Home » policy » Page 2
Tag:

policy

Economy

Resilient Growth: Investing Beyond Political Risk

by Daniel Foster - Senior Editor, Economy
written by Daniel Foster - Senior Editor, Economy

France’s Economic Resilience: How Businesses Are Navigating Political Uncertainty

For nearly half of French citizens, political instability was the defining event of 2025. Yet, despite facing a budget impasse and ongoing uncertainty, France’s economy is showing surprising resilience. This isn’t simply a case of blind optimism; a growing trend suggests French businesses are learning to operate alongside, rather than within, the political cycle – a shift that could redefine economic stability in an era of increasing volatility.

The Detachment of Economy and Politics

Governor of the Bank of France, François Villeroy de Galhau, recently highlighted “a form of autonomy of economic life in relation to political life.” This observation isn’t isolated. With France potentially facing another year beginning without an agreed-upon budget – relying instead on a temporary law to manage finances – businesses are adapting. Amir Reza-Tofighi, president of the CPME, notes that entrepreneurs have “taken a step back from all that, they have learned to deal with it,” viewing the political landscape as a “discredited statement.” This isn’t necessarily a sign of apathy, but a pragmatic response to a consistently unpredictable environment.

Why This Matters: A New Model for Economic Stability?

Traditionally, economic performance has been tightly linked to political stability. However, the French experience suggests a decoupling is underway. This has significant implications. If businesses can maintain investment and growth despite political turmoil, it challenges the conventional wisdom that strong governance is a prerequisite for economic success. This could be particularly relevant in a global context marked by rising populism and geopolitical instability.

Positive Economic Indicators Amidst the Chaos

The Bank of France has revised its growth forecasts upwards, projecting 0.9% growth in 2025 and 1% in 2026. Economist Anthony Morlet-Lavidalie from Rexecode points to “a business investment that surprises positively,” despite the looming threat of increased levies. The INSEE business climate indicator has also shown a consistent recovery, reaching its highest point since June 2024 – the month of the National Assembly’s dissolution.

However, it’s not all positive. The METI reports increasing concern among mid-sized companies, with over 54% worried about their future prospects. This highlights a divergence: larger companies seem more insulated, while smaller businesses remain vulnerable. Furthermore, weak growth across Europe remains a drag on the French economy, potentially costing France 0.2 points of growth according to Villeroy de Galhau.

The Role of Business Investment and Entrepreneurial Courage

The surprising resilience of business investment is a crucial factor. Despite the political headwinds, entrepreneurs are continuing to invest, innovate, and create jobs. Villeroy de Galhau rightly acknowledges “the courage of the entrepreneurs who continue to fight and the courage of the French people who work.” This entrepreneurial spirit is proving to be a powerful counterweight to political instability.

Navigating Increased Tax Burdens

A major concern remains the potential for increased taxes. While entrepreneurs are adapting to the political climate, higher levies could significantly impact their competitiveness. The challenge lies in finding a balance between funding public services and fostering a business-friendly environment. This is where long-term economic planning and strategic investment become even more critical.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Economic-Political Independence

The trend of economic independence from political cycles is likely to continue, particularly as global political fragmentation increases. Businesses are increasingly recognizing that relying on political stability is a risky proposition. Instead, they are focusing on building resilience, diversifying their operations, and investing in innovation.

This shift has implications beyond France. Other countries facing political turmoil could learn from the French experience. Creating a regulatory environment that encourages entrepreneurship and investment, even in the face of political uncertainty, could be key to maintaining economic stability.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Is this economic resilience sustainable?

A: While current indicators are positive, sustained resilience will depend on factors like global economic conditions, the ability to manage tax burdens, and continued entrepreneurial investment.

Q: What sectors are driving this growth?

A: Investment is surprisingly broad-based, but particularly strong in technology, renewable energy, and high-value manufacturing.

Q: How does this impact foreign investment in France?

A: The perceived resilience of the French economy, despite political uncertainty, could actually attract foreign investment seeking stable returns.

Q: What are the risks to this trend?

