What makes America healthy again means to the nation

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. It has been vocal in the brilliance of the problems of chronic illness, overweight, mental health and the failure of this nation to cope with and address the basic dynamics that have led to these widespread health issues. He has also raised the strategic profile of these issues, suggesting that they have implications for the security of our nation and its future. He has been open in his criticism of the food industry and just as open in his contempt for the failure to oversee the Congress and the country’s food supply. He has rightly challenged the nation for failure to act on the number of harmful additives in our food supply that we know are contributors to many of the chronic diseases that damage the US including cancer.

Make America healthy again can be an attractive cry across the country, regardless of one’s political affiliation. Imagine a nation that takes seriously the importance of regular exercises, thinks of what it eats, understands the link between physical and mental health, sets goals for mental health and personal well -being, and takes responsibility for personal choices that affect the quality of life.

Kennedy has challenged the nation to face unhealthy lifestyle, examine the country’s food production practices, to ask what taxpayers’ fund for their children’s meal programs in our public schools, underlined the continued existence of food deserts in our inner cities and the cost they present to the nation, and emphasized the slight availability of empty calories with long shelves and lack of fresh fruits and vegetables.

In a relatively short time Kennedy has forced America at least to begin to realize that the food choices they make have important consequences for their overall well -being. He has forced us to engage in public conversation and to admit that the nation has a chronic illness problem that is directing the longevity of the lower nation. And he has attributed much to this failure of the regulatory authorities to hear what scientists have known about the effects of food for years.

Kennedy is challenged in the positions he has taken against the pharmaceutical industry, especially in terms of vaccines. Painted as widely ‘anti-vax’ he tried to stroll it back into his hot sessions of the Senate confirmation. Data are overwhelming that vaccines have been important critical in preventing explosions of poliomyelitis, measles, mumps and softening the harmful effects of the flu and Covid-19. While critically important from a public health perspective, idiosyncratic reactions to vaccinations and other medicines occur.

There is no way to detect any reaction to a medicine or a vaccine based on testing a population sample, no matter how designed and checked a study. Until the size of your sample approaches the size of your population, there will always be idiosyncratic reactions that are not positive, as infinite as they may be. And this is what specific departments within HHS have a duty to do – they critically and independently evaluate science and make decisions about the relative risk and benefit of a particular pharmaceutical agent or vaccine. The FDA decides after a considerable scientific control if the asset in question gives more benefit than it does possible damage.

If approved, it is then the work of CMS to determine how the active one should be reimbursed based on its relative value in economic and clinical terms. Also, CMS’s task to oversee the judgmentable use of resources in providing care for the country’s elderly and finally evaluate the extent to which care is safe and appropriate. Unfortunately, the country’s ‘health care system’ is in itself a disease system, created to treat conditions, including chronic disease, rather than preventing them. If the new HHS secretary is committed to making America again healthy, the basic business model that regulates the health care ecosystem and its incentives must change.

If we were smarter for adjusting our food, the nation could be healthier. And setting a health -oriented business model for industry would create greater responsibility and better results. Whether or not Kennedy is confirmed by the Senate, he has made a significant contribution to the dialogue on the health of our nation. He has been a voice in the desert. It has already had a significant impact by increasing the awareness of the leaders of the Congress and the American people about our national health and national responsibility to act before it is too late. With particular concern is his claimed position for capturing drug patents and taking draconian measures to control the price of pharmaceuticals. Such an action would be bad for the health of our nation and not resolve basic issues.

The new HHS secretary must be surrounded by knowledgeable people who understand science, the mandates of countless agencies that fall under its broad umbrella and the fact that they often work with cross purposes. These powerful department directors should have another vision of what is possible, be able to navigate the challenge of systemic change and create excitement for a business model that can enable us to make America healthy again.