Darius Tahir, Author at ��ýҕ�l Health News

RFK Jr. Seeks To Peek at Americans’ Medical Records for Clues on Autism and Vaccines

Amanda Seitz — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000

U.S. health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is pursuing federal government access to most Americans’ medical records, in a quest to research a link between vaccines and autism — a connection the medical establishment studied for decades and flatly rejects.

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, ��ýҕ�l Health News 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 ��ýҕ�l Health News 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 — 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 — 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 — including William “Reyn” Archer III, a former Texas health official and whom Kennedy hired as a senior adviser — have led the initiative for the health department to collect and examine medical records.

William “Reyn” Archer III, a former Texas health commissioner, attends the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices meeting at Centers for Disease Control and Prevention headquarters on Sept. 20. (Mary Conlon/AP)

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 ��ýҕ�l Health News. 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 — often regulated by state laws and run by private companies or nonprofits — 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 — most often dealing with cases of infectious diseases such as measles or flu — 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, ‘We 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 — the Nebraska health information exchange used by in the state — 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 ��ýҕ�l Health News.

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 — 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 — where she was paid nearly — in December. She was named in April as the chief data strategist for the MAHA Institute — 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 — it absolutely is — 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.

Former CDC official Daniel Jernigan greets a supporter after resigning from the agency on Aug. 28. (Elijah Nouvelage/Getty Images)

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 — Archer and Hannah Anderson, his former deputy chief of staff — 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.”

��ýҕ�l Health News data reporter Maia Rosenfeld contributed to this article.

��ýҕ�l Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article/mental-health/sharing-patients-medical-records-access-rfk-jr-project-link-autism-vaccine-injuries/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2245892&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

At a Tennessee Hospital, a Nurse Stole Fentanyl and AI Missed It, State Records Say

Brett Kelman — Wed, 03 Jun 2026 09:00:00 +0000

About a year ago at Erlanger Baroness, the largest hospital in Chattanooga, anesthesia staff noticed that a nurse was slurring his words and struggling to stay awake while on duty in the surgery center, according to a .

In the days that followed, the nurse failed a drug test and was fired, the order states. The nurse later admitted that for months he had pilfered and abused fentanyl left over after surgeries, sometimes daily, according to the order.

Under most circumstances, this would be a routine case of what is known as “drug diversion,” the unlawful taking of controlled substances from healthcare facilities — believed to be so widespread that it occurs at just about every U.S. hospital.

But the Erlanger case stands out because a high-tech watchdog was supposed to be on guard.

The hospital uses the newest line of defense against drug diversion: Sentri7, powered by artificial intelligence and designed to detect missing drugs faster than any human can. But for months at Erlanger, Sentri7 failed to raise alarms, overlooking missing drugs and other “inconsistencies” that “should have been flagged,” the nursing board’s order states.

The Erlanger case, which has not been previously reported, offers a rare glimpse at an apparent failure of AI drug diversion software used in hundreds of U.S. hospitals with little transparency or oversight. Healthcare facilities are not required to disclose their implementation of this kind of software or report malfunctions to anyone, so there is no full account of how widely these programs are used or how often they fail.

Erlanger Baroness, also referred to as Erlanger Medical Center, declined to comment on its use of Sentri7 or on the diverted drugs. André Rebelo, a spokesperson for the health division at Wolters Kluwer, the Dutch technology company behind Sentri7, declined to answer questions about what happened at Erlanger but said the company remained “confident in our software.”

Little Transparency

David Rastall, a Johns Hopkins Medicine neurologist and AI researcher, said that because AI technology is heavily proprietary and hospital officials often don’t understand how it works, this lack of transparency allows for errors to be buried rather than fixed. That means errors could be repeated at other hospitals, he said.

“The ideal for patients, caregivers, and hospital systems would be,” Rastall said, “when an AI is found to be making some type of error, that becomes very transparent and public.”

The Drug Enforcement Administration mandates that hospitals confidentially report lost or stolen drugs. Hospitals can also report stolen drugs to state health agencies, which license medical professionals and investigate wrongdoing.

But these reports are not required to include details about any AI software involved, according to interviews with three drug diversion prevention experts. In interviews, all said they had never seen an AI failure publicly documented like the apparent one at Erlanger.

“I’ve never myself seen these technologies be called out in that specific way,” Jacob Smith, a pharmacist in charge of drug security at Johns Hopkins Medicine, said of the apparent Sentri7 failure. “It doesn’t make sense to me how you could miss it.”

Smith and other experts said the Erlanger case also raises questions because the theft of leftover drugs is one of the most well-known methods of diversion. And fentanyl, a painkiller that can be 50 times as strong as heroin, is one of the most common targets.

Terri Vidals, the founder of , questioned whether the Erlanger case was the result of user error instead of malfunction.

“This is the most basics of basics for this software,” Vidals said. “I find it interesting that they’re saying it wasn’t flagged by the software. I think there’s maybe more to that story.”

The apparent Sentri7 failure at Erlanger was revealed by the Tennessee Department of Health in a routine release of in December. Among those records was the Board of Nursing order, which summarizes a state investigation into nurse anesthetist John Stevenson, who settled the case against him by signing the document in November.

Stevenson declined to comment through his attorney. He has not been charged with any crime related to the Erlanger case. The nursing board put his license on probation while he went to drug counseling.

Bill Christian, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Board of Nursing, declined to comment on the Erlanger case or Sentri7. In response to public records requests, the Department of Health and the Tennessee Health Facilities Commission each said it possessed no other documents about the apparent Sentri7 failure at Erlanger.

Erlanger spokesperson Charlie Milburn said earlier this year that the hospital had prepared a written statement about its use of Sentri7 in response to questions from ��ýҕ�l Health News.

That statement was never released.

“Our legal team is debating whether this is something we want to talk about at all,” Milburn said in a March email, before later declining to answer any questions.

