logo
Inside the Collapse of the America's Overdose Prevention Program

Inside the Collapse of the America's Overdose Prevention Program

At an addiction conference in Nashville, Tenn., in late April, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., spoke about his own experience with drug use. 'Addiction is a source of misery. It's also a symptom of misery,' he said. Kennedy's very personal speech, however, ignored recent federal budget cuts and staffing reductions that could undo national drug programs' recent progress in reversing overdoses and treating substance use.
Several experts in the crowd, including Caleb Banta-Green, a research professor at the University of Washington, who studies addiction, furiously spoke up during Kennedy's speech. Banta-Green interrupted, shouting 'Believe science!' before being removed from the venue. (The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment for this article.)
'I had to stand up and say something,' says Banta-Green, who has spent his career working with people who use drugs and was a senior science adviser at the Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Obama administration. 'The general public needs to understand what is being dismantled and the very real impact it's going to have on them and their loved ones.'
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The Trump administration has defunded public health programs and made plans to consolidate or eliminate the systems that track their outcomes, making it difficult to monitor the deadly consequences of substance use, Banta-Green says. For instance, staff cuts to the Overdose Data to Action program and the Opioid Overdose Prevention and Surveillance program will hamper former tracking efforts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and at local and state health departments' prevention programs. A recently fired policy analyst at the overdose prevention division at the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control— who wishes to remain anonymous, citing fear of retaliation—tells Scientific American that she used to provide policy support to teams at health departments in 49 states and shared public overdose data and information to Congress.
She is a veteran who should have had protected employment status, but she lost her job during federal cuts in February. 'No one else is doing surveillance and data collection and prevention like the CDC was,' she says. 'There's so much that's been cut.' (When approached for an interview by Scientific American, a CDC spokesperson said, 'Honestly, the new administration has changed how things normally work' and did not make anyone available for questions.)
What Gets Measured Gets Managed
Provisional data suggest that deaths from drug use declined by almost 25 percent in 2024, though overdoses remain the leading cause of death for Americans aged 18 to 44. Cuts to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health will make it difficult to measure similar statistics in the future.
Because substance use is highly stigmatized, Banta-Green says it's important to have diverse, localized and timely data from multiple agencies to accurately capture the need for services—and the ways they're actually used. 'You can't design public health or policy responses if you don't know the scale of the need,' he says.
Overdose trends vary by region—for example, usage of the synthetic opioid fentanyl appeared earlier on the East Coast than the West—so national averages can obscure critical local patterns. These regional differences can offer important insights into which interventions might be working, Banta-Green says. For instance, important medications such as naloxone rapidly reverse opioid overdoses in emergency situations. But getting people onto long-term medications, including methadone and buprenorphine, which reduce cravings and withdrawal symptoms, can more effectively prevent mortality in both the short and long term.
Declining deaths may also mask tragic underlying dynamics. Successful interventions may not be the only cause of a drop in overdoses; it could also be that the people who are most vulnerable to overdose have recently perished and that there are simply fewer remaining at risk. 'It's like a forest fire burning itself out,' Banta-Green says.
This underscores the need for the large-scale data collection threatened by the proposed budget and staff cuts at the CDC and National Institutes of Health, says Regina LaBelle, an addiction policy expert at Georgetown University. 'What [the administration is] doing is shortsighted' and doesn't appear to be based 'on the effectiveness or the outcomes of the programs that [it's] cutting,' she says. For example, despite promising to expand naloxone access, the Trump administration's latest budget proposal cuts funding for a critical program that distributes the lifesaving medication to first aid responders.
'A Chance at Redemption'
When LaBelle was acting director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy during the Biden administration, she led efforts to expand evidence-based programs that provided clean syringes and tested users' drugs for harmful substances. These strategies are often referred to as 'harm reduction,' which LaBelle describes as 'a way you can meet people where they are and give them the services they need to keep them from dying.'
