Federal funding for HIV testing, medication could go away in Austin due to DOGE cuts
Key funding to help lessen the spread of HIV in Austin could be affected as part of the federal Department of Government Efficiency's funding cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and the Prevention and at the Health and Human Services Administration.
The Wall Street Journal reported last week that HIV prevention and treatment funding, which is about $1 billion a year at the CDC, was among the cuts being considered by the Health and Human Services Administration.
This year, the Kind Clinic — which has two Austin clinics and whose clients are mainly members of the underserved and under- or uninsured LGBTQ+ community — was expected to receive $1.3 million in federal funds for HIV prevention services and $800,000 in federal grants for HIV treatment services that come through the city of Austin and the Brazos Valley Council of Governments.
Austin and Texas have historically been a city and state to watch when it comes to people with HIV and new HIV infections, said Christopher Hamilton, CEO of the Kind Clinic. According to data from AIDSVu, Travis County has 7,645 people living with HIV, with a prevalence rate that is 398 cases per 100,000, higher than the national average of 388 cases per 100,000. Texas has a prevalence rate of 425 cases per 100,000. Texas also has a higher rate of new cases, 20, compared with the national average of 18, and Travis County has an even higher rate at 21.
"Elimination of funding would be catastrophic," Hamilton said.
Clinics are losing funding for HIV prevention drugs and screenings. Here's what that means
U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin, wrote a letter Wednesday to CDC acting Director Dr. Susan Monarez to question the funding cuts in the middle of a measles outbreak in Texas and asked for an accounting of how the CDC is handling that outbreak and the lack of reliable scientific information coming from the federal government about measles.
At least 750 people at the CDC have been fired by DOGE. Information about HIV on the CDC website was taken down by the Trump administration and then had to be restored by a court order.
Some of the information on the CDC's HIV website now has this disclaimer: "Per a court order, HHS is required to restore this website as of 11:59PM ET, February 11, 2025. Any information on this page promoting gender ideology is extremely inaccurate and disconnected from the immutable biological reality that there are two sexes, male and female. The Trump Administration rejects gender ideology and condemns the harms it causes to children, by promoting their chemical and surgical mutilation, and to women, by depriving them of their dignity, safety, well-being, and opportunities. This page does not reflect biological reality and therefore the Administration and this Department rejects it."
Access to accurate information and treatment is important to patients, Hamilton said. The Austin Kind Clinic locations had more than 10,000 patients last year. Much of the federal funding allowed the clinic to provide HIV testing and counseling, as well as free medication to prevent transmission before a person is infected and medication to prevent transmission after a person has tested positive for the infection.
Why are syphilis rates rising in Austin? What you need to know about surge in cases.
"We're absolutely going to work our hardest to continue the services, to fund testing, prevention and treatment," Hamilton said. "We have a 10-year history of preventing and treating HIV. We're not going to stop."
HIV funding already has been hit hard for the Kind Clinic when a change in the way a drug manufacturer handled reimbursements took away more than $9 million in annual funding in 2022.
Hamilton said the clinic will continue to rely on funding from multiple sources. It could continue to come from local government entities, but those entities might not have federal government money to pass along resources.
Hamilton estimates it costs $6,000 annually for one person to be on prophylactic medicine to prevent becoming infected. For people already infected, it costs between $12,000 and $15,000 for a person to take medication that reduces the risk of passing HIV to another person.
Currently, the Kind Clinic does not take insurance and offers free or minimal cost health care. It is looking at taking health insurance in the future, because some patients do have insurance but can't afford the co-pays or don't feel comfortable in another clinic setting. Taking insurance would require hiring more people to negotiate with insurance. Already, it has three people who only work on obtaining prior authorizations for the medications it prescribes.