Kristy Drollinger, a Wolters Kluwer executive who spoke generally about Sentri7 to ��ýҕ�l Health News in March, said the software is in high demand because so many hospitals have struggled to secure their drugs.

Sentri7 monitors about 60 “attributions of risk” that identify red flags for further investigation by hospital employees, Drollinger said.

“It’s pretty scary,” Drollinger said of widespread drug theft. “Every health system, every health facility, has had diversion at some point — and probably has it now.”

‘The Way of the Future’

Drug diversion is a widespread challenge in U.S. medical facilities. It can lead to patients not receiving medication or getting drugs that are contaminated with blood-borne diseases. It’s estimated as many as 15% of all healthcare workers divert drugs at least once, according to the nonprofit .

Diversion has been linked to at least — causing more than 200 infections, mostly of hepatitis C — since 1985, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

To prevent this, hospitals attempt to track each pill or vial from the moment it is dispensed to the moment it is given to a patient, by comparing data from electronic medication cabinets and patients’ health records.

Hospital staff once performed this painstaking process manually, but in the past decade the task has become largely automated by anti-diversion software. After years of mergers and buyouts, two programs now dominate the industry: Wolters Kluwer’s Sentri7 and Bluesight’s ControlCheck. Both incorporate AI.

“It’s definitely the way of the future,” said Luke Overmire, owner of .

More than 1,500 hospitals use ControlCheck, according to Bluesight. An additional 700 use Sentri7 Clinical Surveillance programs, which can include its drug diversion software, according to Wolters Kluwer.

Neither company publishes the price of its software. Smith, the drug safety official from Johns Hopkins, said hospitals purchase these “expensive technologies” because a disastrous diversion case could result in a multimillion-dollar fine from the DEA.

“They don’t promise a return on investment,” Smith said. “They promise cost avoidance.”

In 2022, a funded by the National Institutes of Health found that Sentri7, then known as Flowlytics, could uncover drug diversion faster than existing methods. The study’s primary author worked for Invistics, the company that previously owned Sentri7.

According to that study, researchers tested the software by having it comb through medication data spanning two years and 10 hospitals in search of 22 nurses who were already known to have diverted drugs.

The program not only found them all, the study states, but found them faster than humans by as little as a week and as much as a year and a half.

At Erlanger, the humans spotted the signs of trouble first.

According to the Board of Nursing order, co-workers reported that Stevenson appeared impaired “while on duty in the surgery center” on or around June 30, 2025.

Stevenson “had slurred speech, appeared extremely tired, was seen standing with his eyes closed and swaying, exhibited head nodding while standing upright and appeared to have difficulty keeping his eyes open,” according to the order.

When questioned by state investigators, Stevenson admitted that he began diverting “unused fentanyl that would otherwise have been wasted after surgical procedures” in March 2025, according to the order. Stevenson said he used the fentanyl waste once or twice a week at first, then “increasing to daily use” by June of that year, the order states.

Erlanger audited Stevenson’s dispensing record over those four months. It found approximately five instances when Sentri7 didn’t flag missing drugs, according to the order.

It adds that the hospital found “additional inconsistencies between drug dispensing and waste documentation that should have been flagged by the automated monitoring system.”

One possible explanation is provided by the Board of Nursing, which said in the order that Sentri7 was in its “initial learning phase” at Erlanger, though the board provided no details.

In an interview, without discussing Erlanger specifically, Drollinger said Sentri7 has no “learning phase,” because it is trained on nine to 12 months of historical data when implemented at a new hospital.

Smith, of Johns Hopkins, had another theory.

In an interview, Smith said his experience with AI drug diversion software had led him to believe that it is effective at monitoring emergency rooms and intensive care units but less so in operating rooms, where drugs are dispensed and charted differently.

These areas can be harder for AI to track, Smith said, and therefore require humans to keep a closer watch.

“We’ve got people whose entire job is to work with this software,” Smith said. “The software is a piece of it, but if you rely on the software to give you all your signals, you’ll miss stuff. It’s just not 100%.”

This article/health-industry/ai-drug-diversion-theft-artificial-intelligence-hospitals-sentri7-software-tennessee/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2242533&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Trump Bought Stock in Eli Lilly as His Policies Gave the Drugmaker a Big Boost, Documents Show

Darius Tahir — Fri, 22 May 2026 18:30:00 +0000

President Donald Trump has long bantered about GLP-1s, the breakthrough medicines that have changed care for diabetes and obesity. Sometimes he calls them “the fat drug.” In an interview with the in January, he mused that “I probably should” take them.

A few days before the Times published that story, Trump invested in Eli Lilly, the nearly $1 trillion drugmaker whose fortunes are closely tied to its blockbuster GLP-1s, Zepbound and Foundayo — and to government reimbursement for the medicines.

This week we reported on several Lilly stock purchases made by Trump or his brokers from January to March, totaling as much as $680,000, according to a disclosure signed by the president. He also purchased stock worth $250,000 to $500,000 in West Pharmaceutical Services, a company that manufactures devices for injectable drugs. It, too, is benefiting from the GLP-1 surge.

As the purchases occurred, the Trump administration was undertaking an agenda that boosted the GLP-1 market, including advancing Medicare reimbursement for the drugs to treat obesity, a long-held goal for Lilly. The deadline for drug manufacturers to get involved in a reimbursement project was Jan. 8.

The administration also intensified a crackdown on “compounded” GLP-1s — cheaper, copycat medications made by pharmacies that critics (and brand-name drugmakers) claim are unsafe. That knocked out competitors to Lilly’s products. Trump’s FDA also rapidly approved Lilly’s GLP-1 pill, Foundayo.

The timing of the Lilly purchases — among more than 3,600 trades Trump or his representatives made in the first quarter of the year — troubled government 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. Second, the public should believe that those within government aren’t benefiting from inside information.

The disclosures have also intensified criticism from Trump opponents who say he’s trying to profit from the presidency.

