The 92-page report from the VA Office of Inspector General found that though the payments were canceled after the alarm was raised, some haven’t been recouped yet.

Shelby Anderson, a disabled Marine veteran, expressed his frustration with the news.

“Many of us have been shot at in the line of fire and risked our lives for this country, so it’s a slap in the face to see $11 million spent on bonuses while countless veterans wait for the support they desperately need,” he said. “It’s especially disheartening when the VA system appears very corrupt, prioritizing bonuses over the well-being of those who served. Witnessing firsthand how poorly the VA is run, it’s clear that no one should be rewarded for their work or job well done with bonuses that amount to more than a yearly salary for most military members.”

Concerned Veterans for America Executive Director Russ Duerstine is calling on Undersecretary of Health Shereef Elnahal and Undersecretary of Benefits Joshua Jacobs to resign in light of the news.

“In light of the recent bonus scandal, the message to Secretary McDonough and VA leadership is clear: VA officials must be held fully accountable for their actions,” he said. “We’re calling for both Undersecretary Elnahal and Jacobs to resign from their positions immediately.  Leaders who do not honor the public trust need to be held accountable. At a minimum, veterans deserve to feel confident that the VA system can allocate funds properly.” 

Kate Monroe, CEO of VetComm, expressed similar outrage.

“This money awarded by Congress was specifically to help ease the backlog and make it easier for the men and women who served our country and became injured or disabled to receive the compensation they deserve,” she said in a statement. “To instead see that money go toward lining the pockets of execs and not help those who served should upset a lot of people.”

Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) is leading a group of bipartisan lawmakers in demanding accountability for the affair, specifically expressing outrage over the fact that many of the bonuses haven’t yet been recouped despite being notified in September.

“While we appreciate that upon learning of these payments in September you demanded the executives reimburse the VA, eight months have passed, and the money is still being recouped,” a letter to VA Secretary Dennis McDonough read. “The VA has an obligation to the veterans and families they serve to claw back the millions of dollars that were improperly distributed, reallocate the funds to their original purpose, and discipline the senior executives who do not comply.”

The money for the bonuses was taken from critical skill incentive, or CSI, payments, which were created through the PACT Act, which itself was primarily meant to help veterans who had been exposed to toxic substances during their service. CSI payments are supposed to be used as an incentive for employees who “possess a high-demand skill or skill that is at a shortage” in order to help the VA meet its staffing requirements.

The erroneous bonus payments were doled out to 182 senior executives, with the amounts for each ranging from $39,000 to over $100,000. The Office of Inspector General reviewed the matter and found that the issuance of the bonuses “lacked adequate justification” and was due to “breakdowns in leadership and controls at multiple levels of VA.”

Many of those who received the payments, only to be notified that they must be returned, also expressed outrage.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Folks don’t have this money that was given to them. … Folks paid college tuition for their children. People paid off debt. People did all types of things to better their lives, and now VA says we made an error [and we] want that money back,” one executive said. “I think leadership really needs to see the human factor of what they’re doing because the accountability is gone, and the trust is absolutely shot.”

The report from the Office of Inspector General said two executives decided to retire over the recoupment of the payments.

The released transcripts reveal that former National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins does not believe that the idea that the virus originated in a lab is a conspiracy theory, despite publicly denouncing the theory in 2020 and 2021.

Collins, who was the longest-serving NIH director, in office from 2009 to December 2021, was called before the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic to provide transcribed interview testimony in January 2024 to explain his role in the scientific inquiry into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Republicans have accused him and other public health officials of chilling debate.

Public health officials at the NIH during the initial stages of the pandemic in 2020 and 2021 largely downplayed the theory that the virus may have originated from an incident at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China where scientists were conducting coronavirus research with U.S. taxpayer funding through a subgrant administered by the research firm EcoHealth Alliance.

Republicans on the Subcommittee directly asked Collins in the interview this year whether the coronavirus virus could have resulted from “a laboratory or research-related accident, a researcher doing something in the lab, getting infected with the virus, and then sparking the pandemic.” 