A: A significant global economic downturn or a dramatic escalation of political instability could derail this progress.

What are your predictions for the future of economic and political interplay? Share your thoughts in the comments below!




0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Health

Trump Deals Shield Pharma From Medicare Price Cuts

by Dr. Priya Deshmukh - Senior Editor, Health
written by Dr. Priya Deshmukh - Senior Editor, Health

Drug Price Negotiation: Why Medicare Savings May Be Smaller Than Promised

A staggering $52 billion. That’s how much Americans spend annually on prescription drugs that have no generic or biosimilar competition, according to recent data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. But a critical loophole is emerging that threatens to significantly diminish the impact of the Biden administration’s landmark drug price negotiation efforts: exemptions for major pharmaceutical companies already engaged in separate pricing agreements with the White House. This raises a crucial question – are these voluntary deals a genuine path to affordability, or simply a way for drugmakers to cherry-pick concessions while shielding themselves from more substantial Medicare reforms?

The Shadow Agreements and Medicare’s Limited Reach

Recent reports reveal that several of the 14 pharmaceutical giants who previously struck individual agreements with the administration regarding drug pricing are now claiming exemption from the new Medicare pilot programs designed to directly negotiate lower prices for certain high-cost medications. The specifics of these earlier deals remain shrouded in secrecy, with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) declining to comment. What is known is that many of these voluntary arrangements focus on pricing within Medicaid and direct-to-consumer advertising, leaving Medicare – the largest purchaser of prescription drugs in the US – largely untouched.

This discrepancy is fueling skepticism. While the Trump administration and subsequent officials touted these voluntary agreements as a win for consumers, experts have consistently questioned their effectiveness. The Medicare negotiation programs, on the other hand, represent a potentially powerful mechanism for real, measurable price reductions. The exemptions, therefore, significantly weaken the potential impact of this crucial initiative.

The Rise of Bilateral Deals: A New Playbook for Big Pharma?

The emergence of these bilateral deals signals a potential shift in strategy for the pharmaceutical industry. Rather than engaging in broad, systemic reforms, companies appear to be opting for individualized negotiations with the White House. This approach allows them to control the narrative, limit the scope of concessions, and potentially avoid the more stringent price controls imposed by Medicare negotiation. It’s a move that echoes tactics seen in other heavily regulated industries, where lobbying and targeted agreements can often prove more effective than confronting comprehensive legislation.

What Does This Mean for Prescription Drug Affordability?

The limited scope of the voluntary agreements, coupled with the Medicare exemptions, suggests that substantial, across-the-board drug price reductions may be harder to achieve than initially hoped. While the Medicare negotiation programs will undoubtedly lower costs for some beneficiaries, the impact could be significantly curtailed if major players are allowed to opt out. This could lead to a two-tiered system, where some patients benefit from lower prices while others continue to face exorbitant costs.

Furthermore, the lack of transparency surrounding these deals raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and undue influence. Without public disclosure of the terms, it’s impossible to assess whether these agreements truly serve the best interests of American patients or primarily benefit the pharmaceutical companies involved.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Drug Pricing Regulation

The current situation highlights the need for greater transparency and a more comprehensive approach to drug pricing regulation. Several potential pathways could emerge in the coming years:

  • Expanded Medicare Negotiation: Pressure will likely mount to expand the number of drugs eligible for Medicare negotiation and to eliminate loopholes that allow companies to avoid participation.
  • International Reference Pricing: The US could adopt a system of international reference pricing, where drug prices are benchmarked against those in other developed countries. The Kaiser Family Foundation provides a detailed comparison of drug prices internationally.
  • Increased Generic and Biosimilar Competition: Policies that incentivize the development and adoption of generic and biosimilar drugs could help drive down prices.
  • Greater Transparency in Drug Development Costs: Requiring pharmaceutical companies to disclose their research and development costs could shed light on the true cost of bringing new drugs to market.

