Recently, four experts from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) joined forces in a jointly sponsored action to decarbonize the healthcare industry. He also indicated that he had no interest in mandating HHS. In a December 14 article, these highly qualified co-participants independently asserted that the disclaimer states that “GHG-related measurement and reporting should be a requirement of all healthcare delivery organizations.” They expressly state that it is their own view that there is. Interestingly, four admitted that they failed to take the next logical and necessary step and did not recommend mandating reductions in GHG emissions. The apparent reluctance of four of the co-operative participants to support mandatory decarbonization is surprising, as the industry and HHS are contributing to healthcare’s net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. ) suggesting that there is likely no interest in eliminating emissions. The health sector, among all industries, cannot ignore the deadly consequences of such emissions.
However, four joint members discuss decarbonization in detail. They acknowledge the “urgency and public health implications of the climate crisis” and acknowledge that “measurement alone is not enough.”
“Mandatory emissions reporting is only the first step in enabling decarbonization to take place,” they acknowledge.Nevertheless, they have chosen not to recommend decarbonization mandates and do not explain why.. One might think they were encouraged to do so by the Inflation Reduction Act, which for the first time offered a renewable energy development tax credit to tax-exempt health care providers. Instead, we make eight carefully parsed decarbonization recommendations. These include recommending that HHS “establish, communicate, and promote shared decarbonization goals and timelines for the U.S. healthcare system.” The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) “create policies to support decarbonization actions and interventions,” and the industry drafts a “climate action plan” with “science-based decarbonization goals.” doing.
This is disturbing, as my view is that all 50 co-participants should know. Healthcare accounts for nearly 9% of her total GHG pollution, which helps explain why the US is the world’s largest polluter of GHGs per capita. Even if current climate targets are met, this would lead to a warming of 2.8 degrees Celsius, well above the Paris Agreement target of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Warming, which now averages 1.2 degrees Celsius globally and 1.4 degrees Celsius in the United States, means that five climate tipping points have likely passed. This means that some warming is now self-perpetuating. Today, one in five of her dead in the world cannot avoid air polluted with fossil fuels. As for anthropogenic warming, the United Nations concluded earlier this year that “everywhere is being affected, and no inhabited area is immune to the devastating effects of rising temperatures.” The planet’s sixth ongoing mass extinction is a more pressing problem than climate change, and the fact that a quarter of all species today face extinction within decades. Regardless, the United States remains the only country not to have signed the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity. This, in short, means that ‘we are on the highway to climate hell’ and that ‘we are staring into the abyss into an unknown realm of destruction’, said UN Secretary-General António Guterres. He further stated: “
Despite being on the brink of climate carnage, the reason why not just the four, but HHS as a whole, have failed to work together to pursue decarbonized healthcare, especially when the industry has shown so little interest so far. Health care, unlike all other major U.S. industries, as four co-members recognized, Emily Senay, an associate professor at the Icahn School of Medicine in Mount Sinai, and her colleagues last March concluded that: ’” This is because, as they further explained, “there is no sector-wide push from academia or industry leaders, governments … regulators … or payers.”
Cooperation between the American Hospital Association (AHA), the Biotechnology Innovation Agency, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) and the UnitedHealth Group has been severely compromised. But mitigating the climate crisis does not appear to be a policy priority for either the AHA, PhRMA, or the healthcare sector, the two highest emitters of GHG pollution.
Dr. Victor Zau of the National Academy of Medicine took to the stage 15 months ago at a joint project launch event when he appeared to argue that there was no clear business case for decarbonizing the industry. did not. This is if HHS and the industry want to ignore any or all of the myriad of relentless health issues resulting from her GHG emissions that can potentially damage every cell and every organ in the body. Applies only to
As for HHS, under the United Democratic Party administration for the past two years, the department has approved Medicare or Medicaid regulation that would either reduce the industry’s 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually or improve the delivery of care related to the climate crisis. For example, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has determined that HRSA-regulated Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) provide care to minority patients who are disproportionately exposed to climate-related hazards. We are still unaware of the climate crisis, even though we are
Finally, even if it doesn’t dispel some metaphors, it’s worth putting a few items into context. Four experts say he has only 61 signatories to the HHS that have pledged to reduce GHG emissions. This is counterproductive as HHS does not require the use of standardized reporting metrics. To say that reporting carbon emissions is “troublesome” ignores the fact that programs such as Carbon Trace exist that use satellite data to track anthropogenic GHG emissions. You misunderstand the climate crisis by noting that providers face other competing priorities. As a meta-problem, all other competing delivery problems will be unsolvable until our carbon footprint is no longer released into the atmosphere or oceans. His climate-related HHS funding “shortage” is the department’s choice. Beyond the healthcare industry’s ethical obligation to not pollute patient air and the environment when it comes to funding the transition to renewable energy, going green is in the industry’s short- and long-term economic interests. is within the range of Numerous studies show that it has become cheaper to save the climate than to destroy it.
Last year, two weeks before the HHS collaboration began, 200 health journals published a call for urgent action to limit global temperature rise, restore biodiversity and protect health. An editorial was published at the same time. “As health professionals, we must do everything we can to support the transition to a sustainable, fairer, resilient and healthier world,” it said. Did. we are definitely not. Shame on us.
Dr. David Introcaso is an independent health policy consultant specializing in health policy reforms related to the climate crisis. He has conducted environmental and health policy research for the US Congress and the Department of Health and Human Services. He is also the creator and host of “The Healthcare Policy Podcast.”
