
RFK Jr. is gutting minority health offices across HHS that are key to reducing health disparities
Kennedy, the Health and Human Services secretary, has gutted at least seven minority health offices across the department, according to people familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity to speak freely. HHS has laid off a significant share of workers at those offices, or in some cases all of them, along with their directors, the people said.
The affected units include the HHS Office of Minority Health and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, or NIMHD. The cuts also hit offices with similar functions at the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, according to the people.
Health policy experts told CNBC that deep cuts to those programs could widen existing health disparities in the U.S., undoing years of progress toward addressing them. Over time, that could worsen health outcomes for already underserved groups, threaten overall public health, strain the U.S. health-care system and drive up health-care costs.
"It will have negative health impacts, obviously, for groups that they're focused on, so racial and ethnic minorities, but I think what gets missed in the story is it ultimately impacts all of us, no matter what your background is," Dr. Stephanie Ettinger De Cuba, research professor of health law, policy and management at Boston University, told CNBC.
"It's not a zero-sum game. So I think that's what is deeply disturbing to me, as we are going to see people get hurt," she said. "Decimating or cutting staff from these offices ultimately makes it worse for everyone."
The Trump administration can't shutter the affected offices entirely, which would be against the law since they were authorized by the Affordable Care Act more than a decade ago, the people said. The exact fate of each office and the NIH institute is unclear, they added.
The administration likely hopes to at least "narrow the scope" of what NIMHD and the agency offices do, curtailing their authority and limiting resources, said Brandyn Churchill, professor of public administration and policy at American University.
The cuts come as health disparities remain a major challenge in the U.S., affecting not only people of color but also rural residents, low-income communities and individuals with disabilities, among several other groups. These communities often face worse health outcomes – such as lower life expectancy and higher rates of infant mortality and chronic disease – and more limited access to care and other resources than the U.S. population as a whole.
The Covid-19 pandemic deepened many of these gaps, highlighting how the long U.S. history of exclusionary policies and systemic issues such as poverty and racism contribute to unequal health outcomes across the country.
Health policy experts stress that addressing those disparities leads to stronger overall public health, as healthier communities improve outcomes for everyone. It could also relieve a huge economic burden on the U.S: a 2023 study funded by NIMHD found that racial and ethnic health disparities cost the U.S. economy $451 billion in 2018.
Kennedy is consolidating divisions and slashing 10,000 jobs at HHS, a $1.7 trillion agency that oversees vaccines and other medicines, scientific research, public health infrastructure, pandemic preparedness, and food and tobacco products. HHS also manages government-funded health care for millions of Americans – including seniors, disabled people and lower-income patients who rely on Medicare, Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act's markets.
Kennedy plans to create a new HHS agency called the Administration for a Healthy America, which will combine several existing offices. That includes HRSA, SAMHSA, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
A leaked 64-page preliminary budget document also indicates that the HHS Office of Minority Health would fall under that new agency, according to several reports. But that proposal, which would slash the HHS budget by a third, or roughly $40 billion, requires congressional approval.
HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
While the breadth of the cutbacks varied at agencies within HHS, the minority health agencies across the departments will now be only a fraction of their former size.
All 40 staff members at the CMS Office of Minority Health were laid off, according to the people. CMS plans to appoint a new director for that unit, CNBC previously reported. But current Director Martin Mendoza has not resigned from his role, the people said.
The office works with local and federal partners to eliminate disparities in health coverage, aiming to ensure that minority and underserved populations can access Medicare, Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplace plans. It also conducts research and analysis to help lower costs and reduce the incidence and severity of chronic diseases in the U.S.
Nearly all staff at the CDC's Office of Minority Health were cut, according to the people. To adhere to the letter of the law, the Trump administration is considering reconstituting that unit and the Office of Women's Health so that each office would be made up of at least one director or a very small group of employees, the people said.
The agency's Office of Minority Health works across CDC to promote research of health disparities and create programs to improve the health of racial and ethnic minority groups.
At the FDA's Office of Minority Health and Health Equity, all staff were cut, the people said. The future of that office is unclear.
The unit focuses on efforts such as increasing clinical trial diversity, improving transparency around how medical products affect different populations, and creating health resources tailored to a range of languages and cultures.
