Florida ‘callously’ strips healthcare from thousands of children despite new law | Florida | The Guardian

Florida ‘callously’ strips healthcare from thousands of children despite new law

                                        (Pure Evil)

Governor Ron DeSantis’s challenging of a ‘continuous eligibility’ rule has booted over 22,000 children off insurance since January

Richard Luscombe

Ron DeSantis attends a press conference in Sanford, Florida, on 8 April 2024. Photograph: Paul Hennessy/SOPA Images/REX/Shutterstock

Florida is continuing to “callously” strip healthcare coverage from thousands of children in lower-income households in defiance of a new federal law intended to protect them.

Since 1 January, more than 22,500 children have been disenrolled from Florida KidCare, its version of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (Chip) that is jointly subsidized by states and the US government for families with earnings just above the threshold for Medicaid.

Florida healthcare officials admit at least some were removed for non-payment of premiums, an action prohibited by the “continuous eligibility” clause of the 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act that took effect at the beginning of this year. The clause secures 12 months of cover if at least one premium payment is made.

Last week, the administration of Republican governor Ron DeSantis challenged the rule in federal court Tampa, arguing it makes Chip an entitlement program that illegally overrides a state law requiring monthly payment of premiums.

But it has chosen not to wait for a ruling before continuing to separate children from coverage. Figures from the Florida Health Justice Project show there were 5,552 removals in the month to 1 April, following 5,097 in March, 5,147 in February, and 6,780 in January.

Florida argues the numbers include children aging out or moving into other coverage, and that “disenrollment has been consistent at this level for years”. Notably, the monthly average so far this year is more than 1,500 higher than the whole of 2023.

“It’s just enormously cruel and a crisis of callousness by our governor and state of Florida who are willing to sacrifice sick children for their political aims,” said Democratic US congresswoman Kathy Castor, who said she had been contacted by several families booted from KidCare, or “unwinded” from Medicaid as Covid-19 protections expired.

“It’s an important reform for parents because once you qualify you can stay on for a year, your child will get the care they need, consistent visits to the doctor’s office, and if they have a complex medical condition they know it will be handled.

“In the end, it saves everyone money, and saves families’ heartache when young children can stay healthy and well. But Ron DeSantis loves a lawsuit. Florida is the only state in the country that is so upset that children are going to get healthcare that he’s suing in federal court.”

Castor said one family she has spoken with has a two-and-a-half-year-old toddler who was born three months prematurely.

“She is fed exclusively through a tube. She has extreme developmental delays and requires 24-hour nursing care,” she said.

“They said since birth she has faced challenges including five months in neonatal intensive care, hernia surgery, air tube surgeries and seizures, and ongoing treatment. So the state now has ended her coverage. It’s heartbreaking, it’s cruel and it’s unnecessary.”

Independent experts also question the purge.

“While Florida is not alone in rapidly disenrolling children from Medicaid during the unwinding process – many of whom likely remain eligible – families should know that Florida is distinguishing itself in an apparent violation of federal law by kicking children off Chip as well,” Joan Alker, executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Children and Families and a Research Professor at the Georgetown McCourt school of public policy, said in an analysis published last week.

“Florida is one of just nine states that charges premiums to children below 150% of the poverty line. Seven states have dropped all premiums in Chip at any income level in recognition of the barriers they pose for low and moderate income families.

Our US morning briefing breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what’s happening and why it matters

Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

“With the litigation, [Florida’s] efforts to block children from retaining affordable health coverage are not stopping at its borders. Depending on how it is framed, a ruling in Florida’s favor could give all states the green light to terminate the coverage of Chip kids if their parents miss a premium payment.”

Florida’s agency for healthcare administration did not return a request for comment. In a statement published on 19 April, the agency called previous media coverage of the issue “misleading”, but did not dispute the accuracy of the disenrollment figures.

“Allowing disenrollment for nonpayment of premiums is crucial to maintaining the integrity and long-term sustainability of the program and helps Florida continue to maintain its high level of quality service for KidCare participants,” it said.

The agency also noted that, in 2023, DeSantis signed legislation that increased income eligibility to 300% of the federal poverty level. They claim that the legislation, which has not yet been enacted, would open Chip to a further 68,000 children. Overall, the agency said 182,000 Florida children are covered by KidCare – 66% more than in May 2023.

