Buyers still have time -- but not much if they want to cash in

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• Federal EV tax credits will end September 30 after being eliminated in Trumps new budget bill

• Buyers still have time to claim up to $7,500if they act quickly and meet strict eligibility rules

• Analysts warn of slowed demand, but manufacturers plan deep discounts to stay competitive

Americans hoping to score a federal tax break on a new or used electric vehicle have just two months left, following President Trumps decision to eliminate EV tax credits as part of his sweeping budget bill signed into law on July 4.

The move abruptly ends the Clean Vehicle Credit, which previously offered up to $7,500 for the purchase or lease of a new qualifying EV and $4,000 for used models. While the credits were originally scheduled to remain in effect through 2032 under the Biden administrations Inflation Reduction Act, they will now expire on September 30, 2025.

To qualify, buyers must meet income and vehicle eligibility criteria, with caps on adjusted gross income, vehicle price, assembly location, and battery sourcing. For instance, new EVs must be under $80,000 for trucks and SUVs (or $55,000 for other vehicles), assembled in North America, and include battery materials sourced from the U.S. or trade partners. Used vehicles must be priced under $25,000, at least two years old, and sold through a dealer.

High stakes for buyers and dealers

Industry insiders say the change is expected to cool short-term EV demand and potentially boost dealer incentives to offset the loss of the federal tax break. According to Cox Automotive, EV incentives reached a record high in Junenearly $8,500 per vehicle, or 14.8% of the average transaction price. Manufacturers aren't expected to give up on rebates, as they have large inventories to get rid of.

Consumer Reports found July discounts as high as 26% on models like the Nissan Leaf, Nissan Ariya, and Volkswagen ID.4, with the Kia Niro Electric and Hyundai Ioniq 5 and 6 not far behind. Many automakers are also offering 0% financing on at least one electric model.

Still, experts caution against rushing into an EV purchase solely to beat the tax credit deadline.

EVs are great, but they require a shift in mindset, said Chris Harto, senior energy policy analyst at Consumer Reports. If youre not ready for that, it can be a bit of a barrier.

While the immediate effect of the tax credit cut may be a flattening in EV sales, industry leaders say the electric transition is far from dead. According to the International Energy Agency, EVs are expected to make up 25% of the global vehicle market in 2025.

In the U.S., Cox Automotive has lowered its EV sales forecast to 8.5% of all new vehiclesdown from 10%but still anticipates gradual growth driven by declining production costs, expanded charging infrastructure, and consumer-friendly pricing.

Final tips for consumers

• Act fast if you plan to buy and qualify for the creditSeptember 30 is the final deadline

• Check eligibility for federal, state, and local incentives

• Compare prices and financing offers as many brands ramp up rebates

• Dont rushmake sure you're ready for EV ownership, including charging needs and driving habits

For a full list of qualifying vehicles and additional information, visit the U.S. Department of Energys FuelEconomy.gov.

Kids who eat more sugar substitutes may hit puberty earlier especially with the right DNA mix

• What was studied: Whether kids who eat certain sweeteners (like aspartame, sucralose, glycyrrhizin, and added sugar) may face a higher risk of early puberty especially when they carry genes that predispose them.

• How they looked at it: Data from 1,407 Taiwanese teens, using urine tests and surveys to measure sweetener intake, and a 19gene polygenic risk score for genetic predisposition.

• What they found: Children who consumed more of these sweeteners were more likely to develop central precocious puberty, with stronger associations in genetically susceptible boys and girls.

A new study presented at ENDO2025, a global conference on endocrinology research, discovered that many common sweeteners may be linked to earlier puberty in children.

The risk rises if the child also carries certain genetic traits known to influence the timing of puberty. According to the findings, the higher the sweetener intake, the higher the observed risk of early puberty.

This study is one of the first to connect modern dietary habits specifically sweetener intake with both genetic factors and early puberty development in a large, real-world cohort, researcher Yang-Ching Chen, M.D., Ph.D., said in a news release.

It also highlights gender differences in how sweeteners affect boys and girls, adding an important layer to our understanding of individualized health risks.

The study

The researchers analyzed data from the Taiwan Pubertal Longitudinal Study (TPLS), which began in 2018 and included 1,407 teen participants. Heres how they researched it:

• Sweetener intake was tracked via validated survey questionnaires and urine biomarkers, allowing an objective estimate of actual consumption. This study looked specifically at sucralose, aspartame, glycyrrhizin, and added traditional sugar.

• Genetic predisposition was quantified using a polygenic risk score derived from 19 genes related to central precocious puberty. Central precocious puberty can lead to emotional distress, shorter adult height, and increased risk of future metabolic and reproductive disorders.

