Accidental death data threatened by Trump CDC cuts
Why it matters: Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death for Americans younger than 45, and the data the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control churns on fatal car accidents, drug overdose deaths, firearm injuries and even dog bites help inform public health strategies.
The Trump budget targets the CDC with more than $3.5 billion in proposed cuts and lists the injury center under "duplicative, DEI or simply unnecessary programs" that can be conducted more effectively by states.
Where things stand: The center was hit by layoffs under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s reorganization of federal health agencies, losing about 200 staffers in April who primarily worked on violence prevention and unintentional injuries.
That crippled key data repositories, such as a web-based injury statistics system called WISQAR and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), with few data scientists and other technicians left to crunch the numbers, current employees and advocates say.
"Those are existing in name only from here on, because the staff who have the expertise and the know-how and the access to the databases and all of that were RIF'd," Sharon Gilmartin, executive director of the Safe States Alliance, told Axios.
Trump's 2026 budget request would eliminate funding for both data repositories and the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS).
Between the lines: Also potentially at risk is the CDC's federal surveillance report of drowning statistics, which found the number of drowning deaths among kids 4 and younger increased 28% during the pandemic, between 2019 and 2022.
That information revealed COVID-era patterns, such as kids spending more time at home or distracted parents juggling remote work with child care, that may have increased their risk, Katie Adamson, vice president of health partnerships and policy for YMCA, told Axios.
That kind of data, as well as $5 million in funding for drowning prevention programs such as swimming lessons, from groups like the YMCA, has been cut.
"Why wouldn't the federal government have a role in [addressing] the leading cause of death in our babies?" Adamson said.
The cuts extend beyond the CDC to grantees around the country who use the data to implement prevention strategies, said one CDC official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press.
Among the uses of funding specifically eliminated in the president's budget is money for a network of 11 Injury Control Research Centers at universities around the country that assist in researching the most efficient prevention programs based on the data collected by the CDC.
The work includes a University of Michigan study of the effectiveness of anonymous tip lines at schools. Over four years, it identified more than 1,000 opportunities for mental health intervention, with dozens of weapons recovered from schools and several students with school shooting plans.
"The return on investment for preventing these kinds of injuries and deaths is enormous," the official said. "If you care about saving dollars, you should be investing in the kind of work that the CDC injury center has historically done. It's not duplicative, it's unique."
The other side: HHS has indicated plans for some of the work would be transferred within the planned Administration for a Healthy America.
"HHS and CDC remain firmly committed to maintaining the availability of high-quality public health data essential to injury prevention and response nationwide," an HHS spokesman said.
"As part of Secretary Kennedy's broader vision to streamline HHS operations and improve government efficiency, the CDC's critical work will continue to inform data-driven strategies that protect the health and safety of the American people."
Yes, but: It's not that easy to just shift the work of the injury center and its complex data infrastructure, including laboratory work and response work, to another agency, the CDC official said.