José Martínez, a substance use counselor based in Buffalo, N.Y., says harm-reduction practices helped save his life. When Martínez got his first job as a peer advocate for people using drugs, he was still in a chaotic part of his own addiction and had been sleeping on the street and the subway—and regularly getting into fights—for a decade. The day after he was hired to help provide counseling on hepatitis C, he got into a New York City shelter. As his bruises healed, he learned life skills he was never taught at home. 'For a lot of people, drug use is a coping tool,' he says. 'The drug is rarely the problem. Drug use is really a symptom.'
Working with others who understood that many people need help minimizing risks gave Martínez a chance to make progress toward recovery in a way that he says abstinence-only treatment programs couldn't. 'I don't agree that somebody should be sober in order for them to do things different,' he says.
Over the past six years working for the National Harm Reduction Coalition, Martínez started a national support network for other peer program workers and community members—people who share their experiences and are a trusted source of education and support for others using drugs. 'There's never no time limit,' he says. 'Everybody works on their own pace.'
Though Martínez's program doesn't take federal funding, the Trump administration is cutting similar kinds of peer programs. Martínez says doing this peer work gives many users a sense of purpose and stability—and helps them avoid previous behaviors. The proposed 2026 federal budget will slash the CDC's opioid surveillance programs by $30 million. It also creates a new subdivision called the Administration for a Healthy America that will consolidate the agency's prevention work, along with existing programs at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Agency (SAMHSA), which often coordinates grants for treatment programs. The programs formerly conducted through SAMHSA are also facing cuts of more than $1 billion. Advocates fear this will include a shift toward funding abstinence-only priorities, which, Martínez says, 'will definitely mean that we're going to have more overdoses.' (Some research suggests abstinence-based treatment actually puts people at a higher risk of fatal overdose than those who receive no treatment at all.)
'The general public needs to understand what is being dismantled and the very real impact it's going to have on them and their loved ones.' —Caleb Banta-Green, addiction research professor
These cuts could disproportionately affect communities already facing higher overdose rates: Martínez, who is Puerto Rican, notes that U.S. Black, Latino and Indigenous communities have experienced drug overdose death increases in recent years. In many states, overdose deaths in Black and brown communities remain high while white overdose death rates are declining. Looming cuts to Medicaid programs, LaBelle warns, are likely to worsen inequalities in health care access, which tends to make communities of color more vulnerable.
In Kentucky, where Governor Andy Beshear recently celebrated a 30 percent decline in overdose deaths, Shreeta Waldon, executive director of the Kentucky Harm Reduction Coalition, says the reality is more nuanced. While national overdose deaths declined in white populations from 2021 to 2023, for example, they continued to rise among people of color. Black and Latino communities often face barriers when accessing health services, many of which have been shaped by predominantly white institutions. Waldon says it's essential for people from diverse backgrounds to participate in policy decisions and necessary to ensure that opioid abatement funds —legal funds used toward treatment and prevention—are distributed fairly.
Without adequate federal funding, Waldon predicts treatment programs in Kentucky will become backlogged—potentially pushing more people into crisis situations that lead to emergency services or incarceration rather than to recovery. These financial and political pressures are not only making it harder to find support for people in crisis; they also reduce opportunities to discuss community needs. Waldon says she knows some social workers who now avoid terms such as 'Black woman' or 'marginalized' in grants and public talks out of fear of losing funding.
But people currently needing treatment for substance-use disorder are not necessarily aware of the federal funding news—or 'what's about to hit them when they try to go get treatment and they're hit with barriers,' Waldon says. 'That's way more important to me than trying to tailor the way I talk.'
Funding and staffing cuts don't just limit resources for the people most in need. They limit the ability to understand where someone is coming from, which undermines efforts to provide meaningful care, Martínez says. Harm reduction is more than the services and physical tools given to community members, he says. It's about the approach. 'When you look at a whole person, you plant the seed of health and dignity,' he says. 'If everybody deserves a chance at redemption, then we've got to rethink how we're approaching things.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Deaths from flesh-eating bacteria are on the rise. Who is at risk?
Deaths from flesh-eating bacteria are on the rise. Who is at risk?

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

Deaths from flesh-eating bacteria are on the rise. Who is at risk?

