CDC Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /tag/cdc/ Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of KFF. Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:42:25 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.6 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 CDC Archives - Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News /tag/cdc/ 32 32 161476233 ‘The Child Is Terrified’: Doctors on the Front Lines of a Measles Comeback Speak Out /public-health/utah-measles-outbreak-vaccines-doctors-pediatricians-speak-out/ Fri, 24 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2264653 This isn’t just a bad year for measles. It looks to be the start of a bad era. Confirmed just hit a 35-year high, and it’s only July. Together with last year, the number of cases has exceeded the combined total over the previous 25 years. The vast majority of cases stem from domestic outbreaks fueled by low rates of vaccination—and rates are declining.

For the first time in a quarter century, the U.S. no longer meets a main criterion for having eliminated measles as a public health threat. That status hinges on sporadic outbreaks fizzling out within a year. Utah’s outbreak has lasted for longer, since .

Nearly 400 people have been hospitalized with measles in the U.S. this year and last, three people have died, and at least three suffered with .

This month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is set to finalize a comprehensive study of the nation’s measles situation, examining data from January 2025 through June 2026.

“I don’t think we could say with a straight face that there hasn’t been transmission over the past 12 months,” said a CDC scientist with knowledge of the agency’s measles report. (Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News agreed not to name the researcher, who is concerned about retaliation.) The researcher said a national committee of measles specialists will review the CDC’s internal report, which then goes to the Pan American Health Organization, a group that evaluates the measles elimination status of countries throughout North, South, and Central America and the Caribbean.

PAHO will make at an annual meeting this fall, but scientists say the writing is on the wall. “The assessment for elimination isn’t until November, but that is a scheduling issue, basically,” said Anne Schuchat, who led the CDC’s immunization and respiratory disease group from 2006 to 2015.

“It’s just so sad, because some people will get brutally ill,” she said of measles’ return. “This is a wake-up call.”

The emergency department entrance to a hospital is shown in the foreground and mountains are visible in the distance behind it.
Southwestern Utah has been hit hard by an ongoing measles outbreak that’s lasted for more than a year. (Amy Maxmen/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Pediatricians in Utah have been on the front lines as measles and other vaccine-preventable ailments have returned to the U.S. In interviews with Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, six doctors shared insights on this new era of vaccine hesitancy — and what could be done to turn the situation around.

The conversations have been edited for clarity.


On Unvaccinated Children Hospitalized With Measles Complications

Emilie Morris, a hospital pediatrician in Salt Lake County and Utah County: When children come in, they’re often bent over. We call it tripoding, which is particular to upper respiratory infections and airway swelling. They have a rash — viruses cause rashes all the time — but in this context, the kid is hunched over, mouth open, drooling, crying, maybe not even producing tears, because they’re so dehydrated. Really labored breathing, kind of tugging in their belly, tugging between their ribs. Their eyes look kind of glazed over. It’s like they’re seeing through you.

Nathan Money, a hospital pediatrician in Salt Lake County and Utah County: If the child has a fever or trouble breathing, and they’re unvaccinated, I have to be way more aggressive from a medical standpoint, because they are at higher risk of having life-threatening illnesses. I have to do more blood work, or lumbar punctures to rule out meningitis. I have to do things which are painful, and it’s traumatic for the families.

I tell them, “Because your child doesn’t have vaccines, I have to be more worried about conditions like sepsis or meningitis, so therefore I need to do more workup.” The last thing I want to do is miss something. These are parents who love their children. They always tell me, “Do what you need to do to make sure my child is safe.”


On Treating Unvaccinated Children Hospitalized for Measles

Trahern W. Jones, a pediatric infectious disease specialist based in Salt Lake City: So I’m coming into a room and just hearing the most awful barking cough, just a cough and a high-pitch stridor as the child is trying to breathe. And he’s just coughing so hard it just makes you feel short of breath. He looks like he’s been beaten down for days, but he can’t rest, because the cough keeps him awake.

The parents tell me they’re not anti-vaccine, but in the past, somebody they know had a reaction to a vaccine — or something they thought was a reaction to a vaccine — and so they paused vaccines when the child was a baby. They were planning to catch up later.

In another case, the parent was stunned by how awful it was. I asked them what they knew about measles before their child was sick, and they said the only person who’d ever taught them anything about measles was their grandmother who had taken care of her kids with measles ages ago. That’s something I’ve heard from other parents. It’s such an awful illness. Even the best possible course is going to be one of the worst diseases most children ever go through.

