O. Rose Broderick reports on the health policies and technologies that govern people with disabilities’ lives. Before coming to STAT, she worked at WNYC’s Radiolab and Scientific American, and her story debunking a bogus theory about transgender kids was nominated for a 2024 GLAAD Media Award. You can reach Rose on Signal at rosebroderick.11.

Get your daily dose of health and medicine every weekday with STAT’s free newsletter Morning Rounds. Sign up here.

A newsy week just keeps news-ing! Feeling very thankful to work with such brilliant colleagues, especially when they have contrarian feelings about Sydney Sweeney or cute, furry animals (keep reading until the end). Happy Friday, y’all.

Advertisement

Does Jay Bhattacharya care about health disparities research?

By his own words and work, National Institutes of Health director Jay Bhattacharya cares about racial health inequities.

He’s published at least five papers on the topic, and both the announcement of his appointment to the NIH and his public profile at ex-employer Stanford University state that he’s focused on vulnerable populations. But Bhattacharya’s tenure has seen such science swept up in the Trump administration’s attack on DEI, including widespread cuts to grants for health disparities research.

In recent interviews, public comments, and Senate testimony, he has walked a tightrope on the topic. He publicly states that NIH researchers should be able to consider race as a factor in health studies, but when confronted about cuts to over 1,000 grants mentioning issues such as racism, discrimination, and health equity, Bhattacharya claims they haven’t happened. He has described work examining structural racism’s contribution to poor health as “ideological” and “unscientific,” arguing that the health impact can’t be adequately tested.

Advertisement

A real barn burner from my STAT colleagues about how the NIH’s embattled director has let health disparities research wither during his tenure. Read more here.

Senate committee rejects Trump’s bid to shrink NIH

Senators from both parties endorsed a $400 million increase to the NIH budget on Thursday, rebuking President Trump’s plan to dramatically slash the agency’s spending.

The administration’s proposal slashed the NIH’s budget for the 2026 fiscal year by $18 billion, a 40% decrease. But in remarks during a markup hearing on the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education appropriations bill, senators defended the agency.

The bill headed to the Senate floor for approval retains all 27 NIH institutes and centers, rejecting a White House consolidation effort and the administration’s plan to revamp the way NIH pays universities, medical schools, and other research centers for overhead costs. The committee also rejected the Trump administration’s plans to cap payments for research overhead, also known as indirect costs.

Jonathan Wosen and Marissa Russo have the full breakdown.

Senate snubs new HHS agency focused on chronic disease

Health secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has spent months stumping for a reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services, including the creation of a new flagship agency focused on chronic disease, the Administration for a Healthy America. Senators may have just torpedoed his efforts.

The budget approved Thursday by senators funds programs such as HIV/AIDs prevention and community health centers within their existing agencies. In fact, the lawmakers made no note of AHA at all, despite HHS asking for $20.6 billion for its creation. The agency would have absorbed parts of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and all of agencies such as Health Resources and Services Administration and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

A spokesperson for committee chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) told STAT that the Department of Health and Human Services would have had to submit a formal reorganization plan to Congress and allow six months of consideration, which it did not do. While it might be possible for the department to stand up the agency without Congressional approval, asking lawmakers to authorize it in a budget bill is the most straightforward approach. Read more from STAT’s Chelsea Cirruzzo.

Advertisement

Childhood vaccination rates fall again

U.S. kindergarten vaccination rates fell last year, continuing a yearslong decline that started during the pandemic, according to federal data posted Thursday.

The share of children exempted from vaccine requirements also rose to an all-time high, from 3.7% to 4.1%. The rise led to the third record-breaking year in a row for exemptions, the vast majority of which are for non-medical reasons. And as the U.S. experiences its worst year for measles spread in more than three decades, with more than 1,300 cases so far, 92.5% of 2024-25 kindergartners got their required measles-mumps-rubella shots, down slightly from last year.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention traditionally releases the vaccination coverage data in its flagship publication, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. This year, the agency quietly posted the data online and — when asked about it — emailed a statement. Read more here.

Good genes, bad jeans?

This week, the internet was sent into a tizzy over an American Eagle ad campaign, in which actress Sydney Sweeney explains, “genes are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair color, personality, and even eye color. My jeans are blue.” A narrator then says “Sydney Sweeney has great jeans” as the American Eagle logo flashes, riffing on the homophones “genes” and “jeans.”

Many online commentators picked up on the eerie similarities between the language in the advertisement, and the rhetoric of the eugenics movement — which believed you could solve social problems by making it more difficult for those with “less desirable traits” to reproduce. Whatever your feelings about the Sweeney ad, the idea that genetics are central to who we are is increasingly becoming part of our culture again. It’s ad campaigns, popular song lyrics and new genetic testing services.

There’s also a resurgence of eugenic ideas in the scientific literature and in President Donald Trump’s rhetoric. His communications director has even come out to defend the Sweeney ad from backlash. Click here if you’d like to read a story about Trump’s talk about “bad genes,” and if you want a backstory on the origins of the eugenics movement, listen to this podcast episode.

Advertisement

Raccoons are not our friends

Some people find these masked bandits cute. Having battled with raccoons over garbage, I do not. And as a health reporter, I know they carry some significant human health risks. CDC’s online journal, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, reported on one such risk for children this week, a rare disease called baylisascariasis, which results from the ingestion of roundworms that infected raccoons excrete in copious amounts in their feces. These roundworms can cause permanent neurological damage, and even death.

Two L.A. County children were diagnosed with the condition last September by a savvy doctor. One was a 14-year-old autistic child with a history of pica (an impulse to eat non-food items like soil), the other was a previously healthy 15-month-old. Once diagnosed, the children were treated with an anti-worm agent and corticosteroids. The older child recovered, but a three-month delay in diagnosing the younger child resulted in cognitive, motor, and visual impairments.

Given the ubiquity of raccoons in urban settings, doctors should consider baylisascariasis in young children and people with developmental disabilities if they show signs of progressive neurological deterioration or eosinophilic meningitis, the authors said. — Helen Branswell

What we’re reading