” the letter said. “This reversal does not undo the coercion hospitals experienced, but rather raises the question of whether the Commission’s purported legal justifications were ever more than post-hoc cover for an agenda that had little to do with its statutory authority.” The Democrats’ letter asks CPSC to respond by Sept. 18.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that AI nurses can provide “concierge care” to rural patients. Mehmet Oz, who leads the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “the best way to help some of these communities is going to be AI-based avatars” that connect rural patients to mental health services.

And many state health leaders agree. They are using some of their funding from the $50 billion federal Rural Health Transformation Program to expand AI among rural health organizations.

AI is computer technology that performs tasks that typically rely on human intelligence by finding patterns or generating words. It has the potential to improve the healthcare system by automating back-office work or identifying patients at risk, but several reports contend there’s little evidence AI can improve access to care and patient health in rural areas. It’s unclear how well states will track and share outcomes of the tech they invest in.

Meanwhile, some rural Americans are skeptical, according to interviews with people in Hot Springs, South Dakota, a city of about 3,400 residents at the southern end of the Black Hills.

“I get artificial intelligence for certain things, but for personal healthcare 鈥� no,” Tara Haffner said while standing outside the American Legion.

Haffner said she’s worried about AI making mistakes and wants healthcare to stay between her and her doctor.

But Phillip Mues, who oversees technology at Cherry County Hospital and Clinic in rural Valentine, Nebraska, said AI is already helping clinicians save time, reduce burnout, and focus more on patient care.

“I think it will help reduce burden on actual staffing,” he said. “It won’t replace people, but I think it will help in rural communities.”

Still, Mues said, AI can’t fix every challenge. Rural hospitals at risk of closing or ending certain services probably can’t use AI to save enough money to prevent those consequences, he said.

Congressional Republicans created the five-year Rural Health Transformation Program last summer as a last-minute sweetener to President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The funding was intended to offset concerns about the anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is by more than $900 billion over a decade.

The Word on the Street

Hot Springs, which has a 25-bed independent hospital and a Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, is known for its sandstone buildings, veterans’ services, and, yes, hot springs. Residents must drive at least an hour for more advanced care.

Six people interviewed there by 吃瓜不打烊 said the biggest problem in rural healthcare is the cost or long wait times caused by staffing shortages.

Doug Nikkila, a heavy equipment operator, said AI and other technology come with benefits and risks.

“If it’s not utilized correctly, it becomes a burden,” he said.

Nikkila, who’s concerned about nursing home residents being neglected amid staffing shortages, said he thinks AI should send reminders to staff when their residents are due for diaper changes or other care. He also wondered whether AI-powered video monitors could send alerts when they detect falls or illness symptoms.

The healthcare industry is rapidly adopting AI despite the tools being “poorly evaluated,” according to a , a Stanford- and Harvard-led group that evaluates health-related AI. The report says that while some AI has been successful in controlled settings, there’s less evidence it can perform in the real world. It also said few studies track patient outcomes.

Evidence is especially lacking in rural areas. A found that only 26 peer-reviewed studies about AI in rural healthcare were published from 2010 through April 29, 2025. Few analyzed implementation or outcomes.

Despite the dearth of results, some states appear interested in bold experiments 鈥� such as using AI to suggest diagnoses or recommend treatments. Utah officials said in their application to the rural health program that they are interested in funding a in AI-powered prescription refill requests.

Even tools proven to work in urban settings may not work in rural ones, said Qian Huang, an assistant professor at the Center for Rural Health and Research at East Tennessee State University.

She said the technology is usually tested at large, academic hospitals and trained on data from urban patients, who may not have the same health issues and obstacles 鈥� such as a lack of transportation 鈥� as rural patients.

A 吃瓜不打烊 review of states’ plans for the Rural Health Transformation Program shows they’re interested in using AI to automate time-consuming, behind-the-scenes tasks, such as medical charting, coding, referrals, and prior authorization requests. Some states also mentioned ways AI can save money, such as Washington, which discussed tools that “identify and recover” money it’s owed.

Mues said the Valentine clinic has been using AI scribes that record appointments and generate notes describing the visit. He said surveys of clinicians before and after they started using the technology show the scribes have helped reduce burnout by letting providers focus on patient care with “eye contact on the patient, not the computer.”

States also mentioned funding AI that directly affects patient care, such as tools that recommend possible diagnoses and treatment options to clinicians. Mississippi wants to use predictive AI algorithms to “guide” emergency medics with “triage, routing, and treatment decisions.”

Several states want to use AI to analyze patients’ medical charts and remote monitoring devices to identify immediate or future health risks. North Dakota’s plans mention AI to “detect early signs of chronic disease and behavioral health conditions,” while New Hampshire’s discusses AI that identifies patients “at high risk of adverse drug events.”

Some states plan to give patients access to chatbots or wearable devices that transmit data to their clinicians. Utah is interested in funding AI-powered fetal-monitoring devices, while Kentucky will explore using AI chatbots to “deliver personalized nudges and education” through “health coaching, gamified incentives, and rewards.”

Whether the technology appeals to consumers is another matter. Hot Springs resident Stephanie Keller wears a smartwatch to track her fitness but has no interest in an AI chatbot using her data to encourage her to reach her health goals.

“I don’t have the time to chat with AI every day. I mean, are you kidding me? I don’t want to spend my time on a cellphone,” she said.

Rural health facilities also face challenges in implementing AI.

Huang, who has AI in rural healthcare, said rural hospitals and clinics may not have the hardware or IT staff needed to support the technology. She said clinicians and staff may already be doing three jobs at once and not have time to go through AI training.

Rural health facilities may not have fast-enough internet to use AI, while patients may have slow connections at home 鈥� if they have internet at all 鈥� or may not feel comfortable using AI, Huang said.

“In rural communities, trust and a personal relationship is essential,” she said.

Roy Ehlers, a Hot Springs resident, said he doesn’t trust AI in healthcare, or anywhere else.

“I’m old-fashioned. I don’t believe in it. Technology is not my forte,” Ehlers said.

Mues said that while some rural patients are “scared of AI,” most have let their clinicians at the Valentine facility use the scribing technology to record patients’ visits.

Will States Share AI Results?

Despite questions about implementation, the boom is on. Jordan Everson, an assistant professor at the Georgetown University Department of Family Medicine, said both urban and rural health facilities are rushing to use AI.

“The risk of signing contracts that rural healthcare organizations come to regret is pretty high,” said Everson, who previously worked in the information technology office at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Several states are addressing that risk by using their rural health funding to create groups that will help rural health facilities vet, select, or monitor AI tools while offering training, ongoing assistance, or funding for upfront costs.