Castor, however, says the state’s illegal dropping of enrolled children, and other recent developments – namely Florida’s six-week abortion ban that will take effect on Wednesday – prove the state is more determined to restrict healthcare than expand it.

“Hypocrisy abounds,” she said. “On the ability of women to control when they have kids, and if they have kids, the state of Florida and Ron DeSantis says: ‘You have to have children, you have to’.

“Then if you have a child, it says: ‘OK, you’re on your own,’ even in the face of a new federal law. All of the research shows that if children get the care they need, especially in their early years, they’re going to be more successful in school, have higher reading scores, higher graduation rates, they’ll be more productive in life.

“This is a self-inflicted wound on the ability to have a healthy, functioning state of Florida.”

Florida ‘callously’ strips healthcare from thousands of children despite new law | Florida | The Guardian

Journalism professors call on New York Times to review Oct. 7 report - The Washington Post

Journalism professors call on New York Times to review Oct. 7 report

"A major investigative report into sexual violence in the Hamas attack on Israel has drawn criticism inside and outside the newspaper

Laura Wagner

The exterior of the New York Times building in Manhattan. (Mark Lennihan/AP)

More than 50 tenured journalism professors from top universities have signed a letter calling on the New York Times to address questions about a major investigative report that described a “pattern of gender-based violence” in the Oct. 7 Hamas attacks on Israel.

The letter follows months of criticism and concerns raised by outside critics as well as some Times staffers about the credibility of its sourcing and the editorial process for the story.

The letter, signed by professors at colleges including New York University, University of Pennsylvania, Emory and the University of Texas, asks the Times to “immediately commission a group of journalism experts to conduct a thorough and full independent review of the reporting, editing and publishing processes for this story and release a report of the findings.”

It was sent Monday morning to Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger, executive editor Joe Kahn and international editor Philip Pan.

In a statement, a spokeswoman for the Times said that the paper has “reviewed the work that was done on this piece of journalism and [we] are satisfied that it met our editorial standards.”

The letter, obtained by The Washington Post, acknowledged the impossibility of “writing perfectly accurate drafts of history in real time” but emphasized that news organizations must be willing to interrogate their own work.

It notes that the Times and many other publications have reassessed stories in the manner the professors suggest. In 2004, the Times reviewed its coverage of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq; in a note to readers, editors later acknowledged they identified “problematic” stories that had been based on the accounts of Iraqi sources “whose credibility has come under increasing public debate.”

Signers include Robert McChesney of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Victor Pickard of the University of Pennsylvania, Maggy Zanger of the University of Arizona and Diane Winston of the University of Southern California.

Questions began to emerge shortly after the Times published its December investigation headlined “‘Screams Without Words’: Sexual Violence on Oct. 7.”

Relatives of a woman slain in the attack, whose story became a central focus of the Times report, cast doubts on reporting suggesting that she was raped, while other critics pointed to discrepancies in various accounts offered by an eyewitness cited in the story.

The Intercept reported that the Times’ flagship podcast, “The Daily,” had shelved a planned episode about the report due to these questions. In response, the Times launched an intensive internal investigation to determine who had leaked newsroom information, a campaign the paper’s Guild called a “racially targeted witch hunt.” The Times firmly denied the Guild’s claim.

The Intercept also reported that the Times relied heavily on two relatively inexperienced freelancers in Israel, Anat Schwartz and Adam Sella, to report the story, while Times correspondent Jeffrey Gettleman was responsible for weaving it together.

The professors’ letters raised concerns about “such reporting arrangements,” noting that Pulitzer-winning reporter Rick Bragg resigned from the Times in 2003 after it was revealed that he had relied heavily on a less experienced freelancer for reporting.

The letter also makes reference to comments made by Gettleman in an interview after the story was published, in which he said he did not want to use the word “evidence” to describe certain details in the story because it “suggests you’re trying to prove an allegation or prove a case in court.”

“This language is in stark contrast to the story itself which uses the word ‘evidence’ in the sub headline referring to the same information Gettleman was apparently discussing on stage,” the letter said.

In March, the Times reported that new video evidence “undercut” some of the details in its initial investigation. But the paper did not issue a correction or a retraction of the December report, which the journalism professors called an “unusual decision.”

Shahan Mufti, a professor at the University of Richmond, said in an interview that the unusual circumstances called for response from journalism educators.

“We in journalism education are not typically in the business of telling people in the profession how to do their job,” he said. “This required serious consideration and deliberation, and we came to the conclusion that this is necessary.”