There are multiple facets to it. Physically, the child has been beat down for multiple days by this virus. The parents don’t get to sleep, because they’re nursing their child. Then there’s the emotional component because the parent is regretting not getting the vaccine, not realizing how bad this was, and then feeling deeply ashamed, trying to reconcile with family members who are really upset at them for not getting their child vaccinated.

Morris: One child was from a family that was uninsured because they didn’t feel that they would need to use the medical system. They were faced with the high burden of cost of our healthcare system. The cost was playing into the parents’ decision on whether or not their child should receive necessary medical care. I said something like: “Please don’t go home. Your child needs oxygen. She has pneumonia. We will figure out a way to pay for this, because we acknowledge what we do is expensive.”

On top of that, the parent had several other children in the home who weren’t vaccinated. It was past the period where we could intervene with vaccines to try to prevent infection, so then our recommendation was to quarantine their children at home for 21 days: “Don’t interact with anybody else in your community. Don’t go to the grocery store, even with a mask. Please take this seriously.”

It takes time for parents to understand the level of concern I have, even when their child is physically ill in the hospital requiring ongoing care. It’s pretty indicative of the breakdown of trust between physicians and families. I say, “This is the gravity or severity of your child’s situation and how serious we need to be about protecting other people.”

It’s frustrating. How can I make people understand I have a very genuine concern for their child? And I know they share that concern, but maybe it’s not the same degree of concern, because they don’t understand the illness and how severe it can become.

Money: It’s heartbreaking to see these children struggling to survive when measles could have been easily prevented by a safe mechanism that is readily available and well studied. These are well-meaning parents who love their children, who have gotten bad information from federal leadership or from online sources. The saddest part to me is when I am caring for a child and the parent says, “I didn’t know that this could get so bad.”


On Conversations With Parents Who Don’t Vaccinate Their Children

Tim Duffy, a pediatrician in Salt Lake County: A lot of families aren’t aggressively anti-vax, but they’re hesitant. Younger parents who grew up in the digital age have done their research — “research” in quotation marks — for months. And they keep getting confirmation of their concerns on social media. They think they’re doing what’s best for their child.

I’ve told families: “You could do nothing I say as a pediatrician. You could sleep your child on their stomach. You could not put them in a car seat or, when they’re older, not use seat belts. You could do nothing I say, and for your individual child, they will probably be OK. But from my standpoint, where I’m taking care of thousands of kids, within a system that takes care of hundreds of thousands of kids, we will have bad outcomes. These children will show up at our facilities, and it’s so sad.”

A man in half-zip fleece and jeans since in a light gray armchair and looks at the camera.
Tim Duffy, a pediatrician in Salt Lake County, Utah, says many parents are concerned about incorrect claims about vaccines seen on social media. (Amy Maxmen/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Pediatrician in southern Utah whom Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News agreed not to name, because of concerns about harassment after being targeted by anti-vaccine activists in the past: A lot of parents are concerned about autism. I’ve told them that I’d be very concerned if there was any evidence that what we’re doing is causing autism. But if vaccines were causing autism, we should see more cases of autism in vaccinated kids compared to unvaccinated kids, and we’re just not seeing that.

I’ve also had families who say they want to be natural, or that they’re concerned about what is in the shots. A frequently asked question is: “Did you vaccinate your children?” I say that knowing what I know, I’m confident giving this to my kids. They’re all vaccinated.


On the Influence of Politics on Vaccine Hesitancy

Jones: Vaccines have become a political football. That wasn’t true 20 years ago. But now it’s used to drive a wedge between groups of people, which is unfortunate. Vaccines are one of the main reasons why we don’t have to worry about losing our kids.

Southern Utah pediatrician: People don’t know who to believe. If politics comes up, I tell parents that my messaging on vaccines is not politically motivated. When parents ask about changes to the vaccine schedule, I’m transparent. [In January, the Department of Health and Human Services reducing the number of vaccines given to children. A few months later, a federal judge blocked those changes.]

I’ve said there was a process for the approval of immunizations through ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices], which is made up of scientists, public health experts, and doctors, and all those people were let go, and a new panel was selected. A couple of individuals changed the recommendation outside of the time-tested, evidence-based process for evaluating vaccines. That raises concerns for me as a doctor. I tell parents that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, and several other professional organizations have issued statements saying that these changes are not based on evidence.

