Community fluoridation ban heads to Senate floor
(Photo via the Centers for Disease. Control and Prevention)
Over objections by the Florida Dental Association and League of Women Voters of Florida, a Senate panel voted Tuesday to bar public water systems from 'the use of any additive included primarily for health-related purposes.'
The ban is included in an omnibus Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services bill (SB 700) that now heads to the full Senate for consideration.
The bill was praised by Pensacola resident Pueschel Schneier, the first to testify on the bill during public debate.
She said the decision to add fluoride to water may have been valid in the 1940s, before people knew about tooth decay and cavities and proper oral health.
'But times have changed. Eighty years later, America is the land of plenty. There is no excuse for someone who claims they don't have access to a toothbrush. It boils down to personal accountability. People are responsible for making sure their children are brushing their teeth correctly and that they're eating the proper diet,' Schneier said.
She did add, 'I'm sure genetics play a huge role.'
The Florida Dental Association opposes the bill but did not publicly testify against it in committee Tuesday.
League of Women Voters Co-President Cecile M. Scoon said her organization opposes the bill because it preempts local governments from deciding whether to add fluoride to water. The organization generally has opposed legislation curbing local government from making decisions locally.
Moreover, Coon took aim at Schneier's testimony that proper health habits are ingrained in every child.
'There have been studies that have shown that despite the first speaker, not every parent is doing everything the right way. I mean, obviously, children come with all kinds of problems that we would not want to see and sometimes it's nutrition, it's their immunizations, different things. '
The bill passed the committee as Seminole County leaders voted Tuesday to stop adding fluoride to its water supply. That followed the Miami Dade County commission's decision a week ago to do the same.
Utah became the first state to stop adding fluoride to its water supply. The decision was praised by Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention named community fluoridation of drinking water one of the 10 great public health interventions of the 20th Century because of the dramatic decline in cavities since it started in 1945.
There is no government mandate, though, for community fluoridation of drinking water. The U.S. Public Health Service recommends fluoride levels for municipalities that do choose to add fluoride to community water supplies.
Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo recommended against community fluoridation late last year.
Ladapo, whose past advice on health issues has roundly been criticized by others in the healthcare arena, saw his suggestion rejected by the group that represents Florida dentists, which countered that fluoridation is one of the 'most effective and affordable public health measures' around.
Ladapo asserted a 'neuropsychiatric risk associated with fluoride exposure,' citing studies that allege exposure to fluoride increases risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and lower IQs.
'It is clear more research is necessary to address safety and efficacy concerns regarding community water fluoridation,' Ladapo, who works for Gov. Ron DeSantis, said in a written statement. 'The previously considered benefit of community water fluoridation does not outweigh the current known risks, especially for special populations like pregnant women and children.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pennsylvania lawmakers advance bill expanding no-cost breast cancer diagnostics
HARRISBURG, Pa. (WHTM) — Pennsylvania was one of the first states to require insurance companies to cover breast cancer screenings for high-risk women. Now, lawmakers want to expand on the law. Senate Bill 88 passed out of the insurance committee unanimously on Tuesday. The bill would clarify that insurance companies must cover screenings and diagnostics with no out-of-pocket costs for not just high-risk women but average-risk women, too. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now That covers just about everyone. Governor Josh Shapiro signed Act 1 into law in 2023 as the first bill of his administration. The law, which unanimously passed the Senate and House, required insurance companies to pay for preventative care such as genetic testing, MRIs, and ultrasounds for women at high risk of breast cancer. Insurance companies covered the screenings, but some still charged women for diagnostics if something was found. Governor Shapiro signs historic breast cancer screening bill 'But we know that screening is just one part of early detection, and far too many patients are still being hit with costs for the diagnostic imaging they need next,' said Senate President Pro Tempore Kim Ward (R-Westmoreland), who co-sponsored the bill. 'It's time to finish what we started and make sure every woman has access to the full range of breast imaging, including diagnostic exams, without cost standing in the way.' The bill now heads to the Senate for consideration, where it is likely to pass. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In memo, Trump targets health care payments that 'game the system'
BOSTON (SHNS) – As the U.S. Senate prepares to take its own crack at legislation that includes hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, the president late last week made his thoughts on one provision clear and it could impact how Massachusetts and other states finance public health care. Late on Friday, President Donald Trump issued a memo ordering U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy Jr. to 'eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, including by ensuring Medicaid payments rates are not higher than Medicare.' The move targeted state directed payments, a Medicaid financing mechanism that gives states flexibility to require managed care organizations to pay providers specific rates or to implement rate increases to advance delivery system or state policy objectives, most commonly improving access to care. State directed payments came about as a result of a 2016 Medicaid reform, but they have grown significantly in popularity since then. There were 250 unique directed payment arrangements approved between July 1, 2021 and Feb. 1, 2023, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC). The commission said the number increased by almost 21% to 302 unique arrangements approved between Feb. 1, 2023 and Aug. 1, 2024. The arrangements approved as of Aug. 1, 2024 were projected to spend a total of $110.2 billion a year, a 59% increase over the $69.3 billion in projected spending identified by the commission's analysis of arrangements approved as of Feb. 1, 2023. 