AIHA Launches Campaign to Restore NIOSH
AIHA, the association for scientists and professionals committed to preserving and ensuring occupational and environmental health and safety, is taking action to restore staff and funding to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) in the face of devastating federal cuts. Created by the 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act, NIOSH is the agency within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that is responsible for conducting research and making recommendations to prevent work-related illnesses and injuries. Reductions to NIOSH personnel planned by the Trump administration will leave 'only a fraction of its original workforce to manage select programs,' said AIHA CEO Lawrence Sloan. 'The proposed reductions effectively end the institute's ability to conduct essential research and provide guidance.'
The scope of the cuts is 'unprecedented, affecting not just the staff and programmatic activities of NIOSH, but also the entire OEHS profession,' according to one industrial hygienist remaining at NIOSH, who did not have permission to speak on the record and therefore asked to remain anonymous. 'The scientific resources, expertise, and funding that NIOSH provides cannot be recreated elsewhere.'
AIHA's campaign to restore NIOSH encourages professionals in OEHS and allied fields to contact their elected representatives about the importance of maintaining NIOSH staffing and programs. The campaign has already generated more than 3,700 messages to legislators. Individuals wishing to take action can message their representatives directly through the association's grassroots portal, which provides a prefilled letter. A PDF with information about the importance of NIOSH is also available to help advocates customize messages.
'Contact your representatives and urge them to support NIOSH's critical mission,' AIHA urged via LinkedIn.
AIHA is also engaging with legislators and policymakers to advocate for the preservation of NIOSH and partnering with allied associations, including the American Society of Safety Professionals, the National Safety Council, and other members of the Intersociety Forum, a coalition of more than 20 OEHS associations, to present a unified response against the proposed cuts. In a letter dated April 4, more than 100 members of Congress joined multiple unions and AIHA in calling on President Donald J. Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, to reverse the terminations at NIOSH. If the terminations stand, the letter states, 'millions of workers across the country will face greater risks to job injury, illness, and death.'
Many stakeholders consider NIOSH the world's leading workplace health and safety agency, and the proposed cuts will affect programs ranging from mining safety research to the certification of personal protective equipment. The agency's programs include the World Trade Center Health Program, which provides monitoring and treatment for first responders and survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. World Trade Center Health Program staff are among the fewer than 150 NIOSH employees expected to remain after the cuts are enacted, representing a handful of the approximately 1,400 full- and part-time staff who worked at the agency as of late March 2025. However, advocates say the cuts 'will cripple the program's ability to adequately monitor and provide care,' as reported by USA Today.
Other critical NIOSH programs have been eliminated, such as the National Firefighter Registry for Cancer, which was created when Congress passed the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act of 2018. NIOSH describes the NFR as 'the largest effort ever undertaken to understand and reduce risk of cancer among U.S. firefighters.' The registration section of the NFR website became unavailable following reduction-in-force notices to agency staff.
Sloan stressed that these cuts to NIOSH will send ripple effects through the OEHS field and suppliers due to loss of research and guidance. 'The elimination of programs dedicated to mining safety and PPE certification raises significant concerns about the future effectiveness of safety protocols and the availability of reliable protective equipment for workers,' Sloan said.
'For those who don't think the cost of NIOSH's $363 million annual budget is worth the investment in preventing workplace illnesses and injuries, this study estimated just three NIOSH case studies (with a cost of $5.1 million) has resulted in an annual economic value of $338 million to over $1.2 billion,' said AIHA President, Nicole Greeson. 'NIOSH provides a significant return on investment.'
About AIHA
AIHA is the association for scientists and professionals committed to preserving and ensuring occupational and environmental health and safety in the workplace and community. Founded in 1939, we support our members with our expertise, networks, comprehensive education programs, and other products and services that help them maintain the highest professional and competency standards. AIHA serves as a resource for those employed across the public and private sectors, as well as to the communities in which they work.