• Early puberty diagnosis involved medical exams, hormone level tests, and imaging scans that confirmed central precocious puberty in 481 adolescents.
  

Information on gender-specific effects was also gathered, revealing distinct patterns in how boys and girls were affected by different sweeteners.

The results

Heres a breakdown of what the study uncovered:

• Dosedependent risk: The study found that higher intake of any sweetener not just one type was associated with an increased likelihood of early puberty among boys and girls in the study.

• Genderspecific associations:

  • Among boys, sucralose showed the clearest risk link for early puberty.

  • Among girls, glycyrrhizin, sucralose, and added sugars were associated with a higher risk of early puberty.

• Independent contributions: Both sweetener consumption and genetic predisposition increased the kids risk of early puberty though they appeared to act independently, without interacting to amplify each other.
  

This suggests that what children eat and drink, especially products with sweeteners, may have a surprising and powerful impact on their development, Dr. Chen said.

The findings are directly relevant to families, pediatricians, and public health authorities. They suggest that screening for genetic risk and moderating sweetener intake could help prevent early puberty and its long-term health consequences. This could lead to new dietary guidelines or risk assessment tools for children, supporting healthier development.

New genetic tool spots obesity risk as early as age five

• A new genetic tool called a polygenic risk score (PGS) uses DNA data from over five million people to predict adult obesity risk from early childhood.

• The score explains about 17% of BMI variation and is twice as effective as previous genetic tests for obesity.

• Children with higher genetic risk responded more to interventions (diet, lifestyle) but also regained weight faster after programs ended.

Obesity is an ongoing global challenge, and while adults can choose lifestyle changes or even surgery these aren't always available or effective later in life.

That raises a question: what if we could spot risk long before problems emerge?

Researchers from the University of Bristol identified a polygenic risk score (PGS), a DNA-based tool that can flag kids predisposed to adult obesity even before their fifth birthday.

What makes the score so powerful is the consistency of associations between the genetic score and body mass index before the age of five and through to adulthood timing that starts well before other risk factors start to shape their weight later in childhood, researcher Roelof Smit said in a news release. Intervening at this point could theoretically make a huge impact.

The study

Researchers analyzed genetic data from more than five million individuals including contributions from the GIANT Consortium and 23andMe to build both ancestry-specific and multi-ancestry versions of the PGS.

The score aggregates the influence of thousands of subtle genetic variants many tied to brain-based appetite regulation into one overall obesity-risk index.

Next, they tested the score on over 500,000 people with genetic and BMI data, including participants in the UK-based Children of the 90s cohort study. That allowed the team to compare predicted risk with actual weight trajectories over time.

The results

Heres a breakdown of the results:

• The new PGS explained nearly 17% of the differences in body mass index about twice the predictive power of earlier tools.

• Associations between the PGS and BMI emerged before age five and persisted into adulthood, making it particularly useful for early risk detection.

• In followup studies, children with higher genetic risk lost slightly more weight during lifestyle intervention programs (like diet and exercise), but also regained weight more rapidly after the interventions ended. The researchers stress that genetics isnt destiny behavioral strategies still matter.

• However, the score performed better in individuals with European ancestry compared to those with African ancestry, despite attempts to include diverse groups. That highlights the need for broader genetic representation in future research.

"Obesity is a major public health issue, with many factors contributing to its development, including genetics, environment, lifestyle, and behavior, researcher Dr. Kaitlin Wade said in the news release. These factors likely vary across a person's life, and we believe that some of these originate in childhood.

We hope this work will contribute to detecting individuals at high risk of developing obesity at an earlier age, which could have a vast clinical and public health impact in the future."

Biden-era subsidy being cut 40% by Trump administration

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• Medicare Part D premiums are set to rise sharply as a key federal subsidy is scaled back.

• The Trump administration plans to cut the subsidy program by 40% after it held premiums down in 2025.

• Officials and insurers brace for cost hikes driven by inflation, policy changes, and rising drug spending.

Millions of seniors enrolled in Medicare drug plans are likely to see substantial premium increases in 2026, as federal officials prepare to cut back a subsidy program that helped shield enrollees from escalating prescription drug costs this year.

The extra subsidylaunched by the Biden administration in 2025 to stabilize Part D drug plan premiumspumped $6.2 billion in federal funds into the program. That financial cushion helped keep monthly premiums for basic plans around $36, nearly 20% below what they would have been without the assistance, according to consulting firm Avalere Health, the Wall Street Journal reported.

But that buffer wont last.

