logo
Trump Budget Cuts Funding for Chronic Disease Prevention

Trump Budget Cuts Funding for Chronic Disease Prevention

New York Times02-05-2025
Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the nation's health secretary, has said that tackling a chronic disease 'epidemic' would be a cornerstone of his Make America Healthy Again agenda, often invoking alarming statistics as an urgent reason for reforming public health in this country.
On Friday, President Trump released a proposed budget that called for cutting the funding of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by almost half. Its chronic disease center was slated for elimination entirely, a proposal that came as a shock to many state and city health officials.
'Most Americans have some sort of ailment that could be considered chronic,' said Dr. Matifadza Hlatshwayo Davis, health director for the city of St. Louis.
Of the proposed cuts, she said, 'How do you reconcile that with trying to make America healthy again?'
The federal health department last month cut 2,400 jobs from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, whose National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion runs on the largest budget within the agency.
Programs on lead poisoning, smoking cessation and reproductive health were jettisoned in a reorganization last month.
Overall, the proposed budget would cut the C.D.C.'s budget to about $4 billion, compared with $9.2 billion in 2024. The budget blueprint makes no mention of the Prevention and Public Health Fund, a $1.2 billion program.
If that figure is taken into account, the cut may be even larger than Mr. Trump's proposal indicates.
The agency would also lose a center focused on preventing injuries, including those caused by firearms, as well as programs for H.I.V. surveillance and prevention, and grants to help states prepare for public health emergencies.
According to the proposed budget, the cuts are needed to eliminate 'duplicative, D.E.I., or simply unnecessary programs.' Congress draws up the U.S. budget, but given the Republican majority and its fealty to Mr. Trump, it is unclear how much the proposal will change.
C.D.C. officials had been told that the functions of the chronic disease center would be moved to a new agency within the health department called the Administration for a Healthy America.
And the proposal released on Friday appears to allocate $500 million to the health secretary in part 'to tackle nutrition, physical activity, healthy lifestyles, overreliance on medication and treatments.'
But at the C.D.C., the chronic disease center's budget was nearly three times as large. And even if part of the chronic disease center is resuscitated in the A.H.A., it's unlikely that its new iteration would involve C.D.C. scientists relocated from Atlanta.
'The actual subject-matter experts, who administer the programs, might not be there at C.D.C. anymore,' said Dr. Scott Harris, state health officer at the Alabama Department of Public Health. 'We certainly don't have the same level of expertise in my state.'
The department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment.
The C.D.C.'s chronic disease center ran programs aimed at preventing cancer, heart disease, diabetes, epilepsy and Alzheimer's disease.
But the center has also seeded initiatives farther afield, ranging from creating rural and urban hiking trails to ensuring that healthy options like salads are offered in airports. It also promoted wellness programs in marginalized communities.
Dr. Davis, the health director in St. Louis, said her department was already reeling from cuts to programs to curb smoking and reduce lead poisoning and health disparities, as well as the rescinding of more than $11 billion that the C.D.C. had been providing to state health departments.
'I would take back Covid-19 in a heartbeat over what's happening right now,' Dr. Davis said.
In the proposed budget, the administration suggested that the eliminated programs would be better managed by states.
But state health departments already manage most chronic disease programs, and three-quarters of the C.D.C. center's funding goes to support them.
Loss of those funds 'would be devastating for us,' said Dr. Harris, the health officer in Alabama.
The state has one of the highest rates of chronic diseases in the country, and about 84 percent of the public health department's budget comes from the C.D.C., Dr. Harris said. About $6 million goes to chronic disease programs, including blood pressure screening, nutrition education for diabetes and promotion of physical activity.
If those funds are cut, 'I am at a loss right now to tell you where that would come from,' he added. 'It just seems that no one really knows what to expect, and we're not really being asked for any input on that.'
Minnesota's vaunted health department has already laid off 140 employees, and hundreds more may be affected if more C.D.C. funding is lost. Cuts to chronic disease prevention will affect nursing homes, vaccine clinics and public health initiatives for Native Americans in the state.
'The actions of the federal government have left us out on a flimsy limb with no safety net below us,' said Dr. Brooke Cunningham, the state's health commissioner.
Until recently, 'there seemed to be a shared understanding at the local, state and federal level that health was important to invest in,' Dr. Cunningham said.
The chronic disease center's work touches American lives in many unexpected ways.
In Prairie Village, Kan., Stephanie Barr learned about the center 15 years ago when, working as a waitress with no health insurance, she discovered a lump in her breast the size of a lemon.
Through the C.D.C.'s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program, she was able to get a mammogram and an ultrasound, and staff members helped her enroll in Medicaid for treatment after a biopsy determined the lump was malignant, Ms. Barr said.
'It was caught in the nick of time,' said Ms. Barr, now 45 and cancer free.
Since that program began in 1991, it has provided more than 16.3 million screening exams to more than 6.3 million people with no other affordable access, said Lisa Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.
The organization is one of 530 health associations that have signed a petition asking lawmakers to reject the proposed H.H.S. budget, which cuts the department's discretionary spending by about one-third. The signatories said the cuts would 'effectively devastate' the nation's research and public health infrastructure.
The budget also proposes dismantling disease registries and surveillance systems. 'If you don't collect the information or keep these surveillance systems going, you don't know what's happening, you don't know what the trends are,' said Dr. Philip Huang, director of Dallas County Health and Human Services.
'You're losing all of that history,' he said.
In a previous position as director of chronic diseases for Texas, Dr. Huang said he worked closely with C.D.C. experts who successfully reduced tobacco use among Americans. 'Eliminating the Office on Smoking and Health is just craziness if you're still wanting to address chronic diseases,' he said.
Smoking is still the leading cause of preventable death in the United States, causing more than 480,000 deaths each year, according to the C.D.C.
More than one in 10 American adults still smoke cigarettes regularly, but rates vary drastically by region, and C.D.C. surveillance helps target cessation programs to areas where they are needed most.
'Smoking rates have come down, but if the federal government takes its foot off the gas, the tobacco companies are ready to pop back up again,' said Erika Sward, assistant vice president for advocacy for the American Lung Association.
She warned that tobacco companies are constantly developing new products like nicotine pouches, whose use by teenagers doubled last year. 'It will take a lot more money to put the genie back in the bottle,' she said.
The C.D.C.'s chronic disease center works with communities and academic centers to promote effective programs, from creating quitting hotlines to reach young Iowans in rural areas to training members of Black churches in Columbia, S.C., to lead exercise and nutrition classes for their congregations.
In rural Missouri, dozens of walking trails have been developed in the 'boot heel' in the southeastern part of the state, an area with high rates of obesity and diabetes, said Ross Brownson, a public health researcher at Washington University in St. Louis who directs the Prevention Research Center in collaboration with the C.D.C.
'There's strong evidence now that if you change the walkability of a community, people will get more physical activity,' Dr. Brownson said. 'There aren't going to be health clubs in rural communities, but there is nature and the ability to have walking trails, and land is relatively cheap.'
With C.D.C. support, in Rochester, N.Y., people who are deaf and hard-of-hearing are being trained to lead exercise and wellness programs for other hearing-impaired people who can't easily participate in other gym classes.
In San Diego, researchers are testing ways to protect farm workers from exposure to ultraviolet rays and heat-related illnesses.
'Once they are up and started, they are community-driven and don't depend on the government,' said Allison Bay, who recently lost her job managing such projects at the C.D.C.
The C.D.C.'s reorganization also eliminated lead poisoning programs. Lead poisoning is also 'one of our greatest public health threats in the city of Cleveland,' said Dr. David Margolius, director of public health for the city.
The C.D.C. does not directly fund Cleveland's lead programs — the funding comes from the state. 'But just having the federal expertise to call on to help lead us toward a lead-free future, I mean, yeah, that has a big impact on us,' he said.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Washington sees surge in COVID rates
Washington sees surge in COVID rates

