Minnesota Department of Health delays layoffs following federal court order
Apr. 15—ST. PAUL — Layoffs at the Minnesota Department of Health are delayed as the result of a temporary restraining order in a federal court case.
On April 1, the state health department sent layoff notices to 170 employees, about 10% of its workforce, after the the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services pulled $11 billion in grants to public health agencies across the country — including $226 million from MDH — in late March.
Shortly after the funding was pulled, 23 states, including Minnesota, and the District of Columbia sued HHS in federal court. On April 5, the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order against HHS.
"We are grateful for this action by the court, which we feel aligns with the federal government's responsibility to us as a grantee," said Dr. Brooke Cunningham, Minnesota's health commissioner. "This action has given us additional short-term certainty around this funding, which allows us to delay this layoff process slightly."
The new effective layoff date for those 170 positions is May 13, 2025.
"We continue to remain hopeful for a positive long-term outcome in this case that would allow us to mitigate the need to layoff so many smart, dedicated staff who are vital to protecting the health of Minnesotans," Cunningham said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Newsom criticizes Trump admin for sharing Medicaid data with Homeland Security
Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday criticized the Trump administration for reportedly providing personal information from Medicaid recipients to federal immigration authorities. The criticism stems from an Associated Press report that revealed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, under President Donald Trump, shared data, including immigration status, of millions of Medicaid beneficiaries with the Department of Homeland Security. The report suggests the information could aid immigration enforcement efforts under Trump's broader crackdown. 'We deeply value the privacy of all Californians,' Newsom said in a statement. 'This action by the federal government has implications for every person on Medicaid, but it is especially alarming for our immigrants and American mixed-status families.' Newsom signs executive order advancing California's clean car goals amid pushback from the Trump administration Under federal law, Medicaid is required to provide emergency services regardless of a recipient's immigration like California, which operates the program as Medi-Cal, routinely share limited data with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to comply with federal funding and oversight requirements. California's Department of Health Care Services confirmed that it responded to a federal request last month to validate its use of federal Medicaid funds but emphasized that it did not submit any demographic data beyond what is normally required. California law guarantees broad protections for personal data under the state Constitution and the Information Practices Act. State agencies are also required to adhere to strict privacy protocols and use Medi-Cal data solely for determining eligibility and benefits. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
USA Today
5 hours ago
- USA Today
LGBTQ+ health centers lead fight against mpox and stigma nationwide
Matt Alderton Studio Gannett The date was May 17, 2022. It was more than two years into the COVID-19 pandemic, and Americans everywhere were epidemiologically exhausted. In Massachusetts, however, public health officials had just clocked the first case in a brand-new infectious disease outbreak. The pathogen now known as mpox was first documented in monkeys in 1958. Caused by a virus similar to the smallpox virus, it causes flu-like symptoms; a painful, pustulous rash; and, in the rarest cases, death. When the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared mpox a public health emergency in August 2022, there were more than 10,000 documented cases in the United States — mostly in the LGBTQ+ community, where the virus had spread rapidly through sexual transmission. Cases slowly declined from there, however, and by January 2023 the threat had mostly faded. Credit for the containment belongs not only to the LGBTQ+ individuals who embraced safer sex practices and stood in blocks-long lines for vaccines, but also to the doctors and nurses at community health centers who delivered critical care and education tailored to at-risk patients. 'LGBTQ+ clinics and community centers were the first to respond and set up very quickly and very efficiently not only information for our community to keep us safe, but also vaccine programs,' says Alex Sheldon , executive director of GLMA, previously known as the Gay & Lesbian Medical Association. 'The (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) had raised huge alarm bells about where this was going to go, and that it was going to spread even further into the general population. But because of the quick and efficient responses of these clinics and community centers, and because of the trust they already had with community members, they were able to respond so quickly that it for the most part stopped mpox in its tracks.' Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. The rapid, responsive care that LGBTQ+ community health centers provided during mpox is the same care they provided during COVID-19 and the HIV/AIDS crisis decades prior. More important, it's the same care they provide daily to LGBTQ+ individuals who need routine services like primary and preventive care, screening for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and mental health counseling. 