Citing N.I.H. Cuts, a Top Science Journal Stops Accepting Submissions
Environmental Health Perspectives, widely considered the premier environmental health journal, has announced that it would pause acceptance of new studies for publication, as federal cuts have left its future uncertain.
For more than 50 years, the journal has received funding from the National Institutes of Health to review studies on the health effects of environmental toxins — from 'forever chemicals" to air pollution — and publish the research free of charge.
The editors made the decision to halt acceptance of studies because of a 'lack of confidence' that contracts for critical expenses like copy-editing and editorial software would be renewed after their impending expiration dates, said Joel Kaufman, the journal's top editor.
He declined to comment on the publication's future prospects.
'If the journal is indeed lost, it is a huge loss,' said Jonathan Levy, chair of the department of environmental health at Boston University. 'It's reducing the ability for people to have good information that can be used to make good decisions.'
The news comes weeks after a federal prosecutor in Washington sent letters to several scientific journals, including The New England Journal of Medicine, with questions that suggested that they were biased against certain views and influenced by external pressures.
The editor of N.E.J.M. described the letter as 'vaguely threatening.' On Tuesday, the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, published by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that it had received such a letter.
Scientific journals have long been a target of top health officials in the Trump administration.
In a book published last year, Dr. Martin A. Makary, the new commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, accused journal editorial boards of 'gate-keeping' and publishing only information that supports a 'groupthink narrative.'
In an interview with the 'Dr. Hyman Show' podcast last year, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is now secretary of health and human services, said he planned to prosecute medical journals under federal anti-corruption laws.
'I'm going to find a way to sue you unless you come up with a plan right now to show how you're going to start publishing real science,' he said.
Still, the announcement regarding E.H.P. baffled researchers, who pointed out that the funding cuts seemed to conflict with the Trump administration's stated priorities.
For instance, Mr. Kennedy has repeatedly emphasized the importance of studying the environment's role in causing chronic diseases. The new administration has also expressed interest in the transparency and public accessibility of scientific journals, an area in which E.H.P. has been a trailblazer.
E.H.P. was one of the first 'open-access' journals, allowing anyone to read without a subscription. And unlike many other open-access journals, which often charge researchers thousands of dollars to publish their work, E.H.P.'s federal support meant scientists from smaller universities could publish without worrying about a fee.
'There are multiple layers of irony here,' Dr. Levy said.
E.H.P. isn't the only journal caught in the crossfire of funding cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services.
A draft budget for the department, obtained by The New York Times, proposes axing two journals published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Emerging Infectious Diseases and Preventing Chronic Disease. Both are published free of charge to authors and readers and are among the top journals in their fields.
Andrew Nixon, an H.H.S. spokesman, said 'no final decision has been made' about the upcoming budget.
Emerging Infectious Diseases, published monthly, provides cutting-edge reports on infectious disease threats from around the world.
It has helped to shape preparedness and response to outbreaks, said Jason Kindrachuk, a virologist at the University of Manitoba who has published research on the Marburg and mpox viruses in the journal.
The news 'is very disheartening,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi: Budget debate in Washington ignores the human cost in Illinois
The latest political fight over President Donald Trump's self-described 'big, beautiful bill' might seem pretty remote — unless you happen to be one of the millions of individuals who could be affected. Take one of my constituents who contacted my office just a few weeks ago. She was diagnosed with breast cancer and had been receiving Medicaid. But the cost of treatment was too high, and her family had to sell their home and move into temporary housing to pay for it. As a result of that move, this person missed her annual redetermination notice to confirm her continued eligibility and was dropped from the Medicaid program. For the past few months, she has been desperately trying to get back on the program but hasn't received a response from federal officials. Now, she is running dangerously low on her lifesaving medications. After she contacted us, my office reached out to the Social Security Administration to find out why her address wasn't updated and why her appeal for reinstatement wasn't processed more quickly given the nature of her illness. We will continue to press the SSA for answers and quick action. Multiply this person's experience by 13.7 million. That's the number of Americans who could lose Medicaid under Trump's budget bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In Illinois alone, Medicaid supports the health and economic security of 3.4 million people. Cuts or caps to federal Medicaid funding would force Illinois taxpayers to fill the gap or result in service reductions for everyone. The Trump budget plan, recently approved by the House on a party-line vote of 215-214, would cut at least $625 billion from Medicaid. But this doesn't nearly pay for the budget's additional