Latest news with #HealthResourcesandServicesAdministration
Yahoo
a day ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Federal cuts force families to make difficult, and potentially deadly, choices
A mother rushes into the emergency department cradling her 6-month-old baby. He is lethargic, seizing and in critical condition. The cause? Severely low sodium levels in his blood — a result of formula diluted with extra water to make it last longer. With grocery prices climbing and her SNAP benefits running out before the end of the month, she felt she had no other choice. This story is not an outlier. Pediatric clinicians across Wisconsin are seeing the real and devastating consequences of policies that fail to prioritize the health and well-being of children and families. And now, the situation could get worse. The Trump Administration's proposed 'skinny' budget for Fiscal Year 2026 includes deep and dangerous cuts to federal programs that form the backbone of public health in our communities. These proposed reductions include: $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health – stalling critical pediatric research and innovation $3.5 billion from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – compromising disease surveillance, immunization programs, and emergency response efforts $1.73 billion from the Health Resources and Services Administration – cutting access to essential primary and preventive care services for children and families $674 million from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services – threatening the Medicaid and CHIP programs that provide health coverage to nearly half of Wisconsin's children. Opinion: We asked readers about wake boats on Wisconsin lakes. Here's what you said. And as if that weren't enough, further reductions to SNAP and other nutrition support programs are also on the table. These aren't just numbers on a spreadsheet. These are lifelines. Vital services that help children survive and thrive. When families can't afford formula, when clinics lose funding for immunization programs, when children lose health coverage, the consequences are immediate and, in many cases, irreversible. As front-line providers, we witness this every day. We can do better. Our federal budget is a reflection of our national values. It should not balance its books on the backs of our youngest and most vulnerable. I implore Wisconsin's elected officials to reject this harmful budget proposal. Think of that infant in the emergency room. Think of the thousands of other children across our state whose health and future depend on robust public health infrastructure, access to care, and support for families in need. We urge lawmakers to work toward a bipartisan budget that invests in children, strengthens public health, and protects the building blocks of a healthy society. Wisconsin's children deserve every opportunity to grow up healthy and strong. Our chapter of the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners stands ready to partner in this effort. Let's move forward — not backward — when it comes to the health of our children. Christine Schindler is a critical care pediatric nurse practitioner at Children's WI, a clinical professor at Marquette University, and the President of the Wisconsin Chapter of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners. She has been caring for critically ill and injured children for almost 30 years. All opinions expressed are her own. This article originally appeared on Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Trump budget jeopardizes health of American children | Opinion
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca sues Utah Attorney General over discount medication law
SALT LAKE CITY () — The pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has filed a federal lawsuit against Utah Attorney General Derek Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike over a recent law that is intended to allow more pharmacies to have access to drug discount programs. In a lawsuit filed May 23, AstraZeneca alleges that Utah SB 69 is unconstitutional. The law was introduced and passed in the 2025 General Assembly, and it went into effect on May 7. The law prohibits drug manufacturers from restricting pharmacies from working with 340B entities, which help pharmacies and patients access medications at a discounted price. Senator Lee responds to the Trump-Musk feud The 340B Drug Pricing Program is a that 'enables covered entities to stretch scarce federal resources as far as possible, reaching more eligible patients and providing more comprehensive services,' according to the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) website. It means that drug manufacturers participating in Medicaid agree to provide 'outpatient drugs to covered entities at significantly reduced prices.' All organizations need to be registered and enrolled in the 340B program in order to purchase discounted medications. The law that established the 340B Program, Section 340B(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act, specified certain types of for the program, such as medical centers that serve rural and other underserved communities and clinics that specialize in particular diseases like HIV/AIDS. SB 69 expands the scope, requiring drug manufacturers to provide the discounts to third-party pharmacies that are contracting with 340B entities, and this is what AstraZeneca is claiming is unconstitutional in its lawsuit. Utah House Republicans elect new leadership members The lawsuit states that because price controls 'disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets,' Congress chose to specifically limit the types of organizations that are eligible in Section 340B. The suit notes that for-profit pharmacies like