"That's not the best use of funds that are already limited," Hamilton said.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Federal funding for HIV treatment could be going away due to DOGE cuts
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
25 minutes ago
- Business Wire
BeOne Medicines to Host Investor R&D Day Webcast on June 26, 2025
SAN CARLOS, Calif.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--BeOne Medicines Ltd. (NASDAQ: ONC; HKEX: 06160; SSE: 688235), a global oncology company, today announced that it will host an Investor R&D Day in New York City and via webcast on June 26, 2025 at 8:30 am ET. John V. Oyler, Co-Founder, Chairman, and CEO of BeOne, along with the Company's leadership team and distinguished key opinion leaders, will provide an update on BeOne's extensive global innovation pipeline and platforms, including new assets, targets and clinical data, and will share insights on the Company's vision, differentiated capabilities, and value creation drivers. Live webcast of this event can be accessed from the investors section of the Company's website at /, To ensure a timely connection, it is recommended that participants register at least 15 minutes prior to the scheduled webcast. An archived webcast will be available on the Company's website. About BeOne Medicines BeOne Medicines is a global oncology company domiciled in Switzerland that is discovering and developing innovative treatments that are more affordable and accessible to cancer patients worldwide. With a portfolio spanning hematology and solid tumors, BeOne is expediting development of its diverse pipeline of novel therapeutics through its internal capabilities and collaborations. With a growing global team of more than 11,000 colleagues spanning six continents, the Company is committed to radically improving access to medicines for far more patients who need them. To learn more about BeOne, please visit and follow us on LinkedIn, X, Facebook and Instagram. Forward-Looking Statements This presentation may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other federal securities laws, including statements regarding BeOne's plans, commitments, aspirations and goals related to BeOne's medicines and drug candidates. Actual results may differ materially from those indicated in the forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors which are discussed in the section entitled 'Risk Factors' in BeiGene's most recent periodic report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ('SEC') as well as discussions of potential risks, uncertainties, and other important factors in BeOne's subsequent filings with the SEC. All information in this presentation is as of the date presented, and BeiGene undertakes no duty to update such information unless required by law.
Vox
34 minutes ago
- Vox
RFK Jr.‘s mass firing of the government's vaccine experts, explained
covers health for Vox, guiding readers through the emerging opportunities and challenges in improving our health. He has reported on health policy for more than 10 years, writing for Governing magazine, Talking Points Memo, and STAT before joining Vox in 2017. For the past 60 years, a committee of independent experts has advised the federal government on vaccine policy, providing guidance on which shots people should get and when. Government public health officials have almost always followed the panel's recommendations, all but making it the final word on public health policy in the US for most of its existence. And over those decades, the United States has made tremendous health gains over that time through mass vaccination campaigns. But on Monday, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired every sitting member of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), a move that stunned doctors and scientists across the country. And it means that the CDC's days as the clear and unchallenged authority on US vaccine policy appear numbered. 'Up until today, ACIP recommendations were the gold standard for what insurers should pay for, what providers should recommend, and what the public should look to,' Noel Brewer, a health behavior professor at the University of North Carolina, who was a member of the panel until this week, told the Associated Press. 'It's unclear what the future holds.' Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day, compiled by news editor Sean Collins. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. New committee members will be announced at some point, but as of Tuesday morning, even top US senators did not know who the replacements would be. The panel is supposed to hold one of its periodic public meetings in late June to discuss the Covid-19 vaccine, as well as shots for RSV and HPV, among others. This is a watershed moment in US public health, one that seems sure to sow confusion among patients and health care providers. The deepening divide between Kennedy's Make American Healthy Again (MAHA) movement and mainstream medicine could make it harder for people who want vaccines to get them, while encouraging more doubt about the value and safety of shots among the general public. Here's what you need to know. Why is Kennedy doing this? The vaccine advisory committee was first convened by the surgeon general in 1964, but it is not enshrined in federal law. That means that Kennedy — as the top official at the US Department of Health and Human Services, which contains the CDC — can