King, Colleagues Call on HHS to Prioritize 40-Year Independent Tack Record of Prevention Task Force

WASHINGTON D.C. - U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), alongside Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), is leading a group of his colleagues in criticizing recent actions and calling on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to prioritize the 40-year independent track record of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). In their letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the senators ask him to explain his abrupt overhaul of the USPSTF, appointing eight new members whose qualifications fall short of the traditional standards.

More specifically, the senators explain how a refusal to share information on the decision-making process, and a shift in membership from primary care professionals to specialists, jeopardizes the independence and capabilities of the Task Force. This letter to HHS builds upon Senator King's defense of USPSTF earlier this year, previously reaching out to Secretary Kennedy to urge the department to prioritize science and data backed preventive medicine, as well as introducing a resolution last year affirming support for the Task Force.

The senators begin their letter, "The Task Force membership historically has been comprised of experts in clinical medicine, scientific research, and public health, who are extensively vetted for conflicts of interest. USPSTF's process for developing recommendations and its agenda is transparent to the public and based on high-quality and unbiased scientific evidence. Thus, the Task Force's recommendations can be considered neutral, unbiased, and evidence-based by all stakeholders."

"Given the background of many of the new members, we have strong concerns about the Task Force's ability to make independent, evidence-based recommendations. Specialists have always contributed to the Task Force's evidence reviews, and they should. But the Task Force's work is broad and spans the full range of clinical preventive services, for every age group, and it has historically drawn on people trained in primary care, prevention, and evidence-based medicine," the senators continued. "As five of the eight new members are specialists, we are concerned about the types of recommendations and direction of the Task Force in focusing on patient care and clinical preventive services.

The senators concluded, "We look forward to hearing from you in response to these questions, and urge that the administration prioritize resuming the cost- and life-saving work of the Task Force while adhering to the evidence-based and scientifically informed processes that have ensured the historic credibility of USPSTF."

Long known as the 'Prevention Senator,' King has worked on policy solutions that keep Maine people healthy and lower the costs for patients and providers alike. Last year, he introduced the Preventive Health Savings Act which would instruct the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to fully study the costs and benefits that could be seen with proposed preventive health care legislation. He has previously introduced legislation requiring private insurance plans to cover three annual primary care visits and three annual outpatient mental health or outpatient substance use disorder treatment visits, without charging a copayment, coinsurance, or deductible-related fee. In doing so, this legislation also would catch smaller, or early health symptoms before they become larger threats requiring more extensive and expensive treatments.

Senator King also introduced the 'Stand Strong' legislative package, which included the Stand Strong Falls Prevention Act that would require the development of a National Falls Prevention Plan, the Preventive Home Visits Act, which would provide Medicare coverage for qualified care providers to assess the safety of seniors' homes, and the Wellness and Education for Longer Lives (WELL) for Seniors Act, which would improve Medicare's Annual Wellness Visit to encourage seniors and their physicians to work together and confront health issues before they become more serious.

In addition to King, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Lisa Blunt-Rochester (D-DE), Ed Markey (D-MA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM).

The full text of the letter is available here and below.

+++

Dear Secretary Kennedy,

We write today to express our alarm and strong concern regarding the status of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (the Task Force or USPSTF). Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the appointment of eight new Task Force members, including five specialists - a major break from the historic makeup of USPSTF membership that is typically comprised of preventionists and primary care practitioners. The Task Force has also not met for a year-and-a-half - the first time it's not met consistently in at least a decade - delaying critical decisions that directly impact the health of Americans. We write to seek clarity on recent actions, including how they will inform the future work of USPSTF and how the Task Force will continue to adhere to principles of independence and scientific rigor.

The Task Force membership historically has been comprised of experts in clinical medicine, scientific research, and public health, who are extensively vetted for conflicts of interest. USPSTF's process for developing recommendations and its agenda is transparent to the public and based on high-quality and unbiased scientific evidence. Thus, the Task Force's recommendations can be considered neutral, unbiased, and evidence-based by all stakeholders.

Going back to at least 2002, HHS under Democrats and Republicans (including under President Trump's first term) has consistently used either the same format through the Federal Register or the Task Force's website to announce and solicit requests for nominations. Qualification requirements to be an appointed member of the Task Force was derived from expertise in primary care and prevention medicine.

