Psychedelics for soldiers
The military could be the proving ground for new psychedelic therapies if Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) can convince his colleagues on the Armed Services Committee to add his amendment to this year’s National Defense Authorization Act.
How so? Crenshaw, a former Navy SEAL who lost an eye fighting in Afghanistan, wants to establish a $15 million-a-year grant program for Phase II clinical trials for service members through 2028.
His goal is to combat a suicide crisis among service members and veterans.
The amendment would allow active service members with certain conditions, such as post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury, to participate in clinical trials of MDMA, psilocybin, ibogaine and DMT, regardless of how those drugs are regulated.
Service members would no longer risk being kicked out of the military for participating.
“We need to study this innovative therapy and give our service members a chance to continue that service when they are treated. They deserve that option, and we should not stand in their way,” Crenshaw said during a news conference Wednesday.
He stood beside a photo of Douglas “Mike” Day, the Navy SEAL his amendment is named after, who died by suicide earlier this year.
Why it matters: Nearly 17 veterans die each day by suicide, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Previous research on MDMA as a treatment for PTSD has shown promise in clinical trials.
Crenshaw’s call to Congress comes during the same week that the Veteran Mental Health Leadership Coalition, an advocacy group, is on the Hill, lobbying for more research into psychedelic therapies and the removal of regulatory barriers that impede researching the drugs for therapeutic use.
What’s next? The Armed Services Committee plans to consider its version of the defense authorization bill on June 21.
Congress has passed the Pentagon policy bill for 62 straight years, so inclusion in the House version would bode well for enactment.
This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care.
States should go easier on drivers with impaired vision, delegates to the American Medical Association’s annual meeting decided this week. The doctors’ group said states should standardize their vision tests for licenses and take into account new vehicle technologies that make driving safer for people who can’t pass current tests.
Unnecessarily denying people a license to drive causes “isolation, depression, and increased expenses due to unnecessary medical visits,” the AMA found.
Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ben Leonard at [email protected], Ruth Reader at [email protected], Carmen Paun at [email protected] or Erin Schumaker at [email protected].
Send tips securely through SecureDrop, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp.
Today on our
Congress is debating whether to extend beyond 2024 pandemic-era rules allowing all Medicare beneficiaries to use telehealth.
One of the thorniest issues is whether that would drive up costs.
The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, which advises lawmakers, offered a solution in a report today: Pay providers less for telehealth services.
MedPAC said the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services should:
– reduce the amount it’s paying for telehealth by rescinding fee increases next year that it adopted during the Covid public health emergency.
– gather more data on costs that providers incur offering telehealth to help shape future payment rates.
– work with Congress to standardize payments for telehealth, including for federally qualified health centers and rural health clinics, to avoid disincentivizing in-person care.
– establish cost-sharing with Medicare beneficiaries to discourage overuse of telehealth.
– investigate clinicians who bill for significantly more virtual care than others.
“We expect the rates for telehealth services to be lower than rates for in-person services because services delivered via telehealth typically do not require the same practice costs as services provided in a physical office,” the advisers said.
Is social media the new tobacco?
That was the case Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) made at the Foreign Policy Global Health Forum this week.
“Like the tobacco industry, these industries have to target young people to get them addicted, get them going, so they’re so used to having this product — whether tobacco or social media in their lives — that they just accept it,” Markey said.
Markey compared social media companies’ effect on youth mental health with the tobacco companies’ on physical health.
Why it matters: As a leading progressive, Markey isn’t known for reaching across the aisle. But when it comes to social media, Markey is looking to make a policy impact.
He called for the passage of legislation he reintroduced last month with Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, to update online data privacy rules to protect children and teenagers.
“We should pass those safeguards immediately or else we’re going to reap a whirlwind of mental health issues for these individuals for generations to come,” he said.
A new CDC study examining 2021 data found that nearly 15 percent of children between 5 and 17 years old in the U.S. had received mental health treatment in the previous 12 months.
Even so: If Congress is to follow the tobacco model in pursuing social media regulation, it could take a while.
Tobacco companies first bowed to regulators in 1998 when they agreed to adhere to advertising restrictions and pay states to fund anti-smoking campaigns.
It wasn’t until 2009 that Congress passed legislation allowing the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco products.
Source: https://www.politico.com/