Public health officials: Ending the HIV epidemic is in sight. We can't stop now.
This critical legislation, named in honor of young AIDS activist Ryan White, marked a turning point in our fight against HIV. It wasn't just a humanitarian response; it was sound public health policy. Within that decade, the spread of HIV, the progression of HIV to AIDS and the mortality rates due to AIDS all peaked and have been declining ever since. Funding channeled through state and city agencies such as the Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH), the Cook County Department of Pubic Health (CCDPH) and the Chicago Department of Public Health (CDPH), alongside direct support to community organizations, made medical treatment and support services accessible, especially for low-income individuals.
Coupled with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grant programs for monitoring, testing and prevention with lifesaving tools such as the prophylaxis medicines PrEP and Doxy PEP, we've built a robust system that works.
It is thanks to this funding and the work of hundreds of epidemiology teams at local health agencies including IDPH, CCDPH and CDPH that we have data that shows how many people have received an HIV diagnosis and how many people are receiving HIV care. Thirty-five years later, Chicago, Cook County and Illinois, along with the rest of the country, have seen a dramatic decrease in new diagnoses thanks to these prevention, testing and treatment programs. We also see higher percentages of those living with HIV getting vital care and treatment and living long, full lives.
But this progress is fragile. To pull back now would be a catastrophic mistake, especially for our most vulnerable communities. Despite hitting a significant low in new HIV cases, the burden of HIV/AIDS still falls disproportionately on communities of color. And while medical advancements allow those living with HIV to survive and thrive, their care demands continuous, costly services. More work is needed to see basic investment and improvements to HIV monitoring and infrastructure while also making use of more advanced technology.
Consider the immediate impact: In 2024 alone, nearly 14,000 Chicagoans and thousands more Illinoisans relied on Ryan White funding for their HIV care. A staggering 70% of those served by CDPH-funded programs are Black, Latino, or Hispanic — the very communities most affected by HIV/AIDS. The lifeline for these programs? Federal funding. In fact, more than 90% of CDPH's annual budget for managing infectious diseases, including HIV, comes directly from federal sources.
Yet, despite this clear success and urgent need, Washington, D.C., is debating draconian cuts to these vital programs in next year's budget, even threatening to rescind funds already allocated for 2025. The consequences of these cuts would be devastating. AmfAR, the Foundation for AIDS Research, projects that a 50% reduction in HIV prevention funding from the CDC could lead to 75,000 new HIV infections across the U.S. by 2030 — and that number would nearly double if all funding is eliminated.
Here in Illinois, we could face over 5,500 additional new HIV cases, leading to sicker populations and a tragic rise in deaths due to lack of treatment. Without these federal dollars, our neighbors would lose access to critical prevention tools such as PrEP, essential testing for HIV and sexually transmitted infections, and lifesaving treatments.
We stand at a crossroads. We have the knowledge, tools and proven programs to end the HIV epidemic. We are so close. To retreat now, when the finish line is in sight, would be an act of profound negligence.
We urge our elected officials in Washington, D.C., to reject these dangerous cuts and continue investing in the programs that protect the health and well-being of all Illinoisans. We cannot afford to backtrack and lose the tremendous progress that has been made in fighting HIV.
The health of our communities depends on it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Joseph Lovett, TV Producer Who Shed an Early Light on AIDS, Dies at 80
Joseph Lovett, a broadcast news producer and documentarian who made one of the first long-form network television segments on the AIDS crisis and who plumbed his own personal tragedies in works that blended reporting and public health advocacy, died on July 14 at his home in Manhattan. He was 80. The cause was cardiopulmonary arrest, his grandnephew Sayer Pease said. As an openly gay producer, Mr. Lovett was a rarity in the broadcast news world of the 1970s and '80s. Working at CBS and ABC, he pursued news segments aimed at destigmatizing gay life in the United States and drawing attention to the AIDS crisis at a time when that subject was largely overlooked by mainstream news organizations. In May 1983, when Mr. Lovett produced the first long-form news segment on AIDS for the ABC News program '20/20,' the disease had received slim coverage since being identified by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 1981. Only a handful of mainstream outlets, including 'PBS NewsHour,' The New York Times Magazine and Newsweek, had spotlighted it. After witnessing friends dying of the disease, he resolved to cover it. In the resulting segment, a young Geraldo Rivera sounded the alarm about the crisis in interviews with public officials, patients, researchers and activists, including Dr. Edward N. Brandt Jr., assistant secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services; Dr. Anthony Fauci, who at the time was an immunology researcher at the National Institutes of Health; and the playwright and AIDS activist Larry Kramer. The segment criticized the Reagan administration's slow response to the crisis and singled out The Times for an absence of AIDS-related articles on its front page. After it aired, letters of support poured in from AIDS patients, health officials and fellow journalists across the country. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
"It's Basically Scientific Racism": Medical Experts Seriously Hate RFK Jr.'s Shocking Claim About Black People And Vaccines
