logo
Want a COVID vaccine? Here's how much it could cost you out of pocket

Want a COVID vaccine? Here's how much it could cost you out of pocket

USA Todaya day ago

Want a COVID vaccine? Here's how much it could cost you out of pocket Trump administration COVID-19 vaccine policy changes mean anyone who is healthy and under 65 will likely have to pay out of pocket, including pregnant women.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
RFK Jr. says COVID-19 vaccine no longer recommended for some
The COVID-19 vaccine is no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unilaterally changed COVID-19 vaccine recommendations, limiting recommended vaccination to those over 65 and individuals with pre-existing health conditions.
The changes bypass the usual expert panel review process and may limit insurance coverage for those outside the recommended groups.
Medical experts express concern over the lack of transparency and supporting data for the changes, particularly the removal of recommendations for pregnant women and children.
The decision raises questions about vaccine access and contradicts Kennedy's prior statements on respecting individual medical choices.
Several medical organizations urge insurers to continue covering the vaccine for all, emphasizing the importance of individual choice and protection against severe outcomes.
Most Americans have decided that they're done getting vaccinated against COVID-19, but there are still reasons to consider it, and it remains an essential protection for some.
That's why many doctors and medical organizations are concerned about changes to the vaccine recommendations made single-handedly by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Under the changes Kennedy announced in a social media post on May 27 and others announced a week prior by two of his appointees, the only people who will be recommended for COVID-19 vaccines are those over 65 and people with existing health problems.
These changes, which bypassed the normal protocol, will likely make it harder for others who want the COVID-19 vaccine to get it, including healthcare workers and healthy people under 65 with a vulnerable family member or those who want to reduce their short-term risk of infection.
Kennedy specifically changed the recommendations so pregnant women and healthy children aren't included, though it's not clear if that's just for booster shots or whether it would also include a baby's first COVID-19 vaccine.
Insurance coverage typically follows federal recommendations, so anyone who is healthy and under 65 is likely to have to pay out of pocket to get the shot ‒ which runs about $200 ‒ if they can get it.
Recent statement: RFK Jr.: 'I don't think people should be taking medical advice from me'
Limiting access in this way, several medical experts said, contradicts Kennedy's previous statements about how he'd handle vaccines. It also runs counter to the general practice of medicine, which supports people making medical decisions in collaboration with their doctor, they said.
"I think we can treat people respectfully and show them the information and let them make their own decisions," said Dr. Jesse Goodman, a professor of medicine and infectious diseases at Georgetown University.
He and others said they're especially concerned that these policy changes are happening without supporting data or the typical scientific review by two panels of experts.
"We haven't been presented with one shred of information to show that this step is needed at this time," Goodman said. "If it is, fine, but present that publicly, use the advisory committees and let's have a transparent process."
Who still needs a vaccine?
The federal government has stopped tracking COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations and deaths, but local data shows they are still happening in every age group, with two-thirds of hospitalizations in those 65 and up.
Meanwhile, safety data on the vaccines continues to show that serious side effects are extremely rare, leading most specialists and expert organizations to conclude that it's still worthwhile to get the vaccine.
While the vaccine is most important for people in vulnerable groups, such as those over 65 and people with health conditions, a booster remains useful for everyone, even children, several experts and disease organizations told USA TODAY.
"What is clear is that pregnant women, infants and young children are at higher risk of hospitalization from COVID, and the safety of the COVID vaccine has been widely demonstrated," Dr. Sean O'Leary, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a statement.
Should children get the COVID-19 vaccine?
Healthy kids will no longer be recommended for COVID-19 vaccines, according to Kennedy's policy announcement.
Fewer than 5% of children received the COVID-19 vaccine between the fall of 2023 and the fall of 2024, data shows. Yet COVID-19 continues to lead to about as many hospitalizations in children as the flu, at about 100 hospitalizations for every 100,000 kids under 4.
On balance, the vaccine still provides a benefit, said Dr. Melissa Stockwell, division chief of child and adolescent health at Columbia University. "The point of a booster is to give protection against whatever the current circulating variant is and shorter-term protection against infection, but what we're really looking for is protection against severe outcomes," said Stockwell.