Congressional Democrats are calling for legislative action. “Trump is the ultimate con man — rig the game, manipulate the rules, and reap the benefits,” Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) , highlighting our report. “It’s long past time we ban presidents from owning and trading stocks.”

Democrats might have their shot at a bill in 2027. Public opinion is increasingly swinging in their direction, and taking both chambers of Congress is a possibility. (Of course, even if Democrats claimed those majorities and passed a bill, it would have to be signed by Trump.) If they were determined to pursue anti-corruption measures relating to health issues, they would have targets beyond Trump’s stock trading. Democrats have also questioned corporate contributors’ influence on changes in FDA tobacco regulation, for example.

Trump Bought Stock in Drugmaker as His Government Boosted Its Obesity Drugs

New ethics disclosures show the president invested in Eli Lilly and a company that manufactures injectable devices as his health agencies implemented policies that benefited them.

By Darius Tahir May 18, 2026

This article/health-industry/the-week-in-brief-trump-eli-lilly-stock-pharmaceuticals/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2241506&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Trump Bought Stock in Drugmaker as His Government Boosted Its Obesity Drugs

Darius Tahir — Mon, 18 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000

President Donald Trump earlier this year bought as much as $680,000 in stock of Eli Lilly, the maker of blockbuster obesity drugs, as the agencies he oversees undertook an agenda that largely benefited the company.

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 — a company valued by the stock market at just under $1 trillion — 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 — which bear Trump’s distinct signature — 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 — a temporary “bridge,” potentially followed by permanent reimbursement — 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 ��ýҕ�l Health News to the White House. A White House spokesperson referred questions to the Trump Organization — the holding company for most of the president’s businesses — 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 — prescribed to treat diabetes and aid weight loss — hard to afford.

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

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 — 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/health-industry/trump-stock-trades-eli-lilly-glp-1-weight-loss-drugs-invest-ethics-disclosures/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2238742&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Trump and Kennedy Seek To Relax Safeguards for AI Healthcare Tools

Darius Tahir — Wed, 13 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Paul Boyer, a psychotherapist for Kaiser Permanente in Oakland, California, is experiencing the AI revolution firsthand. He’s a little underwhelmed.

The health giant has rolled out a new suite of note-taking software, made by healthcare AI pioneer Abridge, intended to summarize a patient’s visit at supersonic speed. For many clinicians, the technology soothes one of the persistent headaches of their lives — administration and paperwork.

But the AI scribe caused another headache for Boyer and his colleagues: It is “not super useful.” They end up correcting the computer-written notes.

Abridge is “not good at picking up on clinical nuance, at picking up on the emotional tone” that can be critical in the mental health field, Boyer said. For example, for manic patients, what’s said is less important than how it’s said, Boyer said, and the software struggles with picking up on those cues.

Note-taking software isn’t the wave of the future; it’s the wave of the present. Hospitals nationwide are implementing it. And researchers are finding some benefits. A year after installation, doctors who used these products the most saved more than half an hour of work daily, according to published in April in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Many doctors love the products where they’re deployed — several to the scribes.

Nevertheless, as Boyer’s example shows, there are persistent questions about the systems’ quality. While Boyer and his colleagues spend time correcting notes, safety researchers worry clinicians might not be diligent about catching errors. That might mean future doctors rely on bad information.

Abridge says it evaluates its scribes at every stage of deployment, including with head-to-head tests against previous versions of the software.

“Following deployment of a model, we monitor clinician edits, star ratings, and free-text feedback from clinician users about note quality,” the company’s director of applied science, Davis Liang, told ��ýҕ�l Health News in a statement.

Artificially intelligent scribe software is part of a swarm of AI-powered tools coming to healthcare. Clinicians and patient-safety advocates say government regulations are not well constructed to guard against the threat that the new technology will miss or obscure important details of patients’ conditions, potentially harming them.

“There is currently no safeguard in place” to vet scribe software at the federal level, said Raj Ratwani, a researcher specializing in human factors — that is, how people interact with technology — at MedStar Health, a large hospital system based in Columbia, Maryland.

Ratwani worries that safeguards on health software will relax even further. from the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT — the body that regulates electronic health records, the central chronicle of care for patients — could weaken requirements to make medical records understandable, easy to use, and transparent about the use of AI, Ratwani said. And an incomprehensible record could confuse clinicians and lead to errors.

Beginning in the Obama administration, the Health and Human Services Department’s IT office , in which developers try their products on doctors and nurses. Regulators also sought to require more transparency from companies in the surging market in AI tools.

Both of those requirements are axed in the proposed rules from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s health IT office.

Doctors and other health practitioners consult records for clinical information, such as scribe notes summarizing the history of patient care and lists of drugs and therapies their patients have used. Doctors also input orders for care.

Poor or cluttered design of a records system “might make the list of medications so complicated and confusing that the ordering provider selects the wrong medication,” Ratwani said.

Abridge’s general counsel, Tim Hwang, said the company “broadly supports” the government’s rules as a “necessary modernization” that “accommodates the speed at which AI is evolving.”

The old rules “put way too much burden” on electronic health record systems, said Ryan Howells, a principal at Leavitt Partners, which consults for digital health companies. Leavitt supports the proposals.

Dropping requirements, the administration argues, will result in more innovation and competition. The electronic health record market has steadily consolidated, with hospitals and other clinicians choosing from fewer vendors.

A 2022 study found the top two vendors, Epic and Oracle Health, of the hospital market. And Howells argued too many rules burdened providers looking for good record systems. Federal regulations, Howells said, are “the single biggest inhibitor to true clinical innovation.”

The Trump administration proposal to remove requirements governing records is overbroad, some critics say. It removes regulations intended to keep records secure. It also eliminates privacy protections for sensitive medical data they safeguard, overhauls standards governing the formats data is sent in, and more. The rule may give clinicians “more health IT choices to meet their needs through increased competition,” the government wrote in its proposal.