No staff are left at HRSA's Office of Health Equity after the layoffs, as well as some retirements and reassignments, according to the people. That office leads efforts to reduce disparities in health-care access, quality and outcomes through HRSA, which focuses on people who are uninsured, geographically isolated, or economically and medically vulnerable.
The future of that office is also unclear, apart from the Trump administration's plans to fold HRSA into Kennedy's new agency.
The same goes for SAMHSA's Office of Behavioral Health Equity, which saw all remaining staff cut except for a new, recently hired director, according to the people. The office also had a retirement and one worker on probation who was put on administrative leave.
The office works to ensure that SAMHSA's resources for mental health and substance abuse treatment, including grant programs and other initiatives, are equitably distributed across all communities and populations.
Roughly a third of staff are gone at NIMHD, some of whom were laid off and others who left due to early retirements and buyouts, the people said. Some workers on probation were put on leave several weeks before Kennedy started cuts, they said.
The institute's deputy director accepted an offer to be acting director in the short term, the people added. NIMHD, which is part of the National Institutes of Health, works to reduce health disparities through conducting and funding research and developing new programs.
The HHS Office of Minority Health also faced cuts, though it's unclear how many staff were impacted, the people said. That office leads the federal effort to improve health outcomes for racial and ethnic minority groups, developing policies and programs and providing funding.
It will likely take several months to a year before the U.S. sees direct consequences from the cuts to NIMHD and the offices, said Terry McGovern, professor at the CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Health Policy.
But the staff reductions could cause the U.S. to lose out on crucial data, which is the cornerstone for addressing health disparities, according to Samantha Artiga, director for the racial equity and health policy program at KFF, a health policy research organization.
Artiga said data and research are essential for pinpointing where disparities exist, understanding their root causes, crafting effective solutions, and tracking progress over time. For example, data can reveal whether certain groups experience worse surgical outcomes or wait longer at the emergency room, or if a vaccination program is being equitably distributed across regions.
"Without focused data and research, those disparities may remain unseen and unaddressed, creating blind spots," Artiga said, adding that the U.S. would eventually have to rebuild that knowledge in the future.
The fate of many of the grants that NIMHD and some of the offices provide is unclear. That includes $11.6 million in recent grant awards from HHS' Office of Minority Health to 20 organizations for a four-year initiative to identify strategies that increase the use of preventive health services in communities.
But if offices cut back that funding or stop it altogether, it could also weaken the nation's ability to reduce health disparities, Boston University's Ettinger De Cuba said.
Community-based organizations rely on federal money to deliver culturally tailored care to different groups, and could be forced to scale back or shut down programs. The loss of grants could also stall research, innovation and public health interventions by outside entities, such as universities, health-care systems and social service organizations.
"Philanthropy is not able to step up at this level long term. The only actor that's able to do that is the government," Ettinger De Cuba said.
Nathan Boucher, research professor at Duke's Sanford School of Public Policy, added that the cuts will "degrade any effort of these larger governmental organizations to have any accountability when it comes to protecting the people they help and serve every day."
While Kennedy has said his cuts are focused on making HHS more "responsive and efficient," Boucher said targeting minority health offices could do the opposite.
"I actually think it's an efficiency argument to be able to have these minority health offices, because it allows you to identify and target some real problem areas and use taxpayer dollars in the most efficient way possible," said Boucher.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


USA Today
4 hours ago
- USA Today
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. declares 'loyalty' to Trump, rules out a 2028 presidential bid
WASHINGTON — Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says he's not running for president in 2028 and intends to remain in his position until President Donald Trump leaves office. The leader of the "Make America Healthy Again" movement said in an X post that his "loyalty" lies with Trump, and he dismissed speculation about his political future as part of a "smear campaign" from disgruntled Washington insiders who oppose the MAHA agenda. "They're pushing the flat-out lie that I'm running for president in 2028. Let me be clear: I am not running for president in 2028," Kennedy said. Kennedy competed for the presidency in 2024, first as a Democrat and later as an independent, before suspending his candidacy last August and throwing his support behind Trump. After the election, Trump made him HHS secretary. His comments ruling out a 2028 bid came far-right activist Laura Loomer accused Kennedy aide Stefanie Spear of using her position at HHS to lay the groundwork for Kennedy to run again. Loomer's comment came in a Politico interview and followed an Axios report in July that said Kennedy super PAC head Tony Lyons and Spear convened MAHA supporters on a call that left some attendees with the impression he was mulling another campaign. But in his social media post, Kennedy said, "The president has made himself the answer to my 20-year prayer that God would put me in a position to end the chronic disease epidemic — and that's exactly what my team and I will do until the day he leaves office."