Ellie Brownstein, pediatrician in Salt Lake County and president-elect of the Utah chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics: I avoid talking about politics, but what’s being said has added another layer to our work. One family asked me about changes to vaccine recommendations, so instead of just telling them what immunizations are due, I talk with them about why physicians and researchers have followed a different schedule for years, about the reasoning and the science behind it. I explain that I trust these experts over someone without a lot of experience.

A close-up image through a glass door of the inside a refrigerator where white plastic containers with labels such as "MMR (LIVE) greater than or equal to 12 mo" are lined up on shelves.
The Southwest Utah Public Health Department stocks vaccines against measles, whooping cough, tetanus, hepatitis B, and other diseases. (Amy Maxmen/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Money: People are not vaccinated, because they’ve lost trust in the medical community. They’re placing trust elsewhere. Rebuilding trust is a complicated process, but it comes from consistent messaging at every level, from the pediatrician to local health departments to community leaders, city leadership, district leadership, religious leadership, educational leadership.

We need consistent messaging from state leadership, which has been pretty absent. I want to see commercials on TV about the safety of the MMR [measles, mumps, and rubella] vaccine and the dangers of the measles, sponsored by my state leadership. I’d like to see this on billboards and in schools, in public buildings and grocery stores. I want to go to a sports event and see messages about the measles and the MMR vaccine. Right now, people have to go out of their way to find information from reputable sources.

We also need policy changes to support vaccination. This train is going in the wrong direction, and it can feel like a helpless situation, because we’re just not seeing the public messaging and leadership that’s needed to turn this around.


Advice on Talking With Parents Who Don’t Vaccinate Their Children

Jones: Approach them with as much compassion as you possibly can. Ask open-ended questions to learn about their experiences that led them to have these concerns. I think it’s really important to not come down on them, citing facts and figures and pointing to guidelines on why they need to get their kids vaccinated. But try to direct their attention to the fact that you’re a real person with your own real experiences and knowledge. I point out to families that I have my own kids, and I would never recommend something for your kids that I wouldn’t do for mine.

Southern Utah pediatrician: I’ve learned that if you come down hard, you’re going to lose people who need care. My number one goal now is to build bridges and maintain a relationship with families, because that’s what’s going to allow me to convince some of them.

I approach people differently depending on where they are. Parents who are very skeptical or anti-vax will say no when I tell them their child is due for immunizations. I’ll say: “Fine. You guys get to choose. You’re the parents. But I’m curious to know what your reasoning is.” Sometimes they’re just like, “It’s something I’ve decided.” They don’t want to have a conversation.

It’s a good day if I can have a conversation with someone who doesn’t want to vaccinate, even if I don’t convince them. I try to help them think through things rather than shoving anything down their throat. When they’re done talking, I’ll ask, “Can I share my perspectives on this?” Some will say yes enthusiastically, and others will say yes because they’re being polite.

A lot of parents aren’t sure what to do, and those are the people I focus most of my time on. I focus our conversation on their specific concerns, and I’m open about specific side effects that different immunizations can have. For example, I’ll tell them that some children get a fever after a vaccine, which is OK. The fever is not harmful, but it can make babies feel crummy as their body is building up antibodies against viruses and bacteria.

Brownstein: I don’t like the idea of excluding unvaccinated kids from my practice. I know some do that. But what that does is it ends any future discussion. I can’t keep talking with parents about vaccines if I kick them out of my practice, and if these parents find like-minded doctors, this situation will get worse.


On Being on the Front Lines of Measles’ Comeback in the U.S.

Money: I wish that people could see what I see. Everyone else sees what people post on Instagram. Or they think, “Someone I know had measles when they were a kid and they were fine.” But as a hospital-based pediatrician, I see what happens when things go poorly. I see what happens when children with measles aren’t able to breathe on their own, and they’re in a hospital bed with a cannula in their nose, struggling to breathe, an IV in their arm because they can’t drink on their own. And the child is terrified, and the parents are scared that their child might die.

It’s heartbreaking as a pediatrician and as a father to know that the entire situation could have been easily prevented.

Duffy: Even though parents say vaccination is their choice, I still feel personally responsible if something bad happens that’s preventable, because I feel like I didn’t say the right thing, I didn’t ask the right questions. Maybe I let it drop because of the look on a parent’s face.

