Opinion: Federal grant funding freeze hurts Utah families
Public health funding isn't just an abstract line item in a budget; it directly affects whether Utahns can access vaccines, whether babies get critical nutrition and whether rural communities have healthcare providers. The recent executive order halting federal grant funding has left thousands of Utah families in limbo, and without urgent action, the harm could be irreversible.
Take tobacco prevention. Utah has made incredible progress in reducing youth smoking and vaping rates — youth smoking has dropped 77%, and vaping has declined 40% since 2019. This didn't happen by accident; it happened because of smart, targeted public health initiatives funded by both state and federal dollars. If we pull the rug out from under these programs, those numbers will climb again.
Or consider nutrition assistance. 47,000 Utah families rely on WIC to ensure their children have access to healthy food. 76,000 Utahns use SNAP benefits to keep food on the table. Programs like these provide stability, helping families weather financial hardship. Without them, food insecurity will rise, hitting children the hardest.
And then there's immunization access, maternal and child health services, mental health programs, and rural healthcare initiatives — all of which depend on federal funding. Utah is already facing a dangerous decline in childhood and adult vaccination rates, increasing mental health needs, and significant healthcare shortages in rural communities. These challenges require more investment, not less.
Right now, there's no clear guidance from federal agencies on how long this freeze will last or what programs will be affected. Public health leaders and organizations like UPHA are left in a holding pattern, unable to plan for the months ahead. That uncertainty alone is dangerous — delays in funding mean delays in services, and in public health, delays cost lives.
Congress must move now to exempt essential public health programs from this freeze. If we wait, we risk erasing years of progress, and the most vulnerable Utahns will pay the price.
At UPHA, we stand ready to work with policymakers, community leaders and health organizations to protect these critical programs. This isn't about politics — it's about keeping Utah families healthy and safe. We urge our federal delegation to act swiftly. Public health can't be put on hold.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
a day ago
- The Hill
Obamacare faces a subsidy cliff — don't bail it out without reform
The controversy over the 2010 Affordable Care Act dominated Barack Obama's presidency. The implementation of ObamaCare caused health insurance premiums to soar and nearly collapsed the market entirely. The Biden administration responded by flooding the system with expanded federal subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. To stop premiums for older workers with pre-existing conditions from suddenly leaping by $10,000, Republicans will need to extend part of this additional funding. But in return, they should insist on reforms to allow healthy Americans to purchase better value insurance with their own money. The Affordable Care Act required health insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions at the same price as enrollees who signed up before they got sick. As a result, premiums more than doubled, millions of healthy enrollees dropped coverage and many insurers abandoned the market. The Affordable Care Act kept the individual health insurance market from falling apart completely by providing subsidies to low-income enrollees. But individuals earning more than $62,600 in 2025 would have faced full premiums without any assistance. Those unsubsidized enrollees felt the full pain of the Affordable Care Act's premium hikes. The legislation allows insurers to charge older enrollees up to three times what they do the youngest, and so unsubsidized premiums for near-retirees can be huge. This year, the benchmark unsubsidized premium for a 61-year-old individual in Washington, D.C., is $15,402 per year. Rather than fix ObamaCare's structure, the newly-elected Democratic Congress in 2021 threw money at the problem with the American Rescue Plan Act. By expanding eligibility for subsidies to higher earners, the act reduced the cost of health insurance for a 61-year-old earning $70,000 from $15,402 to $5,950 — with federal taxpayers covering the difference. That legislation also expanded the generosity of subsidies for lower earners. Those earning $22,000, who would have contributed $756 to the cost of insurance under the original Affordable Care Act, would get it entirely paid for by the federal government. This approach has been hugely expensive. In May 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that