The Hill
4 hours 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.


New York Post
8 hours ago
- New York Post
Rehab can keep you out of jail — but become a prison itself
Chris Koon didn't read the fine print. Sitting in the Cenikor Baton Rouge rehab center's intake office in 2015, flanked by his mom and grandmother, he signed where told. 'A lot of it read like legalese,' writes Shoshana Walter in 'Rehab: An American Scandal' (Simon & Schuster, Aug. 12). 'Incomprehensible but also innocuous, like something you might see before downloading an app on your phone.' Koon felt lucky. He wasn't going to prison. Just days earlier, he'd been arrested for meth possession. The alternative to five years in state prison? A brutal two-year Cenikor inpatient program. Koon took the deal. In signing the intake documents, he agreed to 'receive no monetary compensation' for work he did, with wages going 'directly back to the Foundation.' He signed away his right to workers' compensation if injured. He forfeited his food stamps, disability payments and any other government assistance. And he agreed to 'adopt appropriate morals and values as promoted by the program.' Koon's story isn't an outlier — it's a glimpse into what Walter calls 'America's other drug crisis.' While overdoses and opioid deaths dominate headlines, far less attention goes to the 'profit-hungry, under-regulated, and all too often deadly rehab industry,' writes Walter. Across the country, thousands of treatment programs are propped up by federal policies and rooted in a distinctly American blend of punishment and personal responsibility. People were 'lured to rehab with the promise of a cure for what ailed them,' Walter writes, 'only to repeatedly falter and fail inside a system that treated them like dollar signs.' The idea hard labor can cure someone isn't new. After the Civil War, US slavery was abolished except as punishment for a crime. That loophole became the foundation for a forced-labor system that conveyed newly freed black people into prisons and chain gangs. Over time, prison officials began marketing this arrangement as 'rehabilitation.' As Walter writes, this legacy has been repackaged for the modern drug crisis. The Affordable Care Act promised expanded treatment access through Medicaid. But the rehab industry that exploded in response was lightly regulated, profit-driven and increasingly dangerous. The result: thousands of people like Chris Koon, lured into treatment by courts, cops or family members, only to find themselves stuck in a system that looked less like therapy and more like punishment. They include women like April Lee, a black woman from Philadelphia. Despite growing up in addiction's long shadow — her mother died from AIDS when Lee was just a teenager, after years of selling sex to support a crack habit — Lee didn't start using drugs herself until after having her second child, when a doctor prescribed her Percocet for back pain. That opened the door to addiction. Child-welfare authorities eventually took her kids. Fellow users nicknamed her 'Mom' and 'Doc' for her uncanny ability to find usable veins, no matter how damaged. April Lee returned to her recovery house — as an unpaid house monitor. April Lee / ACLU She entered recovery in 2016. Every morning at 6, 18 women gathered in the dining room of one of two overcrowded houses to read from the Bible. Lee stayed 10 months. With nowhere else to go, she returned — this time as a house monitor, working without pay in exchange for a bed. 'She was still early into recovery, and she felt stressed by the intensity of the job,' Walter writes. 'On top of that, she wasn't getting a paycheck, so she couldn't save up money to leave.' 'Don't really know how to feel right now,' Lee wrote in her journal. 'The lady I work for — for free, mind you — wont me to watch over women witch mean I have to stay in every night.' She felt physically and emotionally trapped. 'I wanted to snap this morning. Miss my children so much.' Like so many others, Lee found herself stuck in the recovery-house loop — forced to work, unable to leave and earning nothing. She helped with chores, mainly cooking and cleaning. Residents' food stamps stocked the kitchen. Lee loved to cook, and she made comfort food for the house: mac and cheese, fried chicken, beef stew. But all the warmth she gave others couldn't buy her a way out. For others, like Koon, it was about more than just forced labor. During his first 30 days at Cenikor, the other patients policed each other. If one person broke a rule, the entire group might be punished with a 'fire drill' in the middle of the night. 'If anyone stepped out of line or did something wrong during the drill, they'd have to stay awake even longer,' Walter writes. Discipline was obsessive. In his first month, Koon sat in a classroom with about 30 other residents, most sent by courts like he was, reciting rules out loud, line by line. There were more than 100. 