Andrea J Miller, PCC, SHRM-SCP

🚨 Groundbreaking new research from YLabs and partners sheds light on how climate change is shaping women’s reproductive health choices and autonomy across 33 low- and middle-income countries. Published today in Frontiers, this first-of-its-kind study analyzed data from 820,000+ women across 74 Demographic and Health Surveys matched with high-resolution climate data. 🔑 Key findings: - Extreme heat & rainfall are linked to lower odds of modern contraceptive use and shifts in fertility preferences. - Younger, unmarried, and childless women face the strongest impacts - Alarmingly, 41% of women using heat-sensitive contraceptives live in areas where average temps already exceed WHO storage thresholds, raising questions about supply chain resilience and product efficacy. 💡 Areas for future investment: - Climate-resilient health systems: Ensuring contraceptives and maternal health products remain safe and effective in high-heat contexts. - Research & innovation: Exploring heat-adapted contraceptive technologies to longitudinal studies on health impacts of climate stress. - Policy & advocacy: Embedding SRHR into National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and global climate finance frameworks. - Community-led solutions: Supporting women and youth most at risk to shape adaptive services and policies. 🌍 As we head into #ClimateWeek, this research is critical validation of what advocates have long signaled. Climate change directly affects women’s health, choices, and rights. As leaders gather to accelerate climate action, sexual and reproductive health must be integrated into climate adaptation and resilience strategies. 💛 This study, supported by Organon and Gates Foundation provides critical evidence for funders, policymakers, and implementers committed to building gender-just climate resilience. Congratulations to the dream team Meg “Bee” Brown, Ph.D., Nomi Fuchs-Montgomery, Aly Beeman, MPH, and Alex Severson, Ph.D. and Theodora Gibbs for this masterful piece of research. Link to the full article in the comments.

127

6 Comments

This week's FDA label change on Tylenol has created confusion for pregnant women at a time when clear, evidence-based guidance matters. The data tells a different story than the headlines suggest. The most rigorous research, including systematic reviews and large-scale studies, shows no causal link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and autism. That's why leading medical organizations continue to recommend it: 👉 ACOG reaffirms acetaminophen as "the preferred over-the-counter pain reliever and fever reducer for pregnant women when used as directed" 👉The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine continues advising that "acetaminophen is an appropriate medication to treat pain and fever during pregnancy" At Seven Starling, we see daily how untreated health conditions during pregnancy impact both mothers and babies. From personal experience, when I had COVID during my first pregnancy, treating my fever with Tylenol wasn't just about my comfort—it was about protecting my baby from the risks of a high fever. The research is clear: untreated maternal conditions—whether physical pain, fever, or mental health challenges—can lead to complications including preterm birth, low birth weight, and infant developmental concerns. Pregnant women deserve evidence-based care, not fear-based messaging. When we limit safe treatment options without strong scientific standing, we're asking mothers to endure preventable suffering that can harm both them and their babies.

87

14 Comments

MONDAY MUSING: Call me Captain Obvious, but there is a LOT going on in DC on just about every front, it’s easy to get distracted. But our advice to clients remains the same: keep pushing forward. Whether an initiative is driven by regulation (as so many are in healthcare), strategic priorities, or both, now is not the time to hit pause. We all have to do our part to keep the momentum going. Yes, staffing cuts across Health & Human Services, including at key agencies like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are raising questions about enforcement. No one knows the full impact yet or whether any of these reductions will be reversed by the courts. It might be tempting to hedge bets and assume enforcement will be light, that rules like CMS-0057, the conversion to the NCPCP Telecommunications version F6, or others won’t get the attention they normally would. But we strongly advise against that. Betting on inaction is a risky strategy that historically hasn’t played out well. Leadership gaps add to the uncertainty. The Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy (ASTP) position remains unfilled, and while there is a nominee for CMS Administrator, they have not yet been confirmed. As we wrote in our last HIT Perspectives, the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and the CMS Administrator were key players in shaping health IT policy during the first Trump Administration. While this administration is shaping up to be very different, history suggests that regulatory change and enforcement don’t grind to a halt just because there is upheaval at the top. Case in point: despite the “two-for-one” rule during Trump’s first term, plenty of new regulations were implemented, many stemming from the 21st Century Cures Act, which passed in the final days of the Obama Administration. Rather than focusing on compliance alone, organizations should be thinking about the broader impact, including operational efficiencies, competitive advantages, and strategic positioning. Take CMS-0057, for example. Beyond simply checking a regulatory box, the APIs named in this rule offer a chance to reduce friction, improve network provider engagement, and boost member satisfaction, all of which can positively impact Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) scores and Medicare Star Ratings. Operational efficiencies aren’t just about cost savings and burden reduction. They also build goodwill, strengthen brand perception and improve customer and partner relationships. So keep doing the work. Prioritizing efficiency, reducing administrative burdens, and ensuring providers can focus on their highest and best use isn’t just good business. It leads to better care and better outcomes. And that’s a win for everyone. 

21

2 Comments