HHS’ health IT office declined comment, noting the proposal is still winding through the regulatory process. Public comment closed in February.

But most concerning to some — even in the hospital and developer sectors — are proposals to scotch prerequisites to ensure new products are tested on actual users, and to ensure AI tech’s decisions are transparent to doctors and nurses.

“Historically, hospitals and health systems have been challenged by the black box nature of certain AI tools and how the algorithms are developed,” the American Hospital Association’s Jennifer Holloman said. And with more AI tools flooding the market, the association , transparency is even more critical.

Complaints about the safety of electronic health records are long-standing, even for seemingly straightforward tasks. Ratwani likes the example of ordering medication for a given condition.

“The physician is trying to order Tylenol, and the medication list can be so confusing that there’s 30 different versions of Tylenol all at a different dose and for different purposes, when in reality that could be designed much more simply and make it easier for the physician to actually pick the right type of Tylenol that they’re ordering,” he said.

Real-world user testing was intended to simplify record design for doctors. But the administration is ending that requirement in a confusing way, said Leigh Burchell, vice president for policy and public affairs at Altera Digital Health, an EHR developer.

In Burchell’s interpretation of the rules, which refer to “enforcement discretion,” a principle in which the government can opt not to enforce certain rules, companies are still required to do the testing — the part that takes work — but are not mandated to report their results to the feds.

The administration is also ending a Biden-era idea to create AI transparency “model cards.” The concept was that clinicians could explore the data used to train AI tools that advise clinicians with a simple mouse click. But few took advantage of the year-old tool, Trump’s regulators say.

Still, hospitals and doctors are wary of removing it. The tool “provides information on how a predictive or generative AI application was designed, developed, tested, evaluated and should be used. These data are critical to foster trust in AI tools and ensure patient safety,” the AHA wrote in a comment letter to the HHS IT office. The American College of Physicians , saying a “lack of clarity could undermine clinician trust, increase liability expense, and erode the patient-physician relationship.”

Even developers aren’t totally sure about the idea. Burchell said the electronic health records trade group she’s part of had “a lot of different perspectives” on the issue. “Normally, we tend to be a bit more aligned on our responses.”

Still, Burchell’s group thought companies should be transparent about the data AI relies on to make decisions and how it comes up with recommendations.

Evidence for AI tools’ effectiveness or contradictory.

A comparing 11 AI scribes for potential use as a pilot in the Veterans Health Administration found the software performed worse than humans across five simulated scenarios. “Although ambient AI scribes can generate complete notes, the overall quality remains broadly below that of human-authored documentation,” the authors noted, with the omission of information being particularly concerning, given the potential to affect follow-up care.

The vendors in the VA study weren’t identified, for what the authors called “contractual reasons.”

And that’s just one type of AI tool. A wave of them is coming, each needing its own evaluation, to say nothing of tools that have already been installed.

Boyer said he can mostly ignore his AI scribe, for the moment. But he worries that management will design his job around the expected time savings and schedule more patients — meaning he’d need to spend more time both with patients and correcting the software’s errors.

A KP spokesperson, Vincent Staupe, said the company does not require its clinicians to use AI.

“When I am correcting that note, I feel like this is too much work,” Boyer said. “This is definitely making this worse, and this is taking up time that I need to not be spending on correcting an AI tool.”

This article/health-industry/ai-artificial-intelligence-ambient-scribes-ehr-electronic-health-records-hhs-deregulation/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2234764&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Your New Therapist: Chatty, Leaky, and Hardly Human

Darius Tahir — Fri, 17 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing or texting “988.”

Vince Lahey of Carefree, Arizona, embraces chatbots. From Big Tech products to “shady” ones, they offer “someone that I could share more secrets with than my therapist.”

He especially likes the apps for feedback and support, even though sometimes they berate him or lead him to fight with his ex-wife. “I feel more inclined to share more,” Lahey said. “I don’t care about their perception of me.”

There are a lot of people like Lahey.

Demand for mental health care has grown. Self-reported poor mental health days rose by 25% since the 1990s, analyzing survey data. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide rates in 2022 that hadn’t been seen in nearly 80 years.

There are many patients who find a nonhuman therapist, powered by artificial intelligence, highly appealing — more appealing than a human with a reclining couch and stern manner. with begging for a therapist who’s “not on the clock,” who’s less judgmental, or who’s just less expensive.

Most people who need care don’t get it, said Tom Insel, former head of the National Institute of Mental Health, citing his former agency’s research. Of those who do, 40% receive “minimally acceptable care.”

“There’s a massive need for high-quality therapy,” he said. “We’re in a world in which the status quo is really crappy, to use a scientific term.”

Insel said engineers from OpenAI told him last fall that about 5% to 10% of the company’s then-roughly 800 million-strong user base rely on ChatGPT for mental health support.

Polling suggests these AI chatbots may be even more popular among young adults. A KFF poll found about 3 in 10 respondents ages 18 to 29 for mental or emotional health advice in the past year. Uninsured adults were about twice as likely as insured adults to report using AI tools. And nearly 60% of adult respondents who used a chatbot for mental health didn’t follow up with a flesh-and-blood professional.

The App Will Put You on the Couch

A burgeoning industry of apps offers AI therapists with human-like, often unrealistically attractive avatars serving as a sounding board for those experiencing anxiety, depression, and other conditions.

��ýҕ�l Health News identified some 45 AI therapy apps in Apple’s App Store in March. While many charge steep prices for their services — one listed an annual plan for $690 — they’re still generally cheaper than talk therapy, which can cost hundreds of dollars an hour without insurance coverage.

On the App Store, “therapy” is often used as a marketing term, with small print noting the apps cannot diagnose or treat disease. One app, branded as OhSofia! AI Therapy Chat, had downloads in the six figures, said OhSofia! founder Anton Ilin in December.

