Taiwan's National Health Insurance (NHI) will soon expand its coverage to include three types of cancer immunotherapies for its members. The new scheme will be effective from 1 June 2025 and will include first-line treatments for non-squamous non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and metastatic colorectal cancer, as well as the early stages of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). The new measure will involve a layout of around NT$3.295bn ($101.28m) and this will be allocated from a dedicated cancer fund each year to subsidise these cancer immunotherapies. According to National Health Insurance Administration this decision will bring immediate benefit to at least 2,700 to 3,400 patients. The biggest beneficiaries would be NSCLC patients followed by those with TNBC and metastatic colorectal cancer. Taiwan’s Medical Review and Pharmaceutical Benefits Division director administration Huang Yu-wen said cancer patients can expect to save about NT$1.71m ($52,564) to NT$2.47m in medical expenses annually. According to NHI the plan to include these three types of cancer immunotherapies into the NHI system which covers pembrolizumab and atezolizumab came after much discussion with various local medical communities and patient groups. This decision of the NHIA aligns with international treatment guidelines of the United States National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) as a reference. Pembrolizumab and atezolizumab are two types of drugs that are being used to effectively treat NSCLC. Note that your comment may be edited or removed in the future, and that your comment may appear alongside the original article on websites other than this one. There are no comments submitted yet. Do you have an interesting opinion? Then be the first to post a comment. more » more » more » more » more » more » more »
Campus Crackdown Advertisement Supported by Dozens of schools, including the University of California and Harvard, said the Trump administration ended the visas of their students in recent days. For many, the reasons are unclear. By Vimal PatelMiriam Jordan and Halina Bennet Nearly 300 international students were abruptly stripped of their ability to stay in the United States in recent days, according to universities and media reports, sowing fear among students and confusion at schools scrambling to help students facing detention and possible deportation. The moves targeted students at a wide range of universities, from private institutions like Harvard and Stanford to public ones like the University of Texas at Austin and Minnesota State University-Mankato. The University of California had dozens of cases reported across its campuses. Several immigration lawyers told The New York Times that they began receiving frantic emails and calls late last week from students who had been notified by the State Department or their universities that their visas or statuses had been terminated without clear justifications. Criminal convictions have always put students at risk of losing their status, but participation in political actions and committing traffic infractions have rarely been cited as justifications. In some cases, immigration officers have arrested international students related to their involvement in pro-Palestinian causes. In other cases, students had committed legal infractions, such as driving over the speed limit or while intoxicated, often years ago, several immigration lawyers said in interviews. But lawyers said the Trump administration had often given no reason at all, leaving them to guess why students were targeted. “This upends all usual practice by the government,” said Miriam Feldblum, chief executive of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, which represents more than 570 public and private colleges and universities across the country. “They are terminating students’ statuses in a way they have never done before and with virtually no explanation and little recourse to correct or appeal by either the institution or the students.” Late last month, Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, ordered diplomats to scour the social media postings of some visa applicants to keep away from the country those suspected of criticizing the United States and Israel. The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment. The recent moves add more anxiety to an already precarious environment for international students and scholars in the United States. Advocates for international education worry that such moves will chill the ability of U.S. schools to attract foreign students. Last month, Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate student who was involved in pro-Palestinian activism during campus protests last year, was arrested at his apartment and sent to Louisiana for possible deportation, despite being a permanent resident. Shortly after, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Tufts University student from Turkey, was detained by masked agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while she was on the way to meet friends. Ms. Ozturk, who had written a pro-Palestinian opinion essay, was also taken to Louisiana. The moves aimed at international students fit with the Trump administration’s broader policy agenda of reducing the number of immigrants, both legal and undocumented, and of forcing universities to crack down on what the president says is rampant antisemitism on campuses. The United States issued more than 400,000 visas to students in 2024. Some of the students targeted recently had committed offenses like speeding or driving while intoxicated, the lawyers said. They said that such offenses did not ordinarily rise to deportation. Without a visa an international student becomes undocumented, and must leave the United States or risk being detained and placed in deportation proceedings. Several attorneys said that they had clients who had opted to leave the country out of fear