How The Layoff Of 10,000 Health Workers From HHS Could Affect Your Health
Washington, UNITED STATES: The US Department of Health and Human Services building is shown in ... More Washington, DC, 21 July 2007. AFP PHOTO/Saul LOEB (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images)
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will cut 10,000 full-time jobs and shut down several health agencies in an effort to restructure the department. The department will downsize from 82,000 to 62,000, because 10,000 workers have already taken early retirement and voluntary separation offers from the Trump administration.
Although the massive layoffs have been part of the initiative of the Department of Government Efficiency to decrease spending, the cuts could have profound effects on the health and well-being of Americans. Here's how.
The layoffs involve 2,400 jobs at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which does not include the hundreds of probationary workers that were already let go last month. Employees at the CDC are tasked with responding to infectious disease threats like measles, implementing prevention programs for potential outbreaks like bird flu and communicating effective messages to the public so Americans can stay safe. With thousands of less employees staffing the center, the ability to monitor and contain diseases effectively could be hindered.
Even when fully staffed, the response to diseases thus far has been less than optimal. The bird flu has been difficult to control as one elderly individual already died after being infected, and measles has spread across 19 states to 483 individuals this year alone. Imagine trying to control these public health threats with thousands of less workers.
The Food and Drug Administration, which sets safety standards for medical devices, drugs and food; will see a reduction of 3,500 workers. This degree of downsizing may slow the approval process for many lifesaving drugs and delay inspection of food processing facilities.
As an example, once the application for a new drug is submitted to the FDA, the agency has six to ten months to approve the drug. Less employees mean less manpower to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new drugs that could dramatically impact diseases like cancer, diabetes and heart failure that affect millions of Americans.
The National Institute of Health, the leading organization in public health research, will be cutting 1200 jobs. Institutions of higher learning are already potentially facing enormous funding cuts with a cap of indirect costs to federal research grants to 15%, which translates to hundreds of millions of dollars that will not be granted to many universities.
The Trump administration also recently announced pulling back over 11 billion dollars in COVID funding which includes research into long COVID. These reductions in funds and staff could threaten thousands of research projects, delay innovation in scientific advancements and limit new treatments for diseases. Nearly 20 million Americans live with long COVID, and stunting research efforts will significantly curtail efforts to find a viable cure for the disease.
The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services will get rid of 300 employees. CMS oversees Medicare, Medicaid, and the Affordable Care Act marketplace. The cuts will primarily affect caseworkers that assist Affordable Care Act consumers and Medicare beneficiaries if they can't be helped by call center personnel.
There are more than 65 million Americans currently enrolled in Medicare and more than 24 million Americans enrolled in the Affordable Care Act marketplace for health insurance. Less CMS staff means these millions of Americans could face significant hurdles in getting questions answered or enrolling in benefits and plans with respect to health coverage.
The massive layoffs at HHS represent a significant shift in the government's approach to public health. Although intended to reduce costs, the staffing cuts could have profound and potentially adverse effects for millions of Americans.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
41 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Will Trump's policies kill Massachusetts' life sciences leadership?
