Williamson Health to host a blood drive for Heart Health Month
In 1964, then-President Lyndon B. Johnson designated February as American Heart Month in order to bring more awareness to heart disease, one of the leading causes of deaths in the U.S.
'We are still experiencing winter shortages and are in critical need for donations,' said Brooke Katz, spokesperson for Blood Assurance. 'Please consider spreading the love this National Heart Month by donating blood to save lives.'
On Feb. 18 from 11a.m.-5 p.m., at 3000 Edward Curd Lane, participants can help increase the life-saving supply that helps those who are suffering from illnesses that often require blood transfusions.
Blood donors who give between Feb. 15-28 will be automatically entered to win a $500 e-gift card for spring break. One winner will be randomly selected and contacted March 5. Additionally, O-negative whole blood and AB plasma donors will receive a $25 e-gift card. Winners can choose from over 90 retailers, and e-gift cards will be sent to the email address listed on the donor's profile.
Walk-ins are welcome but donors are encouraged to sign up a head of time. Those interested in donating must be at least 17 years old (16 years old with parental consent), weigh 110 pounds or more and be in good health. Donors are asked to drink plenty of fluids — avoiding caffeine — and eat a meal that is rich in iron prior to donating.
This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: Williamson Health hosting Heart Health Month blood drive
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
30-07-2025
- Newsweek
Medicaid Turns 60 Today. America Needs It Now More Than Ever
Advocates for ideas and draws conclusions based on the interpretation of facts and data. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Today, on the 60th anniversary of Medicaid, America faces a health care crisis of its own making. Medicaid isn't just a lifeline for the poor. It's the backbone of our entire health care system and economic stability. Just in time for the 60th anniversary of Medicaid, however, Republicans made extraordinary cuts to the program in the "big beautiful bill," despite scientific and expert warnings. These cuts to Medicaid could translate to more than 42,000 preventable deaths each year. That's almost half a million lives lost over a decade simply because of bad policy choices. Slashing Medicaid isn't fiscal responsibility. It's a ticking time bomb for families, hospitals, and the economy. President Lyndon B. Johnson established Medicaid, alongside Medicare, on July 30, 1965. In the past 60 years, Medicaid has significantly expanded access to health care, including basic doctor's appointments and check ups, prescription drugs, and long-term care. The proposed cuts threaten to rip coverage away from millions. Studies show that when Medicaid shrinks, more people delay care, more hospitals go bankrupt, and preventable deaths rise. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, built on the existing Medicaid system. That expansion has saved nearly 30,000 lives. In states that expanded Medicaid, premature deaths fell. In states that didn't, they rose. Instead of building on that success, Republicans have taken a chainsaw to the program, and millions will lose their coverage. Today, one in five Americans rely on Medicaid. Republicans paint a false picture of young men sitting on their couches, too lazy to get jobs, playing video games all day as the ones eating up Medicaid tax dollars. In reality, more than half of Medicaid spending goes toward the elderly and people with disabilities. The majority of adults on Medicaid are employed either full- or part-time. Nearly half of all U.S. births are covered by Medicaid. About two-thirds of nursing home residents depend on it. Medicaid serves people in every corner of this country, from inner cities to small rural towns, Democrats to Republicans. In fact, about 20 million Medicaid beneficiaries lean Republican. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly 17 million more Americans will become uninsured by 2034 due to the bill's changes. Republicans insist they didn't change Medicaid eligibility rules. While that's true, it ignores the fact that the bureaucratic barriers of extra forms, tighter deadlines, and poor communication will ultimately cause mass disenrollment. Here's what that means in practice: People won't know they've lost coverage until they show up in the ER. Parents will skip pediatric checkups. Cancer patients will delay follow-up care. Preventable conditions will become fatal. WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: Care workers with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) participate in a living cemetery protest at the US Capitol June 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 23: Care workers with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) participate in a living cemetery protest at the US Capitol June 23, 2025 in Washington, economic health relies heavily on a community's physical health. Republicans are supposedly the party of small businesses, but the proposed cuts will end up hurting small businesses