Temporary pause on federal financial assistance programs worries Louisiana organizations
Temporary pause on federal financial assistance programs worries Louisiana organizations
While CLASS, Healthy Living for All, will be greatly impacted as an agency by the Trump administration's temporary pause on grant, loan and other financial assistance programs at the Office of Management and Budget, executive director Ann Lowrey is more worried about the people that the non-profit serves.
She said its operations and programs predominately are funded by federal grants to the state of Louisiana, and CLASS is a contractor or sub-recipient of the grants.
"In January alone, CLASS helped house nearly 100 people living with HIV or AIDS. Without our assistance, many of these individuals are at risk of becoming homeless," she said, citing this as an example of one of the supportive services they provide.
"There are many, many people who rely on these services for their survival," she said.
She said CLASS provides services in three categories that rely on federal funding to varying degrees. Those services include "supportive services for people living with HIV; HIV prevention services that include HIV and STI testing, linkage to care or treatment at our facility; and preventative HIV services, including access to pre-exposure prophylaxis services; and Harm Reduction services that include alcohol and substance misuse groups and access to treatment options, syringe services and overdose prevention education and materials including Narcan."
Linda Hutson, director of development and community relations at the Food Bank of Central Louisiana, said they have read the information that they have seen in the news, but have not heard anything officially or unofficially about their current funding streams or grants, so they don't know enough to make a comment at this time.
Kitty Wynn, executive director of the Central Louisiana Homeless Coalition in Alexandria, said they decided to pause moving forward with some things because of the order.
Central Louisiana Technical Community College released a statement to its students Tuesday afternoon regarding the executive order that read, 'We are closely monitoring recent federal actions as we receive the latest updates from national organizations and our legislative partners. The Department of Education has indicated that the temporary funding pause does not impact Federal Pell Grants, Direct Loans Under Title IV, HEA, Title I, IDEA, other formula grants, or assistance received directly by individuals. However, it may impact other programs. We are actively seeking clarification on how these changes will be implemented, and as we await further guidance and assessment, we remain focused on our mission to provide accessible education and workforce training that supports Louisiana's communities and economy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
42 minutes ago
- Axios
Vaccine board purge stokes talk of CDC alternatives
By gutting the expert panel that's advised the government on vaccine policy for more than 60 years, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earned the condemnation of virtually every medical society, as well as former public health officials and local practitioners. What became immediately clear is that no outside group can immediately step in and fill the vacuum if the public won't trust the reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The big picture: The distress and lack of organization apparent in health circles on Tuesday was a sign that a new independent body that could act as a "shadow CDC" to truth-squad the Trump administration isn't close to materializing. "We are clearly working on it and we think it's very important, but I don't think anyone has an answer yet," said Michael Osterholm, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, who's behind one ad hoc effort. "Right now, we're in such uncharted territory." The medical establishment has floated ideas such as state-appointed boards or medical specialty associations serving as clearinghouses for information on vaccine safety and efficacy for clinicians. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) during the pandemic created a state entity to review the safety of federally approved COVID-19 vaccines before distributing them to the public. But it would be difficult to replicate the professional clout of ACIP, whose recommendations can influence whether insurers cover vaccines. That would leave Kennedy's handpicked successors controlling the narrative — a prospect many researchers and physicians think will bring a radical departure from ACIP's evidence-based deliberations on safety and efficacy. Friction point: Kennedy and other Trump health officials' assertions that ACIP has been a rubber stamp for vaccines have infuriated public health officials, who say the physicians, infectious disease experts and researchers constituted a vital body of nongovernmental health leaders who took their jobs seriously. Panel members were carefully vetted for conflicts and had their professional credentials scrutinized. Discussions took place in a high-profile public forum that would be difficult, if not impossible, to replicate. "Many of us can provide a read of the science, and we can convene formally or informally to create consensus around vaccine recommendations," said Megan Ranney, dean of the Yale School of Public Health. "But I suspect that it won't be sufficient for insurers, for Medicaid, for the Vaccines for Children program, and it's unclear how pediatricians and primary care physicians and pharmacies across the country are going to be able to respond," she said. The other side: Kennedy wrote on X Tuesday night that he would announce new ACIP members in the coming days. "None of these individuals will be ideological anti-vaxxers. They will be highly credentialed physicians and scientists," Kennedy wrote. He added he would detail instances of "historical corruption at ACIP to help the public understand why this clean sweep was necessary. "Kennedy cited the panel's "stubborn unwillingness to demand adequate safety trials before recommending new vaccines for our children" as the most "outrageous example." What to watch: All eyes are on the new appointees for the board, including their scientific backgrounds, track records when it comes to defending vaccines and any potential conflicts of interest. HHS has indicated it has every intention of moving forward with ACIP's next meeting, scheduled for June 25-27. The agenda includes recommendation votes for COVID–19, HPV, influenza, meningococcal and RSV vaccines. "If nothing else, I think [the committee] may have trouble functioning because you've just lost a whole lot of institutional memory," said Adam Ratner, a member of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Infectious Diseases. "That agenda has the committee voting on real things that matter to real people, and I don't know how they're possibly going to do that in any kind of way that is based on science or evidence," he said.