When asked whether or not this scenario was a conspiracy theory, Collins responded “not at this point.”

Collins also responded in the affirmative when asked by Republicans if “the origin of COVID-19 still unsettled science.”

Regardless of whether the virus originated in the Wuhan lab or in a live-animal wet market, Collins told the Subcommittee, it is in the Chinese government’s best interest “for this to be unresolved.”

“If it was a lab leak, they’re responsible,” said Collins. “If it was a natural origin in a wet market that was selling wild animals that they were not supposed to be doing, they’re responsible. So they love it that this hasn’t gotten resolved.”

Other public health officials at NIH have also walked back early denouncement of the lab-leak theory of the origin of the coronavirus.

The Select Subcommittee held a hearing on Thursday with testimony from Lawrence Tabak, who served as acting director of NIH following Collins’s resignation, who agreed that the lab-leak theory of origin is not necessarily a conspiracy theory.

When asked by Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY) whether or not he believed the lab leak hypothesis was a conspiracy theory, Tabak replied that it is “just an alternate theory that needs to be considered.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“While NIH is not an investigative agency, we do support scientific research into the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and will continue to make this a priority,” said Tabak in his opening testimony. “We are open to all possibilities and will follow where the science leads us.”

Tabak told the Subcommittee that the NIH still maintains that the virus likely originated from a natural zoonotic spillover from the wet market in Wuhan because the virus is too genetically removed from the known samples of bat coronaviruses tested at the WIV under the NIH grant administered by EcoHealth Alliance. 

The announcement follows a long-term House investigation into EcoHealth’s potential involvement in the origin of SARS-CoV-2. The organization came under intense scrutiny during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic for its coronavirus research projects conducted in Wuhan, China, funded by the National Institutes of Health.

HHS’s suspension and debarment official, Henrietta Brisbon, wrote to EcoHealth President Peter Daszak that the immediate suspension of funding for his organization is “necessary to protect the public interest and due to a cause of so serious or compelling nature that it affects [EcoHealth’s] present responsibility.” 

Republicans on the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic issued a report earlier this month calling for the president of EcoHealth, Peter Daszak, to be stripped of his medical license and criminally investigated for allegedly misleading the federal government.

“EcoHealth Alliance and Dr. Peter Daszak should never again receive a single penny from the U.S. taxpayer,” subcommittee Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) said. “Only two weeks after the Select Subcommittee released an extensive report detailing EcoHealth’s wrongdoing and recommending the formal debarment of EcoHealth and its president, HHS has begun efforts to cut off all U.S. funding to this corrupt organization.”

The Republican report and HHS documents outline that EcoHealth received National Institutes of Health funding in 2014 to conduct bat coronavirus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, with the intention of creating chimeric coronaviruses to better understand natural emergence of viruses with pandemic potential.

Subcommittee evidence published this month found that EcoHealth submitted its Year 5 Report for National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases review two years late and violated grant terms by failing to report potentially dangerous research from the WIV to NIAID. 

“These actions are wholly abhorrent, indefensible, and must be addressed with swift action. EcoHealth’s immediate funding suspension and future debarment is not only a victory for the U.S. taxpayer, but also for American national security and the safety of citizens worldwide,” Wenstrup said.

Whether the coronavirus originated in the Wuhan lab is a hotly debated topic between subcommittee Republicans and Democrats, but there has been strong bipartisan agreement within the panel regarding the lack of oversight of WIV by EcoHealth and the organization’s insufficient communication with NIH.

The leading Democrat on the subcommittee, Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA), issued a statement applauding HHS’s pursuit of debarment.

“Every recipient of federal taxpayer funding has an obligation to meet the utmost standards of transparency and accountability to the American public,” Ruiz said. “EcoHealth Alliance’s failure to do so is a departure from the long-standing legacy of good-faith partnerships between NIH and federal grantees to advance science and the public interest, which remains essential for the continued work of preventing and preparing for future threats to our nation’s public health.”

