logo
Trump Is Ceding Ground to a Deadly Enemy

Trump Is Ceding Ground to a Deadly Enemy

The Atlantic15-03-2025
Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a near-perfect predator. In 1882, Robert Koch, the physician who discovered the microbe, told a room full of scientists that it caused one in seven of all deaths. In 2023, after a brief hiatus, tuberculosis regained from COVID its status as the world's deadliest infectious disease—a title it has held for most of what we know of human history.
Some people die of TB when their lungs collapse or fill with fluid. For others, scarring leaves so little healthy lung tissue that breathing becomes impossible. Or the infection spreads to the brain or the spinal column, or they suffer a sudden, uncontrollable hemorrhage. Lack of appetite and extreme abdominal pain can fuel weight loss so severe that it whittles away muscle and bone. This is why TB was widely known as ' consumption ' until the 20th century—it seemed to be a disease that consumed the very body, shrinking and shriveling it. On a trip to Sierra Leone in 2019, I met a boy named Henry Reider, whose mix of shyness and enthusiasm for connection reminded me of my own son. I thought he was perhaps 9 years old. His doctors later told me that he was in fact 17, his body stunted by a combination of malnutrition and tuberculosis.
The cure for TB—roughly half a year on antibiotics—has existed since the 1950s, and works for most patients. Yet, in the decades since, more than 100 million people have died of tuberculosis because the drugs are not widely available in many parts of the world. The most proximate cause of contemporary tuberculosis deaths is not M. tuberculosis, but Homo sapiens. Now, as the Trump administration decimates foreign-aid programs, the U.S. is both making survival less likely for people with TB and risking the disease becoming far more treatment-resistant. After decades of improvement, we could return to something more like the world before the cure.
Read: The danger of ignoring tuberculosis
Anyone can get tuberculosis—in fact, a quarter of all humans living now, including an estimated 13 million Americans, have been infected with the bacterium, which spreads through coughs, sneezes, and breaths. Most will only ever have a latent form of the infection, in which infection-fighting white blood cells envelop the bacteria so it cannot wreak havoc on the body. But in 5 to 10 percent of infections, the immune system can't produce enough white blood cells to surround the invader. M. tuberculosis explodes outward, and active disease begins.
Certain triggers make the disease more likely to go from latent to active, including air pollution and an immune system weakened by malnutrition, stress, or diabetes. The disease spreads especially well along the trails that poverty has blazed for it: in crowded living and working conditions such as slums and poorly ventilated factories. Left untreated, most people who develop active TB will die of the disease.
In the early 1980s, physicians and activists in Africa and Asia began sounding the alarm about an explosion of young patients dying within weeks of being infected instead of years. Hours after entering the hospital, they were choking to death on their own blood. In 1985, physicians in Zaire and Zambia noted high rates of active tuberculosis among patients who had the emerging disease now known as HIV/AIDS. TB surged globally, including in the U.S. Deaths skyrocketed. From 1985 to 2005, roughly as many people died of tuberculosis as in World War I, and many of them also had HIV. In 2000, nearly a third of the 2.3 million people who died of tuberculosis were co-infected with HIV.
By the mid-1990s, antiretroviral cocktails made HIV a treatable and survivable disease in rich communities. While a person is taking these medications, their viral levels generally become so low as to be undetectable and untransmittable; if a person with HIV becomes sick with tuberculosis, the drugs increase their odds of survival dramatically. But rich countries largely refused to spend money on HIV and TB meds in low- and middle-income countries. They cited many reasons, including that patients couldn't be trusted to take their medication on time, and that resources would be better spent on prevention and control. In 2001, the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development had this to say when explaining to Congress why many Africans would not benefit from access to HIV medications: 'People do not know what watches and clocks are. They do not use Western means for telling time. They use the sun. These drugs have to be administered during a certain sequence of time during the day and when you say take it at 10:00, people will say, 'What do you mean by 10:00?'' A 2007 review of 58 studies on patient habits found that Africans were more likely to adhere to HIV treatment regimens than North Americans.
In the mid-2000s, programs such as PEPFAR and the Global Fund finally began distributing antiretroviral therapy to millions of people living with HIV in poor countries. PEPFAR, a U.S.-funded initiative, was especially successful, saving more than 25 million lives and preventing 7 million children from being born with HIV. These projects lowered deaths and infections while also strengthening health-care systems, allowing low-income countries to better respond to diseases as varied as malaria and diabetes. Millions of lives have been saved—and tuberculosis deaths among those living with HIV have declined dramatically in the decades since.
