| The House voted 370–48 to pass a stopgap funding bill that funds the government through Dec. 11 — and, along with it, a few key health-related provisions that could tee up a year-end fight. Here’s what you need to know right now: - The legislation includes a provision that blocks an Office of Management and Budget rule that allows political appointees to review federal grants to determine whether they align with the White House’s policy priorities — a move that drew swift pushback from lawmakers, scientific researchers, industry groups and others.
Read more from WP Intelligence: “Industry, academia and local governments warn of federal funding shock.” - Also tucked into the funding bill is a delay of the ban on hemp-derived products with levels of THC above 0.4 mg per container — a level that some hemp industry and consumer advocates argue is too low, even for CBD products that don’t produce a high. The prohibition had been scheduled to take effect next month.
Both provisions had been inserted by the Senate, which caused heartburn among some House Republicans, including Reps. Chip Roy (Texas) and Andy Harris (Maryland). They both argued that the House’s decision to fast-track the bill circumvented the House Rules Committee, which would have allowed House members to offer amendments. Read more: The Post’s Jarrell Dillard and Mariana Alfaro have the broader overview of the vote and details about the opposition. - Abortion funding: Roy had also raised concerns to House GOP leadership and leaders of committees overseeing the federal budget and appropriations process about the bill continuing to fund “a regulatory regime that has expanded access to abortion pills,” according to a letter obtained by Politico.
- More on the hemp policy front: Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Virginia) said in a statement that the stopgap funding bill “gives lawmakers additional time to consider a federal regulatory framework for intoxicating hemp-derived products.” Griffith, who leads the Energy and Commerce health subcommittee, introduced a measure that would do just that.
President Donald Trump has supported expanding access to CBD, including instructing top White House legislative staff to work with Congress to update the law on hemp-derived CBD, and pushing a pilot program that allows Medicare beneficiaries to be reimbursed for some CBD treatments. However, not everyone is thrilled about the inclusion, teeing up a year-end battle around whether to keep or nix the ban on the products. “As expected, Congress passed the one-time extension of the Farm Bill loophole that the White House requested. While we’re disappointed, our sights are set on December,” said Chris Lindsey, the vice president of policy and state advocacy at the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp, who called these products “gas station weed.” “The loophole empowers bad actors, threatens public health and undermines state regulations.” Even with government funding out of the way until December, lawmakers still have many other proposals to contend with, all fighting for committee time amid a dwindling number of legislative days. The latest health proposal vying for contention is a bill that would limit insurers’ use of AI in coverage decisions. The Doctors Not AI Act, introduced by Rep. Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), would require a licensed health professional to independently make coverage decisions involving clinical judgment, even when an insurer uses AI as part of its review of a medical claim. It also would require insurers to disclose when AI was used, in addition to providing information about its role if a patient requests it. “When a computer system is making decisions about health care, people will get hurt. We have to make sure health care professionals remain the decision-makers. If not, folks will be left with massive bills, their health getting worse or even life-threatening consequences,” Landsman said. The proposal has bipartisan support, including from Reps. Kim Schrier (D-Washington), Buddy Carter (R-Georgia) and Tom Barrett (R-Michigan). Why it matters: Thirty-seven states have no rules about how insurance companies can use AI in evaluating health claims. While the legislation likely crosses over into many committees of jurisdiction, it may be narrow enough in scope to find its way into a year-end package. But: Many top plans all say they have humans making any final denials of health coverage, but a group of Stanford researchers published an article in Health Affairs earlier this year positing that having a doctor make the final decision may not be a panacea. For example, the researchers noted that clinical reviewers at insurance companies may not have the time or expertise to effectively evaluate AI-derived coverage recommendations — including having too much confidence in the AI results, not being able to spot hallucinations within those reviews or pressuring human reviewers not to deviate from AI-generated results. The White House is celebrating a new round of drug-pricing deals ahead of crucial midterm elections just two months away. But there’s still a lot we don’t know about them. Scrutiny of the agreements are likely to intensify the more the Trump administration holds them up as an achievement and more details trickle out. As I’ve been reporting, the exact agreements between drugmakers and the administration remain a tightly held secret. There are still questions around how much of an impact the deals will actually be able to have for consumers more broadly. While President Donald Trump and other top officials have touted the savings for Americans, the agreements announced so far appear to target specific populations rather than implement a reset of what Americans pay for medicines. “Patients need systemic reforms that will lower drug prices, rather than short-term, voluntary agreements whose terms remain secret,” said Merith Basey, CEO of advocacy group Patients For Affordable Drugs. The deals announced on Monday, Basey added, “focus on Medicaid, where steep discounts already exist, and even then, states can choose whether to participate.” Some revelations that have materialized since the Oval Office announcement: - Don’t be so hasty: While some — not all — of the companies involved in Monday’s announcement issued press releases touting their deals with the administration, Teva Pharmaceuticals was much more muted. In its release, the company talked about a “shared commitment” to lowering the cost of certain medicines but emphasized that it “remains in active discussions” about a final deal. There have been questions swirling about how many of these deals have actually been finalized.
