Health Journal Online

Category: Diseases & Conditions

Thomas H. Jensen’s Leadership at Allarity Therapeutics: Strengthening the Path Toward Personalized Cancer Care

Leading a biotech company requires scientific understanding, business judgment, and the ability to guide teams through complex moments of change. For Thomas Jensen, this responsibility has defined his journey as CEO of Allarity Therapeutics, a precision medicine company advancing personalized cancer treatments through innovative technologies and targeted therapeutic development.

Jensen’s path to leadership began with a deep connection to molecular biology, biochemistry, and the possibilities created when biological data are translated into meaningful medical insights. His early work involved developing laboratory techniques for studying fragile messenger RNA from tumors and transforming biological information into actionable knowledge through computational analysis.

This foundation shaped his perspective on how science, technology, and patient needs can work together. “When you work with fragile biological material, you learn to look under every stone and anticipate what could happen,” Jensen explains. “That mindset has followed me into business leadership.”

Before stepping into the CEO role at Allarity Therapeutics, Jensen built experience across the scientific and operational sides of biotechnology. His background gave him an appreciation for the patience required in drug development, where discoveries move through years of research, testing, and refinement before reaching patients. When he took responsibility for Allarity, he saw a company with valuable scientific assets and a need for renewed organizational focus.

Allarity Therapeutics develops precision medicine solutions designed to help identify which patients may benefit from specific cancer therapies. The company’s proprietary Drug Response Predictor (DRP) technology analyzes tumor biology to support patient selection and personalized treatment strategies. Alongside this platform, Allarity is advancing stenoparib, an investigational therapy being studied for advanced ovarian cancer, with the goal of bringing more tailored treatment options to patients.

Jensen’s leadership journey at Allarity began during a period that required significant restructuring. The company was navigating financial pressures, capital complexity, and operational challenges while working to strengthen its position for future development. For Jensen, addressing these areas became an essential part of protecting the scientific opportunities ahead.

His focus involved simplifying the company’s financial framework, reducing unnecessary expenses, and creating stronger alignment between resources and long-term priorities. He also worked to rebuild relationships with investors through open communication and consistent execution. These decisions required balancing immediate operational needs with the scientific ambitions that motivated the company’s mission.

“The foundation of the company, the science, the DRP technology, and the clinical data, deserved the opportunity to reach patients,” Jensen says. “My responsibility was to create the conditions where that science could continue moving forward.”

A key part of this process involved making difficult choices about programs and priorities. Jensen emphasized the importance of focusing resources on initiatives with meaningful potential for patients and sustainable company development. For him, scientific curiosity remains essential, while each research effort also needs a path toward practical impact.

This perspective reflects Jensen’s broader leadership philosophy. He values direct communication, collaboration among specialists, and an environment where employees can contribute ideas openly. He has brought together experts from different disciplines to support decision-making across science, finance, operations, and development.

His leadership style also draws from his scientific training. The careful attention required when working with biological systems has influenced how he evaluates risks and prepares for future challenges. Jensen applies that same discipline to organizational decisions, encouraging teams to examine details while keeping the company’s larger mission in view.

As Allarity continues advancing its work, Jensen remains focused on strengthening the company’s foundation and progressing its therapeutic programs. The company’s DRP technology and stenoparib program represent areas where he sees opportunities to continue exploring personalized cancer care.

For Jensen, the future of biotechnology depends on connecting innovation with thoughtful leadership. His experience at Allarity has reinforced his belief that successful companies require scientific progress, responsible decision-making, and trust built through consistent action.

“Under-promise and then over-deliver,” Jensen remarks. “Rebuilding trust requires execution, which means doing what we say we will do and continuing to earn confidence through our actions.” Through his leadership at Allarity Therapeutics, he continues working to advance a vision where scientific discovery and patient-focused development move forward together, creating opportunities for new approaches to cancer treatment.

Source link

August 11, 2026
WK Kellogg Says Artificial Colors and BHT Will Be Out of Every Cereal by the End of 2026

WK Kellogg says it will eliminate artificial colors and the preservative BHT from its entire cereal portfolio and cereal packaging by the end of 2026, a full year ahead of the timeline the company set last year.

The Battle Creek, Michigan company said production of reformulated recipes, including Froot Loops and Apple Jacks, begins later this year, with product shipping to retailers before year’s end. Replacement colors will come from fruit and vegetable juices and other plant-based ingredients, and the company said it has invested in its manufacturing facilities to make the switch at scale.

For households that buy these cereals weekly, the change is concrete and near-term. What it means for children’s health is a more complicated question than either critics or defenders of synthetic dyes usually acknowledge.

The Commitment and How It Moved Up

The company announced the accelerated schedule on August 6. Chief Operating Officer Jean-Baptiste Santoul said the team reached the milestone “a full year ahead of our original timeline,” and the company cited work across product development, manufacturing, ingredient sourcing and marketing.

Groundwork was already in place. WK Kellogg had reformulated cereals served in schools to be free of artificial colors and stopped launching new products containing them beginning in January, according to Food Processing. The company also said it is ahead of schedule on removing BHT, a synthetic antioxidant preservative, from the small amount of cereal packaging that still contains it.

The commercial pressure has been building from several directions at once. The company signed an agreement with the Texas attorney general to remove artificial colorings from its cereals by 2027, matching what had been its national plan. Consumer campaigns preceded that, including a 2024 rally at the company’s headquarters that delivered petitions with 400,000 signatures. Federal health officials have separately pressed food companies to phase out petroleum-based dyes, and the Department of Health and Human Services said last year that a substantial share of the industry had committed to doing so. WK Kellogg is now owned by Italy-based Ferrero Group.

The Evidence on Dyes and Children’s Behavior Is Genuinely Split

This is where careful reading matters, because the science does not support the strongest claims on either side.

The Food and Drug Administration has maintained for years that a causal relationship between consumption of synthetic color additives and behavioral effects has not been established for the general population. An FDA advisory committee reviewing the question in 2011 concluded there was not a sufficient basis for a ban, while acknowledging that some susceptible children may be affected.

California state scientists reached a different conclusion. A report published in April 2021 by the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that the evidence supports a relationship between food dye exposure and adverse behavioral outcomes in children, both with and without pre-existing behavioral disorders. That review contributed to California’s 2024 law barring six dyes from food served in public schools.

A frequently cited 2007 study in The Lancet reported increased hyperactivity in children in the general population following consumption of mixtures containing artificial colors or sodium benzoate.

The honest summary is that some children appear sensitive, average effects across whole populations are modest, and no United States regulator has concluded that dyes cause behavioral disorders. Separately, the FDA revoked authorization for FD&C Red No. 3 in food and ingested drugs in January 2025, on a different evidentiary basis. That decision followed data showing the dye caused cancer in male laboratory rats through a hormonal mechanism, and the agency stated there is no evidence it causes cancer in humans. The Delaney Clause required revocation regardless. Food manufacturers have until January 2027 to reformulate.

