On chronic disease prevention, RFK Jr.'s actions speak louder than words

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s agenda, he says, is chronic disease prevention. He wants Americans to eat fewer ultra-processed foods; to decline long-established childhood vaccines against diseases like the measles, which we never see anymore; and to drink public water supplies without fluoride, apparently as a boon to the dental profession. HHS recently announced that it will spend $10-20 million on a "Take Back Your Health Campaign" that is intended to "alert Americans to the role of processed foods in fueling the diabetes epidemic and other chronic diseases, inspire people to take personal responsibility for their diets, and drive measurable improvements in diabetes prevention and national health outcomes."

Diabetes is a big problem. I'm all for preventing diabetes through healthier eating. But the longest-running longitudinal study of diabetes prevention, the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes study, was terminated in March when the Trump administration froze hundreds of millions of dollars in federal health grants to Columbia University, where the study coordinating center is located:

The lapse in funding means that the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study can no longer continue to collect patient data as planned; it can no longer pay staff to do blood work, collect urine samples, scan brains, or conduct neurocognitive tests. Even worse, the study’s existing data are at risk. Scientists need funds to properly store and retrieve samples; they need money to pay for computer servers and to hire statisticians and analysts, who clean and curate the data.

HHS has traditionally relied on panels of non-government experts to guide its work in prevention, and after the DOGE-driven cuts that resulted in the departure of 20 percent of its workforce, it needs outside help more than ever. For decades, five independent scientific advisory panels made evidence-based recommendations on clinical preventive services, community preventive services, newborn screening tests, infection prevention, and immunizations. Two of these panels have already been dissolved, and the remaining three are on life support.

I wrote a Medscape commentary about current threats to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), which include the hobbling and proposed elimination of its convening agency (AHRQ) and a lawsuit that the Supreme Court should decide any day now. The USPSTF's sister panel, the Community Preventive Services Task Force, which "evaluates evidence and recommends effective interventions to improve health in the community, home, school, work, and health care settings," hasn't been convened at all this year.

The Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children (ACHDNC), which since 2003 had been making evidence-based recommendations about a list of conditions for which every newborn should be screened, was disbanded by HHS in April for no particular reason. As a result, states have been left on their own to evaluate new screening tests:

Each year, newborn screening identifies about 14,000 infants with serious conditions that benefit from early intervention. Early detection can prevent death or irreversible harm in disorders like metabolic diseases, immune deficiencies, and muscular atrophies. Eliminating the ACHDNC creates a dangerous vacuum in the nation’s newborn screening system, stalling progress on adding life-saving tests to the RUSP and increasing the risk that diagnoses will be delayed or missed for some babies—with potentially tragic results.

The same fate befell the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC), which was created in 1991 to advise the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on critical infection prevention and control practices. Over the past three-plus decades, HICPAC "advised and worked with the CDC to develop clinical guidelines, training resources, and expert guidance that were subsequently widely used throughout health care settings." Chronic diseases that can be prevented by reducing the risk of transmission in health care include HIV, hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis, and long COVID. HICPAC was dissolved by HHS at the end of March.

Finally, there is the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), which RFK Jr. first bypassed by making unilateral changes to the COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for children and pregnant women, then remade by firing the entire committee and replacing them with a group that includes a physician who proudly identifies as an anti-vaxxer. This morning, 6 former chairs of the ACIP wrote an Op Ed in STAT that warns about millions of Americans losing access to safe, effective vaccines and the ability to develop new ones in response to future infectious threats:

Without transparent, evidence-based processes, vaccines may become inaccessible, unaffordable, or unavailable. Public trust will erode, innovation will stall, and lives will be lost unnecessarily. The systematic unraveling of our vaccine infrastructure endangers our freedom to protect ourselves and our communities. We urge congressional leaders to reflect on how these fragmented decisions collectively dismantle our ability to prevent disease and save lives.

Public health advocates frequently bemoan political obstacles to investing in evidence-based initiatives aimed at preventing chronic diseases. Today we have an HHS Secretary who is clearly interested in chronic disease prevention, but equally uninterested in evidence or established mechanisms for translating evidence into policy. As a former ACIP member recently told STAT, the message is clear: "Scientific expertise is no longer of use" unless it happens to align with what RFK Jr. already believes to be true. His terrible actions speak louder than words.