in the long run. Once the cuts go through, more small businesses will have to pay and offer health care plans to their employees. Ironically, Medicaid cuts will end up hurting Republicans' own constituents the most. In rural areas, where politics often skew to the right, hospitals will have to enforce layoffs and potentially shut down due to patients being unable to pay for their care. This isn't about partisan politics, though. Ultimately, people will die and American lives will be lost. Republican or Democrat, we will all feel the crippling effects of slashing Medicaid. Conservatives value strong families and thriving small towns—Medicaid cuts will devastate both. Liberals champion social safety nets—this would shred one of the biggest. Both sides claim to protect working Americans. Medicaid covers millions of Americans who are employed but earn too little to afford private insurance. When one in five Americans loses their safety net from Medicaid, we all feel the consequences. So what can people do if they're at risk of losing Medicaid? First, make sure your contact information is current with your local Medicaid office. If you've moved recently, the system likely doesn't know. The government won't track you down to keep you covered. Second, if you lose coverage, act quickly: you'll have a limited window to enroll through the ACA marketplace, your employer, or another public option. Visit or contact a Medicaid navigator for help. Many hospitals and local officials also have staff who can walk you through next steps. Cutting Medicaid will not make America healthier. It will do the opposite: create health care deserts, saddle hospitals with unpaid bills, and force taxpayers to absorb higher costs elsewhere. Sixty years ago today, Medicaid was born. Today, we see the entire system at risk. If we truly want to make America a healthier, more resilient nation, we must protect Medicaid—not as charity, but as infrastructure. Dr. Anahita Dua is a vascular surgeon, Associate Professor of Surgery at Harvard Medical School, and the Founder and Chair of Healthcare for Action. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
30-07-2025
- Newsweek
What the Future of Medicaid and Medicare Could Look Like
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. On this day 60 years ago, the Medicaid and Medicare programs were signed into law by former President Lyndon B. Johnson. It was July 30, 1965, and both programs were established within the Social Security Act. Designed as federal programs to assist the elderly, disabled individuals and those with low income, both have grown into the largest sources of health care coverage in the country. Tens of millions of Americans rely on the programs, and they have protected the country's most vulnerable populations for over six decades now. Before the programs were established, around half of all Americans over 65 had no means of medical insurance, forcing them to pay hefty prices or forgo care entirely. Nowadays, that figure has dropped significantly. "Medicare and Medicaid have been enormous policy successes that have increased Americans' health and longevity while improving financial protections for older Americans," Lauren Nicholas, a health economist at University of Colorado, Denver, told Newsweek. "These programs also support our medical workforce through stable funding and by underwriting graduate medical education," she added. Inevitably, the programs have been shaped by different governmental administrations over the years, and as the programs turn 60, many more political changes are set to alter the course of Medicaid and Medicare's future. In light of the programs' landmark anniversary, Newsweek has spoken to experts about what is in store for the programs in the coming years during the term of President Donald Trump. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Cutting Down on "Waste, Fraud and Abuse" Starting with the appointment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a key focus of the Trump administration has been removing "waste, fraud and abuse" from the federal health care programs. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from 2024 found that in 2023, $100 billion was spent in "improper payments"––payments that "should not have been made or were made in the incorrect amount"––across the Medicare and Medicaid programs. GAO said this represented 43 percent of the governmentwide total of estimated "improper payments" that agencies reported for that year. In order to reduce the incidence of these "improper payments," the Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency proposed measures such as an initial validation of applicants' identities, eliminating self-certification, and monitoring the programs through improved technology. Analysis of 2024 enrollment data also revealed there were 2.8 million Americans either enrolled in Medicaid or the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) in multiple states, or simultaneously enrolled in both Medicaid or CHIP and a subsidized Affordable Care Act (ACA) Exchange plan, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). As a result, CMS