Morris: Every pediatrician I know cares so deeply about what they do. Sometimes people forget that we are human beings practicing this discipline, and we bring all our concerns for our community into this space. I’m trying to navigate a lot of complex human emotions, like how it feels to hold grief with a family when something bad happens that was preventable — which is the worst situation, because you think, “Could I have done something differently?”

Jones: I think we’ll see more diseases start coming back that we thought we had gotten rid of. I think it’s going to take dramatic changes to actually prevent those outcomes. I’m not necessarily seeing those changes being done by those in power.

I think of that quote from The Lord of the Rings. It’s something like, you don’t get to choose the time that you’re born into, but you get to choose what you’re going to do about it. And if there’s any comfort that I have, it’s in knowing that there are right decisions to make and that I’m going to make them, and I’m going to help others make them, too.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2264653
Trump’s CDC Nominee Praises Vaccines, Without Vowing Independence From Kennedy /public-health/cdc-director-nominee-erica-schwartz-confirmation-hearing-vaccines-rfk-kennedy/ Thu, 16 Jul 2026 20:22:23 +0000 /?p=2261436 Erica Schwartz, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, expressed support for vaccines — including mRNA-based covid shots — in a Senate hearing on Wednesday, though she didn’t dispel concerns the agency has lost any independence from the White House.

“I have been vaccinating people throughout my entire career in uniformed services. I believe in vaccines,” Schwartz said at the hearing. “I do believe that mRNA technology is safe and effective.”

Her position contrasts with that of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who ousted Trump’s previous CDC director, Susan Monarez, after she sparred with him over vaccines. Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist, has baselessly called mRNA vaccines the deadliest ever made.

Schwartz “has dedicated her career to protecting the health of the American people.” Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said in an emailed statement. “The president nominated her because of that exemplary record, and Secretary Kennedy looks forward to working with her to advance the Administration’s public health priorities.”

The CDC has had a Senate-confirmed leader for only about one month during Trump’s second term, and the agency has been roiled over the administration’s cuts to public health funding, firings of scientists and other career employees, and efforts to scale back childhood vaccines and access to covid shots.

Schwartz, who was deputy surgeon general in Trump’s first administration and is a former chief medical officer for the Coast Guard, has support in the public health community, where it’s hoped she can restore credibility at the agency she would lead.

“I will follow the science wherever it leads,” Schwartz told senators. “My first priority will be restoring trust in public health institutions.”

Democrats and some Republicans have expressed doubt that Schwartz will maintain any more independence from Kennedy than Monarez, who has said she was fired in August after refusing to sign off on changes Kennedy demanded to vaccine recommendations and personnel cuts. In a released by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), it was revealed Kennedy had pressured Monarez to change CDC guidance regarding the universal childhood flu vaccine.

Monarez “refused to act as a rubber stamp for Secretary Kennedy’s very dangerous agenda,” Sanders said July 15 at the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee’s confirmation hearing for Schwartz. “Frankly, she stood up for protecting the well-being of the American people.”

The chairman of the HELP Committee, Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), pressed Schwartz on whether she would push back against rhetoric or policies not based in science.

“We need unbiased leaders who make decisions based upon science, not politics or ideology,” Cassidy said. “This is not a theoretical.”

Cassidy, a physician, has also quarreled with Kennedy over vaccines. He lost a Republican primary for reelection in May after Trump endorsed one of his opponents. Despite his rupture with the White House, Schwartz almost certainly needs Cassidy’s support to win confirmation. That requires publicly committing to support vaccination and mainstream science.

Schwartz told the committee she would “never compromise” on science.

“The president would never ask me to not follow the law,” she said. “But I will always follow the law.”

A photo of Senator Bill Cassidy. He is gesturing with his right hand.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, questioned Schwartz on her support of vaccines and her willingness to push back against her would-be boss, health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Eric Harkleroad/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Many Democrats on the committee raised concerns about the administration’s politicization of public health. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) asked about the “political scrubbing” of research grants. Trump officials have canceled many research grants under the CDC and the National Institutes of Health for political reasons, including targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts.

“Restoring trust to the CDC is my No. 1 priority,” Schwartz said. “Scientific integrity is core.”

The American Public Health Association’s CEO, Georges Benjamin, , saying she “possesses the medical background and public health knowledge to understand that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention must be guided by evidence-based science.”

