I'm a doctor and a recovering addict. America can't lose ground on the opioids fight now.
I'm a doctor and a recovering addict. America can't lose ground on the opioids fight now. There's talk of scaling back key programs and cutting funding that has proved to save lives. Doing so wouldn't just slow progress, it would send us backward.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
FDA Approves non-Opioid painkiller to combat addiction crisis
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved Journavx, a new non-opioid painkiller for short-term pain in adults.
Cover Media - Shareable
Overdose deaths in the U.S. have decreased by almost 27% in the past year.
Medicaid and federal grants have played a crucial role in providing access to treatment and resources like naloxone.
Proposed budget cuts to these programs could reverse the progress made in combating the opioid crisis.
In 2004, I nearly lost everything to opioid addiction. I was a practicing physician, a husband and a father, and I was also deeply dependent on the same medications I once prescribed to others. My recovery was hard-earned and required structure, accountability and people who refused to give up on me. That experience is why I've dedicated my life to helping others do what I did: Survive long enough to get better.
And today, I can say something I never imagined possible two decades ago: We are finally making real, measurable progress in the fight against drug overdoses in America.
Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data showing that overdose deaths in the United States have dropped by nearly 27% from 2023 to 2024. After years of heartbreaking headlines and rising death tolls, we're finally seeing a shift in the right direction. These aren't just abstract percentages, they represent real people. Parents tucking their kids in at night, employees returning to work, neighbors rebuilding relationships and young people getting second chances.
Opinion: We targeted drug cartels to stop fentanyl. Now, overdose deaths are dropping.
Cutting Medicaid will set us back in the opioid fight
This progress didn't happen by accident.
It happened because of deliberate, sustained action backed by bipartisan support and a strong federal commitment to addressing this crisis head-on.
Medicaid, the largest payer of substance use disorder treatment in the United States, has given millions of Americans access to lifesaving care. Federal grants have helped get naloxone into the hands of first responders. Community-based organizations are expanding access to treatment and recovery services in ways that simply weren't possible a decade ago.
As someone who's worked in both medicine and public policy, I've seen firsthand the impact of these investments. We've transformed what used to be a disconnected patchwork into a system that increasingly meets people where they are ‒ in emergency rooms, in jails, on the streets and in their homes.
But now, as Congress and the administration debate the next federal budget, I'm worried we're at risk of forgetting how we got here. There's talk of scaling back key programs and cutting funding that has proved to save lives. Doing so wouldn't just slow progress, it would send us backward.
Signs of opioid addiction: If your teenager was addicted to opioids, would you know? It's harder than you think. | Opinion
Fighting the opioid epidemic doesn't have to be partisan
That's particularly dangerous for states that are legally required to balance their budget every year.
If the federal government pulls back, that doesn't eliminate the need for services. It just forces states to make impossible decisions ‒ raise taxes, slash other essential services or cut overdose prevention programs that are working.
When that happens, it's not numbers on a spreadsheet that suffer. It's real people.
The good news is that this doesn't have to be a partisan fight. Republicans and Democrats alike have supported these programs because they deliver results. Because they keep families together. Because they reduce crime, lower health care costs and strengthen our workforce.
These aren't just moral investments, they're economic ones. Every dollar spent on treatment and prevention saves several more down the line in avoided emergency care, incarceration and lost productivity.
We know what works. The question now is whether we will have the courage to keep doing it.
I believe we will. I believe our leaders, including those in the Trump administration and this Congress, understand the stakes. But they need to hear from us. They need to know this progress is real, it's saving lives and it's worth protecting.
We've come too far to retreat now. Let's keep our foot on the gas and finish the job.
