logo
Opinion - The CDC's injury center is saving lives — but for how much longer?

Opinion - The CDC's injury center is saving lives — but for how much longer?

Yahoo2 days ago

When the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released data last month showing that drug overdose deaths declined by nearly 27 percent in the U.S. in 2024 compared to 2023, I felt three competing emotions.
The first emotion was joy. As the executive director of the Safe States Alliance — a partnership of more than 800 professionals and students dedicated to injury and violence prevention — I work with individuals across the country dedicated to saving lives. Here was proof positive of their impact: the equivalent of 81 American lives saved every day over an entire year.
The second emotion was anger. The Trump administration is proposing to eliminate the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the leading federal agency that helps states and communities prevent deaths from drug overdose and other threats.
At a time when the U.S. is experiencing a welcome and long-overdue decline in drug overdose deaths, a decline that public health experts attribute to the very programs the administration seeks to dismantle, this progress is clearly threatened.
The third emotion was hope. And for that, I have Hayley Jelinek to thank.
Jelinek is a health educator at the Two Rivers Public Health Department in Kearney, Nebraska. From running game show-style medication safety training sessions at senior centers to delivering Narcan to local bars — she once distributed more than 250 boxes of Narcan in 90 minutes — Jelinek works relentlessly to teach people how to prevent and treat drug overdose.
Jelinek is a remarkable credit to her profession, but her work is also deeply personal. Four years ago, her son, Ehan, who grappled with mental health and substance misuse issues for more than a decade, died of acute intoxication from tianeptine, an over-the-counter supplement known as 'gas station heroin.'
Tianeptine is marketed as a mood enhancer that can improve cognitive function. In reality, it is a dangerous and addictive opioid agonist that can kill on first use.
As Jelinek says, 'Not one more kid should have to die from this stuff and not one more mom should have to go through what I've gone through.'
The Trump administration should heed these words. For as much as we all celebrate the recent declines, more than 57,000 people in the U.S. still succumbed to drug overdoses last year.
We're nowhere near out of the woods yet. But the administration isn't treating this seriously.
In testimony before congressional committees the day after the CDC announced the new overdose death data, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — who is attempting to fire 20,000 federal workers, claw back billions of dollars from local health departments and stop federal research funding on issues like addiction and substance use — claimed that this 'restructuring' was designed to improve Americans' health.
He also suggested that the administration's focus on mental health would compensate for the loss of any overdose prevention programs.
He could not be more wrong. And it's why so many organizations are fighting back.
Eliminating the CDC's injury center would dismantle the CDC's capacity to address not only the opioid crisis but also a range of other public health issues, from drowning to suicide. For overdose prevention alone, it would result in the loss of approximately $280 million in annual support to 90 health departments and $14 million for tribal overdose prevention efforts.
The injury center's Overdose Data to Action program distributes naloxone, improves surveillance and guides state and local responses to the opioid crisis, enabling targeted responses to emerging drug threats.
CDC is also the only federal agency working to reduce overdoses with access to laboratory capabilities. It's a comprehensive approach that includes prevention, treatment and harm reduction strategies.
If President Trump and Secretary Kennedy have their way, all of that work would be gone. Eliminating the injury center would be akin to pulling firefighters off the scene while the fire is still burning. Any 'savings' would pale in comparison to the lives lost and families destroyed.
Ehan was a devoted son, a loving husband and a proud dad to two bonus daughters. He made friends easily and liked to be silly, making up songs at the grocery store and lifting his girls upside down so they could walk on the ceiling of his front porch at home.
He bravely dealt with a hard set of health challenges and, at 26, had his whole life in front of him. Jelinek carries him in her heart every day, crisscrossing Kearney and surrounding areas to make sure other parents don't lose their children.
If the administration and Congress save the CDC's Injury Center, they would be honoring Ehan and supporting the type of work that Jelinek and so many others do each day.
If it is eliminated, more parents will bury more children.
The stakes could not be any higher, and the choice could not be any clearer. I urge our leaders to make the right call.
Sharon Gilmartin is the executive director of the Safe States Alliance.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Musk calls Trump's tax bill a 'disgusting abomination'
Musk calls Trump's tax bill a 'disgusting abomination'