Pathways to primary care for underserved communities

Several past colleagues in the family medicine department at Georgetown recently published an informative scoping review of specialty disrespect in the medical learning environment. As they point out, specialty disrespect (also known as bad-mouthing) is common, based on "stereotypes, biases, and perceived specialty hierarchies," and play a significant, but not dominant, role in specialty choice. Although I don't recall experiencing overt disrespect when I told residents and attendings at my subspecialist-oriented medical school that I planned to practice primary care, unspoken assumptions about what I'd need to know as a family doctor sometimes led to my being assigned to patients with less challenging medical problems or greater social needs. Most family physicians have at some point heard the old saw "jack of all trades, master of none," which I have come to view as less insulting than is usually intended. (Wouldn't most people prefer to hire a single handyman to make several miscellaneous home repairs rather than a bunch of specialists in each area?)

A research study in Health Affairs charts "physicians' trajectories from medical school graduation through postgraduate training into primary care specialties" for MD, DO, and international medical graduates from 2001-15. The authors term "primary care yield" as the percentage of physicians who start training in primary care and complete it in primary care. So, a family physician who does a geriatric fellowship would count as positive primary care yield, while a physician who starts training in internal medicine and ends up a gastroenterologist would not. Unsurprisingly, they find that 97% of physicians who enter family medicine residency programs become primary care physicians, while the corresponding figures for internal medicine and pediatrics are 35.5% and 54.4%. Schools with primary care pathway programs that send a majority of students into non-family medicine residencies may not be creating future primary care physicians.

It's well documented that schools that are ranked highly by U.S. News & World Report produce a lot of subspecialists, while schools ranked highly by social mission graduate relatively more primary care physicians. A research letter in JAMA Network Open reported that in 2015 and 2020, graduates of U.S. News's top 20 medical schools were less than half as likely to be practicing in socioeconomically deprived areas compared to other medical graduates, and among physicians, family and emergency medicine were the most likely to practice in these areas. 

At the residency level, federal investments in rural and federally qualified health center (FQHC)-based programs have resulted in significant training expansions in underserved settings. Another Health Affairs study documented that the percentages of residency programs with rural and FQHC training sites rose from 6.2% and 3.6%, respectively, in 2008-09 to 14.3% and 11.2% in 2023-24. Training health professionals in FQHCs is essential to staffing those FQHCs and improving community health in the future; when community health centers close, county-level mortality increases, as illustrated in another study. Of note, the Trump administration's HHS reorganization plan and the "one big, beautiful bill" passed by the House of Representatives would eliminate the agency that funds, and most of the funding for, these training programs.

Health professionals speak out against the new nuclear arms race

During the Cold War, the United States and the former Soviet Union amassed nuclear weapon stockpiles with a collective destructive power hundreds of thousands of times that of the two bombs that obliterated the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. After peaking at more than 70,000 in 1986, the absolute number of weapons gradually declined from the implementation of various arms control treaties to 12,331 today. However, as stated plainly in a recent editorial published in more than 120 medical journals worldwide, “This does not mean humanity is any safer.” The authors urged readers to make the elimination of nuclear weapons an urgent public health priority, reiterating a 2023 editorial on similar themes:

Any use of nuclear weapons would be catastrophic for humanity. Even a “limited” nuclear war involving only 250 of the 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world could kill 120 million people outright and cause global climate disruption leading to a nuclear famine, putting 2 billion people at risk. A large-scale nuclear war between the US and Russia could kill 200 million people or more in the near term, and potentially cause a global “nuclear winter” that could kill 5 to 6 billion people, threatening the survival of humanity.

The last of the nuclear arms accords, the New START treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation, is set to expire in 2026. Both countries are spending enormous amounts to modernize their existing arsenals. A 2024 editorial in Science, noting rising tensions between the United States and Russia, China, and North Korea, observed that “the risk of nuclear war has not been so high since the Cuban Missile Crisis.” The historical events depicted in the Academy Award–winning film Oppenheimer are no longer just history; at New Mexico’s Los Alamos National Laboratory, for the first time in decades, the United States has resumed building plutonium cores. Despite safety precautions, factory workers and bystanders will be at high risk of radiation exposure and subsequent cancer, lung, and kidney problems.