[email protected]
SOURCE: AIHA
Copyright Business Wire 2025.
PUB: 04/09/2025 09:22 AM/DISC: 04/09/2025 09:22 AM
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Here's how the House GOP's proposed Medicaid cuts could impact Minnesota
Thousands of protestors gathered at the Minnesota State Capitol as part of the nationwide "Hands Off" protests condemning several actions of the Trump administration Saturday, April 5, 2025. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer) Minnesota could lose up the half a billion dollars annually if a GOP-backed tax bill becomes federal law, Minnesota's Medicaid director warned Thursday. That could mean fewer services or tighter restrictions on eligibility, affecting health care for hundreds of thousands of Minnesotans and the hospitals and other providers that treat them. The bill, which has already passed the U.S. House on a 215-214 vote, is still far off from becoming law; Senate Republicans are drafting their own version, and the GOP remains deeply split over how to pay for tax cuts, which is their ultimate goal. For now, the House legislation is the most detailed public plan for how Republicans will fund an extension of President Donald Trump's 2017 tax cuts, plus a bunch more. The tax cuts passed by the House would decrease federal revenue by about $3.7 trillion over the next ten years, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. To offset the loss of income, Republicans want to cut spending by $1.3 trillion, mostly by targeting Medicaid and SNAP, which helps low-income people buy food. (The $2.4 trillion gap between the revenue and spending cuts would be added to the federal debt, which will in turn increase what taxpayers must shell out in interest payments, which have surpassed $1 trillion annually.) Medicaid pays for health care for the elderly, low-income and disabled. The cost is shared between states and the federal government; last year, Minnesota spent $18 billion on Medical Assistance, which is Minnesota's version of Medicaid. The federal government covered $11 billion of that. More than 1.2 million Minnesotans rely on Medical Assistance, and deep cuts would cause 'serious harm' to Minnesotans, said John Connolly, Minnesota's Medicaid director. 'Our position at the Minnesota Department of Human Services is that the bill currently on the table is inefficient, ineffective and fundamentally unfair,' Connolly said during a press briefing. Minnesota is already grappling with how to pay for care for an aging population as health care costs continue to rise. The state Legislature made $270 million in cuts to Medical Assistance this year, as spending on the program has risen faster than tax revenues. DHS estimates that if the U.S. House tax bill were to become law, the state would lose out on $500 million per year. The bill would cause between 152,000 and 253,000 Minnesotans to lose health insurance, according to Kaiser Family Foundation. It would also push costs onto state and local governments, Connolly said, by requiring county and tribal governments to verify participants' eligibility twice as often as they do now, and increasing the administrative burden for the state. The largest chunk of the possible cuts to Minnesota comes from a provision that would reduce Medicaid reimbursements for states that subsidize health insurance for undocumented people. The Legislature voted this week to remove eligibility of undocumented adults for MinnesotaCare, a state- and federally-funded health insurance program for the working poor that is separate from Medical Assistance. As long as undocumented children remain eligible for MinnesotaCare — and if the House language becomes law — Minnesota would still have its federal funding cut by about $330 million, according to DHS. Senate Republicans are wary of deep Medicaid cuts, and are instead expected to target SNAP, the New York Times reported Thursday. The Senate has not yet introduced its version of the tax bill. A proposal to shift 25% of federal SNAP benefit costs onto states would shift up to $220 million annual cost to Minnesota, according to the state Department of Youth and Family Services. More than 440,000 Minnesotans rely on SNAP benefits, according to DCYF. More than one-third are children, 18% are seniors and 14% are adults with a disability. If these federal cost shifts and cuts become law, the Minnesota Legislature would likely be forced to return to St. Paul for a special session to either raise taxes, cut services or move money around to fulfill lawmakers' constitutional obligation to balance the budget.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
DOGE cuts pass House, despite some GOP opposition