News24
an hour ago
- News24
Graphs that paint the picture of HIV in SA: Part 3
Eight million people living with HIV. Just over 6 million on treatment. Behind these big numbers lurk a universe of fascinating epidemiological dynamics. In this special briefing, Spotlight editor Marcus Low unpacks what we know about the state of HIV in South Africa. This is part 3 of 3. In Part 1 of this Spotlight special briefing, we looked at some of the big picture dynamics of HIV in South Africa, and in Part 2, we considered some of the vulnerabilities of our HIV programme. Now, in Part 3, we zoom into some nuances relating to HIV prevention, the epidemic in different provinces, gender disparities, and HIV in kids – after which we conclude this special briefing with our take on where all this data suggests we should be focussing next in South Africa's HIV response. Prevention problems A landmark analysis published in 2022 found that the key reasons for the large decline in new infections in South Africa were antiretroviral treatment (since it makes people non-infectious) and the use of condoms. Voluntary medical male circumcision also contributed to reduced infections, more so for men, but also indirectly for women. To some extent, all of these interventions are threatened by the recent aid cuts. Even prior to the cuts there were concerns that both condom distribution and usage has declined. Incidentally, the provision of condoms is probably the area of HIV prevention that has been impacted least by the aid cuts. Last year, we reported extensively on injections that can provide HIV-negative people with six months of protection against HIV per shot. There are big unanswered questions about when these injections will become available and at what price, but experts have described it as a potential game-changer. In the meantime, daily antiretroviral tablets that prevent HIV infection have already been rolled out in the public healthcare system over the last five or so years. The numbers here are tricky to parse since many people start taking the pills and then stop. For example, while 501 000 women started taking the pills from mid-2023 to mid-2024, less than half that number were still taking the tablets in mid-2024 – keep this in mind when considering the above graph. Even so, there has clearly been a dramatic increase in women using HIV prevention pills in recent years. How provinces compare In South Africa, the health system, and most of the HIV programme for that matter, is run by provincial health departments. Apart from demographics differing massively between the country's nine provinces, the capabilities of their health departments also varies. It is thus no surprise that the HIV numbers look very different in different provinces. Part of the difference between provinces is determined by things health departments can do little about, for instance the Eastern Cape quite simply is a more rural province than Gauteng. On the other hand, some provincial departments have been chronically dysfunctional for decades which has no doubt impacted their HIV numbers. Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) are comfortably the country's largest provinces by population, and it is thus no surprise that together they account for over 60% of all the country's HIV cases. But apart from their absolute numbers, they also have particularly high HIV prevalence – roughly 16% of people in KZN are living with HIV, compared to 7% in the Western Cape. In terms of treatment coverage, the three worst performing provinces are the Eastern Cape, Gauteng, and Limpopo – all at around 73%. At 74%, the Western Cape is not much better. KZN leads the pack with 84%. We focus on treatment coverage here since we consider it the single number that tells us most about how well a province is doing. Maybe the most important contrast here is that between KZN and Gauteng. Both provinces have just under two million people living with HIV. Conventional wisdom would have it that delivering treatment would be harder in a more rural province like KZN, yet treatment coverage in KZN is more than ten percentage points higher than it is in Gauteng. It is worth noting though that estimated HIV-related deaths are nevertheless higher in KZN than in Gauteng – possible explanations include much higher TB rates in KZN and worse socio-economic conditions. Differences between men and women One of the most striking aspects about HIV in South Africa is that almost double as many women as men are living with the virus – 5.2 million versus 2.6 million in 2024. The reasons for this are not entirely clear but it is likely due to a combination of biology and social factors that determine who has sex with who. Given these numbers, one might expect that many more women would be dying of