said it would take action to ensure individuals are only enrolled in one program, vowing to "continue to crush fraud, waste, and abuse in America's health care programs." Although, while in principle boosting efficiency and transparency while reducing costs, these changes may also have less desirable impacts on beneficiaries in the future, experts have warned. "Research suggests that the people who will lose coverage from this policy will mostly be working or have serious health problems and should still be in the program," Dr. Benjamin Sommers, a professor of health care economics at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, told Newsweek. "The 'savings' here are not from reducing fraud, but from kicking people off of Medicaid to become uninsured and struggle to afford medical care," he added. "It's a perennial political motto and goal," Tim Westmoreland, a retired professor of health law and policy from Georgetown Law, told Newsweek. "Politicians often say that they are making eligibility requirements more stringent in order to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, but research has shown repeatedly that this mostly disqualifies people who would be eligible if they could find their way through complex mazes of paperwork," he added. He went on to say it saves "comparatively little money"—the real savings come from "investigating and prosecuting providers, for example, doctors who overcharge, or pharmaceutical companies that game their prices, or medical equipment suppliers who don't deliver, or managed care companies that underserve." Newsweek has contacted CMS via email for comment. "Big Beautiful Bill" Cuts and Requirements Medicare and Medicaid's 60th birthday comes only a few weeks after the passing of Trump's major budget legislation—the "One Big Beautiful Bill." The bill includes the largest funding cuts to the two federal programs in U.S. history, and Medicaid will bear the brunt of this with $1 trillion in cuts over the next decade. The White House has said the bill "protects and strengthens Medicaid for those who rely on it—pregnant women, children, seniors, people with disabilities, and low-income families—while eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse." The Trump administration said that by "eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse" in the Medicaid program, resources can then be refocused on "providing better care for those whom the program was designed to serve: pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families." Overall, the bill "protects Medicaid for the truly vulnerable," the White House added, and said that those with disabilities receiving Medicaid "will receive no loss or change in coverage." On the subject of Medicare, the White House said the federal program "had not been touched in this bill—absolutely nothing in the bill reduces spending on Medicare benefits." "This legislation does not make a single cut to welfare programs—it safeguards and protects these programs for all eligible Americans," the White House added. In regard to Medicaid, the bill will see the introduction of work requirements, so those eligible for the program will have to work a total of 80 hours a month, unless exempt. The bill eliminates enhanced federal matching funds for Medicaid services provided to undocumented immigrants—a measure that affects states offering such coverage, including California, New York, Illinois, Washington, New Jersey, Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, Rhode Island, Maine, and Vermont. All 40 states that expanded the Medicaid service under the ACA will also be affected by the bill. They will face a reduced federal match rate, requiring states to shoulder a greater share of the costs. A number of other changes to the Medicaid program include a restriction in funding for Medicaid-covered family planning services that offer abortions, like Planned Parenthood, and a requirement for eligibility to be redetermined every 6 months instead of every 12 months. Fewer changes have been made to Medicare. These include a narrowing of eligibility to exclude undocumented immigrants and anticipated reductions in federal reimbursements to health care providers, which could affect which prescription drugs are covered by the program. How these changes will shape the future of the programs is not overly positive, according to experts that spoke to Newsweek, and there have been frequent warnings that millions of Americans will lose their health coverage as a result. Paul Shafer, a professor in health law, policy and management at Boston University, deemed the changes to Medicaid "potentially dramatic," telling Newsweek "millions of Americans will lose Medicaid and, with it, their access to health care." "Millions of people will likely lose coverage due to increasing red tape from work requirements and more frequent eligibility checks," Sommers added. "States will lose one of the ways they currently pay for their share of the Medicaid expansion, so we will likely see additional cuts from states that may lead to fewer people covered and reduced benefits." Lower income people will be most impacted, Mark