The COVID-19 vaccine has repeatedly been found to be safe in children, though every vaccine carries some risk. Most notably with the COVID-19 vaccines, adolescent boys and young men were at somewhat higher risk for a rare heart problem known as myocarditis. But that risk has dropped dramatically since the early days of vaccination when the initial two doses were given relatively close together, Stockwell said.
What remains unclear ‒ and of much higher concern to most pediatricians and infectious disease experts ‒ is whether Kennedy's new policy covers all shots or just boosters. Children between 6 months and 2 years are at high risk for severe COVID-19 because they've not been exposed to it before, just as everyone was at higher risk when the virus was new.
And vaccination, including boosters, reduces the risk for long COVID, in which symptoms can linger for months or even years after a COVID-19 infection. Stockwell, who said she would get boosters for her own children, cited research showing that vaccines reduce the risk of long COVID in children by 60%.
A new study in JAMA Pediatrics shows that children younger than 2 who had been infected with COVID were more likely to experience trouble sleeping, fussiness, poor appetite, a stuffy nose and cough, while preschoolers, aged 3 to 5, who had been infected were more likely to have low energy, daytime tiredness and a dry cough than children who avoided infection.
The study found that roughly 1 in 7 previously infected children meet the criteria for long COVID.
"For parents who want their children to be vaccinated, we want them to have that opportunity," Stockwell said.
Is it risky to skip COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy?
The new policy removes the recommendation for the COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. This concerns a number of obstetricians, infectious disease specialists and pediatricians.
Pregnant women are at high risk for severe disease and studies show that the likelihood of miscarriage, stillbirth and pregnancy complications like preeclampsia, blood clots, heart and kidney damage and hypertension are much higher among women who develop COVID-19 during pregnancy.
Newborns are also at very high risk of severe outcomes from COVID-19. Any respiratory infection is more dangerous in newborns than in others, because their airways are so small. Plus, they have never been exposed to COVID-19 before. Vaccinating during pregnancy protects newborns until they are old enough to get their own shot, Stockwell said.
The COVID-19 vaccine has also been shown to be extremely safe during pregnancy and far safer than a COVID-19 infection.
The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, which has expertise in high-risk pregnancy, issued a statement saying the society "strongly reaffirms its recommendation that pregnant patients receive the COVID-19 vaccine."
The COVID-19 vaccine, the society said, "is safe to be given at any point during pregnancy. Maternal immunization is also associated with improved infant outcomes and decreased complications, including maternal and infant hospitalizations. "
What's the process for changing vaccine recommendations?
Changes to the vaccine schedule are typically made after federal officials solicit recommendations from two panels of experts in infectious disease, pediatrics and other relevant specialties. The heads of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration then review the decisions of their respective panels and issue a joint recommendation.
Kennedy's unilateral decision breaks with this practice. It will likely make many families wonder whether the vaccine is safe.
"It can be confusing to families, particularly when there's conflicting information about vaccination," Stockwell said.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) also raised concerns about Kennedy's disregard for the normal procedure of changing vaccine recommendations. In his brief comments on social media on May 27, he didn't mention consulting any doctors or panels.
"This decision bypasses a long-established, evidence-based process used to ensure vaccine safety and ignores the expertise of independent medical experts, including members of CDC committees who are examining the evidence regarding the vaccine to make recommendations for the fall," Dr. Sean O'Leary, chair of the AAP Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a statement.
"By removing the recommendation, the decision could strip families of choice. Those who want to vaccinate may no longer be able to, as the implications for insurance coverage remain unclear," he said.
In the wake of Kennedy's statement, the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) urged insurers to continue to cover the COVID-19 vaccine for everyone, including the groups Kennedy said the government would no longer recommend get the shot.
"IDSA strongly urges insurers to maintain coverage for COVID-19 vaccines so that all Americans can make the best decisions to protect themselves and their families against severe illness, hospitalization and death," society president Dr. Tina Tan said in a statement. "IDSA also urges Congress to conduct meaningful and necessary oversight to ensure appropriate decision-making processes at the Department of Health and Human Services, which will impact people of all ages."
Contributed: Adrianna Rodriguez