The APHA has fought many of Trump’s initiatives on public health. After Monarez’s resignation, the organization titled “Kennedy’s attack on public health must be stopped.”

Schwartz told the committee that if she is confirmed, she is committed to “radical transparency” and modernization.

Schwartz expressed support for one Kennedy initiative: She told senators she believes nutrition education and physical fitness assessments are important.

“I am all in on the Make America Healthy Again agenda,” she said.

At the July 15 hearing, Schwartz faced questioning alongside Trump’s pick for HHS assistant secretary for preparedness and response, Sean Kaufman.

A wide shot of a Senate hearing room. Erica Schwartz and Sean Kaufman sit next to each other at the witness table.
Schwartz testifies alongside President Donald Trump’s pick for the role of Health and Human Services assistant secretary for preparedness and response, Sean Kaufman. (Eric Harkleroad/Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Cassidy called out Kaufman for past comments casting doubt on the efficacy of vaccines. The senator raised his voice as he accused Kaufman of spreading “those damn lies.”

Kaufman was conciliatory. “Let me be clear: Vaccines save lives,” he said. “They are safe and effective.”

If confirmed by the Senate, Schwartz will replace Jay Bhattacharya, who is performing the duties of CDC director but is not officially the acting director. Bhattacharya is also the director of the NIH.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2261436
Journalists Discuss Raw-Milk Marketing, Extreme Heat, Opioid Settlement Spending /on-air/on-air-july-11-2026-raw-milk-formula-recall-extreme-heat-opioid-settlements/ Sat, 11 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2258566&preview=true&preview_id=2258566

Céline Gounder, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed the health risks of consuming raw milk and an outbreak of infant botulism linked to recalled formula on CBS News’ CBS Mornings and CBS News 24/7’s The Daily Report on July 7. Gounder also discussed allegations about Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s oversight of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on CBS Mornings on July 6.

  • .
  • .
  • .

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Georgia correspondent Briah Lumpkins discussed extreme heat in Georgia on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on July 3.

  • .

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News senior correspondent Aneri Pattani discussed strategically directing opioid settlement money to support long-term impact during the National League of Cities’ June 25 webinar “Sustaining the Work: Strategically Leveraging Opioid Settlement Funds.”


Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2258566
New Disease Threats Follow Trump Administration’s Health Program Cuts /public-health/new-disease-threats-follow-trump-administrations-health-program-cuts/ Thu, 02 Jul 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2254240 As beachgoers flock to water during the busy July Fourth weekend, danger could be lurking in some areas.

Researchers this spring discovered in water in several coastal locations across New York’s Long Island, and town officials in the Hamptons vacation destination about the findings. in Florida have been infected this year, and in June urged people to take precautions.

About 1 in 5 people infected by the bacteria die, sometimes within a day or two of becoming ill, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . The bacteria, Vibrio vulnificus, can enter open wounds and cause tissue death and systemic sepsis.

“Many people with Vibrio vulnificus infection can get seriously ill and need intensive care or limb amputation,” the CDC says.

The risk of such public threats is mounting because climate change is expanding the territory of certain pathogens, but researchers say there’s another concern. The Trump administration has cut investments in programs and agencies that prevent, track, and respond to health hazards the federal government is now confronting.

Consider the , which can infest and kill livestock, in the U.S. in June. The U.S. Department of Agriculture lost in the first six months of 2025, according to a report from the USDA’s Office of Inspector General, and the agency’s winnowed-down inspection service is helping lead the response to the parasite.

Or malaria. A freeze on foreign aid disrupted international malaria prevention efforts, and warned that the U.S. is vulnerable to the reintroduction of the infectious disease.

And when it comes to Vibrio, the Trump administration began removing hundreds of deep-sea instruments that and yield data that helps that can allow the bacteria to flourish. the data to study Vibrio, which can when water temperatures and .

“It is important to track coastal temperatures, and that will relate to the distributions of Vibrio,” said Christopher Gobler, a professor in the School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at New York’s Stony Brook University, though he added that there are also other sources of data for researchers.

The Trump administration to dismantle the ocean monitoring system following bipartisan opposition to the effort in Congress.

But it’s still curtailing Vibrio surveillance. The life-threatening species that’s found in water can also sicken or kill people who eat contaminated seafood, such as infected with the bacteria. And infections from Vibrio vulnificus linked to consuming raw or undercooked shellfish as the presence of other pathogens in food decrease.

