Measles potential exposure at OKC Will Rogers International Airport, OSDH says
OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) – The Oklahoma State Department of Health (OSDH) on Friday confirmed a case of measles at OKC Will Rogers International Airport, creating a potential risk to the public.
According to OSDH officials, an investigation into the potential measles exposure resulted in an individual located in a public setting while contagious.
President Trump's 'One Big Beautiful Bill' raising concerns about future of SNAP benefits and food insecurity
Potential airport measles exposure information is as follows:
Location: OKC Will Rogers International Airport
Address: 710 Terminal Drive, Oklahoma City, OK 73159
Date/Time: 11:15 p.m., May 27, 2025, to 1:30 a.m., May 28, 2025
On Friday, the OSDH posted an updated count of case numbers on their website, with the total count rising to 20 in Oklahoma. Of these, 17 are confirmed, while three are probable.
All 17 confirmed cases are listed as unvaccinated, with two listed as unknown and one listed as vaccinated and having two or more doses.
OSDH says that if an individual visited the location within the date and timeframe and is unvaccinated, unsure of vaccine or immune status, or has concerns, they are encouraged to provide their name and contact information here confidentially.
If additional public setting exposures are identified, they will be immediately posted here.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Bausch Health (BHC) Jumps 8.5% as Exec Hikes Stake; Subsidiaries Raise Over $3-Billion Fresh Funds
We recently published a list of . In this article, we are going to take a look at where Bausch Health Companies Inc. (NYSE:BHC) stands against other best-performing stocks of Friday. Bausch Health extended its winning streak to a sixth consecutive day on Friday, ending 8.53 percent higher at $5.98 apiece after one of its directors acquired $15 million worth of shares in the company. In a regulatory filing on Thursday, Bausch Health Companies Inc. (NYSE:BHC) said that its director, John Paulson, acquired nearly 2.79 million new shares through his company, Paulson Capital Inc., at a price of $5.05 to $5.47 apiece. A series of pharmaceutical and medical products in a warehouse, displaying the range of products available. No reason was divulged regarding the transaction, but investors may have taken the acquisition as a cue to bargain-hunt on its shares. Paulson's acquisition followed the listed firm's regulatory filing earlier this week that one of its direct subsidiaries and two indirect subsidiaries are planning to raise more than $3 billion in fresh funds through the issuance of a loan facility and revolving credit facility. On Tuesday, the listed firm's direct arm, Bausch + Lomb Corporation, launched a 600-million euro ($693 million) senior notes offering on Tuesday. This was on top of another $3 billion being raised by two indirect subsidiaries through a term B loan facility amounting to $2.2 billion and a revolving credit facility worth $800 million. Bausch Health Companies Inc. (NYSE:BHC) said funds from the fundraising program will be used for the repayment of its direct subsidiary's existing revolving credit facility, refinancing of term loans due 2027, and paying other fees and expenses, as well as general corporate purposes. While we acknowledge the potential of BHC as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: 20 Best AI Stocks To Buy Now and 30 Best Stocks to Buy Now According to Billionaires. Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The cost of staying alive could become a lot more expensive for millions of Americans because of Trump drug tariffs
Americans would likely pay more for necessary everyday prescription drugs, such as insulin, painkillers, chemotherapy, or antibiotics, if President Donald Trump were to enact tariffs on pharmaceuticals, experts warn. In an effort to incentivize drug manufacturers to bring production back to the United States, Trump has proposed tariffing pharmaceuticals made overseas – which account for an overwhelming majority of everyday medicine used in the U.S. 'We're going to be doing that,' Trump said of pharmaceutical tariffs in April. 'That's going to be like we have on cars. You know we have a 25 percent tariff on cars, we have a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum, and that's what the [pharmaceutical] category fits right now.' 'The higher the tariff, the faster they come,' Trump said. But experts say that's not necessarily true and there would be tangible consequences to such action, from higher brand-name drug prices to generic drug shortages. 