Dr. Stephen Loyd is the chief medical officer of Cedar Recovery, president of the Tennessee Board of Medical Examiners and a member of the Tennessee Opioid Abatement Council. He is a physician in long-term recovery.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Journals
21 minutes ago
- Business Journals
Philanthropy is answering Portland's call for better, faster local health care
Providence Oregon's chief executive, Jennifer Burrows, RN, MBA, talked with us about the complex pressures facing health care organizations across the nation and the substantive difference donors make through their generosity. Philanthropic support of emergency and cardiac care as part of the Tomorrow Starts Today Campaign continues to be critical to improving access to health care for more people in our community by supporting projects that would otherwise not be funded. Why is donor support for health care so important to Providence? Many hospitals across the nation, including Providence, have had annual operational shortfalls since the pandemic. Rising costs associated with supplies, pharmaceuticals and labor outpace reimbursements for Medicaid and Medicare. On top of all that, today we are facing government funding uncertainties, and so donor support is even more crucial. As we make strategic decisions, we remain focused on our patients and fulfilling our mission to provide compassionate care to all, with an intentional focus on the most vulnerable. Philanthropy helps fund innovative treatments and technologies, patient assistance programs and caregiver support. Donor support also makes capital improvements possible. expand Why was the Tomorrow Starts Today Campaign launched? Oregon's population continues to increase, and more people are aging into the years when they use health care the most. We have a growing number of patients with complex health issues who require longer hospital stays. Visits to our emergency departments are more frequent, which increases wait times. These changes are also increasing pressures on our caregivers, who are further stressed by the shrinking health care workforce. Additionally, we have a real need to invest in our infrastructure requirements for today and into the next decade. Our response was to re-imagine how care was provided — to expand and innovate for both patients and caregivers. To do this, we needed community support. When we announced our campaign in May 2024, our aim was to raise $144 million to support $177 million in capital improvements. It was ambitious — the largest campaign in Providence Oregon's history — and it was necessary to meet these burgeoning needs. How do the projects funded through Tomorrow Starts Today benefit Oregonians? In 2024, our emergency departments at Providence St. Vincent and Providence Portland supported more than 150,000 patient visits — a number that continues to increase rapidly. At these two hospitals, we're introducing new systems and processes and adding 53 new spaces. This is the equivalent to creating a brand new emergency department in Portland. It will allow us to provide care for an additional 50,000 patient visits each year. Providence Heart Institute is a national destination for complex cardiac care and the largest provider in the region — caring for almost 10,000 patients with advanced heart failure. The number of days patients spend in our cardiac intensive care unit (CICU) is expected to double by 2031. To meet this demand, we're building a heart hub on one floor of Providence St. Vincent for cardiac patients. This innovative plan co-locates procedure rooms, recovery units, a remodeled CICU and operating rooms so that caregivers will be within steps of patients at all times. expand What changes will people find now, and what's still to come? Because of the outpouring of support from donors, our campaign goal is in reach. To date, they have generously given $128.5 million toward our $144 million goal, which has kept this multi-year construction project on schedule. The first phase of construction at Providence Heart Institute includes electrophysiology labs and the interventional unit. The construction of new surgery rooms and the renovation of the CICU will follow and is expected to be finished in 2027. Providence St. Vincent's emergency department renovation and expansion is complete. An arrival zone, flexible treatment and behavioral health rooms, pediatrics area and stroke response room provide emergency response teams with the tools they need to address our community's needs more quickly. Across the river at Providence Portland's emergency department, 20 new treatment spaces on the second floor are now complete. Construction has begun on the main floor — which will create seven additional treatment spaces, including flexible behavioral health rooms, updated triage booths, a new ambulance bay and updated nursing stations. All are expected to be completed by summer 2026. I'm so grateful for donors' generosity, and I'm immensely proud of what we've been able to do together. When this is done, we'll have reimagined emergency and cardiac procedural care to meet the needs of today and tomorrow.
Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
The Medicaid work-requirement push
Presented by Driving the day THE MEDICAID WORK EFFORT — Congressional Republicans are in lockstep on new Medicaid work requirements not only because they help generate savings for a spending package that extends President Donald Trump's tax cuts but also because some of them say there is a moral imperative behind the proposed rules, POLITICO's Robert King reports. Many of them have long been skeptical about the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid expansion, which enabled healthy adults to get Medicaid coverage if they earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level. Republicans have speculated that a sizable portion of new beneficiaries is not working and taking advantage of the coverage. 'We need to at least make an effort to try to help people, to get their life back together,' Sen. Jim Justice ( said. 'Will that result in a whole bunch of people who will lose their health insurance? I hope to goodness not.' House Speaker Mike Johnson has said the only people who would lose coverage are those sitting around 'playing video games all day.' Other Republicans have said the requirement tackles fraud. But only about 300,000 of the nearly 5 million people expected to lose coverage if the new requirement becomes law as part of the House-passed GOP megabill refuse to work due to 'lack of interest,' a new analysis from the left-leaning Urban Institute shows. That means people willing to work would lose coverage because they either cannot find work or because they cannot overcome administrative hurdles, experts said. Background: The megabill would require able-bodied, working-age Medicaid recipients to work for 80 hours a month, but they could do volunteer work or go to school. Pregnant women and new mothers would be exempt. Some of the critics of other megabill Medicaid provisions support work requirements, including Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.). He wants to get rid of new cost-sharing obligations for beneficiaries and a freeze on states' ability to levy provider taxes. He has told reporters he is not concerned about the prospect of inadvertent coverage loss, adding that 'we can sort that out.' Even so: There could be a lot to sort out. 'People will have trouble successfully complying with the reporting requirements,' said Katherine Hempstead, senior policy officer for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a liberal philanthropy that commissioned the Urban Institute analysis. 'That is what we have found when we studied other states that put work requirements in Arkansas and New Hampshire.' The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 18.5 million people would be subject to the work requirements each year and 4.8 million people would lose coverage by 2034 for noncompliance. The estimate means that some people could lose coverage even if they meet the requirement, per the estimates from Urban and an earlier analysis released two weeks ago from the Brookings Institution. WELCOME TO MONDAY PULSE. We hope everyone had a wonderful Father's Day weekend. Send your tips, scoops and feedback to khooper@ and follow along @Kelhoops. In Congress TAX PORTION OF MEGABILL EXPECTED — The Senate's GOP tax package is expected to be released today, POLITICO's Meredith Lee Hill, Jordain Carney and Benjamin Guggenheim report. Senators are continuing to hash out key issues in President Donald Trump's megabill — including the tax provisions and changes to Medicaid. Senate Finance Committee members held an hourlong, high-level lawmakers call Friday to brief on the issues. Republicans are also waiting on more cost estimates from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as negotiations proceed. Key context: Several blanks are still expected when the text is released today — likely for the state-and-local-tax deduction, key Medicaid provisions and green energy tax credit phase-outs. Even if Medicaid language is included, GOP senators view it as a placeholder as they continue to work on agreements with some of their holdouts before a floor vote later this month. Medicare Advantage FIRST IN PULSE: PROTECTING MA — A top Medicare Advantage advocacy group will circulate a new report on the Hill this week touting the merits of the private health insurance program over traditional Medicare. The push comes as Senate Republicans consider targeting overpayments to Medicare Advantage plans to help offset the cost of their sweeping megabill, including bipartisan legislation from Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). Some Republicans have thrown cold water on including the provisions in the bill, and insurers have strongly opposed the inclusion, saying it would lead to higher costs and reductions in benefits. The findings: The report, which Better Medicare Alliance will disseminate across both chambers of Congress, found that in 2022 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries spent an average $3,486 less on out-of-pocket costs and premiums than those enrolled in traditional Medicare. That's a nearly $1,000 jump in average savings from BMA's findings last year. Medicare Advantage enrollees were also 35 percent less likely to spend more than 20 percent of their income on health care expenses, according to the report, which was conducted by ATI Advisory. 'America's seniors are concerned about the rising cost of health care, and Medicare Advantage is delivering for them: with better care and improved health outcomes at a lower cost than Fee-for-Service Medicare,' said Mary Beth Donahue, president and CEO of Better Medicare Alliance. 