tax cuts, which go overwhelmingly to the wealthiest Americans and large corporations. Instead, the bill adds trillions more to the national debt — possibly raising interest rates and bringing on a recession. Three changes account for most of the Medicaid cuts in the bill: requiring states to implement onerous, unnecessary paperwork and administrative requirements for many recipients; increasing barriers to enrolling in and renewing Medicaid coverage; and limiting states' ability to raise their share of Medicaid revenues through provider taxes. The bill's supporters say these new paperwork hurdles will reduce waste and fraud in the program. But 58% of Illinois Medicaid recipients already are working, and most of the rest are not able to work due to their own disability or caring for a close family member. Overall, the bill is projected to strip nearly a million Illinoisans on Medicaid of their health care. These cuts would take a particularly devastating toll on our state's rural residents, whose hospitals and health systems rely heavily on Medicaid patients. Already, eight Illinois rural hospitals are at risk of immediate closure, which will be worsened by the Medicaid cuts in the Trump budget. Those closures would affect the health care of all local residents, regardless of whether they receive their care under Medicaid or private plans. Already, we are seeing people such as my constituent struggling to keep their eligibility for Medicaid. If the Senate passes Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' there will be a lot more losing their eligibility and being kicked off the program. With the Senate about to take up the Trump plan, there's still time to remember the faces and families behind the numbers and ask ourselves whether this bill truly reflects our values as Americans. U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, a Democrat, has represented Illinois' 8th Congressional District since 2017.
USA Today
2 hours ago
- USA Today
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill
Medicaid churn: How working Americans could mistakenly lose coverage under Trump tax bill Show Caption Hide Caption President Trump gives his thoughts on Elon Musk amid clash on bill President Donald Trump responded to Elon Musk's criticism of his "big, beautiful bill" with disappointment as Musk responded on X. A centerpiece of Donald Trump's tax bill would make millions of Medicaid recipients work, volunteer or study to maintain their publicly-financed health insurance. Republicans say the work requirement is vital to protect taxpayers while motivating nondisabled Medicaid recipients to take charge of their physical and fiscal health. Dr. Mehmet Oz challenged this population to "prove that you matter." But health advocacy groups and analysts say most recipients already work in jobs that don't provide affordable health insurance or pay enough for people to afford their own insurance. They say mandating a Medicaid work requirement − combined with more frequent eligibility checks − would create an administrative nightmare that drops coverage for many who qualify for the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled residents. What is Medicaid churn? Medicaid rolls vary from month to month as people lose eligibility due to a new job, a raise or other income source that disqualifies them for coverage. A job loss or change in life circumstances could make someone newly eligible. The constant change of Medicaid rolls is what health policy experts call churn. A person who temporarily loses coverage due to a paperwork issue or mistake then must again sign up. "Churn is what happens when these eligibility systems become difficult to navigate," said Jennifer Tolbert, deputy director of the program on Medicaid and the uninsured for KFF, a health policy nonprofit. The federal government requires state Medicaid programs to check enrollees eligibility once a year. The Trump tax cut legislation would mandate states double eligibility checks to twice a year. And states would have the added duty of verifying a person's employment or exemption status. The legislation, which passed the House and awaits Senate approval, mandates Medicaid recipients who are "able-bodied" adults without children work 80 hours per month or qualify for an exemption such as being a student, caregiver or having a disability. The bill defines able-bodied as people who are not medically certified as physically or unfit for employment. The legislation also would strip coverage from undocumented immigrants who get Medicaid through state-funded programs. Health policy experts say more frequent eligibility checks and red tape will add administrative costs and cut off people who qualify but fall through the cracks due to administrative miscues. "People are going to have to document work status or exemption status multiple times a year, and at each point there's a risk that someone who is eligible could lose coverage," Tolbert said. Thousands lost coverage under Arkansas work requirement During the first Trump administration, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave states the option of implementing a work requirement for nondisabled adults on Medicaid. Arkansas' work requirement cut more than 18,000 residents from Medicaid within the first seven months of the program. People were removed often because people were unaware of paperwork requirements to keep their coverage, research shows and analysts said. In April, a study by researchers from the Urban Institute and Loyola University Chicago found the Arkansas uninsured rate jumped 7.4 percentage points among low-income adults age 30 to 49 after the state's work requirement began. The policy's impact on employment among that age group was "negative, small and statistically insignificant," the study said. Arkansas adults who didn't have access to the internet at home were disproportionately harmed by the policy, a sign adults might've had trouble accessing the state's online portal to report work histories or exemptions, the Urban Institute said. If the work requirement for Medicaid recipients is adopted nationwide, health experts say millions of working poor Americans will inevitably lose coverage. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated 10.9 million Americans would lose health insurance coverage through 2034 under the legislation. Most would lose coverage due to the Medicaid work requirement and the twice-a-year eligibility checks, but about 3.1 million would become uninsured from tweaks to Affordable Care Act enrollment, according to a KFF analysis. The ranks of the uninsured could grow larger if Congress doesn't extend the COVID-19 pandemic-era tax credits that have made ACA plans more affordable for consumers. If the tax credits expire and Congress passes the current version of the Trump tax bill, as many as 16 million Americans would lose coverage , according to CBO. "Coverage loss from work requirements should actually be very small," said Kathy Hempstead, a senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. "But we anticipate it will be very large, because people will not be able to comply with the requirements and will lose their coverage." Dr. Oz: Medicaid spending is 'crippling the system' The Trump administration's top Medicaid official has defended the House legislation as a necessary step to slow spending for the federal health program that covers nearly 80 million low-income and disabled Americans. In a June 4 interview with Fox Business, Dr. Oz challenged Medicaid recipients who would face work requirements should "prove that you matter." Oz, the Trump-appointed administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the work requirement asks "able-bodied individuals who are able to go back to work at least try to get a job or volunteer or take care of a loved one who needs help or go back into school. Do something to show you have agency over your future." In a Fox News interview posted on the social media site X, Oz said Medicaid spending has surged 50% since 2019, a pace that is "crippling the system." However, some Republicans have pushed back on the proposed cuts. In a May opinion piece in the New York Times, Sen. Josh Hawley, R- Missouri, said "slashing health insurance for the working poor" is "morally wrong and politically suicidal." Survey: Americans worried about Medicaid cuts The public is paying attention to the proposed Medicaid cuts. Slightly more than half of adults said they're worried significant cuts in Medicaid spending would negatively affect their family's ability to obtain and afford health care, according to a KFF health tracking poll released June 6. The survey this survey of 2,539 U.S. adults was conducted online and by telephone over three weeks in May. The survey said nearly 6 in 10 adults said the Trump administration's policies would weaken Medicaid, but there is a stark divide based on party affiliation. Nine in 10 Democrats but just 2 in 10 Republicans expect the administration's policies would weaken Medicaid. Republicans also were far more likely than Democrats to say that the Trump's policies would strengthen Medicaid. Still, while the survey suggests people are tracking the news, many likely wouldn't know whether their coverage has changed until they try to get medical care. "People don't often know that they've lost coverage until they try and fill a prescription or see a doctor," Tolbert said.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump Admin Brings Back Hundreds of CDC Staffers it Previously Fired
The Trump administration is reversing its decision to fire hundreds of staffers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in a humiliating about-turn. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told STAT that the CDC will be bringing back more than 450 employees that were fired in an attempt to reorganize the agency. Some of the departments that will be reinstating employees are: The National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention; the Global Health Center; the National Center for Environmental Health; the Immediate Office of the Director. These divisions helped track and prevent HIV, prevent lead poisoning in children, as well as ensure that cruise lines were safe from disease. HHS, which also oversees the CDC, first announced this 'dramatic restructuring' in March, saying that they would downsize from 82,000 to 62,000 full-time employees, claiming that it would 'save taxpayers $1.8 billion per year.' The department also revealed that it would be creating a new division called the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), which would be led by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 'We aren't just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,' Kennedy said. 'This Department will do more—a lot more—at a lower cost to the taxpayer,' he claimed. He reaffirmed this sentiment in an X post in March, noting that these cuts would help eliminate the current 'alphabet soup of departments.' 'We are streamlining HHS to make our agency more efficient and more effective. We will eliminate an entire alphabet soup of departments,' he said. As a result, around 10,000 employees were fired under the guidance of Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Yet Kennedy has already backtracked on these sweeping federal layoffs, admitting in April that too many cuts were made in the effort to 'Make America Healthy Again,' though he said that 'was always the plan.' 'We're streamlining the agencies. We're going to make it work for public health, make it work for the American people. In the course of that, there were a number of instances where studies that should have not have been cut were cut, and we've reinstated them,' Kennedy said. 'Personnel that should not have been cut were cut—we're reinstating them, and that was always the plan,' he stated.