Since 1995, 10 states have participated in a federal program called the Foodborne Disease Active Disease Surveillance Network, or FoodNet. The program, with the CDC, monitors and track cases of foodborne illness caused by eight specific pathogens, including Vibrio. But last year the Trump administration to report on all but two pathogens, which means states no longer must report cases to the CDC.

Federal officials deny the moves are putting Americans at risk, saying the CDC continues to monitor these pathogens through other national surveillance systems to ensure ongoing visibility into disease trends and outbreaks.

Meanwhile, some former health leaders say the ramifications of sweeping cuts to health agencies and global prevention programs are becoming more apparent, undermining U.S. response efforts and initiatives that aim to safeguard the country from diseases.

“We are letting down defenses that were necessary to protect against microbial threats,” said Tom Frieden, a former CDC director who is now president and chief executive of Resolve to Save Lives, which works to stop preventable disease. “Instead of protecting, we’re doing the opposite.”

Do Limited Resources Mean Higher Risks?

The administration defends its actions, including massive layoffs at government health agencies, as necessary to eliminate wasteful spending.

The Department of Health and Human Services “is advancing the most significant public health reforms in a generation focused on prevention, accountability, scientific transparency, and better health outcomes,” agency spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email. “The Department is putting American families at the center of public health decision-making.”

Evidence suggests health risks are rising even as the Trump administration pulls back on resources for research, detection, and response.

Early in his administration, President Donald Trump opted to freeze and review work on global health programs. Trump’s cost-reduction effort, led by billionaire Elon Musk, also dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development.

As a result, work was disrupted on the President’s Malaria Initiative, a George W. Bush-era program aimed at combating malaria in hard-hit countries that is credited with saving more than . USAID had in the program since 2005.

In addition, for global malaria programs were targeted for termination, , an independent research group that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. The report didn’t include data on the total value of those specific malaria grants.

And the spending freeze halted research for more effective . The administration dissolved the CDC’s , shuffling staffers to other divisions and on the disease. HHS didn’t respond to an email asking how many staff members had been moved.

The life-threatening infectious disease spread by mosquitos was in 1951. But the CDC’s updated guidance on investigating domestic cases that “the country remains susceptible to malaria reintroduction.”

resulted in 10 people in Arkansas, Florida, Maryland, and Texas becoming infected locally, and mosquitoes capable of transmitting malaria are found throughout most of the country.

“The majority of U.S. residents lack protective immunity against malaria, rendering persons susceptible to severe illness and death if infected,” the CDC said in the May report.

HHS declined to comment on any of the specific cuts but said the CDC works with domestic and international partners to reduce the burden of malaria and prevent its reestablishment in the U.S.

It’s not just cuts to funding that are raising health risks, say researchers and former health officials. Significant staffing cuts mean there are fewer people working on preventing or tracking diseases, they say.

“Yes, the programs have been cut in terms of reduction in staff, but I would say, equally important, you have reductions in expertise,” said Jeanne Marrazzo, CEO of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. “It’s irreplaceable.”

Screwworm is a species of parasitic blowfly producing larvae that can enter open wounds and devour tissue, infecting people and animals. Like malaria, it has long been eliminated in the U.S., and disease monitoring efforts have been key to keeping it out.

The cuts at USAID stripped from the United Nations’ , which focuses on global food security and the such as screwworm.

In the wake of the administration’s cost-cutting initiatives, more than 20,000 employees are gone from the USDA, which develops and implements agriculture policy and provides resources to producers of livestock vulnerable to the parasite.

On June 3, the first new case of screwworm in the U.S. was confirmed, and there have now been infected with parasite. An expanding outbreak could devastate the cattle industry.

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins during the Trump administration have led to screwworm’s return. Instead, she has , saying it didn’t do enough to prevent reintroduction into the U.S. Rollins said on X that “” under the previous Biden administration was partly to blame, providing no evidence.

The USDA did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Ashish Jha, a doctor who served as the White House covid response coordinator during the Biden administration, said there’s no truth to the claim that immigrants lacking legal status have brought screwworm into the U.S.

Investments in tracking and combating diseases have suffered, he said, because HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is prioritizing the prevention of chronic disease at the expense of efforts to curtail infectious disease.