Natural Replacements Are Not Automatically Neutral

Removing a synthetic dye means adding something else, and the substitutes carry their own considerations rather than none. Reformulation can also change taste, texture and shelf life, and consumers who notice differences are not imagining it.

Colors derived from fruit and vegetable sources are generally regarded as lower-concern, but they are not inert. Carmine, also known as cochineal extract, and to a lesser degree annatto, are associated with allergic reactions in a small number of people, and anyone with a known sensitivity should read labels after reformulation rather than assuming a natural color is a safer choice for them personally. Research from a large French cohort has also raised questions about certain natural colorants and metabolic outcomes, findings that are preliminary and require replication before they change anything.

The Nutrition Question Color Does Not Answer

None of this changes the larger nutritional picture. A brightly colored cereal reformulated with vegetable juice colors is still a sweetened breakfast cereal. Parents concerned about their children’s diets will get more from attention to added sugar, fiber and portion size than from color sourcing. Families should discuss individualized dietary decisions with a pediatrician or registered dietitian rather than adjusting a child’s diet based on ingredient news alone. A reformulation is an ingredient change, not a nutritional upgrade, and it should not be read as one.

The reformulated products are not yet on shelves, and existing inventory with current recipes will continue selling through. Consumers who want to check what they are buying now can read the ingredient panel, where synthetic colors appear by name, such as Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1 and Blue 2, and BHT appears among listed preservatives. Shoppers who avoid these ingredients for a child with a documented sensitivity should keep checking labels through the transition, because boxes with old and new recipes will sit side by side on shelves for a period.

What happens next is largely a matter of watching shelves and labels. Production begins later this year, with shipments to retailers before year-end, as The Hill reported. Whether other cereal makers accelerate similar commitments, and whether the FDA takes further action on remaining approved dyes, remain open. MedicalDaily will report on additional reformulation announcements and regulatory decisions.

Key Questions Answered

What did WK Kellogg announce? The company said it will eliminate all artificial colors and the preservative BHT across its full cereal portfolio and cereal packaging by the end of 2026, a year earlier than its original commitment.

When will reformulated cereals reach stores? Production of new recipes begins later this year, with shipping to retailers before the end of 2026. Boxes will reach shelves as existing inventory with current recipes sells through.

Do artificial dyes cause hyperactivity in children? The FDA has said a causal relationship has not been established in the general population, while acknowledging some susceptible children may be affected. California state scientists concluded in 2021 that evidence supports a relationship with adverse behavioral outcomes. The question remains contested.

Are natural colors automatically safer? Not automatically. Carmine and, to a lesser extent, annatto are associated with allergic reactions in some people, and research on certain natural colorants and metabolic outcomes is ongoing. Anyone with a known sensitivity should read labels after reformulation.

Does this make these cereals healthier overall? Color sourcing does not change added sugar, fiber or portion size. Families weighing children’s diets should discuss individualized decisions with a pediatrician or registered dietitian.

How can a shopper tell what is in a box today? Synthetic colors appear by name on the ingredient panel, including Red 40, Yellow 5, Yellow 6, Blue 1 and Blue 2. BHT appears among listed preservatives.

Are other companies doing the same? Several food manufacturers have announced dye removal timelines, and federal health officials have said a substantial share of the industry has committed to phasing out petroleum-based colors.

Source link

August 10, 2026
Nursing Home Study Finds Only Resident Decolonization Reduced Drug-Resistant Bacteria on Skin

Only decolonizing residents reduced the drug-resistant bacteria they carried on their skin, and adding daily enhanced cleaning produced no measurable additional benefit, according to a study of two Southern California nursing homes published August 5 in JAMA Network Open.

The comparison matters because infection control budgets in long-term care are finite. Facilities are frequently asked to do both, and this study suggests that when only one is affordable, the choice is not a coin flip.

For families with a relative in a nursing home, the finding translates into a question worth asking at the next care conference. Multidrug-resistant organisms are endemic in these settings, with studies showing more than half of residents carry them on their skin, and carriage precedes infection. What a facility does about that is a legitimate thing for a family to inquire about.

The Four-Phase Design and the Main Findings

Researchers at the University of California Irvine School of Medicine ran a four-phase quality-improvement study at two nursing homes, using data collected between March 2019 and April 2021. The phases were implemented in sequence: universal decolonization alone, routine care as the control, once-daily enhanced cleaning alone, and decolonization combined with enhanced cleaning.

The measured outcomes were carriage of multidrug-resistant organisms on resident skin and in nostrils, and contamination of high-touch objects in bedrooms and common areas.

In adjusted models, decolonization alone was associated with a 59 percent reduction in carriage compared with the control phase and a 64 percent reduction compared with enhanced cleaning, CIDRAP reported in its summary of the findings. Enhanced cleaning alone did not reduce carriage, and it added no benefit when combined with decolonization.

Decolonization in practice meant chlorhexidine used for routine bathing and showering, paired with a nasal iodophor such as povidone-iodine on a defined schedule. It is a resident-level intervention rather than an environmental one, which is precisely why the result is informative.

Shared Spaces Told a Different Story

Bedroom contamination followed the same pattern as skin carriage. Decolonization alone reduced it by 84 percent compared with control and by 74 percent compared with enhanced cleaning, while enhanced cleaning alone produced no reduction and added nothing to decolonization.

Common areas broke the pattern. There, the combined intervention reduced contamination better than either approach alone.

The logic is intuitive once stated. If bacteria on surfaces originate primarily from the people who touch them, reducing what residents carry reduces what ends up on the bed rail. Common areas gather traffic from many residents and staff over a day, and surface disinfection reaches contamination that resident-level treatment cannot.

The authors framed the practical implication in resource terms. Writing in JAMA Network Open, they noted that implementing multiple strategies is expensive and resource intensive, and that “it is necessary to prioritize the most effective strategies.” Their conclusion was that resource-constrained settings should prioritize decolonization alongside targeted disinfection in shared spaces after activities.

Families Choosing or Monitoring a Facility

Nothing here is a diagnosis or a treatment instruction, and no family should attempt decolonization on their own. Chlorhexidine and nasal antiseptics used in these protocols are administered under a facility program with clinical oversight, and improvising carries risks including skin reactions and allergic responses.

What a family can do is ask. Reasonable questions at a care conference include whether the facility uses chlorhexidine bathing, whether it has a nasal decolonization protocol, how it handles residents returning from hospital stays, and how it monitors infection rates. Facilities with active programs generally answer readily.