change its membership or dissolve the panel entirely if he so desires. Kennedy framed his decision to clear out the members as necessary to restore public trust in the government's vaccine recommendations. In a Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kennedy asserted the committee 'has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine.' As health secretary, he has made overhauling vaccine policy a centerpiece of his agenda, both through his rhetoric and policy. Over the past few months, while the worst measles outbreak in 30 years has spread through the US, Kennedy has equivocated in public comments on the value of the measles vaccine, which doctors say is far and away the best tool to combat the disease. He directed an anti-vaccine researcher to scour federal data for evidence of a vaccine-autism link. His department's recent MAHA report on childhood chronic disease named vaccines as one example of how the US overmedicalizes its children and exposes them to artificial agents that could do harm to their body. Then in late May, Kennedy oversaw a revision of the federal government's Covid-19 vaccine guidance, limiting the shots to elderly people and those who are immunocompromised. He ended the recommendation that pregnant women and kids get a Covid vaccine shot, even though studies have shown they help confer immunity to infants, who are at a higher risk from the virus and cannot be vaccinated until they are 6 months old. The move plainly circumvented ACIP's accepted role in setting vaccine policy, presaging this week's mass firing. Whatever his intentions, Kennedy's gutting of the federal vaccine committee seems likely to sow even more distrust — and certainly more confusion. People are reasonably left to wonder whether they can trust forthcoming CDC guidance on vaccines, and just what vaccines they'll be able to get. How will I know which vaccines to get? In the past, ACIP would typically meet a few times a year to discuss any additions or changes to the country's vaccine schedule. Their recommendations have usually been adopted without alterations by the CDC director, and then became the standard for state and local health departments across the country. Importantly, most health plans are required to cover any shots that the committee recommends. Now there is far more uncertainty. Will doctors follow the CDC guidance, even if it changes under a new advisory panel staffed by Kennedy loyalists, or will they stick with the earlier vaccine schedule? Will health insurance plans cover the cost of a vaccine that professional medical organizations support but the CDC does not? Once-unthinkable questions could soon be something doctors and patients must deal with every day. Some doctors already believed, before the firings at ACIP, that the CDC was no longer trustworthy under Kennedy's leadership; his unilateral change to the Covid vaccine guidance in May was enough to convince them. In a media call last week, experts from the Infectious Disease Society of America urged patients and providers in the short term to consult with professional medical societies — not the CDC — on vaccine recommendations. They considered those groups, as well as guidance from European health authorities, the best substitutes we currently have for information on vaccines if the CDC's recommendations can no longer be taken at face value. 'It's been a confusing several days, confusing last two weeks, and I'm not sure that confusion is going to be abated in the near future,' John Lynch, an infectious disease doctor at the University of Washington, said on the call. 'These are evidence-based guidelines developed by experts in the field using transparent methods and published publicly,' Lynch said. Kennedy, in explaining his change to the Covid vaccine guidelines, said he wanted to encourage shared decision-making between providers and their patients. The CDC guidance would be only one consideration in the decision whether to vaccinate, rather than a firm recommendation. The doctors from the IDSA said that such conversations are already to be considered best practice among physicians — and noted Kennedy's undermining of trust in the federal vaccine policy would now make them more important. 'I would just emphasize the need to have a good source of information when this situation occurs. If indeed shared decision making is going to occur, we always do our research,' Dr. Flor Muñoz-Rivas at Baylor College of Medicine said. 'But go to the proper sources.' What are the long-term risks? There is a lot we don't know right now: Who will be named to the new panel? Will they change existing vaccine recommendations? Will they approve new ones? But the experts warned that Kennedy's rhetoric alone risks undermining people's confidence in vaccinations. 'All health care decisions are shared decision-making; this is not a special concept that's only rolled out for conversations like vaccination,' Lynch said on the IDSA call. 