HIV-related causes than men, but that is not what is happening. In fact, in 2023/2024, 27 100 men died of HIV-related causes compared to 24 200 women. Men are thus less likely to contract HIV than women, but once they have the virus in their bodies, they are on average much more likely to die of it than women. The numbers suggest that this is at least in part because men are both less likely than women to get tested for HIV and to take treatment once diagnosed. The kids are not quite all right It may come as a surprise to some that, even in the mid-2020s, we still have around 7 000 new HIV-positive babies every year in South Africa. Things have improved massively since two decades ago when the number was more than 10 times higher, but it is worrying that we haven't been able to get it closer to zero. In fact, progress has slowed in recent years. The dynamics here are not obvious. Most pregnant women in South Africa attend antenatal visits where they are routinely offered HIV testing. If the mother tests positive, she is immediately put on antiretroviral treatment that can suppress the virus and protect both her and the baby. Because of such HIV testing in the antenatal period, we have seen dramatically fewer vertical (mother-to-child) transmissions at or during birth. Instead, an increasing proportion of vertical transmissions happen in cases where the mother only contracts HIV in the months after birth and then transmits the virus to her baby during breastfeeding, all before she herself has been diagnosed. Since a person's HIV viral load spikes very high in the first weeks after infection, this can happen very quickly. Apart from ongoing vertical transmissions, another point of concern is the estimate that one in three children living with HIV are not taking antiretroviral treatment. (We have unpacked the dynamics behind this in a previous article.) What is to be done? In a study conducted in KwaZulu-Natal a few years ago, researchers found that people with HIV who only visited the clinic once a year did as well as people who visited the clinic every six months. The nurses at the facilities involved were however convinced that the 12-month group would be worse off – if it was up to them everyone would have to come every six months. Well-intentioned as these nurses were, doing it their way would mean more work for them and more clinic visits and more waiting in line for their clients. Of course, for those people who are ill or struggling, there must be the option of much more regular visits. But for those who are stable on treatment and doing well, we should at most be asking them to visit the clinic once a year and pick up medicines somewhere convenient every six months. ALSO READ | Are children living with HIV being left behind? What the stats tell us South Africa has made tremendous progress against HIV. Yet, as we have shown in this Spotlight special briefing, there are gaps, most notably the fact that one in five people living with the virus are not on treatment. Getting that fifth person on to treatment, might require us doing things differently than before. Quite simply, we need to make it easier and more convenient for people to start and stay on treatment. We have already made several of the right moves. Condom distribution has mostly been a success, it is easy to get an HIV test, allowing nurses to get people started on treatment without the involvement of doctors has worked well, and giving people the option of collecting their ARVs at pick-up points such as private pharmacies has made many people's lives easier. ALSO READ | Francois Venter: Our HIV programme is collapsing and government is nowhere to be seen Though it's come a long way, the medicines distribution system still falls short of providing everyone with a convenient option for collecting their medicines near their home or workplace. Too often people still get only enough tablets for a month or two at a time. For those not keen on visiting clinics, getting an ARV prescription straight from a pharmacy is unfortunately not yet an option. Many people still feel disrespected by the health system meant to support them. Over the last two decades, we have rightfully been somewhat fixated with numbers like treatment coverage. One might argue that to scale up treatment as quickly as we did, we couldn't afford for care to be as personalised as we'd like. But with the world's largest treatment programme in place and a mature epidemic, the context has changed. It is clear where the remaining gaps are – closing those gaps will require that government gets serious about making the health system much, much more friendly to those it is meant to support. *You can find the complete version of this #InTheSpotlight special briefing as a single page on the Spotlight website. Note: All of the above graphs are based on outputs from version 4.8 of the Thembisa model published in March 2025. We thank the Thembisa team for sharing their outputs so freely. Graphs were produced by Spotlight using the R package ggplot2. You are free to reuse and republish the graphs. For ease of use, you can download them as a Microsoft PowerPoint slide deck. Technical note: The Thembisa model outputs include both stock and flow variables. This is why we have at some places written 2024 (for stock variables) and 2023/2024 (for flow variables). 