COVID-19 tests, other health supplies provided free at 51 kiosks across L.A. County. What you need to know
The Community Health Station program was initially established to continue the distribution of COVID-19 antigen tests, also known as rapid tests, according to the public health department. But in response to the "worst overdose crisis in history, the continued HIV epidemic and high rates of STIs in the county," the agency added overdose prevention and sexual health products, according to the county agency.
Accidental drug overdose deaths jumped by 48% during the first five months of the COVID-19 pandemic, compared to the same period in 2019, according to a recent report by the public health department.
In 2023, a total of 89,887 sexually transmitted infection cases were reported to the county public health department, according to public health officials.
By stocking the kiosks with public health supplies, officials say residents can take action to protect themselves and others in the community.
'Having free public health supplies available to residents seven days a week through the self-service Community Health Stations makes it easier to access important products that support health and save lives," Barbara Ferrer, director of the county public health department, said in a news release.
Read more: Q&A with Barbara Ferrer: L.A. County Public Health braces for impact under Trump
The kiosks were placed in communities with lower access to healthcare and resources and can be found in pharmacies, health centers, community centers and homeless shelters, among other locations, according to officials.
To date, public health officials say 80% of the people who have used the health supplies in the kiosks have self-reported as experiencing homelessness.
Ten of the kiosks are located at the program sites and interim housing locations run by the People Concern, a social services nonprofit. At these locations, the Community Health Stations are in common areas inside the buildings, making them easily accessible while also maintaining privacy, said Edgar Aguilar, spokesperson for the nonprofit.
The People Concern locations include:
Kensington Campus - 45244 32nd St. W., Lancaster, CA 93536
Samoshel - 505 Olympic Blvd., Santa Monica, CA 90401
The Vagabond - 3101 S. Figueroa St., Los Angeles, CA 90007
El Puente - 711 N. Alameda St., Los Angeles, CA 90012
"By removing barriers to access, the kiosks empower individuals to protect their health and make informed choices, while reinforcing our broader goal of meeting people where they are and supporting their well-being without judgment," Aguilar said.
One kiosk is located next to the pharmacy at the Rancho Los Amigos National Rehabilitation Center in Downey.
"As patients transition from the hospital back into everyday life, the stations offer easy, ongoing access to essential health supplies without the need for appointments or travel," said Alba Ibarra, spokesperson for the medical center.
To find the nearest Community Health Station, check the public health department's online map.
The Community Health Station kiosks have the following products for free:
COVID-19 Self-Test kit: One box containing two tests.
Naloxone: a medication that can reverse an opioid overdose. One carton contains two single-use devices in blister packages and instructions for use.
Fentanyl Test Strip kit: One kit contains five individually packaged strips and instructions for use.
Condoms: One package holding five traditional male condoms and five non-spermicidal lubricants.
Internal Condoms, also known as "female" condoms: One individually wrapped internal condom and instructions for use.
Kiosk users can take a short voluntary anonymous survey that will collect basic demographic information, however, completing the survey is not required to access the products.
Read more: Will Trump kill programs that help drug users? L.A. harm reduction groups await fate
The Community Health Stations are restocked at least once a week or whenever a certain product in a kiosk is depleted, according to public health officials. Sensors inside the kiosk alert the public health department when restocking is needed.
The kiosk program is currently funded by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grant as part of a COVID outreach effort. Since the kiosks include overdose prevention and sexual health related products, a portion of the costs is also subsidized by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
American youth derived 62 percent of calories from ‘ultra-processed' foods: CDC
A new analysis from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that the majority of calories consumed by American youth in recent years came from 'ultra-processed' foods. The CDC analysis looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) on calorie consumption of U.S. youths and adults between August 2021 and 2023. The report used the Nova classification system of food which defines 'ultra-processed' foods as those that consist of 'industrial formulations of processed foods that typically contain unnatural additives, such as colorings or emulsifiers.' NHANES participants aged one year and older who had reliable dietary recall beginning from Day 1 of interviews were included in the population sample. A total of 6,633 participants were included in the analysis. Among American youths, about 62 percent of their daily calories came from ultra-processed foods while among adults this percentage was 53 percent. The report categorized individuals aged between one and 18-years-old as youths and those aged 19 and older as adults. Across different age groups, youths aged six to 11 had the highest average percentage of processed food comprising their caloric intake at 64.8 percent. Adults 60 and higher had the lowest rate of processed food comprising their caloric intake at 51.7 percent. The survey found a decrease in the consumption of ultra-processed food consumptions among both youths and adults between August 2021 and 2023. This report comes soon after the Trump administration moved to allow state Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programs (SNAP) to ban benefits from being used on processed foods. Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Texas and Florida received federal waivers to adjust SNAP guidelines outlawing the purchase of junk food with state funds in 2026. The waivers, such as the one acquired by Colorado, have largely cited soda as one of the primary junk foods that states don't want to be eligible for SNAP benefits. According to the NHANES, the top five sources of ultra-processed foods for youth were sandwiches, sweet bakery products, savory snacks, pizza and sweetened beverages.