CMS spokesperson Timothy Foster said the agency doesn’t have any AI-specific reporting requirements but is working on a form for states to report their overall progress and outcomes.

Abraham Pritzker, who works at Julota, a company that helps health organizations track data, said states should measure more than how often AI programs are used.

For example, states can measure whether the tech reduces falls, 911 calls, or hospital admissions, said Pritzker, a former paramedic. Huang said it’s also important to ask clinicians and patients about their experiences using AI.

Yet many states’ applications to the rural health program mention tracking only AI adoption metrics, not what happens after facilities deploy the tech. Some of these states may add further reporting requirements down the road.

Vermont spokespeople did not respond when asked why their state’s requires organizations to report only how many clinicians and patients are served by the tech, not how much time they save.

States requiring recipients to report outcomes include , which will track how often AI-powered patient monitoring devices trigger accurate alerts. organizations to track cost savings, while Wisconsin lists “patient outcomes” and “productivity and efficiencies” as possible metrics.

Huang said that after collecting results, states need to share them so other states and healthcare organizations can learn from their experiences.

“We do not have a lot of resources to waste on tools that don’t work in rural areas,” she said.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

The Consumer Product Safety Commission, responsible for tracking and issuing recalls of dangerous products sold in the U.S., began discreetly pressuring hospital executives this year to share personally identifiable health data with a private contractor. But hospital lawyers and other industry experts have questioned the agency’s authority to collect, its ability to safeguard such a swath of sensitive information, and whether it has followed the legal process to overhaul its surveillance system.

After 吃瓜不打烊 asked the CPSC about the new system, the the program on July 21. Left unmentioned, however, is the alarm it has raised among hospital executives, as well as the nature and extent of the agency’s data demands.

In a stark departure from its product-focused mission, the agency’s goal is to obtain millions of Americans’ medical records from emergency room visits for most injuries, from a broken bone to a childhood vaccine reaction or even a suicide attempt, according to documents and emails obtained by 吃瓜不打烊, as well as interviews with five people involved or familiar with the discussions.

A CPSC official also insisted in the emails that the institutions provide all ER patients’ identifiable information — such as names, addresses, diagnoses, and other personal details — to the contractor, Konza Health, for analysis. In correspondence with , Konza representatives described participation as “mandatory” or “required.”

As a condition of viewing the correspondence, 吃瓜不打烊 agreed not to republish some of the emails it obtained.

The CPSC wants at least 100 hospitals to start sending detailed medical records by the end of this year, according to an .

“The whole thing is troubling,” said Sharona Hoffman, a professor of health law at Case Western Reserve University who noted that giving a private entity access to a sweeping collection of data will introduce risks to patient privacy. “If this company really is collecting identifiable information, that is worrisome for patients.”

The new project was launched amid upheaval at the traditionally independent agency, which is without a governing board since President Donald Trump fired the CPSC’s three Democratic board members. Nearly 1 in 5 career staffers left the CPSC in the first 16 months of the new administration, according to a 吃瓜不打烊 analysis of federal workforce data.

The initiative also comes as the Trump administration has sought unprecedented access to millions of Americans’ medical records, with the Office of Personnel Management requesting federal workers’ sensitive health information and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. using a private organization to collect more medical records for his studies on vaccines and autism.

Steve Roney, CPSC spokesperson, said in an emailed statement on July 10 that the CPSC is “modernizing” its surveillance system. Asked whether the CPSC will file complaints against hospitals that do not participate, he said only that while the previous system “operated as a voluntary program, the ability of hospitals to opt out limited the sample size and usefulness of the data.”

Roney also acknowledged that the agency had not yet notified the public, as “required by law.”

Federal law requires the agency to provide notice and a public comment period before requesting information from 10 or more entities, a step it has not taken despite plans for 100 hospitals to join the surveillance system. 吃瓜不打烊 independently confirmed with over a dozen hospitals that they had been approached.

Federal public health authorities that private health data be reported. But CPSC officials have that if hospitals decline to share data with the new surveillance system, they could be subject to strict penalties from a data-sharing regulation known as “information blocking.”

Yet some hospital executives say they are reluctant to share patients’ sensitive data because they’re concerned about a different violation — that of .

AI Takes Over

Dozens of ERs across the country already participate in the CPSC’s voluntary National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, or NEISS, through which trained hospital workers report injuries involving consumer products, almost always stripped of patients’ identifiable information. The system helps the CPSC identify products, such as baby loungers, toys, and household appliances, with a pattern of injuring consumers.

The new injury surveillance program goes much further.

At a toy industry trade event in February, acting CPSC Chairman Peter Feldman said the agency is “investing in AI-enabled workflows that improve the quality and quantity of injury surveillance data, while also building up digital infrastructure to handle a massive new volume of electronic health records.”

Konza Health, a Kansas-based organization that runs the state’s health data exchange, will automatically pull and analyze medical records of all patient visits from ERs nationwide. Konza won a worth up to $15.9 million with the CPSC last fall.

In email correspondence with hospital technology officials, Konza Health President and CEO Laura McCrary also has described ERs’ participation as “required,” stipulating that they share patients’ records with identifying information.

McCrary told 吃瓜不打烊 by email that the company is not using AI to process the records it receives, saying instead that Konza will use “advanced analytic parsing and filtering capabilities.” Roney, the CPSC spokesperson, did not answer questions about the .

For years, agency officials moving away from human contractors and automating NEISS to save time and money.

But without workers on-site, hospital staffers may no longer receive training to determine what clinical information is important to include for the CPSC. In short, the changes could dilute the quality of the product safety data the agency collects.

“They want to suck in as much data as possible, but I’m not sure how thoughtful they’re being about what is collected and what is actually needed by the agency,” said former CPSC chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric, one of the Democratic appointees Trump fired last year.

Wanted: Injuries From Vaccines and Stingrays

The CPSC’s new data collection appears to contradict its own 214-page , which instructs hospitals not to include identifiable information “such as names, birthdates, or addresses” when reporting cases.

The agency is supposed to receive patients’ identifying information only when needed for follow-up investigations, which happens in fewer than 1% of reported cases, according to the manual.

The CPSC has also historically limited the records it collects to minimize privacy violations in case of a data breach.

The risk is not hypothetical: From 2017 to 2019, the agency improperly released personal health information of around 30,000 people, a disclosure that a top Republican at the time

Konza, however, will receive even more sensitive information on many more people. McCrary said in a statement that Konza will remove patients’ names, addresses, and medical information “not needed by CPSC” before sharing records with the agency.