Axios

time13 minutes ago

  • Axios

Washington sees surge in COVID rates

Washington is among a dozen states seeing elevated levels of COVID as a new variant ripples through the nation. Why it matters: The XFG "stratus" variant is driving up cases just as kids return to school — and as Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unilaterally alters federal vaccine guidance. Driving the news: The CDC updated its regional data for COVID-19 test positivity on Monday, Aug. 11. The data accounts for the week ending Aug. 2. By the numbers: Washington state saw 11.1% of tests come back positive in the week ending Aug. 2 , compared to 5% to 9.9% in the rest of the country, per regional data from the CDC. Emergency room visits and hospitalizations roughly doubled from mid-June to the beginning of August, according to the state Department of Health's respiratory illness data dashboard. Detection of the virus in wastewater is listed as "very high" or "high" in several Puget Sound cities, including Seattle, per state data. In King County, the positivity rate clocked in at 12.5% for the week ending Aug. 2, according to Public Health - Seattle & King County data. What they're saying:"It's a good reminder for people not to let their guard down" and to use the tools we have learned so far, says Public Health-Seattle & King County spokesperson Sharon Bogan. Yes, but: The XFG variant isn't currently linked to more severe illness, according to WHO and CDC. Zoom out: Oregon, Alaska and Idaho share the same comparatively high positivity rate of 11.1%, per the CDC, joining New Mexico (12%), Texas (12%), Oklahoma (12%) and others at the top of the chart. The big picture: Overall, the CDC reports that the COVID-19 epidemic trend is "growing," with 45 states experiencing an increase in cases. No state has seen a decline in cases as of Aug. 5, per the CDC. The XFG "stratus" variant was first detected in January. It now accounts for 14% of cases in the U.S. and is the third-highest among all variants stateside, according to the CDC.