'If tariffs were applied to prescription drugs, one of the most immediate consequences could be price increases — on prices that we already pay way in excess of other countries,' Dr. Mariana Socal, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said. The U.S. imports a majority of its branded prescription drugs – or medications that are patented with a brand name such as Viagra, Wegovy, or Zoloft – from high-income countries. Dr. Jeromie Ballreich, an associated research professor at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said much of the manufacturing comes from Ireland, Germany, and Switzerland because they have favorable tax policies for companies. As a result, adding a tariff would only make it more expensive for pharmacies and insurance companies to keep them in supply. 'We would expect pharma to pass the costs onto the insurers and we would expect insurers to pass the cost onto the individual patients,' Ballreich said. 'So, if there is a 50 percent tariff on your insulin product because it's coming from Ireland, patients in Mississippi who get insulin – they will either be faced with a higher cost when they go up to the pharmacy to fill their insulin or they're going to face a higher indirect cost because the premiums of the insurance plan are going to go up,' he said. Ballreich said a tariff on countries that produce high quantities of branded drugs would put 'pressure' on public insurers like Medicare or Medicaid and private insurers. However, branded drugs only account for roughly 10 to 15 percent of prescriptions. A majority of Americans, up to 90 percent, use generic drugs, often manufactured in India and China, because they're cheaper. Making branded drugs less accessible through tariffs would only increase reliance on generic drugs, which could exacerbate shortages that already impact millions of Americans. '[Shortages] can have very significant implications in day-to-day clinical practice,' Socal said. 'For example, if you are administering chemotherapy for an oncology patient, that may have significant consequences even for the prognosis of that case moving forward.' In 2024, the U.S. experienced a shortage of more than 300 drugs – 70 percent of which were generic prescriptions. Socal said that when patients are not able to access a more affordable version of their prescription, it means they may put their health at risk by skipping a dosage, taking a lower dosage, or not filling their prescription at all. Otherwise, they're forced to turn to the more expensive branded version. 'Those more expensive drugs are not always the best,' Socal said. 'Very frequently, and we saw this with chemotherapy shortages, the available drugs are second-line drugs.' The president has indicated that any negative impact from tariffs may be temporary and worth it to bring manufacturing and jobs back. 'We're doing it because we want to make our own drugs,' Trump said. But Ballreich and Socal are more skeptical. 'Tariffs are a very blunt instrument to incentivize domestic U.S. manufacturing of the branded drugs we use,' Ballreich said. Given pharmaceutical companies have moved outside of the U.S. for tax purposes, Ballreich says tax policy may be a better way to incentivize them, especially since many of those drugs are more difficult to manufacture. 'It's not just a very simple chemical plant; these tend to be very complex,' he said. Socal suggested a better strategy would be to understand where drugs are being manufactured and which ones would make more sense to bring to the U.S. — since even those manufactured locally often rely on certain imported ingredients and materials. 'Having tariffs on pharmaceutical products coming from abroad can actually also hurt our domestic manufacturers,' he says. While the president has not officially implemented any tariff policy on pharmaceuticals yet, he said, in April, that the plan would take effect in the 'not too distant future.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Our film imagined a post-Roe nightmare. Then it came true
When I first met Amy in the emergency room, she had a minor laceration on her finger. She claimed it was from an accident in the kitchen, but her cowering posture, downcast eyes and hesitant responses to basic questions suggested there was more to her visit than she was letting on. Amy reminds me of the girls I grew up with. Delicate, but exhausted and under pressure. She works long hours at a convenience store with a manager who offers no flexibility. Determined to save enough for college classes toward her degree, Amy has also shouldered the responsibility of supporting her mother, who has grown dependent on painkillers. She cleans homes to cover unexpected expenses, like becoming pregnant after a condom broke during sex, but she was unable to scrape together enough cash to purchase the morning-after pill. On June 3, the Trump administration revoked guidance that required hospitals to provide emergency abortions for patients in need. This national directive was issued in 2022 by the Biden administration, using the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, and it was intended to assist women facing medical emergencies and other serious complications. The Trump administration's