Yahoo

time25 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Musk calls Trump's tax bill a 'disgusting abomination'

Elon Musk has hit out at President Donald Trump's signature tax and spending bill, describing it as a "disgusting abomination", in a widening rift between the two. The tech billionaire posted on X that the bill would add to the US budget deficit and saddle Americans with "crushing" debt. The budget, which includes huge tax breaks and more defence spending, was passed by the House of Representatives last month and is now being considered by senators. "Shame on those who voted for it," said Musk, hinting that he may try to unseat the politicians responsible at next year's midterm elections. The bill has the backing of President Donald Trump and would be the legislative linchpin of his second-term agenda if it passes Congress. Musk left the administration abruptly last week after 129 days working to cut costs with his team, known as Doge. The comments mark his first public disagreement with Trump since leaving government, after having previously called the plan "disappointing". The South African-born tech billionaire's time in the Trump administration came to an end on 31 May, although Trump said that "he will, always, be with us, helping all the way". In its current form, the bill - which Trump refers to as the "big beautiful bill" - has been estimated to increase the budget deficit - the difference between what the government spends and the revenue it receives - by about $600bn (£444bn) in the next fiscal year. It's Musk's last day - what has he achieved at the White House? In a series of posts on X on Tuesday, Musk said that the "outrageous, pork-filled" spending bill will "massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America [sic] citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt". In American politics "pork" refers to spending on projects in lawmakers' constituencies. Musk has previously vowed to fund campaign challenges against any Republican that votes against Trump's agenda. But on Tuesday he fired a warning to those who backed the bill. "In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people," he wrote. Asked about Musk's comments soon after the first post, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said "the President already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill". "This is one, big, beautiful bill," she added. "And he's sticking to it." The legislation also pledges to extend soon-to-expire tax cuts passed during the first Trump administration in 2017, as well as an influx of funds for defence spending and to fund the administration's mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. To the dismay of fiscal conservatives, it would lift the limit on the amount of money the government can borrow, known as the debt ceiling, to $4tn. The comments from Musk reflect wider tensions among Republicans over the plan, which faced stiff opposition from different wings of the party as it worked its way through the House. The Senate has now taken it up, and divisions are already emerging in that chamber, which is also narrowly controlled by Republicans. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul has said over the last few days he will not support the bill if it raises the debt ceiling. "The GOP [the Republican Party] will own the debt once they vote for this," he told CBS News, the BBC's US partner, over the weekend. Trump responded to Paul with a series of social media posts, accusing him of having "very little understanding of the bill" and saying that the "people of Kentucky can't stand him". "His ideas are actually crazy," Trump wrote. Republican lawmakers pushed back on Musk's comments, with Senate majority leader John Thune telling reporters the party plans to "proceed full speed ahead" despite "a difference of opinion". "We have an agenda that everybody campaigned on, most notably the president," he said. Mike Johnson - the Republican Speaker who has ushered the legislation through the House - told reporters on Capitol Hill that "my friend Elon is terribly wrong". "It's a very important first start. Elon is missing it," Johnson said. Johnson said he had a 20-minute phone call with the tycoon about the bill on Monday, adding that its phasing out of electric vehicle tax credits could "have an effect" on Tesla, Musk's firm. "I lament that," Johnson said, expressing surprise that Musk criticised the bill despite their call. "I just deeply regret he's made this mistake.' Among the issues that upset Musk involved air traffic control at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), according to Axios. Musk was hoping it would be run on his Starlink satellite system, but he was denied because of issues relating to the technology and the appearance of a conflict of interest, the political outlet reported. Some Democrats welcomed Musk's comments despite their previous criticism of him and the work of Doge. "Even Elon Musk, who's been part of the whole process, and is one of Trump's buddies, said the bill is bad," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. "We can imagine how bad this bill is." Trump and Republicans in Congress have set a deadline of 4 July to get the measure passed and signed into law. Musk supported Trump in last year's November election with donations of more than $250m. To make peace with spending hawks, Trump is also asking Congress to pass a plan that would reduce current spending by $9.4bn, a figure derived from Doge's work. It would mainly slash funding for foreign aid, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and for broadcasters NPR and PBS. It's Musk's last day - what has he achieved at the White House? Elon Musk plans to cut back political spending Musk 'disappointed' by Trump's tax and spending bill Follow the twists and turns of Trump's second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher's weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Impact on tariffs on the M&A market
Impact on tariffs on the M&A market