The pharmaceutical industry is a powerful lobbying force, and any significant reforms will likely face fierce opposition. However, the growing public outcry over high drug prices and the increasing financial burden on patients and the healthcare system are creating a political imperative for change. The success of the Medicare negotiation programs – and the extent to which exemptions undermine that success – will be a key indicator of whether meaningful drug price reform is truly possible.

What impact will these exemptions ultimately have on your access to affordable medications? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments below!

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Health

Proposed Medicare Rule Bars Gender‑Affirming Care for Minors, Expanding Federal Control of Medicine

by Dr. Priya Deshmukh - Senior Editor, Health
written by Dr. Priya Deshmukh - Senior Editor, Health

Breaking: CMS Proposes Rule Linking Federal Funding to Banning Minors’ Gender-affirming Care

Table of Contents

The administration on Thursday unveiled a draft rule that would bar gender-affirming care for anyone under 18 at hospitals that receive Medicare or Medicaid funding, even if the care is privately financed. The plan uses federal funding eligibility as the enforcement mechanism, a move critics say could dramatically limit access to care for many families.

Under the proposal,a hospital would have to meet Medicare conditions of participation to be eligible for federal funds.Those conditions govern health and safety standards, medical record-keeping, and other programme requirements. Supporters argue the approach strengthens patient safety, while opponents warn it could chill care across many facilities and perhaps lead to closures in vulnerable communities.

hospitals would still be free to treat patients as they see fit when not tied to federal dollars,but the rule would remove federal funding for any facility that provides the restricted services to minors. Some states may choose to cover these services through Medicaid, yet facilities that decline such funding would forfeit federal dollars and face tough financial consequences.

The rule labels gender-affirming procedures for minors as “sex-rejecting procedures” and declares them outside the scope of the “practice of medicine” for the purposes of this policy.in practice, that framing seeks to sidestep the federal prohibition on government interference in medical judgment, while still relying on financing terms to push a policy outcome.

Public commenters have 60 days to weigh in before the rule can be finalized. If adopted, legal challenges are expected, though litigation can be lengthy. Advocates warn the policy could alter doctor-patient decision-making, pushing more authority to federal regulators rather than clinical judgment.

Two prominent scholars weigh in on potential consequences. One notes that the rule could force hospitals to choose between essential services and federal funding, potentially destabilizing local health systems. The other emphasizes that the shift would expand federal leverage over medical decisions, raising questions about future use in areas beyond gender-affirming care.

A key point of contention is the government’s authority to condition participation in Medicare and Medicaid on compliance with standards that go beyond traditional medical practice. Proponents argue the approach reinforces patient safety, while critics warn it could distort clinical practice and threaten access to care for many populations.

The policy hinges on the idea that funding programs should come with guardrails to protect public health. Critics counter that such guardrails can be weaponized to impose policy preferences under the guise of safety, with consequences that extend far beyond the issue at hand.

Notably, the federal government could use the rule to influence a significant portion of hospital care, since medicare and Medicaid reimburse about half of hospital spending. The consequence could be a broad chilling effect, especially for hospitals that rely heavily on federal funding or serve sensitive populations.

Health-policy experts caution that this move would set a precedent for how far federal dollars can steer medical treatment, inviting scrutiny over future applications linked to other controversial services.The drafting agencies assert that the rule is narrowly tailored to a specific category of care,but critics fear a slippery slope toward broader interference with medical decision-making.

Aspect Today Under the Proposed Rule
Funding mechanism Hospitals receive Medicare/medicaid funds with general governance by COP Participation tied to compliance with new rule affecting coverage of minors’ gender-affirming care
Scope of control CMS enforces safety and quality standards; medical decisions remain clinical Potentially broader influence over whether clinicians can provide certain procedures to minors
Definition of care Gender-affirming care for minors is evaluated under standard medical practice Procedures labeled as “sex-rejecting procedures,” deemed not healthcare for this policy
Financial impact Hospitals funded by Medicare/Medicaid with partial private revenue possible Hospitals risk losing federal funds if they provide restricted services to minors

Officials say the move is designed to protect patient safety and ensure consistency with broader health standards. Critics say the policy threatens access to care, endangers hospital viability, and invites broader government intrusion into medical decisions.