"Everybody's really worried around here. We've already lost the world's experts in a lot of these topics and a lot of incredible work in every one of these areas. It's not easy to just turn that back on or rebuild," the CDC official said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
What Is Your Health Record Worth? The Unseen Economics Behind Your Medical Data
Two thousand years ago, physicians in Egypt documented their patients' symptoms and treatments on papyrus scrolls. These early medical records served a simple, localized purpose: they supported direct care, were referenced in case discussions, and played a role in medical education. For most of human history, medical documentation was a tool for the physician, with little utility beyond the immediate circle of care. But in the modern era, as records have gone digital, they have transformed into something else entirely: a commodity. Today, medical records are exchanged, aggregated, analyzed, and monetized at a scale unimaginable in the paper era. Governments, researchers, and corporations alike are tapping into their value. Yet, for all the headlines about billion-dollar data deals and the promise of AI-driven breakthroughs, the average American remains largely unaware of what their medical data is worth—or how little control they have over it. In fact, the reality of the health data economy may surprise many. While one survey suggests that 70% of Americans would only be willing to share their records for more than $1,000, the actual price those records fetch is often far lower. For instance, despite claims that hackers can sell health data for $250 per record, consider last year's Change Healthcare hacking episode. A security breach compromised the data of over 190 million Americans at the company, which is a UnitedHealth Group subsidiary. UnitedHealth Group reportedly paid the hackers $22 million in ransom—an implicit valuation of just 11.5 cents per record. More challenging still, individuals are rarely in a position to benefit from the emerging market for health data in any meaningful way. The Evolution of the Medical Record Historically, the medical record was a tool of practice and pedagogy. In the 19th and 20th centuries, hospitals and teaching institutions developed increasingly sophisticated case files, supporting diagnoses, treatments, and post-mortem reviews. But the paper record had limits: it was static, siloed, and difficult to scale. Its value was largely confined to the provider who created or maintained it. This began to change with the advent of electronic health records (EHRs), especially following the 2009 enactment of the HITECH Act as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The federal government allocated billions to incentivize the adoption of EHR systems, explicitly aiming to create a "learning healthcare system" that could generate insights from aggregated clinical data. Digitization brought tremendous promise. Actual medical records, with discrete and detailed clinical data, could now be searched, shared, and studied. Health systems could coordinate care more effectively. Researchers could analyze trends across populations. And during the COVID-19 pandemic, the ability to report and track public health data in real time became critically important. But digitization also created new opportunities—and incentives—for data monetization. Who Buys Health Data, and Why? Health data is now big business, with most estimates pegging the market between $2B and $8B. And for good reason: the ability for researchers to investigate vast de-identified digitized datasets to understand how both individuals and therapies behave and respond in the real world (known as Real World Data or RWD), versus the rigid confines of clinical trials, holds the promise of increasing the pace and lowering the cost of medical discovery. In many ways, de-identified health data is nothing new: researchers and others have had access to some data for decades, thanks to medical claims data created by billing and reimbursement between providers and health plans. Claims data, however, can be thought of as a mile wide, an inch deep: it can tell the journey of patients, but isn't sharp on the details. What is new, then, is the depth and robustness of health records themselves: clinical notes, lab values, procedures, outcomes, etc. Pharmaceutical companies now buy RWD to identify candidates for clinical trials and assess treatment effectiveness. Health insurers analyze it to manage costs and stratify patient risk. Startups and AI firms use it to train algorithms, while public health agencies rely on it to monitor disease patterns. Despite these widespread uses, there's still little transparency around what health records are actually worth. That question is further complicated by ethical and legal considerations, which shape not only the price of data but who gets to profit from it. The Ethics and Regulation of Health Data Sharing A recent glaring example of the public's unease with health data and big tech is the story of Project Nightingale. In 2019, Google and Ascension Health launched a partnership to analyze millions of patient records. Both organizations acted within legal boundaries: HIPAA allows patient data sharing for treatment, payment, and healthcare operations purposes. Nonetheless, a whistleblower raised concerns, and public backlash was swift. Critics argued that the scale of the data sharing and the lack of transparency violated patient trust. Healthcare data can be used for other purposes (including research, analytics and/or commercial purposes), but must first be deidentified. The process of deidentification, defined by HIPAA, requires the removal of 18 types of identifiers or an expert determination that the risk of reidentification is very low. But deidentification isn't foolproof, especially with advanced re-identification techniques. And even when the rules are followed, public sentiment may differ from regulatory interpretations. The Project Nightingale controversy illustrates a central tension: legal permissibility does not always equate to ethical acceptability. As data sharing scales and becomes more commercialized, that distinction becomes increasingly salient. What Does The Data Say About The Value Of Health Data? So what is the value of a medical record? According to conversations with several industry experts, the answer depends on several factors. And for