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A new COVID subvariant spreads rapidly as Trump pivots away from vaccines
A new COVID subvariant spreads rapidly as Trump pivots away from vaccines

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

A new COVID subvariant spreads rapidly as Trump pivots away from vaccines

A new, highly transmissible COVID subvariant has been detected in California — heightening the risk of a potential summer wave as recent moves by the Trump administration threaten to make vaccines harder to get, and more expensive, for many Americans, some health experts warn. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced this week that he was rescinding the federal government's recommendation that pregnant women and healthy children get immunized against COVID, effective immediately. Dr. Marty Makary, commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, also said the agency will no longer routinely approve annually formulated COVID-19 vaccinations for healthy people under age 65. "We simply don't know whether a healthy 52-year-old woman with a normal BMI who has had COVID-19 three times and has received six previous doses of a COVID-19 vaccine will benefit from the seventh dose," Makary, along with another FDA official, Dr. Vinay Prasad, wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine this month. "This policy will compel much-needed evidence generation." Read more: Kennedy says COVID vaccines no longer recommended for healthy children and pregnant women However, some experts say mandating more extensive testing could delay vaccine access for many, as those efforts may not even be complete until after the end of the upcoming winter flu-and-COVID season. "Pregnant women, infants and young children are at higher risk of hospitalization from COVID, and the safety of the COVID vaccine has been widely demonstrated," Dr. Sean O'Leary, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Infectious Diseases, said in a statement. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said that, in general, getting an updated vaccine provides children and adults additional protection from COVID-related emergency room and urgent care visits. The recent federal changes, according to some experts, could also prompt private insurance companies and government insurers to stop paying for COVID shots for wide segments of the population, including babies and children. Absent a recommendation by federal officials, Americans could end up paying the entire cost of a vaccine, experts say. The out-of-pocket cost for a COVID vaccine at CVS, for instance, is $198.99. Read more: Trump administration cancels $766-million Moderna contract to fight pandemic flu Although the emergency phase of the pandemic has long since passed, authorities note COVID remains a public health concern. A relatively new subvariant has been spreading in Europe and Asia, "particularly Hong Kong, Taiwan, other countries, Japan, etc.," said Dr. Peter Chin-Hong, a UC San Francisco infectious diseases expert. That subvariant, NB.1.8.1, was first documented in January and has since been detected in California, including in Los Angeles County and the San Francisco Bay Area. The World Health Organization designated it a "Variant Under Monitoring" last week. NB.1.8.1 has grown exponentially worldwide in recent weeks. The Omicron subvariant represented 10.7% of genetically analyzed viral samples worldwide for the week ending April 27, WHO data show. That was up sharply from the week ending April 6, when the subvariant accounted for 2.5% of samples worldwide. "While still low numbers, this is a significant rise," the WHO said, adding that there was a "concurrent increase in cases and hospitalizations in some countries where NB.1.8.1 is widespread." Read more: Trump officials set new requirements for COVID vaccines in healthy adults and children NB.1.8.1 isn't yet prevalent enough in the United States to be publicly tracked by the CDC. Another strain, LP.8.1, accounted for an estimated 73% of coronavirus specimens nationally for the two-week period ending Saturday. Data suggest NB.1.8.1 does not cause more severe illness, "but it is more transmissible, at least from what we're seeing around the world and also from lab experiments," said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, an