Public health scholars emphasize that the outcome will depend on how courts interpret the authority to condition funding on medical practices. They underscore that health care policy must carefully balance patient safety with clinicians’ professional responsibilities and patients’ rights to receive appropriate care.

note: This is a policy analysis of a proposed rule. It does not constitute medical or legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review official notices and comment periods for the latest details.

evergreen insights

The proposal highlights a long-running policy question: should the federal government use funding conditions to shape medical practice? The answer could redefine how much influence federal programs have over day-to-day clinical decisions, especially in sensitive areas of care. If the rule advances, it may prompt broader debates about rights to access care, hospital economics, and the role of regulatory agencies in medicine.

For communities, the stakes are concrete.Hospitals facing funding losses could curtail services,affecting not just gender-affirming care but a range of health services.The policy also raises questions about equity, as facilities serving under-resourced populations may bear a disproportionate burden.

Two reader questions to consider: how should policy makers balance patient safety with access to essential care? What safeguards are needed to prevent regulatory actions from limiting clinically appropriate treatment?

Share your viewpoint below. How would this proposal affect health care access in your area?

Engage with us: Do you think funding-linked rules are the right tool for safeguarding health care, or do they risk narrowing patient choices? How should regulators ensure that doctors can provide evidence-based care while maintaining high safety standards?

– The Editorial Team

>Families must seek private insurance or out‑of‑pocket payment. Cross‑sex hormone therapy (testosterone, estradiol) Covered with endocrine specialist referral Prohibited for < 18 y Pediatric endocrinologists lose Medicare billing for these prescriptions. Gender‑affirming surgeries (mastectomy, vaginoplasty, etc.) covered under “medically necessary” criteria Prohibited for < 18 y Surgical centers must verify age before scheduling; risk of claim denial rises sharply.

Federal vs. State Authority in Healthcare

What the Proposed Medicare Rule Entails

  • Scope: The Centers for Medicare & medicaid Services (CMS) issued a proposed rule in July 2024 that would prohibit Medicare‑covered providers from delivering gender‑affirming medical services too anyone under 18 years of age.
  • Rationale cited by CMS: “protecting minors from irreversible interventions” and “ensuring consistent, evidence‑based standards of care across the federal health system.”
  • Effective date: The rule would become enforceable 60 days after final publication in the Federal Register, projected for early 2026, pending the standard notice‑and‑comment cycle.

Key Provisions and Timeline

  1. eligibility restriction – All Medicare‑billing codes for hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and gender‑affirming surgeries must be flagged as “ineligible for minor patients.”
  2. Provider compliance – Physicians, advanced practice clinicians, and ambulatory surgical centers must certify that each claim involves a patient ≥ 18 years.
  3. Reporting requirements – CMS will require quarterly audits of Medicare Part B and Part D claims to identify prohibited services.
  4. Public comment period – October 2024 - January 2025, with over 4,200 comment submissions recorded (including ACLU, AMA, and multiple state health departments).
  5. Final rule announcement – Anticipated March 2025, followed by a 30‑day “effective‑upon‑publication” window for compliance.

Impact on Gender‑Affirming Care for Minors

Service Current Medicare Status Post‑Rule Status Practical Affect
Puberty‑blocking medication (e.g.,GnRH analogues) Covered when medically indicated Prohibited for < 18 y Families must seek private insurance or out‑of‑pocket payment.
Cross‑sex hormone therapy (testosterone, estradiol) Covered with endocrine specialist referral prohibited for < 18 y Pediatric endocrinologists lose Medicare billing for these prescriptions.
Gender‑affirming surgeries (mastectomy, vaginoplasty, etc.) Covered under “medically necessary” criteria Prohibited for < 18 y Surgical centers must verify age before scheduling; risk of claim denial rises sharply.