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Health and Human Services secretary, is making changes that threaten the public health system, from telling lies about the childhood vaccine schedule to replacing credible members of a vaccine advisory panel with people known to spread misinformation. Groups like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics have spoken out against these changes, and some major medical associations are even suing Kennedy in response to his changes to the COVID-19 vaccine schedule. Kennedy's attack on vaccines isn't exactly a surprise — he has a history of anti-vaccine remarks, which was a major talking point throughout his Senate confirmation hearings earlier this year. Specifically, his beliefs were front and center during a heated exchange in which Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) brought up a comment that Kennedy once made about vaccinations and the Black community. In 2021, Kennedy had said, 'We should not be giving Black people the same vaccine schedule that's given to whites, because their immune system is better than ours.' Related: Alsobrooks asked Kennedy to explain what he meant by that remark, and he went on to reference a 'series of studies' while saying research shows that 'Blacks need fewer antigens.' (For the record, experts say that this is not true.) 'Right now, how vaccine schedules are tailored is based on things like your age, your exposure risk, if you have other chronic underlying health conditions ― but race isn't one of them, and there isn't research that suggests that it should be,' Joel Bervell, a recent medical graduate and medical myth-buster on social media, told HuffPost. What especially bothered Bervell about Kennedy's exchange with Alsobrooks was the fact that he doubled down on his comment from 2021. Kennedy could have used this as an opportunity to admit that he needs to do more research and understand the vaccine schedule, 'but instead, he defended what he said, which I think, for me, that's where the problem lies in,' Bervell told HuffPost. 'Not necessarily the fact of the misinformation is out there, but the fact that he wasn't willing to at least confront it or admit that onstage.' Below, experts like Bervell share their concerns about Kennedy's statement and how it reflects a larger problematic picture: Kennedy's comment can be considered 'scientific racism,' experts say. Related: 'In medicine, in science, we know that race is a social construct, meaning that you can't look at someone's genes and identify what race they are,' Bervell said. That means differences in vaccine timelines just don't make scientific sense. 'The comment that [Kennedy] made about the vaccine schedule, it's basically scientific racism, which has been debunked,' Dr. Oni Blackstock, a primary care and HIV physician who is the founder and executive director of Health Justice, a racial and health equity consulting company, told HuffPost. 'He's really perpetuating this false belief that Black people are somehow biologically different from white people and, in that way, justifying differential and ultimately unequal treatment for Black people versus white people,' Blackstock added. 'By saying that, he was putting on one of the larger stages in health care this notion that race-based medicine should still exist, when that's actually what many scientists recently have been trying to root out,' Bervell said. Race-based medicine and scientific racism has led to undertreatment of Black patients, dismissal of pain and even death, Blackstock stressed. Both experts pointed to real-life examples of this, like the false belief that Black people have better-functioning kidneys than white people. This made it harder for Black people to get the treatment they needed, like kidney transplants, according to Bervell. And this thought pattern isn't from some faraway time ― a medical equation that reinforced this bias wasn't changed until 2021, Bervell said. What's more, during the 1793 yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia, Black people were believed to be resistant to yellow fever, which was not true and led to high mortality rates among Black people, Blackstock explained. 'The importance of understanding the problem with the myths is that they can literally lead to regulations being written into medicine that treat populations differently just based on race,' Bervell said. 'It can actually change the care that people receive.' While it's easy to look at a particular viewpoint as a one-off, medical racism has real-world consequences that irresponsible comments can make worse. Promoting debunked beliefs 'distracts us from really doing the work that we need to do, which is dismantling systemic racism in health care and ensuring that everyone has equitable access to preventive care and treatments that they need,' Blackstock added. Related: Such stances may lead to more mistrust in the health care system. 'One thing that is also kind of strange about him [Kennedy] is he's someone who for a long time has said that he doesn't support vaccines,' Bervell said. 'Apparently, now he's changed his mind, but for a long time he said he hasn't supported vaccines, and then he's also saying that Black people should get a different vaccine schedule. So you have to wonder, what is your goal in saying that if you don't even believe in vaccines?' Bervell said comments like those from Kennedy can sow vaccine hesitancy in the Black population, which is dangerous and can erode trust in evidence-based medicine. It's not the first time that this has happened, either, Blackstock added. In 2021, Kennedy produced a documentary called 'Medical Racism: The New Apartheid,' which Blackstock said promoted misinformation about health and vaccines to the Black community, along with other marginalized groups. 'It's interesting how some of his efforts have been focused on taking advantage of [and] exploiting the mistrust that some in the Black community have around vaccines and the health care system because of structural racism and medical racism,' Blackstock said. With misinformation and scare tactics rampant on social media, misinformation from government leaders will only make it harder to tell what's real and what's fake in medicine. Trust needs to be paramount for health care as an institution, Bervell said. 'The trust is already eroded in health care,' Bervell explained. 'We need to have someone that is going to work with scientists, researchers, doctors that are on the ground seeing these problems every day, not someone that's in an ivory tower watching from above without understanding of what's actually happening on the ground.' Related: Experts say this rhetoric aligns with messaging from Donald Trump. Blackstock stressed that while such false beliefs are very problematic, they track with much of the messaging from Donald Trump and his presidential administration. 