subsidies for the Affordable Care Act would cost $67 billion in 2024. Last June, following a renewal of the American Rescue Plan Act's increased subsidies, the Congressional Budget Office's revised cost estimate for 2024 surged to $129 billion. A recent Paragon Institute report found that this leap in cost owed much to a surge in enrollment among those who received coverage free of charge. Paragon estimated that such enrollees accounted for nearly half of new enrollment, and that 5 million people may have misreported their income to claim free coverage, costing taxpayers an additional $20 billion. Insurers eagerly welcomed the influx of new healthy enrollees, who had not deemed it worth purchasing insurance from the individual market until the federal government paid the entire price. Such newcomers proved enormously lucrative, as they used less medical care than existing enrollees but generated the same revenue. Democrats, who received twice as much in campaign contributions as Republicans from Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2024, eagerly boasted about reducing the number of uninsured Americans, with little concern for the cost. The expiry of the American Rescue Plan Act subsidies is now looming again, set to expire at the end of 2025. It will be up to a Republican president and Republican-led Congress to find a way forward. Fiscal conservatives have little appetite to pay for renewing all the expanded ObamaCare subsidies. But nor will they feel comfortable letting the American Rescue Plan Act's enhanced subsidies expire entirely, as this would result in a $10,000-per-year premium hike on thousands of middle-income near-retirees. Congress should focus on targeted support by eliminating the cap on eligibility for the Affordable Care Act's original subsidies, which limit premiums at 9.5 percent of income, to avoid a sudden benefit cliff for those with incomes just above $62,600. But they should also let other expansions of subsidies expire. In return, Republicans should insist that Americans be allowed to obtain discounted premiums if they purchase insurance before they get sick. In 2017, President Trump allowed Americans to do this by purchasing short-term insurance. However, in 2024, the Biden administration limited the duration of these plans to four months. This came following pressure from big insurers, who claimed that allowing the expansion of such plans would prevent them from cross-subsidizing enrollees with pre-existing conditions by overcharging those who signed up while healthy. In reality, the restriction of these affordable plans has served mostly to inflate insurers' profits. Healthy enrollees remain able to purchase short-term plans afresh every few months; it is only those who subsequently become sick who are deprived of coverage. Regulatory protections for the long-term coverage of enrollees in non-ObamaCare plans should be strengthened; not weakened. Furthermore, with the extension of the American Rescue Plan Act's premium cap, federal subsidies taxpayers directly subsidize most enrollees. It is therefore unnecessary to also prohibit healthy enrollees from obtaining insurance plans which offer long-term coverage at good value for their money.
Chicago Tribune
a day ago
- Chicago Tribune
Illinois SNAP Education program eliminated amid federal cuts: ‘It's heartbreaking'
In a makeshift classroom in a Roseland low-income housing complex, nine women watched nutrition educator Denetria Adams saute a glistening mix of carrots, celery and onion. Tammy Spivey, 60, raised her hand from the back row. 'What's worse, cooking oil or lard?' 'Lard,' Adams answered, stirring the steaming mirepoix with practiced ease. 'It clogs your arteries.' Across the room, fellow educator Christine Davis jumped in. 'We always want to make sure we're being cognizant of the type of fat that we're putting into our bodies.' She rattled off a list of healthier alternatives. Sunflower oil, olive oil, avocado oil. Spivey jotted down the names on her note sheet, then underlined each word twice. It was the sixth session of a cooking class run by the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Education initiative, or Snap-Ed. For weeks, Mercy Housing residents gathered to cover nutrition basics, build kitchen skills and learn how to stretch their food stamps. It might also be one of the last. In July, the federal program was abruptly cut under President Donald Trump's sweeping One Big Beautiful Bill Act, leaving thousands across Illinois in the lurch. For decades, SNAP-Ed has partnered with dozens of Chicago organizations — from food pantries to public schools — to address the root causes of health disparities. Now, with just a few months' notice, staff are dismantling a 30-year program carefully woven into the city's social safety net. 