Suspension and debarment, which is the long-term prohibition of receiving federal funds, is a primary public mechanism that “protects the federal government from fraud waste and abuse by using a number of tools to avoid doing business with non-responsible actors,” according to the U.S. General Services Administration definition. 

A spokesperson for EcoHealth Alliance told the Washington Examiner that the organization is “disappointed by HHS’s decision” and “will be contesting the proposed debarment.”

“We disagree strongly with the decision and will present evidence to refute each of these allegations and to show that NIH’s continued support of EcoHealth Alliance is in the public interest,” the spokesperson said.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Although the suspension is immediate, a debarment period is established after a hearing process and is usually only three years in length depending on aggravating circumstances.

EcoHealth has been a major recipient of federal funds for global research projects for decades. Last month, the watchdog group White Coat Waste Project found that EcoHealth had been awarded $60 million in taxpayer funding since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

According to the Society of Family Planning, a pro-abortion-rights organization, 19% of all abortions in the United States in December 2023 were conducted via telehealth appointments, during which a physician would prescribe abortion pills to be sent to the patient via mail.

Even in states that have banned or strictly regulated abortion, including telehealth abortion consultation, patients have been able to seek abortions via telehealth from providers in states that have so-called shield laws, which are designed to protect healthcare providers from prosecution in states where the procedure is banned.

Within the study period of July to December 2023, shield laws were active in five states, including Colorado, Massachusetts, New York, Washington, and Vermont. These laws allow telehealthcare providers to facilitate abortion procedures in any state regardless of the laws in the patient’s state.

The study found that providers operating under the protection of shield laws conducted an average of 5,800 telehealth abortions per month in states with near-total abortion bans or bans on abortion after six weeks gestation.

An additional 2,000 abortions per month were facilitated by shielded telehealthcare providers in states with explicit restrictions on telehealth abortions.

The Society of Family Planning has been measuring access to telehealth abortion care under the #WeCount initiative since the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturned federal constitutional protections for abortion in June 2022. 

Telehealth abortions are exclusively medication abortions shipped to patients directly via the mail.

Medication abortion involves a two-step medication process. The first medication, mifepristone, essentially cuts off the nutrient supply to the developing fetus in the womb by blocking the pregnancy hormone progesterone. The second medication, misoprostol, administered 24-48 hours after mifepristone induces contractions to expel the remaining pregnancy tissue.

The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion-rights research organization, also says that over 63% of the over 642,000 abortions in 2023 in the U.S. were medication abortions, up 10 percentage points from 2020.

Excluding states with abortion bans, the #WeCount report found an average of 86,000 abortions occurred each month in 2023, nearly 4,000 more than the average monthly count in 2022.

“Even as the total national number of abortions nationally has increased, we can’t lose sight of the fact that access to in-person abortion care has virtually disappeared in states where abortion is banned,” said Alison Norris, a #WeCount co-chair and a professor at the Ohio State University College of Public Health.

Although in-clinic providers also dispense medication abortion, Norris and her co-chair from the University of California, San Francisco, Ushma Upadhya, argue that telehealth access is important for states with abortion bans as well as rural communities with limited access to healthcare resources generally.

“Access to medication abortion through telehealth continues to play an ever-increasing role in abortion care nationwide — even as the Supreme Court weighs the fate of telehealth abortion care,” Upadhya said. “The need for abortion care across the country demands that providers, advocates, and lawmakers continue to come together to innovate new strategies to help people access abortion care.”

Mifepristone has come under increased legal scrutiny in the past year after anti-abortion doctors sued in federal court to overturn the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug and subsequent deregulation of the substance that allowed it to be mailed directly to patients without in-person screenings.