Leaving a private organization to collect sensitive information introduces risks, including that it could be stolen or used for business purposes, said Hoffman, the Case Western professor.

“Very often, they will use information for marketing because now they’re going to know what conditions people have,” she said.

Roney said that its contract with Konza, which has not been made public, prohibits the organization from selling or marketing the data it collects.

The CPSC’s manual also identifies types of ER visits that should not be reported to the CPSC, which has jurisdiction over only certain consumer products. Excluded injuries are those caused by food, illegal drugs, medical devices, alcohol, or plants, as well as injuries that did not involve consumer products — such as a cut from a rock or broken bones from a fall on the ground — and suicide attempts by adults.

But in a to one hospital and reviewed by 吃瓜不打烊, Konza set no such limits on the information it would gather from ER records and said it would hold on to patient health information for at least 30 days.

In an email sent to hospital technology officials, McCrary wrote that Konza would provide the CPSC with records when a patient is treated in the ER for any of more than 10,000 conditions. The expansive list of diagnostic codes Konza provided in the email includes injuries that do not involve consumer products.

Child injuries resulting from “poisoning by” vaccines or contact with stingrays, neither of which is regulated by the CPSC, are included in the list.

A limited number of hospitals once shared deidentified data on all injuries — regardless of product involvement — through the NEISS using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s injury-tracking program. But the CDC halted that data collection, after funding and staffing were cut last year, and has not restarted it.

Pressure on Hospitals

CPSC Chief Data Officer Elizabeth Puchek, who joined the agency late last year after engineering U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ data system, has told hospitals in emails that they must seek an exemption from the program if they decline to share patients’ emergency room records with Konza.

The CPSC’s targeted outreach has included some of the nation’s largest urban and rural health systems, as well as small, publicly owned hospitals.

Staff members at Mary Greeley Medical Center in Ames, Iowa, said that Konza and federal officials told them their participation in the new program was mandatory. The hospital, which has long participated in NEISS, signed a new contract in April to share its ER records with Konza.

Yet the hospital is reevaluating its participation after being notified that the funds it received to participate in NEISS were “no longer available,” spokesperson Steve Sullivan said.

Several hospital executives, lawyers, and others have raised doubts about the CPSC’s claimed authority.

Harborview Medical Center spokesperson Susan Gregg said the Seattle hospital’s emergency room has “voluntarily submitted de-identified data for many years, but we are not obligated to report this information.”

In Boston, Mass General Brigham has declined to participate in the new program, with spokesperson Kelly Mitchell saying that “to protect patient privacy, we are unable to provide these medical records.”

Henry Ford Health in Detroit; St. Luke’s in Boise, Idaho; and Sanford Health based in Sioux Falls, South Dakota — which together handle over a million ER visits a year — are among the health systems that have been approached but not yet entered into an agreement with Konza, according to representatives. Several of the nation’s busiest hospital systems targeted for the program — including the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota, Yale New Haven Hospital in Connecticut, Nationwide Children’s Hospital and the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, and Baylor Scott & White Health in Texas — declined to answer questions about whether they’re participating.

Hoehn-Saric, the agency’s former chairman, said he was surprised that the CPSC would insist that hospitals provide identifiable records from all emergency room visits.

“This idea that they can simply demand patient information from a hospital and that the hospital would provide it — I really don’t understand the basis for that,” he said.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

The Office of Personnel Management posted last month that it will begin routinely collecting identifiable, personal health information on more than 8 million people 鈥� despite concerns from privacy advocates and Democrats, who have demanded the agency drop the plan. The notice will go into effect July 24, allowing OPM to begin its collection at any point afterward.

In reaction to privacy concerns raised by insurers and others, OPM now says the identities of enrollees will be “pseudonymized” 鈥� meaning names, addresses, and Social Security numbers will be removed 鈥� before the agency’s analysts review the massive new health datasets it will soon begin receiving.

Birth years of enrollees will be retained, and the agency’s “technical staff” will receive member IDs that it will scramble into different, unique numbers before releasing them to other staffers, according to the notice.

But the notice also specifies that OPM retains the right to reidentify the records.

Sixty-five insurance companies will be required to routinely send OPM detailed data 鈥� including names, addresses, doctor information, diagnoses, prescriptions filled, and payment details 鈥� on health care services paid through the Federal Employees Health Benefits and Postal Service Health Benefits programs.

In a change to its original proposal, first reported by 吃瓜不打烊, the agency says it also wants to peek at records kept by Medicare, the federally funded health insurance for older and disabled Americans, to examine claims from federal employees and retirees, and their families, who depend on both programs.

In its latest notice, OPM argues that the vast trove of data is necessary to ferret out fraud and overpayments in the FEHB and PSHB programs. Those programs cost roughly , with about $50 billion covered by the federal government and $30 billion funded by enrollees. The Trump administration has ramped up efforts, led by Vice President JD Vance, to curtail what it says is rampant fraud and misuse of publicly funded health benefits.

The effort still faces criticism that it doesn’t go far enough to protect the privacy of federal workers and their families.

“Clearly, this administration has not earned our trust with Americans’ sensitive data,” Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said in an emailed statement to 吃瓜不打烊. “If OPM wants to work in good faith to reduce fraud, they should come to Congress, including to folks like me who are engaged on this issue and represent many federal workers and retirees and their families, and work to build consensus and trust before implementing these sweeping changes.”

The , posted in December, sparked concerns in part because it did not specify what the Trump administration planned to do with the sensitive health information it receives 鈥� and did not instruct insurers to redact identifying information.

OPM General Counsel Kurt Dykstra said the detailed records are critical to the administration’s mission of rooting out fraud and could help identify fraud perpetrated not only by medical providers but also by enrollees.

But when pressed for instances of workers, retirees, or their relatives committing such fraud, Dykstra only noted generally that healthcare fraud does occur.

The information could demonstrate “potential anomalies in usage patterns that could be related to the individual, but really also could be related to the provider, the treater, the clinic 鈥� whoever it is that’s actually providing the care,” Dykstra told 吃瓜不打烊 in an interview.

Records deemed suspicious by OPM’s data analysts could then be referred to the agency’s Office of the Inspector General for further investigation, which could include “determining who’s involved and what the potential issues are, what the ramifications look like,” Dykstra said.

OPM’s plan to collect and analyze medical records has prompted unease among unions and federal workers, to mass firings and layoffs 鈥� in some cases, they say, driven by political retribution 鈥� since President Donald Trump took office.

