Analyzing Health Policy Priorities under RFK, Jr. and Dr. Oz

Live from Washington, D.C., this article explores likely priorities and areas of opportunity

To learn more about the Health Tech Happy Hour publication, you can find it here.

Health Policy Under New Management: Challenges and Opportunities

The incoming changes in HHS and CMS management¹ elicit both concerns and potential opportunities for those invested in health policy, the public’s health, and the business of healthcare. While the nominations for key positions like HHS Secretary and CMS Administrator have raised eyebrows among both policy experts and general observers, this transition period may present unexpected openings for constructive policy development, particularly given the relative inexperience of the incoming leadership team. It is clear there are top areas of focus and priority for Dr. Mehmet Oz and RFK, Jr. (The New Management) where compromise may take a back seat to their own beliefs, but in areas lesser known to them, this may be an opportunity to build bipartisan action².

The following article discusses the areas that appear to be top of mind for RFK, Jr and Dr. Mehmet Oz and areas that are unknown that may represent opportunities to advance bipartisan priorities. In a recent article, I covered the contents of Project 2025 which is produced by the Heritage Foundation. While Project 2025 is a centralized resource for understanding conservative policy priorities, Dr. Mehmet Oz and RFK, Jr. do not fit this traditional mold. They fit a different, unexpected, and unfamiliar one. In fact, it seems that the only themes in the nominations for major cabinet positions by the incoming President Elect are that they are non-traditional, unexpected, outsiders, have television experience, and lack direct experience for their new posts. This is not to say that a fresh look is a bad thing, but certain baseline knowledge and understanding are rather critical when it comes to health.

The potential future actions of The New Management have implications for public health, for care delivery, for the life sciences industry, for clinicians, and for innovators. The U.S. government has the power to create, change, and destroy markets almost overnight. That is what makes this such an important issue to understand whether you are an informed American citizen, a start-up leader, an investor, or a clinician.

Let’s get started by discussing what we know which is drawn from public sources, comments, and articles about Dr. Oz and RFK, Jr.

Known Priority Areas

Several areas have emerged as clear priorities for the incoming administration, but specifically for RFK, Jr. and Dr. Oz, though their approach remains to be seen³.

First, Medicare Advantage is likely to receive significant attention, with a probable push to position it as the preferred alternative to traditional Medicare. This shift could fundamentally alter how millions of seniors receive their healthcare coverage. Consider Mrs. Jackson, a 68-year-old retiree in Ohio, who recently faced the choice between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage (MA). The complexity of this decision – weighing network restrictions and out-of-pocket maximums in MA against the flexibility of traditional Medicare – illustrates the real-world impact of policy changes in this area. This is particularly important because the Medicare Part B Physician Fee-Schedule is the basis for most payment rates in the U.S. the abolition of traditional Medicare and that fee schedule would be a seismic shift. This is a while article in itself given recent debates around MA overcharging the U.S. government and whether it results in better or worse health outcomes. MA business lines have been the absolute cash cow for United Health Group and large insurers over the last ten years.

Second, the FDA's role in drug and vaccine approval processes will likely face scrutiny and potential, questionable reforms. The case of Aduhelm, an Alzheimer's drug approved under controversial circumstances, demonstrates the high stakes involved in FDA decision-making. Such examples underscore the critical importance of maintaining rigorous approval standards while addressing the urgent needs of patients. The FDA is tasked with evaluating safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products and medical devices. The process is onerous and time consuming and can probably be streamlined. However, the system works generally very well and keeps us safe from the “snake oil” of the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Third, vaccine policies, particularly regarding childhood immunizations, may see significant changes in mandate structures and implementation. The recent measles outbreaks in several states serve as stark reminders of the public health implications of vaccination policy changes. School districts nationwide are already grappling with how to balance public health requirements with individual choice, a tension that will likely intensify under new leadership. However, it is important to note that while the HHS secretary role has a loud mouthpiece that can cause harm and damage when used for disinformation, vaccine requirements in schools are often made at the state-level. To learn more about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines here is a good article.

Fourth, food chemical regulation presents another critical area for potential reform. Europe's more stringent regulatory framework offers instructive contrasts. For instance, while the EU banned titanium dioxide (E171) – a common food whitening agent – in 2022 due to potential genotoxicity concerns, it remains approved for use in the U.S. Similarly, the artificial sweetener aspartame faces stricter usage limits in European products than in American ones. Here is a good overview of a specific area comparing chemical regulation between the EU and the US. RFK, Jr.’s focus on this area may lead us toward an EU-like regulatory environment or further.

Fifth, the "revolving door" between regulatory agencies and life sciences companies demands careful attention. For example, the case of a former FDA commissioner joining the board of Pfizer sparked debate about cooling-off periods⁴ and conflict of interest policies. These transitions raise important questions about regulatory independence and the balance between industry expertise and oversight integrity. This is likely to be a big area of focus.

Sixth, health education initiatives and messaging may see significant shifts. The success story of the DASH diet program, which demonstrated substantial benefits for cardiovascular health through rigorous research, stands in stark contrast to the proliferation of unproven supplement claims on social media. Both RFK, Jr. and Dr. Oz have been heavily involved in endorsing and unproven supplements and natural remedies⁵. This tension between evidence-based health education, conspiracy-based belief, and commercial interests will likely intensify under new leadership.