Sandy Tolan, a professor at the University of Southern California, said that the timing of the story — as public opinion in the United States was shifting toward a more critical understanding of the devastation of Israel’s bombing of civilian areas in Gaza — is also relevant.

“As the death toll mounted in Gaza, and criticism was beginning to focus more on Israel, the New York Times released this story, which seems to have been published prematurely,” he said. “Being cognizant of the potential damages of and consequences of the timing, given that it didn’t appear to be as well-reported as it should have been, there’s all the more reason why an external review is appropriate.”

An independent review could find the Times did nothing wrong, the letter says, or find errors in the way the newsroom operated. Either way, the letter concludes, an immediate review “is the only responsible and credible thing to do.”

Journalism professors call on New York Times to review Oct. 7 report - The Washington Post

Campus Protests Over Gaza War Deepen Democratic Rifts - The New York Times

College Protests Over Gaza Deepen Democratic Rifts

"Scenes of chaos unfolding on campuses across the country are stoking internal divisions and carry political risk as a major election year unfolds.

April 28, 2024

A protest last week at the University of California, Los Angeles.Mark Abramson for The New York Times

Nearly seven months after the Israel-Hamas war began, the demonstrations convulsing college campuses nationwide are exposing fresh tensions within the Democratic Party over how to balance free speech protections and support for Gazans with concerns that some Jewish Americans are raising about antisemitism.

From New York and Los Angeles to Atlanta and Austin, a surge in student activism has manifested in protest encampments and other demonstrations, drawing significant police crackdowns and sometimes appearing to attract outside agitators. The protests also have emerged as the latest flashpoint in the internal Democratic debate over the war.

As scenes of campus turmoil play out across the country in the final days of the school year, the moment also carries political risk for a party that has harnessed promises of stability and normalcy to win critical recent elections, and faces a challenging battle for control of the government in the fall.

“The real question is, can the Democrats again portray themselves as the steady hand at the helm?” said Dan Sena, a veteran Democratic strategist. “Things that create national chaos like this make that harder to do.”

Mr. Sena and other Democrats have argued that Americans have good reason to associate their opponents with chaos: Former President Donald J. Trump faces multiple criminal cases; the narrow, fractious House Republican majority has its own divisions concerning Israel and free speech; some Republicans have urged National Guard deployments to college campuses; and for years, Republicans have faced criticism over antisemitism in their own ranks.

But since the Hamas-led attack on Israel on Oct. 7, and the Israeli military response that has killed more than 30,000 people, according to local authorities, the fight over American policy toward Israel has been especially pronounced on the left.

Most Democrats say they both support free speech and condemn antisemitism, and consider criticism of the Israeli government to be fair game. But in seeking to address an intractable conflict marked by competing historical narratives, debates over how to distinguish between legitimate criticism of Israel and antisemitic speech are fraught and reaching a fever pitch on campus.

To some lawmakers who have visited encampments and attended demonstrations, the students are part of a long tradition of campus activism, and their free speech rights are at risk. Incidents of antisemitism, they say, do not reflect a broader movement that includes many young progressive Jews.

Representative Greg Casar of Texas went to the University of Texas to show solidarity with demonstrators, linking their activism to that of students who opposed the Vietnam and Iraq wars.

“So often, history ends up vindicating those who call for peace early,” he said. “I do think that more and more members of Congress will start to show up at these events and start to hear out more and more of where the students are coming from.”

Asked about instances in which demonstrators around the country have used antisemitic language, Mr. Casar replied, “those people suck.”

“They’re not a part of the peace movement,” he said. “Anybody that’s motivated by hatred — be it racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism, hatred of any form — they’re not peaceful.”

But to other Democrats, instances of intimidation and harassment described by some Jewish students are a defining feature of the campus movement.

Nowhere have those tensions been more clear than at Columbia University, which has become both an epicenter of the protest movement and a focal point for its detractors.

Democrats including President Biden, House and Senate leaders and prominent Senate candidates such as Representatives Adam Schiff in California and Ruben Gallego in Arizona have condemned antisemitic harassment around Columbia.

Other Democrats have sought to show solidarity in person with Jewish students who have described feeling unsafe. Representative Jared Moskowitz, a Florida Democrat, recently visited the campus with several other Jewish lawmakers.

Some in his party, he said, were downplaying the hard-line nature of some of the demonstrations.