Advertisement Although the industry is centered in eastern Massachusetts, there's a statewide benefit from all the tax dollars those businesses and workers pay. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up In all, Massachusetts organizations — including universities, research institutes, and hospitals — received $3.5 billion in funding from the National Institutes of Health. Massachusetts-headquartered companies raised $3.26 billion in venture capital funding. Among all drugs in the development pipeline in the United States, 15 percent were being made by companies headquartered in Massachusetts. But actions taken by President Trump and his administration — cutting funding for scientific research and universities, flirting with tariffs, fanning skepticism about vaccines — threaten to devastate the ecosystem. Today, the industry is at a precipice, and uncertainty abounds. Some companies are already feeling the pinch of terminated federal grants, while others are anxious about what might come. Taken together, Trump's policies could force some companies and scientists to take their money, talents, and products overseas. Advertisement Christopher Locher, CEO of Lowell-based Versatope Therapeutics, which develops a platform to deliver vaccines and therapeutics, said he worries the Greater Boston life sciences ecosystem is 'being flushed down the toilet.' For example, Trump is Trump's funding cuts are already having a large impact on some local companies. Part of the problem is the Trump administration isn't only cutting funding, but it's picking which technologies to fund — in some cases apparently based on politics more than science. Take flu vaccines. The Trump administration recently announced a $500 million campaign to fund the development of a universal flu vaccine, which doesn't require annual updates, using technology being worked on But simultaneously, he cut funding for other work on a universal flu vaccine. Versatope Therapeutics got $14 million in NIH funding and spent five years developing a universal flu vaccine. It had approval from the US Food and Drug Administration to begin clinical trials when Trump terminated the contract's remaining $8 million, with the reason given being 'convenience,' Locher said. Trump also Advertisement Company executives say decisions by Trump officials to disinvest in vaccine-related technology — and concerns about whether government will approve new technology — means it's nearly impossible to find private investment funding to replace lost federal dollars. 'We're faced with bankruptcy in the very near future,' Locher said. Ironically, given Trump's stated commitment to bringing businesses back to the United States, one potential option Locher is eyeing is opening a subsidiary abroad. Conducting clinical trials would be cheaper in another country, whether in Europe, Australia, or China, Locher said, and some countries are offering financial incentives to American companies to relocate. Companies also face a potential workforce brain drain. There have been MassBio officials said China has less rigorous — but faster — safety and research protocols than the US. Australia allows a faster timeline for clinical trials. If regulatory approval of medicines is held up because the FDA is understaffed, companies may seek European regulatory approval instead. The loss of talent to foreign countries will be compounded if the pipeline of local university graduates dries up. One draw for life sciences companies to Boston/Cambridge is the presence of elite schools like Harvard and MIT, with their potential for faculty collaboration and skilled graduates. Advertisement Trump is trying to Chip Clark, CEO at Vibrant Biomedicines in Cambridge, said cuts to university research funding both 'shrink the pipeline of great ideas' that form the basis for many biotech startups and translate to fewer available scientists. Clark said the administration's policies 'seem like a deliberate attempt to try to cede scientific leadership to Europe and Japan and Korea and China. ... They will be delighted to capitalize on our talent, technology, and investment capital to make their robust biotech sectors grow and ultimately compete successfully against the US industry,' he said. Don Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University, said he has postdocs with US visas applying for jobs in Europe, and others who were accepted to work at Harvard but are going elsewhere. 'The fact that places like Harvard and MIT and American universities are magnets for the best and brightest from around the world is what's driven our technology economy and certainly the Boston/Cambridge ecosystem,' Ingber said. 'With this uncertainty, I fear we'll lose a generation.' Ingber, who was forced to stop work on two government-funded projects on drugs designed to prevent injury from radiation exposure, compared administration policies to 'eating seed corn' needed to grow crops. Advertisement Trump's vendetta will undermine one of the most vibrant state economies in the country and set back American science by years. And it's not just eastern Massachusetts that will pay a price; the entire country will. As Ingber noted, it might take years to see the impact of medicines or technologies that aren't developed because of these shortsighted cuts. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
Newsweek
42 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Can Tackling Addictions Reduce Medicaid Costs?