that they could be arrested by agents from ICE, the Homeland Security agency charged with carrying out Mr. Trump’s pledge of mass deportations. Some of the affected students are graduate students who have doctoral dissertations that they are supposed to defend next month. Others are undergraduates. Still others have completed their studies and have been working in the United States, under a special program that allows recent international graduates to remain in the country for up to three years if employed. “This is totally unprecedented,” said Fuji Whittenburg, an immigration lawyer in Calabasas, Calif., who has been practicing law for 20 years. “I have never seen anything close to this.” She added, “A brush with law enforcement that didn’t necessarily result in an arrest or a conviction is all it took.” Ms. Whittenburg said that one of her clients was an Indian national who got a DUI when he was studying in the United States more than a decade ago. When he applied for a second student visa more recently, he disclosed the charge to U.S. consular authorities in his home country. They ultimately granted him the visa to pursue further studies in the United States. Harvard advised international students last week during a webinar to think carefully about traveling abroad, according to The Harvard Crimson, the student newspaper. The staff also warned students that pro-Palestinian speech could be risky. During the webinar, Jason Corral, an attorney, said there seemed to be a change from President Trump’s first term, according to The Crimson. “The difference is we have seen situations where it seems as though people’s visas are being revoked simply based on their speech or protests,” he said. In an alert, a coalition of national student media organizations urged student media last week to “minimize harm,” citing threats to student speech. On Monday a letter sent to Michael Drake, the president of the University of California, and others by the Council of University of California Faculty Association said the university should help students who had been targeted, arguing it had a “moral obligation” to protect students and scholars’ legal rights. The letter, which was co-signed by the University Council AFT, a teaching faculty and librarians union, called on the university to allow deported or detained students to continue their programs remotely, to continue providing stipends, salaries and fellowships and to help students in the courts. Several students have sued the government to challenge their terminations, and lawsuits are expected to pile up. Stacy Tolchin, an immigration lawyer in Pasadena, Calif., filed two suits in federal court in Los Angeles on Saturday, and said that she would be filing more this week. In one case, the American Civil Liberties Union is representing a Chinese doctoral student at Dartmouth College who has been studying computer science. According to a complaint filed on April 4, the student, Xiaotian Liu, had not committed any crimes or participated in any protests. The college told the student in an email that this was “not standard or normal procedure,” according to the lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in New Hampshire. “Xiaotian’s dream of finishing his doctoral program and obtaining a Ph.D. at Dartmouth College is now in severe jeopardy,” the lawsuit said. Steven Rich contributed reporting. Vimal Patel writes about higher education with a focus on speech and campus culture. Miriam Jordan reports from a grass roots perspective on immigrants and their impact on the demographics, society and economy of the United States. What Are Endowments For?: The Trump administration’s war on elite universities has forced them to consider whether it’s ever worth dipping into the trust. Graduation Speakers: As colleges face increased scrutiny from the federal government, they are taking diverging approaches in choosing commencement keynotes. Long Island Mascot Fight: President Trump is weighing in on a school mascot dispute at Massapequa High School, where some parents are upset that a Chiefs mascot and logo must go under a state rule. States Sue: A coalition of 19 states sued the Trump administration over its threat to withhold federal funding from states and districts with certain diversity programs in their public schools. Lawyer’s Harvard Ties: President Trump directed his sons to fire an outside ethics counsel for the family business because the lawyer also represents Harvard University, one of Trump’s targets in his crackdown on the nation’s top colleges. Amherst College’s Identity Crisis: Amherst was known for its diverse student population. Now it is trying to save that legacy without violating the law. Juilliard Plans Drive to Go Tuition Free: The goal is to make the school’s programs more accessible and to ease the burden on graduates pursuing careers in the arts. Advertisement
Join SamMobileTV! Great Samsung Galaxy deals! Galaxy S25 Ultra, Watch Ultra, and many more! Search Follow us on social media Follow us on social media Follow us on social media Follow us on social media Follow us on social media Follow us on social media Follow us on social media Follow us on social media 25 April 2025 SamMobile has affiliate and sponsored partnerships, we may earn a commission. A good start to the weekend for owners of the 2023 flagship. Reading time: 2 minutes Galaxy S23, Galaxy S23+, and Galaxy S23 Ultra owners in the USA are getting an excellent weekend gift: Samsung has started rolling out the One UI 7 (Android 15) update to the Galaxy S23 lineup stateside. This comes as a surprise, as except Korea, all markets were expected to get the update in May. The initial rollout appears to be targeted at the Galaxy S23, S23+, and S23 Ultra sold by smaller carriers like US Cellular and Xfinity Mobile. Here’s hoping the major carriers will jump onboard and Samsung will release the update to unlocked devices soon, though we can assume the weekend may slow things down a bit.