The Trump administration, which is overseeing Medicares budget heading into 2026, is planning a 40% reduction in the subsidy, dropping monthly insurer support from $15 to $10 per enrollee, according to officials at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

This is all about trying to maintain affordability against a massively increasing backdrop of expense, said Chris Klomp, head of the Center for Medicare. But maintaining the full subsidy would have benefited a handful of insurers and cost an enormous, excess amount of taxpayer money, he added.

Premiums may spike for stand-alone Part D plans

The premium impact will vary widely by plan, but analysts and CMS officials say 2026 could bring the biggest year-over-year increases in years, especially for seniors enrolled in stand-alone Part D drug plans. These plans are often purchased alongside traditional Medicare, rather than bundled with Medicare Advantage, which typically includes drug coverage.

With the updated subsidy program:

• The annual cap on premium increases will rise from $35 (2025) to $50 (2026)

• Insurers will shoulder more risk, as federal protections against large losses are eliminated

• Remaining subsidies will save enrollees just $13.50/month on average off the higher rates

Inflation Reduction Act adds pressure

Insurers are also grappling with rising drug costs and new financial burdens stemming from the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which redesigned the Part D program to reduce out-of-pocket costs for seniors.

That redesign, which took effect this year, limits how much seniors pay for medicationsbut it also shifts more liability onto insurers, who must now absorb a greater share of the total cost. Many insurers have flagged those changes in their 2026 bids to CMS, pushing up the baseline for premiums even before the subsidy cuts kick in.

Political and consumer impact

With tens of millions of seniors enrolled in Part D plans, the coming hikes could fuel political controversy in the run-up to the 2026 elections. Advocates worry the changes could push more seniors toward Medicare Advantage plans, where drug coverage is wrapped into a broader package but may include different provider restrictions and cost structures.

Medicare officials said they are working with insurers to temper increases where possible, but also acknowledged that cost pressures are intensifying across the board.

The HHS decision ignores scientific data and puts consumers at risk, the group says

By Truman Lewis of ConsumerAffairs

• HHS moves to schedule 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) despite no confirmed deaths linked to the compound

• Critics say the decision ignores scientific data and could harm consumers relying on safe, tested alternatives

• Advocates warn the move benefits big kratom trade groups at the expense of public health and transparency

A coalition of plant-based medicine advocates is pushing back after the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced plans to schedule 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH), a compound derived from kratom. The move, which could eventually lead to a Schedule I classification, has drawn fierce criticism for what advocates describe as a data-free, politically motivated decision.

The Holistic Alternative Recovery Trust (HART), a nonprofit that promotes access to regulated plant-based therapies, issued a sharp rebuke shortly after the announcement. Jeff Smith, HARTs National Policy Director, questioned the rationale and transparency of the federal move.

No evidence was presented at todays press conference. Not a single study. Not one data point specific to 7-OH, said Smith. If 7-OH posed the kind of urgent danger that would justify emergency action, evidence would have been presented. It was not.

Regulatory focus called misplaced

Advocates argue that the decision to target 7-OH, a metabolite of mitragynine (the primary compound in kratom), is misguided, especially given that HHS simultaneously clarified that natural kratom leaf products are not the focus of the action.

Data from the FDAs own adverse event reporting system shows:

• Zero confirmed deaths linked to 7-OH alone

• Only three serious adverse events, two of which predated the current markets tested and labeled 7-OH products

• Conversely, 201 deaths have been linked to unregulated kratom leaf products, with 48 serious adverse events reported in Q1 2025 alone

Why target 7-OH instead of kratom leaf, which has a far worse safety profile? asked Smith. This action defies logic unless other interests are driving policy.

Lower toxicity, dependence risk, advocates say

HART points to preclinical research suggesting that 7-OH is less toxic than mitragynine, does not cause respiratory depression at therapeutic doses, and has a lower dependence potential than opioids.

While the FDA has framed its effort as a response to rising concerns about addiction, HART and other experts argue that responsible, tested, and regulated use of 7-OH offers a viable harm-reduction tool one that could help reduce reliance on more dangerous opioids.

In a pointed statement, HART accused large kratom industry groups of scapegoating 7-OH to protect their market share, including funding staged protests and promoting consumer testimony based on hearsay rather than personal experience.

The FDA needs to hear from researchers, toxicologists, and addiction science experts and from the American people, said Smith. Cutting off access helps no one, but it will hurt many.

What's next?

If 7-OH is placed under Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, it would be deemed to have no accepted medical use, high abuse potential, and no safety margin, effectively banning its sale and use. HART and other advocacy groups are calling on consumers and scientists to submit public comments, contact their lawmakers, and demand a science-based regulatory approach.

For background on kratom and the FDA's recent crackdown, see ConsumerAffairs coverage: FDA Plans Action Against Kratom, a Potent Opioid Alternative