A $6.7 million climate and health research grant that the National Institutes of Health awarded to two Boston-area universities could help turbocharge the federal government’s work on the overlapping issues.

The three-year grant to the Boston University School of Public Health and the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health isn’t a typical NIH research grant. Instead, it focuses on infrastructure and collaboration.

“There’s so much desire to create solutions to reduce the health harms of climate change,” said BU’s Gregory Wellenius, a co-leader of the initiative. “But we haven’t had an effective forum to accelerate that and connect those designing solutions to those who are in need of solutions.”

A different type of collaboration: Typically, the NIH funds specific projects that researchers undertake independently. The new center will work collaboratively with NIH and is called the BUSPH-Harvard Chan School CAFÉ, which stands for convene, accelerate, foster and expand.

It will also bring together groups invested in climate that rarely engage with one another: researchers, mayors of climate-impacted cities, concerned communities, the tech sector and non-governmental organizations.

The hope is that sharing ideas and data, and widening the climate-health research field, will speed solutions and avoid duplicative efforts.

“When you’re doing climate change research, you don’t want to reinvent the wheel over and over again,” said Francesca Dominici, an initiative co-leader from Harvard.

What’s next: Dominici expects the center’s work to fall into three buckets:

1. Quantifying the health impact of different climate change–related events like heat waves, wildfires and tropical cyclones

1. Evaluating initiatives that states and cities have implemented, such as cooling centers and heat-wave alerts, to combat the health effects of climate change

1. Advancing data science and technology tools, like satellite imagery that tracks deforestation and cell phone data, so researchers can conduct more sophisticated analyses

“I see it as a really wonderful opportunity to have constant exchange of ideas between the scientists and the federal government,” Dominici said.

This is where we explore the ideas and innovators shaping health care.

Imagine a Washington summer when bathers stroll from the National Mall to the banks of the Potomac for a dip. The day may come sooner than you think.

The Potomac Conservancy says efforts to prevent runoff are succeeding and that the river is now clean enough for swimming during much of the year.

Share any thoughts, news, tips and feedback with Ben Leonard at [email protected], Ruth Reader at [email protected], Carmen Paun at [email protected] or Erin Schumaker at [email protected].

Send tips securely through SecureDrop, Signal, Telegram or WhatsApp.

Today on our Pulse Check podcast, your host Ben talks with Robert King about a Senate panel that’s investigating insurers’ use of artificial intelligence to make coverage decisions.

AI is under the FDA’s regulatory microscope, and the World Health Organization is warning of the dangers it could pose.

Jack Resneck Jr., the president of the American Medical Association, is striking a slightly more optimistic tone.

In a recent interview with POLITICO, Resneck said that while he hopes the technology is clinically validated and regulated properly and its makers are transparent about how it works, he’s bullish on AI’s potential.

“What we don’t want is to have a few spectacular failures … that actually lead Congress or others to shut this whole thing down because we do think there are tremendous benefits,” Resneck said.

Although it has done harm when not well designed, he said he sees the technology as a potential weapon to combat inequities in health care that have led to worse outcomes for some populations.

And he thinks transparency will aid in avoiding the harms that poorly designed algorithms could cause.

Doctors want help with embracing the technology.

“Physicians are asking and looking to us to say … I’m going to have 100 potential tools to deal with this particular issue. How on Earth am I going to pick?” Resneck said. “A lot of our focus on AI has actually been around how are we going to make sure that the tools that actually get deployed work out and are validated.”

As health care products move online, consumers are leaving troves of data in cyberspace.

Much of that data was thought to be outside of the government’s purview, but Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan has taken a more expansive view of her agency’s powers.

The FTC said on Thursday that it intends to use a 14-year-old rule to prevent companies from sharing identifiable customer health data. The Health Breach Notification Rule outlines the responsibilities of health companies when hackers access their health data, and the agency plans on using it to police companies’ use of such data for marketing.

Earlier this year, the FTC cited the rule in a $1.5 million settlement with GoodRx in which it accused the prescription discount site and telehealth provider of sharing data with Google, Facebook and other companies.

The agency said then it was the first time it had used the rule against a firm for sharing customer data with business partners. GoodRx agreed to pay a fine and change its business practices, but has said it thought it was compliant with regulations.

Why it matters: The proposed regulations issued Thursday indicate the agency plans broader enforcement.

If finalized, the proposal would clarify that health apps, including those offering health related services and supplies — broadly defined to include fitness, sleep, diet and mental health products and services, among a laundry list of categories — would be subject to regulations requiring them to notify customers if their identifiable data is accessed by hackers or business partners, or shared for marketing without patient approval.

“The Commission intends to ensure app developers understand their notice obligations, even if an app is positioned as a ‘wellness’ product rather than a ‘health’ product,” the agency wrote.

What’s next: The FTC will take public comments for 60 days after the proposal is published in the Federal Register.