The stakes are concrete for people with the highest exposure to health care. Residents who move between hospital and nursing home, those with indwelling devices such as urinary catheters or feeding tubes, people with open wounds or pressure injuries, and those who have received multiple courses of antibiotics carry the greatest risk of both colonization and subsequent infection.

Older adults bear a disproportionate share of the burden from resistant infections generally. When a resistant organism causes an infection, treatment options narrow, hospital stays lengthen, and outcomes worsen. Prevention at the carriage stage is the intervention that happens before any of that.

There is a household dimension as well. Residents who return home for weekends or who are discharged to family care can carry these organisms with them, and the standard advice for relatives is unglamorous but effective: hand hygiene before and after contact, careful wound care under a clinician’s direction, and telling any new provider about a known colonization history so treatment decisions account for it.

Limits of a Two-Facility Study

The design constraints deserve to be stated clearly rather than buried. This was a quality-improvement study at two facilities, not a randomized controlled trial across many sites, as McKnight’s Long-Term Care News noted in its account of the design.

Phases were implemented sequentially over roughly two years, which means anything else that changed over that period, including staffing, resident turnover, seasonal factors, and pandemic-era infection control practices, could contribute to the differences observed. Two Southern California nursing homes may not represent facilities elsewhere with different staffing ratios, resident populations, or baseline practices.

The study also measured carriage and contamination rather than infections, hospitalizations, or deaths. Those are reasonable surrogate outcomes because carriage precedes infection, but they are not the same thing.

Importantly, this work builds on a stronger evidence base rather than standing alone. A large cluster-randomized trial in nursing homes previously found that universal decolonization reduced infection-related hospital transfers, with MDRO carriage prevalence falling from about 49 percent to 32 percent in the decolonization group while remaining near 47 percent under routine care. The new study addresses a narrower question about how decolonization compares with enhanced cleaning when resources force a choice.

An accompanying JAMA Network Open commentary framed the work as an argument for hypothesis-driven research in nursing home infection prevention rather than as settled guidance. Current infection control guidance has not changed on the basis of this study, and larger multi-site work would be needed to establish how broadly the comparison holds. For facility administrators weighing where to spend a limited infection prevention budget, the finding offers a data point that was previously missing.

Key Questions Answered

What did the study find? Universal decolonization of residents was associated with a 59 percent reduction in multidrug-resistant organism carriage compared with routine care. Enhanced daily cleaning alone reduced nothing and added no benefit when combined with decolonization.

What is decolonization? Chlorhexidine used for routine bathing and showering, paired with a nasal iodophor such as povidone-iodine on a set schedule, applied to all residents rather than only those known to be colonized.

Did cleaning help at all? In common areas, combining cleaning with decolonization reduced contamination better than either approach alone. For resident skin and bedrooms, cleaning added nothing.

How strong is the evidence? This was a four-phase quality-improvement study at two facilities, not a randomized trial. It measured carriage and surface contamination rather than infections or deaths.

Should families try this at home? No. These are facility-level protocols with clinical oversight. Do not attempt decolonization independently.

What can a family actually do? Ask whether the facility uses chlorhexidine bathing, whether it has a nasal decolonization protocol, how it handles residents returning from hospitals, and how it tracks infection rates.

Which residents face the highest risk? Those moving between hospital and nursing home, people with catheters or feeding tubes, residents with wounds or pressure injuries, and those who have had multiple antibiotic courses.

Source link

August 9, 2026
Congressional Panel Says the United States Is Losing Its Lead on Rare Disease Cures

A congressional advisory commission has concluded that promising rare disease therapies are failing to reach American patients because of gaps in funding, data, regulation and manufacturing, and that the country’s long-held lead in the field is eroding.

The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, a bipartisan legislative advisory body chaired by Sen. Todd Young of Indiana, released a white paper identifying four main hurdles and recommending an all-of-government approach to rare disease. Vice Chair Michelle Rozo said in a statement that emerging biotechnology now makes it possible to cure rare diseases rather than manage symptoms for life, and that what the country lacks is a national strategy to channel that innovation.

These are recommendations to Congress. They are not law, not federal policy, and not binding on any agency, which matters for how families should read the coverage.

Four Barriers the Commission Identified

The commission’s framing is that the science increasingly works while the surrounding system does not.

Research investment is the first barrier. Funding for rare disease work is limited relative to the number of conditions, and the large majority of rare diseases still have no FDA-approved treatment more than four decades after the Orphan Drug Act was enacted in 1983.

Data and trial design form the second. Rare disease information sits in scattered registries, individual academic centers and disconnected health systems. The commission’s rare disease white paper argues that new statistical models better suited to small populations are needed, that the FDA should standardize how it handles variability in data from small groups, and that limited patient numbers may require new trial designs and individualized standards.

Regulatory capacity is the third. The commission flagged persistent staffing shortages and knowledge gaps at the FDA that leave the agency less able to assess new technologies, noting that review teams often lack expertise in rare diseases, cell and gene therapy and data science, and that high turnover drains institutional knowledge. Thousands of FDA employees departed or were laid off over the past year, and the agency has since said it is looking to hire roughly 2,200 people.

Manufacturing constraints are the fourth. Producing a therapy for a very small patient population is a different engineering problem from mass production, and capacity for it is limited.

Two Offices It Wants Congress to Create

The commission’s central structural recommendation is not new, which is part of its argument.

It points back to two proposals from its April 2025 final report: a National Biotechnology Coordination Office to align work across federal agencies and streamline regulatory structures, and a biopharmaceutical manufacturing center of excellence to improve the reliability and efficiency of production methods while engaging regulators early. Both have already been introduced as legislation, including the National Biotechnology Initiative Act of 2025, and neither has been enacted.

It also recommends that Congress urge the FDA to finalize its platform technology designation program, which allows validated data from one product to carry over to others built on the same platform. That program launched in 2024 and has had a complicated early record.

The commission situates all of this as a national security question, arguing that developers are increasingly taking work to countries including China and Australia. China’s share of the drug pipeline rose sharply over the past decade, reaching 30 percent of the global drug development pipeline from about 6 percent ten years earlier.

That framing is a choice. Readers can find the identified barriers real while recognizing that the national security packaging reflects the commission’s mandate.

Recommendations Are Not Law

This limitation belongs stated plainly rather than at the end.

An advisory commission produces analysis and recommendations. Congress may act on them, may act on some of them in modified form, or may do nothing. The two offices it recommends have been sitting in introduced legislation without passage, which is a useful indicator of how long this can take.

The report also does not evaluate whether any specific therapy works or should be approved. It is about the system that produces therapies, not about clinical evidence for particular products.