infectious-disease expert at Stanford University. In Taiwan, a top health official told reporters that an NB.1.8.1-fueled outbreak was "continuing to rise rapidly, with a sustained increase in severe and fatal cases," the Central News Agency reported, prompting a shortage of COVID testing kits. Health officials said a factor in Taiwan's surge was the lack of a major COVID wave over the winter, and forecast that the island's current spike may not peak for another four to six weeks. NB.1.8.1 has seen increased prevalence in each of the three WHO regions that still consistently share genetic analysis of COVID samples — the Western Pacific (which includes East Asia, parts of Southeast Asia, and Australia); Europe; and the Americas. The rate at which COVID tests are coming back positive in Los Angeles County has slightly increased over the past few weeks, although the overall positive rate remains low, at 3.5%, according to the county Department of Public Health. Coronavirus levels detected in the county's wastewater have increased by 6% in the last three weeks, but also remain relatively low and are about one-eighth of the peak in the summer of last year. Read more: Ex-official says he was forced out of FDA after trying to protect vaccine safety data from RFK Jr. Although California experienced a mild winter season — a first of the COVID era — that followed a powerful summer spike that was the strongest in years. Many experts and officials have touted available COVID vaccines as effective both in warding off infection and in lessening the severity of symptoms. However, the need for otherwise healthy individuals to roll up their sleeves has been a matter of debate. In a video message Tuesday on X, Kennedy — a noted vaccine skeptic — said that he "couldn't be more pleased to announce that, as of today, the COVID vaccine for healthy children and healthy pregnant women has been removed from the CDC recommended immunization schedule." Experts said they could not recall a time when a political appointee circumvented a well-established process of making vaccine recommendations, which typically involves panels of scientists advising the FDA and CDC. "It's kind of chilling," Chin-Hong said. "It's out of step with the system we've learned to trust and follow." Read more: WHO adopts a 'pandemic agreement' after the chaos of COVID In a statement to The Times, the L.A. County Department of Public Health urged Kennedy to listen to experts in the field — including from the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is scheduled to meet next month — "before decreasing access to any vaccine." As of Thursday, the CDC still had the long-standing vaccine recommendations on its website: Everyone ages 6 months and older should get the most recent COVID-19 vaccine, officially known as the 2024-25 version, which was introduced in September. The CDC also recommends seniors ages 65 and up get a second vaccine dose six months after their first. In a statement, the California Department of Public Health said that it supports the current expansive recommendation for COVID vaccines, and that it "will continue to follow the federal conversation through this dynamic situation." "Staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccination can reduce the risk of disease, especially more severe cases that result in hospitalization or death," the department added. The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the CDC did not know of Kennedy's directive until he posted it, and officials have been "scrambling to find out what it meant." Experts who spoke with The Times warned the practical effect of the edict — if it becomes official — could be far more costly vaccines for affected groups. "If vaccines are not recommended by the CDC, insurance companies would NOT be required to cover the cost," the L.A. County Department of Public Health said in a statement. Read more: A pediatrician's dilemma: Should a practice kick out unvaccinated kids? As a result, the vaccines may be less accessible to healthier people who still want them — perhaps because they live or work with elderly or other higher-risk people, they've had severe COVID illness before, or they want to protect themselves against the latest subvariant, the agency said. If the FDA withholds a license for an updated COVID