“They have three things that they’re looking for carriers to improve on next year. One is online claims filing,” said Kevin Moss. An old bit of wisdom says the average person has lots of problems, but when you have a serious health issue, you’ve got just one problem. That’s why the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan program is so important to federal employees at all levels. For several years, my next guest has been a walking encyclopedia of facts about the FEHBP. Here on the Federal Drive with Tom Temin with a review and a very early look at what might be in store for next year, the senior editor of Consumers’ Checkbook, Kevin Moss.
Interview transcript: Tom Temin: It’s an odd time to be talking about FEHBP since open season is months off, but since you’ve been a regular, and I won’t be very long, I wanted to get one last interview in with you. And is there any initial clue as to what people might be facing besides rate increases in the coming next round of signups? Learn how FEMA and DoD teams are using collaboration, automation and AI to shape cybersecurity at the edge in our new Executive Briefing, sponsored by Verizon. Download today! Kevin Moss: There’s a couple of things that we can talk about. First of all, we already know some of OPM’s priorities for next year. They release these as carrier letters to inform all the FEHB carriers of what their new priorities are going to be for the next plan year. And so a big one is administrative burden. So this is just how difficult it is to operate within a health insurance plan. They have three things that they’re looking for carriers to improve on next year. One is online claims filing. They want you to be able to complete and submit fillable claim forms, be able submit supporting documents, and basically being able to manage your claims online, trying to cut away some of the older ways of doing this like faxing and mailing things. Kevin Moss: Effective provider directory tools. Now most carriers are providing these provider directory tools. But I think what OPM is going for here is more prominent display of where this is — like when you go to a carrier website, you don’t want to hunt around for five minutes to figure out where something is. So they’re asking for a prominent link displayed on the carrier homepage and making sure that there’s consistent information across all the provider directories. So every provider directory has to have the provider name, practice or group name, location, network status, sex, specialty, whether the provider has a board certification, languages spoken, accepting new patients and telemedicine services. Kevin Moss: And then the final administrative burden piece is clear disputed claims information, allowing members to understand how to file a disputed claim. Providing fact sheets, required deadlines, and also offering a variety of ways to file a disputed claim and to interact with OPM if something’s not going well with you and your health plan. So I think these are all real welcome changes. Administrative burden is like a really hot topic, not just in FEHB, but across health insurance — things like prior authorization, disputed claims — and OPM is trying to ease that administrative burden. Tom Temin: Yeah, that’s interesting that they’re looking on making it easier to use the plan that you choose, I guess. Nothing about what health benefits are covered specifically, though? Kevin Moss: Yeah, we’ve got a few additional little tidbits. So one is also HIV PrEP medications now must be covered as preventative care at zero cost share. Any Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) that operate in service areas that have a state in vitro fertilization (IVF) mandate must provide IVF benefits to cover that mandate in their FEHB plan. How about mental health parity and network adequacy? This is a big issue. Making sure that all plan members have access to mental health. OPM’s looking at things like member wait times and network utilization rates and how hard it is for new patients to get appointments. And they have said in some of these carrier letters that if that can’t happen in-network, then carriers may need to look for out-of-network benefits to make sure that those standards are being met in terms of mental health parity. Kevin Moss: Two more, and one I might want to talk just a little bit more about. So organ tissue transplants — they’re encouraging, but not mandating that carriers provide coverage for transplant services that are recommended under clinical trials. And there was one related to some executive orders that have come from the Trump administration — it has to do with gender-affirming care. FEHB plans no longer can provide pediatric coverage of gender-affirming care. They are also no longer requiring FEHB plans to cover gender-affirming care for individuals 19 or above, but carriers do have the choice as to whether they want to continue providing those services, but they’re no longer required. Pediatric coverage for plan year 2026 — that’s defined by younger than 19 — is no longer provided by any FEHB plan. Tom Temin: All right, so that’s the only really, I guess, political — if you want to call it that — social, political, cultural hotspot really that’s in what they’re offering or what they are planning for? Sign up for our daily newsletter so you never miss a beat on all things federal Kevin Moss: Yeah, I think that’s right. And compared to previous years, we’re not really seeing —there’s some things that will definitely have an impact for federal employees and annuitants here. But I’m not seeing, like, huge, big changes. A lot of it is kind of the administrative burden, which is how easy it is to operate in plans, I think is a big win for everyone. But in terms of new benefits or expanded benefits, I think we’re mostly on the edges here. Tom Temin: We’re speaking with Kevin Moss. He’s senior editor for the nonprofit Consumers’ Checkbook and an expert on federal employee health benefit plans. So then we don’t know rates or anything. That comes at the open season time, although inflation is a little lower than it was a year prior, and we don’t know what they might plan for employee contribution to all of this. That is all up in the air, but another part of the world for OMB and OPM.