Some federal activity is already moving in adjacent directions. The FDA announced a framework earlier this year aimed at accelerating development of individualized therapies for ultra-rare diseases, inspired in part by the case of an infant treated with a personalized gene-editing therapy, and the commission welcomed FDA’s proposed trial reforms for modernizing clinical trials and prioritizing supply chain security.

Meaning for Families Living with Rare Disease

Nothing in this report changes any patient’s care, and no therapy becomes available because of it.

What families can act on is the part of the problem the report identifies as fragmented data. Enrolling in a disease-specific patient registry is free, takes little time, and is how researchers identify candidates when a trial does open. Many rare disease patient organizations maintain them, and a treating specialist can usually point to the right one.

Genetic diagnosis is the prerequisite for nearly everything else. Patients commonly report years between symptom onset and a confirmed diagnosis, and a therapy cannot be designed or matched without knowing the specific variant. Anyone with an undiagnosed condition suspected to be genetic can ask a clinician about referral to a clinical geneticist or to an undiagnosed diseases program.

ClinicalTrials.gov lists trials by condition and can be checked periodically, since rare disease trials open and close with little publicity. A specialist can assess whether any are appropriate.

Families should be cautious about clinics offering gene therapy or experimental treatments outside registered clinical trials, which operate without the safety oversight legitimate programs require. Cost and coverage questions for approved orphan drugs are worth raising early with a specialty pharmacy, since manufacturer assistance programs and foundation grants exist for many of them.

The bottom line: a bipartisan congressional advisory commission identified limited research funding, fragmented data and trial design problems, regulatory capacity gaps at the FDA, and manufacturing constraints as barriers keeping rare disease therapies from patients; its recommendations are proposals to Congress that have already been introduced without passing, and the most useful step families can take now is genetic diagnosis and registry enrollment.

Key Questions Answered

Who produced the report? The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, a bipartisan advisory body to Congress chaired by Sen. Todd Young with Michelle Rozo as vice chair. It released a white paper on rare disease therapy development.

What barriers did it identify? Limited research investment, fragmented data and trial design challenges in small populations, regulatory capacity gaps at the FDA including staffing shortages and missing expertise, and manufacturing constraints.

What did it recommend? An all-of-government approach, including a National Biotechnology Coordination Office and a biopharmaceutical manufacturing center of excellence, and urging the FDA to finalize its platform technology designation program.

Are those recommendations new? No. Both offices were proposed in the commission’s April 2025 final report and have been introduced as legislation, including the National Biotechnology Initiative Act of 2025, but have not been enacted.

Does the report change federal policy? No. It contains recommendations to Congress. Establishing new offices would require legislation and appropriations.

Why frame this as national security? The commission’s mandate is to assess biotechnology’s national security implications. It argues developers are shifting work abroad, noting China’s share of the global drug pipeline reached about 30 percent from roughly 6 percent a decade earlier.

What can families do now? Pursue genetic diagnosis through a clinical geneticist, enroll in disease-specific patient registries, and check ClinicalTrials.gov periodically with a specialist’s guidance.

Source link

August 8, 2026
UCLA Wins $3.9 Million to Test Drugs That Might Make Melanoma Immunotherapy Work for More Patients

Immune checkpoint inhibitors transformed melanoma treatment. They also leave a large share of patients behind, and figuring out what to do for those patients is the central unsolved problem in the field.

UCLA researchers have received a five-year, $3.9 million grant from the National Cancer Institute to work on it. The award goes to Cristina Puig-Saus, an associate professor of microbiology, immunology and molecular genetics and surgical oncology at the David Geffen School of Medicine and an investigator at the UCLA Health Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, according to UCLA Health. She is also a member of the UCLA Broad Stem Cell Research Center and the UCLA Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy.

This is funding for research, not a result. Nothing has been shown to help any patient, and the work described is preclinical.

The Grant Is About Fixing Non-Response, Not Explaining It

A distinction worth drawing precisely, because it changes what to expect from this work.

The project is not primarily a study of why some patients respond, and others do not. It is drug development aimed at overcoming barriers already identified. Using a drug screening platform developed in the Puig-Saus laboratory to test thousands of compounds, the team identified two candidates, and the two work by different routes.

One appears to strengthen the interaction between T cells and cancer cells, helping the immune system mount a more effective attack. The other makes tumor cells more susceptible to destruction by T cells without directly altering the immune cells themselves. That second approach is notable because it sidesteps the problem of a patient’s T cells being exhausted or scarce.

The funding will support testing whether those compounds boost the effectiveness of existing immunotherapies in preclinical melanoma models, investigating how the drugs work, and evaluating their potential to be used safely. Puig-Saus has said that because the compounds are designed to work alongside existing immunotherapies, the approach could potentially apply across many cancer types.

Why So Many Patients Do Not Respond

The underlying problem is worth explaining, because it is what any approach has to solve.

Checkpoint inhibitors work by releasing the brakes on T cells so they can attack tumors. That only helps if T cells can find the tumor in the first place. Two failure modes dominate.

The first is recognition. T cells often struggle to identify cancer cells, particularly when tumors reduce the display of the surface molecules that mark a cell as abnormal. A tumor the immune system cannot see is not helped by removing a brake.

The second is evasion. Tumors evolve under immune pressure. They can lose the specific proteins T cells were targeting, recruit suppressive cells, or create a local environment that exhausts T cells. Tumors described as cold have few infiltrating T cells to begin with.

The scale of the gap is substantial. UCLA has previously reported that 40 percent of patients with melanoma do not respond to checkpoint blockade, with response especially poor in rarer forms including acral melanoma on the palms and soles, uveal melanoma in the eye, and mucosal melanoma.

The Screening Platform Is the Method Worth Noting

How the two candidate compounds were found says something about where cancer drug discovery has moved.

Rather than starting from a hypothesis about a single molecule, the laboratory built a screening platform capable of testing thousands of compounds for effects on the interaction between T cells and cancer cells. That approach asks which compounds change the behavior of the system, then works backward to understand why.

The advantage is that it can surface candidates nobody would have predicted from existing biology. The trade-off is that a compound identified this way arrives without a fully worked-out mechanism, which is precisely why part of the grant is devoted to investigating how the drugs work rather than only whether they work.

That mechanistic question is not academic. Understanding how a compound acts is what allows researchers to predict side effects, identify which patients might benefit, and design sensible combinations with existing immunotherapies.

The Timeline for Anything Reaching Patients

Preclinical grants are frequently reported in ways that imply proximity to treatment, and the arithmetic does not support that.

Five years of preclinical work would be followed, if results justify it, by formal toxicology studies, manufacturing under regulated conditions, and an investigational new drug application before a first human trial. That first trial would test safety and dosing rather than benefit. Efficacy testing would follow.

Most compounds entering this pipeline do not reach patients. That is not pessimism about this particular project; it is the base rate, and it is why the honest framing is that federal funding has been committed to a promising question.