“People are looking for therapy,” Ilin said. On one hand, the product’s name ; on the other, it warns in that it “does not provide medical advice, diagnosis, treatment, or crisis intervention and is not a substitute for professional healthcare services.” Executives don’t think that’s confusing, since there are disclaimers in the app.

The apps promise big results without backup. its users “immediate help during panic attacks.” it was “proven effective by researchers” and that it offers 2.3 times faster relief for anxiety and stress. (It doesn’t say what it’s faster than.)

There are few legislative or regulatory guardrails around how developers refer to their products — or even whether the products are safe or effective, said Vaile Wright, senior director of the office of health care innovation at the American Psychological Association. Even federal patient privacy protections don’t apply, she said.

“Therapy is not a legally protected term,” Wright said. “So, basically, anybody can say that they give therapy.”

Many of the apps “overrepresent themselves,” said John Torous, a psychiatrist and clinical informaticist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. “Deceiving people that they have received treatment when they really have not has many negative consequences,” including delaying actual care, he said.

States such as Nevada, Illinois, and California are trying to sort out the regulatory disarray, enacting laws forbidding apps from describing their chatbots as AI therapists.

“It’s a profession. People go to school. They get licensed to do it,” said Jovan Jackson, a Nevada legislator, who co-authored an enacted bill banning apps from referring to themselves as mental health professionals.

Underlying the hype, outside researchers and company representatives themselves have told the FDA and Congress that there’s little evidence supporting the efficacy of these products. What studies there are — and some companion-focused chatbots are “consistently poor” at managing crises.

“When it comes to chatbots, we don’t have any good evidence it works,” said Charlotte Blease, a professor at Sweden’s Uppsala University who specializes in trial design for digital health products.

The lack of “good quality” clinical trials stems from the FDA’s failure to provide recommendations about how to test the products, she said. “FDA is offering no rigorous advice on what the standards should be.”

Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard said, in response, that “patient safety is the FDA’s highest priority” and that AI-based products are subject to agency regulations requiring the demonstration of “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness before they can be marketed in the U.S.”

The Silver-Tongued Apps

Preston Roche, a psychiatry resident who’s , gets lots of questions about whether AI is a good therapist. After trying ChatGPT himself, he said he was “impressed” initially that it was able to use techniques to help him put negative thoughts “on trial.”

But Roche said after seeing posts on social media discussing people developing psychosis or being encouraged to make harmful decisions, he became disillusioned. The bots, he concluded, are sycophantic.

“When I look globally at the responsibilities of a therapist, it just completely fell on its face,” he said.

This sycophancy — the tendency of apps based on large language models to empathize, flatter, or delude their human conversation partner — is inherent to the app design, experts in digital health say.

“The models were developed to answer a question or prompt that you ask and to give you what you’re looking for,” said Insel, the former NIMH director, “and they’re really good at basically affirming what you feel and providing psychological support, like a good friend.”

That’s not what a good therapist does, though. “The point of psychotherapy is mostly to make you address the things that you have been avoiding,” he said.

While polling suggests many users are satisfied with what they’re getting out of ChatGPT and other apps, there have been about the service or encouragement to self-harm.

And or have been filed against OpenAI after ChatGPT users died by suicide or became hospitalized. In most of those cases, the plaintiffs allege they began using the apps for one purpose — like schoolwork — before confiding in them. These cases are being .

Google and the startup Character.ai — which has been funded by Google and has created “avatars” that adopt specific personas, like athletes, celebrities, study buddies, or therapists — are settling other wrongful-death lawsuits, .

OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, has said up to may talk about suicide on ChatGPT.

“We have seen a problem where people that are in fragile psychiatric situations using a model like 4o can get into a worse one,” Altman said in a public question-and-answer session reported by , referring to a particular model of ChatGPT introduced in 2024. “I don’t think this is the last time we’ll face challenges like this with a model.”

An OpenAI spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

The company has said it on safeguards, such as referring users to 988, the national suicide hotline. However, the lawsuits against OpenAI argue existing safeguards aren’t good enough, and some research shows the problems are . OpenAI its own data suggesting the opposite.

OpenAI is , offering, early in one case, a variety of defenses ranging from denying that its product caused self-harm to alleging that the defendant misused the product by inducing it to discuss suicide. It has also said it’s working to .

Smaller apps also rely on OpenAI or other AI models to power their products, executives told ��ýҕ�l Health News. In interviews, startup founders and other experts said they worry that if a company simply imports those models into its own service, it might duplicate whatever safety flaws exist in the original product.

Data Risks

��ýҕ�l Health News’ review of the App Store found listed age protections are minimal: Fifteen of the nearly four dozen apps say they could be downloaded by 4-year-old users; an additional 11 say they could be downloaded by those 12 and up.

Privacy standards are opaque. On the App Store, several apps are described as neither tracking personally identifiable data nor sharing it with advertisers — but on their company websites, privacy policies contained contrary descriptions, discussing the use of such data and their disclosure of information to advertisers, like AdMob.

In response to a request for comment, Apple spokesperson Adam Dema to the company’s App Store policies, which bar apps from using health data for advertising and require them to display information about how they use data in general. Dema did not respond to a request for further comment about how Apple enforces these policies.

Researchers and policy advocates said that sharing psychiatric data with social media firms means patients could be profiled. They could be targeted by dodgy treatment firms or charged different prices for goods based on their health.

��ýҕ�l Health News contacted several app makers about these discrepancies; two that responded said their privacy policies had been put together in error and pledged to change them to reflect their stances against advertising. (A third, the team at OhSofia!, said simply that they don’t do advertising, though their app’s notes users “may opt out of marketing communications.”)

One executive told ��ýҕ�l Health News there’s business pressure to maintain access to the data.

“My general feeling is a subscription model is much, much better than any sort of advertising,” said Tim Rubin, the founder of Wellness AI, adding that he’d change the description in his app’s privacy policy.