Health privacy lawyers say, too, that while pseudonymizing workers’ details is a step in the right direction, it might not go far enough to protect their privacy.

OPM’s notice mostly complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the federal law commonly called HIPAA that protects sensitive health data from being shared, said Matt Fisher, a health privacy lawyer. But he noted one exception: The member ID that insurers provide enrollees can be used to identify them.

“The described process arguably comes down to trusting internal controls in OPM to ensure that data is walled off as proposed,” Fisher said in an email. “The ideal would be for only truly de-identified information to be shared in the first place.”

Insurers regularly share information about claims with employers who offer health plans to employees, in efforts to control costs. But since employers themselves are not covered by HIPAA, large datasets are typically de-identified, meaning the insurers remove identifying information such as employees’ names or addresses, to comply with the law.

Employers, too, have been accused of using health information to target employees for dismissals. Most recently, a group of Meta employees filed a lawsuit of using artificial intelligence to target for layoffs those who had taken medical or family leave.

Pseudonymizing details such as names or addresses would go only so far to protect privacy, since medical conditions in particular can make it very easy to identify certain employees, said Joseph Lorenzo Hall, a technologist at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a nonprofit that advocates for data privacy.

“The richer the data, the more likely it is going to be identifying,” Hall said.

“In this case, you may be the only person in a region that has that particular kind of medical procedure, condition, or even prescription,” he said. “All of those things can be extremely identifying, even when you remove or obfuscate or pseudonymize direct identifiers.”

Most federal retirees decide to continue with FEHB plans and enroll in Medicare once they turn 65, which provides more comprehensive coverage and allows family members to remain enrolled in FEHB plans, said John Hatton, the staff vice president for policy and programs at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association.

OPM wants to analyze medical records for those dual enrollees as well. The agency is asking for all of their cost and service use records from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

Still, Hatton said, OPM’s latest notice provides more details about how the agency says it will use the sensitive health information it receives and safeguard it.

“It’s a big improvement over the last notice, which was very lacking in detail and explanation for why they wanted all the medical claims data and how they’re going to protect the privacy of the data,” Hatton said.

“We’d be open to seeing even more security around the privacy of the data so there really is a clear wall,” he added.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

But this year, because of a new Medicare program, Curry has traveled a little more often.

In February, during one trip, he was told unexpectedly that he needed preapproval for the procedure. Then he went again a month or so later to get the injection, for a total of 10 hours on the road. His clinic wanted him to come in a third time, which they had never asked of him before. That appointment was “just to fill out a piece of paper to tell them how you feel again,” Curry said, so he hasn’t gone.

In January, Oklahoma became one of six states to begin a pilot program testing the use of preapprovals in traditional Medicare, the federal health insurance program for people 65 and older or with disabilities. Medicare had previously eschewed the practice 鈥� also known as prior authorization 鈥� which requires patients or someone on their medical team to seek insurance approval before proceeding with certain procedures, tests, and prescriptions.

Epidurals like Curry’s are among 13 medical services subject to the new program because the Trump administration says they’re prone to fraud or misuse. Powered by artificial intelligence, the program 鈥� called the Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction Model, or WISeR 鈥� is intended to save the federal government money and protect patients from potentially unsafe or unneeded care.

Yet early reviews from Oklahoma and the other pilot states 鈥� Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, and Washington 鈥� suggest WISeR’s rollout has not been smooth. Patients, doctors, and other healthcare professionals who spoke with 吃瓜不打烊 say the effort has created confusion, errors, long wait times, and stress. Some described the rollout as “horrendous” and say people enrolled in Medicare in the pilot states are now getting ensnared in the same red tape as those with private insurance.

One key concern is that it all happened too hastily. WISeR was and launched in mid-January.

That was “quicker than normal” for the federal government, said Todd Baker, who recently stepped down as CEO of the Ohio State Medical Association. Doctors “just sort of had to figure it out,” added Jeb Shepard, director of policy at the Washington State Medical Association.

Government contractors have also acknowledged the rapid pace. “We’ve had an aggressive rollout from the time of being notified to going live,” said Jeremy Friese, CEO of Humata Health, the vendor for Oklahoma. Tech executives servicing other states have said they were still adding features to their products in the spring.

Abe Sutton, director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, which is administering the program, didn’t comment on the rollout schedule. But he said in a statement that the goal of these reforms is to ensure that prior authorization is efficient, fast, and streamlined.

“The model aims to reduce inappropriate care without delaying appropriate care,” he said.

Mehmet Oz, the leader of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, that they were “rolling out some prior authorization on abused practices.”

“The purpose of these is not to deny care,” Oz continued. “It’s to make sure you get the care you need and deserve, not the care some unscrupulous doctor wants to use on you.”

Medicare has struggled in recent years with suspected fraud associated with particular services. The Department of Health and Human Services’ inspector general spending on skin substitutes, for example, had surged nearly 700% over two years, raising “major concerns about fraud, waste, and abuse.” Skin substitutes are among the currently subject to review under WISeR.

The program also imposes prior authorization requirements for kyphoplasty, a surgery for spinal fractures, which a report by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission .

Sutton acknowledged, however, that “the percentage of providers committing waste, fraud, and abuse is small.”

Consumers and clinicians largely detest prior authorization. Even as federal health officials test the process for Medicare, the Trump administration is for those with private insurance. According to a conducted in January, 69% of insured adults consider prior authorization a burden for care.

Through WISeR, doctors and their staff log in to online portals to submit medical records that justify the procedures. Using artificial intelligence, the systems quickly approve applications that meet the program’s criteria, Friese, Humata’s chief executive, told 吃瓜不打烊. He said there is an “immediate yes” in 88% of cases for which clinical data supports an approval.

CMS has touted the process as one in which decisions are returned within 72 hours. After that, clinicians receive a “universal tracking number,” which allows them to schedule the procedure and get paid. In practice, however, participants say the process is anything but easy.

The University of Washington’s medical system alone had nearly 100 patients waiting earlier this year for epidural injections due to WISeR-related delays, from the office of U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) that drew on hospital association data. “Now, patients are subject to delays or denials which did not exist prior to the WISeR Model,” the report said.

Curry, the Oklahoma cattle farmer, said he might go to Kansas for future treatments to avoid the approval process. Dorota Gribbin, a New Jersey-based physical medicine and rehabilitation physician, said that by the time authorization came for one of her patients who needed a back pain procedure, the patient had gone to the hospital for more expensive care.

