Maine joins lawsuit against Trump's health funding cuts
Apr. 1—Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey and officials in 22 other states sued the Trump administration Tuesday over its decision to cut $11 billion in federal money that had gone to state and local public health agencies across the country.
The 23 attorneys general filed the suit in federal court in Rhode Island. In addition to Maine, the states include New York, Colorado, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, California, Minnesota, North Carolina and Wisconsin.
"The grant terminations, which came with no warning or legally valid explanation, have quickly caused chaos for state health agencies that continue to rely on these critical funds for a wide range of urgent public health needs, such as infectious disease management, fortifying emergency preparedness, providing mental health and substance abuse services, and modernizing public health infrastructure," Frey's office said in a written statement.
The cutbacks "threaten the urgent public health needs of states around the country at a time when emerging disease threats, such as measles and bird flu, are on the rise," according to Frey's news release.
Maine had $91 million in federal contracts abruptly canceled on March 24, and the Maine CDC announced on Monday that 40 subcontractor employees have been laid off as a result. Services affected by the cuts include vaccine distribution, infectious disease tracking and outbreak management.
Lindsay Hammes, Maine CDC spokesperson, said on Tuesday the lawsuit filing does not reverse or pause the layoffs caused by the federal contracts ending.
"The department must continue to operate under the current termination notices," Hammes said in a written statement. "Once the court acts, the department will assess the implications for the impacted grants and for the vendors and subcontractors carrying out the work."
The lawsuit contends that the "mass terminations violate federal law because the end of the pandemic is not a 'for cause' basis for ending the grants, especially since none of the appropriated funds are tied to the end of the pandemic (in 2023). HHS' position, up until a few days ago, was that the end of the pandemic did not affect the availability of these grant funds," according to the news release.
The Trump administration has faced a number of lawsuits related to cutting funding for programs that had previously been approved by a prior Congress, in this case during the Biden administration. Congress holds the "power of the purse" according to the separation of powers spelled out in the Constitution.
The 23 states that filed suit are seeking a temporary restraining order to invalidate the nationwide grant terminations.
The lawsuit argues the cuts are illegal and will result in "serious harm to public health" that will put states "at greater risk for future pandemics and the spread of otherwise preventable disease and cutting off vital public health services."
Maine's Center for Disease Control and Prevention laid off dozens of subcontracted workers this week because of the lost federal funds.
"Slashing this funding now will reverse our progress on the opioid crisis, throw our mental health systems into chaos, and leave hospitals struggling to care for patients," James, the New York attorney general, said Tuesday in a news release.
Meanwhile, thousands of federal health workers also recently found out they were out of a job, with the Trump administration reducing the Health and Human Services workforce from 82,000 to 62,000.
Copy the Story Link
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
IQVIA Holdings (NYSE:IQV) Sees 11% Share Price Rise Over Last Week
IQVIA Holdings experienced a 10% rise in share price over the last week, correlating with its recent developments, notably the dosing of the first patient in the RENEW Phase 2 trial and its strategic alliance with Sarah Cannon Research Institute to optimize oncology trials. These initiatives likely provided a positive sentiment boost, aligning well with the broader market momentum, as indices such as the S&P 500 also reached new highs. The market's anticipation over US-China trade talks and overall strong corporate earnings have supported the upward trend, further enhancing IQV's market performance. We've identified 1 warning sign for IQVIA Holdings that you should be aware of. Uncover 18 companies that survived and thrived after COVID and have the right ingredients to survive Trump's tariffs. The recent 10% rise in IQVIA Holdings' share price has been influenced by important developments like the dosing in the RENEW Phase 2 trial and a key alliance with Sarah Cannon Research Institute. These initiatives are expected to potentially drive revenue growth, particularly as the strategic alliance optimizes oncology trials. The company's past performance, with total returns of 10.45% over five years, suggests modest growth in investor value. However, compared to the US Life Sciences industry's one-year return of 27% decline, IQVIA's recent rise highlights positive market sentiment. These initiatives, combined with FDA reforms and NVIDIA collaboration, may lower operational costs and have a favorable impact on earnings forecasts. Analysts predict revenue to grow by 5.2% annually over the next three years, which is somewhat cautious compared to the general expectations for the life sciences sector. The recent share price movement to US$146.2 remains below the consensus price target of US$216.31, indicating potential for future appreciation if the projected growth in revenue and earnings materializes. Click here to discover the nuances of IQVIA Holdings with our detailed analytical financial health report. This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Companies discussed in this article include NYSE:IQV. This article was originally published by Simply Wall St. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@ Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifying during his Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions confirmation hearing on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC Credit - Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. Read More: What to Know About RFK Jr. Removing All Experts From CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Read More: What's the Risk of Getting Long COVID in 2024? Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