SCOTT SIMON, HOST: Some fired federal employees have received even more unwelcome news in recent days. It involves their government health insurance. They thought they still had a couple of more weeks of coverage. Now some are learning they may have been cut off weeks ago. NPR’s Andrea Hsu joins us. Andrea, thanks for being with us. ANDREA HSU, BYLINE: Thanks for having me, Scott. SIMON: Who are these employees? HSU: Well, the people I’ve spoken with all work for the Department of Commerce in different areas. And they were fired back in late February and early March, you know, as part of the Trump administration’s purge of newer hires or probationary employees. Now, you’ll remember these firings happened so suddenly and so chaotically that there were immediate questions over whether they were legal. And, in fact, within weeks, a federal judge had ordered agencies to reinstate these workers, at least temporarily. But then, several weeks after that, an appeals court found fault with that order and voided it, and the Commerce Department fired everyone again the very next day. SIMON: So what happened to their health insurance? HSU: Well, that is the million-dollar question. You know, the federal government, like any big employer, has policies about benefits. And when these Commerce Department employees were first fired, many of them were told that their health insurance would end 31 days after their last pay period. That would have been April 8. But the confusion began when they were reinstated. I’ve spoken with about a half dozen of these employees, and each one struggled at that point to get an answer to the basic question, do we have our health insurance back? SIMON: HR couldn’t answer that? HSU: No. You know, a lot of them have heard nothing. And for some, it was a pressing question. I spoke with Ya’el Seid-Green back in January. She had scheduled arthroscopic hip surgery for April 9, and here’s what she said. YA’EL SEID-GREEN: I was going back and forth. Do I try and reschedule it? Do I cancel it? Do I keep it? What do I do? HSU: You know, she kept asking her supervisor. And finally, the day before her surgery, she got forwarded an email that said, you know, her insurance was being reinstated. So she showed up for her procedure. She was handed a cost estimate. She paid her $150 co-pay, and she had the surgery. But then, Scott, the very next day, April 10, while she was in her postsurgical appointment, that’s when she learned she was fired again. SIMON: And did that mean she was losing her health insurance immediately? HSU: Well, she didn’t think so. You know, again, the government has a policy of giving employees 31 days of coverage after they’ve separated. And also, you know, these employees – they had been paying their premiums, and insurance companies had even sent people new insurance cards after they were reinstated. So even after people had been fired again, you know, many of them kept their medical appointments. Another person I spoke with, Keri Murphy, had foot surgery on April 17. That morning, she also called and checked with her insurer to make sure she had coverage and was told she did. But little did she know, on that very day, Ya’el Seid-Green and other Commerce Department employees were getting a new memo from the government telling them their insurance had lapsed on April 8, per that original termination date. Now, Keri Murphy, to be clear – she did not get this memo. She has still not heard anything from the government. But this week, you know, one of her group chats started blowing up with colleagues from her own office saying they had called their insurers and were told their coverage ended April 8. And now she is too scared to call her insurance company. KERI MURPHY: This has been such a life-changing, devastating series of events that I don’t know how much more bad news I can take. SIMON: Without insurance, how will these two people pay for their surgeries? HSU: Well, federal employees do have the option of doing the equivalent of COBRA and paying, you know, to continue their care. And Ya’el Seid-Green said she’ll probably do that for a month because that cost estimate she received showed that even the negotiated insurance rate for her surgery was more than $17,000. Keri Murphy – she had her whole family on her government plan, and continuing that plan, she thinks, will cost her close to $3,000 a month. It’s money she doesn’t have because she just lost her job. Meanwhile, you know, she has an appointment next week to get her bandages removed, and she may have to cancel that. SIMON: Andrea, what does the Trump administration have to say about all this? HSU: Well, we sent detailed questions to the Commerce Department about this insurance mess and got no reply. We also reached out to the Office of Personnel Management, and they just referred us to general benefits information. I did speak with an outside expert on federal employee benefits. And she said, you know, we’ve never had a situation where people have been fired, rehired and fired again, so this is all unknown territory. SIMON: NPR’s Andrea Hsu. Thanks so much. HSU: Thanks, Scott. (SOUNDBITE OF OMEGAH RED’S “BOOKS OF WAR (INSTRUMENTAL)”) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR. NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
