Kennedy appointees to a powerful federal health panel were allowed to keep their drug company stocks, according to documents reviewed by the New York Times. Four of the eight people appointed by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in September to the United States Preventive Services Task Force own stock in companies that make drugs and other products affected by the panel’s decisions. The investments were described in conflict-of-interest waivers that gave the members permission to serve on the panel, which the Times obtained through a public records request.
The four Kennedy appointees are Patrick K. Hunter, a pediatrician; Ronald P. Karlsberg and Venkatesh L. Murthy, both cardiologists; and Dennis W. Wulfeck, a diagnostic radiologist. All four own shares in Eli Lilly and Johnson and Johnson. Their other holdings include Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Pfizer, Novo Nordisk, CVS Health and Cigna. The task force now has 16 members, after Kennedy named the eight appointees on 17 September.
The waivers were written by Roger D. Klein, director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which oversees the task force. Klein wrote that no single member can make a final decision on behalf of the panel. He put the drug and health holdings at no more than 15 percent of Karlsberg’s portfolio, 20 percent of Murthy’s and Wulfeck’s, and 45 percent of Hunter’s. The waivers do not say whether the shares are held directly or through a fund managed by someone else.
Kennedy appointees and the waivers
The Kennedy appointees joined a panel whose recommendations carry weight well beyond the exam room. Its guidance shapes clinical practice, and under the Affordable Care Act, insurers must cover preventive services the panel grades A or B at no cost to patients. The panel grades services such as colonoscopies, depression screening and HIV prevention medication. A recommendation passes only when two-thirds of the 16 members vote yes, and a member who steps aside over a conflict does not vote.
Former task force members told the Times that letting the Kennedy appointees keep their health care holdings could sway their decisions and erode public trust in the panel. They said that before the change, candidates would have been asked to sell such holdings. Wulfeck declined to comment on his investments, the newspaper reported.
The rules around the panel changed after the Supreme Court ruled last June in Kennedy v. Braidwood that the health secretary can remove members at will and block a recommendation before it takes effect. A February 2025 version of the task force’s own rules treated any stake over $1,000 as a conflict that could bar a member from leading a topic, speaking for it or taking part at all. The change came before the Kennedy appointees took their seats.
Kennedy appointees face questions over conflicts
A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services told the Times that the Kennedy appointees are now subject to different ethics requirements because the Supreme Court ruling made them special government employees, and that the agency is updating its procedures. The spokesperson did not say when the new procedures would take effect or what they would require.
The other four Kennedy appointees were not described in the Times report as holding drug stocks. The waivers obtained by the Times cover only the four members named, and the report does not say whether any other appointee received a similar exception. Kennedy named eight people to the panel in September, bringing it to 16 members.
What the panel decides next
The panel’s next recommendations will be watched closely, because its grades decide which preventive services insurers must pay for and which drugs gain ground with doctors and patients. Its work touches mammography screening, colonoscopies, cholesterol checks and HIV prevention drugs, among other services. Any recommendation that favours a drug made by a company in a member’s portfolio would draw fresh attention to the Kennedy appointees and their waivers.
The episode adds to the scrutiny of Kennedy’s running of the health department, which has already drawn attention for its handling of vaccine policy and its overhaul of advisory panels. The waivers show that four of the eight new members arrived with financial ties to the industry the panel oversees, and that the department chose to let them keep those ties. The task force’s members must still consider whether to step aside from topics with direct relevance to their financial interests, and the waivers leave that judgment to them.