What patients with melanoma can act on is different. Checkpoint inhibitors, targeted therapies for BRAF-mutant disease, and tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte therapy are all available now depending on tumor characteristics and prior treatment. Molecular testing of the tumor determines which apply.

For patients whose disease has progressed on checkpoint inhibitors, clinical trials are frequently the most substantive option, and enrollment is concentrated at academic and NCI-designated cancer centers. The same laboratory is separately advancing an experimental CAR T cell therapy for melanoma toward a trial, which is the kind of option worth asking an oncologist about directly.

Melanoma prevention and early detection remain the most effective interventions available. Anyone noticing a mole that changes in size, shape, or color, has an irregular border or uneven color, or looks different from other moles should have it examined. Early-stage melanoma is frequently curable with surgery alone.

This article is general information and is not medical advice.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was funded? A five-year, $3.9 million National Cancer Institute grant to Cristina Puig-Saus at UCLA.

What will the money support? Preclinical testing of two compounds identified through a drug screening platform, aimed at boosting existing immunotherapies in melanoma models.

How do the two compounds differ? One strengthens the interaction between T cells and cancer cells. The other makes tumor cells more vulnerable to T cells without altering the immune cells.

Why do checkpoint inhibitors fail in some patients? T cells often cannot recognize cancer cells, and tumors evolve to evade immune attack. UCLA has reported that 40 percent of melanoma patients do not respond.

Has anything been shown to work? No. This is funding for research. No patient benefit has been demonstrated.

When could this reach patients? Not for many years, if at all. Preclinical work precedes toxicology, manufacturing, and first-in-human safety trials.

What can melanoma patients do now? Ask about molecular testing, currently approved options, and open clinical trials, particularly at NCI-designated centers.

Source link

August 7, 2026
A Smuggling Prosecution Over Inactivated Mpox Samples Has Scientists Warning About Outbreak Preparedness

Two National Institutes of Health virologists have pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiring to smuggle mpox samples into the United States, in a case that a dozen scientists interviewed by KFF Health News say has less to do with public danger than with the paperwork that governs how American laboratories study overseas outbreaks.

The samples were inactivated. The FBI’s own testing confirmed it, and one of the charged researchers helped develop the inactivation technique. That detail sits at the center of why the prosecution has unsettled the infectious disease research community.

The practical stakes for households are indirect but real. The pipeline that produces diagnostic tests for emerging viruses runs through exactly this kind of specimen transfer, and researchers say the case is already changing how willing they are to participate.

The Case as Charged

Vincent Munster, chief of the virus ecology section at NIH’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana, and Claude Kwe, a research fellow working under him, were stopped at Detroit Metropolitan Airport on January 25, arriving on a flight from Paris after nine days in the Republic of the Congo.

They were arrested on June 2, when a criminal complaint was unsealed in federal court in Detroit charging conspiracy to smuggle mpox into the United States and lying to border agents. According to the complaint, the two told customs officials that the tubes in their luggage held diagnostic reagents. Each faces a maximum of five years.

The Justice Department’s announcement said FBI testing had confirmed the viruses were inactivated but that the scientists jeopardized Americans’ safety. Jerome Gorgon, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, said the researchers had smuggled viral pathogens on a packed commercial airplane from an outbreak.

Federal code requires researchers to register and certify inactivated viruses. The complaint states the pair lacked appropriate documents. Both scientists have been suspended and barred from the laboratory campus during an internal investigation, as MedicalDaily reported. Kwe’s federal community defender has said only that his client is presumed innocent and that comment should await further proceedings.

The Reason Laboratories Bring Samples Home

Studying an outbreak from a distance has limits. Developing a diagnostic test that reliably detects a circulating strain requires working with material from that strain, and validating a laboratory method requires the same.

Several scientists told KFF Health News that the specimens Munster and Kwe carried were most likely intended for exactly the diagnostic development purpose stated to customs officers. Tracking viral evolution, evaluating whether existing tests still detect new variants, and assessing whether vaccines and treatments remain effective all depend on access to current specimens from where transmission is occurring.

This work is regulated rather than freewheeling. Import permits, select agent rules, inactivation certification, institutional biosafety review and hazardous materials shipping requirements all apply, and researchers typically coordinate them weeks in advance with an institution’s biosafety office. The allegation here is a failure to satisfy those requirements, not an allegation that the material itself was dangerous.

A Pattern Researchers Say They Recognize

The case follows a series of prosecutions involving biological material carried or shipped by scientists, several brought by the same US attorney’s office in the Eastern District of Michigan. Earlier cases involved Chinese nationals at a University of Michigan laboratory and a Russian-born Harvard researcher stopped with frog embryos.

Reporting by KFF Health News, published through CNN, found that a dozen scientists interviewed characterized the arrests as part of a broader campaign, arguing that any errors involved were procedural and posed no threat to the public.

The reaction inside the field is about credibility as much as law. Kim Hasenkrug, an NIH scientist emeritus who worked at Rocky Mountain Laboratories for 31 years, said the episode gives ammunition to people trying to stop this valuable research and sows distrust even among people who had trusted the laboratory in the past.

NIH has said it activated established notification procedures and is cooperating with law enforcement, while declining further comment.

The Downstream Effect on Detection Speed

The concern researchers raise is not about this case’s outcome. It is about what other scientists conclude from watching it.

If participating in an international outbreak response carries perceived legal exposure, fewer researchers volunteer, fewer specimens move, and the interval between a new pathogen appearing somewhere and a validated test existing everywhere gets longer. That interval is what determines how early an outbreak is caught in a US emergency department.

Funding is compounding the problem. Scientists told KFF Health News that cuts to US foreign aid and research funding have left tens of millions of dollars in gaps in the response to spreading Ebola and mpox outbreaks.

None of this is measurable yet, and it would be overstating the evidence to claim detection has already slowed. What can be said is that the researchers doing this work say the deterrent is real, and that no formal change to import rules or NIH collaboration policy has been announced.

For readers, mpox risk in the United States remains concentrated in specific exposure contexts rather than general community spread, and CDC guidance on vaccination for people at higher risk has not changed as a result of this case. The next developments to watch are further court proceedings, reported from Detroit, and any policy guidance from NIH or HHS on international specimen transport.

Frequently Asked Questions

Were the samples dangerous? FBI testing confirmed the mpox virus in the vials was inactivated. One of the charged researchers helped develop the inactivation method.

What are the charges? Conspiracy to smuggle and lying to federal agents. Each carries a maximum of five years. Both defendants pleaded not guilty.

Why do researchers import virus samples? To develop and validate diagnostic tests, track viral evolution and assess whether existing vaccines and treatments remain effective against circulating strains.