The world is woefully unprepared for the health consequences of the use of a single nuclear device, much less a nuclear war. In 2024, the New York City Department of Health held a series of workshops on hospital emergency responses to an improvised nuclear detonation by a nonstate terrorist actor. Health professionals who survive a nuclear explosion (90% of those in Hiroshima were killed instantly) would likely face a catastrophic loss of communications, impassable transportation routes, and “risk their lives amid destroyed infrastructure, dangerous radioactivity, and limited healthcare facilities and supplies.”

At last month’s World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization (WHO) overwhelmingly passed a resolution to update Cold War era reports on the health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons and war by 2029. (The United States was absent, having withdrawn from the WHO in January.) Doctors have been at the forefront of campaigns against nuclear weapons since 1961, when Physicians for Social Responsibility was founded. The organization, which later expanded its list of “gravest threats to health and survival” to include excessive military spending, fossil fuels, and climate change, provides education on the health effects of nuclear testing and reality checks on government messages (eg, duck and cover) that suggest that nuclear war could be survivable. A current exhibit at Harvard University’s Countway Library highlights the social activism of former medical school and public health faculty.

**

This post first appeared on the AFP Community Blog.

Lung cancer screening in primary care: more pragmatic research needed

The US Preventive Services Task Force, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and the American College of Chest Physicians recommend annual low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening for adults 50 to 80 years of age who have at least a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have smoked within the past 15 years. A 2020 meta-analysis of eight randomized controlled trials (summarized in a POEM in American Family Physician) concluded that low-dose CT screening prevents one lung cancer death for every 250 people screened. A 2023 Cochrane for Clinicians article found similar benefits but also noted that for every 10,000 people screened, 363 unnecessary invasive tests are performed. Despite private and public insurance plans fully covering lung cancer screening in the United States, only 10% to 30% of eligible individuals in were receiving it in a recent state-by-state survey.

Barriers to implementing findings from lung cancer screening trials into typical clinical practice include the nonrepresentative nature of research participants (younger, healthier, and less racially and geographically diverse than the target populations) and the superior infrastructure and clinical support available to them. Although an analysis of the National Lung Screening Trial suggested that the eligible people in the United States would experience similar benefits as trial participants, questions about the generalizability of other studies remain.

In a research paper in the January/February 2025 issue of the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, Dr. Erin Hirsch and colleagues rated lung cancer screening trials and the nonrandomized Veterans Health Administration Demonstration Project with an established tool that evaluated each study through a primary care lens. Domains included eligibility, recruitment, setting, organization, flexibility of delivery, flexibility of adherence, follow-up, primary outcome, and primary analysis. The investigators scored studies on a 5-point scale, with 1 being completely explanatory and 5 being completely pragmatic. The mean study scores ranged from 2.12 to 3.33, indicating that even the most pragmatic studies fell well short of simulating conditions in community settings.

A lack of pragmatic research may explain why interventions intended to increase lung cancer screening rates have had mostly disappointing results. A systematic review and meta-analysis of intervention studies identified five randomized controlled trials and one prospective observational study. Interventions included patient navigation, outreach calls, and decision aids; control groups received usual care or informational materials. Only two of the studies found statistically significant increases in participation in the intervention group, and a meta-analysis found no difference overall (relative risk = 1.30; 95% CI, 0.74-2.29). A subgroup analysis suggested that multistep interventions targeting multiple barriers may be more effective than single-step ones.

**

This post first appeared on the AFP Community Blog.

Food for thought on food as medicine

This month, President Trump nominated Dr. Casey Means, a former ear, nose, and throat surgeon who dropped out of residency and reinvented herself as a wellness influencer and New York Times bestselling author, for Surgeon General. I read Means's book, "Good Energy: The Surprising Connection Between Metabolism and Limitless Health," a few months ago. It discourages intake of processed foods, eschews fad diets, aligns with mainstream nutrition guidance (e.g., Michael Pollan's pithy "eat [real] food, not too much, mostly plants"), and has received positive reviews in publications ranging from NPR to Family Medicine.

