CDC Buries MMWR Documenting the Effectiveness of the COVID Vaccine  Next: An Alpha Test for Incoming CDC Director Schwartz

Acting CDC director Bhattacharya killed a ready-to-publish Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) this week which would have shown impressive effectiveness of COVID vaccines in preventing hospitalizations over the last couple years.

The analysis had already cleared evidence and technical review by career staff at the CDC. Then it got 86’d by Kennedy/Bhattacharya.

It isn’t surprising that Bhattacharya buried it. He knows what he did was wrong but doesn’t care because he’s loyal to Kennedy rather than evidence. 

I’ll be looking to see whether incoming CDC Director Erica Schwartz and her Deputy Director/CMO Jennifer Shuford publish the MMWR when they’re at their posts in a few weeks. It’ll be a good Alpha Test to forecast whether CDC’s reputation will improve or not under their leadership.

On paper, they are good picks. There’s a credible case that CDC could start turning the corner with them in charge. I’m cautiously optimistic.

But my optimism isn’t what matters. Schwartz and Shuford’s behavior is what will matter.

If Schwartz and Shuford take their posts and this MMWR stays buried or if a watered-down political document ends up being published, we’ll know that my optimism was unfounded (again).

If, on the other hand, if they publish the MMWR without watering it down it might be a sign that we can be optimistic about their future decisions.

This is a classic public health leadership test: Are you more interested in doing your job or keeping your job?

We’re about to find out which way it goes for Schwartz and Shuford.

ASTHO Statement on Appointment of Texas Commissioner Jennifer Shuford, MD, MPH, as CDC Deputy Director | ASTHO

Spot Bad Arguments Before They Spread

Dr. Greg Loeben joined us today for our Conversations & Coffee event and took on a problem every public health professional runs into: misleading arguments that sound convincing but fall apart under scrutiny.

His core points were that bad reasoning spreads faster than good evidence. If you can recognize the pattern, you can respond more effectively in real time.

Greg walked through seven common logical fallacies that show up all the time in public health debates:

  • Appeal to authority – leaning on a person’s status instead of evidence
  • Ad hominem – attacking the person rather than the argument
  • Appeal to nature – assuming “natural” means safe or better
  • False dilemma – presenting only two choices when more exist
  • Straw man – distorting someone’s position to make it easier to attack
  • Slippery slope – claiming one step will trigger extreme outcomes
  • Hasty generalization – drawing broad conclusions from limited data

He made a useful distinction: cognitive biases are how our brains tend to process information, while fallacies are errors in the structure of an argument. Social media makes both worse by rewarding attention, not accuracy.

The practical takeaway wasn’t “win the argument.” It was to recognize the pattern and respond strategically. Sometimes that means asking a clarifying question (“Are those really the only two options?”). Sometimes it means pointing out the mismatch (“That’s not what I said”). And sometimes—especially with family—it means disengaging.

Bottom line: You don’t need to memorize philosophy terms. You need pattern recognition. Once you see the structure of a bad argument, it’s a lot harder to be pulled in by it—and a lot easier to steer the conversation back to evidence.

I really encourage you to invest an hour in the webinar! I mean it. I learned more in that 50 minutes Friday than I have in a long time.

View the Coffee & Conversations Webinar 

Passcode: rc%$?+*8

AHCCCS 101, Part 3: Contract Management & Accountability

In Part 1, we walked through why Arizona built AHCCCS using managed care from the beginning. In Part 2, we covered how the state gets permission from the federal government to design and update the program using waivers and State Plan Amendments.

AHCCCS 101 (Part 1 of 4): AHCCCS’ Origin Story – Why Arizona Built Medicaid Different – AZ Public Health Association

AHCCCS 101 (Part 2 of 4): Waivers, State Plan Amendments and Who Decides – AZ Public Health Association

Now we get to what AHCCCS actually does every day.

At its core, AHCCCS’ main job is contract management.

Before we get into that, it’s worth stepping back and remembering how many people depend on this system. AHCCCS provides health insurance to well over 2 million Arizonans in a typical year.

That includes kids, people with disabilities, seniors needing long-term care, and adults (and some kids) with serious mental illness.

So how does AHCCCS make sure those people actually get care?