Still, tuberculosis is great at exploiting any advantage that humans hand it. During the COVID-19 pandemic, disruptions to supply chains and TB-prevention programs led to an uptick in infections worldwide. Last year, the U.S. logged more cases of tuberculosis than it has in any year since the CDC began keeping count in the 1950s. Two people died. But in some ways, at the beginning of this year, the fight against tuberculosis had never looked more promising. High-quality vaccine candidates were in late-stage trials. In December, the World Health Organization made its first endorsement of a TB diagnostic test, and global health workers readied to deploy it.
Now that progress is on the verge of being erased. Since Donald Trump has taken office, his administration has dismantled USAID, massively eliminating foreign-aid funding and programs. According to The New York Times, hundreds of thousands of sick patients have seen their access to medication and testing suddenly cut off. A memo released by a USAID official earlier this month estimated that cases of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis will rise by about 30 percent in the next few years, an unprecedented regression in the history of humankind's fight against the disease. (The official was subsequently placed on administrative leave.) Research on tuberculosis tests and treatments has been terminated. Although the Secretary of State and Elon Musk have assured the public that the new administration's actions have not disrupted the distribution of life-saving medicine, that just isn't true. A colleague in central Africa sent me a picture of TB drugs that the U.S. has already paid for sitting unused in a warehouse because of stop-work orders. (Neither the State Department nor DOGE employees responded to requests for comment.)
Last year, roughly half of all international donor funding for tuberculosis treatment came from the U.S. Now many programs are disappearing. In a recent survey on the impact of lost funding in 31 countries, one in four organizations providing TB care reported they have shut down entirely. About half have stopped screening for new cases of tuberculosis. The average untreated case of active tuberculosis will spread the infection to 10 to 15 people a year. Without treatment, or even a diagnosis, hundreds of thousands more people will die—and each of those deaths will be needless.
By revoking money from global-health efforts, the U.S. has created the conditions for the health of people around the world to deteriorate, which will give tuberculosis even more opportunities to kill. HIV clinics in many countries have started rationing pills as drug supplies run dangerously low, raising the specter of co-infection. Like HIV, insufficient nutrition weakens the immune system. It is the leading risk factor for tuberculosis. An estimated 1 million children with severe acute malnutrition will lose access to treatment because of the USAID cuts, and refugee camps across the world are slashing already meager food rations.
For billions of people, TB is already a nightmare disease, both because the bacterium is unusually powerful and because world leaders have done a poor job of distributing cures. And yet, to the extent that one hears about TB at all in the rich world, it's usually in the context of a looming crisis: Given enough time, a strain of tuberculosis may evolve that is resistant to all available antibiotics, a superbug that is perhaps even more aggressive and deadly than previous iterations of the disease.
The Trump administration's current policies are making such a future more plausible. Even pausing TB treatment for a couple of weeks can give the bacterium a chance to evolve resistance. The world is ill-prepared to respond to drug-resistant TB, because we have shockingly few treatments for the world's deadliest infectious disease. Between 1963 and 2012, scientists approved no new drugs to treat tuberculosis. Doing so stopped being profitable once the disease ceased to be a crisis in rich countries. Many strains of tuberculosis are already resistant to the 60-year-old drugs that are still the first line of treatment for nearly all TB patients. If a person is unlucky enough to have drug-resistant TB, the next step is costly testing to determine if their body can withstand harsh, alternative treatments. The United States helped pay for those tests in many countries, which means that now fewer people with drug-resistant TB are being diagnosed or treated. Instead, they are almost certainly getting sicker and spreading the infection.
Drug-resistant TB is harder to cure in individual patients, and so the aid freeze will directly lead to many deaths. But giving the bacteria so many new opportunities to develop drug resistance is also a threat to all of humanity. We now risk the emergence of TB strains that can't be cured with our existing tools. The millennia-long history of humans' fight against TB has seen many vicious cycles. I fear we are watching the dawn of another.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Care Without Distance: Rural Health's Leap Into The Digital Age
Care Without Distance: Rural Health's Leap Into The Digital Age