'It was an absolute gut punch,' said Daylan Dufelmeier, who heads SNAP-Ed locally as the director of the Chicago Partnership for Health Promotion at the University of Illinois Chicago. 'The work that we do is so important and so critical, so when we got caught in political crossheads, it was brutal.' It's the latest in a flurry of welfare cuts under the Trump administration. The president's recent tax-and-spending legislation has slashed billions in federal food benefits and significantly reduced Medicaid access. Spivey, a former quality control technician, has relied on food stamps and disability checks for as long as she can remember. When she used to cook for her now-grown daughter, both were essential to keep food on the table. She couldn't always afford to prioritize nutrition. 'They cutting out the wrong things,' Spivey said. 'It's not right.' In addition to nutrition education classes, SNAP-Ed programming includes food access directories, social media campaigns and advocacy work. According to staff, those initiatives prevent more than 5,000 cases of obesity and nearly 600 cases of food insecurity across Illinois each year. For many low-income families, budgeting for healthy food options can be a challenge, experts say. That can lead to long-term health issues, including chronic diseases and nutritional deficiencies. But nonprofit research organization Altarum estimates that every dollar invested in the Illinois program returns between $5.36 and $9.54 in health care savings. 'People want to be healthier, they want to be physically active, but they don't have the resources,' said educator Adams, as she spooned out heaps of rice. Despite its documented success, the Republican-led House Committee on Agriculture said in May that the program has yielded 'no meaningful change' since its inception in 1992, wasting taxpayer money. Funding will officially run dry Sept. 30, the end of the federal fiscal year. This fiscal year, Illinois received nearly $20 million in funding for the program. About $5 million went to UIC, and the rest was funneled to the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign for statewide work. With the funding slashed, roughly 250 staff members will lose their jobs across the U. of I. system. 'These are people that are their communities building trust,' said Germán Bollero, dean of the U. of I. College of Agricultural, Consumer and Environmental Sciences. 'That is at the core of our mission: transforming society to be a better place. It's heartbreaking.' Each year, SNAP-Ed is estimated to reach about one million Illinois residents, working with more than 1,800 community partners. About 1.9 million people in the state receive SNAP benefits, according to the Illinois Department of Human Services. At Mercy Housing, Alma Watson, 63, flipped through the pages of her workbook, filled with lines of her cursive handwriting. She scanned a list of recipes — turkey tacos, skillet chicken breasts and baked sweet potatoes — each paired with nutritional information. 'People don't know, and some people really need it. Like me, for one,' Watson said with a laugh. It's her second time taking the eight-week course at Mercy, where she's lived for 15 years. Participants receive boxes of fresh produce and poultry to re-create recipes at home, enough to last Watson for days. But the real joy is being in the classroom again, she said, learning alongside peers. Most of them also depend on SNAP benefits. 'I love this setting. The people are really nice,' Watson said. 'I just love everything so far.' For SNAP-Ed staff, that positive feedback makes the impending shutdown harder. Educators Adams and Davis are set to lose their jobs in a few weeks, but their greatest concern, they said, is for the communities they serve. Through the window, Davis pointed to a weathered convenience store across the street. Its neon posters advertised tobacco and soda. 'Most of the (nearby) grocery stores aren't really grocery stores. They're markets like that,' she said. '(Residents) don't have much of an option.' Food deserts — areas more than a mile from a grocery store — have plagued the Chicago area for years, particularly on the South Side. While SNAP benefits are an immediate solution, SNAP-Ed helped chip away at those broader systemic issues, Dufelmeier said. After funding runs out, operations will likely cease immediately. 'The impacts from the cuts to our programs you may not see next week, but it's a long-term impact,' Dufelmeier said. After the lesson, each participant received a paper plate with sauteed vegetables, chicken, rice and soy sauce. The room had buzzed with laughter, but it was quieter as everyone ate. One resident ambled to the front of the room for seconds. Adams smiled and dished out another helping. 'Here you go, honey.'