vaccination for younger, healthier adults, this group "would not be able to receive it unless their provider chooses to give it 'off label,'" the county said. When asked whether healthy pregnant women and healthy children can still get vaccinated at its pharmacies, Walgreens said its teams operate "in full compliance with applicable laws." CVS said its locations "follow federal guidance regarding vaccine administration and are monitoring any changes that the government may make regarding vaccine eligibility." Kaiser Permanente Southern California said it was aware of potential changes, but noted no new formal guidance has yet been issued. As a result, Kaiser is continuing to follow existing guidance, which recommends the shots for everyone. The L.A. County Department of Public Health said that as of Wednesday, "pregnant women and healthy children can get vaccinated for COVID-19," according to existing recommendations from an advisory panel and the CDC. Read more: RFK Jr. kept asking to see the science that vaccines were safe. After he saw it, he dismissed it Chin-Hong noted there were 150 pediatric deaths in the U.S. from COVID-19 in a recent one-year period. That's in the same ballpark as the 231 pediatric flu deaths recorded this season, and federal health officials recommend everyone ages 6 months and older get an annual flu shot. "Most people would agree that kids should be targeted for flu vaccines. It seems kind of weird to have COVID as an outlier in that respect," Chin-Hong said. In the video published this week, Makary said that "most countries in the world have stopped recommending the vaccine for children." Maldonado, however, said the U.S. doesn't use other nations' standards to dictate vaccine recommendations. The U.S., for instance, recommends other types of vaccines that have a lower prevalence than COVID that people want to get, Maldonado said, such as the meningococcal vaccine for children to guard against a serious bacterial disease that can infect the brain and spinal cord and cause death within hours. The effect of a recommendation also varies by country. Canada, for instance, recommends updated COVID vaccines for seniors and other people who meet certain criteria, such as if they're pregnant or are a healthcare worker. But the country's universal healthcare system still allows everyone ages 6 months and older to get an updated COVID vaccine. Although it's true that children overall are at lower risk of developing severe COVID illness, those under 6 months of age "have the same risk of complications as the 65-year-old-plus population in this country," said Stanford's Maldonado, who also serves on the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Read more: Trump's first term brought world-changing vaccine. His second could bring retreat Among children eligible for vaccination, COVID-associated hospitalization rates are highest for those ages 6 months to 4 years, according to the CDC. "So are children going to be the highest risk group? No, they're not. But would you want to protect your child from a disease that could potentially put them in the hospital and get them on a ventilator? Yes, I would say that I would want to make that choice for myself. And why not allow the parent to make that choice?" Maldonado said. The CDC says COVID vaccination during pregnancy builds antibodies that can help protect the baby; studies have also shown that vaccinated moms who breastfeed have protective antibodies in their milk, which could help protect their babies. There have been an estimated 260,000 to 430,000 hospitalizations attributed to COVID since October, causing "an enormous burden on the healthcare system," Dr. Fiona Havers, a medical epidemiologist with the CDC, said at a recent public meeting. There have also been an estimated 30,000 to 50,000 COVID-19 deaths over the same time period. "It is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, particularly in older adults, but it does affect other people, particularly those with underlying conditions, in younger age groups." COVID is also a major cause of pediatric hospitalizations, even among otherwise healthy children, she said. "If there's a summer wave this year, we'll be seeing it in children being hospitalized with COVID as well," she said. 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.

