�������ýҕ�l

In June, the Food and Drug Administration's controversial approval of Biogen's aducanumab (marketed as Aduhelm) for Alzheimer's disease stirred up more questions than answers. The biologic was granted accelerated approval despite major questions about its unclear clinical efficacy, safety/risk profile, and the near-unanimous dissenting opinion of the FDA's own advisory committee. Congressional investigations examining the relationship between the FDA and Biogen—including an inquiry by the inspector general—are underway. (Daniel R. George and Dr. Peter J. Whitehouse, 8/20)

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), a British agency charged with developing clinical guidelines for medical conditions, was expected to release new recommendations on August 18 for the treatment of people with chronic fatigue syndrome, also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME/CFS. Instead, it abruptly delayed the move under pressure from powerful medical interests. (David Tuller and Steven Lubet, 8/22)

In the past year, it has been heavily impressed upon Kansas Citians that one’s health is to a significant degree determined by factors beyond one’s control. The COVID-19 era is a key moment to further break down the reactionary notion that personal health choices are all that stands between an individual and optimal physical and mental well-being. It’s also broadened our understanding of how health is also a product of social conditions. (Garrett S. Griffin, 8/22)

For the first time in 30 years — a legal generation — the Supreme Court is poised to revisit the law of abortion rights in a fundamental way. The last time, in 1992, amid expectations that Roe v. Wade might be reversed, the right to choose was saved by an unlikely coalition: Justices Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor, both President Ronald Reagan’s nominees, and David Souter, nominated by President George H.W. Bush, wrote a joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that preserved the essential holding of Roe, which had made abortion a constitutional right in 1973. (Noah Feldman, 8/22)

The pandemic has shown us that it’s time to change the way we get health care and that essential health care, including abortion, has always been out of reach for far too many. As we look ahead to the future of care, the science is clear: medication abortion care is safe and effective, and it’s past time to remove the restrictions on it. Now, actions from the FDA and new research show us that removing the restrictions on medication abortion care has the potential to expand access for many people who need care. The July 2021 special issue of the journal Contraception focuses on the restrictions on medication abortion, mifepristone, including its impacts on safety and efficacy, access to abortion, and burdens on patients and providers. (Kelly Cleland, 8/21)

For the last half-century, Congress has endorsed essentially the same approach to cutting health care costs, an approach that came to be called “managed care” by the mid-1980s. Based on the assumption that U.S. health care costs are double those of other wealthy nations because doctors order services patients don’t need, the solution is to “manage” doctors and provide financial incentives that nudge them to cut services. (Kip Sullivan and James G. Kahn, 8/23)

In the U.S., nearly 1 in 8 couples struggles with infertility. Unfortunately, physicians like me who specialize in reproductive medicine are unable to determine the cause of male infertility around 30% to 50% of the time. There is almost nothing more disheartening than telling a couple “I don’t know” or “There’s nothing I can do to help.” Upon getting this news, couple after couple asks me questions that all follow a similar line of thinking. “What about his work, his cellphone, our laptops, all these plastics? Do you think they could have contributed to this?” (Ryan P. Smith, 8/22)