UK Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced Wednesday that he will indefinitely extend a ban on puberty blockers for minors under the age of 18. The only exception is for clinical trials.
Puberty blockers will be banned indefinitely in the U.K. for under 18-year-olds, except for clinical trials.
In May of this year, the then-government of Rishi Sunak used emergency legislation to temporarily ban puberty blockers for minors. Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced on Wednesday that he will indefinitely extend the ban on the supply and sale of puberty blockers.
The Department of Health cited the Commission on Human Medicines’ (CHM) expert advice that said there was “currently an unacceptable safety risk in the continued prescription of puberty blockers to children.”
The U.K.’s National Health Service (NHS) already halted the prescription of puberty blockers to children in March. In May, the then-Conservative government introduced a ban, preventing the prescription of puberty blockers by European or private prescribers and legally restricting the NHS’s use of the drugs to clinical trials.
The ban was upheld in July by the High Court after pro-LGBT activists brought a challenge to the ruling because they “were concerned for the safety and welfare of young trans people in the UK.”
The prohibition of prescribing harmful puberty blockers for children was prompted by the Cass Review, an extensive report by pediatrician Dr. Hilary Cass that pointed out the significant risks of the medication and the lack of evidence regarding the alleged benefits of puberty blockers.
Health Secretary Streeting said that he would “always put the safety of children first” and added that his approach would “continue to be informed by Dr [Hilary] Cass’s review, which found there was insufficient evidence to show puberty blockers were safe for under-18s.”
Earlier on the same day that the nationwide ban was announced, the Parliament of Northern Ireland had voted unanimously to permanently ban puberty blockers in order to prevent the province from becoming a “back door” for the distribution of the drugs in the U.K.
The co-founder of the advocacy group “Our Duty,” Keith Jordan, applauded the decision by Northern Ireland to ban the harmful drugs indefinitely.
“This marks a significant step in safeguarding children, preventing Northern Ireland from becoming a ‘back door’ for these unregulated treatments – a concern highlighted by Susie Green’s earlier attempts to circumvent mainland restrictions,” he said.
Susie Green is a transgender activist who set up a clinic in Northern Ireland in an attempt to circumvent the restrictions in mainland Britain.
“However, we must remain vigilant, as the demand for these drugs may drive young people to unregulated, dangerous sources,” Jordan stressed, urging lawmakers to prioritize safeguarding children.
Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.
After the Smith government recently announced its shift to a new approach for funding hospitals, known as “activity-based funding” (ABF), defenders of the status quo in Alberta were quick to argue ABF will not improve health care in the province. Their claims are simply incorrect. In reality, based on the experiences of other better-performing universal health-care systems, ABF will help reduce wait times for Alberta patients and provide better value-for-money for taxpayers.
First, it’s important to understand Alberta is not breaking new ground with this approach. Other developed countries shifted to the ABF model starting in the early 1990s.
Indeed, after years of paying their hospitals a lump-sum annual budget for surgical care (like Alberta currently), other countries with universal health care recognized this form of payment encouraged hospitals to deliver fewer services by turning each patient into a cost to be minimized. The shift to ABF, which compensates hospitals for the actual services they provide, flips the script—hospitals in these countries now see patients as a source of revenue.
In fact, in many universal health-care countries, these reforms began so long ago that some are now on their second or even third generation of ABF, incorporating further innovations to encourage an even greater focus on quality.
For example, in Sweden in the early 1990s, counties that embraced ABF enjoyed a potential cost savings of 13 per cent over non-reforming counties that stuck with budgets. In Stockholm, one study measured an 11 per cent increase in hospital activity overall alongside a 1 per cent decrease in costs following the introduction of ABF. Moreover, according to the study, ABF did not reduce access for older patients or patients with more complex conditions. In England, the shift to ABF in the early to mid-2000s helped increase hospital activity and reduce the cost of care per patient, also without negatively affecting quality of care.
Multi-national studiesontheshift to ABF have repeatedly shown increases in the volume of care provided, reduced costs per admission, and (perhaps most importantly for Albertans) shorter wait times. Studieshavealsoshown ABF may lead to improved quality and access to advanced medical technology for patients.
Clearly, the naysayers who claim that ABF is some sort of new or untested reform, or that Albertans are heading down an unknown path with unmanageable and unexpected risks, are at the very least uninformed.
And what of those theoretical drawbacks?
Some critics claim that ABF may encourage faster discharges of patients to reduce costs. But they fail to note this theoretical drawback also exists under the current system where discharging higher-cost patients earlier can reduce the drain on hospital budgets. And crucially, other countries have implemented policies to prevent these types of theoretical drawbacks under ABF, which can inform Alberta’s approach from the start.
Critics also argue that competition between private clinics, or even between clinics and hospitals, is somehow a bad thing. But all of the developed world’s top performing universal health-care systems, with the best outcomes and shortest wait times, include a blend of both public and private care. No one has done it with the naysayers’ fixation on government provision.
And finally, some critics claim that, under ABF, private clinics will simply focus on less-complex procedures for less-complex patients to achieve greater profit, leaving public hospitals to perform more complex and thus costly surgeries. But in fact, private clinics alleviate pressure on the public system, allowing hospitals to dedicate their sophisticated resources to complex cases. To be sure, the government must ensure that complex procedures—no matter where they are performed—must always receive appropriate levels of funding and similarly that less-complex procedures are also appropriately funded. But again, the vast and lengthy experience with ABF in other universal health-care countries can help inform Alberta’s approach, which could then serve as an example for other provinces.
Alberta’s health-care system simply does not deliver for patients, with its painfully long wait times and poor access to physicians and services—despite its massive price tag. With its planned shift to activity-based funding, the province has embarked on a path to better health care, despite any false claims from the naysayers. Now it’s crucial for the Smith government to learn from the experiences of others and get this critical reform right.
Officials at the the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced a partnership Wednesday to research “root causes of autism spectrum disorder.”
As part of the project, NIH will build a real-world data platform enabling advanced research across claims data, electronic medical records and consumer wearables, according to the agencies.
“We’re using this partnership to uncover the root causes of autism and other chronic diseases,” said HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “We’re pulling back the curtain – with full transparency and accountability – to deliver the honest answers families have waited far too long to hear.”
CMS and NIH will start this partnership by establishing a data use agreement under CMS’ Research Data Disclosure Program focused on Medicare and Medicaid enrollees with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder or ASD.
“This partnership is an important step in our commitment to unlocking the power of real-world data to inform public health decisions and improve lives,” NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya said. “Linking CMS claims data with a secure real-world NIH data platform, fully compliant with privacy and security laws, will unlock landmark research into the complex factors that drive autism and chronic disease – ultimately delivering superior health outcomes to the Americans we serve.”
Researchers will focus on autism diagnosis trends over time, health outcomes from specific medical and behavioral interventions, access to care and disparities by demographics and geography and the economic burden on families and healthcare systems, according to a news release.
