Good morning, Vitals readers! Today's newsletter is 940 words or a 3.5-minute read.

Situational awareness: The Senate Finance Committee yesterday released its long-awaited health and tax provisions, with some controversial moves to get more savings from Medicaid, Peter Sullivan and Victoria Knight wrote for Axios Pro.

Hundreds of researchers who saw their NIH-funded studies halted by the Trump administration could begin working again soon after a federal judge ordered their funding restored yesterday.

Why it matters: The ruling was the latest blow to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s efforts to reshape the agency, including cutting funding for research and institutions that it says do not support the agency's mission, such as diversity, equity and inclusion studies.

• If it survives likely appeals, the ruling could allow researchers to restart their work on subjects including cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's and HIV.
• "The Trump administration has tried to impose their own ideological concerns on top of a well-functioning system," Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and a plaintiff in the case, told Axios. "Today they got called out."

Driving the news: NIH cut nearly $3.8 billion in grants to U.S. institutions, per estimates from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

• Attorneys representing researchers in several states said the funding cuts were "arbitrary" and singled out cuts affecting people of color, women and LGBTQ+ people.
• Yesterday, U.S. District Court Judge William Young told the attorneys that the case raises serious concerns about racial discrimination related to health and said some evidence points to potential discrimination against women's health.
• "I've never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable," Young, a Reagan appointee, said Monday.

The other side: HHS said it is exploring all legal options, including filing an appeal and moving to stay the order.

• "HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a statement.

Go deeper

Attorneys general from 55 U.S. states and territories signed onto a $7.4 billion settlement with Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family for their role in the country's opioid epidemic, officials said Monday.

Why it matters: The settlement, first announced in January, ends the Sackler family's control of Purdue Pharma and prohibits them from selling opioids in the country going forward, per state officials.

• It ends the states' litigation against the company and the Sackler family, but does not shield the Sackler family from future opioid crisis lawsuits.

State of play: The funds will be distributed over 15 years, with the majority going out to states in the first three years, per the deal. The Sacklers will pay $1.5 billion in their first payment, and Purdue will pay about $900 million.

• Purdue Pharma filed a new bankruptcy plan in March to aid in delivering the settlement.
• Local government sign-on for the settlement is contingent on approval from bankruptcy court, state attorneys general said in news releases.

Go deeper

Anne Wojcicki is poised to regain control of genetics testing company 23andMe, which she cofounded and led until earlier this year, after agreeing to put much of her personal fortune on the line.

Why it matters: This is the same person that 23andMe customers originally trusted with their personal data, albeit under a much more opaque governance structure.

Catch up quick: Regeneron Pharma in May won a bankruptcy auction for 23andMe's assets, bidding $265 million and beating out Wojcicki (who'd been trying to purchase the company since well before the Chapter 11 filing).

• The move sparked both congressional inquiry and lawsuits, including from 27 state attorneys general who claim a sale can't occur without consumer consent.
• Wojcicki fought to get the auction reopened, and on Friday reached an agreement to buy the 23andMe assets for $305 million.
• A Regeneron spokesperson says the company "declined to submit a new bid ... based on our assessment of 23andMe's remaining value."

Look ahead: A court hearing to approve Wojcicki's bid is scheduled for today.

The bottom line: Even if she clears all the legal hurdles, it remains unclear how Wojcicki plans to make 23andMe into a viable business.

Read more

Ineffective policies are limiting access to critical compounded drugs — patient-specific therapies prescribed when an FDA-approved drug is inappropriate or unavailable.

What you need to know: Our Blueprint outlines 14 targeted reforms to protect patient care.

Get the facts.

Dermatologists had hoped that an active sunscreen ingredient popular in Europe would be available in the U.S. by summer — but the FDA still hasn't approved it.

Why it matters: U.S. sunscreens lack some of the advanced UVA protection found in international brands, due to outdated FDA regulations, experts say.

Catch up quick: Bemotrizinol, a sunscreen filter, seemed close to FDA approval late last year.

• Last year, an FDA spokesperson told Axios that "one manufacturer is working with the FDA to generate the requested data for bemotrizinol," but the agency hasn't shared further detail and didn't respond to Axios' request for comment this year.

What we're hearing: Bemotrizinol — which has been available in sunscreens in other parts of the world for years — is photostable (doesn't break down once exposed to sunlight) and better at protecting against UVA rays than U.S. filters, dermatologist Henry Lim told Axios.

Between the lines: International sunscreens sold in the U.S. — like Korean brands — are often modified or reformulated to meet U.S. regulations.

What's next: "The soonest a decision will be made is 2026," Nazanin Saedi, a dermatologist and associate professor at Thomas Jefferson University, told Axios. "So do not delay in stocking up on your sunscreen for this summer!"

Share this

❌ New guidelines for Veterans Affairs hospitals could allow workers to decline to treat patients based on personal characteristics not prohibited by anti-discrimination law, like political affiliation. (The Guardian)