people interested in the value of their own health data, it may be disappointing. In general, records of healthy individuals or those with common, well-managed conditions tend to be worth very little. Their data is often less useful for clinical research, predictive modeling, or training AI models. On the other hand, records associated with specific diseases, especially rare or complex conditions, can command far higher value. This is particularly true when the data includes structured lab results, imaging, medication histories, and genomic information. For example, primary care records may be valued as low as 50 cents per patient. Medical imaging data (from MRIs, CT scans, ultrasounds or X-rays) may be worth $30, depending on the underlying medical condition, purpose and location of the scan. In contrast, oncology medical records can be worth between $950 and $2,000 per patient, and genomic data alone can command $1,700 to $5,000. When genomic data is linked with phenotypic data, a combination prized by precision medicine companies, the value can exceed $6,000. Also worth noting is that these figures tend to represent value, not prices. Value in this context refers to the revenue a record holder can generate over time from selling data to multiple customers, rather than the price they might get from an individual buyer. For instance, while Tempus AI, a genomic lab company, realized an average of $1,899 in revenue per de-identified record, this was over a five year time horizon. Further data from Tempus suggests that health data may be subject to normal economic laws: as supply increases, prices may come down. Its revenue generated per record for new patients has decreased over successive years, from $502 per record in 2019 to $128 per record in 2023 (based on the author's firm's analysis). Further, the price a data broker or pharmaceutical company is willing to pay varies depending on the specific use case they are focused on, the supply and availability of similar data, and the ease of acquisition. Why It's Not Easy To Cash In There are several reasons why individual Americans can't easily profit from the value of their health data. First, while federal law (via HIPAA) guarantees a right of access to one's medical records, most patients do not have a comprehensive or consolidated copy. Health data is often fragmented across hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, labs, and insurers. Second, even with digital access, which most providers are now enabled (and effectively mandated) to make available, individual patients lack the market power or technical means to sell their data. The demand side of the data economy (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) generally needs hundreds or thousands (or more) records to suit their research purposes. Aggregated datasets are more valuable and easier to use than individual records. As a result, natural aggregators like hospitals, health systems, and EHR vendors are better positioned to meet that demand. Third, most individuals lack the necessary tools to de-identify their data or license it for specific purposes. While some technology companies are attempting to create platforms for personal data monetization, these remain nascent and face significant adoption and regulatory hurdles. There are companies out there seeking to change this paradigm. San Francisco-based Evidation Health has raised hundreds of millions of dollars to create a technology platform to help consumers aggregate their health and wellness data and enable them to participate in sponsored research. 'Individuals' data has value, and we believe they should share in that value,' notes Evidation's CEO Leslie Oley Wilberforce. Despite Evidation's progress - the company raised more capital in 2024 to accelerate growth - consumer awareness and adoption of these types of platforms remains nascent. The result is a market that extracts value from consumers without empowering them to participate. Americans may believe their data is worth hundreds of dollars, but without access, infrastructure, or market presence, they remain on the outside looking in. Case Study: 23andMe Perhaps no example better encapsulates the promise and peril of consumer health data than 23andMe. Once a darling of the direct-to-consumer genomics boom, the company amassed genetic data from more than 15 million people. It offered inexpensive at-home DNA tests, promising ancestry insights and health risk predictions. But the real business model was always data. 23andMe struck multiple deals with pharmaceutical companies, including a major collaboration with GlaxoSmithKline. These agreements were designed to monetize its enormous trove of genomic and phenotypic data for drug discovery and clinical research. Yet by 2025, the company had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Just weeks later, it was acquired by Regeneron for a mere $256 million—a dramatic fall from its $6 billion valuation just a few years prior. The decline was accelerated by a 2023 data breach affecting 6.9 million users, and growing public unease over privacy practices. The 23andMe story is a cautionary tale. Consumers willingly handed over their most intimate biological data, only to see that data become an asset in corporate transactions they had no control over. Even if Regeneron maintains 23andMe's stated privacy policies, the legal and ethical framework governing genetic data in the U.S. remains weak and fragmented. Conclusion: A Market With Limited Participation We began this story on papyrus scrolls, when medical records served the care of a single person and had little value beyond their immediate use. Today, we live in an age where those records are digitized, replicated, analyzed, and sold, often without the knowledge or benefit of the people to whom they pertain. So what is your health data worth? The disappointing answer is: it depends, but don't quit your day job, because you likely can't capitalize on it yet anyway. As the health data economy matures, we must grapple with fundamental questions: Who benefits? Who decides how data is used? And how can patients be treated not just as data points, but as participants in a system built on their personal information? In the next article in this series, we'll explore how health data is actually priced: who pays what, for which kinds of data, and what that tells us about the real value of your medical record.