Tessa Longbons Cox, senior research associate for the anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute told the Washington Examiner that the #WeCount data “highlights a concerning trend.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Nationally, extreme policies are boosting abortion rates, including a sharp increase in dangerous mail-order abortion drugs in violation of pro-life state laws,” Cox said. “By recklessly removing in-person medical visits and giving abortionists immunity through shield laws, abortion advocates have put women’s health and safety last.”

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the FDA’s deregulation of mifepristone in March and is expected to rule on the fate of the pill by June.

Lawmakers in the state added the measure as a last-minute amendment to another Senate bill, which criminalizes “coerced criminal abortion,” in which someone gives a pregnant woman abortion pills without her consent. A pregnant woman who gets the two drugs “for her own consumption” would not face criminal charges.

The move comes as the Supreme Court is set to rule on a case regarding access to mifepristone and misoprostol. It is the high court’s largest case regarding abortion since Roe. v. Wade was overturned.

Abortion is already illegal in Louisiana, both via medicine and surgeries, and it is only available in very rare cases. Under the new legislation, someone who commits this crime could be subject to 10 years in prison and a $75,000 fine.

If passed and signed into law by the governor, mifepristone and misoprostol would be under the state’s Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, which includes narcotics and steroids. Misoprostol is also used to soften the cervix during labor, for biopsies for cancer, and to place IUDs. More than 240 doctors across the state wrote their fears regarding the classification to the bill’s co-sponsor, Republican state Sen. Thomas Pressly.

“Adding a safe, medically indicated drug for miscarriage management … creates the false perception that these are dangerous drugs that require additional regulation,” the letter reads. “Given its historically poor maternal health outcomes, Louisiana should prioritize safe and evidence-based care for pregnant women.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Pressly said he sponsored the legislation to “control the rampant illegal distribution of abortion-inducing drugs” which he said “is frequently abused and is a risk to the health of citizens.”

The bill now heads to the Louisiana House, where it is expected to pass.

Getting poor women on birth control is the “cause of her life,” and her foundation is in the middle of spending $2.8 billion over a decade on this effort.

Maybe Melinda Gates’s successors at her foundation should read this latest study out of Burkina Faso, titled “The Negligible Effect of Free Contraception on Fertility.”

The researchers picked a random assortment of women to receive 100% vouchers for birth control and a second group to receive 10% vouchers. They found that the free birth control didn’t cause women to delay or avoid pregnancy.

Likewise, they provided educational seminars and village meetings about birth control, its efficacy, and its safety. The researchers found that only 20% worried about the safety of birth control, and yet most married women of childbearing age, including most such women who were offered free birth control, didn’t use it.

Why not?

My guess is that they wanted babies: “Desired fertility is high in the study population. Almost all women (92%) want another child, and 35% want a child in the next 2 years. Women report wanting a total of 6 children. There is little variation in the ideal number of children: half of women want 5 or 6.”

Note that in Burkina Faso, the total fertility rate is 4.6. That suggests Burkinabe women are falling short of their family-size goals rather than exceeding them.

Demographer Lyman Stone noted another telling detail about this study, involving the educational interventions:

Women were actually using the vouchers. That means the voucher was, in effect, just subsidizing families that were already using contraception. It’s hard to imagine why this would be a desirable way to distribute wealth to poor places.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Yes, birth control carries some stigma in Burkina Faso’s cultures. But notably, even among women who didn’t feel pressure to avoid birth control, the free contraception didn’t seem to affect birthrates.

Maybe in her new line of work, Melinda Gates can find something where her billions actually give people what they want.

Richard Slayman, 62, who received the pig kidney back in March has died, his family announced on Saturday. Massachusetts General Hospital, where the transplant was done, said that there is “no indication” that Slayman died as a result of the transplant.

“Mr. Slayman will forever be seen as a beacon of hope to countless transplant patients worldwide and we are deeply grateful for his trust and willingness to advance the field of xenotransplantation,” the hospital said in a statement to ABC News. “We offer our heartfelt condolences to Mr. Slayman’s family and loved ones as they remember an extraordinary person whose generosity and kindness touched all who knew him.”