Jennifer Valle, a precertification and insurance supervisor at Clinical Radiology of Oklahoma, said when it comes to kyphoplasties, there has been a lot of “nitpicking” from reviewers. Other times, information her practice provides to CMS gets overlooked, she said, and reviewers ask for imaging that’s already in the file.

Claims with no problems are supposed to be paid within 15 days, said James Webb, a musculoskeletal radiologist in Tulsa, Oklahoma, who has also been frustrated by the prior approval and reimbursement process for kyphoplasties. “Six- to eight-week delays is what we’ve been seeing,” he said.

“It’s been horrendous,” said Jerry Sobel, a Phoenix-area pain management doctor. “Right from the beginning, there seemed to be no organization.” Sobel said that as of May, he hadn’t gotten paid by Medicare for nine epidurals.

“We continuously monitor operations and work closely with stakeholders to address questions and improve the provider experience,” said Sundar Subramanian, the CEO of Zyter, which has the contract for Arizona.

During an April webinar, another Zyter executive acknowledged a large backlog in payments stretching to January. Those backlogs “are currently being resolved,” Medicare’s Sutton said, without providing further detail.

When asked about other issues 鈥� including what doctors suspect are AI-driven errors 鈥� Medicare’s Sutton said the agency appreciates “feedback on provider experience.” It will be used “to help providers better understand WISeR processes,” he said.

Although CMS vendors say humans make the final decisions on approvals, doctors and their staffs believe artificial intelligence is playing a large role in the process and that denials are sometimes the result of AI hallucinations that garble or make up information.

One Arizona doctor, who wasn’t authorized by his practice to speak, recalled a denial saying his patient wasn’t eligible for procedures in the thoracic region, or mid-back. The patient needed an injection to the neck. Webb, the Oklahoma radiologist, documented four times that a patient lacked numbness, and yet his WISeR application was still denied, citing numbness, which, in the reviewer’s interpretation, would rule out the spinal surgery procedure.

Friese, Humata’s CEO, said he hasn’t heard about any AI hallucinations.

The process is also raising government costs. With more rejections, more appeals are being filed with Medicare’s administrative contractors. The government pays the contractors to handle the appeals, and Medicare’s Sutton acknowledged that the agency has “accounted for potential changes in the volume of Medicare appeals because of the WISeR program and its associated costs.”

Eighty-four percent of commercial insurers already use AI tools, according to a survey released in 2025 by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, though they have consistently said AI isn’t used to deny prior authorization requests.

Its use in Medicare risks introducing friction and frustration into the program 鈥� and piling costs onto its beneficiaries. Prior authorization saves money for insurers partly by making patients pay a price in wait times and inconvenience, said Miranda Yaver, a University of Pittsburgh health policy researcher studying the technique.

“People will end up getting ensnared in a lot of red tape, having to be on hold, and getting rerouted,” she said. She often wonders whether prior authorization simply shifts costs to patients and doctors, rather than saving them.

Some doctors involved in Medicare’s prior authorization experiment believe it will inevitably expand beyond a few services officials in Washington consider fraud-prone.

“Everybody knows that if this pilot project works, it will be prior auth for basically all procedures,” said Mary Clarke, a family practice physician in Stillwater, Oklahoma. “If they can show that they can save money, then that’s going to be extrapolated and rolled out to other procedures and multiple other things in other states.”

When asked whether CMS is considering expansion of its prior authorization pilot, Sutton said in his statement that there are “currently no changes” considered for the list of services subject to the WISeR program, “but CMS continues to assess whether any changes are warranted.”

Do you have an experience with prior authorization you’d like to share? to tell 吃瓜不打烊 your story.

吃瓜不打烊 Southern correspondent Lauren Sausser contributed to this report.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

He also had holdings in Altria and a third leading tobacco company, though an apparent discrepancy in his disclosures clouds the extent of his investments. In 2025, tobacco interests donated $6 million to MAGA Inc., a super PAC that supports the president, and Trump’s inauguration. And, on April 30, a week before FDA guidance that provided a critical boost to the industry, Reynolds American dropped an additional $5 million into the super PAC’s coffers.

The stock trades and political contributions occurred as the Trump administration pursued a broadly pro-tobacco agenda: Its FDA piloted a fast-track program to approve nicotine pouches. It unveiled a program to allow vapes on the market more rapidly, despite resistance from career civil servants and leadership, culminating this year in guidance waving through flavored electronic cigarettes. It cut public health employees focusing on anti-tobacco policy. And it broadened enforcement against illicit e-cigarettes, competitors to the big industry players with a financial relationship to Trump.

It amounts to the most pro-tobacco, pro-nicotine presidency in some time 鈥� a remarkable policy given the tens of millions of deaths cigarettes caused during the 20th century. Even in recent years, anti-smoking groups say a half-million Americans a year die from cigarettes. Industry advocates say the toll helps justify a shift to e-cigarettes and nicotine pouches, which they say are less harmful. However, public health advocates say these products carry their own risks, such as addiction.

Lawmakers and public health leaders have criticized the recent FDA guidance and approvals as a “” that ignored scientific evidence to deliver what investment analysts have described as “very positive” steps for influential tobacco companies.

The scale of the money is “unprecedented and problematic,” said Brian King, who was pushed out of the FDA’s tobacco office last April and now works as an executive at the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. He fears that steering public policy toward tobacco 鈥� still addictive and harmful to health 鈥� puts Americans at risk.

“It’s a gift on a platter with a side of public health malpractice,” he said.

The White House did not comment on the president’s investments or industry donations to MAGA Inc. Spokesperson Kush Desai said, “The only guiding factor behind the Trump administration’s health policymaking is Gold Standard Science. FDA’s regulatory treatment of nicotine pouches and vapes is rooted in recent evidence that has found that these products can help adults quit smoking.”

Philip Morris disputed any connection. Company representatives “regularly attend events and forums where we share our commitment to improving public health in the United States,” spokesperson Samuel Dashiell said, “starting with providing better options to America’s 45 million legal-age nicotine consumers.”

“We do not comment on individual engagements or on the personal financial matters or disclosures of public officials,” he added.

Other tobacco companies whose stock Trump has bought and sold during his second term or that donated to groups aligned with Trump 鈥� Juul, Reynolds American, and Altria 鈥� did not respond to requests for comment.

The financial stakes are huge. Investment analysts at Goldman Sachs say the newer products, touted as safer, make more money per sale than traditional cigarettes. Philip Morris expects Zyn pouches, for example, to make eight times the gross profits of its cigarettes, Goldman Sachs analysts said in March 2025.