'It echoes some of the rhetoric that [Trump] has shared around eugenics and immigrants,' Blackstock said. 'He's talked about immigrants having 'bad genes' or 'poisoning the blood of our country.' It just speaks to this idea of racial purity or genetic purity, and this false idea that certain groups of people are inherently inferior or predisposed to certain behaviors because of their genetics.' And, again, race is a social construct and does not equal genetic differences. 'It's just really shocking that in the year 2025 we are still dealing with these beliefs being propagated that have been around for several centuries that have been used to justify slavery, used to justify inequitable treatment, used to justify forced sterilization,' Blackstock said. Blackstock added that she thinks individuals get away with this kind of rhetoric because people become accustomed to outlandish comments and bad behavior. 'But we need to really flag this and say this is really dangerous and really concerning rhetoric that can have real health implications,' Blackstock said. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Solve the daily Crossword
Newsweek
6 hours ago
- Newsweek
U.S. Aid Cuts Could Trigger Global Health Setbacks
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Global health aid is projected to fall to its lowest level in 15 years, according to a new report, with U.S. cuts playing a major role in the downturn. "These are drastic cuts," said lead author Dr. Angela E. Apeagyei, research assistant professor at IHME, in an interview with Newsweek. "Their sudden nature makes urgent response efforts essential to prevent serious disruptions in health programs around the world." The United States slashed its global health funding by at least 67 percent in 2025 compared to last year, according to the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME). These cuts are already threatening essential health programs across low-income countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, which is forecast to see a 25 percent drop in aid since last year, with another 7 percent decline projected over the next five years. The cuts are also expected to impact the health workforce both abroad and in the U.S., as programs lose staff responsible for delivering essential services. IHME's Financing Global Health 2025 report estimates that development assistance for health (DAH) will plummet by 51 percent from its pandemic-era peak. After reaching $80 billion in 2021 during COVID-19, aid will drop to just $39 billion this year, with further declines likely—potentially falling to $36 billion by 2030. A flag outside of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) headquarters can be seen on February 03, 2025 in Washington, DC. A flag outside of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) headquarters can be seen on February 03, 2025 in Washington, DC. Canva/Getty Images/Kevin Dietsch The steep drop could imperil progress made against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and maternal care—sectors heavily reliant on foreign aid. "Low-income countries in this region are heavily donor-dependent and often lack the domestic resources to offset funding gaps," Apeagyei said. Should aid remain at the reduced level, the broader consequences for the world will be dependent on the global response to the cuts. The new level of aid reflects a 21 percent decrease from 2024 and a staggering 50 percent drop from the peak levels seen during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021. However, Apeagye noted that even this reduced figure is comparable to what was once considered a high point in 2009. If aid delivery and administration can be made more efficient, there's potential for countries to maintain—or even enhance—health outcomes despite the reduced funding, according to Apeagye. Yet, she cautioned that without such gains in efficiency—or if critical funding gaps in health systems persist—countries could see worsening health indicators. "The health outcomes will worsen and global responses to international public health emergencies such as COVID-19 may be compromised," Apeagye warned. Abandoned USAID road signage in Moroto district on July 20, 2025 in Karamoja region, Uganda. Abandoned USAID road signage in Moroto district on July 20, 2025 in Karamoja region, downturn comes as donor commitment continues to fade post-COVID. "What we're seeing now is a return to the 'panic and neglect' cycle in global health," she added. "Despite warnings, the funding surge during COVID-19 was not sustained. The downward trend signals that long-term commitment to global health remains fragile and volatile." This volatility is amplified by ongoing U.S. policy shifts. Lawmakers are currently debating a proposal to rescind previously allocated foreign aid, and additional U.S. cuts were announced following last month's Gavi vaccine summit. Multilateral institutions such as Gavi, the Global Fund and the World Health Organization are already under pressure. Gavi's recent replenishment fell short of its goal, and the WHO is undergoing restructuring amid financial strain. "What's clear is that all are urging donors to step up in light of shortfalls." She also noted that weakening the global aid infrastructure makes it harder to respond to future health crises. A view inside the lab at Kuoyo Sub-county Hospital on April 24, 2025 in Kisumu, Kenya. A view inside the lab at Kuoyo Sub-county Hospital on April 24, 2025 in Kisumu, development assistance for health has always been volatile, Apeagyei emphasized the need for reforms that build resilience. She pointed to efforts such as the 2005 Paris Declaration and the recent Financing for Development conference in Seville. These initiatives aim to reduce aid instability by promoting harmonization, strengthening accountability and leveraging private and multilateral funding sources. Donors and recipient countries alike are responding to the aid cuts in a number of ways. For instance, China is reported to have pledged an additional 500 million to WHO over the next five years. Nigeria is also reported to have increased its budget by 200 million in response to the aid cuts. In some countries, reorganization of the health workforce to cover some of the service gaps left behind from the closure of programs is where efforts have been made. As global health aid falls and donor commitment fades, the world faces a fragile and volatile future—one where hard-won progress could be undone and responses to future health crises dangerously compromised.