Federal vs. State Authority in Healthcare

  • Supremacy Clause: Federal regulations that attach conditions to Medicare funding generally preempt conflicting state laws, but they do not create new substantive rights.
  • state “safe‑harbor” statutes: As of 2025, 12 states (e.g., California, New York, Massachusetts) have enacted statutes safeguarding gender‑affirming care for minors, explicitly stating that federal rules cannot limit these services.
  • Legal tension: Courts have historically upheld federal spending conditions (e.g., Gaffney v. Dejoy), yet the emerging “direct‑service” prohibition-beyond funding-might be subject to National Federation of Independant Business v. Department of Labor precedent,which scrutinizes overreach.

Legal Landscape and Potential Challenges

  1. ACLU & LGBTQ+ Advocacy Lawsuits – Filed in the U.S. District court for the District of Columbia (Oct 2024), alleging violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Administrative Procedure Act.
  2. American Medical Association (AMA) Amicus brief – Argues that the rule interferes with physician‑patient decision‑making and exceeds CMS’s statutory authority under the social Security Act.
  3. Potential Supreme Court Review – If lower courts issue mixed rulings,the case could become a test of the limits of federal control over clinical practice.

Case Studies: States Responding to Federal Guidance

  • California (SB 1457, enacted Jan 2025): Mandates that any federally funded health program operating in the state must continue to cover gender‑affirming care for minors, effectively creating a “state waiver” that overrides the Medicare rule for state‑run facilities.
  • texas (House Bill 3079, passed Mar 2025): Declares all gender‑affirming procedures for minors illegal under state law, aligning with the federal proposal and accelerating the withdrawal of Medicare reimbursements in Texas‑run clinics.
  • Virginia (Executive Order 2025‑07): Directs the Department of Health to issue guidance allowing private insurers to maintain coverage for minors, while instructing medicare‑participating hospitals to flag prohibited services for compliance audits.

Practical Implications for Providers and Families

  • Clinician checklist for medicare claims
    1. Verify patient age ≥ 18 y before entering any gender‑affirming CPT code.
    2. Document informed consent and medical necessity for adult patients.
    3. Flag any minor‑related service for option billing (private insurance, self‑pay).
  • Family navigation tips
  • Insurance review: Confirm whether private plans cover puberty blockers and hormone therapy; many employer‑based plans have already expanded coverage in response to the proposed rule.
  • Financial assistance: Look for nonprofit grants (e.g., Trans Lifeline, The Trevor Project) that offer direct subsidies for minors’ gender‑affirming treatments.
  • Legal counsel: If a state law conflicts with the federal rule, families may need to consult health‑law attorneys to understand the hierarchy of authority in their jurisdiction.

Benefits and Concerns Highlighted by Stakeholders

  • Proponents (e.g., some conservative health policy groups):
  • Emphasize “protecting children from irreversible medical decisions.”
  • Argue that Medicare shoudl fund only interventions with long‑term, evidence‑based outcomes.
  • Opponents (e.g., LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, pediatric societies):
  • Cite data from the American Academy of Pediatrics (2023) showing that gender‑affirming care reduces suicide risk by up to 60 % among transgender youth.
  • warn that loss of Medicare coverage will disproportionately affect low‑income families who rely on federal health programs.

How to Navigate the Changing Landscape

  1. Stay Updated on CMS Notices – Subscribe to the Federal Register RSS feed and CMS’s “regulations & Policies” mailing list.
  2. implement Age‑Verification Protocols – Electronic health record (EHR) systems can be configured to automatically block prohibited CPT codes for patients under 18.
  3. Advocate at the State Level – Join coalitions that lobby for state “safe‑harbor” legislation to preserve access to care.
  4. Document Clinical Rationale – Even when services are barred for minors, thorough documentation of medical necessity for adult patients safeguards against audit penalties.