“Who doesn’t want a healthier country? It sounds great, but it’s kind of a bait and switch,” Jha said. “They’re doing the opposite. They’re letting down our defenses that are necessary to protect us against microbial threats.”

HHS’ Hilliard disagreed, saying Kennedy’s actions are making the agency more effective.

“Secretary Kennedy is delivering that reform by streamlining operations, reducing redundancies, and returning HHS to pre-pandemic staffing levels,” she said. “At the same time, he is dismantling policies and incentives that contributed to a nationwide chronic disease epidemic.”

Surveillance Gaps

Jha pointed to Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization, which coordinates global responses to public health issues and crises, and to the dismantling of USAID.

The pullback has had implications for the Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo, aid workers say.

Without the same amount of funding from USAID, the International Rescue Committee, which partners to deliver front-line health, surveillance, and outbreak preparedness activities in Congo, .

“Funding cuts have left the region dangerously exposed,” Heather Reoch Kerr, IRC’s country director for Congo, said .

The outbreak is roughly 7,000 miles away, but its spread has the , with stepped-up surveillance and entry restrictions on airline travelers. Federal officials have said that the dismantling of USAID hasn’t hampered detection or response.

“The U.S. government continues to move aggressively to contain the Ebola outbreak at its source in order to protect the American people and prevent further international spread,” the State Department said .

Trump’s decision to disengage with the WHO was criticized by following a hantavirus outbreak this spring on a cruise ship that had set sail from Argentina. the , and they questioned why the president suggested creating a costly new rather than sticking with the WHO — especially, they say, when the U.S. is cutting back on the surveillance programs it already has.

The federal government has tracked Vibrio cases as part of the FoodNet program, which aims in part to identify and curtail outbreaks. Reporting on cases of Vibrio is now optional.

Close to half of the cases of foodborne illness caused by Vibrio vulnificus have , and some within 24 hours after consumption of tainted shellfish such as raw oysters. The bacteria can multiply rapidly, leading to septic shock and blistering skin lesions. The pathogen is becoming to antibiotics.

The CDC estimates that of Vibrio infection occur annually, with infections from the most severe species, Vibrio vulnificus, steadily rising. , that species has led to 429 cases due to infections of open wounds and 135 cases from contaminated food.

“The more surveillance you get, you can connect the dots,” said Bill Marler, a Seattle-area food safety lawyer. “If a tree falls in the woods and you don’t hear it, did the tree fall? It’s easier not to report diseases. Then they can say, ‘Look at how safe our food supply is.’”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2254240
Colorado Charts Its Own Course on Vaccines Amid Federal Pullback /public-health/colorado-vaccine-law-coalition-cdc-acip-infectious-disease-prevention-polio/ Thu, 21 May 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2238762 In response to abrupt and politicized , concerned Coloradans have taken several steps to shore up support for vaccine science.

A bill in March then by Democratic Gov. Jared Polis allows Colorado to further uncouple itself from federal guidance.

The law allows health officials to follow the recommendations of national medical groups when making decisions such as purchasing bulk vaccines for the Medicaid program.

“We are insulating our state from the dysfunction coming out of Washington,” said Democratic state , a co-sponsor of the bill and a registered nurse. “We’re going to rely on science.”

“From fighting during the pandemic for Coloradans to get vaccines as quickly as possible to combating the Trump Administration’s barriers to getting vaccinated, we have expanded access to vaccines for Coloradans who want them,” Polis said in a statement when he signed the law.

Colorado is one of that, along with Washington, D.C., have taken steps to bypass the new federal recommendations amid worries that the changes could chip away at public trust in vaccines and erode .

Previously, Colorado, like most states, had followed federal guidance set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In January, CDC advisory panelists, selected by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., from the agency’s universal recommendation list.

Last year, doctors, scientists, local leaders, and other supporters came together to form an outreach and advocacy coalition called .

The group aims to offer a clear, unified voice on the proven benefits of vaccines and reassure residents confused by the many federal changes.

, a former Denver City Council member, joined the group because she wants more people to hear her own chilling story about vaccine-preventable illness.

“Every summer everybody got sick,” Boigon said, recounting her childhood in 1950s Detroit.

The illness was polio, a highly contagious viral disease that , sometimes causing partial or full paralysis.

During the summer of 1953, “the whole block was sick and some of us got crippled, and that was just the way it was,” she said.