Is that legal? Yes, with permits, inactivation certification, and proper declaration. The allegation is that those requirements were not met.

Does this affect my mpox risk? No. The case does not change transmission risk or CDC vaccination guidance for people at higher exposure risk.

Has anything about research rules changed? No formal change to import requirements or NIH collaboration policy has been announced. Both scientists are suspended pending an internal investigation.

What happens next? The case proceeds through federal court in the Eastern District of Michigan.

Source link

August 6, 2026
Outdoor Crews Absorb the Highest Smoke Doses, and Respirator Fit Decides How Much Protection They Get

While households in Spokane County are being told to close windows and run filtration, an orchard crew and a framing crew are working outside in the same air. They will absorb a dose of fine particulate matter that no amount of household advice addresses, because the advice assumes you can go indoors.

The difference is not small, and it comes from two multipliers stacked on each other.

The first is time. A resident who makes two short trips outside might accumulate 30 minutes of exposure. A crew works eight to ten hours in it. The second is breathing rate. Physical labor raises minute ventilation substantially, meaning a worker moves several times more air through their lungs per hour than someone at rest. Every additional liter carries the same particle concentration.

Multiply those together and an outdoor worker on a bad smoke day can inhale many times more PM2.5 than a sedentary adult in the same ZIP code. That is why state health officials count outdoor workers among the groups most at risk from smoke, and why Washington wrote a rule specifically for them.

The State Rule Is A Ladder, Not A Switch

Washington is one of only a handful of states with an enforceable wildfire smoke standard. There is no federal OSHA standard for wildfire smoke, which means a crew’s protections depend heavily on which side of a state line they are working on.

Under chapter 296-820 WAC, employer obligations escalate at defined PM2.5 concentrations rather than turning on at a single trigger. The rule tracks the hourly PM2.5 average in micrograms per cubic meter, with corresponding AQI values.

At 20.5 to 35.4 micrograms, roughly AQI 72 to 100, employers must notify workers of conditions, ensure only trained employees work outdoors, consider exposure controls, and are encouraged to provide N95 respirators at no cost on request.

At 35.5 to 250.4 micrograms, roughly AQI 101 to 350, employers must implement exposure controls and make N95 respirators available at no cost for voluntary use. This is the band that covers most smoke days.

At 250.5 to 500.3 micrograms, roughly AQI 351 to 848, employers must distribute N95S directly to each exposed employee rather than simply making a supply available, must encourage their use, and must ensure access to clean air.

From 500.4 micrograms up, employers must implement a complete required-use respiratory protection program including fit testing, medical evaluations, and clean-shaven use, unless exposure totals 15 minutes or less over 24 hours. At 555 micrograms and above, the required respirator must carry an assigned protection factor of 25 or more, which means something more protective than a filtering facepiece.

Oregon operates a separate rule with different trigger points. A contractor whose crews cross the Columbia River cannot run one plan written to one state’s numbers.

Voluntary Use and Required Use Diverge on Fit

This is the part most often misunderstood, and it determines how much a respirator actually accomplishes.

An N95 works by forming a seal against the face so air passes through the filter media rather than around the edges. A fit test verifies that a specific model and size seals on a specific person. Under the rule, a full respiratory protection program with fit testing and medical evaluation applies when PM2.5 reaches 500.4 micrograms or when the employer chooses to require respirator use. Below that, use is voluntary and fit testing is not required.

That means on the vast majority of smoke days, workers are wearing respirators that have never been verified to seal on their faces. The rule acknowledges this and tells workers that even without a fit test, they can take steps to improve the seal.

Those steps are practical. Both straps go around the head, not looped over the ears, with one above and one below the ears. The metal nose clip is molded to the bridge of the nose with two hands rather than pinched with one. A seal check follows: cover the respirator, exhale gently, and feel for air escaping at the edges or fogging on glasses.

Facial hair is the variable nobody enjoys discussing. Stubble and beards break the seal along the jaw and cheeks, and no adjustment fixes it. Where respirator use is required, workers must be clean-shaven. There is one exception worth knowing: loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators do not depend on a facial seal, which makes them the practical option for workers who cannot or will not shave.

Respirators also increase breathing resistance. Anyone with a heart or lung condition should ask a clinician whether wearing one during physical work is appropriate, since the added effort places its own demand on the cardiovascular system.

Dust Masks and KN95s Are Not Substitutes

Washington’s Labor and Industries guidance is unusually blunt here, and the distinction matters because job sites are full of masks that do nothing for smoke.

Bandanas, scarves, facemasks and t-shirts worn over the nose and mouth “do not provide any protection against wildfire smoke,” according to L&I, and facemasks and dust masks not certified by NIOSH do not adequately protect workers.

KN95s are the trickier case because they look nearly identical to N95s. L&I states that they are not NIOSH-certified and “do not provide protection from wildfire smoke.” A genuine N95 carries NIOSH approval markings printed on the respirator itself. The agency’s position is that a NIOSH-approved N95 is the minimum protection from wildfire smoke.

Questions A Crew Can Ask This Week

Conditions make this immediate. The Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency has an air quality alert in effect with widespread smoke from the local Spokane Complex fires and regional fires, and forecast air quality ranging from Unhealthy to Very Unhealthy as a ridge of high pressure reduces ventilation. Those levels put worksites in the band where N95s must be made available, and potentially into the band where they must be handed to each worker.

Workers in affected areas can ask their employer three specific things without needing to cite the rule by number.

What PM2.5 or AQI figure is the site using, and where does it come from? Employers may use a direct-reading particulate sensor operated under the conditions the rule sets, or rely on published government data. Knowing the source tells a worker whether obligations are being tracked in real time or guessed at.

Are N95S available on site right now, at no cost, and in more than one size? Size availability is the difference between a respirator that seals and one that does not.

Has anyone received wildfire smoke training this season? Training is a prerequisite for outdoor work under the rule at the lowest threshold, and employers must also notify workers each time conditions cross a threshold.

Workers should watch for coughing, chest tightness, wheezing, headache, dizziness, and unusual fatigue, and report symptoms rather than working through them. Difficulty breathing, chest pain, or confusion require immediate medical attention. Workers with asthma or COPD should keep rescue medication on their person rather than in a vehicle. This is general information and is not medical advice.

Concerns about employer non-compliance can be raised with Washington L&I, and the rule bars employers from retaliating against workers who raise safety concerns or report symptoms. Agricultural workers are covered by a parallel rule and can request materials in a language they understand.

MedicalDaily will report changes in state occupational smoke standards and any federal rulemaking on wildfire smoke exposure.

Frequently Asked Questions

Why do outdoor workers face higher exposure? They spend full shifts in smoke and breathe far more air per hour because of physical exertion, so cumulative dose is much higher than for most residents.