'And as this report shows, the value gap continues to grow. But this progress depends on strong federal support.' Even so: Medicare Advantage has been scrutinized by bipartisan members of Congress and providers that said the program is overpaid by billions of dollars a year, excessively denies claims and is slow to pay for care. Amid the scrutiny, insurers have tried for months to avoid becoming a target as Republicans look for offsets to pay for President Donald Trump's megabill. Those efforts have included commissioning studies and writing papers to show the program needs more funding, not less, and to counter the narrative that Medicare Advantage is a magnet for government overpayments — as well as telling lawmakers on key committees that traditional Medicare is a better target to root out waste, fraud and abuse. Key context: More than half of people eligible for Medicare opt for the privately run Medicare Advantage over traditional Medicare, which the government runs. Lobbying NEW PhRMA HIRES — Florida transplants Rubin Turnbull & Associates have registered to lobby for PhRMA, the brand name drug lobby, POLITICO's Caitlin Oprysko reports. The trade group retained Rubin Turnbull in March to lobby on a range of issues related to the drug industry, according to a newly filed disclosure. It's the third outside lobbying hire for PhRMA this year, after the organization hired DLA Piper and GOP lobbyist Doug Schwartz of HillNorth at the beginning of January. Why it matters: PhRMA's latest hire came about a month into industry skeptic Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s tenure atop HHS. In a report last month, Kennedy has heaped criticism on vaccines and blamed drug industry lobbying for contributing to chronic disease among children. The pharmaceutical industry already has no shortage of lobbying prowess, with more than 40 other outside firms on retainer and lobbying outlays of $12.9 million just in the first quarter of 2025 — a quarterly record. At the Agencies MAHA POLLING — Support for HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and his Make America Healthy Again movement among Americans is largely split, new polling from NBC News shows. About 51 percent of the public views Kennedy favorably, while 48 percent views him unfavorably, according to the poll. Most Democrats view Kennedy 'strongly unfavorably,' while a slim majority of Republicans view him 'somewhat favorably.' But a key part of Kennedy's MAHA agenda — probing the safety and effectiveness of vaccines — didn't break down as neatly along partisan lines, the poll found. On vaccines, nearly half of Americans said they 'strongly support' using them to prevent diseases, with 31 percent more saying they 'somewhat support' using them. That includes about three-quarters of Democrats who 'strongly support' the use of vaccines, and majorities of Republicans and independents support vaccines either 'strongly' or 'somewhat.' Kennedy has also pledged to focus on overhauling the nation's intake of ultra-processed food. The polling also found many Americans are at least somewhat sympathetic to that focus, with 35 percent saying the food industry deserves the most blame for chronic health problems in the U.S. like obesity and heart disease. The next most popular pick was 'the choices of individuals,' which 32 percent of people chose as deserving the most blame for chronic health problems. Only 3 percent of Americans said vaccines were most to blame. The NBC News Decision Desk Poll was powered by SurveyMonkey and conducted online from May 30 to June 10 among a national sample of 19,410 adults ages 18 and over. WHAT WE'RE READING POLITICO's Jordain Carney and Meredith Lee Hill report on an old Capitol Hill troublemaker who is trying to clinch a megabill deal. The Washington Post's Dana Hedgpeth reports on health officials warning of a measles case from a traveler who landed at Dulles International Airport. CNN's Jacqueline Howard reports on how Gen X and millennials are about three times more likely than their parents to be diagnosed with appendix cancer.
Miami Herald
32 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Medicaid, individual market health insurance would be harder to get in Colorado under GOP bill
Veronica Montoya relies on Medicaid for the $15,000 infusions that restrain her immune system from attacking her body, and worries she may lose that access if Congress adopts drastic changes to the health care program. Provisions of congressional Republicans' "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would add work requirements for some people covered by Medicaid and require them to go through the full process of proving eligibility twice a year instead of once. The bill, backed by President Donald Trump, also would restrict immigrants' access to health insurance and raise costs for people who buy their health coverage on the exchange, while extending tax cuts for higher earners and spending more on national defense. Taken together, the provisions would create hurdles for people who don't have job-based coverage to find and keep health insurance through Medicaid or the marketplace, even if they are employed or have a disability. While the bill wouldn't entirely return the U.S. health insurance market to its pre-Affordable Care Act state, it would take away options that helped bring down the uninsured rate, experts said. The House passed the legislation in late May by a single vote. The bill's chances in the Senate aren't clear; both fiscal hawks and centrist Republicans have expressed concerns. At face value, the work requirements shouldn't affect Montoya, because she has a disability and has caregiving responsibilities for her mother. But she also knows proving that could be a problem. Even without changes, Montoya said she sometimes struggles to prove her continuing eligibility because her condition causes "brain fog." "It's very stressful to navigate a system that is set up to catch you," she said. The health policy nonprofit KFF estimated between 120,000 and 190,000 people in Colorado could lose their insurance, mostly through falling off the Medicaid rolls, over the next 10 years because of the bill. If pandemic-era increased subsidies for individual coverage expire this year, the number of uninsured people in the state could rise by 140,000 to 240,000. Colorado produced different estimates, finding as many as 110,000 people could leave the individual marketplace because the bill would make insurance harder to get and more expensive. The state hasn't estimated how many people could lose Medicaid coverage. About 1.2 million people in Colorado had Medicaid coverage as of April, and about 296,000 bought insurance on the individual marketplace for the current year. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that about 10.9 million people nationwide would become uninsured, with about 72% losing Medicaid coverage, and the rest losing insurance they bought through the individual marketplace because of eligibility changes in the budget bill. Another 5.1 million could lose individual coverage if enhanced subsidies expire this year. The bill would require some people between 19 and 64 to work or complete other activities for at least 80 hours each month. States would also have the option to require applicants to show they met it in the months before applying for Medicaid. If the economy takes a downturn, people may not be able to consistently work 80 hours a month to keep their coverage, said Adam Fox, deputy director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative. Theoretically, they could fill in the gaps by volunteering when their hours fall short, but no one knows how the state will track and verify that, he said. Rachel Sanchez, of Greeley, said she can't hold down a job while going through her third bout with cancer. Medicaid paid for her care for ovarian and colon cancers, and for follow-up care that helped her recover from the physical damage that treatment inflicted. Now, it covers her medication for leukemia, which costs about $1,500 for a weekly dose. Sanchez's two sisters also relied on the program during their cancer care. (The three inherited a genetic mutation that increases their odds of multiple cancers.) Not having to worry about paying for treatment, and eventually for supportive care as they neared the end of their lives, reduced the family's stress during a terrible time, she said. Cancer patients "can't just get up every day and go to work, and then go to treatment, and then go back to work," she said. The bill would mandate that states go through the full process of verifying eligibility every six months for people who qualified for Medicaid under the expansion, which raised the threshold for adults to qualify for Medicaid to 138% of the poverty line, or $21,587 for one person. The process is complicated, said Diana Corona, a Denver resident. Once, she forgot to file some paperwork, and only discovered she and her husband had lost coverage when he got sick. "It's back and forth, back and forth" trying to provide the right information, she said. The intention behind the bill is to add friction to the system of getting and maintaining insurance through Medicaid and the individual marketplace, said Sara Collins, senior scholar at the Commonwealth Fund, which researches health policies. If it passes, people will lose coverage, either because they don't understand how to keep it, or in the case of the individual market, because insurance has become too expensive, she said. "The savings (projected with the bill) really come from people not being able to navigate the system," she said. Fox said he thinks the estimates of how many people will lose coverage are low, particularly for states like Colorado, where county human services offices have to handle Medicaid eligibility. Automated systems already check recipients' income eligibility monthly, so making them fill out paperwork and the counties process it twice a year instead of once just creates more opportunities for people to get lost in the shuffle, he said. Colorado can renew Medicaid coverage automatically for about three-quarters of people who qualify based on income by using existing databases, said Marivel Klueckman, eligibility division director at the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing. The rest have to fill out the full renewal packet. If they don't return the paperwork, they lose coverage even if they'd still qualify. The renewal packet typically runs about 16 pages, though not all parts apply to every household. It focuses on changes in income and who lives in the home. People who qualify for Medicaid because of a disability have to fill out a longer packet, verifying their health status and assets. If the bill passes, Colorado will have to assess how much the workload will increase for county offices that process the packets, Klueckman said. The state will also need to look for ways to verify how many hours people are working without requiring individuals to report it, she said. People who lose Medicaid in the future would face more hurdles in buying coverage on the individual marketplace. The bill would forbid states from allowing low-income people to enroll in the marketplace at any point during the year and would require potential customers to verify more information before they can receive tax credit subsidies, effectively ending automatic reenrollment. It also would shorten marketplace enrollment window to 45 days, from 76. Marketplace plans also will be more expensive in the coming years, assuming the bill becomes law, Fox said. It directly raises the maximum deductible and out-of-pocket limit that plans can set, and paradoxically, would raise the price of bronze and gold plans by lowering the cost of silver plans. (Subsidies rise or fall with the cost of silver plans.) Combined, the marketplace and Medicaid changes will return the insurance system to something close to its state when the Affordable Care Act passed in 2010, particularly if Congress also allows larger subsidies for the individual market to expire this year, Collins said. Then, Medicaid covered only adults with the lowest incomes, and the individual marketplace was prohibitively expensive, she said. "It's a way of repealing parts of the Affordable Care Act without really saying it," she said. _____ Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