'Many LGBTQ+ clinics were started by LGBTQ+ providers who had a stake in their community's wellbeing. So, they developed health care settings that were designed around their own needs,' Sheldon says. 'These places center our community within every single part of what they do.' Unique Health Needs Because LGBTQ+ people have unique health care needs, it's critical that health care systems are tailored to those needs. 'LGBTQ+ people … experience a lot of health disparities, and the vast majority of those health disparities are driven by the pronounced stigma and discrimination that LGBTQ+ people face in our everyday lives,' explains Sheldon, who says stigma creates stress that can impact both mental and physical health. 'Navigating a world that isn't built for you because it's designed around cisgender and heterosexual experiences —who your partner is, what you do on the weekends, how you built your family — can be a really challenging way to live.' LGBTQ+ people who have experienced discrimination often go out of their way to avoid it in the future, which might mean delaying health care or opting out of it entirely to evade providers with whom they don't feel seen or safe. 'The longer you delay getting health care … the more likely you are to have adverse health outcomes because of that delayed care,' Sheldon says. Therein lies the merit of community health centers, says Dr. Stephen Abbott , medical site director of the Max Robinson Center at Whitman-Walker, a nonprofit community health system serving LGBTQ+ patients in Washington, D.C. 'Often, issues surrounding an individual's care don't get disclosed if somebody doesn't feel comfortable in the environment where they're seeking care,' Abbott says. 'If you go into a waiting room and there's nobody there affirming your pronouns, or they make certain assumptions about who your partner is, or they can't take a decent sexual history, or they don't know how to do an appropriate mental health screening that's informed by traumatic experiences in your past, then you're not going to get appropriate care.' Community health centers make LGBTQ+ patients comfortable by fostering inclusion in every respect — having gender-neutral intake forms, hiring medical and administrative staff from the community, offering LGBTQ+ periodicals in waiting rooms and depicting LGBTQ+ individuals on websites and in patient literature, all of which foster trust so that patients are more likely to show up for appointments, seek preventative care and adhere to medical advice and guidelines. 'Community health centers that have historically served the LGBTQ+ community have demonstrated the ability to look past a person's sexual or gender identity and see them as a whole person,' says Dr. Travis Gayles , CEO of Howard Brown Health, a nonprofit community health system serving LGBTQ+ patients in Chicago. 'And when you're seeing the whole person, you can gain new perspectives and insights, ask appropriate questions, offer appropriate treatment and, ultimately, create better health outcomes.' Community health centers like Whitman-Walker and Howard Brown are particularly proud of the care they provide for individuals with HIV; preventative services like pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and Doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (Doxy PEP) for HIV and STI prevention, respectively; and their provision of gender-affirming care to individuals who are trans and nonbinary. To measure their success, however, they rely as much on social and emotional metrics as clinical ones. Holistic Care 'There are folks who have come to us for mpox, for HIV treatment or for gender-affirming care who have moments of pure joy and gratitude that you can't measure with the resolution of a rash, a viral load or even completion of a transition,' Abbott says. Gayles concurs. 'Yes, we look at clinical outcomes. But what's also important is empowering patients with stable housing, academic opportunities and employment opportunities. … When you're going to a health center like ours that understands all those (social determinants of health), it increases the likelihood that you're going to be connected in a meaningful way to those services.' 'We'll Get Through This' Both the LGBTQ+ community and the health centers that serve it are experiencing significant challenges, according to Sheldon, who notes that the Trump administration budget proposes significant reductions in funding and support for sexual and gender minorities. HHS, for example, has closed its Office of Minority Health; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering closing its Division of HIV Prevention; the National Institutes of Health has terminated more than 270 grants focused on LGBTQ+ health research, worth at least $800 million; and Congress is mulling significant cuts to Medicaid, on which many community health centers rely. 'Our health systems are under attack, but … I remain incredibly optimistic,' Sheldon says. 'When (governments) say we are invisible or worthy of erasure, we have always risen to the occasion by caring for ourselves and each other … We are once again rising to the occasion and will not back down.' Utilizing community health centers for services, donating to them, and singing their praises to philanthropists and policymakers can help fuel the fight, Abbott adds. 'We're going to be here no matter what,' he says. 'We'll get through this.'