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
To help low-income kids with cancer have better treatment outcomes, a researcher tries a different innovation: Cash
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'What this showed us is that poverty exposure needs to be targeted in the same way that we think about targeting mutations,' Bona said. Advertisement The launch of Bona's study in late June came weeks before Advertisement The results put into question the efficacy of basic income, which has been heralded as a potential tool to alleviate poverty. But researchers and proponents of cash transfer programs in Massachusetts say the results have not dampened optimism here about the role they can play in supporting low-income families. Instead they say 'Baby's First Years' demonstrates the need for more research into just how much money and other resources and services is needed to pull people out of poverty. It also sharpens the question of what researchers, program managers, funders, and policymakers consider a valuable result. 'These programs are held to unrealistic standards, that this has to be some transformative, life-altering intervention, or it's not worth anyone's time or effort or concern,' said Richard Sheward, a director at Boston Medical Center's Children's HealthWatch, who has 'It would be a major failure if we focused on this one thing and lose sight of the fact that we also need to protect our safety net programs, like SNAP and WIC and other programs that help families thrive and move up the economic ladder, as they are Massachusetts has been a leader in piloting cash programs. Since 2020, Unlike 'Baby's First Years,' these programs focus not on whether the cash transfers impact childhood development markers, but whether they allow families, particularly low-income families, to weather economic storms, spend more on healthy food, and spend more time together, especially during a child's crucial early years. Advertisement Early results of the 'Baby's First Years' study were promising, Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation and a critic of cash transfer programs, But while 'Baby's First Years' didn't show significant developmental changes, it did show that women who received the cash transfers spent the money on food and clothing for their children, not on things like alcohol or cigarettes, which had long been a concern of conservative critics of such programs. The women also spent more time with their children. 'That's dismissed, because we thought we would see these developmental changes,' said Margaret Anne McConnell, a professor at Harvard School of Public Health. 'But think about what that means. A small amount of cash means people got to spend more time with their children. That's incredibly important.' Jennifer Valenzuela is the executive director of Children's Trust, which just finished a program that offers cash transfers during home visits for some new moms in Springfield. She said cash assistance programs can be tremendously helpful for parents who would otherwise be stressed and cash strapped when trying to figure out how to buy basics like food, gas, and utilities. Advertisement 'All those things make an impact on who we can be as parents and how we can engage with a child,' Valenzuela said. 'What would it mean if you weren't able to do some of the basic things that we think about as a parent, things that should be a norm, that many parents don't get to do.' In addition to outcomes, the amount of cash given varies greatly across programs. 'Baby's First Years,' for example, offered $333 a month to moms, regardless of how many children they have. The Unconditional Cash Study, which took place in Illinois and Texas, offered low-income individuals $1,000 per month. During COVID, the federal child tax credit expanded, offering what was essentially a cash transfer of several thousand dollars at once, depending on family size and children's age. As a result of the expanded credit, childhood poverty '['Baby's First Years"] is a valuable study because it challenges us to be more thoughtful about how we design and implement these programs,' said Sheward. 'It just shows us the context matters, the amount matters, what we measure matters, very deeply.' Bona's study, which offers up to $1,000 twice a month per family, is the first of its kind to consider how cash transfers may impact pediatric cancer outcomes for low-income families. It's taking place in multiple sites across the country, is in the early stages, and will last four years. Bona is certain of the relationship between poverty and poorer clinical outcomes. But she isn't clear on the drivers of unequal outcomes, or on how to fix these. Advertisement 'Will this be the right dose? Is it for the right duration in cancer treatment? Will we have to repeat it later on in cancer treatment? We don't know yet,' she said. But if the study shows that cash injections alter a family's food security, reduce parents' psychological distress, and allow sick kids to stay on a clinical trial for longer, 'it will be one of the 'cheapest' interventions we could possibly imagine in the cancer space — far cheaper than most drugs." McConnell, at the Harvard School of Public Health, recently launched a similar study, considering how cash transfers impact time that low-income mothers of premature babies can spend with their children hospitalized in the neonatal intensive care unit. McConnell isn't measuring the long-term outcomes of the children or the moms. Instead, she's measuring outcomes that may indicate a baby's longer-term health: provision of breast milk and skin-to-skin contact. 'The work I'm doing is to see how to ease the financial strain of having a NICU baby, not replace people's income or lift people out of poverty,' she said. Although her study is designed differently and measuring something different than 'Baby's First Years,' she thinks that everyone can learn from it — even if it has a null result. 'I think you can learn a lot from a study like this, it shows how complex and challenging it is to address child development, without drawing the conclusion that you've learned everything ," she said. 'Any time you have one study that's a definitive answer to a question is unfortunate. It sets up any intervention to fail.' Advertisement This story was produced by the Globe's team, which covers the racial wealth gap in Greater Boston. You can sign up for the newsletter . Mara Kardas-Nelson can be reached at