RFK Jr.'s plan to overhaul 'vaccine court' system would see opposition
RFK Jr.'s plan to overhaul 'vaccine court' system would see opposition

UPI

time14 minutes ago

  • UPI

RFK Jr.'s plan to overhaul 'vaccine court' system would see opposition

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a critic of the vaccine court, calling it 'biased' against compensating people, slow and unfair. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo Aug. 18 (UPI) -- For almost 40 years, people who suspect they've been harmed by a vaccine have been able to turn to a little-known system called the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program -- often simply called the vaccine court. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has long been a critic of the vaccine court, calling it "biased" against compensating people, slow and unfair. He has said that he wants to "revolutionize" or "fix" this system. I'm a scholar of law, health and medicine. I investigated the history, politics and debates about the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program in my book Vaccine Court: The Law and Politics of Injury. Although vaccines are extensively tested and monitored, and are both overwhelmingly safe for the vast majority of people and extremely cost-effective, some people will experience a harmful reaction to a vaccine. The vaccine court establishes a way to figure out who those people are and to provide justice to them. Having studied the vaccine court for 15 years, I agree that it could use some fixing. But changing it dramatically will be difficult and potentially damaging to public health. Deciphering vaccine injuries The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is essentially a process that enables doctors, lawyers, patients, parents and government officials to determine who deserves compensation for a legitimate vaccine injury. It was established in 1986 by an act of Congress to solve a specific social problem: possible vaccine injuries to children from the whole-cell pertussis vaccine. That vaccine, which was discontinued in the United States in the 1990s, could cause alarming side effects like prolonged crying and convulsions. Parents sued vaccine manufacturers, and some stopped producing vaccines. Congress was worried that lawsuits would collapse the country's vaccine supply, allowing diseases to make a comeback. The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 created the vaccine court process and shielded vaccine manufacturers from these lawsuits. Here's how it works: A person who feels they have experienced a vaccine-related injury files a claim to be heard by a legal official called a special master in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The Health and Human Services secretary is named as the defendant and is represented by Department of Justice attorneys. Doctors who work for HHS evaluate the medical records and make a recommendation about whether they think the vaccine caused the person's medical problem. Some agreed-upon vaccine injuries are listed for automatic compensation, while other outcomes that are scientifically contested go through a hearing to determine if the vaccine caused the problem. Awards come from a trust fund, built up through a 75-cent excise tax on each dose of covered vaccine sold. Petitioners' attorneys who specialize in vaccine injury claims are paid by the trust fund, whether they win or lose. Some updates needed Much has changed in the decades since Congress wrote the law, but Congress has not enacted updates to keep up. For instance, the law supplies only eight special masters to hear all the cases, but the caseload has risen dramatically as more vaccines have been covered by the law. It set a damages cap of $250,000 in 1986, but did not account for inflation. The statute of limitations for an injury is three years, but in my research, I found many people file too late and miss their chance. When the law was written, it only covered vaccines recommended for children. In 2023, the program expanded to include vaccines for pregnant women. Vaccines just for adults, like shingles, are not covered. COVID-19 vaccine claims go to another system for emergency countermeasures vaccines that has been widely criticized. These vaccines could be added to the program, as lawyers who bring claims there have advocated. These reform ideas are "friendly amendments" with bipartisan support. Kennedy has mentioned some of them, too. A complex system is hard to revolutionize Kennedy hasn't publicly stated enough details about his plan for the vaccine court to reveal the changes he intends to make. The first and least disruptive course of action would be to ask Congress to pass the bipartisan reforms noted above. But some of his comments suggest he may seek to dismantle it, not fix it. None of his options are straightforward, however, and consequences are hard to predict. Straight up changing the vaccine court's structure would probably be the most difficult path. It requires Congress to amend the 1986 law that set it up and President Donald Trump to sign the legislation. Passing the bill to dismantle it requires the same process. Either direction involves all the difficulties of getting a contentious bill through Congress. Even the "friendly amendments" are hard -- a 2021 bill to fix the vaccine court was introduced but failed to advance. However, there are several less direct possibilities. Adding autism to the injuries list Kennedy has long supported discredited claims about harms from vaccines, but the vaccine court has been a bulwark against claims that lack mainstream scientific support. For example, the vaccine court held a yearslong court process from 2002 to 2010 and found that autism was not a vaccine injury. The autism trials drew on 50 expert reports, 939 medical articles and 28 experts testifying on the record. The special masters deciding the cases found that none of the causation hypotheses put forward to connect autism and vaccines were reliable as medical or scientific theories. Much of Kennedy's ire is directed at the special masters, who he claims "prioritize the solvency" of the system "over their duty to compensate victims." But the special masters do not work for him. Rather, they are appointed by a majority of the judges in the Court of Federal Claims for four-year terms -- and those judges themselves have 15-year terms. Kennedy cannot legally remove any of them in the middle of their service to install new judges who share his views. Given that, he may seek to put conditions like autism on the list of presumed vaccine injuries, in effect overturning the special masters' decisions. Revising the list of recognized injuries to add ones without medical evidence is within Kennedy's powers, but it would still be difficult. It requires a long administrative process with feedback from an advisory committee and the public. Such revisions have historically been controversial, and are usually linked to major scientific reviews of their validity. Public health and medical groups are already mobilized against Kennedy's vaccine policy moves. If he failed to follow legally required procedures while adding new injuries to the list, he could be sued to stop the changes. Targeting vaccine manufacturers Kennedy could also lean on his newly reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to withdraw recommendations for certain vaccines, which would also remove them from eligibility in the vaccine compensation court. Lawsuits against manufacturers could then go straight to regular courts. On Thursday, the Department of Health and Human Services may have taken a step in this direction by announcing the revival of a childhood vaccine safety task force in response to a lawsuit by anti-vaccine activists. Kennedy has also supported legislation that would allow claims currently heard in vaccine court to go to regular courts. These drastic reforms could essentially dismantle the vaccine court. People claiming vaccine injuries could hope to win damages through personal injury lawsuits in the civil justice system instead of vaccine court, perhaps by convincing a jury or getting a settlement. These types of settlements were what prompted the creation of the vaccine court in the first place. But these lawsuits could be hard to win. There is a higher bar for scientific evidence in regular courts than in vaccine court, and plaintiffs would have to sue large corporations rather than file a government claim. Raising the idea of reforming the vaccine court has provoked strong reactions across the many groups with a stake in the program. It is a complex system with multiple constituents, and Kennedy's approaches so far pull in different directions. The push to revolutionize it will test the strength of its complex design, but the vaccine court may yet hold up. Anna Kirkland is a professor of women's and gender studies a the University of Michigan. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The views and opinions in this commentary ae solely those of the author.