'He could get in trouble for not having a pen, not wearing a belt, for an untied shoelace, for leaving a book on the table, for his shirt coming untucked,' Walter details. Koon learned the punishment system fast. A common one was 'the verbal chair,' in which any participant could order him to sit, arms locked and knees at a 90-degree angle, and stare silently at the wall while others screamed at him. 'Go have a seat in the verbal chair. Think about having your shirt untucked,' they'd say. And Koon, like everyone else, was expected to respond, 'Thank you.' There were others. 'Mirror therapy,' where he'd stand and yell his failings at himself in the mirror. 'The dishpan,' where he'd be dressed in a neon-green shirt, scrubbing floors and dishes while loudly reciting the Cenikor philosophy, 'a paragraph-long diatribe about self-change,' Walter writes. And the dreaded 'verbal haircut,' when another resident, sometimes even a staff member, would berate him as part of his treatment. Dressed up as a therapeutic community, Koon thought instead, 'This is like a cult.' Walter believes he wasn't far off. Everyone was required to tattle. Koon had to turn in weekly at least 10 'pull-ups' — written reports detailing rule infractions committed by fellow residents. If he didn't, he could lose points and with them privileges like phone calls, family visits or permission to grow a mustache. Confrontations were public and ritualized: Residents would sit in a circle around one or two people forced to listen as everyone else denounced them. 'They took turns confronting that person, professing their faults and errors, while the person was permitted only to say 'thank you,'' Walter writes. Staff called it 'The Game.' He saw grown men cry. He heard women called bitches and sluts. He realized many employees were former participants enforcing the system that once broke them. Not everyone saw a problem. Many in the legal system embraced tough-love rehab programs, especially judges looking for alternatives to jail. One of Cenikor's biggest champions was Judge Larry Gist, who ran one of the first drug courts, in Jefferson County, Texas, in the 1990s. 'The vast majority of folks that I deal with are basically bottom-feeders,' Gist told the author. 'They've been losers since the day they were born.' Cenikor's extreme model was ideal for 'the right people,' he believed. Cenikor rewarded such loyalty, giving judges and lawmakers steak dinners served by participants and annual awards banquets, complete with gleaming, diamond-shaped trophies. Gist 'proudly displayed his' in 'his chambers, where he liked to host his happy hours with prosecutors and defense attorneys.' Koon was booted out of Cenikor after just two years, for faking a urine sample and contracting a contagious staph infection, but managed to stay sober on his own. He proposed to his childhood sweetheart, Paige, moving in with her two daughters, and finding the stability he'd been chasing for years. He went back to school to learn welding, and the daily rhythms of family life kept him grounded. 'He hasn't taken a drug recreationally for eight years,' Walter writes. Lee's path out took longer, and her recovery was, as Walter writes, 'in some ways a stroke of luck.' She left the house after landing a job at a law firm that helped women reunite with their children in foster care — a world away from the nights she'd once spent tricking at the Blue Moon Hotel but one that barely covered her bills and pushed her just over the poverty line, cutting off assistance. She earned her GED, took online college courses, regained custody of her kids and bought her own home by 2021. 'And yet many days she felt she was teetering on the edge, one crisis or unpaid bill away from making a terrible mistake,' Walter writes. That year, she returned to Kensington, where her addiction had once thrived, bringing fresh food and water to people still living on the streets. As for Cenikor, its time in the shadows ended, at least temporarily. Investigators found evidence of exploitation: residents forced to work without pay, unsafe housing conditions, staff-client relationships, even overdoses inside the facilities. The state of Texas fined Cenikor more than $1.4 million in 2019, but the agency struck a settlement, and it continued to operate. Koon and Lee don't represent everyone who's experienced addiction, treatment or recovery. But they do reflect a system that often promises far more than it delivers. 'When rehab works, it can save lives,' Walter writes. 'It can mend families and be among the most redemptive narrative arcs in a person's life.' But sometimes, rehab not only fails to help people, it actively harms them, recycling them through a gauntlet of relapse, shame and risk: 'Despite the rehab industry's many claims, there is no magical cure for addiction.'