My main concern about the book is that it seems aimed mostly at well-off households with the health literacy and leisure time to read self-help books and the disposable income to do most of their shopping at farmer's markets and Whole Foods stores. If Dr. Means ends up being confirmed by the Senate, she should consider writing a sequel ("Great Energy"? "Good Energy for the Budget-Conscious"?) for the 11 million families headed by single parents who often work two or more jobs to get by and have fewer options for buying groceries. For these families, the healthiness of food may not be their top priority. A Pew Research Center survey found that overall, Americans ranked taste as the most important factor in choosing food, followed by cost, then healthiness and convenience. So it isn't enough to tell people what foods are best for their health (or make labels on packaged foods simpler to understand); we also need to make the healthy option the default option.

There is good evidence that federal nutrition programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, previously known as "food stamps") and Special Supplemental Nutritional Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) improve health. A Research Letter in JAMA documented increases in food insecurity and days with poor physical health after the end of a temporary pandemic increase to SNAP benefits in March 2023. An Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality evidence synthesis that I previously discussed showed that WIC improves important maternal and child health outcomes. Conversely, a longer-term study suggests that food insecurity in childhood increases cardiovascular risk and obesity in young adulthood, since one is more likely to eat excess food of poor nutritional value if they don't know where their next meal is coming from.

Although I support banning soda purchases from SNAP, eliminating food insecurity by making the program more generous could have an equally beneficial an effect on health. Currently, a four-person household in Pennsylvania must earn less than $62,000 per year to be eligible for SNAP, and the average benefit is $6 per day, or $42 per week. A national program that provided low-income adults with additional vouchers averaging $63 per month for produce purchases (the majority of households were already enrolled in SNAP and/or WIC) led to improvements in food security, diabetes control, weight loss, and blood pressure.

In a recent statement, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force found insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening for food insecurity in health care settings. That doesn't mean that targeted "food as medicine" programs, which should be "understood as complementing and not supplanting existing food and nutrition assistance programs," can't be effective. Ten states have piloted Medicaid managed care projects to address poor nutrition as a health-related social need and use health care dollars to pay for food pharmacies, healthy food vouchers, and medically tailored meals. 

It's worth noting, though, that these promising programs are likely to be defunded if the nearly $1 trillion in Medicaid and SNAP cuts in the recent federal budget bill passed on a party-line vote by the House of Representatives eventually becomes law. Either way, I will continue giving to our local food bank, as the prescription for food insecurity is food, and hungry patients do not make healthy patients.

Fecal immunochemical testing for colorectal cancer is effective and cost-effective

The U.S. is one of only a few countries in the world that relies on colonoscopy as a primary method of screening for colorectal cancer (rather than reserving it for the evaluation of people who test positive on stool-based screenings). I recently wrote a commentary in Medscape about new evidence that supports a continued role for fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) as a colorectal cancer screening test. My article concluded:

When reviewing colorectal cancer screening test choices with patients, family physicians can continue to recommend annual or biennial FIT as a comparable option to colonoscopy. If FIT is selected, we should provide a kit with liquid vial sample collection, if possible, and include a suggested return date in patient instructions. Finally, clinicians in leadership and population health management roles should advocate for cost-effective investments in patient navigation to enhance colorectal cancer screening and diagnostic colonoscopy completion rates, because these initiatives play a crucial role in preventing colorectal cancer deaths.

Exact Sciences, which sells a $600 stool-based screening test that combines FIT with a test for colorectal cancer DNA, would like physicians and patients to believe that its test ("Cologuard") provides superior value to practices and health systems than FIT alone. But an analysis published this week in the Annals of Internal Medicine indicates that it does not. Using data from the original Cologuard diagnostic performance study and a study of a second-generation version (Cologuard Plus), Dr. Hermann Brenner and colleagues at Heidelberg University in German showed that the cost per colorectal cancer detected is 7- to 9-fold higher for Cologuard and Cologuard Plus compared to FIT, depending on what percentage of patients undergo colonoscopy after a positive test result.