When he ran for his second term, Trump promoted himself as a pro-tobacco candidate, posting that he had and that President Joe Biden and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris “want everything banned.”

Since late 2023, MAGA Inc. has received over $20 million in funding from the industry, federal campaign records show. Trump’s inauguration garnered nearly $4 million more. His ballroom project donations of an unknown amount from Altria and Reynolds American.

Recent Trump administration actions show he’s followed through with his campaign rhetoric. In May, the FDA released that allows manufacturers to market their vapes and nicotine pouches while awaiting agency approval. It also approved several vaping products. The month before, the Vapor Technology Association, which donated $1.25 million to Trump’s inauguration, it had met with the White House to discuss its concerns.

By that point, Trump had gone on a stock-purchasing spree. In March he made eight separate purchases of Philip Morris or Altria stock, worth as much as $275,000, according to a disclosure form that bears Trump’s signature.

It is difficult to be precise about Trump’s tobacco investments, because the financial disclosures show only ranges of investment amounts. They also have an apparent discrepancy. In January, the president sold $500,000 to $1,000,000 in Altria stock. But that’s confusing because previous disclosures didn’t show Trump held that much equity in Altria. The White House declined to comment on the matter.

The FDA’s May guidance and approvals drew condemnation from public health leaders, who worry that the agency is allowing products with flavors especially appealing to young people. “After years of recognizing the dangers flavored e-cigarettes pose to youth, it is deeply troubling to see FDA ignore the scientific evidence and reverse course,” American Lung Association CEO Harold Wimmer said .

“I think it’s blatantly illegal, both on its merits and also procedurally, because it was issued as a final guidance without even giving the public an opportunity to comment on it,” said Mitch Zeller, a former head of the FDA’s tobacco center.

A group of Democratic senators called the decision a “a free pass to addictive and harmful vapes” in letters to Reynolds American and Altria. It would lead to “a lucrative payday after years of unsuccessful legislative and regulatory efforts to weaken federal tobacco oversight,” they concluded.

Members of Congress are barred from insider trading, and many legislators would like to see trading of individual company stocks banned for all members. In the wake of Trump’s most recent financial disclosures, with revelations that he often traded in companies manufacturing GLP-1 drugs before his administration steered policy in a favorable direction, some members are calling for the president, too, to be barred from stock trading.

Trump’s tobacco policies have garnered favorable grades from investors. At Goldman Sachs, bankers described the May FDA guidance as “very positive” for Philip Morris and “a significant step in the FDA’s positioning toward enforcement and acceptance of nic pouch (as well as e-vapor) innovation generally.”

And Barclays analysts said the FDA’s guidance was good news for Juul, a leading vape producer. (In November, the company contributed $1 million to MAGA Inc.)

FDA resistance to speeding up approvals for these products reportedly contributed to the ouster of agency commissioner Marty Makary, who did not respond to requests for comment. According to and , the White House repeatedly intervened in the approval process.

“I served during the entire first Trump administration as center director, and there was never any pressure from any political appointee at FDA, at HHS, or the White House when it came to application review,” Zeller said.

But recent changes in FDA policy can be traced to the access tobacco firms have had to the White House, he said.

By and large, the Trump administration has delivered on industry priorities. Soon after the inauguration 鈥� which tobacco companies had donated heavily to 鈥� the administration withdrew a Biden-era proposal to ban menthol cigarettes. The administration has eased the path for nicotine pouches like Zyn, which were first approved under Biden. Investment analysts viewed government crackdowns on illicit e-cigarettes positively: Barclays wrote in January that “company commentary on enforcement has also been upbeat, suggesting that the tide could begin to turn in favour of the legal players in the market.”

What’s more, the Trump administration’s government layoffs have decimated public health’s tobacco control offices. The work of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s office of smoking has been sharply curtailed; its flagship “Tips From Former Smokers” campaign, which seeks to persuade viewers not to smoke, has been off the air for months, King said.

“It’s not difficult to see that less dollars invested in prevention and control is going to lead to more tobacco product use and tobacco-related disease,” King said, especially given the government’s decades-long success in reducing cigarette usage.

The shift is particularly ironic given the administration’s focus 鈥� through its Make America Healthy Again slogan 鈥� on chronic disease. “Attempting to combat chronic disease without tobacco control is like attempting a triathlon without a bicycle: You are destined for failure before leaving the starting line,” King concluded.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

The Department of Health and Human Services is seeking data from little-known state systems that allow hospitals and clinics to exchange detailed, identifiable patient information, 吃瓜不打烊 has learned.

In private meetings, some public health leaders have objected to giving Kennedy’s team access to such data, raising doubts that it’s legal or that the information would even be useful.

They have also expressed concerns about allowing the federal government to peer into the minutiae of Americans’ medical records, which could mean viewing anything from doctors’ notes to prescription history. HHS has offered no insight into how it will protect or handle the personal health information it obtains.

But Kennedy told 吃瓜不打烊 that medical records are key to investigating the cause of autism, vaccine safety, and chronic diseases. And millions of dollars in grant money has poured into a Nebraska nonprofit that has assisted Kennedy’s effort, according to state records.

He and his advisers have been frustrated that federal access to Americans’ medical records has been limited.

“We need a good health record system, and one of the things that really surprised me most when I came into office is that there is 鈥� that the systems are broken,” Kennedy said in a May interview. “We’ve had to go to the states and, luckily, we’ve got a lot of cooperation from the states, but we now have databases together that we can actually do the studies on. Those studies are in motion.”

HHS has not publicly announced any new projects involving medical records and autism or vaccine research. Kennedy faced blowback last year when he proposed compiling the medical records of people with autism to create a federal disease registry 鈥� which health department officials .

But Kennedy said in May, “We have a whole pipeline of studies that will be done over the next year.”

Though the White House has steered Kennedy away from further changes to U.S. vaccine policy ahead of November’s crucial midterm elections, President Donald Trump has regularly echoed Kennedy’s doubts about vaccine safety and last week signed an executive order calling for the U.S. to reduce the number of vaccines recommended for children.

Kennedy’s political appointees and allies 鈥� including William “Reyn” Archer III, a former Texas health official and whom Kennedy hired as a senior adviser 鈥� have led the initiative for the health department to collect and examine medical records.

Federal officials met with leaders of the state-run health information exchange systems several times over the past year and asked how the personal medical records they maintain could be used for vaccine research, according to seven people who participated in the discussions or were familiar with them.

Craig Behm, who runs the Maryland health information exchange, said Kennedy’s team asked about how the vast trove of medical records they store from hospitals and health systems could be used to study vaccines.