Forbes

time44 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Care Without Distance: Rural Health's Leap Into The Digital Age

The rising cost of delivering care to rural Americans is only one part of the story. What matters most to patients, and to those of us who have spent our careers caring for them, is getting care when and where it's needed, in the most convenient (and yes, affordable) way possible. When I was practicing surgery as a heart specialist, many of my patients came from small towns. They were referred from rural clinics that were doing their best, often without resources or specialist support. I saw firsthand how delays in diagnosis or distance from care could change the course of an illness. These experiences stay with me. They are part of why I believe so strongly that we can and must build a better, more connected system for rural America. This moment in time, I believe, brings both hope and genuine opportunity. With the right strategy and newly available technologies, we can deliver care that is closer to home, more consistent, and more personal. Daily advances in artificial intelligence (AI), digital health, and virtual care are opening the doors to revolutionary new ways to connect patients to care. These methods are already transforming delivery in other parts of the country and the world. In July 2025, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act which includes the Rural Health Transformation Program, an innovative $50 billion federal initiative to support rural communities to be disproportionately impacted by the Act's Medicaid spending cuts and other reimbursement reductions. Beginning in 2026, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will allocate $10 billion annually through 2030 to states that submit qualifying transformation plans. These funds will support high-priority initiatives such as broadband expansion, digital infrastructure, chronic disease management, and training for the adoption of technologies such as AI and remote patient monitoring. Though limited in size and scope, the Transformation Program represents a meaningful down payment on a more modern and equitable rural health sector. It's more than a funding package; it reflects a growing recognition in Washington that transformative technology, especially AI, must play a central role in the future of rural health. In Part Two of this series, we documented the impact of rural hospital closures. But we don't need to rebuild what was lost brick by brick. We can build something better: care that moves to and with the patient, not just inside a building. And rural communities, with their strong culture of self-reliance, adaptability, resilience, and strong local ties, are uniquely positioned to benefit from and potentially lead this transformation. Barriers to Access—and Why They Must Be Overcome Rural America is home to 60 million people, nearly one in five Americans. Yet these communities experience some of the worst health outcomes in the country. Chronic illnesses are more common. Life expectancy is shorter. And getting timely, high-quality care is harder than ever. On average, rural Americans live twice as far from the nearest hospital as their urban or suburban peers. That distance is growing as more rural hospitals and clinics close, many operating on razor-thin margins with aging infrastructure and too few clinicians to sustain services. As discussed in Part One, these facilities are more than care sites. They are employers, civic institutions, and sources of community trust. When one closes, the effects ripple out. A single hospital closure can lead to a 14% decline in employment in the county it served. Fewer young doctors are choosing to practice in rural communities. Medical specialists are nearly nine times more concentrated in urban areas than rural ones. The provider shortage is worsening just as demand for care, especially for chronic conditions and behavioral health, is growing. To break this cycle, we need to reimagine how care is delivered. That means shifting away from the narrow model of centralized, inpatient facility care and toward more connected outpatient and community-based systems, including mobile care, telehealth, and in-home services. But to get there, we must invest in the infrastructure that will make this possible. That's where modern technology, and AI in particular, can play a transformational role. Laying the Groundwork for a Digital Rural Health System Before rural communities can fully benefit from artificial intelligence and other cutting-edge technologies, they need the right foundation. And today, that foundation is uneven at best. Many rural hospitals and clinics rely on outdated electronic medical records that can't share data or integrate with newer tools. Only about 64% of rural physicians use certified electronic health