Walgreens or CVS were not included as eligible, and there have already been several federal court cases ruling that block efforts to require drug manufacturers to provide discounts to contracted pharmacies. AstraZeneca claims in its suit that SB 69 'requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies,' expanding 340B discounts to 'an entirely new category of transactions not covered by Section 340B itself.' The suit alleges that SB 69 directly conflicts with federal law requirements, and therefore, it cannot be enforced against Astrazeneca or other drug manufacturers. AstraZeneca is asking the court to declare SB 69 unconstitutional and to order that Utah AG Derek Brown and Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike not enforce the law against AstraZeneca. Musk floats 'The American Party' after Trump tiff Myths VS Facts: What health officials want you to know about the MMR vaccine Good4Utah Road Tour: Willard Bay State Park Lori Vallow Daybell back in court, charged with conspiracy to murder ex nephew-in-law Man charged with assault for allegedly attacking and strangling neighbor Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump's border war won't stop overdoses. In fact, it might make things worse
I'm an addiction and emergency medicine physician in southern Arizona, a region highly politicized by the war on drugs. Both my home and the hospital where I work are less than 100 miles from Mexico, and one of our fire departments serves a city split in two by the border wall. Although I love the ways in which the cultural milieu of the borderlands enriches our community – the school mariachi bands, colorful adobe houses in the barrios, saguaro cactus in a surprisingly verdant desert, some of the best bicycle infrastructure in the country, and even the most delicious food – Tucson was the first UNESCO city of gastronomy in the U.S. – we still have our challenges. Although Arizona doesn't have the highest rates of opioid overdose in the country, our rates aren't the lowest, either: we are slightly above average. Nearly one in four Arizonans rely on Medicaid for their health insurance, and these rates are even higher in the rural communities along the border. Based on the Trump administration's frequent visits to the borderlands and promises to help us, one might be optimistic that proposed policies would reduce overdoses and improve health outcomes. Unfortunately, the administration is also threatening to drastically cut the very programs that actually reduce overdose deaths, both here in the borderlands and across the country at large. If staff and funding are slashed — from Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and perhaps even Medicaid — so too will the most effective tools we have to prevent fatal overdose: naloxone and medications for addiction treatment. Instead of focusing on evidence-based health approaches to save lives, the Trump administration is enacting punitive policies: arresting immigrants, militarizing the border, implementing tariffs against Mexico, and building more walls. During his inaugural address, President Trump promised to deport 'millions and millions of criminal aliens,' and he has since mandated quotas for arrests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to his America First Priorities, his administration will 'take bold action to secure our border' by 'building the wall' and deploying the Armed Forces. In April, Trump signed an executive order to impose tariffs upon Mexico and signed a memorandum authorizing the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to the Southern border. Currently, the administration is seeking bidders for a contract to extend the border wall between Nogales and Naco, Arizona. But without also stymying the demand for drugs, none of these supply-side approaches will work — we know this from past mistakes. Even worse, these policies will cause senseless harm in our communities. Although the current scapegoat is Mexican people, this isn't the first time our country has used drugs as an excuse to target minoritized populations. When an economic downturn hit San Francisco in the 1870s, white people blamed Chinese immigrants for stealing their jobs and began to villainize opium, a substance associated with the Chinese community. Many whites even believed that the Chinese community was trying to hook them on opium in order to undermine American society. And so, the city criminalized it, passing our country's first anti-drug law. In the early 20th century South, the target became the Black community. Although influential whites such as Sigmund Freud and the former surgeon general of the U.S. Army had publicly lauded the benefits of cocaine, many believed that the drug would cause Black men to 'become oblivious of their prescribed bounds and attack white society.' Some police departments at that time so believed that cocaine made African Americans impervious to standard bullets that they actually increased the caliber of their revolvers, an erroneous idea that still has reverberations the 1930's 'reefer madness' era, officials rebranded cannabis with the Spanish name 'marijuana' to link it to Mexican immigrants, beginning a propaganda campaign to associate its use to depravity and crime. Within a few years, cannabis was criminalized, and the mandatory sentences mandated by the Boggs Act ensured that people arrested for possession faced a minimum of two to ten years of incarceration. Although whites and people of color use drugs at the same rates, mandatory sentencing unfairly targets communities of color and is one of the greatest contributors of mass incarceration. And, perhaps most notoriously, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 set mandatory minimums that were one hundred times greater for crack