Seventh, telehealth and remote patient monitoring expansion during the pandemic transformed healthcare delivery, with virtual visits increasing from less than 1% of primary care visits pre-pandemic to over 30% at their peak. The permanent integration of these services into our healthcare system requires careful consideration of quality metrics, access equity, and reimbursement structures. Dr. Oz has been involved in wearables and remote patient monitoring companies in the past, so he is familiar with these areas. See more here from an article by Advisory Board.

Areas of Uncertainty

It is my opinion, naive or optimistic as it may be, that The New Management’s lack of comprehensive knowledge of HHS and CMS may offer an opportunity to advance the public’s health in certain domains. New beliefs and areas of interest can be shaped and formed. For many of us who monitor a wide range of health policy issues and trends, there are some big areas that may not be on the radar of Mr. Kennedy and Dr. Oz. Consider the case of rural hospital closures – over 130 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, with many more at risk. This crisis intersects with workforce shortages, market consolidation, and private equity involvement in healthcare, yet the incoming administration's stance on these issues remains unclear. While the typical conservative platform relies on private sector insurance and care delivery, Mr. Kennedy has expressed views on a single payor system in the past—a juxtaposition that merits some intrigue!

Non-political⁶ opportunities:

• Value-based payment initiatives, which have shown promise in pilot programs but face implementation challenges. The continued evolution of payment model innovation at CMMI will be interesting to watch.

• Electronic health record interoperability, which continues to frustrate providers and impact patient care. The new leadership’s view on ASTP and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT will be interesting to watch. This group will also likely regulate artificial intelligence, which has been discussed.

• Price transparency requirements, which have led to mixed results in early adopter states. The first Trump Administration brought with it price transparency rules which can be improved and better enforced to promote public usefulness.

• Health information technology advancement, particularly regarding cybersecurity and patient and consumer privacy. There has been quite a bit of congressional action on privacy.

• The integration of artificial intelligence in healthcare delivery, as demonstrated by recent breakthroughs in medical imaging and diagnosis. How AI is regulated at the FDA, ONC, and paid for via CMS will be handled in this next administration.

If I am missing anything (this is not a comprehensive list) important, leave a comment using the link below:

Leadership Concerns and Opportunities

The appointment of figures like RFK Jr. and Dr. Oz to influential positions has raised legitimate concerns within the healthcare policy community. For instance, past public statements questioning established medical consensus on various issues have created apprehension about evidence-based decision-making. However, if these leaders approach their roles with humility and a willingness to engage with scientific expertise, there may be opportunities for constructive dialogue and policy development—especially in areas where they do not hold existing and deeply rooted beliefs.

The case of Dr. Scott Gottlieb's FDA leadership provides an interesting historical parallel. Despite initial skepticism from some quarters, his tenure was marked by significant public health achievements, including accelerated generic drug approvals and tobacco control initiatives. This example suggests that leadership effectiveness often depends more on willingness to engage with evidence and expertise than on prior positions. However, it is clear that there is a paradigm shift in governing philosophy from the second Trump Administration.

Moving Forward

The path forward requires a delicate balance between vigilance and engagement. While protecting against potentially harmful policy changes and messaging (e.g, vaccines), the healthcare policy community must remain ready to advance constructive solutions when opportunities arise. The success of state-level initiatives, such as Maryland's all-payer rate setting system and Massachusetts' health insurance reforms, demonstrates that significant improvements are possible even in challenging political environments.

For policy analysts and advocates, this period of transition offers unique opportunities to shape healthcare policy through careful analysis, strategic advocacy, and persistent focus on evidence-based approaches. Success will require building bridges across ideological divides while maintaining unwavering commitment to scientific integrity and public health outcomes. The experiences of previous administrations suggest that even in times of significant change, dedicated healthcare professionals can find ways to advance policies that improve American healthcare delivery and outcomes—if we follow evidence-based practice.

Regardless, the next four years will be marked by the power of platform and messaging. In a populist environment, it is critical to win trust, address critical issues, and ensure successful messaging around nuanced and esoteric concepts. Whether seeking to build bridges or burn them, narratives and relatable stories combines with data will be critical tools to persuade the masses.

Oh, and happy thanksgiving! I hope you can find a few moments to recharge.

1. I say management in the above because leadership, especially good leadership, has to be earned and proven.

2. A note: I say all of this knowing that others close to the top of the incoming administration are very clear about their desire to significantly cut, hinder, and otherwise destroy certain government programs, functions, and even entire agencies. However, in this article, I am leaning into optimism on certain topics, while “calling foul” on others. Lastly, let us not forget the role of Congress in light of the following analysis.

3. Their U.S. Senate confirmation also remains to be seen as well. RFK may get held up by Republicans due to his stance on abortion and single payor health care. While CMS is a fairly bipartisan agency with passionate defenders of Medicare and Medicaid on both sides of the aisle. It is very possible that Dr. Oz’s lack of experience these two areas may also present trouble from the Senate. My guess is that Dr. Oz makes it through, but RFK, Jr. sits at a 40% change of confirmation.

4. This is also a big area of focus for Project 2025.

5. I’d like to point out that it is hypocritical for Dr. Oz and RFK, Jr. to criticize the revolving door at the FDA when both have profited off of their work and endorsements of health products. It is critical that we let evidence speak for itself independent of profit motive.

6. Everything is political.