Prior to the transplant, the kidney inside Slayman was altered using CRISPR-Cas9 technology, which added some key human genes and excised harmful pig genes in order to make the kidney compatible with Slayman’s body.

At the time, the hospital said the surgery marked the first time a genetically modified pig kidney had been successfully put into a living person, although pig kidneys had been transplanted into donors who were brain dead.

In a statement following his death, Slayman’s family said they were “extremely grateful” for the team at Massachusetts General Hospital and said his legacy will be an inspiration for patients and researchers across the globe.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

“Our family is deeply saddened about the sudden passing of our beloved Rick but take great comfort knowing he inspired so many,” the statement said.

“Millions of people worldwide have come to know Rick’s story,” the family continued. “We felt — and still feel — comforted by the optimism he provided patients desperately waiting for a transplant.”

“Don’t panic. Do be careful,” avian influenza specialist at Johns Hopkins Medicine Kawswar Talaat told the Washington Examiner as her primary piece of advice to the general public. “It is absolutely something that scientists are watching very carefully.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported the second-ever U.S. human case of H5N1 bird flu in a Texas dairy worker on April 1, marking the first case of cow-to-human transmission of the disease.

Although the risk of infection to the general public remains very low, the Biden administration in May announced a joint effort between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services to contain the spread to the tune of $101 million.

First cases of H5N1 in cows

The first-ever human case of H5N1 in the United States occurred in Colorado in 2022 at a poultry processing facility, but cases in cows have been a growing concern over the past several weeks.

Talaat said that, up until now, H5N1 had been largely limited to bird populations and animals that have regular contact with birds.

“The fact that it is in cows is really unusual. We haven’t seen that before,” she said.

Reports of H5N1 in cows began circulating in late March. As of May, the disease has been reported in cattle herds in nine states, including Texas, Idaho, Michigan, and Ohio. A total of 42 herds of cattle are known to be infected.

Talaat noted that H5N1 has been present in bird populations since 1995, but human-to-human transmission has not been recorded.

“The fact that it is now spreading among mammals is a little bit concerning,” Talaat said. “It’s one step closer from birds to people, but again, still not a concern that [it] spreads effectively from person to person.”

How bird flu affects humans

According to the World Health Organization, there have been 888 cases of H5N1 infection in 23 countries worldwide since 2003.

Most human infections with the virus are linked to close contact with living or dead infected birds or contaminated environments, and most of the cases are clustered in Southeast Asia, China, and Egypt.

Symptoms of avian influenza viruses in humans are similar to traditional flu-like symptoms, often starting as a mild respiratory infection. More severe illness can progress if left untreated, leading to gastrointestinal and neurological problems.

Of the total number of cases, 463 deaths were reported to WHO.

The CDC reports that neither the 2022 Colorado patient nor the current patient in Texas have experienced severe symptoms and responded to treatment quickly.

Concern of human-to-human spread

The WHO’s chief scientist, Jeremy Fararr, told reporters in April that human spillover is an “enormous concern,” especially since the virus appears to have mutated to spread more quickly between mammals.

Although denuded H5N1 particles have been found in approximately 20% of tested commercial milk samples, the samples were tested using PCR rapid testing, which only requires a small fragment of virus DNA to produce a positive test. 

Public health experts largely agree that the pasteurization process likely prevents the particles from being infectious to humans, but more thorough testing is warranted to determine the exact size of the DNA fragments found. 

The Food and Drug Administration announced in May that the agency will be spending an additional $8 million for testing and monitoring of the commercial milk supply. 

Public health officials mount response

When asked if public concern over the H5N1 outbreak was overblown considering the lack of human-to-human transmission, Talaat said she was encouraged by the rapid government and industry response despite the relatively low risk of widespread human infections.

“We often wait until it is a little too late to respond,” Talaat said, noting a “sense of panic and urgency” is usually the motivating factor for action.

In mid-April, the scientific community at large began increasing the pressure on the USDA to release more information on the genetic sequences of the H5N1 virus samples. 