cocaine, associated with Black users, than for powder cocaine, associated with white users. Crack is just a more concentrated formulation of cocaine — the drug is otherwise the same. Enforcement became the primary way to fight the war on drugs, with over one million arrests for simple drug possession each year. As a result, one out of every five people behind bars now lives in the United States. Not only that, but incarceration actually increases someone's risk for a fatal overdose: drugs are present, effective treatment is rare, and people very often relapse as soon as they are released. Although we have certainly tried to arrest our way out of our country's drug problems, it has never worked. It never will. And that's partly because addiction is not a crime but a treatable, chronic disease defined primarily by continued use despite the harms. And thus, increasing the severity of punishments — such as those mandated through the HALT Fentanyl Act or fentanyl homicide laws — doesn't get people to stop using. Nor will arresting undocumented immigrants or sending them to prisons in El Salvador. Instead, we have to remove someone's desire to use via medical treatments; in the economic terms of supply-and-demand, we have to reduce their demand for fentanyl. Although it sounds simple to fix our country's overdose crisis by removing the supply, it's not so straightforward. In the middle of the 20th century, some politicians thought that we could forever end heroin overdoses by buying (and destroying) all of the opium in Burma, now known as Myanmar. But whenever one region decreased their heroin production, operations just shifted elsewhere. During the 1990s, prescription opioids replaced heroin as the main driver of fatal overdoses, and many thought we could end addiction by forcing doctors to prescribe less painkillers. And although we did drastically decrease our opioid prescriptions, a wave of illicit heroin rose to fill the demand. And when law enforcement cracked down on heroin, dealers then switched to fentanyl, a highly potent, synthetic opioid that is much easier to produce (and transport) than heroin, a crop that requires adequate land and good weather. As one Mexican cartel operative told the New York Times in March, 'Demand will never end, the product is still being consumed. Addiction means demand never ends.' With the right ingredients, fentanyl can be synthesized almost anywhere, even domestically — in tiny kitchens or rudimentary mountain labs — and that as long as Americans want fentanyl, it will get made, even if it requires increasing violence to do so. Luckily, we do have a very effective way to prevent people from dying — naloxone and overdose prevention centers. And to reduce the demand for illicit drugs we have addiction treatment. The FDA has approved three medications to treat opioid use disorder: methadone, buprenorphine and naltrexone. Not only do these medications keep people alive by preventing fatal overdoses, but they also reduce the transmission of hepatitis C and HIV. In fact, these medications are some of the most effective treatments we have for any chronic disease, more so than those that many Americans take daily for conditions such as coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes and obesity. Unfortunately, less than one in five people with opioid use disorder receive these life-saving medications, and proposed funding cuts threaten to reduce this figure even further. Here in Southern Arizona, Trump's policies will directly weaken many of our most effective tools in the fight against the opioid crisis. When the Department of Health and Human Services abruptly canceled more than $12 billion in federal grants to states in March, a program for pregnant women with substance use and unstable housing was immediately shuttered in Tucson. At the University of Arizona, our addiction medicine fellowship receives funding from a federal program that is slated to be cut. If we lose our addiction medicine fellowship, we will lose our addiction physicians at the university hospitals — and hundreds of patients every year will miss out on life-saving treatment. Across the state, a naloxone distribution program has been largely funded through a SAMHSA grant that is now at risk of termination. Although it is less obvious the ways in which general federal and staffing cuts will affect addiction treatment on the ground, I am worried that my patients will still be negatively affected. Many health departments rely heavily on federal funding, as do non-profits like Cochise Harm Reduction, which directly help people who use drugs along the U.S.-Mexico border. With every cut, such organizations might experience reduced prioritization, program disruption, and overall dilution of services. Similarly, the Trump administration has talked about cutting Medicaid spending. In the borderland counties of Southern Arizona in which I live and work, 30% to 41% of the population rely on Medicaid for their insurance coverage, and it is estimated that nearly 90% of medical treatment for fentanyl addiction across the country is provided by Medicaid. If that were to go away, they would risk losing coverage for their addiction treatment. But no matter which of these proposed changes are actually passed, they will all end with the same result: more lives lost from fentanyl and overdose. If the administration actually cared about borderland communities and reducing fatal overdoses as much as they claimed, they would be prioritizing harm reduction and treatment in Arizona, not dismantling it. Instead of repeating the past mistakes of punitive policies — arrests, militarization, walls aimed at reducing supply — we would bolster existing health approaches to reduce demand and save lives. But perhaps saving lives was never the real goal.