Pauly, a professor of health care management at Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, told Newsweek. "They will have to jump more hoops to keep Medicaid insurance—some who are not sick may decide it is not worth the trouble," he added. On the subject of work requirements, Dr. Susan Goold, a professor of internal medicine and health management and policy at the University of Michigan, told Newsweek evidence has shown that, under work requirement programs, "employment does not increase, people who are eligible are nonetheless dropped, and administering the program costs states money." "Changes to the federal share of Medicaid spending will cause states to either cut enrollment, cut benefits, cut payments to providers or greatly increase their spending," she said. While Medicaid is more directly affected by the bill than Medicare, Pauly said that "Medicare's time will come when provider reimbursements are cut so much that fewer doctors will accept it." Goold added that Medicare will also be indirectly affected by the bill, such as via increases in income tax deductions, including for seniors on social security, which "means less revenue to both Medicare and Social Security." "That speeds up the trajectory toward insolvency, unless future cuts are made to benefits," she said. Also, provider payment rate changes may "make it more difficult for Medicare enrollees to find providers," Goold added. At a time when Medicaid and Medicare popularity is at all-time high, the new tax bill was found to be somewhat unfavorable throughout the county, according to a KFF study, suggesting the federal health programs could have a rocky future as public opinion and policy decision clash. Shafer said: "This bill has been described as 'the biggest rollback in federal support for health coverage ever,' when families are still struggling to bounce back from years of higher inflation and the economy is showing signs of slowing down." Hospital Closures As Medicaid cuts will reduce the number of Americans with insurance, there will be "fewer people who can pay for health care, making it harder for hospitals, nursing homes, and other practices to stay in business," Nicholas said. "We are already starting to see facilities cut back service lines and staffing that they don't think that they can maintain," she added. Shafer warned that "stopping the enforcement of minimum staffing levels in nursing homes means that we won't see patient safety and care improve in ways it could have, keeping seniors at risk in understaffed facilities." Nicholas said that 25 percent of nursing homes are expected to close as a result, which could "leave frail older adults who need a lot of care with nowhere to go." "I worry that Americans will see the first signs of these changes through their pocketbooks and their own health, having to wait longer to get doctor appointments and losing access to local hospitals and providers," she added. Estimates from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has suggested that over 300 rural hospitals could close with all but four states affected. The White House said that rural hospitals comprise 7 percent of all hospital spending on Medicaid, "illustrating that they have not benefited from the massive increase in waste, fraud, and abuse under the Biden administration." "By strengthening Medicaid, we are making more resources available for vulnerable populations and safety net providers, like rural hospitals," the White House said. "We are expanding rural hospital protection, providing targeted funds for rural care, and giving states flexibility to support local providers." While $50 billion has been allocated in Trump's bill over five years to all states for a variety of purposes, including payments to rural facilities, the options states have to protect rural health care are not without their complexities, experts previously told Newsweek. The Future For Medicare and Medicaid In light of the significant, even historic, changes being made to the programs under the Trump administration, the future of Medicaid and Medicare remains uncertain. Aside from major government changes, CMS has also been announcing further changes to both programs in recent weeks, largely focused on reducing federal taxpayer costs and clamping down on issues that fall under the umbrella of "waste, fraud and abuse." This includes an end to expanded continuous eligibility for Medicaid, which allowed some people to remain enrolled for a period of time, even if they were no longer qualified, as CMS vowed to "restore accountability and safeguard the long-term integrity of Medicaid and CHIP." CMS also said in May it would "close a Medicaid tax loophole exploited by states to inflate federal payments to states, and free up state funds for non-Medicaid purposes," as well as launching a "significant expansion of its auditing efforts for Medicare Advantage (MA) plans." The impact of all of these changes remains to be seen, but one thing that appears to be quite clear is that, while less Americans may have access to the programs in the years to come, Medicaid and Medicare will continue to remain critical to many.