One investor advised him not to swear off advertising, he said. “They’re like, essentially, that’s the most valuable thing about having an app like this, that data.”

“I think we’re still at the beginning of what’s going to be a revolution in how people seek psychological support and, even in some cases, therapy,” Insel said. “And my concern is that there’s just no framework for any of this.”

This article/mental-health/ai-chatbots-therapy-big-risks-few-regulations/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2228281&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Watch: As AI Makes More Health Coverage Decisions, the Risks to Patients Grow

Darius Tahir — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000

This year, executives from nearly every major health insurance company made the same declaration in calls with Wall Street analysts: Using artificial intelligence to make coverage decisions would help save them money.

Even the Trump administration is testing AI’s usefulness in managing the prior authorization process for the Medicare program, as well as seeking to override AI regulation by states.

But class action lawsuits have accused insurers of using AI to wrongfully withhold treatment. And outlines the risks of training AI on a current system rife with wrongful denials.

“There is a world in which using AI could make that worse, or at least replicate a bad human system, because the data that it would be training on is from that bad human system,” said Michelle Mello, a co-author of the study.

Although, Mello said, the research team found “real positives alongside the risks.”

In this video produced by ��ýҕ�l Health News’ Hannah Norman, Darius Tahir, a correspondent covering health technology, explains.

You can read Tahir’s recent coverage of AI’s use by health insurers below:

“Red and Blue States Alike Want To Limit AI in Insurance. Trump Wants To Limit the States,” by Darius Tahir and Lauren Sausser.
“AI Will Soon Have a Say in Approving or Denying Medicare Treatments,” by Lauren Sausser and Darius Tahir.

This article/courts/watch-ai-artificial-intelligence-prior-authorization-insurance-coverage-decisions/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2181021&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Trump’s Transparent Hospital Pricing Pays Off for Industry — But Not So Much for Patients

Darius Tahir — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 19:30:00 +0000

“We’re going to post that, all the prices for everything,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. held by the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

It’s a bold-sounding promise, and a familiar one; politicians from both parties have been repeating it for years now. Both Trump administrations — and the Biden administration in between — have taken whacks at making medical prices more accessible, with the goal of empowering patients to shop for better deals.

The idea makes intuitive sense. Why shouldn’t you be able to compare the prices of MRI scans, for instance?

The feds have made some strides. Prices are available, albeit in confusing or fragmentary form. But there’s one big problem: “There’s no evidence that patients use this information,” said Zack Cooper, a health economist at Yale University.

Health care is an inherently complicated marketplace. For one thing, it’s not as simple as one price for one medical stay. Two babies might be delivered by the same obstetrician, for example, but the mothers could be charged very different amounts. One patient might be given medications to speed up contractions; another might not. Or one might need an emergency cesarean section — one of many cases in medicine in which obtaining the service simply isn’t a choice. Plus, the same hospital typically has different contract terms with each insurer, making comparing prices even more difficult for patients.

Instead of helping consumers sort things out, this federally mandated price data largely has become a tool for providers and insurers, looking for intel about their competitors — so they can use it at the negotiating table in a quest for more advantageous rates.

“We use the transparency data,” said Eric Hoag, an executive at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, noting that the insurer wants to make sure health care providers aren’t being paid substantially different rates. It’s “to make sure that we are competitive, or, you know, more than competitive against other health plans.”

For all those tugs-of-war, it’s not clear these policies have had much of an effect overall. Research shows that transparency policies can have mixed effects on prices, with of a New York initiative finding a marginal increase in billed charges.

Price isn’t the only piece of information negotiations hinge on. Hoag said Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota also considers quality of care, rates of unnecessary treatments, and other factors. And sometimes negotiators feel they keep up with their peers — claiming a need for more revenue to match competitors’ salaries, for example.

Hoag said doctors and other care providers often look at the data from comparable health systems and say, “‘I need to be paid more.’”

This article/health-care-costs/the-week-in-brief-hospital-price-transparency-tools/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2159544&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Red and Blue States Alike Want To Limit AI in Insurance. Trump Wants To Limit the States.

Darius Tahir — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

It’s the rare policy question that unites Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida and the Democratic-led Maryland government against President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom of California: How should health insurers use AI?

Regulating artificial intelligence, especially its use by health insurers, is becoming a politically divisive topic, and it’s scrambling traditional partisan lines.

Boosters, led by Trump, are not only pushing its integration into government, as in Medicare’s experiment using AI in prior authorization, but also trying to stop others from building curbs and guardrails. A December seeks to preempt most state efforts to govern AI, describing “a race with adversaries for supremacy” in a new “technological revolution.”

“To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation,” Trump’s order said. “But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative.”

Across the nation, states are in revolt. At least four — Arizona, Maryland, Nebraska, and Texas — enacted legislation last year reining in the use of AI in health insurance. Two others, Illinois and California, enacted bills the year before.

Legislators in Rhode Island plan to try again this year after a bill requiring regulators to collect data on technology use failed to clear both chambers last year. A bill in North Carolina requiring insurers not to use AI as the sole basis of a coverage decision attracted significant interest from Republican legislators last year.

DeSantis, a former GOP presidential candidate, has rolled out an “AI Bill of Rights,” include restrictions on its use in processing insurance claims and a requirement allowing a state regulatory body to inspect algorithms.

“We have a responsibility to ensure that new technologies develop in ways that are moral and ethical, in ways that reinforce our American values, not in ways that erode them,” DeSantis said during his State of the State address in January.

Ripe for Regulation

Polling shows Americans are skeptical of AI. A from Fox News found 63% of voters describe themselves as “very” or “extremely” concerned about artificial intelligence, including majorities across the political spectrum. Nearly two-thirds of Democrats and just over 3 in 5 Republicans said they had qualms about AI.

