Health department sees first direct impact of federal funding upheaval
Mar. 28—MORGANTOWN — Monongalia County Health Department Chief Financial Officer Devan Smith was prepared to come into Thursday morning's board of health meeting and report MCHD was so-far unscathed by the upheaval in federal funding initiated by the Trump administration.
Then, on Tuesday, federal health officials announced billions in COVID-related funds were being stopped.
The following day, the health department was notified by the National Association of County & City Health Officials that a contract through which MCHD was working with the health department in Fairfax County, Va to better engage healthcare facilities regarding infection prevention and control had been canceled.
As MCHD was working as a subcontractor, it must now go back to NACCHO to get paid for the work performed since Jan. 1. The $90, 000 contract was set to expire at the end of June.
Smith said he's identified additional grants that he believes could be in jeopardy. In those examples, MCHD is a subrecipient of funds passing through the state. Those grants would total about $83, 000 to the health department.
"We've been talking to folks at the state to see if they're hearing any notifications about rescission of funding at their level, because it would have the same impact, essentially, " he said. "As far as I'm aware, they have not received any formal rescission of funding that we receive as a subrecipient."
MCHD Executive Director Anthony DeFelice said the health department is also closely following news that a funding freeze tied to Title X (family planning services) has been put in place.
He said the health department has yet to hear anything on that front.
"These are the things that we're going to have to be monitoring, " DeFelice said. "We're going to get some of these notices. We're proactively checking the rest of our contracts."
DeFelice previously estimated that 40 % or more of the health department's budget consists of federal grant funding coming from a variety of sources to fund the department's numerous offerings.
"It's really not clear how this is going to play out, because Congress hasn't laid out clear policy priorities within their continuing resolution ... Normally when there's an appropriations act or there's a continuing resolution, there's instructions from Congress about how that funding is to be spent, and this continuing resolution doesn't have that, " Smith explained. "So, that allows more discretion than is normal for this administration to choose and direct funding toward specific policy priorities. I don't think that has really seen itself play out yet."
Asked if the impacts to the health department could be substantial enough to force program cuts or staff reductions, Smith said he didn't have any indication that the immediate impact would be that substantial.
Even so, he said the health department is "going to be looking hard at what we can afford, " as it prepares to present its 2025-'26 operating budget in the coming weeks.
"I firmly believe that we are going to continue to serve public health in a really meaningful and awesome way. We're going to have some new things that we might even still be able to work on with community health promotion, " Health Officer Dr. Brian Huggins said. "But some of the services that we end up offering may change."
Huggins noted the health department will add a revenue source in April, when it begins conducting occupational drug testing for employers.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Hundreds of pharmacies are set to close: How it could impact you
(NEXSTAR) — Several retail pharmacy chains have shuttered some of their stores this year, with more on the way for others, like Rite Aid, which filed for bankruptcy in May. It could create what some refer to as 'pharmacy deserts,' areas in which drugstores and the additional services they provide may not be available for miles. And in areas where other pharmacies are picking up the slack, it could have an impact on current customers. 'Closures of major chain pharmacies often create ripple effects across the community,' E. Michael Murphy, an assistant professor of clinical pharmacy at The Ohio State University, told Nexstar via email. Nearby pharmacies, independent or part of a chain, can see 'a sudden increase in patients,' he explained, which could 'lead to longer lines, and increase strain on the health care team.' It could also disrupt your medical care. Shuttering pharmacies in larger cities, like New York City and Philadelphia, may have limited impacts. Take, for example, a Rite Aid located in Philadelphia that has been designated for closure. A three-minute walk down the road will take you to a Walgreens and a local pharmacy. Within smaller communities, that may not be the case. Customers may need to drive to a nearby town to pick up their prescriptions, which 'could have some negative consequences on their adherence to their medication,' Lucas A. Berenbrok, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, explained to Nexstar. 'For those without reliable transportation, especially older adults or people with disabilities, traveling even a few extra miles can be a serious barrier,' Murphy said. That could lead to delayed access to prescriptions and missed dosages. Closing pharmacies also reduces health access points for people. In addition to filling prescriptions, pharmacies are able to provide vaccines, chronic disease management, urgent consultations, over-the-counter treatments, and certain health tests. 'There's a lot more going on at the pharmacy now than ever before,' Berenbrok explained, outlining how pharmacists helped to administer the COVID vaccine during the pandemic, for example, and the additional services they can provide in some states. He went on to explain that while online pharmacies can help fill the void of shuttered drugstores, they're largely unable to accommodate the additional services pharmacies provide. 'They also assume reliable internet access, digital literacy, and stable housing, which are barriers for many vulnerable patients,' Murphy said. 'For communities losing local pharmacies, online options may fill part of the gap but cannot replace the full range of services a community pharmacist provides.' Berenbrok agreed that mail-order pharmacies have 'a time and place' because of their convenience, but they require planning ahead, which may not be useful for certain medications like antibiotics. If your pharmacy is closing soon, Murphy recommended being proactive and asking your pharmacist where your prescriptions are being sent and whether that pharmacy has your insurance and medication history. He also encouraged asking for a 90-day supply or mail-order option for prescriptions if transportation is a concern. Chains poised to take on former Rite Aid clients, like CVS and Walgreens, say they're prepared to welcome new customers. Even if your prescriptions are not moving to a new pharmacy, you may want to make sure your prescription is being filled a day or two before you need it rather than the same day that your current supply runs out, Berenbrok said. Then, if you're short on time and facing a long line, you won't miss a dose. Murphy also suggested contacting elected officials and urging them to take action. 'While pharmacists are committed to stepping up to meet the need, without adequate state and federal policy changes to address the broken business model that caused the pharmacy to close in the first place, we will continue to see pharmacies close and patients having to navigate the loss of their trusted health care professional.'
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety.