Deaths from 'flesh-eating' bacteria are on the rise across the southeastern coasts of the U.S. At least five people in Florida, four in Louisiana and one in the Outer Banks have died this year from infections that can cause necrotizing wounds. The culprit, the bacteria Vibrio vulnificus, thrives in warm seawater. Florida has seen 16 cases this year, according to the state's health department. Seventeen cases have been reported in Louisiana — more than previous years' annual averages. North Carolina has seen seven cases this year so far, the state Department of Health and Human Services confirmed to NBC News. And Mississippi has had three cases so far this year, the state's health department says. Initial deaths from the infection in Florida were reported in counties spread around the state's extensive coastline, from Bay County in the Panhandle and Hillsborough County, where Tampa is, on the Gulf Coast, to Broward County in Southeastern Florida and St. Johns County just south of Jacksonville. The bacteria can get into the body through open wounds in the skin and cause the surrounding tissue to die, a condition known as necrotizing fasciitis, or flesh-eating disease, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. People can also get Vibrio vulnificus from eating contaminated foods, particularly raw oysters. It's unclear how the people in Florida were infected. About 1 in 5 people with a Vibrio vulnificus infection die, according to the CDC. Antarpreet Jutla, an engineering professor at the University of Florida, said that infections are still rare but 'something is off this year.' Still, he said there are too many unknowns to be certain what's causing the rise in infections at this time. 'This is certainly not normal, that's one thing,' Jutla said. 'We haven't had that many cases early on in the summer for a very long time.' Jutla said Vibrio vulnificus infections tend to increase after hurricanes. Last year, Florida saw a total of 82 cases, which may have been exacerbated by the 'extremely active' hurricane season. The bacteria can linger in hurricane floodwaters. 'Something happened this year that triggered the pathogens a little bit more than before,' he said. Hurricane season this year is still expected to be above normal as the U.S. enters its peak period, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported Thursday. Jutla's research group is investigating why there are high concentrations of plankton and chlorophyll — indicators for vibrio — across Florida's panhandle. He calls it a 'concern.' What is Vibrio vulnificus? Vibrio vulnificus is one of over 200 species of Vibrio bacteria, said Rita Colwell, a professor emerita of microbiology at the University of Maryland. The majority of Vibrio infections aren't harmful to humans, Jutla said. Some only affect other animals. But Vibrio bacteria do cause about 80,000 infections in people each year, according to the Cleveland Clinic. Most of those cases are gastrointestinal. Only a small handful — 100 to 200 cases — are due to Vibrio vulnificus. Other Vibrio species, including Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio alginolyticus, are often the cause of those stomach illnesses. Another type of Vibrio, Vibrio cholorae, causes the diarrheal disease cholera. Because Vibrio bacteria prefer warm water, they are typically found along the southeastern shores of the U.S., but they are also found on the West Coast. As ocean temperatures warm, more cases have been found farther north in recent years, Jutla said, including some in New York, Connecticut and Maryland. Who is at risk? Vibrio bacteria can creep in open wounds after spending time in salty or brackish water, said Dr. Norman Beatty, an infectious disease doctor at University of Florida Health. Most cases he's seen have been associated with spending extended time in the water, but he says that even a brief exposure could be the 'only thing needed.' Visible signs of an infection can start in just a few hours, Beatty said, and include redness, swelling and 'bull's-eye' blisters. The site will also be painful. If infection progresses, it can get into the bloodstream and cause sepsis, which can be deadly. Symptoms of sepsis include fever, chills and dangerously low blood pressure, according to the CDC. People with liver cirrhosis, weakened immune systems and those over 65 are most at risk for infection, Jutla said. Vibrio vulnificus infections can be treated with antibiotics. How to prevent Vibrio infections Beatty said he recommends covering up any open wounds before going into the ocean. Even a waterproof Band-Aid does the job, he said. If people think they have an infection, they should seek care immediately, Beatty said. Delaying can be the difference between developing severe complications and a more mild infection. 'A delay in presenting to health care is truly the likely reason why most people have a more serious outcome than others,' he said. 'People who present within the same day with signs and symptoms of early infection, who receive antibiotics, can do well and can avoid a lot of these serious complications.' This article was originally published on

HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews
HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews

CNN

timean hour ago

  • CNN

HHS further constrains certain vaccine advisers to the CDC, limiting their input in evidence reviews

In a further jolt to the process of reviewing and recommending vaccines at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, another group of outside advisers to the agency was abruptly sidelined this week. In an email sent late Thursday evening, which was obtained by CNN, members of roughly 30 medical and public health organizations who serve as liaison members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, were told they could no longer participate in the committee's crucial workgroups. Liaison members don't vote at ACIP's public meetings on vaccine recommendations, but they can participate by asking questions and commenting on presentations. Behind the scenes, they have also historically done important work undertaking detailed evidence reviews of the safety and effectiveness of vaccines that helps to inform the group's votes. Those reviews happen in subcommittees called workgroups. As of late last year, ACIP had 11 active workgroups. In addition to studying scientific research, workgroups consider issues of public health importance like what age groups might get the most benefit from a vaccine, what an immunization costs and whether it will be accessible to people who should get it. Workgroups also help craft the language of the recommendations that are voted on by the full committee. Votes are typically held during ACIP's three public meetings each year. If ACIP approves a recommendation, it's forwarded to the CDC director for consideration. The director isn't bound by the committee's recommendation but usually follows it. Liaisons include groups like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Pharmacists Association. Members also represent nurses and public health officials, typically groups that play a significant role in delivering vaccinations. The latest move comes more than a month after US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed all 17 voting members of ACIP, replacing them days later with eight of his own picks, many of whom have cast doubt on the safety of vaccines and public policy around vaccination. One member later dropped out during the required financial review. The email sent Thursday called the liaison members 'special interest groups' that are 'expected to have a 'bias' based on their constituency and/or population they represent.' 'It is important that the ACIP workgroup activities remain free of any influence from any special interest groups so ACIP workgroups will no longer include Liaison organizations,' the email said. Andrew Nixon, director of communications for HHS, said in a statement Friday that 'Under the old ACIP, outside pressure to align with vaccine orthodoxy limited asking the hard questions. The old ACIP members were plagued by conflicts of interest, influence and bias. We are fulfilling our promise to the American people to never again allow those conflicts to taint vaccine recommendations.' Dr. William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at Vanderbilt University who has been participating in ACIP for 40 years as both a voting member and a liaison member, said the move to exclude professional organizations from the process of making vaccine recommendations was shortsighted. 'The organizations have a certain ownership in the recommendations because they participate,' Schaffner said. That participation increases buy-in from different stakeholder groups, which helps ACIP recommendations become the accepted standards of medical practice. Without that participation, Schaffner said, there's a risk that groups will make their own vaccine recommendations, which could lead to conflicting and confusing advice. In fact, some outside organizations, including the Vaccine Integrity Project, have already started the process of making independent vaccination recommendations. Shaffner said he also takes issue with the idea that liaison representatives are biased, which he says implies a conflict of interest. 'Every work group member, no matter who they are, is vetted for a conflict of interest,' he said, and that vetting process has only become more stringent over time as society has become more attuned to the problem. 'I have to turn down opportunities because they would interfere with my being on a work group, and that's something I do, or did,' he said. ACIP's charter spells out that some 30 specific groups should hold non-voting seats on the committee. It also allows the HHS secretary to appoint other liaison members as necessary to carry out the functions of the committee. On Friday, eight organizations that are liaisons to the committee said in a joint statement that they were 'deeply disappointed' and 'alarmed' to be barred from reviewing scientific data and informing the development of vaccine recommendations. 'To remove our deep medical expertise from this vital and once transparent process is irresponsible, dangerous to our nation's health, and will further undermine public and clinician trust in vaccines,' said the statement, which was sent by the American Medical Association. New outside experts may be invited to participate in the workgroups as needed based on their expertise, according to an HHS official who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they had not been authorized to share the information, but such inclusion will no longer be based on organizational affiliation. 'Many of these groups don't like us,' the official said. 'They've publicly attacked us.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store