Health insurers’ tactics to hold down costs also trouble the public; from KFF found widespread discontent over issues like prior authorization. (KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes ��ýҕ�l Health News.) Reporting and in recent years has highlighted the use of algorithms to rapidly deny insurance claims or prior authorization requests, apparently with little review by a doctor.

Last month, the House Ways and Means Committee hauled in executives from Cigna, UnitedHealth Group, and other major health insurers to address concerns about affordability. When pressed, the executives either denied or avoided talking about using the most advanced technology to reject authorization requests or toss out claims.

AI is “never used for a denial,” Cigna CEO David Cordani told lawmakers. Like others in the health insurance industry, the company is being sued for its methods of denying claims, as spotlighted by ProPublica. Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions said the company’s claims-denial process “is not powered by AI.”

Indeed, companies are at pains to frame AI as a loyal servant. Optum, part of health giant UnitedHealth Group, announced Feb. 4 that it was rolling out tech-powered prior authorization, with plenty of mentions of speedier approvals.

“We’re transforming the prior authorization process to address the friction it causes,” John Kontor, a senior vice president at Optum,

Still, Alex Bores, a computer scientist and New York Assembly member prominent in the state’s legislative debate over AI, which culminated in a comprehensive bill governing the technology, said AI is a natural field to regulate.

“So many people already find the answers that they’re getting from their insurance companies to be inscrutable,” said Bores, a Democrat who is running for Congress. “Adding in a layer that cannot by its nature explain itself doesn’t seem like it’ll be helpful there.”

At least some people in medicine — doctors, for example — are cheering legislators and regulators on. The American Medical Association “supports state regulations seeking greater accountability and transparency from commercial health insurers that use AI and machine learning tools to review prior authorization requests,” said John Whyte, the organization’s CEO.

Whyte said insurers already use AI and “doctors still face delayed patient care, opaque insurer decisions, inconsistent authorization rules, and crushing administrative work.”

Insurers Push Back

With legislation approved or pending in at least nine states, it’s unclear how much of an effect the state laws will have, said University of Minnesota law professor Daniel Schwarcz. States can’t regulate “self-insured” plans, which are used by many employers; only the federal government has that power.

But there are deeper issues, Schwarcz said: Most of the state legislation he’s seen would require a human to sign off on any decision proposed by AI but doesn’t specify what that means.

The laws don’t offer a clear framework for understanding how much review is enough, and over time humans tend to become a little lazy and simply sign off on any suggestions by a computer, he said.

Still, insurers view the spate of bills as a problem. “Broadly speaking, regulatory burden is real,” said Dan Jones, senior vice president for federal affairs at the Alliance of Community Health Plans, a trade group for some nonprofit health insurers. If insurers spend more time working through a patchwork of state and federal laws, he continued, that means “less time that can be spent and invested into what we’re intended to be doing, which is focusing on making sure that patients are getting the right access to care.”

Linda Ujifusa, a Democratic state senator in Rhode Island, said insurers came out last year against the bill she sponsored to restrict AI use in coverage denials. It passed in one chamber, though not the other.

“There’s tremendous opposition” to anything that regulates tactics such as prior authorization, she said, and “tremendous opposition” to identifying intermediaries such as private insurers or pharmacy benefit managers “as a problem.”

In a , AHIP, an insurer trade group, advocated for “balanced policies that promote innovation while protecting patients.”

“Health plans recognize that AI has the potential to drive better health care outcomes — enhancing patient experience, closing gaps in care, accelerating innovation, and reducing administrative burden and costs to improve the focus on patient care,” Chris Bond, an AHIP spokesperson, told ��ýҕ�l Health News. And, he continued, they need a “consistent, national approach anchored in a comprehensive federal AI policy framework.”

Seeking Balance

In California, Newsom has signed some laws regulating AI, including one requiring health insurers to ensure their algorithms are fairly and equitably applied. But the Democratic governor has vetoed others with a broader approach, such as a bill including more mandates about how the technology must work and requirements to disclose its use to regulators, clinicians, and patients upon request.

Chris Micheli, a Sacramento-based lobbyist, said the governor likely wants to ensure the state budget — consistently powered by outsize stock market gains, especially from tech companies — stays flush. That necessitates balance.

Newsom is trying to “ensure that financial spigot continues, and at the same time ensure that there are some protections for California consumers,” he said. He added insurers believe they’re subject to a welter of regulations already.

The Trump administration seems persuaded. The president’s recent executive order proposed to sue and restrict certain federal funding for any state that enacts what it characterized as “excessive” state regulation — with some exceptions, including for policies that protect children.

That order is possibly unconstitutional, said Carmel Shachar, a health policy scholar at Harvard Law School. The source of preemption authority is generally Congress, she said, and federal lawmakers twice took up, but ultimately declined to pass, a provision barring states from regulating AI.

“Based on our previous understanding of federalism and the balance of powers between Congress and the executive, a challenge here would be very likely to succeed,” Shachar said.

Some lawmakers view Trump’s order skeptically at best, noting the administration has been removing guardrails, and preventing others from erecting them, to an extreme degree.

“There isn’t really a question of, should it be federal or should it be state right now?” Bores said. “The question is, should it be state or not at all?”

Do you have an experience navigating prior authorization to get medical treatment that you’d like to share with us for our reporting? Share it with us here.

This article/insurance/artificial-intelligence-ai-health-insurance-companies-state-regulation-trump/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2154202&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Trump Required Hospitals To Post Their Prices for Patients. Mostly It’s the Industry Using the Data.

Darius Tahir — Tue, 17 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Republicans think patients should be shopping for better health care prices. The party has long pushed to give patients money and let consumers do the work of reducing costs. After some GOP lawmakers closed out 2025 advocating to fund health savings accounts, President Donald Trump introduced his Great Healthcare Plan, which calls for, among other policies, requiring providers and insurers to post their prices “in their place of business.”

