Columbus sues Trump administration over cuts to disease funding amid measles outbreaks
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — The City of Columbus has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its cuts to infectious disease funding during a rise in measles outbreaks across the country, including in Ohio.
City Attorney Zach Klein said Columbus Public Health has already had to terminate 11 infectious disease workers due to cuts in the funding, leaving only 11 employees left.
'The Trump administration's termination of billions of dollars in infectious disease funding is both dangerous and unconstitutional,' Klein said in a statement. 'The City cannot stay quiet on the sidelines as extremists within this administration continue to defy the Constitution and recklessly endanger the health and safety of our children and the public.'
Ohio State faculty vote to join Big Ten alliance against Trump
The city claims that the funding cuts are unconstitutional because the money was already approved by Congress.
The city is asking for a judge to order the Trump administration to reinstate the grant programs and congressionally appropriated funding.
Kansas City and Nashville also joined the lawsuit, along with Harris County, Texas, which includes Houston.
Dkt.-1-ComplaintDownload
Several states also previously sued the administration over the funding cuts.
U.S. Health and Human Services Department spokesperson Andrew Nixon told the Associated Press earlier this month that it doesn't comment on pending litigation, but said the HHS 'will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago.'
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
PBM lobby sues Arkansas over law requiring drug middlemen to sell pharmacies
This story was originally published on Healthcare Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Healthcare Dive newsletter. The main lobby representing pharmacy benefit managers is suing Arkansas in a bid to stop the state's law preventing the drug middlemen from owning pharmacies. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association's lawsuit filed Monday in a federal court argues that Arkansas' law — the first of its kind — is unconstitutional and would result in pharmacies closing and medications becoming more difficult for Arkansans to access. It's the latest legal challenge from the PBM industry as it hustles to halt the law and set a precedent that might dissuade other states from passing similar legislation. Arkansas' legislation, called Act 624, is meant to protect local community pharmacies from larger, more diversified chains by requiring companies that own both PBMs and pharmacies to shutter their operations in the state. When signing Act 624 in April, Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the law was necessary to curb anticompetitive behavior among major PBMs that threatens Arkansas' independent pharmacies. However, PBMs — powerful middlemen that shape interactions and payments between drugmakers, payers and pharmacies — decried the law, arguing it eliminates a significant source of efficiency in the pharmacy supply chain by forcing them to sell off their brick-and-mortar stores and halt mail-order pharmacy operations in the state. The policy would unfairly benefit Arkansas-owned pharmacies at their expense, major PBMs said. Now, the PCMA — which represents 20 PBMs, including the so-called 'Big Three' that control an outsized share of the market — is taking to the courts in an attempt to stop the law before it kicks in at the start of 2026. Arkansas' law will cause roughly 40 PBM-owned pharmacies to close, along with eliminating home delivery options and jeopardizing access to specialty drugs for patients managing complex conditions, according to the PCMA's complaint. Act 624 will also lead to job losses and reduce market competition, which could cause costs to to rise for patients and their payers, the association argues. 'We will continue to fight to protect patients' access to health care and educate policymakers and stakeholders about the severe consequences of harmful legislation threatening patient access to pharmacy services,' the PCMA said in an emailed statement. The lobby's lawsuit argues that Act 624 violates the Constitution's Dormant Commerce clause and Privileges and Immunities clause by penalizing out-of-state operators to protect local businesses. The law also violates the Bill of Attainder clause, which forbids states from enacting punishments — in this case, revoking an actor's permit to conduct business — without a court proceeding, according to the complaint. The complaint makes similar legal arguments as prior lawsuits filed against Arkansas' law by CVS and Cigna, which operate two of the largest PBMs in the country: Caremark and Express Scripts, respectively. 'PCMA does not bring this suit because Act 624 is bad policy, although it very certainly is. Rather PCMA brings this suit because Act 624 is as clear an example of unconstitutional state legislation as the Court is likely ever to see,' the complaint reads. The PCMA's suit, which was filed in Arkansas' eastern district against the state's pharmacy board, seeks a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of the law while the lawsuit proceeds. Navitus Health Solutions is also a plaintiff in the suit. The Wisconsin-based PBM, which operates on a pass-through model — meaning it makes money only through administrative fees and not by retaining rebates — is not a member of the PCMA. The outcome of the suits could have significant ramifications for the PBM industry, as other states considering similar legislation could be deterred or spurred on by the court's eventual decision. Bills with similar provisions were recently introduced in Vermont, Texas and New York. States are stepping into a gap left by Congress as lawmakers scramble to make prescription drugs more affordable. Despite numerous proposals to rein in controversial PBM business practices over the past few years — including a bill that would force PBMs to sell pharmacy businesses nationwide — Congress has yet to pass significant federal reform. However, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Washington have expressed anger over PBMs' business practices in recent hearings. And, the GOP megabill currently being considered by the Senate includes some PBM provisions, including banning spread pricing in Medicaid, preventing PBMs from being paid based on a drug's list price and requiring more transparency about PBMs' business practices. Recommended Reading CVS, Cigna sue Arkansas to overturn new PBM law
Time Magazine
39 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's First Surgeon General: RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans.
New York Post
40 minutes ago
- New York Post
Widely-used drug can seriously increase women's odds of living to age 90
Time to re-up that AARP subscription. A popular prescription drug already in millions of medicine cabinets could be the key to unlocking a longer life for women. New research published in the Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences found that those taking this widely-used diabetes drug had a great shot at making it to the big 9-0. JackF – No, it's not Ozempic — it's called metformin, and almost 20 million Americans are estimated to be taking it to help manage their Type 2 diabetes. Like other diabetes drugs, this decades-old, dirt-cheap medication works by decreasing the amount of glucose the body absorbs from food and improves its response to insulin. Also used to treat Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), metformin has often been hailed as a 'wonder drug' due to its other health benefits, including improving fertility in women, aiding in weight management and even reducing the risks of heart disease and certain cancers. This new study set its sights on promising research indicating it may also have anti-aging effects. Researchers analyzed the data of 438 postmenopausal women — half of whom were on metformin, the other half of whom took another diabetes drug called sulfonylurea. Like other diabetes drugs, metformin works by decreasing the amount of glucose the body absorbs from food and improves its response to insulin. Halfpoint – They found that those in the metformin group had a 30% higher chance of making it to 90 when compared to the sulfonylurea group. The study has a few limitations, the most notable of which is that it had no control group — meaning none of the participants weren't on diabetes medication — as well as a relatively small sample size. However, one of its strengths was a follow-up period of 14-15 years, which is much longer than the average randomized controlled trial. All told, the new study adds to an increasing body of research on the geroscience hypothesis, which posits that 'biological aging is malleable and that slowing biological aging may delay or prevent the onset of multiple age-related diseases and disability,' the researchers wrote. The new study backs up previous research published last year which showed that metformin can slow aging and also prevent disease in healthy older adults. 'I don't know if metformin increases lifespan in people, but the evidence that exists suggests that it very well might,' Steven Austad, a senior scientific adviser at the American Federation for Aging Research who studies the biology of agin, told NPR. While scientists figure out how to biohack our systems, this little pill may just propel you into your golden years.