“If this administration wants to conduct research on the effectiveness of vaccines, are you saying you all can help us conduct that research?” Behm recalled being asked by a top official at HHS’ health information technology office.

Last June, Behm and leaders of other state exchanges met with Kennedy’s top advisers to discuss sharing more medical data with federal agencies. The state organizations followed up with a pitch in October for a new surveillance system that would give the federal health department “real-time, 24-hour data feeds on opioid and chronic disease trends” within a year, according to a presentation reviewed by 吃瓜不打烊. Under the proposal, HHS would get data from 90% of the population’s medical records by 2028.

Administration officials regularly asked during the meetings how the records could be used to monitor vaccine safety. Kennedy has rejected the federal government’s current vaccine-monitoring systems; decades of research has shown immunizations are safe and effective for most people.

“Vaccine safety, or whatever words you want to use, has come up pretty consistently in those conversations,” said John Kansky, CEO of the Indiana Health Information Exchange.

Kansky sees the potential value of sharing information from the exchanges for public health but is worried about the focus on vaccines: “It’s like, oh man, I wish you would have picked something that pushed fewer buttons for people.”

A System To Monitor Chronic Disease

Nearly every state has at least one health information exchange 鈥� often regulated by state laws and run by private companies or nonprofits 鈥� that enables hospitals and health systems to immediately share patients’ medical records with one another. The systems allow doctors and nurses to quickly pull up nearly anyone’s medical history and records at emergency rooms or share after-visit summaries and notes with patients’ primary care providers, for example.

In certain circumstances 鈥� most often dealing with cases of infectious diseases such as measles or flu 鈥� the exchanges notify public health authorities, like the state health department or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Using the exchanges for broader public health purposes is not an unusual idea in itself. But it can present privacy, legal, and ethical complications, health officials say.

In the end, Behm said his organization in Maryland declined to share more data with the federal government for vaccine research, noting that sharing medical records for that purpose would require a rash of approvals from hospitals, state political leaders, and research boards. Any new data-sharing agreement should also have a clear, detailed framework outlining what would be shared and with whom, he added.

“A number of us said, 鈥榃e can’t do anything our agreements don’t allow us to do, so no,’” Behm said. Indeed, most health information exchanges have contractual restrictions on who can access clinical data.

Kansky said Indiana is still weighing whether to provide additional data for Kennedy’s project, and that nothing has yet been shared.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard did not answer questions about how many states are participating in Kennedy’s project, what new data the agency is collecting, how much the federal government is spending on the initiative, how it is protecting patient privacy, or who has access to the data.

“HHS is strengthening public health surveillance and modernizing data systems to better understand and combat the childhood chronic disease epidemic as part of Secretary Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again agenda,” Hilliard said in an emailed statement. “Americans deserve robust systems to monitor the drivers of chronic illness.”

Kennedy has asserted, without evidence, that vaccines can cause chronic illness.

A Kennedy Partner in Nebraska

At least one state has been cooperative.

The former leader of Nebraska’s state health information exchange has led the effort to share data from medical records with the federal government.

Jaime Bland, former CEO of CyncHealth 鈥� the Nebraska health information exchange used by in the state 鈥� said several states are looking to “open up channels” to provide more analysis to Kennedy’s team.

“They’re looking at the data differently and providing some insights back to the CDC,” Bland told 吃瓜不打烊.

Bland was among a group who proposed that CyncHealth would help kick off the initiative, according to a 43-slide PowerPoint presented to federal officials during an October meeting.

CyncHealth and other state health information exchanges would “ingest data from hospitals, clinics, laboratories, pharmacies, payers, and social services agencies,” then “link claims and clinical records through a master patient index.”

Data from the exchanges “will be deidentified where appropriate,” according to one slide.

The federal government would pay the exchanges for furnishing the records, according to the proposal: $3 a person, annually.

Officials would “frame publicly that this is not a new database, but a federated trust model that delivers real-time data for all HHS missions,” the presentation reads.

After the meeting, Nebraska’s health department was awarded a large grant from the CDC, and CyncHealth in turn got millions of dollars from the state.

On Dec. 19, the CDC announced new funding under its , which sends money to state and local health departments for lab work, health information enhancements, and solutions for outbreaks.

Nebraska’s state health department was awarded $18.7 million 鈥� the most of any state last year, though Nebraska is the 38th most populous state. By comparison, Texas received $9.2 million, and California got $10.8 million.

CyncHealth was then awarded three contracts totaling $13.6 million from the state health department just weeks later, on Jan. 9 and Jan. 16, according to a publicly accessible database of state contracts.

Grace McNamara, a spokesperson for CyncHealth, said it retained $2.4 million of the funding for Kennedy’s project; the remaining money was distributed to “other participating states and various vendor organizations for implementation support.”

A former CDC official who was aware of the transaction, but not authorized to speak publicly about it, confirmed the money was intended for CyncHealth to supply data for Kennedy’s initiative to look at vaccines and autism. McNamara said that the “work is focused on improving outcomes related to acute and chronic illnesses.”

“The referenced project is not research, but rather a proof-of-concept project on how health information exchange and public health can work together to improve health outcomes and is not specific to autism,” she said in an emailed statement.

McNamara did not answer questions about what type of medical data is being provided to the federal health department or whether patients’ identifying information is removed.

Bland left her post at CyncHealth 鈥� where she was paid nearly 鈥� in December. She was named in April as the chief data strategist for the MAHA Institute 鈥� a think tank founded by allies of Kennedy and Trump to advance their Make America Healthy Again movement.

Bland agreed with Kennedy that data from state health information exchanges could provide more insight into autism’s causes or vaccine injuries.

“The data is so fragmented, so modeled when it comes to population health and public health, that we lose sight of the individual stories,” Bland said. She told a story she had heard about a woman who had a seizure after receiving the HPV vaccine.

“You know, the vaccine is safe 鈥� it absolutely is 鈥� but it wasn’t safe for her,” Bland said. “As public health officials, we say the vaccine is safe. But there are cases where it is not.”

Daniel Jernigan, a former top CDC official who left the agency last summer, said he tried to point Kennedy to data that would help the health secretary study vaccine safety and autism.

After 31 years at the CDC overseeing public health surveillance, emerging infectious diseases, and the influenza divisions, Jernigan thought the solution was simple. The secretary could work with researchers to obtain huge databases pulled from health systems nationwide and maintained by major electronic health records companies.

Those databases are deidentified, meaning they don’t include patient names or other information that can identify individuals. Jernigan said Kennedy didn’t seem interested.