'As an infectious disease doctor, when I talk to a patient about treatment or diagnostics, it is a conversation. It is shared decision-making.' Kennedy has quickly disrupted decades of public health consensus. Anyone who watched the sometimes contentious ACIP meetings during the pandemic saw the members grappling with genuinely vexing questions about who should be prioritized for vaccination in a public health emergency. The pandemic featured rare examples of Biden CDC director Rochelle Walensky overruling the panel in certain cases in which the experts actually recommended against more vaccinations. (Walensky said she overrode the guidance to align the CDC with a separate recommendation from the FDA's advisory committee, and cited the narrow 9-6 vote against the recommendation.) Those scenes should have helped dispel the notion that they were acting as a rubber-stamp for any new shot Big Pharma produced. But the nation's top health official is now telling Americans that they should never have trusted the ACIP, which risks pushing more people to skip routine immunization. Shortly after the country declared measles eradicated in 2000, 94 percent of adults said childhood immunizations were extremely or very important. But that consensus has since weakened: 69 percent of Americans said the same in 2024. If changing opinion leads to declining vaccination rates, diseases that we successfully stamped out through vaccines to rebound — which is exactly what we are seeing now with measles. The US is experiencing its highest number of measles cases since the 1990s, nearing 1,200 as of this writing. One outbreak that accounts for most of those cases took off in a small Texas community where vaccination rates had fallen far below the 95-percent threshold that is considered necessary to stop the virus's spread. Other knock on effects could hurt Americans who still want to get vaccinated. Pharma companies, the target of so much of Kennedy's criticism, could decide to stop pursuing new vaccines if they believe the federal government will limit access as much as possible, shrinking the world's biggest pharmaceutical market. Vaccines are not big moneymakers for drug companies, and they have often relied on the US government's support to develop new ones. Kennedy, however, has canceled major vaccine development contracts during his first few months as health secretary, including a $700 million contract with Moderna, one of two companies that produced the mRNA Covid vaccines, to work on a universal flu shot. Kennedy has quickly disrupted decades of public health consensus. For now, the best reaction is, oddly enough, for patients and providers to take him at his word when he says people should not take medical advice from him — and make their own decisions in collaboration with their doctors.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
Real Life Simulations: Mass Casualty Training in Med School
Anyone who watched television show The Pitt on Max knows how overwhelming a mass casualty event can be for a hospital. Preparation is key, and accredited hospitals are required to hold training exercises. But these incidents don't only affect physicians in the Emergency Department. The random nature of mass shootings, natural disasters, multi-car pileups, building collapses, and the like means an all-hands-on-deck situation could happen at any time. An increasing number of medical schools see the value in preparing their students early. 'Unfortunately this is where the world is going. We need to rely on ourselves because help may not be coming,' said Jeffrey Pearl, MD, associate dean of professional health education at the University of Texas (UT) at Tyler School of Medicine. 'In the end, the first line is going to be one of us picking someone out of the rubble from a tornado and putting a tourniquet on.' Unfortunately this is where the world is going. We need to rely on ourselves because help may not be coming. More than 20 years ago, the Associations of American Medical Colleges and the CDC issued a joint report recommending disaster-related training for medical students. It's still a relatively rare offering — by 2021, only seven allopathic medical schools in the US mentioned disaster response training in their course catalogs. But just 2 years later, that number had more than doubled. Roughly 10% of allopathic medical schools now offer it, as do a number of osteopathic medical schools. 'I think the best part is, it gives you perspective as to what goes on out in the field,' said Joshua Goodman, a rising fourth-year medical student at the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York. He's participated in the school's annual training day more than once. 'Even in non-MCI situations, you might wonder why the patient is being brought in in this condition. Why didn't they do this? Why didn't they do that? This gives you a better understanding of what it's really like out there, so you know what to expect and can act on it.' Different Approaches to the Same Concept In order to prepare their students for an unpredictable future, medical schools take a variety of tacks. At some schools, all students undergo this training. At others, it's voluntary. Scenarios include bus bombings, school shootings, landslides, and the like. Often, they're location-specific, like the New York City subway car used in Hofstra's training, done at the local fire training academy. 'They fill it with smoke, and have students come in to rescue patients,' said Thomas Kwiatkowski, MD, assistant dean for simulation and professor of emergency medicine and science education at Hofstra. 'Some victims speak a different language, which is typical for New York City. It really challenges the students.' The variations don't stop there: At both UT Tyler and Hofstra, all first-year medical students complete a full emergency medical technician course. It concludes with a mass casualty simulation, which provides the chance to really practice the skills they've just learned. 