Business Journals

time26 minutes ago

  • Business Journals

Impact on tariffs on the M&A market

As the second quarter of 2025 is nearing its end, it remains unclear when the Trump administration's trade and tariff policies will stabilize or when agreed upon trade deals will be reached with key nations. While many of the announced tariffs have now been paused or reduced from their levels initially set on 'Liberation Day,' allowing time for trade deals to be negotiated, this state of limbo has led to significant uncertainty as dealmakers attempt to navigate a challenging mergers and acquisitions (M&A) market. Tariffs have long been a tool used by governments to regulate trade and protect domestic economies and industries. Dealmakers and their advisors have always had to pay attention to trade laws in M&A transactions to ensure they are conducting appropriate diligence and taking trade matters into account in their valuation models. What is new, however, is the volatility of the constantly changing tariff landscape. This volatility is preventing dealmakers and M&A professionals from confidently projecting future earnings or creating long-term plans, which in turn makes it harder to value businesses. Additionally, in response to tariff uncertainty and its potential economic impact, the Federal Reserve has held interest rates steady instead of continuing planned rate reductions. U.S. M&A activity in the first quarter of 2025 as compared to the first quarter of 2024 has been significantly lower, both in terms of the number of deals that took place and the amount of capital being invested and when isolating Georgia M&A activity, the difference is even more drastic. While initial interest rate cuts in the late summer, coupled with expectations of a strong economy after the election resulted in optimism at the end of 2024 about an increase in M&A activity in 2025, this sluggish start suggests that the tariff landscape has made dealmakers more hesitant under current market conditions. There are deals still happening though, and for companies continuing to execute M&A strategies, the impact of tariff uncertainty has led to valuation adjustments, required buyers to reassess their strategic M&A initiatives and investment focus, and forced more flexibility on deal structure and risk shifting. 1. Valuation adjustments Buyers are taking tariffs into account for purposes of financial and valuation modeling, particularly in industries heavily reliant on international trade. Companies in industries with significant exposure to tariffs (such as automotive, construction and manufacturing, agriculture and port logistics) may see decreased profit margins and have increased uncertainty on how tariffs will impact their business, resulting in lower valuations that can stifle deal activity and cause buyers or sellers to cancel or delay a potential transaction. On the other hand, domestic companies in industries otherwise impacted by the looming tariffs may become attractive targets. 2. Reassess targets and investment focus In response to the new tariff policies, buyers are reassessing their acquisition targets to enhance their competitive positions. Targets with local manufacturing capabilities or alternative supply chains are becoming more attractive to domestic buyers as a way to reduce dependence on overseas supply chain, and similarly, to international buyers with a goal of mitigating tariff impacts. Investors have also shifted focus toward companies that are less vulnerable to tariff fluctuations so as to mitigate valuation fluctuations from dynamic changes in tariff rates. This can lead to increased M&A interest in sectors such as technology, services and food and beverage, where tariffs play a less significant role compared to traditional manufacturing industries. 3. Deal structure and risk shifting Tariffs have caused buyers to deviate from the traditional M&A structure. We have seen more of a focus on joint ventures, partial stake sales and other strategic alignments instead of the traditional stock or asset sale. To reduce tariff risk and bridge valuation gaps, buyers are becoming more creative by offering earnouts, equity and other contingent consideration conditioned on certain performance metrics. In terms of risk-shifting, buyers need to be prepared for increased trade diligence and exclusions to coverage in representation and warranty policies. Diligence efforts now include a closer eye toward trade, including navigating trade regulations, reviewing potential short-term and long-term tariff implications, and evaluating potential antidumping risks. With respect to representation and warranty insurance, buyers should expect insurers to exclude tariff exposure from coverage, which could lead to sellers having to absorb more post-closing risk if buyers insist on indemnification coverage from sellers to close the gap. In conclusion, during the first two quarters of 2025, we have seen how the uncertainty around tariffs is having profound implications on the M&A market, influencing company valuations, assessments of targets and investment focus, deal structure and risk shifting, and overall market dynamics. As businesses adapt to changing trade policies, understanding the tariff landscape and having M&A advisors who are familiar with these challenges is critical for companies focused on inorganic growth. Staying informed about the potential risks and opportunities associated with tariffs can help businesses make strategic decisions that bolster their competitive positioning in a global economy. To learn more about King & Spalding's global M&A practice, please visit With nearly 140 years of service, King & Spalding is an international law firm that represents a broad array of clients, including half of the Fortune Global 100, with 1,300 lawyers in 24 offices in the United States, Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Michelle Stewart represents public and private companies, including private equity firms and their portfolio companies, in M&A and other strategic corporate transactions, including acquisitions, divestitures, carveouts and minority investments. Stewart counsels clients in a variety of industries, including in the technology, financial services, industrial, health care, food and beverage, logistics and manufacturing sectors. Baylie Evans' practice focuses on mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, strategic corporate transactions, and general corporate and governance matters. Evans works across a range of sectors, including consumer services, business services, health care, industrial, technology, hospitality, logistics and manufacturing sectors.