It goes back to the model we talked about in Part 1. AHCCCS doesn’t pay most providers directly. Instead, it contracts with health plans called AHCCCS Complete Care contractors and pays them a fixed amount per member per month.

Those contractors are responsible for building provider networks, paying claims, and making sure members get the services they’re entitled to.

That means AHCCCS is paying these plans with taxpayer dollars and trusting them to deliver care. So the agency’s job is to make sure the plans do what they said they would do in the contracts they signed.

Note: The American Indian Health Program is an administrative exception to the AHCCCS as contract manager rule -as the agency directly runs that fee-for-service program. In my opinion the horrible multi-billion-dollar fraud and human trafficking that occurred during the Ducey Administration probably wouldn’t have happened if a contractor were running AIHP & AHCCCS was regulating the contract.

One of the main tools AHCCCS uses is something called ACOMs, which stands for AHCCCS Medical Policy Manuals. These are detailed policy documents that spell out what services must be covered, how decisions should be made, and what standards plans are expected to meet.

In simple terms, ACOMs are the contractual rulebook that health plans have to follow.

But writing rules for required services isn’t enough. AHCCCS also needs to check whether plans are actually following them. Contract management. Compliance and enforcement.

AHCCCS conducts regular audits of its contracted health plans. These reviews look at things like whether claims are being paid correctly, whether services are being approved appropriately, and whether plans are meeting their contractual obligations.

Another key area is network adequacy. This is about whether a plan has enough doctors, specialists, and providers so members can actually get care when they need it. A benefit on paper doesn’t mean much if there’s no provider available to deliver it or if people have to wait forever for an appointment or drive a super long way for care.

Quality is another focus. AHCCCS uses national performance measures like HEDIS (Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set) to track how well plans are doing. These measures look at things like preventive care, chronic disease management, and follow-up after hospital visits.

If plans don’t meet expectations, AHCCCS can require corrective action and in some cases impose financial penalties.

Members themselves are also part of the accountability system. If someone is denied a service or has trouble getting care, they can file a grievance or an appeal. Those complaints are tracked and reviewed, and they can highlight patterns of problems within a health plan.

All of this ties back to the core idea from Part 1.

AHCCCS pays health plans a fixed amount per member per month. A plan can save money by postponing care, denying services, or offering a poor network.  That creates a real risk. That’s what AHCCCS is supposed to prevent.

That’s why contract management is so important.

AHCCCS has to make sure that the care it’s paying for is actually being delivered. Not just on paper via the contract but in real life.

In Part 4, we’ll take a closer look at the real-life part of AHCCCS…  how people enroll, who qualifies, – basically what real live people experience in the real world.

Two-Minute Warning at the Capitol (but both sides have unlimited time outs)

If you read our late-March update—Committee Deadlines Hit, Floor Action Accelerates, and Budget Negotiations Start—we said we were in the “late third quarter” of the legislative session. Fast forward a few weeks, and now we’re at the two-minute warning.

Arizona’s “100-day session” is more of a suggestion than a rule, especially with divided government. Legislature leaders can keep things going, and they often do, but less so on election years like this.

Almost all committees are done (except for Rules). What’s left is Committee of the Whole amendments, and third read (final floor) votes.

Just like we predicted, budget negotiations have taken center stage, and they’ve hit the phase where informal talks break down followed by pressure tactics to force real negotiations.

The Governor, like most of those before her, told the legislature she’ll veto everything that comes to her until a budget deal is done. This isn’t a new strategy… it’s standard operating procedure. Governors from Fife Symington forward have used the same play. It’s a way to force leadership to stop messing around and finish the budget.

Until there’s a budget agreement, the rest of the legislative agenda is effectively frozen. Bills that made it through committees and are sitting on deck for third read in suspended animation.

Once the budget deal comes together (it will) you’ll see a rapid series of floor votes as lawmakers clear the backlog and send a wave of bills to the Governor.

One added wrinkle this year is whether the state aligns with federal tax changes under HR1, which could complicate and slow negotiations even more.

Whether any agency directors will get confirmation is unclear. Hoffman’s Director Nomination Committee has hardly met at all this session – although Ruvjit “Ruby” Dhillon-Williams is up in that committee for the Department of Housing job next week (4/20).

Will Debbie Johnston at ADHS or Roberta Harrison at AHCCCS get hearings? We don’t know.