'We didn't just want them to ride along in an ambulance,' Kwiatkowski said. 'That's not going to provide anything more than observation. I wanted a true clinical experience.' A presentation on FEMA's National Incident Management System kicks off the day at Ohio University Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Dublin, Ohio. Students then move on to training with emergency equipment like cervical collars and backboards. But the bulk of the day is spent at the local fire department's training center for a hands-on simulation. Training at Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, is part of a popular 2-week elective in wilderness and disaster medicine. Medical students learn to handle scenarios including avalanches, dirty bombs, and chemical weapons. At Idaho College of Osteopathic Medicine, Meridian, Idaho, training has included a simulated music festival gone awry as well as a multi-vehicle accident. College of Osteopathic Medicine, University of New England, Portland, Maine, has held four annual mock events. Last year's program focused on the lessons learned in the 2023 mass shooting in nearby Lewiston. Investing in Realism Limited research has been done to show exactly how realistic simulations should be, but there is some that suggests the more accurately a scenario reflects real life, the more students can benefit from it. Depending on a medical school's budget, things can get quite realistic, indeed. For many, it includes going off-site to a training ground, where students must triage realistic victims even as they experience the chaos of an actual event. 'When they walk into a burn tower knowing that there's been an explosion, and they hear people screaming out and they can't see much, it's an environment that probably causes their heart rate to go up a little bit, perhaps their respiratory rate to go up a little bit,' said William Burke, DO, dean of Heritage College of Osteopathic Medicine, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio. 'I think those types of situations help you better understand, as an individual, how you might respond in real life.' William Burke, DO For the simulations' victims, most schools use a combination of mannequins and volunteers — either locals or other medical students. Often, moulage artists are brought in to apply special-effects makeup. At UT Tyler, a relatively new school, Pearl had a sizable budget to design the mass casualty training program. Faculty works with campus and local law enforcement, fire department and emergency medical services, and even the Federal Bureau of Investigation to make the event feel as real as possible for students. High-tech wound simulation includes three-dimensional printed shrapnel mounted on silicone patches that are easily applied to volunteers' bodies; bleeding systems that pump fake blood; two cut suits of repairable skin with organs that bleed — which can be operated on while actors wear them; and several mannequins with realistic injuries. A significant amount of effort goes into creating thoughtful, plausible scenarios. A school shooting is part of the simulation at Hofstra. 'The way they set it up is hyper realistic, in that you have real police officers acting, there's a lot of yelling, it's dark, there's a lot of banging on doors. It's frankly a little bit scary,' Goodman, the medical student, said. 'You really do feel like you're in a school and you have to hide but you also have to triage: Who can we get out? How are we going to get them out? Is it safe to open the door?' Decisions Under Pressure Whatever the scenario, the goal in all these simulations is the same: To help medical students learn to make life-or-death decisions quickly, under extreme circumstances. 'The first minute or two, they're a little shell shocked. After that, it's like watching your children grow up,' Pearl said. 'These are first- and second-year med students, and they're rocking and rolling.' Thomas Kwiatkowski, MD During the exercises, they must triage victims into color-coded categories. Yes, just like in The Pitt : Green goes to the walking wounded, those who need minimal help. Yellow indicates a more serious injury, but not immediately life-threatening. Red means a victim has severe injuries, but with a high potential for survival. Victims designated with a black mark are either deceased or have injuries incompatible with life. 'It's very difficult when you have to make that decision,' Kwiatkowski said. 'There are a couple of maneuvers that people do before they can decide to make someone black, but sometimes you can have someone who's talking to you, and you know that you can't save them. That's an important experience for students.' Other ethical considerations also play out. During some simulations, for instance, a school shooter is still active. Students must decide how to help children while staying safe themselves, or if and when it's worth it to risk their own lives. At Ohio University, one situation involves a bombing. Unbeknownst to the students, the bomber is among the victims. 'Students are turning victims over and see the person playing the bomber has another bomb underneath them,' Burke said. 'It helps them understand the ethics of the situation: Do you treat them the same? The answer is yes, you take care of everybody. When you ask those questions, students are thinking about things in ways they've never had to before.'