2024 should be read as mid-2024. 2023/2024 should be read as the period from mid-2023 to mid-2024. Reviewed by Dr Leigh Johnson. Spotlight takes sole responsibility for any errors. Show Comments ()
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Celebrates Pride by Defunding LGBTQ+ Support at Suicide Hotline
President Donald Trump is marking Pride Month by slashing specialized counseling services for young LGBTQ+ people who call the National Suicide Hotline. The Department of Health and Human Services' proposed 2026 budget cuts LGBTQ+ youth resources provided by the hotline, also known as 988. Although $520 million is still set aside to fund the organization, government support for LGBTQ-specific counseling will be eliminated. When Trump signed the suicide prevention line into law in 2020, the legislation put in place special counseling for high-risk populations like LGBTQ+ people under the age of 25. The hotline service was required to employ 'specially trained staff and partner organizations' because—the legislation states—queer and trans youth 'are more than 4 times more likely to contemplate suicide than their peers, with 1 in 5 LGBTQ youth and more than 1 in 3 transgender youth reporting attempting suicide.' Less than five years later, a senior administration official told NBC that the money has been reallocated so that it doesn't go to 'radical grooming contractors,' perpetuating a discriminatory stereotype that equates LGBTQ+ individuals or allies with sexual abusers. Rachel Cauley, a spokesperson for the White House's Office of Management and Budget, said that the proposed budget funds 988 but not 'radical gender ideology.' 'It does not... grant taxpayer money to a chat service where children are encouraged to embrace radical gender ideology by 'counselors' without consent or knowledge of their parents,' Cauley said. The contractors that partner with 988 are mental health organizations that typically provide care to the general population and LGBTQ+ people. This includes The Trevor Project, which has long advocated for LGBTQ+ youth. Jaymes Black, The Trevor Project's CEO, said in a statement to NBC: 'Attempts to discredit these life-saving services will not change the reality of what this administration is proposing: the elimination of a national suicide prevention program, run by seven leading crisis contact centers, that has supported over 1.3 million LGBTQ+ youth across the U.S. with best-practice crisis care.' Black, who urged Congress to rethink the proposal, said that 'every young life is worth saving.' The Trump administration chose to announce the move during Pride Month, a season meant to honor queer representation and commemorate the pioneers who paved the way toward equality. The first Pride marches were held in 1970 to honor the one-year anniversary of the 1969 Stonewall Riots, a pivotal event in the LGBTQ+ rights movement. It took nearly 30 years for the U.S. government to officially recognize the significance of the month; in 1999 former president Bill Clinton issued a proclamation recognizing June as 'Gay and Lesbian Pride Month.' Its name was subsequently updated to include other identities, like bisexual, transgender, and queer individuals, by former presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. It formally became LGBTQ+ Pride Month in 2021. Trump had already signalled that he would officially spite Pride Month last week when White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that the president has no intention to formally recognize it. 'There are no plans for a proclamation for the month of June,' Leavitt said. 'But I can tell you this president is very proud to be a president for all Americans, regardless of race, religion, or creed.' Trump's critique of 'gender ideology' has been a cornerstone of his second term. He has declared that there are only two biological sexes; scrubbed agency websites of any mention of transgender or intersex people; stripped diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs from the federal government; barred transgender women from women's sports; prevented federal funding from going to transition-related care for minors; and removed transgender people from the military.