record systems. Twenty-two percent of rural households lack access to high-speed broadband. Most small, independent hospitals can't afford to have dedicated IT or cybersecurity staff. And while AI is becoming a more common feature in many industries, fewer than 1% of rural Americans feel confident using it in the workplace, though the majority say they want to learn. These gaps matter. Because if we don't address them now, rural America risks falling even further behind as digital care models increasingly become the norm. What's needed is clear: Some organizations are already taking action. Thrive Health Tech*, a company we helped incubate at Frist Cressey Ventures, equips patients with mobile devices that connect to a HIPAA-compliant wireless network, helping bridge the broadband gap in hard-to-reach communities. Major technology companies are beginning to partner with rural hospitals to modernize their cybersecurity systems and digital infrastructure. But scaling these solutions takes more than innovation alone. It will require new commitments to public-private partnerships with policy alignment and sustained investment. That's what makes the Rural Health Transformation Program so interesting. With $10 billion in federal funding each year between 2026 and 2030, the program gives states the opportunity and the incentive to build the appropriate infrastructure that rural health requires to thrive in the digital age. From Potential to Practice: How AI Is Already Advancing Rural Health Advancements in multi-modal language models, reasoning models, and voice agents are central to this innovation. Investments in frontier models and technical ingenuity of engineers are producing tools that are changing care delivery for the better. These are the building blocks for the hospitals and clinics of the future. Once the foundation is laid, rural communities are positioned to move from planning to action. Across the country AI tools are already being deployed to support patients, reduce administrative burdens, and enhance how clinicians deliver care. These tools are not theoretical. We know they work, and they are especially well-suited to the needs of rural populations, where distance and access are larger barriers to health. At Frist Cressey Ventures, we sit at the front line of technology innovation in healthcare. Through deep relationships with founders, health systems, medical groups, and independent physicians, we see the impact that AI applications are having on patient outcomes, clinician satisfaction, and operational efficiency at sites of care. For illustration purposes, here are some of what we are seeing in rural health today: AI-enabled platforms are enhancing how patients understand and manage their own health. Large language models can deliver personalized education, explain care plans in everyday language, and do so in multiple languages and literacy levels by text or voice. When paired with remote monitoring, this creates a continuous, real-time link between patients and their care teams. In places where behavioral health access is limited, AI-powered applications have been shown to be highly effective in providing structured talk therapy and supporting people burdened with social isolation, depression, or chronic illness. One compelling example of reaching rural communities is Sprinter Health, which deploys trained clinical staff to patients' homes in rural areas like Kentucky, Maine, and Louisiana. Using a custom logistics platform powered by AI, Sprinter aligns clinician travel with outreach needs, creating efficient, high-density routes, even in the most remote zip codes. These visits, often funded by health plans and paired with remote nurse practitioner consults, reconnect patients with care on their own schedules, reducing barriers and improving outcomes. Clinicians in rural America are asked to do more with less. AI tools help them reclaim time for what matters most: patient care. Voice-enabled documentation, automated coding, and streamlined prior authorizations reduce the suffocating administrative burden while improving billing accuracy and compliance. These tools also reduce physician and nursing burnout. One example: Ambience Healthcare* provides a suite of AI tools, including AI-enabled 'ambient scribes' with an integrated coding and compliance engine that have led to a 40% decrease in documentation time. Some health systems have reported revenue increases of $13,000 per physician annually by using these tools. AI is also helping rural clinics and hospitals improve their back office, automating scheduling, eligibility checks, and insurance workflows. Language models are flagging coding errors, demystifying payer rules, and reducing costly denials. These improvements aren't flashy, but they're critical to keeping rural providers financially solvent. An example