action is just the latest salvo in an ongoing battle, one in which reproductive freedom seems to be losing ground every day. The mood, among both doctors and patients, is one of persistent uncertainty and fear. Here in the emergency room, Amy and I both feel it. The cut on Amy's finger was a ruse — a desperate act to access care. She is pregnant and doesn't want to be. But in our state, abortion is illegal. As an emergency physician, I tell her – quietly – that if she travels to another state, she can receive proper care. She'll need to budget a certain amount of cash for travel expenses. We keep this conversation between us. The possibility of this scene has become all too familiar a worry in real life, but the truth is that Amy isn't real. And I'm not really an emergency physician, I just play one in a movie. A few months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade on June 24, 2022, while we were both still attending journalism school at New York University, my friend Nate Hilgartner approached me about a film he wanted to write and direct about the ethical implications of a post-Roe world. He had me in mind to play a doctor in a rural town torn between her duty to help her patient and the imperative to obey restrictive new laws. It would be an American horror story, he told me. At the time, it seemed prophetic but impossible, a bit of artful exaggeration to warn against a dystopian tendency. Today, it's our reality, and in some ways, things are worse. The consequences of a woman not receiving the reproductive healthcare of her choice could lead someone like our fictional protagonist to lose her ability to create a life on her own terms, trapping her in a cycle of poverty with a lack of education. In Georgia, a pregnant woman who has been declared brain-dead is being kept on life support until her baby can be delivered. Across the country, women have been turned away from emergency rooms after suffering ectopic pregnancies, which require an emergency abortion to prevent potentially fatal outcomes. Doctors have been reprimanded and fined, including Caitlin Bernard, an OB-GYN from Indiana, who performed an abortion on a 10-year-old rape victim denied an abortion in Ohio. Three years ago, all of this would have sounded like fiction, a fever-dream storyline out of The Handmaid's Tale. An investigation by ProPublica in December 2024 revealed that doctors in states with abortion bans often feel abandoned by lawyers and hospital leaders when seeking guidance on how to proceed with patients in emergencies. Since information about managing the bans in each state have been provided only on a 'need-to-know' basis, many doctors are left to navigate alternative options on their own, with some becoming too afraid to offer care, fearing professional and personal consequences. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oreg.) described the situation as doctors 'playing lawyer' and lawyers 'playing doctor,' leaving pregnant women facing life-or-death situations caught in the middle. Experts warn that the decision to eliminate access to emergency life-saving abortions will further exacerbate the crisis for doctors. The Trump administration's order to revoke emergency abortions sends a clear message to women who lack adequate resources to afford proper care. EMTALA, enacted in 1986, was designed to protect patients and ensure they receive stabilizing emergency care, regardless of their insurance status or ability to pay. While all pregnant women benefited from this law, it now appears that only those with sufficient health care and life circumstances will be able to survive potential emergencies. I am a writer and an actor, not a doctor. But for a time I imagined what it was like to be seated across from a woman scared and uncertain about the choices she could make about her body. Amy may not be real, but her plight is. Many of us may not admit it, but we've had our scares, moments where we've had to seriously consider the possibility of what we'd do if confronted with a pregnancy we weren't ready to have. At an age where I contemplate my own reproductive future, I am given pause: How can anyone assume there will never be complications in their pregnancy? Stories like Amy's aren't just about the right to make decisions about our bodies; they're also about the painful truth that those choices often come with a cost. When we set out to make this film, No Choice, we hoped to imagine a plausible future — not to prophesy our present reality. We could never have predicted just how quickly real-world headlines would not only validate our story, but outpace its darkest possibilities. Making a film was just one of many actions we hope other people will take to challenge the belief that a woman's body belongs to the state, not to herself. No Choice premieres in Los Angeles at the Dances With Films festival on June 23 — just one day shy of the third anniversary marking the fall of Roe v. Wade.