a minute ago
Americans spend less time reading for fun and more time on screens: Study
Fewer Americans are opening a book for fun each day, with reading for pleasure in the United States down 40% over the past 20 years, a new study finds. Researchers from University College London and the University of Florida analyzed surveys from more than 230,000 Americans aged 15 and older between 2003 and 2023, tracking their daily reading habits. Results, published in the journal iScience on Wednesday, showed the share of people who picked up a book, magazine or e-reader every day dropped about 3% per year. Reading with children was also rare, the study found, with only 2% of adults reporting doing so on average every day. However, those who did read spent more time doing so, averaging more than 90 minutes daily. "For me, one of the most important takeaways of this study is awareness of how little reading for children is happening," Jill Sonke, one of the study's lead authors as well as director of research initiatives and a research professor at the University of Florida Center for Arts in Medicine, told ABC News. "As a mother, reading to my children was a really important time for bonding as well as for relaxation and for stimulating my children's interest in reading and their imagination and creativity." The study also found that reading declined more sharply among Black Americans, those with less education or lower incomes, and people in rural areas, with gaps widening over the 20-year study period. The researchers speculated that the drop is likely tied to the rise of digital media, including social platforms, streaming and online browsing. "There's a correlation between time spent on digital media and reductions in reading time," Sonke said. "It does seem logical that the ways in which digital media compete for our time would be a factor in these declines in reading." The auhtors cautioned that less reading could affect health, well-being and literacy. Reading has been linked to stronger language skills, reasoning and empathy, they said. "I think it's important for people to understand that reading for pleasure is actually a health promoting activity," Sonke said. "We know that participating in the arts is a health behavior because it statistically results in improved health outcomes including well-being, social cohesion, mental health." The study authors say that national strategies often focus mainly on children. The authors suggested that adult reading habits also deserve attention, especially given their impact on health and well-being. The National Literacy Trust, an independent charity based in London that promotes literacy, advises setting aside 10 minutes before bed, carrying a book or e-reader during commutes and making reading a shared family activity. Even small changes can help bring reading back into daily life, the group notes.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A record-low 54% of U.S. adults say they drink alcohol, new poll shows
Fewer Americans are reporting that they drink alcohol amid a growing belief that even moderate alcohol consumption is a health risk, according to a Gallup poll released Wednesday. The survey finds that 54% of U.S. adults say they drink alcoholic beverages such as liquor, wine or beer — "the lowest by one percentage point in Gallup's nearly 90-year trend," the analytics company says. And a record high percentage of U.S. adults, 53%, now say moderate drinking is bad for their health, up from 28% in 2015. The uptick in doubt about alcohol's benefits is largely driven by young adults — the age group that is most likely to believe drinking "one or two drinks a day" can cause health hazards — but older adults are also now increasingly likely to think moderate drinking carries risks. The findings of the poll, which was conducted in July, indicate that after years of many believing that moderate drinking was harmless — or even beneficial — worries about alcohol consumption are taking hold. According to Gallup's data, even those who consume alcohol are drinking less. The federal government is updating new dietary guidelines, including those around alcohol. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, government data showed U.S. alcohol consumption was trending up. But other government surveys have shown a decline in certain types of drinking, particularly among teenagers and young adults. This comes alongside a new drumbeat of information about alcohol's risks. While moderate drinking was once thought to have benefits for heart health, health professionals in recent years have pointed to overwhelming evidence that alcohol consumption leads to negative health outcomes and is a leading cause of cancer. Additionally, there are other factors contributing to the changing perspectives around alcohol, Willa Bennett, editor-in-chief of Cosmopolitan and Seventeen, said on "CBS Mornings Plus" Wednesday. "We know this generation is increasingly out in the world trying to find real community and camaraderie," Bennett said. People don't seem to need alcohol to go out anymore, she said. Other factors include less stigma around not drinking