Novo Nordisk offers diabetes drug Ozempic for less than half the price for cash-paying U.S. patients
Novo Nordisk offers diabetes drug Ozempic for less than half the price for cash-paying U.S. patients

CNBC

time14 minutes ago

  • CNBC

Novo Nordisk offers diabetes drug Ozempic for less than half the price for cash-paying U.S. patients

Novo Nordisk on Monday said it now offers cash-paying U.S. patients its blockbuster diabetes treatment Ozempic for less than half its monthly list price, as drugmakers face mounting political pressure to lower prices in the country. Patients can pay $499 in cash per month for three dose sizes of Ozempic. They can get the price through platforms including the drug's official website, Novo Nordisk's patient assistance program and the company's recently launched direct-to-consumer online pharmacy, the latter of which also ships the injection directly to patients' homes. Drug savings company GoodRx will also offer Ozempic and its weight loss counterpart Wegovy for $499 per month, making the discounts available at more than 70,000 pharmacies nationwide, according to a Novo Nordisk release. Novo Nordisk's cash-pay offering will expand access to eligible Type 2 diabetes patients who don't have insurance coverage for the weekly injection. In March, the company began to offer Wegovy for half its list price to cash-paying Americans. Ozempic's list price before insurance and other rebates is almost $1,350 per month, and has been a frequent target of political and public blowback in recent years. The new offer comes after President Donald Trump in July sent separate letters to Novo Nordisk and 16 other drugmakers, calling on them to take steps to lower medication prices in the U.S. Among other suggested actions, he urged them to adopt models that sell medicines directly to consumers or businesses. The efforts aim to make Ozempic and Wegovy available to more people, while also ensuring that patients use the branded medication instead of cheaper compounded copycats. Those drugs exploded in popularity during a now-resolved U.S. shortage of Novo Nordisk's semaglutide, the active ingredient in both drugs. While Ozempic "is well covered in the US, let's not forget that there are some patients who pay out-of-pocket for this vital medicine," Dave Moore, executive vice president of U.S. operations and global business development at Novo Nordisk, said in the release. "We believe that if even a single patient feels the need to turn to potentially unsafe and unapproved knockoff alternatives, that's one too many." Eli Lilly has similarly moved to slash the price of its popular obesity and diabetes drugs for cash-paying patients. The two companies are fighting to dominate the market for so-called GLP-1s, which mimic certain gut hormones to suppress appetite and regulate blood sugar.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store