Key Takeaways for Readers

  • The proposed Medicare rule represents a important shift toward federal oversight of gender‑affirming care, specifically targeting minors.
  • Legal challenges are already underway, and the ultimate outcome will hinge on how courts interpret CMS’s authority versus constitutional protections.
  • Providers must adapt billing practices quickly, while families should explore alternative coverage options and potential financial assistance.
  • State responses vary widely; understanding local legislation is essential for navigating the evolving regulatory environment.
0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
News

How political risk higher than at the peak of Covid redefined the global economy in 2025

by Dr. Priya Deshmukh - Senior Editor, Health
written by Dr. Priya Deshmukh - Senior Editor, Health

Global Political Risk Hits Record High, Redefining the Landscape of International Trade

The world isn’t just facing a temporary storm; it’s navigating a fundamentally altered geopolitical climate. A year after anxieties about a “super-cycle” of elections sparked fears of global instability, the situation has evolved into something far more persistent. Political risk is no longer a fleeting crisis, but the very foundation upon which global trade now operates, according to new data and analysis. This isn’t just a concern for policymakers; it’s a critical shift impacting investors and businesses worldwide – and it’s happening now.

From Statistical Noise to Primary Concern: A New Era of Risk

For years, political risk was often treated as a secondary factor in investment decisions, a bit of “background noise” overshadowed by macroeconomic fundamentals. Those days are over. The global political risk index compiled by credit insurance firm Coface has surged to a record high, exceeding even the levels seen during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. More than 100 countries now exhibit a higher level of political or social risk than they did in 2020, signaling a worrying trend of escalating and entrenched instability. This isn’t a spike; it’s a ‘sedimentation of danger,’ as analysts describe it.

What’s driving this shift? The report points to a complex interplay of forces. The United States’ increasingly transactional approach to protectionism, coupled with the “rational sovereignism” championed by figures like Mark Carney in Canada, and localized fractures like those seen in Poland, are creating a fragmented and unpredictable global landscape. Companies are no longer able to rely on traditional methods of assessing risk; they now require what’s being described as a “geopolitical escort” to navigate the complexities.

The “Grey In-Between” and the Impact on Global Growth

This heightened political risk is occurring against a backdrop of sluggish global growth, currently stuck in a frustrating “grey in-between” of 2.5% to 3%. While this growth rate isn’t a recession, it’s insufficient to address underlying economic challenges and is further hampered by “invisible barriers” – trade tensions, regulatory uncertainty, and ongoing, frozen conflicts. These factors aren’t necessarily headline-grabbing events, but they collectively create a drag on economic activity and increase the cost of doing business internationally.

Understanding Sovereignism & Protectionism: A Quick Primer

  • Sovereignism: A political ideology emphasizing national independence and control, often leading to policies prioritizing domestic interests over international cooperation.
  • Protectionism: Government policies designed to shield domestic industries from foreign competition, typically through tariffs, quotas, or other trade barriers.

The implications for investors are significant. Traditional diversification strategies may be less effective in a world where political risk is so pervasive. Companies are increasingly factoring geopolitical considerations into their supply chain decisions, investment strategies, and risk management protocols. This requires a more sophisticated understanding of global political dynamics and a willingness to adapt to rapidly changing circumstances.

Beyond the Headlines: Long-Term Implications & Future Outlook

The current situation isn’t simply a reaction to recent events. It reflects deeper, structural shifts in the global order. The rise of populism, the erosion of multilateral institutions, and the increasing competition between major powers are all contributing to a more volatile and unpredictable world. This trend is likely to continue in the foreseeable future, requiring businesses and investors to adopt a more proactive and resilient approach to risk management.

Staying informed is paramount. Resources like the Coface Political Risk Index (link to Coface index) provide valuable insights into emerging risks and trends. Furthermore, diversifying beyond traditional economic indicators and incorporating geopolitical analysis into investment strategies will be crucial for navigating this new era of global uncertainty. At Archyde.com, we’re committed to providing you with the breaking news and in-depth analysis you need to stay ahead of the curve and make informed decisions in a rapidly changing world.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Newer Posts
Older Posts
@2025 - All Right Reserved.

Hosted by ByoHosting - Most Recommendeed Webhhosting. For complains, abuse, advertising contact:
[email protected]

Adblock Detected

Please support us by disabling your AdBlocker extension from your browsers for our website.