- Tardy for the party: One drugmaker that struck a drug-pricing deal with the Trump administration was notably absent from the Oval Office confab on Monday. Incyte disclosed in a regulatory filing that it had reached an agreement that included discounts of Jakafi and Jakafi XR in state Medicaid programs — in exchange for an exemption from other pricing mandates, including two yet-to-be-released Medicare pilot initiatives.
Notable from the filing: Incyte said that it does not expect the drug-pricing deal to “have a material impact on its future financial outlook.” An investor note from RBC Capital Markets points out that Incyte earns less than 4.5 percent of its sales of Jakafi, including the extended release version of the medication, from Medicaid. “President Trump gave us a very specific order — which was, not only did he want the lowest drug prices in the world, but he also wanted to make sure we didn’t bankrupt these companies, so that the United States continues to be the hub for biomedical research globally,” Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said during the Oval Office briefing on Monday. The company didn’t answer questions about why it wasn’t part of the Trump administration’s announcement. As pharmaceutical consultant Brian Reid points out: Incyte and its executives were absent from the White House’s public announcement and the press release that followed: “Clearly, someone at Incyte determined that having the deal was useful, but taking a public victory lap with Trump was not,” Reid wrote in his Cost Curve newsletter. → The broad contours of the 27 deals are emerging, including some of the drugs being discounted for Medicaid or cash-pay purchases through TrumpRx, and relief from other pricing proposals and tariffs. But the full picture of what drugmakers are offering — and what they’re getting in return — remains fuzzy. That’s been a bipartisan point of contention. At an affordability hearing earlier this year, Rep. Morgan Griffith (Virginia), a top Energy and Commerce Republican, joined a couple of his Democratic colleagues who expressed frustration about the lack of details disclosed. “The problem is, all of these agreements have secrecy deals,” said Griffith, who said he agreed with Reps. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-New Jersey), the top Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Diana DeGette (D-Colorado) that lawmakers should get to the bottom of it. “We do need to know more about what’s going on,” Griffith added later. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) have also demanded more information about the agreements. An interesting find from Caitlin Gilbert in The Post newsroom: A federal judge blocked the Department of Health and Human Services from implementing its new teen pregnancy prevention grant policy, while also flagging what he called a “hallmark of AI-generated citations” in the department’s funding notices. - The HHS guidance for the grant program dictated that recipients use the money on initiatives that promote abstinence or “body literacy,” which U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper defined as “a nebulous concept that appears to elevate fertility and marital procreation over well-tested forms of contraception and pregnancy prevention.”
- “On the topic of body literacy, the notices (remarkably) reference public health studies that appear either not to exist or not to support the propositions for which they are cited — a hallmark of AI-generated citations,” Cooper wrote.
The ruling temporarily halts the department from moving forward with its version of the program, which is funded by Congress and is meant to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections among teenagers. The Trump administration’s changes to the funding conditions were challenged after HHS slashed federal grants en masse. Cooper said those changes were “likely arbitrary and capricious” and said the government had failed to provide the rationale for its approach — while pausing the new policy as the lawsuit plays out. HHS did not answer The Post’s request for comment. Read the full story: “Judge rebukes HHS over AI use in cutting teen pregnancy prevention grants.” “BCBS lawsuit over CVS generic drug prices moves forward,” Allison Bell reports at BenefitsPRO. “The midterms are months away. Members are already jockeying for seats on this powerful panel.,” reports Politico’s Kelsey Brugger. This newsletter is published by WP Intelligence, The Washington Post’s subscription service for professionals that provides business, policy and thought leaders with actionable insights. WP Intelligence operates independently from The Washington Post newsroom. Learn more about WP Intelligence. | 