When must a Washington employer provide N95s? At PM2.5 of 35.5 micrograms or more, roughly AQI 101, employers must make them available at no cost for voluntary use. At 250.5 micrograms they must be distributed directly to each exposed worker.

Do workers get a fit test? Not for voluntary use. Fit testing, medical evaluation, and clean-shaven use apply when respirator use is required, which begins at 500.4 micrograms or when an employer chooses to require it.

Does a KN95 work for smoke? Washington L&I says no. KN95s are not NIOSH-certified. Look for NIOSH approval markings printed on the respirator.

What about a beard? Facial hair breaks the seal. Loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirators are the exception because they do not depend on a facial seal.

Is there a federal rule? No federal OSHA wildfire smoke standard exists. Protections depend on state rules, and Washington and Oregon use different thresholds.

What symptoms should prompt stopping work? Difficulty breathing, chest pain, dizziness or confusion require immediate medical attention. Persistent cough or wheeze should be reported rather than worked through.

Source link

August 5, 2026
Senators Demand Records from Three Medicare Advantage Insurers on How Post-Hospital Care Gets Denied

Two senators have demanded that the three largest Medicare Advantage insurers turn over internal records showing exactly how they decide whether to pay for care after a hospital stay, including any use of algorithms or software to judge medical necessity.

The July 14 letters from Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri went to UnitedHealthcare, Humana and CVS Health, and covered decisions on skilled nursing facilities, inpatient rehabilitation facilities and long-term acute care hospitals dating back to January 2023. The insurers were given until July 28 to respond.

The households at stake are specific. These are families deciding, often within 48 hours of a hospital discharge, whether a parent goes to a rehabilitation facility or comes home. A denial at that moment reshapes the decision, and federal auditors have found that most of those denials do not survive an appeal.

The Scope of What Is Being Asked

The senators, who sit on the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, requested records on each company’s process for authorizing or covering post-acute care, an inventory of the predictive technologies each uses, and confirmation of whether it remains company policy that a final denial cannot be made by artificial intelligence.

That last question is the sharpest one. It asks the companies to restate a commitment on the record rather than in a press release.

In their letter to Humana, the senators wrote that without comprehensive reporting requirements, Medicare Advantage insurers “are able to hide the full extent of denials of care.” The subcommittee’s announcement framed the request as testing claims the companies have made since a 2024 subcommittee report that they are reducing prior authorization burdens.

What Federal Auditors Found First

The letters follow two reports published on June 8 by the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, which examined prior authorization data from 19 Medicare Advantage insurers using June 2024 records.

One report found that UnitedHealthcare, Humana and CVS denied admission requests to long-term acute care hospitals and inpatient rehabilitation facilities at higher rates than their peers. The letter to UnitedHealthcare cited a finding that the company denied 66 percent of inpatient rehabilitation facility admission requests, against an average of 41 percent across 16 smaller insurers.

The second report found the three insurers collectively denied 12 percent of skilled nursing facility requests. Humana denied 13.5 percent of all such requests. Nearly all appealed denials were later overturned. Both reports flagged the role of NaviHealth, a utilization management vendor owned by UnitedHealth’s Optum unit.

The cost context is part of why insurers scrutinize these admissions. Medicare’s average cost for a post-hospital rehabilitation stay ranged from roughly $16,000 to $49,000 in 2023, and insurers argue that variation in price and quality among facilities justifies review. Both OIG reports are posted publicly.

That overturn rate is the number that matters most to families. A denial that gets reversed on appeal still delayed care while the appeal ran, and comparatively few patients file one.

The Limits of a Congressional Records Demand

A letter from a subcommittee is not a subpoena, not a regulation, and not a lawsuit. It carries no automatic penalty, and companies routinely respond with material designated confidential.

What an inquiry of this kind can produce is a public record. The subcommittee’s October 2024 report was built from more than 280,000 pages of internal documents obtained the same way, and it established the denial-rate comparisons that federal auditors later echoed. Documents gathered now could support a future public report, a hearing, or legislation.

What it cannot do is reverse anyone’s denial. No individual patient’s coverage decision changes because of this inquiry, and there is no timeline by which the subcommittee must publish anything.

Separate tracks are moving. The House Ways and Means Committee unanimously approved the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2026, which would standardize electronic prior authorization in Medicare Advantage and require plans to report denial rates to the federal government. The American Medical Association said the vote reflects recognition that prior authorization “too often stands between patients and their physicians.” Federal interoperability rules requiring faster prior authorization decisions also phase in through 2027.

The companies have not been found to have violated any law in connection with this inquiry, and the questions in the letters are allegations and requests rather than findings.

What Families Facing a Discharge Can Do Now

None of this changes the practical playbook for a household in the middle of a discharge decision, and that playbook is worth knowing before it is needed.

Ask the hospital case manager to put the recommended level of post-acute care in writing, with the clinical reasoning attached. That document becomes the backbone of an appeal. Request the denial in writing if one is issued, including the specific coverage criterion cited. File an appeal, and ask about an expedited appeal if the patient is still hospitalized or a delay would jeopardize recovery. Federal auditors found most appealed post-acute denials get overturned, which makes the appeal the single highest-value action available.

Families can also contact their State Health Insurance Assistance Program for free counseling, and can call 1-800-MEDICARE to report a problem.

Nobody should refuse recommended medical care because of a coverage dispute. Decisions about where a patient recovers belong with the clinical team, with the coverage question handled in parallel.

The subcommittee has not announced whether it will publish the material it receives or hold a hearing. MedicalDaily will report on any subcommittee findings, further OIG audits, or floor action on the prior authorization legislation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the senators actually ask for? Records on how each insurer decides post-acute care coverage, an inventory of predictive technologies used, and confirmation of whether final denials can be made by artificial intelligence.

Which insurers received the letters? UnitedHealthcare, Humana and CVS Health, the three largest Medicare Advantage organizations.

What did federal auditors find? Two June reports found the three insurers denied post-acute admission requests at higher rates than peers, and that nearly all appealed skilled nursing denials were later overturned.

Does this change anyone’s coverage? No. A congressional records request has no effect on an individual coverage decision.

What should a family do if post-hospital care is denied? Request the denial in writing with the criterion cited, ask the hospital case manager for written clinical reasoning, and file an appeal, including an expedited appeal if a delay would harm recovery.

Are the insurers accused of breaking the law? No. The letters request information and cite audit findings. No legal violation has been established in connection with this inquiry.

Is legislation moving? The House Ways and Means Committee approved the Improving Seniors’ Timely Access to Care Act of 2026, which would standardize electronic prior authorization and require denial-rate reporting. It has not become law.