“There are people who are peaceful, and there are not,” he said. “But there’s a denial from my friends on the left,” a view that “‘everyone’s peaceful, there’s no antisemitism.’”

He declined to name names, though he and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have sparred on social media. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez of New York, one of several progressive lawmakers who have visited the Columbia encampment, has also condemned “horrific people wandering outside” Columbia’s campus who espouse “virulent antisemitism.” 

But broadly, Mr. Moskowitz argued, some on the left who rightfully criticized antisemitic chants from “white, Aryan-looking men with tiki torches” rallying in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017 seemed reluctant to denounce threatening speech when it came from liberal-leaning Americans.

“I don’t see the same level of outrage,” Mr. Moskowitz said. “It’s politically inconvenient now.”

Representative Jerrold Nadler of New York, a long-serving Jewish member of Congress, has also expressed concerns about antisemitism. But he said his party was consistent in calling out bigotry, in contrast to many Republicans, pointing to Charlottesville. (Mr. Moskowitz shared that assessment about Republicans.)

“Democrats are willing to call out antisemitism, wherever it is, and certainly there’s been some antisemitism on campuses,” Mr. Nadler said, though he questioned how representative the demonstrations were of the student body. 

Lauren Hitt, a spokeswoman for Mr. Biden’s campaign, said that “while Donald Trump stood proudly with white supremacists and encouraged violent crackdowns on peaceful demonstrators,” Mr. Biden defends the First Amendment and has “strengthened protections against antisemitism and Islamophobia.”

In Georgia, where demonstrators at Emory University were subdued forcefully, State Representative Ruwa Romman said that “there is no room for antisemitism in this movement.”

But she warned against focusing on a “few agitators” over the “thousands of students who are welcoming, who believe in a multiracial, multicultural, multi-faith world.”

“When we lose young people, we’re not just losing at the ballot box,” said Ms. Romman, a Democrat who is Palestinian. “We’re losing them in the entire electoral apparatus.”

In the meantime, some Republicans are seeking to paint the whole Democratic Party as extreme and overly attuned to concerns of Ivy League protesters.

Democrats “are demonstrating that they’re listening to a very small, very radical, very online segment of their base that is not representative of the broader electorate,” said Jack Pandol, a spokesman for the House Republican campaign arm, which is selling T-shirts that allude to a profanity aimed at Hamas.

Former Representative Steve Israel, who led the House Democratic campaign arm, said that while Republicans might see a messaging opportunity, it was far too early to determine whether it would be potent come November.

“Campuses generally clear out in summer, the energy on this issue may dissipate and the question will be whether it returns in the fall,” he said. “The answer to that isn’t here. It’s in the Middle East.”

Campus Protests Over Gaza War Deepen Democratic Rifts - The New York Times

Biden and Colin Jost Address the White House Correspondents Dinner - The New York Times

‘I’m a Grown Man Running Against a 6-Year-Old’: Biden Lets Trump Jokes Fly at Annual Roast

"Journalists and politicians schmoozed over filet mignon at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner as pro-Palestinian protesters gathered outside.

Published April 27, 2024Updated April 28, 2024, 8:10 a.m. ET

President Biden didn’t waste time.

Just minutes into his speech at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on Saturday, Mr. Biden launched into the issues dominating the 2024 election, including his age and former President Donald J. Trump’s hush-money trial in New York.

“The 2024 election’s in full swing and yes, age is an issue,” Mr. Biden said in a roughly 10-minute speech. “I’m a grown man running against a 6-year-old.”

“Donald has had a few tough days lately. You might call it ‘stormy’ weather,” Mr. Biden said, an oblique reference to Stormy Daniels, a porn actress who claims to have had sex with Mr. Trump in 2006 and received a hush-money payment in the days before the 2016 election, a deal at the center of his New York trial.

The comments, even as part of a roast, were notable given Mr. Biden has forbidden his aides to talk publicly about Mr. Trump’s legal troubles. But they also came as Mr. Biden has ramped up his attacks on Mr. Trump, sharpening the split-screen between a president on the campaign trail and a former president spending his days in a courtroom.

The annual dinner at the Washington Hilton Hotel provided a break to journalists and government officials from their normal jousting for a night of glitz and gossip in celebration of the free press. Mr. Biden, who has held fewer news conferences than his predecessors, extended his roast to the journalists gathered for the dinner.