'This trajectory threatens the Federal Treasury and Medicaid's long-term stability, and the imbalance between Medicaid and Medicare patients threatens to jeopardize access to care for our seniors,' Trump wrote in the memo. Trump said states and health care providers have used state directed payments 'to game the system,' echoing concerns previously raised by experts. The president outlined the scheme: states charge assessments on health care providers in order to nudge up reported state spending to score higher federal reimbursements, but then send 'the same money back to them in the form of a 'Medicaid payment,' which automatically unlocked for healthcare providers an additional 'burden-sharing' payment from the Federal Government.' 'Instead of paying Medicare rates, many States that utilize these arrangements now pay the same healthcare providers almost three times the Medicare amount,' the president said. The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service has approved 63 such arrangements for Massachusetts since March 2023, according to CMS data. The budget reconciliation bill passed last month by the U.S. House and expected to be taken up this month by the U.S. Senate would, among many other things, extend Trump's first-term tax cuts and reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $700 billion to help pay for it. Officials at MassHealth, which combines Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, have said the Bay State could be in jeopardy of losing more than $1 billion annually, with hundreds of thousands of residents at risk of losing coverage. Health policy nonprofit KFF said the bill directs U.S. Health and Human Services to revise state directed payment regulations so that the total payment rate for inpatient hospital and nursing facility services is capped at 100% of the total published Medicare payment rate. The 100% limit would apply to Massachusetts and other states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion, and the limit would be 110% for the 10 states that have not adopted the expansion. But the U.S. House version of the bill would grandfather in any state directed payments submitted for approval and approved prior to the legislation's enactment. MassHealth has previously said that so-called safety net providers could sustain cuts of hundreds of millions of dollars annually if Congress or the president blocks renewal of Massachusetts's existing state directed payments. MassHealth and the Mass. Executive Office of Health and Human Services did not respond over the weekend or Monday to a request for comment on the president's memo on state directed payments. Manatt Health Senior Managing Director Patricia Boozang said in March that Massachusetts uses state directed payments 'extensively' and that the Trump administration was likely to act on its own to address them if the president's favored policies don't advance as part of the reconciliation package. The Congressional Budget Office said last month that the bill as passed by the U.S. House will mean $698 billion less in federal subsidies for Medicaid, $267 billion less in federal spending for SNAP, $64 billion less in net spending for all other purposes, and a $3.8 trillion increase in the federal deficit all over the next decade. The CBO also said it expects the reductions in federal spending to lead to about $78 billion in additional spending among the 50 states 'accounting for changes in state contributions to SNAP and Medicaid and for state tax and spending policies necessary to finance additional spending.' The office said it was still analyzing 'expectations of the states' responses to changes in federal funding.' The budget plans that House and Senate negotiators are attempting to reconcile into a final fiscal 2026 state budget assume about $15.76 billion in federal revenues, an increase over the $14.3 billion in the current budget, including $14.2 billion in federal MassHealth reimbursements alone. Most of the cuts in the U.S. House bill would hit in federal fiscal year 2027, which begins Oct. 1, 2026 (three months into Massachusetts' fiscal year 2027). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US restores some medical research grants, says top Trump official
A senior US health official on Tuesday admitted President Donald Trump's administration had gone too far in slashing biomedical research grants worth billions of dollars, and said efforts were underway to restore some of the funding. Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), made the remarks during a Senate committee hearing examining both recent cuts to his agency and deeper reductions proposed by the White House in next year's budget. Bhattachartya said he had created an appeals process for scientists and laboratories whose research was impacted, and that the NIH had already "reversed many" of the cuts. "I didn't take this job to terminate grants," said the physician and health economist who left a professorship at Stanford University to join the Trump administration. "I took this job to make sure that we do the research that advances the health needs of the American people." The hearing came a day after more than 60 NIH employees sent an open letter to Bhattacharya condemning policies they said undermined the agency's mission and the health of Americans. They dubbed it the "Bethesda Declaration" -- a nod both to the NIH's suburban Washington headquarters and to Bhattacharya's role as a prominent signatory of the 2020 "Great Barrington Declaration," which opposed Covid lockdowns. Since Trump's January 20 inauguration, the NIH has terminated 2,100 research grants totaling around $9.5 billion and $2.6 billion in contracts, according to an independent database called Grant Watch. Affected projects include studies on gender, the health effects of global warming, Alzheimer's disease, and cancer. Trump has launched a sweeping overhaul of the US scientific establishment early in his second term -- cutting billions in funding, attacking universities, and overseeing mass layoffs of scientists across federal agencies. cha/ia/des