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Discussions around Medicaid costs have become more heated than ever in recent months as President Donald Trump's administration tries to push its budget bill through the legislative ranks. House Republicans have instructed the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to slash $880 billion in spending over the next decade, with Medicaid making up 93 percent of the committee's budget. As a result, the amount of money the federal Medicaid program needs to provide health care services for more than 70 million Americans has been under dispute, with some arguing there is significant waste and misuse of money in the system, while others have warned cuts would leave millions of vulnerable people without access to health care. While lawmakers continue debating the divisive legislation, experts have discussed with Newsweek whether there could be another way of reducing Medicaid costs—tackling substance use disorders. Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders require significantly higher health costs than those without—around $1,200 per month on average compared to $550, according to KFF. Around 7.2 percent of Medicaid recipients age 12 to 64 have a diagnosed substance use disorder, and treatment is key to addressing overdoses, deaths and other health or social complications, KFF reported. So could tackling substance use disorders in turn reduce costs for the Medicaid program? Here's what experts told Newsweek. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva Why Are Medicaid Costs Higher for Those With Substance Use Disorders? The reason Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders have higher health costs is because they often also have additional health complications, Dr. Joshua Lynch, professor of emergency and addiction medicine at the University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, New York, told Newsweek. This could be physical health conditions, such as hypertension, high cholesterol and diabetes, or mental health disorders, "which can lead to more complex health care needs," he added. Those with substance use disorders also may "experience more fragmented care and more challenging access to high quality, lower cost care and preventative services," Lynch said. They may also struggle to work, or stay in work, and this may "contribute to increased reliance on higher-cost healthcare services," he added. Many Americans with substance use disorders also go undiagnosed, Brendan Saloner, professor of health policy and management at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Maryland, told Newsweek. He added that those with substance addiction can have a lot of problems, such as the risk of overdose, or contracting blood-borne diseases like HIV or hepatitis C, as well as other issues, so "it's much better to get people into care proactively then to wait for their problems to become a crisis." The higher costs for those with substance use disorders, therefore, could "reflect the devastating physical consequences of substance use itself," Heidi Allen, professor of social work at the Columbia University School of Social Work, New York, told Newsweek, pointing to overdoses, increased vulnerability for chronic illness and exposure to infectious diseases. It's also not just about health complications, John Kelly, professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of the Recovery Research Institute at Massachusetts General Hospital, told Newsweek. "The nature of these disorders means also that, on average, in the Medicaid population, individuals suffering from substance use disorder tend to have more social instability in terms of secure housing, employment, and criminal justice complications. These all contribute to increased costs," he said. Could Tackling Substance Use Disorders Reduce Medicaid Costs? While tackling substance use disorders may not slash Medicaid costs in the short term, as it would require investment in prevention and treatment, it could have positive economic impacts in the long run. "Prioritizing substance use treatment for enrollees might not reduce Medicaid costs in the short term, since we would expect more Medicaid enrollees to engage with treatment, which itself costs money," Allen said. However, she added that "it could certainly improve the health of enrollees, which might result in Medicaid savings down the road." If patients also have access to high-quality treatment and are able to manage their condition, "they have a lower reliance on high-cost health care such as emergency visits and inpatient hospitalizations," Lynch said. He added that other comorbidities also become more manageable, while housing stability and employment turn more achievable. "All of these will lead to a decrease in overall Medicaid spending," he said. Kelly also said he thought that tackling substance use disorders could reduce costs for Medicaid, adding that "focus on earlier intervention, and better implementation of care coordination will result in reduced use of more expensive acute medical care services, as well as prevention of the contraction of more chronic disease such as alcohol-associated liver diseases, HIV and hepatitis infections." "I am very confident that it would help to prevent some long-term costs to the program and would have a huge impact on other non-health needs like employment and reduced incarceration," Saloner said. But he added that whether it fully pays for itself, or saves money, is a more difficult question to answer. "We have some older studies showing that substance use care can offset lots of costs to society, but purely from the perspective of the Medicaid budget it's hard to say. The quality of life gains make it very cost-effective, whether or not it's cost saving," he said. Carrie Fry, professor in the department of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Tennessee, told Newsweek: "Research shows that addressing substance use disorder with effective, evidence-based treatments reduces Medicaid costs." In order to cut Medicaid costs, Fry said, making it easier for people with substance use disorders "to start and remain on effective treatment" would be an important step in the process. "For opioid use disorder, this means expanding availability of medications for opioid use disorder including methadone, buprenorphine, and naltrexone," she said. She added that only about half of Medicaid enrollees with an opioid use disorder receive evidence-based treatment in a given year. "So, treatment is an important first step to addressing the burden of substance use disorders in Medicaid and can reduce or prevent additional downstream costs," Fry said. She added that reducing the prevalence of substance use disorder via prevention will "require a more comprehensive approach to addressing broader social conditions that lead to increased risk of developing a substance use disorder."
Epoch Times
11 hours ago
- Epoch Times
Why Drug Price Reform Alone Won't Heal America
President Donald Trump's revived effort to reduce prescription drug prices is a long-overdue step toward affordability. For millions of Americans, the cost of staying alive has become burdensome, and any policy that eases the burden is worth celebrating. However, as a physician, I've seen what happens when medications become too cheap, plentiful, and automatic. If we don't reform how drugs are used, we risk trading financial hardship for clinical harm. Vagaries of Lower Drug Costs In today's health care system, medication is the first answer—and often the last, especially for older adults. More than 40
