�鶹Ů��

On Feb. 2, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that it was investing $100 million in what it called “Great American Recovery.” But despite the new program’s promising rhetoric, the scientific framing of the announcement obscures a deeper policy problem. HHS is advancing a vision of abstinence-only recovery rooted in social connection, while simultaneously rejecting harm-reduction and housing-first strategies that have been shown to create stability, trust and sustained engagement in care. That contradiction weakens the foundation of the initiative and threatens its credibility before it begins. (Nina C. Christie, 2/9)

Isn’t it very dangerous to remove the recommendations for certain infant vaccines, particularly against RSV, in a country that continues to deny new parents the right to paid parental leave? What are the consequences of under-vaccinating millions of babies in a country where working parents have no other choice but to put their literal newborns in a room full of other babies all day? (Ariana Hendrix, 2/10)

Personalized screening does something mammography cannot: It helps identify high-risk people early enough to act. (Leana S. Wen, 2/10)

The uncomfortable question policymakers have avoided is this: If insurers are allowed to exclude the doctors, drugs, and services that people with serious illnesses rely on, have we really banned discrimination at all? (Madelaine [Mattie] A. Feldman, MD, 2/9)

The American health care system suffers from many misalignments of incentives, but one is particularly irksome: When individual patients make prudent decisions about their care, choosing reasonable but less costly alternatives, they capture none of the savings they generate. (Jared Rhoads, 2/10)