Instead, as The New York Times first reported, the health secretary dispatched two top advisers 鈥� Archer and Hannah Anderson, his former deputy chief of staff 鈥� to the CDC’s headquarters in Atlanta last July to download millions of identifiable patient records directly from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the system the health agency uses to investigate complications from vaccines. The records, though, were decades old.

Jernigan said the federal government has limited legal authority to access medical records from state health information exchanges. In any case, examining those records may provide a view of a person’s medical history that will not necessarily produce answers to Kennedy’s questions about vaccines and autism.

“If they’re just using the electronic health record data, there are limits to that,” Jernigan said. “If they’re only looking at electronic health record data, all you’re going to get is what was captured in the encounter. It’s not going to be very satisfying.”

吃瓜不打烊 data reporter Maia Rosenfeld contributed to this article.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .

On May 14, the federal government released ethics disclosures revealing a list of and trades made on Trump’s behalf from January to March of this year. They included extensive trades across the economy, including investments in tech giants such as Microsoft and Nvidia, aerospace firms such as Boeing, and household-name companies such as Target and Chipotle.

In healthcare, however, the trades for Lilly 鈥� a company valued by the stock market at just under $1 trillion 鈥� stand out. That’s because the timing of Trump’s purchases coincides with several favorable government decisions benefiting the drugmaker’s GLP-1 business, including progress toward a long-held goal: qualifying the drugs for reimbursement from Medicare, the government health insurance program primarily serving seniors, when they are prescribed for weight loss.

The disclosure forms 鈥� which bear Trump’s distinct signature 鈥� give ranges rather than exact dollar amounts for the trades. They show seven purchases of Lilly stock made on the president’s behalf through the end of March, the first of which occurred on Jan. 6.

During that period, and just afterward, several Trump administration initiatives ultimately benefited Lilly. Perhaps the biggest was an initiative from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which was proposing a pilot program 鈥� a temporary “bridge,” potentially followed by permanent reimbursement 鈥� through which Medicare patients would pay $50 a month for GLP-1 drugs.

The deadline for drug manufacturers to submit applications indicating their interest in participating was Jan. 8. Lilly has since been named as a participating manufacturer in the program, a “significant milestone.”

Another purchase on Feb. 10, of West Pharmaceutical Services stock valued between $250,000 and $500,000, was similarly a bet on the GLP-1 market. The company, which manufactures injectable devices for drugs, with driving increased revenue in its most recent quarter.

Lilly declined to comment. West Pharmaceutical Services did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A spokesperson at the Department of Health and Human Services declined to comment, referring 吃瓜不打烊 to the White House. A White House spokesperson referred questions to the Trump Organization 鈥� the holding company for most of the president’s businesses 鈥� which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

In response to other outlets’ questions about Trump’s stock trades, the Trump Organization has said the investments are controlled by independent brokers.

It is unclear from the disclosures whether Trump directed any of the trades himself. Four of the Lilly stock purchases are marked “unsolicited,” though the Office for Government Ethics did not immediately respond to a request for clarification on the use of that term.

Trump’s assets are in a trust held by his children, and  have said in the past that neither the president nor his children play a role in “selecting, directing, or approving” specific investments.

Eric Trump, the president’s son and a Trump Organization executive, : “To suggest that individual stocks are being bought or sold, at the discretion of any member of the Trump family, would be a lie and blatantly false.”

He claimed the purchases of index funds account for the investments. The disclosures record purchases of funds and individual stocks.

Lilly had a strong 2025, finishing with $65 billion in revenue, up $20 billion from the year before. GLP-1 drugs accounted for a substantial portion of that total.

At the beginning of 2026, the drugmaker said it expected another surge in revenue this year, above $80 billion. It was a “stunning” projection, analysts at the bank Citi said.

Analysts for the financial services firm TD Cowen said the Medicare and Medicaid market would be critical to making it happen. “Guidance anticipates favorable impact from Medicare coverage of obesity medications by 7/1/26,” the analysts noted.

Historically, Medicare hasn’t covered obesity drugs. In a May 2025 , noting unfavorable reimbursement decisions across government and private-run insurance, Lilly said: “This isn’t about just one medicine, formulary, or insurance plan. It’s about a system that limits patients’ and health care providers’ ability to choose an obesity management treatment plan that is best for them.”

Key to that market was the pilot program rolled out by CMS, called , aimed at helping Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries improve their health. Last fall, 12% of U.S. adults reported currently using GLP-1s, according to a , and 56% of those who had used GLP-1s found the medications 鈥� prescribed to treat diabetes and aid weight loss 鈥� hard to afford.

The appearance of a potential conflict of interest is enough to trouble ethics experts.

“A president who buys or sells the stock of a company whose value is affected by his administration’s actions undermines the public’s trust in two ways,” said Kathleen Clark, a legal ethicist at Washington University in St. Louis.

First, she said, the public should believe government actions are motivated by common good, not personal enrichment. And second, the public should believe that those within government aren’t benefiting from inside information.

A ban on stock trading by the president would require an act of Congress, though some lawmakers have resisted such legislation. Members of Congress are also permitted to buy and sell stocks.

Trump’s White House and HHS boosted GLP-1s throughout the first few months of the year. In February, the government unveiled TrumpRx, a web portal directing patients to lower-price versions of some drugs, with some terms and conditions.

The website offers Zepbound for as low as $299 a month and points patients to LillyDirect, the drug company’s telemedicine service prescribing the drug. Company executives haven’t commented on TrumpRx specifically, but they have touted the telemedicine service. Lilly’s 2025 to the Securities and Exchange Commission said LillyDirect was a “growing portion of our business.”

Also, in February the FDA intensified a broad crackdown on “compounded” GLP-1s 鈥� drugs manufactured by pharmacies that are cheaper and, critics charge, often unsafe alternatives to Lilly’s branded products.

The agency made another favorable decision for Lilly in April, approving its Foundayo weight loss pill under its Commissioner’s National Priority Voucher program. The program was launched by FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who had promised to approve high-priority drugs in record time. Foundayo was approved in 50 days after filing.

“This approval demonstrates what the FDA can achieve when we eliminate delays and prioritize fast and thorough work from the agency and industry partners,” Makary, who stepped down last week, said in .

Not all agency decisions were favorable. The to provide additional safety data regarding liver toxicity in Foundayo, though analysts don’t appear particularly troubled. The company news outlets that no negative safety signals have been observed.

This article first appeared on 吃瓜不打烊 and is republished here under a .