Source link

August 4, 2026
Patients Waiting Out Drug Shortages Have a Stake in an Obscure FDA Registration Proposal

A quiet FDA rulemaking would require more foreign drug plants to register. Better upstream visibility is how shortages get caught earlier.

Source link

August 3, 2026
Voters Put Preventing Maternal Deaths at the Top of Their Health Agenda, and Federal Data Show 649 Women Died in 2024

Asked to name their top two priorities for policymakers on maternal health, registered voters put preventing maternal deaths first, at 32 percent, ahead of early care and intervention during pregnancy at 22 percent.

The survey, released July 30 by the advocacy organization Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies America and conducted by KAConsulting, polled 1,001 registered voters nationwide between July 12 and 16, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. Because it was commissioned by an organization advocating for maternal health policy, its framing and question wording reflect that purpose, and the findings should be read as advocacy polling rather than independent research.

What makes the result worth reporting is that federal surveillance data exist to check it against. Opinion tells you what people want addressed. Vital statistics tell you what is actually happening.

The Federal Numbers Behind the Priority

The National Center for Health Statistics published final 2024 maternal mortality data in March. In 2024, 649 women died from maternal causes in the United States, compared with 669 the year before. The rate was 17.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, which NCHS described as not significantly lower than the 2023 rate of 18.6.

That word matters. The apparent decline is within the range of statistical noise. NCHS notes that maternal mortality rates fluctuate year to year because the absolute number of events is relatively small, and because accuracy in recording maternal deaths on death certificates remains an ongoing data-quality problem the agency is still working on.

The disparities are larger than the year-to-year movement. For Black non-Hispanic women, the 2024 rate was 44.8 deaths per 100,000 live births, three times the rate of 14.2 for white non-Hispanic women. Changes from 2023 to 2024 across racial groups were not statistically significant.

Age is the other major gradient. Women 40 and older had a maternal mortality rate of 62.3 per 100,000, nearly five times the rate of 13.7 among women younger than 25. Women aged 25 to 39 fell at 16.5.

Two Different Federal Counts, and Only One Measures Preventability

Readers encountering different maternal death figures are usually seeing two separate systems, and the distinction matters for the question the poll asked.

The NCHS figures above count maternal deaths, defined internationally as deaths during pregnancy or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy from causes related to pregnancy. That is a vital statistics count drawn from death certificates.

A second system, Maternal Mortality Review Committees, examines pregnancy-related deaths, which include deaths up to one full year after the end of pregnancy. These committees are multidisciplinary panels that review individual cases in detail, and they are the only source that assigns preventability determinations and issues recommendations. CDC funds this work through the ERASE MM program, which supports committees across most states and territories.

That second system is what the poll’s language about “preventing” maternal deaths actually maps onto. A vital statistics count establishes how many women died. A review committee establishes whether the death could have been avoided and what would have changed the outcome. Congress reauthorized the Preventing Maternal Deaths Act in February 2026 through 2030, with $113.5 million appropriated to the account funding this work.

Where the Poll and the Data Line Up

Several of the specific policies voters endorsed correspond to problems the surveillance data identify.

Eighty-eight percent of respondents supported expanding specialty care and telehealth for women with high-risk pregnancies in rural and underserved communities. Access to risk-appropriate care is a recurring theme in review committee findings, and rural obstetric unit closures have lengthened travel distances for delivery in many states.

Eighty-seven percent supported a whole-health approach including maternal mental health, nutrition, and chronic disease management. That aligns with the extended one-year window review committees use, since deaths in the later postpartum period frequently involve mental health conditions, substance use, and cardiovascular disease rather than delivery complications.

Across 15 policy proposals tested, 13 drew support from at least 80 percent of respondents, all 15 drew at least 72 percent, and 79 percent said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate supporting them. Fifty-five percent held an unfavorable view of the U.S. health care system overall, and 51 percent viewed it unfavorably specifically on care for women.

One figure in the poll should be handled carefully. Seventy-two percent said they were more likely to support reforms after being told maternal mortality and morbidity cost the economy $165 billion in 2020. Questions that present a fact before asking for a response measure persuasion, not baseline opinion, and should not be reported as if they measured the latter.

What Patients and Families Can Do with This

Nothing in polling changes an individual’s risk. What does change outcomes is recognizing warning signs and being heard when reporting them.

CDC’s Hear Her campaign identifies urgent maternal warning signs that warrant immediate care during pregnancy and for a full year afterward. They include severe headache that will not go away, changes in vision, trouble breathing, chest pain or a racing heart, severe belly pain, a fever of 100.4 degrees or higher, extreme swelling of hands or face, thoughts of harming oneself or the baby, and heavy bleeding.

The one-year window is the part most often missed. Postpartum visits frequently stop at six weeks, while a substantial share of pregnancy-related deaths occur later. Anyone who gave birth within the past year and develops these symptoms should say so explicitly when seeking care, because clinicians who do not know about a recent pregnancy may not consider pregnancy-related causes.

Practical steps include identifying the nearest hospital with obstetric capability before delivery, particularly in rural areas, and asking about postpartum Medicaid coverage, which most states have extended to 12 months. Patients whose symptoms are dismissed can ask for the concern to be documented in the chart, request a second opinion, or contact the hospital’s patient advocate.

What happens next is a data question. NCHS publishes provisional maternal mortality estimates on a rolling basis and final annual figures with roughly a 15-month lag, meaning 2025 final data are not yet available. Whether the flat trend of the past two years turns into a genuine decline will not be answerable for at least another year.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the poll find? Registered voters named preventing maternal deaths their top maternal health priority for policymakers at 32 percent, followed by early care and intervention during pregnancy at 22 percent.

Who conducted it? KAConsulting for Healthy Moms, Healthy Babies America, an advocacy organization. It surveyed 1,001 registered voters July 12 to 16, 2026, with a margin of error of 3 percentage points.

How many women die from maternal causes? Federal data recorded 649 maternal deaths in 2024, a rate of 17.9 per 100,000 live births, which NCHS said was not significantly different from 2023.

How large are the racial disparities? Black non-Hispanic women had a rate of 44.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2024, three times the rate of 14.2 among white non-Hispanic women.

Why do different maternal death numbers circulate? Vital statistics count deaths within 42 days of pregnancy. Maternal Mortality Review Committees examine pregnancy-related deaths up to one year afterward and assess preventability.

What warning signs require immediate care? Severe persistent headache, vision changes, trouble breathing, chest pain, severe belly pain, fever of 100.4 or higher, extreme swelling, heavy bleeding, or thoughts of self-harm during pregnancy and for a year after.

How long does postpartum risk last? Up to a full year. Anyone who gave birth in the past 12 months should tell clinicians about the pregnancy when seeking care for new symptoms.

Source link

August 2, 2026