San Francisco Chronicle
36 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus," the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost," Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. "It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day." John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard," she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
Associated Press
37 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Harvard scientists say research could be set back years after funding freeze
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — Harvard University professor Alberto Ascherio's research is literally frozen. Collected from millions of U.S. soldiers over two decades using millions of dollars from taxpayers, the epidemiology and nutrition scientist has blood samples stored in liquid nitrogen freezers within the university's T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The samples are key to his award-winning research, which seeks a cure to multiple sclerosis and other neurodegenerative diseases. But for months, Ascherio has been unable to work with the samples because he lost $7 million in federal research funding, a casualty of Harvard's fight with the Trump administration. 'It's like we have been creating a state-of-the-art telescope to explore the universe, and now we don't have money to launch it,' said Ascherio. 'We built everything and now we are ready to use it to make a new discovery that could impact millions of people in the world and then, 'Poof. You're being cut off.'' Researchers laid off and science shelved The loss of an estimated $2.6 billion in federal funding at Harvard has meant that some of the world's most prominent researchers are laying off young researchers. They are shelving years or even decades of research, into everything from opioid addiction to cancer. And despite Harvard's lawsuits against the administration, and settlement talks between the warring parties, researchers are confronting the fact that some of their work may never resume. The funding cuts are part of a monthslong battle that the Trump administration has waged against some the country's top universities including Columbia, Brown and Northwestern. The administration has taken a particularly aggressive stance against Harvard, freezing funding after the country's oldest university rejected a series of government demands issued by a federal antisemitism task force. The government had demanded sweeping changes at Harvard related to campus protests, academics and admissions — meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment. Research jeopardized, even if court case prevails Harvard responded by filing a federal lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university. In the lawsuit, it laid out reforms it had taken to address antisemitism but also vowed not to 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' 'Make no mistake: Harvard rejects antisemitism and discrimination in all of its forms and is actively making structural reforms to eradicate antisemitism on campus,' the university said in its legal complaint. 'But rather than engage with Harvard regarding those ongoing efforts, the Government announced a sweeping freeze of funding for medical, scientific, technological, and other research that has nothing at all to do with antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the demands were sent in April. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel federal contracts for policy reasons. The funding cuts have left Harvard's research community in a state of shock, feeling as if they are being unfairly targeted in a fight has nothing to do with them. Some have been forced to shutter labs or scramble to find non-government funding to replace lost money. In May, Harvard announced that it would put up at least $250 million of its own money to continue research efforts, but university President Alan Garber warned of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead. Ascherio said the university was able to pull together funding to pay his researchers' salaries until next June. But he's still been left without resources needed to fund critical research tasks, like lab work. Even a year's delay can put his research back five years, he said. Knowledge lost in funding freeze 'It's really devastating,' agreed Rita Hamad, the director of the Social Policies for Health Equity Research Center at Harvard, who had three multiyear grants totaling $10 million canceled by the Trump administration. The grants funded research into the impact of school segregation on heart health, how pandemic-era policies in over 250 counties affected mental health, and the role of neighborhood factors in dementia. At the School of Public Health, where Hamad is based, 190 grants have been terminated, affecting roughly 130 scientists. 'Just thinking about all the knowledge that's not going to be gained or that is going to be actively lost,' Hamad said. She expects significant layoffs on her team if the funding freeze continues for a few more months. 'It's all just a mixture of frustration and anger and sadness all the time, every day.' John Quackenbush, a professor of computational biology and bioinformatics at the School of Public Health, has spent the past few months enduring cuts on multiple fronts. In April, a multimillion dollar grant was not renewed, jeopardizing a study into the role sex plays in disease. In May, he lost about $1.2 million in federal funding for in the coming year due to the Harvard freeze. Four departmental grants worth $24 million that funded training of doctoral students also were cancelled as part of the fight with the Trump administration, Quackenbush said. 'I'm in a position where I have to really think about, 'Can I revive this research?'' he said. 'Can I restart these programs even if Harvard and the Trump administration reached some kind of settlement? If they do reach a settlement, how quickly can the funding be turned back on? Can it be turned back on?' The researchers all agreed that the funding cuts have little or nothing to do with the university's fight against antisemitism. Some, however, argue changes at Harvard were long overdue and pressure from the Trump administration was necessary. Bertha Madras, a Harvard psychobiologist who lost funding to create a free, parent-focused training to prevent teen opioid overdose and drug use, said she's happy to see the culling of what she called 'politically motivated social science studies.' White House pressure a good thing? Madras said pressure from the White House has catalyzed much-needed reform at the university, where several programs of study have 'really gone off the wall in terms of being shaped by orthodoxy that is not representative of the country as a whole.' But Madras, who served on the President's Commission on Opioids during Trump's first term, said holding scientists' research funding hostage as a bargaining chip doesn't make sense. 'I don't know if reform would have happened without the president of the United States pointing the bony finger at Harvard,' she said. 'But sacrificing science is problematic, and it's very worrisome because it is one of the major pillars of strength of the country.' Quackenbush and other Harvard researchers argue the cuts are part of a larger attack on science by the Trump administration that puts the country's reputation as the global research leader at risk. Support for students and post-doctoral fellows has been slashed, visas for foreign scholars threatened, and new guidelines and funding cuts at the NIH will make it much more difficult to get federal funding in the future, they said. It also will be difficult to replace federal funding with money from the private sector. 'We're all sort of moving toward this future in which this 80-year partnership between the government and the universities is going to be jeopardized,' Quackenbush said. 'We're going to face real challenges in continuing to lead the world in scientific excellence.'