Yahoo
22-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Benton police officers become inseparable through kidney donation
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – Police officers sign up for the badge to put their lives on the line whenever necessary, but being a living organ donor is an extra badge of honor. Benton Police Sergeant Brett Davidson is used to being the person people look to for help in an emergency, but when he learned he had end-stage kidney failure, he was the one helpless. 'Kind of a surprise to me because everything was great for me and then it wasn't,' Davidson said. The loss of her daughter gave an Arkansas mother the chance to give the gift of life to another Natural State woman He needed backup, and Captain Ronnie Davidson was the first responder. 'Growing up, I worked off of his example. I think I get that willingness to help and serve others from him, and he just did what came naturally,' Bretty Davidson stated. Ronnie and Brett are not just brothers in blue. They are father and son. 'I see so much of myself in him, and now I really am in there,' Ronnie Davidson said with a laugh. Ronnie could share his spare kidney with his son because their blood type and antibodies matched. UAMS abdominal transplant surgeon Dr. Raj Patel stated that direct donations from living donors have lower risk and better, longer-lasting outcomes. 'If they are going through a non-direct donation, we have to line up multiple donors at different hospitals all across the country. That takes time,' Patel explained. Arkansas organ recipient and donor's father become found family each Christmas Not everyone has enough time. Each day, 17 people die waiting for an organ transplant, according to the Health Resources and Services Administration. 'Most people actually don't have a living donor because a lot of the risk factors for kidney failure are genetic,' Patel said. 'I wound up honestly being the lucky one,' Ronnie Davidson added. 'I feel just like I did before. I may even be a little more active, a little more cognizant of my health. If anything, I'm better for it.' In any emergency or 911 situation, Brett Davidson said you would be lucky if his dad was the one to answer the call. 'There's no scenario where he's not willing to help the person next to him. It means a lot to him to help. I think that's the whole reason we do the job,' Brett Davidson stated. April is Donate Life Month, and across America, over a hundred thousand men, women, and children are on the national organ transplant waiting list. 4-year-old in Sherwood dies in car accident; saves 8 children with organs While people can sign up to become organ donors on a driver's license or online, becoming a living organ donor requires extra authorization. More information can be found on Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
14-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
It's time to reimagine health-care education
The health-care industry workforce crisis is here. Many providers are exhausted and overworked. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, it is not hard to find a story in the news about burnout among nurses and physicians, which has caused many to leave their professions. This burnout, accompanied by an aging population, is adding severe health-care shortages to an already strained system. According to a report from November 2022, the Health Resources and Services Administration estimates a shortage of over 78,000 full-time registered nurses this year, and the Association of American Medical Colleges recently predicted a physician shortage of up to 86,000 by 2036. These projections threaten the foundation of our health-care system and access to quality health care for people across the country. As leaders in the health-care higher education space, we know firsthand that to solve this urgent problem, we must expand opportunities to educate and train more health-care professionals. The traditional higher education model alone will not close the gap. We must look beyond the exclusivity of traditional higher education and help students from all backgrounds reach their potential in health-care careers. We must reimagine health-care education to provide it at scale and in communities that are woefully underserved. It's no secret that a health-care workforce that reflects the patient population it serves leads to better care, stronger relationships, and improved health outcomes overall. Many of our alumni graduate and enter medically underserved areas, including urban and rural ones, and we know that our role is to enable the next generation of health-care professionals with the knowledge and skills needed to continue to serve in the areas that need their support the most. This means expanding access to medical education by raising awareness about opportunities in health care for those who may not otherwise have considered this career path or who, for a variety of socioeconomic or personal reasons, believe that goal is out of reach. It also means addressing the most common barriers that students from vulnerable populations may face when pursuing degrees in this field. For our institutions, that means offering dedicated support in the classroom throughout their matriculation. We successfully turn students into health-care professionals that traditional systems may not have given the chance simply by providing the support they need to succeed. Many aspiring students have families or are caring for older loved ones, so flexibility is important. They need non-traditional schedules, accelerated programs, or online courses to accommodate their full-time job or other competing responsibilities. For instance, Chamberlain University, the nation's largest nursing school (and an Adtalem subsidiary), has 23 campuses across the country and offers many online and hybrid degree options, making it easier for students to create a flexible schedule and attend classes based on where they live and work. Additionally, more than 90% of Chamberlain students receive some form of financial assistance to help combat the very real and prevalent financial barriers they face. Our institutions excel at preparing graduates to make a difference in their communities. They provide hands-on, specialized training that ensures students are practice-ready when they graduate. Through a unique Chamberlain program, for example, BSN students have the opportunity to consider which specialty they will choose, while sharpening their clinical judgment and gaining real-world experience to develop the skills and confidence they need to be successful and caring health professionals. It is a myth that these models of health-care education are less than adequate. As the leading grantor of BSN (Bachelor of Science in Nursing) degrees to minority students in the U.S., it's clear that Chamberlain's innovative programming allows students who may not have otherwise had the opportunity to pursue a nursing career to do so, while also filling critical shortages. Moreover, Adtalem's medical institutions—the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in Sint Maarten and Ross University School of Medicine in Barbados—combined graduate more physicians than any school in the U.S. Students from these schools match into competitive residency programs at rates comparable to U.S. medical schools (with a 98% match rate in 2024) and at substantially higher rates than most international medical school graduates. These are physicians entering hospitals, clinics, and communities, and they're well-prepared post-graduation to immediately begin to provide quality care to people throughout the country. Our medical schools offer three admission cycles, giving students the ability to begin their medical careers at the time that best fits their personal and academic schedules—as opposed to traditional medical schools that offer one enrollment cycle for first-year students. The multiple admissions cycles enable students to complete their coursework sooner and, in turn, enter their residency program earlier, helping to address the health-care workforce shortage by graduating qualified MD students at a higher rate. Traditional approaches will not solve today's health-care workforce challenges by solely relying on legacy models. We can only expand the pipeline of capable, practice-ready professionals by reimagining health-care education and considering new, innovative models at scale. The opinions expressed in commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. This story was originally featured on