The Hill
01-07-2025
- The Hill
The power of the ‘Influencer General'
The Office of the Surgeon General isn't often in the news these days, for the simple reason that it isn't much of an office any more. It certainly was once. Until the mid-'60s the Surgeon General's budget was in the billions. He (always a he, back then) had charge of the entire public health apparatus, including the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health. Then, suddenly, with Lyndon B. Johnson's approval, every one of these responsibilities was stripped away, handed to an assistant secretary in the department of Health, Education and Welfare (which later became Health and Human Services). Why? For ease of political control, in an era of burgeoning health and research budgets. But, like the smile of the Cheshire Cat, the office of the Surgeon General remained, with the dignity of Senate confirmation, ceremonial command of the 'commissioned corps' of public health officers and — should the incumbent be so inclined — a splendid uniform befitting a vice-admiral. Beyond that, the Surgeon General was, as one writer put it, a 'glorified health educator,' though not actually all that glorified. The main thing he had to do was give Congress an annual report on smoking. Yet he did not write the report. He just signed it. He did not even supervise the staff who wrote it. All of this was painfully learned by our one memorable modern Surgeon General, Charles Everett Koop. The New York Times denounced him in an editorial headed 'Dr. Unqualified;' a nimbler commentator christened him 'Dr. Kook.' He had no public health experience and unpopular abortion views. As controversy raged in inverse proportion to the actual importance of the office (Bill Clinton managed one whole administration without appointing anybody), Koop was thinking through what could actually be accomplished from his modest but high-profile perch. And he decided to be an influencer. Long before 'influencing' became a profession, Dr. Koop, retired pediatric surgeon and anti-abortion combatant, demonstrated genius at wielding a combination of medical authority, moral conviction and media savvy, to shape public opinion and national health policy. From his 'merely health educator' perch, Koop emerged in the 1980s as one of the most recognizable and trusted figures in American public life. He harnessed his visibility to effect sweeping cultural and behavioral changes, particularly around smoking, HIV/AIDS and a range of preventive health issues, setting a potent precedent for his successors. Koop understood the power of his persona. The instantly recognizable look — a patriarchal beard, the navy-type uniform, and an often gruff demeanor — lent him a visual authority that matched his vocal clarity. He never sought to cultivate charm, and it was his credibility that granted him instant access to media gatekeepers and undercut partisan resistance. He leaned on scientific consensus, communicating it in direct, digestible terms — a technique today's influencers use (whether or not science is backing them up!). Koop's most influential, and controversial, moment came with the AIDS epidemic. At a time when many public officials refused even to speak the word, Koop insisted on candor. In 1986, tasked by the Reagan White House with writing the first government report on AIDS, he advocated not merely abstinence (as many had expected) but also comprehensive sex education and condom use. His conscious choices about audience, tone and accessibility all reflect how social media influencers communicate today. Then, in 1988, Congress enabled him to follow up with an unprecedented eight-page AIDS mailer to all 107 million U.S. households. At the core of Koop's influence lay his reputation for refusing to be silenced or co-opted. An evangelical Christian, with initial support from the religious right, he disappointed many ideological allies by resisting their push for anti-abortion messaging, though others understood his argument — that anti-abortion speech-making would undercut his credibility in anything else. In today's influencer ecosystem, authenticity is the core currency. Koop's brand of unwavering integrity gave him a moral authority that transcended partisanship. Koop was an influencer before Instagram, before YouTube, almost before the internet itself. He built his influence through scientific credibility, and a gravitas that carefully cultivated public trust. He redefined the potential of his anachronistic office as a bully pulpit for national transformation. His legacy offers a blueprint for public health communication in the 21st century. I've never met Dr. Casey Means, the president's choice for Surgeon General, and I'm not here to take sides on her nomination. I understand that many feel she has some strange views and limited experience. Yet if she retains the president's confidence, she will shortly find herself a vice admiral with a navy-style uniform (if she chooses to suit up), and become our influencer-in-chief of public health. Nigel M. de S. Cameron recently published 'Dr. Koop: The Many Lives of the Surgeon General' (University of Massachusetts Press, 2025).