AG Mayes Compels APS to Stop Cutting Off People’s Power When Temps are Over 95°F

This week Attorney General Kris Mayes compelled Arizona Public Service to stop cutting off people’s power when temperatures are above 95°F.

Attorney General Mayes Secures $7 Million Settlement with APS Following Investigation into Disconnection Practices During Extreme Heat | Attorney General’s Office

APS would never have done this on their own. This was only done in response to a $7M settlement with APS pressed by Mayes – resolving allegations that APS violated the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act because of their previous disconnection policies.

There were several concessions APS made in the agreement – but the public health win is a new APS policy to stop cutting off people for nonpayment when the forecast high is 95°F or higher.

APS was earlier compelled to pause disconnections between June 1 and October 15, so this new agreement extends beyond fixed calendar dates and tying it directly to actual heat risk.

The settlement reflects a basic public health principle: align policy with risk. A temperature-based standard is better than a rigid seasonal window.

Kudos to Attorney General Mayes for pursuing this evidence based public health intervention.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the current Arizona Corporation Commission (or former AG Candidate Hamadeh) would never have gotten this out of APS.

Some Welcome News for Public Health (maybe_

This week brought a surprise and some relief (maybe). The president nominated Erica Schwartz, MD, JD to lead the CDC.

She’s a board-certified preventive medicine doctor, a former deputy surgeon general, a retired Coast Guard officer, and has a law degree. More importantly, she actually believes in using evidence to guide public health policy decisions.

I gotta say, this pick looks like the president is stomping on Kennedy’s toes pretty hard. Kennedy built his brand on spraying false information about vaccines and doing whatever he can to undermine evidence-based public health.

Schwartz is the opposite. She has a long history of believing in the scientific method and using evidence and data to inform and drive policy decisions.

Dr. Georges Benjamin, head of the APHA and keynote speaker at our May 1 AZPHA conference, said this week:

I think the administration has identified someone who is highly qualified and has a demonstrated track record of competence in being both a good physician and a decent manager. Things she’s said have clearly been based on good science.”

If confirmed, Dr. Schwartz would be a check on Kennedy’s whimsical vibe-based policy making. Let’s hope she uses her authority to push back on Kennedy. A bit of brinksmanship would be refreshing.

Register Today: From Crisis to Care: Improving Outcomes in Arizona’s Behavioral Health System

We’ve just about finalized our agenda for the Arizona Public Health Association’s 98th Annual Conference, and this year’s program focuses on one of the most important public health challenges facing Arizona: strengthening our behavioral health system.

View Our Agenda and Conference Brochure

Join us Friday, May 1 at the Desert Willow Conference Center in Phoenix for From Crisis to Care: Improving Outcomes in Arizona’s Behavioral Health System.

The day will explore practical strategies to improve outcomes across Arizona—from crisis response systems and Medicaid policy to maternal mental health, housing supports, integrated care, and new analytic tools.

We’re honored to open the conference with Georges Benjamin, MD, Executive Director, American Public Health Association, one of the nation’s most influential physician leaders and a steadfast advocate for evidence-based public health policy.

Register Here

AZPHA Member Breakfast & Learn Soundbites vs. Science: Spotting Logical Fallacies in Public Health Debates


In an era where misleading and inaccurate information spreads rapidly online, public health professionals face the challenge of deciding how best to respond.

One common instinct is to search out evidence that directly disproves the false claim. 

While such an approach is important it can also be time-consuming and can delay one’s response.  It can also fail to address a common problem or tactic with public health rhetoric. 

In this talk I focus on helping people recognize common logical fallacies and persuasive tactics often used to promote false or misleading ideas in public health.

By building this kind of critical awareness in advance, individuals are better equipped to challenge questionable claims when they see them and to point out to others the kinds of mistakes or misleading tactics that are being relied upon.

Register Here

Greg Loeben, Ph.D., MPH, is currently an Associate Professor and the Practicum Director in the Public Health Department at A.T. Still University.  Dr. Loeben’s research interests focus broadly on public health ethics and clinical ethics, particularly in end-of-life decision making. 

Previously, he held faculty positions in Bioethics at Midwestern University in Glendale, Arizona, and the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. He has also taught courses at Arizona State University and the University of Arizona.  He has a long history of consulting and doing clinical medical ethics for hospital systems, hospices, and other healthcare organizations.