A New CMS AI Office Signals a Shift in Federal Health Policy

In this edition of AcademyHealth’s Situation Report, we examine federal policy and workforce changes regarding AI and interoperability, as well as key CDC and HHS leadership position nominations. Experts also raise concerns over interference to evidence-based recommendations regarding the USPSTF and clinical guidelines for discontinuing SSRIs. Read on to learn more about the impact of these changes as well an opportunity to learn from experts at AcademyHealth’s health data conference happening this September.

In today’s issue:

• CMS Has a New Office for AI and Interoperability. Here’s What to Watch.

• Concerns Grow Over Future Direction of Preventive Services Task Force

• Senate Hearing to Examine CDC and Preparedness Leadership Nominees

• Kennedy Presses Ahead with Plans to Reduce Antidepressant Use

• When Where You Live Decides the Care You Receive

CMS Has a New Office for AI and Interoperability. Here’s What to Watch.
Federal attention is shifting from promoting AI adoption to figuring out how to make it work in practice. CMS recently established the Office of Health Technology Products, a new unit charged with overseeing AI, interoperability, digital health tools, and emerging health care technologies across federal health programs. The details of what the office will actually do, and how, remain to be seen.

What’s notable is the framing. Creating a dedicated office signals that the policy conversation about health data and AI is at least nominally shifting from “should we do this” toward “how do we make it work.” That’s a meaningful pivot, even if the proof will be in the execution.
It also raises questions the field has been sitting with for a while. Federal mandates on interoperability and AI adoption have a mixed track record of translating into operational reality at the provider and payer level. Whether a new office changes that dynamic will depend on how it engages with the implementation evidence base and with the researchers, health system leaders, and technologists who understand where the real barriers are.

These are precisely the kinds of implementation questions researchers, policymakers, and technology leaders will tackle at Health Datapalooza this September. . Register by July 17 for early bird pricing.

Concerns Grow Over Future Direction of Preventive Services Task Force

The future of evidence-based preventive care increasingly depends on maintaining independent, transparent scientific review. Health experts are raising concerns about ongoing changes to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the independent panel that reviews evidence and recommends preventive services such as cancer screenings, HIV prevention medications, and other interventions. The panel, whose recommendations help determine which preventive services insurers must cover at no cost to patients, is scheduled to meet for the first time in more than a year after multiple meetings were canceled and several leadership positions were left unfilled.

Observers have expressed concern that changes to the panel’s composition and appointment process could alter its longstanding role as a nonpartisan, evidence-driven body. Particular attention has focused on efforts to recruit physician specialists rather than the primary care clinicians who have traditionally made up the task force. Former members argue that the panel’s broad scope requires expertise across preventive care topics and warn that shifting its makeup could change how recommendations are developed and interpreted.

AcademyHealth President and CEO Aaron Carroll noted that delays and disruptions to the task force’s work could have real-world consequences for patients. “The concern would be that there is care that is evidence-based, that is not being reviewed right now, that is not being issued, that people would benefit from every single day...,” Carroll said. He also raised concerns that introducing political considerations into the recommendation process could affect public trust in the panel’s guidance.

USPSTF recommendations determine whether many preventive services, including cancer screenings, tobacco cessation interventions, HIV prevention medications, and screening for conditions such as depression, hypertension, and diabetes, must be covered by insurers without patient cost-sharing. Changes to the task force’s structure, membership, or output could influence which services are reviewed, recommended, and covered by insurance. For researchers, the developments highlight the importance of maintaining transparent, evidence-based processes that support preventive care and public trust in health guidance.

Senate Hearing to Examine CDC and Preparedness Leadership Nominees

Who leads the nation’s public health agencies will shape how evidence informs preparedness, prevention, and public confidence for years to come. The Senate HELP Committee is scheduled to hold a confirmation hearing on July 15 for two key health leadership nominees: Erica Schwartz, nominated to serve as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Sean Kaufman, nominated to lead the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), the HHS office responsible for coordinating responses to public health emergencies, maintaining medical stockpiles, and overseeing preparedness efforts.

Ahead of the hearing, attention has focused on Kaufman’s past public statements questioning elements of federal vaccine policy, including the routine use of the hepatitis B vaccine in newborns and raising concerns about vaccine safety that are inconsistent with the current scientific consensus. The issue could become a focal point during the hearing, particularly given ongoing debates over vaccine policy and oversight within HHS. Schwartz’s nomination follows a period of leadership uncertainty at CDC and comes as policymakers continue to debate the agency’s role, independence, and public health priorities.

The hearing is expected to shed light on how the administration plans to approach public health preparedness, vaccine policy, and agency leadership at a time when questions about scientific expertise, political oversight, and public trust remain central to federal health policy. Since CDC and ASPR play key roles in disease prevention, emergency response, and public health communication, the nominations could have important implications for evidence-based policymaking and preparedness efforts in the years ahead.

Kennedy Presses Ahead with Plans to Reduce Antidepressant Use

Growing interest in reevaluating established medical treatments highlights the need for stronger evidence about how care is delivered in real-world settings. HHS is developing new clinical guidance to help providers support patients who choose to discontinue selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Federal health officials recently convened psychiatrists, pharmacists, pediatricians, and other experts to review existing evidence, identify research gaps, and discuss best practices for tapering antidepressants safely. According to HHS, the guidance is intended to support informed, patient-centered decision-making and is not meant to discourage appropriate antidepressant use.

The initiative underscores the need for stronger evidence on antidepressant prescribing, deprescribing, and the delivery of mental health care. Health services researchers can help address key questions about how deprescribing guidance is implemented across different care settings, which tapering approaches are most effective for different patient populations, and how changes in treatment affect patient outcomes, care utilization, and access to behavioral health services. As HHS develops its recommendations, research can help identify implementation challenges, evaluate patient outcomes, and ensure future guidance reflects the best available evidence.

When Where You Live Decides the Care You Receive

State policy decisions continue to create wide variation in access to essential health and social services, even for people with similar needs. For adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), differences in Medicaid Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) waivers can determine whether individuals receive timely access to respite care, therapies, assistive technology, attendant care, and other supports that allow them to live independently in their communities.

A recent AcademyHealth blog post highlights findings from an Annual Research Meeting session examining how HCBS waiver programs vary across states and how those differences affect service use, caregiver support, and health outcomes. Researchers explored how waiver design influences access to care, while caregivers shared firsthand experiences navigating complex eligibility rules, long waitlists, and inconsistent benefits.

These disparities may become even more significant as states implement changes associated with H.R. 1 and Medicaid funding reductions, which could increase administrative burdens and lengthen wait times for waiver services. The research underscores how implementation and policy decisions can directly affect access to care for vulnerable populations. Read the full blog to learn more about the findings and ways to support policies that preserve access to HCBS services.