ASPPH will join the American Council on Education (ACE) in raising concerns that the proposed rule lacks clear standards and could expose institutions to penalties for research, instruction, or community partnerships focused on racial and ethnic health disparities.

ASPPH urged the IRS to withdraw or substantially narrow the proposal, clarify protections for legitimate public health activities, and establish due process safeguards before revoking an institution's tax-exempt status. 

Research examining health disparities and partnerships with underserved communities are essential to understanding and preventing disease. Uncertainty surrounding the rule could discourage institutions from pursuing federally supported research and community engagement. Tax-exempt status supports scholarships, research centers, and community programs that strengthen the public health workforce.

While this rule focuses on private institutions, if it goes into effect, it will set an unfortunate precedent that could affect all institutions of higher education down the road.

ASPPH encourages members to use its comment letter as a guide and submit their own comments to the IRS by November 3rd, highlighting how the proposed rule could affect their institutions, research, and public health activities. 

The order directs the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to establish a Women's Health Division within 90 days, working alongside NIH’s existing Office of Research on Women's Health. Priorities include understudied conditions, clinical trial participation, interdisciplinary research, and sex-specific health outcomes.

A new White House Women's Health Task Force, co-chaired by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, will coordinate federal efforts. The order also revokes two Biden-era actions on women's health research. 

The initiatives could expand opportunities for academic research, interdisciplinary collaboration, and translating scientific discoveries into community-based prevention and care, particularly for conditions disproportionately affecting women.

However, implementation will depend on sustained NIH funding, scientific independence, and coordination with existing programs. The order does not provide new research funding and replaces previous federal women's health initiatives, raising questions about continuity and long-term impact. 

The legislation, introduced in both chambers, would establish a national hepatitis C elimination program through expanded screening, affordable treatment, and community-based care. It includes a subscription-based purchasing model to improve treatment access for underserved populations.

Some of the cosponsors of the bill, including Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), and Representatives Diana DeGette (D-CO) and Don Bacon (R-NE) will not return next Congress next year, making the passage of this legislation this year more urgent.

The coalition is awaiting an updated Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score as lawmakers prepare for year-end negotiations. With the 119th Congress concluding in January, the lame-duck session presents an important opportunity to advance the bill before it would need to be reintroduced in the next Congress. 

At least 2.4 million Americans are living with hepatitis C, despite treatments that cure more than 95% of infections. Expanding access could prevent thousands of deaths, reduce liver cancer, and strengthen community-based prevention efforts.

ASPPH, alongside the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) encourages members to spread awareness of the Cure Hepatitis C Act and advocate for its potential to save lives, helping build support for action before the end of the year. 

HHS and White House officials are reportedly resuming discussions after earlier delays. The administration issued a request for information in July, but a proposed definition has yet to be released amid industry concerns and stakeholder negotiations.

Supporters argue that a federal definition could improve transparency and encourage healthier food choices, while industry representatives question how processing should be classified and emphasize the nutritional benefits of some processed foods. 

A federal definition could influence nutrition research, dietary guidance, food labeling, and public health interventions addressing diet-related chronic diseases.

Academic public health researchers play an important role in evaluating evidence linking food processing to health outcomes and informing policies that consider nutritional quality, food affordability, and equitable access to healthy foods. 

The plan calls for an evidence review of kidney disease screening among at-risk populations, including individuals with diabetes and hypertension. While Kennedy indicated support for broader screening, universal screening has not been formally recommended.

HHS also announced a $4.67 million initiative with the American Society of Nephrology to encourage innovation in kidney disease prevention and treatment. The announcement follows changes to the US Preventive Services Task Force, which has previously found insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening for asymptomatic adults. 

Chronic kidney disease presents significant challenges for prevention, early detection, and healthcare access. Expanded screening could create opportunities for academic research, community-based prevention, and improved care for populations at elevated risk.

As federal screening recommendations evolve, rigorous evidence reviews and independent scientific oversight will be important to evaluating benefits, potential harms, and equitable access to preventive services.