Trump's budget bill is on the verge of transforming how America eats
Trump's budget bill is on the verge of transforming how America eats

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump's budget bill is on the verge of transforming how America eats

Early this month, after some equivocation, President Donald Trump briefly endorsed the idea to hike taxes on the wealthiest Americans in his budget proposal to Congress. Economists were quick to point out the meager impact a new millionaire tax bracket would have on the ultra-rich, particularly in the context of other proposed tax cuts that would offset any pain points for them. Still, the backlash from Republican members of Congress was swift. They spurned the proposal and instead advanced breaks for wealthier Americans. Last week, that version of Trump's 'big, beautiful' tax bill narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives and headed to the Senate. Tax policy isn't the only way that this bill proposes to further widen the gap between the wealthy and the poor. Though the more than 1,000-page megabill will look somewhat different once it advances through the Senate, analysts say that there are three food and agricultural provisions expected to remain intact: an unprecedented cut to the nation's nutrition programs; an increase of billions in subsidies aimed at industrial farms; and a rescission of some Inflation Reduction Act funding intended to help farmers deal with the impacts of climate change. If they do, the changes will make it harder for Americans to afford food and endure the financial toll of climate-related disasters. They will also make it more difficult for farmers to adapt to climate change — from an ecological standpoint and an economic one. Overall, the policy shifts would continue Trump's effort to transform the nation's food and agricultural policy landscape — from one that keeps at least some emphasis on the country's neediest residents to one that offers government help to those who need it least. Ever since the inception of the federal food stamps program in 1939, when it was created during the Great Depression to provide food to the hungry while simultaneously stimulating the American economy by encouraging the purchase of surplus commodities, what's now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, has been falsely portrayed as a contributor to unemployment rates and politicized as an abuse of taxpayer dollars. A vast body of research has found the opposite: roughly 42 percent of SNAP recipients are children, more than half of adult recipients who can work are either employed or actively seeking employment; the program's improper payments are most often merely mistakes made by eligible workers or households, not cases of outright fraud; and the benefits keep millions of Americans out of poverty. Right now, more than 40 million Americans are enrolled in SNAP, an anti-hunger program written into the farm bill and administered through the Department of Agriculture's Food and Nutrition Service. The federal government has always fully paid for benefits issued by the program. States operate the program on a local level, determining eligibility and issuing those benefits, and pay part of the program's administrative costs. How much money a household gets from the government each month for groceries is based on income, family size, and a tally of certain expenses. An individual's eligibility is also constrained by 'work requirements,' which limit the amount of time adults can receive benefits without employment or participation in a work-training program. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cuts to SNAP now being proposed could amount to nearly $300 billion through 2034. An Urban Institute analysis of the bill found that the cuts would be achieved by broadening work requirements to apply to households with children and adults up to the age of 64; limiting states' ability to request work-requirement waivers for people in high unemployment areas; and reducing the opportunities for discretionary exemptions. But most unprecedented is how the bill shifts the financial onus of SNAP's costs onto states — increasing the administrative costs states have to cover to up to 75 percent, as well as mandating that states pay for a portion of the benefits themselves. If the Senate approves the proposed approach to require states to cover some SNAP costs, the Budget Office report projects that, over the next decade, about 1.3 million people could see their benefits reduced or eliminated in an average month. The burden of these changes to federal policy would only cascade down, leading to a variety of likely outcomes. Some states might be able to cover the slack. But others won't, even if they wanted to: Budget-strapped states would then have to choose between reducing benefits or sharing the costs with cities and counties. Ultimately, anti-hunger advocates warn, gutting SNAP will undoubtedly increase food insecurity across the nation — at a time when persistently high food costs are among most Americans' biggest economic concerns. As communities in all corners of the country endure stronger and more frequent climate-related disasters, the slashing of nutrition programs would also likely decrease the amount of emergency food aid that would be available after a heatwave, hurricane, or flood — funding that has already been reduced by federal disinvestment. Sweeping cuts to SNAP would also constrain how much income small farmers nationwide would be able to earn. That's because SNAP dollars are used at thousands of farmers markets, farm stands, and pick-your-own operations throughout the country. Groups like the environmental nonprofit GrowNYC helped launch the use of SNAP dollars at farmers markets in New York almost two decades ago, and have since built matching dollar incentives into their business model to encourage shoppers at the organization's greenmarket and farmstand locations to spend their monthly food aid allotments on fresh, locally grown produce. The program 'puts money in the farmers pockets,' said Marcel Van Ooyen, CEO of GrowNYC, and 'helps low-income individuals access healthy, fresh, local food. It's a double-win.' He expects to see the bill's SNAP cuts result in a 'devastating' trend of shuttering local farmers' markets across the nation, which, he said, 'is going to have a real effect both on food access and support of the farming communities.' While the ethos of this bill can be gleaned by counting up the proposed cuts to social safety nets like SNAP, looking at the legislation from another perspective — where