30 minutes ago
- Yahoo
In memo, Trump targets health care payments that 'game the system'
BOSTON (SHNS) – As the U.S. Senate prepares to take its own crack at legislation that includes hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid, the president late last week made his thoughts on one provision clear and it could impact how Massachusetts and other states finance public health care. Late on Friday, President Donald Trump issued a memo ordering U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert Kennedy Jr. to 'eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Medicaid, including by ensuring Medicaid payments rates are not higher than Medicare.' The move targeted state directed payments, a Medicaid financing mechanism that gives states flexibility to require managed care organizations to pay providers specific rates or to implement rate increases to advance delivery system or state policy objectives, most commonly improving access to care. State directed payments came about as a result of a 2016 Medicaid reform, but they have grown significantly in popularity since then. There were 250 unique directed payment arrangements approved between July 1, 2021 and Feb. 1, 2023, according to the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC). The commission said the number increased by almost 21% to 302 unique arrangements approved between Feb. 1, 2023 and Aug. 1, 2024. The arrangements approved as of Aug. 1, 2024 were projected to spend a total of $110.2 billion a year, a 59% increase over the $69.3 billion in projected spending identified by the commission's analysis of arrangements approved as of Feb. 1, 2023. 'This trajectory threatens the Federal Treasury and Medicaid's long-term stability, and the imbalance between Medicaid and Medicare patients threatens to jeopardize access to care for our seniors,' Trump wrote in the memo. Trump said states and health care providers have used state directed payments 'to game the system,' echoing concerns previously raised by experts. The president outlined the scheme: states charge assessments on health care providers in order to nudge up reported state spending to score higher federal reimbursements, but then send 'the same money back to them in the form of a 'Medicaid payment,' which automatically unlocked for healthcare providers an additional 'burden-sharing' payment from the Federal Government.' 'Instead of paying Medicare rates, many States that utilize these arrangements now pay the same healthcare providers almost three times the Medicare amount,' the president said. The U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service has approved 63 such arrangements for Massachusetts since March 2023, according to CMS data. The budget reconciliation bill passed last month by the U.S. House and expected to be taken up this month by the U.S. Senate would, among many other things, extend Trump's first-term tax cuts and reduce Medicaid spending by nearly $700 billion to help pay for it. Officials at MassHealth, which combines Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, have said the Bay State could be in jeopardy of losing more than $1 billion annually, with hundreds of thousands of residents at risk of losing coverage. Health policy nonprofit KFF said the bill directs U.S. Health and Human Services to revise state directed payment regulations so that the total payment rate for inpatient hospital and nursing facility services is capped at 100% of the total published Medicare payment rate. The 100% limit would apply to Massachusetts and other states that have adopted the Medicaid expansion, and the limit would be 110% for the 10 states that have not adopted the expansion. But the U.S. House version of the bill would grandfather in any state directed payments submitted for approval and approved prior to the legislation's enactment. MassHealth has previously said that so-called safety net providers could sustain cuts of hundreds of millions of dollars annually if Congress or the president blocks renewal of Massachusetts's existing state directed payments. MassHealth and the Mass. Executive Office of Health and Human Services did not respond over the weekend or Monday to a request for comment on the president's memo on state directed payments. Manatt Health Senior Managing Director Patricia Boozang said in March that Massachusetts uses state directed payments 'extensively' and that the Trump administration was likely to act on its own to address them if the president's favored policies don't advance as part of the reconciliation package. The Congressional Budget Office said last month that the bill as passed by the U.S. House will mean $698 billion less in federal subsidies for Medicaid, $267 billion less in federal spending for SNAP, $64 billion less in net spending for all other purposes, and a $3.8 trillion increase in the federal deficit all over the next decade. The CBO also said it expects the reductions in federal spending to lead to about $78 billion in additional spending among the 50 states 'accounting for changes in state contributions to SNAP and Medicaid and for state tax and spending policies necessary to finance additional spending.' The office said it was still analyzing 'expectations of the states' responses to changes in federal funding.' The budget plans that House and Senate negotiators are attempting to reconcile into a final fiscal 2026 state budget assume about $15.76 billion in federal revenues, an increase over the $14.3 billion in the current budget, including $14.2 billion in federal MassHealth reimbursements alone. Most of the cuts in the U.S. House bill would hit in federal fiscal year 2027, which begins Oct. 1, 2026 (three months into Massachusetts' fiscal year 2027). Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