Andrew Pekosz, professor of microbiology and immunology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told the Washington Examiner that genetic sequencing data without other information, including the dates and locations of samples, is very difficult to use effectively. “It’s really hard to get a good sense of what the extent of the outbreak is,” he said.

HHS will be coordinating preparation efforts through the CDC that include $34 million for developing rapid testing and antiviral drugs that can be disseminated on a global scale. The CDC will also be contributing $8 million for vaccine development.

Concern the strongest for livestock and agriculture workers

The CDC recommended this week that workers in dairy and poultry farms with infected livestock wear personal protective equipment, or PPE, to mitigate human exposure and transmission of H5N1.

The Texas health department began offering gloves, masks, goggles, and gowns to dairy farm workers in April, but only a handful of farms have accepted them. Idaho and Wisconsin have had similar results in encouraging farmers to accept the free PPE.

Part of the hesitancy is that PPE is not designed for working in hot conditions, such as in milking parlors. Goggles are likely to fog up, for example, and N95 respirator masks are ineffective when wet.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

For the general public at this point, however, Talaat said the risk of contracting avian flu should not be a top priority.

“If you’re not handling birds, and you’re not handling animals that interact with birds, it’s really not yet a concern,” Talaat said.

The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services issued a joint statement on the new protocols following weeks of mounting concern about the spread of the highly pathogenic avian influenza, or HPAI, among dairy cows.

“The U.S. government is addressing this situation with urgency and through a whole-of-government approach,” the agencies said in a press release. “Since the detection of H5N1 in dairy cattle, the Federal response has leveraged the latest available scientific data, field epidemiology, and risk assessments to mitigate risks to workers and the general public.”

Bird flu was first detected in dairy cattle in the Texas panhandle region in March, which was quickly followed by the first and only confirmed case of bovine-to-human transmission. As of Thursday, a total of 42 herds of cattle across nine states are known to be infected with the virus, but there have been no other documented human cases.

Preventing human-to-human transmission

Much of the efforts announced by the agencies are aimed at preventing bovine-to-human transmission and preparing for the development of human-to-human transmission, which is thought to be highly unlikely.

The USDA announced that the agency would be providing up to $2,000 per month of direct financial assistance to livestock producers to supply personal protective equipment, or PPE, to their workers upon participation in a joint USDA-HHS symptom surveillance program. 

Agricultural workers have been slow to adopt PPE, including gloves, masks, goggles, and gowns, in part because the gear is not designed for working in hot, damp conditions like milking parlors. For example, goggles are likely to become foggy in humid conditions, and N95 respirator masks are largely ineffective when wet.

In conjunction with biosafety efforts from the USDA, HHS announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will be spending $93 million from within its existing budget to ramp up laboratory testing and surveillance for possible human cases. 

The funding package includes $34 million for developing rapid testing and antivirals that can be disseminated on a global scale and $8 million for possible vaccine development.

How bird flu could affect humans

The World Health Organization’s chief scientist, Jeremy Farrar, told reporters in April that human spillover is an “enormous concern” due to the high human fatality rate of H5N1.

Since 2003, the WHO has reported a total of 888 human H5N1 infections worldwide, largely clustered in Southeast Asia and North Africa. Of those cases, there have been 463 deaths, making the fatality rate over 52%.

Symptoms of bird flu in humans are similar to traditional flu-like symptoms but can progress to gastrointestinal and neurological problems if left untreated. 

The first human H5N1 case in the United States occurred in 2022 at a poultry processing facility in Colorado. As of last month, neither the 2022 Colorado case nor the recent patient in Texas experienced severe symptoms, and both responded to treatment quickly.

Of top concern for public health officials is the potential for bovine-to-human transmission from asymptomatic cows. This, in part, is prompting the CDC to develop wastewater testing capacities that distinguish between animal and human infection.