Why opioid deaths are falling in Bexar County
Why opioid deaths are falling in Bexar County

Axios

time27 minutes ago

  • Axios

Why opioid deaths are falling in Bexar County

Drug-related deaths in Bexar County have dropped from pandemic-era highs, but are still above 2019 levels, CDC data shows. Why it matters: Fatal overdoses initially rose during the COVID pandemic, but have been falling since 2023 as naloxone, which reverses an opioid overdose, has become more widely available. Flashback: Narcan, the best-known name brand of the drug, was made available over the counter in 2023. It is standard issue for first responders and available in treatment centers and some public places. By the numbers: There were 179 opioid-related deaths in Bexar County in 2024, per provisional CDC data the city's Metro Health Department shared with Axios. That's down 33.5% from a high of 269 such deaths in 2022, though still above the 135 deaths in 2019. Bexar County saw 208 stimulant-related drug deaths in 2024, down 23% from 270 in 2023 and up from 109 in 2019. Opioids include drugs like fentanyl and oxycodone. Stimulants include drugs like methamphetamine and cocaine. Naloxone works only on opioid overdoses. What they're saying:"The fact that Narcan … can reverse someone who is actively dying and who would have died otherwise, is hugely the reason why we see these decreases," Jessie Higgins, San Antonio's chief mental health officer, told a City Council committee last month. Yes, but: While deaths are dropping, it's hard to tell whether drug use itself is falling; that's harder to measure, Higgins said. Between the lines: Other factors contributing to the decline could include increased availability of paper test strips that detect fentanyl in illicit or counterfeit drugs. These can reduce fatal overdoses that happen when people take fentanyl-laced pills that look like prescription drugs. Zoom out: Almost all states saw decreases in overdose deaths in 2024. Across Texas, there were an estimated 4,990 overdose deaths, a nearly 15% decrease from a year earlier. There were an estimated 80,391 drug overdose deaths in the U.S. last year — a drop of 27% from 2023. Reality check: Experts warn a Trump administration budget proposal that would cut health services threatens the decline. A group of doctors and experts on addiction warned lawmakers in a letter last month that "drastic" cuts to federal health agencies and their grant recipients could set back efforts to address overdoses, addiction and mental health. Experts are particularly concerned that budget cuts could hit addiction recovery programs in rural areas and impoverished urban neighborhoods, NPR reported. The other side: U.S. Customs and Border Protection "is cracking down on the flow of deadly drugs into our country," White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in an emailed statement. CDC spokesperson Cassie Strawn said that the drug overdose epidemic "remains a critically important health issue" in the U.S.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store