Opinion: Federal grant funding freeze hurts Utah families
A freeze on federal grant funding might sound like a bureaucratic issue, but for Utah families, it's anything but. This decision has real, immediate consequences — and unless Congress acts quickly, the programs that keep our communities healthy are at risk.
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
Business Insider
2 hours ago
- Business Insider
Incyte announces data from two studies evaluating INCA033989
Incyte (INCY) announced the first clinical data from two studies evaluating the safety, tolerability and efficacy of INCA033989, a novel, first in class, Incyte-discovered, targeted monoclonal antibody in patients with mutant calreticulin-expressing myeloproliferative neoplasms, MPNs. These data – featured today in the Late-Breaking Oral Session at the European Hematology Association 2025, EHA 2025, Congress in Milan, Italy – focus on the dose escalation portion of the studies in patients with high risk essential thrombocythemia who are resistant/intolerant to prior cytoreductive therapy. The studies evaluated the safety and efficacy of INCA033989 in patients with ET as measured by hematologic response and reduction in mutCALR variant allele frequency. Results as of April 4, 2025, showed rapid and durable normalization of platelet counts across all dose levels, with a trend toward improved responses in higher doses, in patients with ET treated with INCA033989. Notably, 86% of patients at doses 400 mg and above achieved a complete or partial hematologic response, with the majority of patients achieving complete response. Eighty-nine percent of evaluable patients showed a reduction in mutCALR VAF from baseline. A partial molecular response was observed in 21% of evaluable patients after only 3 cycles of treatment.
CBS News
12 hours ago
- CBS News
Medicaid enrollees fear losing health coverage if Congress enacts work requirements
It took Crystal Strickland years to qualify for Medicaid, which she needs for a heart condition. Strickland, who's unable to work due to her condition, chafed when she learned that the U.S. House had passed a bill that would impose a work requirement for many able-bodied people to get health insurance coverage through the low-cost, government-run plan for lower-income people. "What sense does that make?" she asked. "What about the people who can't work but can't afford a doctor?" The measure is part of the version of President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful" bill that cleared the House last month and is now up for consideration in the Senate. Trump is seeking to have it passed by July 4. The bill, as it stands, would cut taxes and government spending — and also upend portions of the nation's social safety net. For proponents, the ideas behind the work requirement are simple: Crack down on fraud and stand on the principle that taxpayer-provided health coverage isn't for those who can work but aren't. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails, or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul. Many details of how the changes would work would be developed later, leaving several unknowns and causing anxiety among recipients who worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees worry, based largely on their experience, that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. Strickland, a 44-year-old former server, cook, and construction worker who lives in Fairmont, North Carolina, said she could not afford to go to a doctor for years because she wasn't able to work. She finally received a letter this month saying she would receive Medicaid coverage, she said. "It's already kind of tough to get on Medicaid," said Strickland, who has lived in a tent and times and subsisted on nonperishable food thrown out by stores. "If they make it harder to get on, they're not going to be helping." Steve Furman is concerned that his 43-year-old son, who has autism, could lose coverage. The bill the House adopted would require Medicaid enrollees to show that they work, volunteer or go to school at least 80 hours a month to continue to qualify. A disability exception would likely apply to Furman's son, who previously worked in an eyeglasses plant in Illinois for 15 years despite behavioral issues that may have gotten him fired elsewhere. Furman said government bureaucracies are already impossible for his son to navigate, even with help. It took him a year to help get his son onto Arizona's Medicaid system when they moved to Scottsdale in 2022, and it took time to set up food benefits. But he and his wife, who are retired, say they don't have the means to support his son fully. "Should I expect the government to take care of him?" he asked. "I don't know, but I do expect them to have humanity." About 71 million adults are enrolled in Medicaid now. And most of them — around 92% — are working, caregiving, attending school or disabled. Earlier estimates of the budget bill from the Congressional Budget Office found that about 5 million people stand to lose coverage. A KFF tracking poll conducted in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about 7 in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt their ability or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. "Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern," she said. One KFF poll respondent, Virginia Bell, a retiree in Starkville, Mississippi, said she's seen sick family members struggle to get onto Medicaid, including one who died recently without coverage. She said she doesn't mind a work requirement for those who are able, but worries about how that would be sorted out. "It's kind of hard to determine who needs it and who doesn't need it," she said. Lexy Mealing, 54 of Westbury, New York, who was first diagnosed with breast cancer in 2021 and underwent a double mastectomy and reconstruction surgeries, said she fears she may lose the medical benefits she has come to rely on, though people with "serious or complex" medical conditions could be granted exceptions. She now works about 15 hours a week in "gig" jobs but isn't sure she can work more as she deals with the physical and mental toll of the cancer. Mealing, who used to work as a medical receptionist in a pediatric neurosurgeon's office before her diagnosis and now volunteers for the American Cancer Society, went on Medicaid after going on short-term disability. "I can't even imagine going through treatments right now and surgeries and the uncertainty of just not being able to work and not having health insurance," she said. Felix White, who has Type I diabetes, first qualified for Medicaid after losing his job as a computer programmer several years ago. The Oreland, Pennsylvania, man has been looking for a job, but finds that at 61, it's hard to land one. Medicaid, meanwhile, pays for a continuous glucose monitor and insulin and funded foot surgeries last year, including one that kept him in the hospital for 12 days. "There's no way I could have afforded that," he said. "I would have lost my foot and probably died." ___ Associated Press writer Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut, contributed to this article.