and the prevalence of social media. "People do want control of their image," Bennett said. "People don't want to give that up. It's scary. What are the long term risks?" Growing skepticism about alcohol's benefits Younger adults have been quicker than older Americans to accept that drinking is harmful, but older adults are coming around to the same view. About two-thirds of 18- to 34-year-olds believe moderate drinking is unhealthy, according to the poll, up from about 4 in 10 in 2015. Older adults are less likely to see alcohol as harmful — about half of Americans age 55 or older believe this — but that's a substantial increase, too. In 2015, only about 2 in 10 adults age 55 or older thought alcohol was bad for their health. In the past, moderate drinking was thought to have some benefits. That idea came from imperfect studies that largely didn't include younger people and couldn't prove cause and effect. Now the scientific consensus has shifted, and several countries recently lowered their alcohol consumption recommendations. Earlier this year, the outgoing U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, recommended a label on bottles of beer, wine and liquor that would clearly outline the link between alcohol consumption and cancer. "Alcohol is a well-established, preventable cause of cancer responsible for about 100,000 cases of cancer and 20,000 cancer deaths annually in the United States — greater than the 13,500 alcohol-associated traffic crash fatalities per year in the U.S. — yet the majority of Americans are unaware of this risk," Murthy said in a statement in January. The federal government's current dietary guidelines recommend Americans not drink or, if they do consume alcohol, men should limit themselves to two drinks a day or fewer while women should stick to one or fewer. Gallup's director of U.S. social research, Lydia Saad, said shifting health advice throughout older Americans' lives may be a reason they have been more gradual than young adults to recognize alcohol as harmful. "Older folks may be a little more hardened in terms of the whiplash that they get with recommendations," Saad said. "It may take them a little longer to absorb or accept the information. Whereas, for young folks, this is the environment that they've grown up in ... in many cases, it would be the first thing young adults would have heard as they were coming into adulthood." The government is expected to release new guidelines later this year, under the directive of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has promised big changes. Kennedy has not hinted at how the alcohol recommendations may shift. Drinking rates fall to decade low Slightly more than half of Americans, 54%, report that they drink alcohol — a low in Gallup's data that is especially pronounced among women and young adults. The previous low was 55%, recorded in 1958. "Declines in alcohol consumption do not appear to be caused by people shifting to other mood-altering substances — in particular, recreational marijuana, which is now legal in about half of U.S. states," Gallup said in a news release. "Although marijuana use is higher today than a decade ago, it has been fairly steady over the past four years and thus doesn't appear to be a factor in people choosing not to drink alcohol." Gallup says it has been tracking Americans' drinking behavior since 1939. Since 2001, it has tracked their views on health implications related to moderate drinking. Young Americans' alcohol consumption has been trending downward for years, accelerating the overall decline in alcohol consumption. In sharp contrast with Gallup's findings two decades ago, when young adults were likeliest to report drinking, young adults' drinking rate is now slightly below middle-aged and older adults. Americans' reported drinking is among the lowest since the question was first asked in 1939. For most of the last few decades, at least 6 in 10 Americans have reported drinking alcoholic beverages, only dipping below that point a few times in the question's history. Americans who drink alcohol are consuming less Even if concerns about health risks aren't causing some adults to give up alcohol entirely, these worries could be influencing how often they drink. The survey found that adults who think moderate drinking is bad for one's health are just as likely as people who don't share those concerns to report that they drink, but fewer of the people with health worries had consumed alcohol recently. About half of those who worry moderate drinking is unhealthy said they had a drink in the previous week, compared with about 7 in 10 who did not think drinking was bad for their health. Overall, only about one-quarter of Americans who drink said they had consumed alcohol in the prior 24 hours, a record low in the survey. Roughly 4 in 10 said that it had been more than a week since they had poured a drink. Trump sounds off on potential security guarantees for Ukraine Russia responds to potential Ukraine security guarantees as Trump signals U.S. support Celia Rose Gooding takes on Uhura's legacy in "Star Trek: Strange New Worlds" Solve the daily Crossword