“Some of you complained that I don’t take enough of your questions,” Mr. Biden said. “No comment.”

“The New York Times issued a statement blasting me for ‘actively and effectively avoiding independent journalists,’” Mr. Biden said. “Hey, if that’s what it takes to get The New York Times to say I’m active and effective, I’m for it.”

Outside the gates of the Washington Hilton, however, outrage over Mr. Biden’s support for Israel’s war in Gaza was evident.

As journalists and politicians arrived at the hotel, many were swarmed by pro-Palestinian protesters chanting, “Shame on you!” Other protesters wearing press vests with the names of more than 100 Palestinian journalists who have been killed in Gaza lay down in front of the dinner venue.

“By putting our human bodies on the street, we create a little discomfort” for the journalists attending the event, said Hazami Barmada, an organizer of the protest.

Inside the hotel ballroom, many journalists wore pins reading “Free Evan” to raise awareness of Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, who has been detained in Russia since March 2023 — wrongfully, according to the U.S. government.

transcript

Biden Vows to Bring Home Detained U.S. Journalists

President Biden took a more somber tone to acknowledge journalists who were wrongfully detained overseas. “We’re not going to give up until we get them home,” he said.

“There are some who call you the enemy of the people. That’s wrong and it’s dangerous. You literally risk your lives doing your job. And some of your colleagues have given their lives, and many have suffered grievous injuries. Other reporters have lost their freedom. Journalism is clearly not a crime, not here, not there, not anywhere in the world. We’re doing everything we can to bring home journalists, fellow journalists, Austin and all Americans, like Paul Whelan. You know, who wrongfully detained all around the world. And I give you my word as a Biden, we’re not going to give up until we get them home. All of them. All of them.” “At The Wall Street Journal, they are counting, for Moscow correspondent Evan Gershkovich, 396 days since he was jailed in Russia. The U.S. government has designated Evan as wrongfully detained. And Evan’s parents and his family are with us tonight. And we are with you, always. We remember Austin Tice, 4,276 days, nearly 12 years since he was kidnapped in Syria. His mother, Deborah, is with us, and Mrs. Tice, we are with you. And Mr. President, again, we humbly ask that you do everything you can to bring them home.

President Biden took a more somber tone to acknowledge journalists who were wrongfully detained overseas. “We’re not going to give up until we get them home,” he said.Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times

Kelly O’Donnell, a senior White House reporter for NBC News who is also president of the correspondents’ association, used her remarks to call attention to journalists who have been captured or killed while doing their jobs, including Mr. Gershkovich; Austin Tice, who was kidnapped while reporting in Syria; and reporters who have been killed in Gaza.

“Our profession can be perilous,” Ms. O’Donnell said. “Since October, about 100 journalists have been killed, most of those deaths in Gaza.”

Ms. O’Donnell also said the association had wanted to choose both a writer and a comedian when it came to their host this year. Colin Jost, the co-anchor of “Weekend Update” on “Saturday Night Live” — and a former reporter for the Staten Island Advance — spent roughly 23 minutes poking fun at the president.

But Mr. Jost’s speech was relatively light, even supportive of Mr. Biden. He ended it by noting that his grandfather, who recently died, had voted for Mr. Biden in the last election.

“The reason he voted for you is because you’re a decent man,” Mr. Jost said.

Still, Mr. Jost didn’t miss an opportunity to needle the president over his poll numbers.

“My ‘Weekend Update’ co-anchor, Michael Che, was going to join me here tonight — but in solidarity with President Biden I decided to lose all my Black support,” Mr. Jost said, referring to polling that has shown Mr. Biden struggling with Black voters.

Over seared petit filet mignon, celebrities and journalists also had a chance to catch those setting policy that will impact Americans for years to come. Lester Holt, the anchor of NBC News, sat next to Jeffrey D. Zients, the White House chief of staff, who made sure to stand up and speak briefly with the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Not everyone was in a tuxedo or dress — Senator John Fetterman, Democrat of Pennsylvania, showed up wearing a white, hooded sweatshirt emblazoned with a bow-tie design on its front.

Hollywood was well represented at the dinner, with the actress Scarlett Johansson, who is married to Mr. Jost, sitting up front. Popular cable news anchors dined with the actors Jon Hamm and Sean Penn, among others.

Before making their way to their seats, politicians like Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, and Gov. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois held court with guests as Biden campaign officials talked about recent polls showing Mr. Biden cutting into Mr. Trump’s lead.