WASHINGTON — The House advanced the first round of requested spending cuts from the Trump administration in a narrow party-line vote, overcoming the first hurdle to enact a slew of recommendations made by the Department of Government Efficiency earlier this year. Lawmakers voted 214-212 to approve the $9.4 billion rescissions package specifically targeting foreign aid as well as federal funding for organizations the Trump administration has accused of being anti-conservative. The package now heads to the Senate, which will have until July 18 to approve the requests otherwise the halted funding must be continued. All four members of Utah's House delegation voted in favor of the package. The fate of the bill appeared to be in peril when six Republicans initially voted against the measure on the floor, setting it up to fail. However, GOP leaders huddled with holdouts on the floor and managed to get two of those defectors to flip. The package looks to cut $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a nonprofit organization authorized by Congress in 1967. Every year, Congress appropriates funds to the CPB which are then distributed to more than 1,500 public media stations through community service grants. The spending cuts specifically target stations such as PBS and NPR, which the Trump administration claims unfairly target conservatives and the Republican Party. The package also cuts funding to the United States Agency for International Development, which provides foreign aid, as well as funds for the World Health Organization. The bill proposes millions of dollars in cuts to the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), a program started under the George W. Bush administration focusing on the prevention and treatment of HIV/AIDS. The rescissions package would cut more than $8 million dedicated to the program. Those provisions initially put the package in murky territory as several moderate Republicans opposed cuts to the programs, specifically pointing to PEPFAR as 'one of the most successful public health programs in the world.' Other Republicans questioned the slashed funding to public broadcasting stations, citing strong relationships with their local news outlets. The package now heads to the Senate where it must be passed within 36 days to adhere to rescissions rules. Otherwise, the funds must be unfrozen and allocated to the appropriate agencies. The package will only require a simple majority in the Senate as rescissions packages are exempt from filibuster rules, relieving Republicans from needing to rely on any Democrats to help pass Trump's proposed cuts.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's former surgeon general rips RFK Jr.'s purge of vaccine board
President Trump's former surgeon general blasted Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to fire the entirety of a federal advisory committee on vaccine guidance, saying the move jeopardizes public health and threatens public trust in health institutions. In an op-ed published by Time, former Surgeon General Jerome Adams wrote that Kennedy's recent actions cast doubt over his pledge that, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' He pointed to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) new framework limiting access to COVID-19 vaccines; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) no longer recommending the shot for children and pregnant women; and the removal of members on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). 'These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems,' said Adams, who served in the Trump administration from 2017 to 2021. '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,' he added. Kennedy announced Wednesday eight new members of the ACIP to replace the 17 that he had fired. Among the new members were noted spreaders of COVID-19 misinformation. As Endpoints News reported, two of the new picks were previously paid expert witnesses for plaintiffs in a lawsuit against Merck over its HPV and MMR vaccines. Kennedy had financial interests in the HPV vaccine lawsuit before divesting upon being confirmed. In his Thursday op-ed, Adams lamented that seniors and pregnant mothers are at a higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes, and the dismissal of the ACIP members only '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,' he wrote. 'Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices.' In social media posts following his op-ed, Adams insinuated perjury had taken place, reposting epidemiologist and health economist Eric Feigl-Ding who said Kennedy's promises of not taking away vaccines were 'lies, damn lies.' 'No matter your stance on vaccines, or FDA, or CDC, reasonable and patriotic people should be able to agree that perjury (or even the appearance of intent to deceive Congress) is not an appropriate means to justify a desired end,' Adams said in the post on social platform X. Adams has shared criticisms, some veiled, of the Trump administration's actions and picks for key health positions in recent weeks. After Trump announced Casey Means as his new nominee for surgeon general, Adams took to social media to highlight Means's lack of credentials in comparison to prior surgeon generals such as himself. Writing on X earlier this month, Adams said, 'I do not know and have nothing against Dr. Means – but I feel strongly that the person who is leading America's Public Health Service should be held to the same standard as the people he or she is leading.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