is CodaMetrix*, which has shown a 70% reduction in manual coding work and a 60% drop in coding-related denials using digital automation and AI tools. AI is also bridging the specialist gap. Advanced clinical reasoning models are being used to supplement rural clinicians' decision-making, offering diagnostic recommendations when specialists aren't available. In radiology, large vision models can review and triage imaging studies, highlighting urgent cases for rapid interpretation. In Kenya, OpenAI's partnership with primary care provider Penda Health, though in a different setting, has shown what's possible: a 16% reduction in diagnostic errors over 40,000 patient visits. This kind of augmentation won't replace local physicians. It will support and extend their reach, ensuring that rural patients, who by geography are typically more physically distant from their providers, receive the same standard of care as those in more urban centers. Governance and Guardrails: Making AI Safe, Trusted, and Transparent While the promise of AI in rural health is real, we must proceed thoughtfully. The speed of innovation cannot come at the expense of safety, patient trust, or clinical integrity. And in rural settings, where resources are stretched and IT support may be more limited, clear guardrails are essential. AI tools must be explainable. They must be tested for bias. They must work consistently across diverse populations and care settings. And they must be monitored in real time so that rural hospitals and clinics know exactly how these systems are performing. Importantly, technology exists today to make this possible, even for rural independent facilities outside larger, more resource-complete systems. Companies like Qualified Health* are building platforms that allow rural providers to implement AI safely and smartly. Their systems provide audit trails, performance dashboards, and governance frameworks that give local teams control as well as convenience and safety. Technology alone won't change rural health. But technology implemented wisely with strong community buy-in and a commitment to safety can. And rural communities, free of many oftentimes restraining legacy systems, may well be the best situated to lead. We've seen it before in other fields. In parts of Africa and India, mobile phones bypassed traditional landline infrastructure altogether. In China, electric vehicle adoption accelerated because the country leapt directly into the next generation of mobility. Rural America has the same potential when it comes to health. Indeed, rural providers can leapfrog older models and become national leaders in delivering smarter, more equitable care. A Future Within Reach Rural health is not failing. It is changing. Yes, many inpatient hospitals are struggling, and recent Congressional action in reimbursement and Medicaid cuts make the environment more challenging. Many have closed, and many feel that the recent reconciliation law will lead to the demise of others. But this does not have to be an end of care in rural America. In fact, it opens the door to something better, built for today and for tomorrow. A system more responsive, more connected, and more sustainable than what came before. The Rural Health Transformation Program is not a silver bullet. It is limited in size, and it cannot address every challenge rural providers face. But it does point in the right direction. It signals that rural health care matters, and that technology, wisely applied, can help power a system that works better and more sustainably for patients, caregivers, and communities. This isn't just about modernizing infrastructure. It's about honoring the values that make rural America such a powerful place to lead this change. In rural communities, people take pride in self-reliance and resourcefulness. They know how to figure things out. They trust neighbors more than distant systems. They solve problems without waiting for someone else to do it. And they've long practiced the kind of resilience that will be needed to adapt, lead, and thrive in a new model of care. That new model won't rely on size. It will rely on connection. It will deliver care not just in hospitals, but in homes, local clinics, and mobile units. With the right technology in place, rural providers can leapfrog outdated systems and become national leaders in delivering smarter, earlier, and more personal care. Rural America has always led in farming, in military service, in faith and family. It can lead in health care, too. That's what this moment offers. Not a return to the past, but a chance to shape the future. A future defined by innovation, partnerships, connection, and Cressey Ventures, of which the author is a partner, has a minority investment in the companies marked with an asterisk above. They are for illustrative purposes only.