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Kennedy's HHS sent Congress ‘junk science' to defend vaccine changes, experts say
A document the Department of Health and Human Services sent to lawmakers to support Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to change U.S. policy on covid vaccines cites scientific studies that are unpublished or under dispute and mischaracterizes others. One health expert called the document 'willful medical disinformation' about the safety of covid vaccines for children and pregnant women. 'It is so far out of left field that I find it insulting to our members of Congress that they would actually give them something like this. Congress members are relying on these agencies to provide them with valid information, and it's just not there,' said Mark Turrentine, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Baylor College of Medicine. Kennedy, who was an anti-vaccine activist before taking a role in the Trump administration, announced May 27 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would no longer recommend covid vaccines for pregnant women or healthy children, bypassing the agency's formal process for adjusting its vaccine schedules for adults and kids. The announcement, made on the social platform X, has been met with outrage by many pediatricians and scientists. The HHS document meant to support Kennedy's decision, obtained by KFF Health News, was sent to members of Congress who questioned the science and process behind his move, according to one federal official who asked not to be identified because he wasn't authorized to discuss the matter publicly. The document has not been posted on the HHS website, though it is the first detailed explanation of Kennedy's announcement from the agency. Titled 'Covid Recommendation FAQ,' the document distorts some legitimate studies and cites others that are disputed and unpublished, medical experts say. HHS director of communications Andrew Nixon told KFF Health News, 'There is no distortion of the studies in this document. The underlying data speaks for itself, and it raises legitimate safety concerns. HHS will not ignore that evidence or downplay it. We will follow the data and the science.' HHS did not respond to a request to name the author of the document. One of the studies the HHS document cites is under investigation by its publisher regarding 'potential issues with the research methodology and conclusions and author conflicts of interest,' according to a link on the study's webpage. 'This is RFK Jr.'s playbook,' said Sean O'Leary, chair of the Committee on Infectious Diseases for the American Academy of Pediatrics and an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado School of Medicine. 'Either cherry-pick from good science or take junk science to support his premise — this has been his playbook for 20 years.' Another study cited in the document is a preprint that has not been peer-reviewed. Under the study's title is an alert that 'it reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.' Though the preprint was made available a year ago, it has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. The FAQ supporting Kennedy's decision claims that 'post-marketing studies' of covid vaccines have identified 'serious adverse effects, such as an increased risk of myocarditis and pericarditis' — conditions in which the heart's muscle or its covering, the pericardium, suffer inflammation. False claims that the 2024 preprint showed myocarditis and pericarditis only in people who received a covid vaccine, and not in people infected with covid, circulated on social media. One of the study's co-authors publicly rejected that idea, because the study did not compare outcomes between people who were vaccinated and those infected with the covid virus. The study also focused only on children and adolescents. The HHS document omitted numerous other peer-reviewed studies that have shown that the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis is greater after contracting covid for both vaccinated and non-vaccinated people than the risk of the same complications after vaccination alone. O'Leary said that while some cases of myocarditis were reported in vaccinated adolescent boys and young men early in the covid pandemic, the rates declined after the two initial doses of covid vaccines were spaced further apart. Now, adolescents and adults who have not been previously vaccinated receive only one shot, and myocarditis no longer shows up in the data, O'Leary said, referring to the CDC's Vaccine Safety Datalink. 'There is no increased risk at this point that we can identify,' he said. In two instances, the HHS memo makes claims that are actively refuted by the papers it cites to back them up. Both papers support the safety and effectiveness of covid vaccines for pregnant women. The HHS document says that another paper it cites found 'an increase in placental blood clotting in pregnant mothers who took the vaccine.' But the paper doesn't contain any reference to placental blood clots or to pregnant women. 'I've now read it three times. And I cannot find that anywhere,' said Turrentine, the OB-GYN professor. If he were grading the HHS document, 'I would give this an 'F,'' Turrentine said. 'This is not supported by anything and it's not using medical evidence.' While members of Congress who are physicians should know to check references in the paper, they may not take the time to do so, said Neil Silverman, a professor of clinical obstetrics and gynecology who directs the Infectious Diseases in Pregnancy Program at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. 'They're going to assume this is coming from a scientific agency. So they are being hoodwinked along with everyone else who has had access to this document,' Silverman said. The offices of three Republicans in Congress who are medical doctors serving on House and Senate committees focused on health, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), did not respond to requests for comment about whether they received the memo. Emily Druckman, communications director for Rep. Kim Schrier (D-Wash.), a physician serving on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Schrier's office did receive a copy of the document. 'The problem is a lot of legislators and even their staffers, they don't have the expertise to be able to pick those references apart,' O'Leary said. 'But this one — I've seen much better anti-vaccine propaganda than this, frankly.' C.J. Young, deputy communications director for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, confirmed that Democratic staff members of the committee received the document from HHS. In the past, he said, similar documents would help clarify the justification and scope of an administration's policy change and could be assumed to be scientifically accurate, Young said. 'This feels like it's breaking new ground. I don't think that we saw this level of sloppiness or inattention to detail or lack of consideration for scientific merit under the first Trump administration,' Young said. On June 4, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) and Schrier introduced a bill that would require Kennedy to adopt official vaccine decisions from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP. Young said the motivation behind the bill was Kennedy's decision to change the covid vaccine schedule without the input of ACIP's vaccine experts, who play a key role in setting CDC policies around vaccine schedules and access. Kennedy announced June 9 on X that he would remove all 17 members of ACIP, citing alleged conflicts of interest he did not detail, and replace them. He announced eight replacements June 11, including people who had criticized vaccine mandates during the covid pandemic. KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.