Fox News
19 hours ago
- Fox News
Dems 'deliberately obfuscating' truth about 'big, beautiful bill' with this claim: Watchdog
After House Republicans passed reconciliation language banning taxpayer funds from paying for sex change treatments, Democrats began using language to drum up opposition that conservative watchdog group the American Principles Project says is meant "to confuse people and make it sound like we're trying to ban normal healthcare, medically necessary healthcare." The House-passed version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes provisions that prohibit federal Medicaid and Affordable Care Act funding from being spent on "gender transition procedures for any age" in all 50 states. In response, Democrats and left-wing groups have begun claiming the GOP's spending package seeks to eliminate "medically-necessary care." However, according to APP President Terry Schilling, "it's a lie" and an effort to combat the prevailing notion among Americans that taxpayer funds should not be paying for transgender procedures. "They're deliberately obfuscating here, and it's because they don't have any good arguments," Schilling told Fox News Digital. "We shouldn't be paying for any cosmetic sex change procedures with our tax dollars, and that's what we're cutting here. "But they're introducing and now ramping up these highly weaponized and high-powered words to confuse people and make it sound like we're trying to ban normal healthcare, medically necessary healthcare." After Republicans in the House of Representatives passed their version of the GOP spending package last month, the Congressional Equality Caucus complained that "Congress should be working to make healthcare more affordable – not banning coverage of medically necessary care." "House Republicans changed a previous anti-trans provision so it now cuts off federal Medicaid and Affordable Care Act funding for medically-necessary care for ALL transgender people — no matter their age," a press release from the pro-trans Human Rights Campaign said after the House passed its spending bill. According to APP's Schilling, arguments that Republicans are taking away "medically necessary" healthcare from anyone are "just not true." To make his point, APP's Schilling pointed to one of the left's frequent sources for transgender medical recommendations, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). Schilling pointed out that WPATH's guidelines and standards explicitly state there is no "one-size-fits-all approach" to treating individuals with gender dysphoria. "These are not medically necessary [treatments]. It's a lie. These are cosmetic," Schilling argued. "If you look at WPATH, even according to their own standards, transgender-identifying people don't actually have to medically transition. They say there's no one size fits all. Well, I'm sorry, but medically necessary means you need it in order to survive. You need it for your health. And they're saying in their own writings that it's not medically necessary, that it's not a one-size-fits-all." Schilling added that they're "arguing out of both sides of their mouth." "We're calling out the transgender industry, and we're trying to stop them from confusing even more people as we pass a very, very good and important bill," he said. In a statement to Fox News Digital, the Human Rights Campaign argued "gender-affirming care" is considered "best practice" and "evidence-based" by every major medical association in the country, noting that studies have shown it significantly improves mental health outcomes for transgender youth. "Healthcare decisions should be made by patients, families, and doctors — not the American Principles Project," HRC said. Schilling said he has run numerous polls and focus groups about whether Americans agree with taxpayer funds supporting individuals' gender transitions, and he told Fox News Digital that the overwhelming sentiment from people across the political spectrum is that they should not. "Here's where Americans are at," Schilling said. "They want to ban the procedures for anyone under 18. And, anyone over 18, they want you to pay for it yourself. That's where they're at, and that's where [APP is] at, and that's where Donald Trump is at. That's where Republicans in the House and Senate are at." The Congressional Equality Caucus did not respond to requests for comment on this article.