Trump wants the government to spend more — helps to make it clearer. These dramatic changes to nutrition programs would be accompanied by a massive increase in commodity farm subsidies. The budget bill increases subsidies to commodity farms — ones that grow crops like corn, cotton, and soybeans — by about $50 billion. Commodity farmers 'typically have larger farms,' according to Erin Foster West, a policy campaigns director specializing in land, water, and climate at National Young Farmers Coalition. A trend of consolidation toward fewer but more industrial farm operations was already underway. Less than 6 percent of U.S. farms with annual sales of at least $1 million sold more than three-fourths of all agricultural products between 2017 and 2022. The Trump plan might just help that trend along. Earlier this year, the USDA issued about a third of the $30 billion authorized by Congress in December through the American Relief Act to commodity producers who were affected by low crop prices in 2024. Because the program significantly limited who could access the funding, it funneled financial help away from smaller farmers and into the pockets of industrial-scale operations. An April report by the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute concluded the $10 billion bailout for commodity farmers 'was probably not justified.' Later in their report, the American Enterprise Institute authors note that lobbyists representing commodity farms have already begun pushing for more subsidies because of the fallout of the Trump administration's tariffs. Then they pose a question: 'Does the Trump administration need to give farmers further substantial handouts, especially when it is doing nothing for other sectors and households significantly affected by its policy follies?' The budget bill, with its $50 billion windfall for commodity farms, may be its own answer. This September will mark the deadline for the second consecutive year-long extension that Congress passed for the farm bill, the legislation that governs many aspects of America's food and agricultural systems and is typically reauthorized every five years without much contention. Of late, legislators have been unable to get past the deeply politicized struggle to agree on the omnibus bill's nutrition and conservation facets. The latest farm bill was the 2018 package. The farm bill covers everything from nutrition assistance programs to crop subsidies and conservation measures. A number of provisions, like crop insurance, are permanently funded, meaning the reauthorization timeline does not impact them. But others, such as beginning farmer and rancher development grants and local food promotion programs, are entirely dependent upon the appropriations within each new law. Trump's tax plan contains a slick budgeting maneuver that takes unobligated climate-targeted funds from the agricultural conservation programs in President Joe Biden's 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, or IRA, and re-invests that money into the same farm bill programs. The funding boost provided by the IRA was designed to reign in the immense emissions footprint of the agricultural industry, while also helping farmers deal with the impacts of climate change by providing funding for them to protect plants from severe weather, extend their growing seasons, or adopt cost-cutting irrigation methods that boost water conservation. On its surface, the inclusion of unspent IRA conservation money in the tax package may seem promising, if notably at odds with the Trump administration's public campaign to all but vanquish the Biden-era climate policy. Erin Foster West, at the National Young Farmers Coalition, calls it 'a mixed bag.' By proposing that the IRA funding be absorbed into the farm bill, Foster West says, Trump creates an opportunity to build more and longer-term funding for 'hugely impactful and very effective' conservation work. On the other hand, she notes, the Trump megabill removes the requirements that the unspent pot of money must fund climate-specific projects. Foster West is wary that the removal of the climate guardrails could lead to more conservation money funneling into industrial farms and planet-polluting animal feeding operations. The House budget package also omits many of the food and agricultural programs affected by the federal funding freeze that would typically have been included in a farm bill. Those include programs offering support to beginning farmers and ranchers, farmer-led sustainable research, rural development and farm loans, local and regional food supply chains, and those that help farmers access new markets. None of these were incorporated into the Republican megabill. 'It's just a disinvestment in the programs that smaller-scale, and beginning farmers, younger farmers, tend to use. So we're just seeing, like, resources being pulled away,' said Foster West. Moreover, up until now, several agricultural leaders in Congress have expressed confidence about passing a new 'skinny' farm bill, to address all programs left out by reconciliation, before September. Provisions in the Trump budget bill may erode that confidence. By gutting funding for SNAP and increasing funding for commodity support, two leading Republican farm bill priorities, the need for GOP legislators to negotiate for a bipartisan bill diminishes. Inherent to the farm bill are provisions set to incentivize Congress to break through its own gridlock. If neither a new farm bill nor an extension is passed ahead of its deadline, some commodity programs revert to a 1930s and 1940s law, which helps trigger what is colloquially known as the 'dairy cliff' — after which the government must buy staggering volumes of milk products at a parity price set in 1949 and risk spiking milk prices at the supermarket. Trump's tax package would suspend this trigger until 2031. Under Trump's vision, encoded in the tax bill, U.S. food and agriculture policy would 'cannibalize' itself, according to Mike Lavender, policy director at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. The policies meant to make better food more available to more people, and support the producers that grow it, in other words, could make way for a world in which fewer people will be able to farm — and to eat. 'It's an irresponsible approach to federal food and farm policy,' Lavender said. 'One that does not support all farmers, does not support the entire food and farm system.' This story was originally published by Grist with the headline Trump's budget bill is on the verge of transforming how America eats on May 30, 2025.