We were particularly alarmed by the April 23, 2026, Federal Register notice, both for the change in nominee parameters as well as the timeline. AHRQ sought nominations of physician specialists in areas well outside of primary care and preventive medicine, including practitioners in anesthesiology/pain management, cardiology, hematology/oncology, radiology, and surgery, among others. Specialists have always played a role in Task Force operations as consultants, though in part to preclude any conflict of interest that they may have through prescribing an intervention.

The extremely truncated nominations timeline was also incredibly concerning. The process for reviewing nominees historically took a year, with three months to collect nominees. The April 2026 Federal Register Notice gave one month's notice, for appointments to potentially begin in June 2026. This rushed process not only calls into question the seriousness of this nominations process, but also whether the Members ultimately selected were pre-determined.

In addition to seriously problematic changes to the solicitation notice, the transparency of the selection process was marred from the start. The Chair and leadership of the Task Force historically review and make recommendations to the Secretary for new appointments to USPSTF. On May 19, 2026, the Task Force Chair and Vice Chair were fired because they were supposedly unlawfully appointed per the Braidwood decision. If Braidwood had made such a declaration, the Chair and Vice Chair would have been fired immediately or shortly thereafter the June 2025 decision.

By removing the leadership of the Task Force, this recent appointment process lacked political independence and transparency, expert and historic perspective of Task Force qualifications, and ultimately diminished the integrity of USPSTF. Incredibly, it is unclear how these new members currently adhere (if at all) to the historic rigorous conflict of interest standards of Task Force membership. As of writing today, the Conflict of Interest disclosures page - where individual Members' disclosures were historically published - is barren and inactive, which gives us serious concern regarding the independence of these new members.

Given the background of many of the new members, we have strong concerns about of the Task Force's ability to make independent, evidence-based recommendations. Specialists have always contributed to the Task Force's evidence reviews, and they should. But the Task Force's work is broad and spans the full range of clinical preventive services, for every age group, and it has historically drawn on people trained in primary care, prevention, and evidence-based medicine. As five of the eight new members are specialists, we are concerned about the types of recommendations and direction of the Task Force in focusing on patient care and clinical preventive services.

Finally, in addition to the new direction of the Task Force, we have serious concerns about the capability of USPSTF to conduct its incredibly important work given the major cuts that have occurred at its supporting organization, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The Task Force's evidence reviews are conducted by career staff at AHRQ. Approximately 80 percent of AHRQ staff have been fired or left the Agency without being replaced and there are reportedly less than 2 experts directly working at AHRQ to support the Task Force's work. We have strong concerns that the Task Force will be able to develop evidence-based and credible recommendations without an adequate support staff.

As you'll recall, we were joined by a number of our colleagues in writing to you earlier this year, for which we have still not received a response from you. Therefore, given these seriously concerning actions, we request a response to our previous letter and to the following questions by October 15, 2026:

1. What is the scientific and evidence-based justification for changes to the makeup of Task Force membership to move away from primary care and preventive medical experts to specialists?
2. Transitioning from a three-month public solicitation plus months-long review process to a two-month-long whole review and selection process is incredibly concerning.
3. 1. What was the justification for shortening the Task Force member selection review timeline?
   2. Did HHS or AHRQ review candidates prior to the April 2026 Federal Register notice?
4. What is the legal justification for having removed the Chair and Vice Chair of the Task Force in May 2026?
5. 1. Where specifically in the Braidwood decision does it discuss that the then-Chair and -Vice Chair were unlawfully appointed?
6. What is the justification for not publicizing the conflict of interest disclosures of the newly appointed Task Force members?
7. 1. How is Congress, the medical community, and the public expected to have faith in the independence of the Task Force going forward?
8. The staff support for the Task Force at AHRQ has been diminished. How does HHS expect the Task Force to develop credible recommendations without adequate support?

We look forward to hearing from you in response to these questions, and urge that the administration prioritize resuming the cost- and life-saving work of the Task Force while adhering to the evidence-based and scientifically informed processes that have ensured the historic credibility of USPSTF.

Sincerely,

###