Genetic testing of the virus

CDC will allocate funds for genetic sequencing of H5N1 strains circulating, a key switch in how the administration is allocating responsibility.

In mid-April, the scientific community at large began increasing the pressure on the USDA to release more information on the genetic sequences of the H5N1 virus samples. 

Researchers use genetic sequencing to determine the evolution of viruses and track their spread. However, raw sequencing data shared by the USDA last month lacked critical pieces of information to help with this, including locations and dates of samples.

The CDC announced on Friday that it would contribute $14 million to enhance bioinformatics and data analytics for bird flu strains. The funding will be shared between the main CDC campus and state-level influenza centers across the country.

Safety for milk supply

The USDA and the Food and Drug Administration reported to have been working closely to prevent the contamination of the milk supply with active H5N1 virus.

The USDA announced that the agency would pay affected milk producers up to $2,000 monthly to each affected premise to provide heat treatments to dispose of contaminated milk “in a biosecure fashion.” 

This funding is separate from the compensation that milk producers can expect for the destruction of milk or otherwise limited milk production.

Last month, the FDA announced that denuded H5N1 virus particles had been detected in 20% of tested samples in the commercial milk supply. These results came from PCR rapid testing, which only requires small fragments of virus DNA to produce a positive test.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Although the vast majority of public health officials agree that the pasteurization process likely prevents the contamination of milk with live virus, the FDA said more complete testing was necessary to determine the exact size and density of H5N1 particles in milk.

The HHS announced the FDA would be spending an additional $8 million to continue its monitoring of the commercial milk supply, including training staff on biosecurity protocols and developing stronger partnerships with state-level regulatory bodies.

According to the survey, 12% of adults reported taking the revolutionary class of drugs to lose weight or treat chronic conditions, such as heart disease or obesity.

Of those who have taken the drug, 43% said they did so to treat Type 2 diabetes, and 26% said they were prescribed the medication to manage heart disease. Only 22% said they were recommended the medication for obesity.

Among the class of GLP-1 drugs, which are once-weekly injectables, Novo Nordisk’s Ozempic and Eli Lilly’s Mounjaro are only approved by the Food and Drug Administration to treat diabetes, but doctors sometimes prescribe the medications off-label to treat other conditions.

Lilly’s Zepbound was approved last year in competition with Novo’s Wegovy, both of which are FDA-cleared for weight loss in those who are medically overweight or obese. Wegovy also secured FDA approval to treat heart disease in March.

Drugmakers have struggled to keep up with sky-high demand for the breakthrough medications, with Novo reporting last week that at least 25,000 people in the U.S. are starting Wegovy each week.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 36 million Americans have Type 2 diabetes. Similarly, heart disease is the leading cause of death in the U.S., accounting for 1 in every 5 deaths annually.

Over 1 in 3 men and women in the U.S. are medically overweight, and more than 2 in 5 are obese, according to the National Institutes of Health.

List prices for GLP-1 drugs in the U.S. are high, ranging between $936 and $1,349 before insurance, rebates, and coupons.

Nearly 60% of insured patients said their plan covered a portion of their GLP-1 prescription cost, and slightly under 1 in 4 said insurance covered the entire cost of their prescription.

Over half of respondents, including those with health insurance, said it was either “somewhat” or “very” difficult to afford the drug.

Overall, the KFF survey found that adults between 50 and 64 were most likely to have used a GLP-1 drug, but younger patients were more likely to have used them exclusively for weight loss.

Of adults over 65, only 8% said they had taken a GLP-1 medication for a chronic condition, and only 1% said they had used it to lose weight. However, nearly 40% of adults in this age bracket have been told by a doctor in the past five years that they are either obese or overweight.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Medicare explicitly prohibits the coverage of prescription weight-loss medication, but some Medicare prescription plans cover the cost of GLP-1s for diabetes or heart disease treatment. 

The KFF poll found strong support across partisan lines for having Medicare cover GLP-1 drugs for weight loss treatment, including 55% of Republicans and 66% of Democrats.