Eli Lilly hikes price of diabetes drug Mounjaro in UK as Trump pressures pharma to align drug costs
Eli Lilly hikes price of diabetes drug Mounjaro in UK as Trump pressures pharma to align drug costs

CNBC

timean hour ago

  • CNBC

Eli Lilly hikes price of diabetes drug Mounjaro in UK as Trump pressures pharma to align drug costs

Eli Lilly on Thursday said it is raising the list price of its blockbuster diabetes drug Mounjaro in the U.K. starting in September, as President Donald Trump pressures drugmakers to lower U.S. drug prices and hike them abroad. In a statement, Eli Lilly said it reached an agreement with the U.K. government to increase the list price of the weekly injection, while "maintaining access" for patients covered under the publicly funded health-care system, the National Health Service, or NHS. Eli Lilly told CNBC that the price hike will not affect the drug's availability under NHS, and it wants to work with the government to boost access. The company added that it does not determine prices that private health-care providers set, but is working with them to ensure access to Mounjaro. In a statement on Thursday, NHS said Mounjaro's list price increase "will not affect NHS commissioning of tirzepatide in England for eligible people living with obesity, based on clinical priority, or as a treatment for type 2 diabetes." Tirzepatide is the active ingredient in Mounjaro and its counterpart for weight loss, Zepbound. Mounjaro's current list price in the UK ranges from £92 (about $124.89) to £122 a month, depending on the dose size, according to Eli Lilly. The drug's new list price will increase to between £133 and £330 starting on Sept. 1. The company added that it is working with certain governments and expects to make pricing adjustments in those countries by that date. In the U.S., the list price for a month's supply of Mounjaro is $1,079.77 before insurance and other rebates. Eli Lilly said it supports the Trump administration's goal of keeping the U.S. the "world's leading destination for biopharmaceutical research and manufacturing, and the objective of more fairly sharing the costs of breakthrough medical research across developed countries." "This rebalancing may be difficult, but it means the prices for medicines paid by governments and health systems need to increase in other developed markets like Europe in order to make them lower in the US," the company said in the statement. The announcement comes after Trump in July sent separate letters to 17 drugmakers, including Eli Lilly, calling on them to take steps to lower drug prices by Sept. 29. The move built on the president's executive order in May reviving a controversial plan – the "most favored nation" policy – that aims to slash drug costs by tying the prices of some medicines in the U.S. to the significantly lower ones abroad. U.S. prescription drug prices are two-to-three times higher on average than those in other developed nations – and up to 10 times more than in certain countries, according to the Rand Corp., a public policy think tank. Trump has said he wants to narrow that gap to stop Americans from being "ripped off." Eli Lilly's announcement on Thursday comes as the industry braces for Trump's planned tariffs on pharmaceuticals imported into the U.S. In its statement, the company said it opposes those tariffs, arguing they will "raise costs, limit patient access, and undermine American leadership, especially for companies already investing heavily in domestic manufacturing." In recent months, Eli Lilly was among several drugmakers to announce new plans to invest in U.S. manufacturing sites.

Skittles, M&M's more candy options free of synthetic dyes coming in 2026
Skittles, M&M's more candy options free of synthetic dyes coming in 2026

Yahoo

time2 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Skittles, M&M's more candy options free of synthetic dyes coming in 2026

Starting next year, Skittles, M&M's, Starburst and Extra Gum will be available free of artificial colors to consumers nationwide. Mars Wrigley North America announced last month that products across four categories of its popular treats -- gum, fruity confections and chocolate candy -- will be made "without Food, Drug & Cosmetic (FD&C) colors" starting in 2026. The first brands to be available without without FD&C colors will include M&M's Chocolate, Skittles Original, Extra Gum Spearmint and Starburst Original fruit chews, the company said. Kraft Heinz, General Mills to remove artificial dyes from food products over next 2 years News of the candy maker's move away from synthetic color additives was first announced on July 24, as reported by Bloomberg. "Mars Wrigley North America has been on an innovation journey over the past few years, dedicated to bringing products that provide consumers delicious choices when they treat," the company said in a press release. "In the United States, we are engaged closely with regulators and aware of the increased dialogue and activity regarding colors. All our products meet the high standards and applicable regulations set by food safety authorities around the world, including the FDA." Anton Vincent, president of Mars Wrigley North America, added that the company's approach "is always consumer-focused and science-led." Mars Wrigley said its experts "are exploring alternatives that satisfy scientific safety criteria, technical requirements and consumer preferences." Once the company has identified a "fully effective, scalable solution," it will share updates on timing and specific product commitments, it said. The move makes Mars Wrigley an early entrant to a growing list of major consumer product goods companies offering a choice of naturally colored products. The change comes amid a push from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to crack down on synthetic food additives as part of his initiative to "Make America Healthy Again." Among those efforts are proposals to phase out artificial food dyes in favor of natural alternatives. In June, Kraft Heinz and General Mills announced plans to remove artificial food dyes from some products within the next two years. Several other large food manufacturers -- including PepsiCo, ConAgra, The Hershey Company, McCormick & Co., J.M. Smucker, Nestlé USA and more -- have announced similar plans in recent months. As of May, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved three additional color additives from natural sources that are in line with the Department of Health and Human Services' goals, which can be used in a wide range of products from gum to breakfast cereal. "For too long, our food system has relied on synthetic, petroleum-based dyes that offer no nutritional value and pose unnecessary health risks. We're removing these dyes and approving safe, natural alternatives -- to protect families and support healthier choices," Kennedy said in a statement at the time. Multiple states have also passed legislation to eliminate food dyes from school lunch programs. Solve the daily Crossword

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