Electrifying this affordable housing complex made financial sense
Electrifying this affordable housing complex made financial sense

Yahoo

time30 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Electrifying this affordable housing complex made financial sense

Canary Media's 'Electrified Life' column shares real-world tales, tips, and insights to demystify what individuals and building owners can do to shift to clean electric power. An affordable housing complex for older adults in Sacramento, California, boasts some enticing features. Residents of the earth-toned, low-rise structures can cultivate gardens, swim laps in the pool, and toss bocce balls. They can stroll to visit neighbors. And now, after an electric transformation of the buildings, Foothill Farms residents can also enjoy the cleaner air that comes with ditching gas appliances. The project not only slashes the complex's health-harming and planet-warming pollution — it also made financial sense for both the owner BRIDGE Housing and its tenants. Two years ago, the 138-unit property's original gas-fired equipment was nearing the end of its life. Coupled with available financial support, the timing gave executives of BRIDGE, a nonprofit affordable housing developer and manager, a chance to pivot away from fossil fuels. The 'smart, opportunistic' project at Foothill Farms illustrates how properties can electrify while keeping costs low for residents, according to a case study written earlier this year by staff at the Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future, a collaborative of 13 nonprofits, including BRIDGE. The retrofit is also a trailblazer for the decarbonization journey millions more units of government-supported affordable housing will eventually need to take. Although single-family housing is by far the most prevalent in the U.S., and the biggest source of carbon pollution from homes, cutting fossil fuels from multifamily affordable housing is a particularly tricky task. Some of the most vulnerable Americans live in subsidized apartments, including low-income households with older adults, disabled individuals, young families, and veterans — and they usually rent these units. Residents typically lack the power or cash to electrify properties, which presents a hurdle to eradicating emissions from buildings and denies inhabitants the upsides of these retrofits: greater comfort, safer air, and potential bill savings. 'There's an opportunity for delivering outsized benefits to [these] residents and communities,' said Lucas Toffoli, principal of the carbon-free buildings division at clean-energy think tank RMI. In 2023, BRIDGE Housing decided Foothill Farms would be a good candidate for energy-efficiency upgrades after Bright Power, an energy services provider, and Carbon Zero Buildings, a company specializing in decarbonization retrofits, analyzed BRIDGE's entire portfolio of properties. Carbon Zero carried out the electrifying changes: The turnkey contractor swapped out polluting gas-fueled water heaters for Rheem heat-pump water heaters and replaced ACs with Samsung heat pumps capable of both warming and cooling spaces. The firm also installed LED lighting everywhere, which consumes a tenth of the energy of incandescent light bulbs. Carbon Zero's team first piloted the complete retrofit in one unit to work out the kinks. With feedback from staff and residents, the crew honed its approach so that it could complete a unit's upgrades in a single day during business hours. 'I love that,' said Toffoli, who wasn't involved in the project. 'Displacing folks is not only expensive and burdensome ... it's a real disruption to people who may be juggling a lot of things, like work and family, or who have limited mobility or health problems.' In the common areas, Carbon Zero installed a new heat-pump pool heater and heat-pump spa heater, 30 EV charging stations, and 240-volt power outlets in the laundry rooms. Foothill Farms still has gas-powered clothes dryers, but BRIDGE plans to replace them with electric dryers when they conk out. Comparing 2023 average monthly energy usage data to 10 months of data after the in-unit retrofits were completed last spring, natural-gas use has decreased by 98% while electricity use has risen 24% across the whole property, thanks in large part to the almost-magical efficiency of heat pumps. Virtually all of the project's $2.6 million cost was covered by state and utility grants: California's Low-Income Weatherization Program, TECH Clean California, and the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. Other projects, though, are by no means guaranteed to see so much aid, with funding limited and awards variable, said Sebastian Cohn, senior project manager at the nonprofit Association for Energy Affordability and BRIDGE's primary contact for the weatherization program incentive. 'It is typically in a property's best interest to enroll [in these incentive programs] sooner than later,' Cohn told Canary Media. 'The same project reserved today would receive less than half the [Sacramento Municipal Utility District] incentives Foothill Farms did due to updated incentive levels and per-project limits.' Unlike many landlords who don't pay tenants' utility bills, and thus don't benefit from energy-efficiency upgrades, BRIDGE actually had a financial incentive to make this switch to electric appliances: The organization pays for residents' gas usage but not their electricity bills. How then did the project prevent residents' costs from going up? Elementary, my dear reader. Federal rules for most subsidized affordable housing protect residents from high rent and utility costs — and make sure these expenses don't exceed 30% of their income — by requiring owners to provide what are called utility allowances, i.e., rent reductions to tenants paying their own utilities. The exact amounts are set by housing authorities and depend on locale, home size, and types of appliances. Based on the utility allowances for Sacramento when Carbon Zero pitched the project, the contractor estimated that residents would come out ahead, with each unit on average saving over $200 annually. The estimated savings for BRIDGE itself were $25,000 per year. The real-world results match the initial project modeling very well, Cohn said, though BRIDGE declined to share specific dollar savings. BRIDGE isn't planning to stop with this project; a spokesperson said it's already working with Carbon Zero and Bright Power on similar retrofits at a few other California properties.

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