The idea echoes a policy implemented during his first term, when Trump suggested that requiring hospitals to post their charges online could ease one of the most common gripes about the health care system — the lack of upfront prices. To anyone who’s gotten a bill three months after treatment only to find mysterious charges, the idea seemed intuitive.

“You’re able to go online and compare all of the hospitals and the doctors and the prices,” Trump said in 2019 at an event unveiling the price transparency policy.

But amid low compliance and other struggles in implementing the policy since it took effect in 2021, the available price data is sparse and often confusing. And instead of patients shopping for medical services, it’s mostly health systems and insurers using the little data there is, turning it into fodder for negotiations that determine what medical professionals and facilities get paid for what services.

“We use the transparency data,” said Eric Hoag, an executive at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, noting that the insurer wants to make sure providers aren’t being paid substantially different rates. It’s “to make sure that we are competitive, or, you know, more than competitive against other health plans.”

Not all hospitals have fallen in line with the price transparency rules, and many were slow to do so. conducted in the policy’s first 10 months found only about a third of facilities had complied with the regulations. The federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from June 2022 to May 2025 that they would be fined for lack of compliance with the rules.

The struggles to make health care prices available have prompted more federal action since Trump’s first effort. President Joe Biden took his own thwack at the dilemma, by requiring and toughening compliance criteria. And in early 2025, working to fulfill his promises to lower health costs, Trump tried again, signing a new executive order urging his administration to fine hospitals and doctors for failing to post their prices. CMS followed up with a regulation intended to up the fines and increase the level of detail required within the pricing data.

So far, “there’s no evidence that patients use this information,” said Zack Cooper, a health economist at Yale University.

In 2021, Cooper co-authored based on data from a large commercial insurer. The researchers found that, on average, patients who need an MRI pass six lower-priced imaging providers on the way from their homes to an appointment for a scan. That’s because they follow their physician’s advice about where to receive care, the study showed.

Executives and researchers interviewed by ��ýҕ�l Health News also didn’t think opening the data would change prices in a big way. Research shows that transparency policies can have mixed effects on prices, with of a New York initiative finding a marginal increase in billed charges.

The policy results thus far seem to put a damper on long-held hopes, particularly from the GOP, that providing more price transparency would incentivize patients to find the best deal on their imaging or knee replacements.

These aspirations have been unfulfilled for a few reasons, researchers and industry insiders say. Some patients simply don’t compare services. But unlike with apples — a Honeycrisp and a Red Delicious are easy to line up side by side — medical services are hard to compare.

For one thing, it’s not as simple as one price for one medical stay. Two babies might be delivered by the same obstetrician, for example, but the mothers could be charged very different amounts. One patient might be given medications to speed up contractions; another might not. Or one might need an emergency cesarean section — one of many cases in medicine in which obtaining the service simply isn’t a choice.

And the data often is presented in a way that’s not useful for patients, sometimes buried in spreadsheets and requiring a deep knowledge of billing codes. In computing these costs, hospitals make “detailed assumptions about how to apply complex contracting terms and assess historic data to create a reasonable value for an expected allowed amount,” the American Hospital Association in July 2025 amid efforts to boost transparency.

Costs vary because hospitals’ contracts with insurers vary, said Jamie Cleverley, president of Cleverley and Associates, which works with health care providers to help them understand the financial impacts of changing contract terms. The cost for a patient with one health plan may be very different than the cost for the next patient with another plan.

The fact that hospital prices might be confusing for patients is a consequence of the lack of standardization in contracts and presentation, Cleverley said. “They’re not being nefarious.”

“Until we kind of align as an industry, there’s going to continue to be this variation in terms of how people look at the data and the utility of it,” he said.

Instead of aiding shoppers, the federally mandated data has become the foundation for negotiations — — over the proper level of compensation.

The top use for the pricing data for health care providers and payers, such as insurers, is “to use that in their contract negotiations,” said Marcus Dorstel, an executive at price transparency startup Turquoise Health.

Turquoise Health assembles price data by grouping codes for services together using machine learning, a type of artificial intelligence. It is just one example in a cottage industry of startups offering insights into prices. And, online, the startups’ advertisements hawking their wares often focus on hospitals and their periodic jousts with insurers. Turquoise has payers and providers as clients, Dorstel said.

“I think nine times out of 10 you will hear them say that the price transparency data is a vital piece of the contract negotiation now,” he said.

Of course, prices aren’t the only variable that negotiations hinge on. Hoag said Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota also considers quality of care, rates of unnecessary treatments, and other factors. And sometimes negotiators feel as if they have to keep up with their peers — claiming a need for more revenue to match competitors’ salaries, for example.

Hoag said doctors and other providers often look at the data from comparable health systems and say, “‘I need to be paid more.’”

This article/health-industry/price-transparency-trump-hospitals-insurers-health-care-costs/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2152333&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Darius Tahir, Author at �������ýҕ�l Health News

RFK Jr. Seeks To Peek at Americans’ Medical Records for Clues on Autism and Vaccines

At a Tennessee Hospital, a Nurse Stole Fentanyl and AI Missed It, State Records Say

Trump Bought Stock in Eli Lilly as His Policies Gave the Drugmaker a Big Boost, Documents Show

Trump Bought Stock in Drugmaker as His Government Boosted Its Obesity Drugs

Trump Bought Stock in Drugmaker as His Government Boosted Its Obesity Drugs

Trump and Kennedy Seek To Relax Safeguards for AI Healthcare Tools

Your New Therapist: Chatty, Leaky, and Hardly Human

Watch: As AI Makes More Health Coverage Decisions, the Risks to Patients Grow

Trump’s Transparent Hospital Pricing Pays Off for Industry — But Not So Much for Patients

Red and Blue States Alike Want To Limit AI in Insurance. Trump Wants To Limit the States.

Trump Required Hospitals To Post Their Prices for Patients. Mostly It’s the Industry Using the Data.

Darius Tahir, Author at ��ýҕ�l Health News