Mr. Biden, too, sounded emboldened. While he rarely mentioned Mr. Trump by name early in his presidency, he has aggressively taunted him as of late and kept it going on Saturday.

“Did you hear what Donald said about the major Civil War battle?” Mr. Biden said. “Gettysburg. Wow. Trump’s speech was so embarrassing, the statue of Robert E. Lee surrendered again.”

“Age is the only thing we have in common,” Mr. Biden, 81, said of Mr. Trump, 77. “My vice president actually endorses me,” Mr. Biden said, referring to former Vice President Mike Pence’s decision not to endorse Mr. Trump.

Mr. Biden also used his speech at the dinner to warn about his political opponent’s threats on democracy — increasingly a focus of his message to voters.

“Focus on what’s actually at stake,” Mr. Biden said. “The stakes couldn’t be higher.”

Biden and Colin Jost Address the White House Correspondents Dinner - The New York Times

Could Eating Less Help You Live Longer?

Calorie restriction and intermittent fasting both increase longevity in animals, aging experts say. Here’s what that means for you.

April 24, 2024

Mike Ellis

“If you put a lab mouse on a diet, cutting the animal’s caloric intake by 30 to 40 percent, it will live, on average, about 30 percent longer. The calorie restriction, as the intervention is technically called, can’t be so extreme that the animal is malnourished, but it should be aggressive enough to trigger some key biological changes.

Listen to this article with reporter commentary

Scientists first discovered this phenomenon in the 1930s, and over the past 90 years it has been replicated in species ranging from worms to monkeys. The subsequent studies also found that many of the calorie-restricted animals were less likely to develop cancer and other chronic diseases related to aging.

But despite all the research on animals, there remain a lot of unknowns. Experts are still debating how it works, and whether it’s the number of calories consumed or the window of time in which they are eaten (also known as intermittent fasting) that matters more.

And it’s still frustratingly uncertain whether eating less can help people live longer, as well. Aging experts are notorious for experimenting on themselveswith different diet regimens, but actual longevity studies are scant and difficult to pull off because they take, well, a long time.

Here’s a look at what scientists have learned so far, mostly through seminal animal studies, and what they think it might mean for humans.

Why would cutting calories increase longevity?

Scientists don’t exactly know why eating less would cause an animal or person to live longer, but many hypotheses have an evolutionary bent. In the wild, animals experience periods of feast and famine, as did our human ancestors. Therefore, their (and conceivably our) biology evolved to survive and thrive not only during seasons of abundance, but also seasons of deprivation.

One theory is that, on a cellular level, calorie restriction makes animals more resilient to physical stressors. For example, calorie-restricted mice have greater resistance to toxins and recover faster from injury, said James Nelson, a professor of cellular and integrative physiology at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio.

Another explanation involves the fact that, in both humans and animals, eating fewer calories slows down metabolism. It’s possible that “the less you have to get your body to metabolize, the longer it can live,” said Dr. Kim Huffman, an associate professor of medicine at Duke University School of Medicine who has studied calorie restriction in people. “You know, just slow the wheels down and the tires will last longer.”

Calorie restriction also forces the body to rely on fuel sources other than glucose, which aging experts think is beneficial for metabolic health and, ultimately, longevity. Several researchers pointed to a process known as autophagy, where the body eats up malfunctioning parts of cells and uses them for energy. This helps cells function better and lowers the risk of several age-related diseases.

In fact, scientists think that one of the main reasons calorie-restricted diets make mice live longer is because the animals don’t get sick as early, if at all, said Dr. Richard Miller, a professor of pathology at the University of Michigan.

There are a few notable exceptions to the findings around longevity and calorie restriction. Most striking was a study Dr. Nelson published in 2010 on mice that were genetically diverse. He found that some of the mice lived longer when they ate less, but a larger percentage actually had a shorter life span.

“That was kind of really unheard of,” Dr. Nelson said, noting that most papers on calorie restriction start out by saying: “‘Food restriction is the most robust, almost universal means of extending life span in species across the animal kingdom’ and blah, blah, blah.”

Other researchers have disputed the significance of Dr. Nelson’s findings. “People cite this study as though it were general evidence that caloric restriction only works a tiny portion, or some portion of the time,” Dr. Miller said. “But you can reach that conclusion only if you ignore 50 years of strong published evidence saying that it works almost all the time.”

