Pharma Silent On Immigration Ban Despite Relying Heavily On Foreign Labor
"My guess is pharma is waiting to see how it plays out and which side the public opinion goes,” said Hank Greely, director of the Center for Law and the Biosciences at Stanford Law School. “I think that’s prudent — but another word for prudent, of course, is ‘cowardly.’” Meanwhile, hospitals are already feeling the effects of the ban, and hundreds of medical students and doctors want Dana-Farber Cancer Institute to cancel its fundraiser at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida in light of the order.
Stat:
Has The Drug Industry Been Cowed Into Silence By The Tweeter-In-Chief?
Titans of the automotive, banking, and technology industries have spoken out in recent days against President Donald Trump’s move to block arrivals from seven Muslim-majority nations. But the pharmaceutical sector, which relies disproportionately on immigrant labor, has been almost universally silent — perhaps in a bid to avoid rousing Trump’s ire before a crucial meeting Tuesday morning at the White House. STAT reached out to the 15 biggest drug companies about the immigration ban; only Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Novartis responded with statements — and they simply expressed support for affected employees, without taking a stance on Trump’s action. (Garde, 1/31)
Modern Healthcare:
Hospitals Feeling The Early Effects Of Trump Immigration Ban
The ban has been a cause of uncertainty among many within the healthcare industry as providers attempt to figure out what a stricter immigration policy may mean for the thousands of non-US citizens who come and live in the US each year to train and work in the field. Some employees, including physicians, have been directly affected, while others fear that they will be. At least one hospital's human resources department is gearing up to address potential problems resulting from the policy. (Whitman and Johnson, 1/31)
Cleveland Plain Dealer:
Cleveland Clinic Doctor Removed From U.S. Under Trump's Immigration Ban Says Feds Misled Her
A Cleveland Clinic doctor from Sudan said in a lawsuit against President Donald Trump filed Tuesday that she was "misled and coerced" by immigration authorities into signing forms this weekend that canceled her work visa, which ultimately led to her removal from the United States. Dr. Suha Abushamma, an internal medicine resident at the Clinic since July, also said in the lawsuit that U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents violated a stay issued by a New York federal judge barring officials from removing anyone who arrived in the U.S. with a green card or a work visa from countries named in Trump's executive order on immigration. (Heisig, 1/31)
Boston Globe:
Harvard Med Students, Doctors Urge Cancellation Of Dana-Farber Fundraiser At Mar-A-Lago
Hundreds of medical students, doctors, and other medical personnel opposed to President Trump’s immigration order are urging the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute to cancel a lavish fund-raiser at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club in Florida. But even as the number of signatures on a circulating petition grew — rising to 700 caregivers in Boston and across the United States by 5 p.m. Tuesday — Dana-Farber said it would not risk losing money earmarked for cancer research and treatment by canceling the fund-raiser. (Kowalczyk, 1/31)
The Hill:
Harvard Medical Students Demand Cancer Center Cancel Fundraiser At Mar-A-Lago
Harvard Medical School students and physicians are calling on a Boston cancer center to cancel a fundraiser scheduled to be held at President Trump’s club, Mar-a-Lago, in Florida. In an email, hundreds of students implored the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute to relocate the fundraising event in light of Trump’s recent executive order that temporarily prohibits people from seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the U.S., the Boston Globe reported. (Calfas, 1/ 31)
In other news on the president's executive orders —
CQ Roll Call:
Trump Order Could Have Unintended Consequences For Health Rules
President Donald Trump’s executive order on Monday, which is designed to reduce the burdens of regulation on businesses, could result in some complicated maneuvering for health agencies, according to experts on health law and regulation. The executive order said that any new proposed regulation needs to be balanced by a repeal of two existing regulations. The order also instructed the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidelines specific to each executive agency for how it should determine what qualifies as a new regulation and how much it will cost. (Siddons, 1/31)
