Viewpoints: Trump Is Still Focused On Taking Away Health Care; Keep Up The Fight Against Protections For Preexisting Conditions

Editorial pages focus on these health care topics and others.

The New York Times: The Ticking Time Bomb Under Obamacare

Yes, the Democrats reclaimed the House. But you should not assume that your health care coverage is now safe. The biggest threat is President Trump himself: His administration has been relentlessly assaulting the Affordable Care Act for two years, and that threat has not abated. Democrats may have made significant electoral gains by running on the protection of the pre-existing-conditions guarantee to insurance, but Republicans apparently aren’t listening. The president and his party remain focused on taking health care away. (Abbe R. Gluck and Erica Turret, 12/6)

Detroit News: Reasons Why Congress Must Revisit Preexisting Conditions

According to conventional wisdom, the recent congressional elections demonstrate that the Affordable Care Act’s rules requiring insurers to cover people with preexisting conditions are politically untouchable. Democrats made preserving those rules their number-one campaign issue. Voters responded by handing Democrats control of the House of Representatives. This assessment might be correct—if the election had clearly presented voters both the costs and benefits of those rules. Unfortunately, that did not occur. (Michael F. Cannon, 12/5)

The New York Times: To Make America Richer, Help Poor Children

Recent Republican attempts to weaken the social safety net have one big thing in common: The pain they would inflict on poor children could last a lifetime. This is not only miserly but also shortsighted. Research shows that safety net programs keep children in school and out of trouble, and increase their chances of being healthier and living longer. All of this has a positive effect on our economy. In August, the Trump administration said it was considering a rule that would penalize green card applicants if anyone in their family had ever relied on a safety net program, such as food stamps or Medicaid. It’s estimated that in New York City alone, a million immigrants would be affected by the new rule and perhaps forced to choose between their green cards and putting food on the table. The public comment period on it ends next week. (David L. Kirp, 12/6)

Los Angeles Times: The Camp Fire Took My Home. Now I Understand That No One Ends Up Sleeping Under An Overpass By Choice

Since the fire that wiped out Paradise and Magalia, Calif., — and my house — on Nov. 8, I've thought about the homeless every single day. Until I joined their ranks, I had forged a tenuous truce with my conscience where the less fortunate were concerned, handing out spare change or writing a charity check with a mix of queasy self-pride and guilt. Then I became “less fortunate.” I wasn't reduced to sleeping in a tent on skid row, nor did I have to ask strangers for a handout, but I was humbled nonetheless, humiliated, daily, at being displaced, literally a refugee. Though I carried a credit card that wasn't maxed out, and though I still had a car, my status in the world had been redefined, and I felt the change. (Jaime O'Neil, 12/7)

USA Today: Food Irradiation Could Have Prevented Illness From Romaine, Beef

The United States is being hit by two large foodborne illness outbreaks — first, the E. coli outbreak in romaine lettuce, and now a salmonella outbreak in beef that has sickened more than 200 people. These high-profile cases underscore the inadequacy of the safety measures meant to protect our food supply. If we are serious about addressing this issue, we must implement food irradiation. (Alex Berezow, 12/7)

The Hill: Policymaker Action Required To Ensure Patient Access To Lung Cancer Treatments

Advances in treatment have completely transformed the way that Americans are living with lung cancer, something that was unthinkable even ten years ago. Since 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 26 new drugs and treatment indications for lung cancer, including 17 biomarker-driven therapies. While Lung Cancer Awareness Month was an opportunity to recognize the great progress we have made in treating this deadly disease, now is an important moment to consider the additional steps that policymakers can take to ensure patient access to these revolutionary treatments. (Andrea Ferris, 12/6)

JAMA: Does The Term Intensive Care Unit Promote Aggressive Treatment?

Six million Americans are admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) each year. Many receive aggressive efforts to return them to health that are appropriate and consistent with their values. Others are treated aggressively, despite a poor prognosis, even though many people indicate that they would not want burdensome treatment in such a situation. The term intensive care unit and its abbreviation, ICU, may contribute to this discrepancy by implying a default option of aggressive life-sustaining therapy. (Brian L. Block, 12/8)

USA Today: Why Conservatives Should Support Ban On Flawed Gay Conversion Therapy

About 700,000 LGBT adults were put through conversion therapy at some point in their lives and, under current law, it’s estimated that 77,000 more young people will receive it sometime before they turn 18. We can’t allow this to continue. It’s time for all conservatives to acknowledge that conversion therapy simply doesn’t work. (Brad Polumbo, 12/6)

The Hill: 41 Percent Of Americans Don’t Plan On Getting A Flu Shot — Don't Be One Of Them

If you predictably knew that an event was about to occur in which thousands of Americans would be killed and you had a way to diminish the impact, would you do it? I know I and many people would, but apparently 41 percent of Americans disagree. What I am referring to is not some missile shield or tsunami warning system, but something much more important: the influenza vaccine. A new study by the University of Chicago reveals that in November, as we stand on the precipice of the flu season, 41 percent of American adults are not vaccinated against this season’s flu strains and do not plan to be. Making matters worse, 39 percent of those studied don’t plan to vaccinate their children. (Amesh Adalja, 12/6)

JAMA: Probiotic Safety—No Guarantees

For centuries, people have consumed live bacteria in many foods, such as yogurt, cheese, kimchi, and sauerkraut. The mass-marketing of isolated live bacteria for their purported beneficial or “probiotic” properties, however, is a relatively recent phenomenon. The World Health Organization defines probiotics as “live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts confer a health benefit on the host.” Yet to be sold as a probiotic supplement in the United States, a live microorganism does not require evidence of efficacy or even safety. (Pieter A. Cohen, 12/8)

Stat: NIH's Ask To Remove One Exhibit Portrait Is Like Asking To Remove Them All

My friend and fellow rare-disease warrior, Patty Weltin, recently reached out to me on social media. “I’m so upset,” she said in a private message. “Beyond the Diagnosis isn’t going to the NIH.” “Beyond the Diagnosis” is an exhibit of portraits of people — mostly children — with rare diseases that have been created by a small army of volunteer artists. More than that, it’s a presentation of the colorful souls within those seemingly imperfect bodies and a bright, uplifting, safe way to display them. (Annette Maughan, 12/6)

This is part of the KHN Morning Briefing, a summary of health policy coverage from major news organizations. Sign up for an email subscription