Dr. Nelson’s study wasn’t the only one that didn’t find a universal longevity benefit with calorie restriction, though. For example, two studies conducted in monkeys for over 20 years, published in 2009 and 2012, reported conflicting findings. Animals in both experiments showed some health benefits tied to caloric restriction, but only one group lived longer and had lower rates of age-related diseases, like cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

What does intermittent fasting have to do with it?

In the face of these mixed results, some researchers wonder if there may be another variable at play that is just as, or even more, important than the number of calories an animal eats: the window of time in which they eat them.

A key difference between the two monkey trials was that in the 2009 study, conducted at the University of Wisconsin, the calorie-restricted animals only received one meal a day and the researchers took away any leftover food in the late afternoon, so the animals were forced to fast for about 16 hours. In the 2012 study, run by the National Institute on Aging, the animals were fed twice a day and the food was left out overnight. The Wisconsin monkeys were the ones that lived longer.

A more recent study conducted in mice explicitly tested the effects of calorie restriction with and without intermittent fasting. Scientists gave the animals the same low-calorie diet, but some had access to the food for just two hours, others for 12 hours and another group for 24. Compared to a control group of mice that could graze on a full-calorie diet at any time, the low-calorie mice with 24-hour access lived 10 percent longer, while the low-calorie mice that ate within specific time windows had up to a 35 percent increase in life span.

Based on this collection of findings, Rafael de Cabo, a senior investigator at the N.I.A. who helped lead the monkey study there, now thinks that while calorie restriction is important for longevity, the amount of time spent eating — and not eating — every day is just as critical. And that might be the case not only for animals, but also for humans.

What does this mean for me?

It’s difficult to definitively answer whether intermittent fasting, calorie restriction or a combination of the two could cause people to live longer.

“I don’t think we have any evidence that it extends life span in humans,” Dr. Nelson said. That doesn’t mean it can’t work, he added, just that the evidence is “very hard to come by because it takes a lifetime to get that data.”

One clinical trial — named the Calerie study — attempted to answer this question by examining how cutting calories by 25 percent for two years affected a range of measurements related to aging. More than 100 healthy adults were advised on meal planning and given regular counseling sessions to help them reach their diet goals. But because it’s so difficult to reduce calories, participants were ultimately only able to reduce their intake by about 11 percent.

Compared to control participants, the dieters improved several aspects of their cardio-metabolic health, including blood pressure and insulin sensitivity, and they had lower levels of a few markers of inflammation.

The study also included three measures of “biological age,” comparing blood tests taken at the beginning and end of the two years. Two of the tests didn’t find an improvement in either group, but the third, which purports to measure how fast people age, did show a difference in the dieters. Calorie restriction “didn’t make people younger, but it made the rate at which they age slower,” said Dr. Huffman, who worked on the trial.

To Dr. Miller, the most significant conclusion from this study is that the 25 to 40 percent calorie restriction shown to be beneficial in animals is just not realistic in people. “Everything that could be accomplished to try to help them” cut calories was done for the participants, he said, and they still fell short of the goal of 25 percent.

Dr. de Cabo had a different take: “With only 11 percent calorie restriction that was achieved by the participants, they still show benefits,” he said.

Other research has focused on the short-term effects of intermittent fasting in people with a range of body mass indexes. Some studies, testing a variety of fasting schedules, showed improved metabolic health and reduced inflammation. But a trial of 116 people whose B.M.I. classified them as overweight or obese found no benefit among those who ate within an eight-hour window but didn’t reduce their calories, compared to a control group.

And to add a final twist, there is a notable body of evidence that appears to directly contradict the idea that calorie restriction or fasting, which typically leads to weight loss, extends human life span. Research consistently finds that people who are classified as overweight have a lower risk of death than those who are normal or underweight. One hypothesis is that people with the lowest B.M.I.s may be thin because they are older or have a chronic illness. Another is that people with higher B.M.I.s have more muscle, which weighs more than fat. But it’s also conceivable that, especially later in life, having greater body mass is actually protective, Dr. Huffman said.

Despite nearly a century of research, there’s still a ways to go before experts can say for certain whether the longevity benefits seen in animals will translate to humans. Some studies provide reason to believe that calorie restriction and intermittent fasting will help you live longer, and there are likely shorter-term benefits, particularly when it comes to heart and metabolic health. But it’s also possible that eating less might not do much more than leave you hungry.“