New Group Steps Up

Boigon’s personal history will be part of the new generations about the dangers of infectious diseases that were once common in the U.S. but are now relatively rare.

The group, which formed last September, will also compile vaccine information from medical groups and the state health department and advocate for policy proposals with the state government.

Several pieces of paper are arranged on a table. One is a professional biography of Carol Boigon from the Denver City Council. Next is a clipping from The Detroit Times. Last is a 1985 Colorado Press Award.
Boigon shows memorabilia from her life and career. (Kevin J. Beaty/Colorado Public Radio/Denverite)

“It was in direct response to the federal threats,” said another coalition member, former state lawmaker . She leads the nonprofit .

Another member, public relations specialist Elizabet Garcia, wants more outreach to Hispanics, whose vaccination rates .

“A lot of time it’s this fear that they’re going to have to pay out-of-pocket, that their insurance doesn’t cover it, that they might not even have insurance in general,” Garcia said.

Boigon was 5 when she got sick and was hospitalized for six weeks with a fever. The virus attacked her spine.

“None of my limbs worked immediately afterwards,” Boigon said.

Although she regained function in her other limbs, her right arm never fully recovered. She had to adapt, relearning everyday tasks such as reaching out to shake hands with people with her left hand.

In 1955, not long after she got sick, the new polio vaccine became more widely available to the public. As vaccinations took off, U.S. cases of polio, once one of the nation’s most feared diseases, .

Increasing Public Trust

State leaders have taken other steps to promote public health. After the Trump administration pulled the U.S. out of the World Health Organization, several states, including Colorado, the WHO’s Global Outbreak Alert and Response Network on their own.

Colorado also challenging the Trump administration’s changes to the childhood vaccine schedule.

And the new state law has provisions besides allowing the state to diverge from federal recommendations. It codifies pharmacists’ ability to prescribe and give vaccines themselves. It also increases legal protections for healthcare workers who give vaccines.

“This law will provide more clarity to guide all Coloradans, including providers who administer vaccines,” Lontine said.

But the legislation has opponents who say it would interfere with parental choice and claim vaccines might be unsafe or ineffective.

“I just want to make sure we’re not just getting into a big political dispute between the federal recommendations — the CDC and so forth — and different political views in Colorado here,” said Republican state , who voted against the vaccine bill.

NPR contacted the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services about Colorado’s new law. Spokesperson Emily Hilliard answered in an email: “The updated CDC childhood schedule continues to protect children against serious diseases.”

Preventable Illnesses Surge

The flurry of statewide activity comes as Colorado and the nation have seen surges in illnesses .

As of mid-May, Colorado had recorded 22 measles cases this year. In 2025, it registered , according to the state health department, far surpassing totals from previous years.

Across Colorado, for measles were 88% last school year — with only a few counties achieving rates of 95%, the level needed for herd immunity, according to data in December.

This has also been Colorado’s worst flu season in recent years.

Vaccination rates for both flu and covid-19 have dropped slightly in Colorado, according to the state health department.

Eight children in Colorado have died this season ; one from covid; and one from RSV, or respiratory syncytial virus. are available for children and recommended by the state’s health department.

Kennedy, a longtime anti-vaccine activist, has defended his decisions to overhaul the recommended schedule for childhood vaccinations.

In March, a federal judge many of the changes.

“We’re not taking vaccines away from anybody. If you want to get the vaccine, you could get it. It’s going to be fully covered by insurance just like it was before,” Kennedy in January.

When a reporter suggested the new changes could result in fewer people getting a flu vaccine, Kennedy said: “Well, that may be, and maybe that’s a better thing.”

Boigon is sometimes incredulous at everything that has happened.

“It’s like we’re going backwards,” she said. “It’s like we have decided we don’t want a modern life; we want to be back in the 1950s, where children are sick and dying.”

Carol Boigon sits on her sofa at home.
Boigon at home in Denver. (Kevin J. Beaty/Colorado Public Radio/Denverite)

This article is from a partnership that includes ,Ìý, and Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2238762
Saving Lives by Changing Lives: The Next Frontier in Suicide Prevention /mental-health/suicide-prevention-mental-health-upstream-solutions-eleven-minutes/ Wed, 29 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000

If you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline by dialing or texting “988.”


Someone in America dies by suicide every 11 minutes. It’s that common. But not normal.

Humans have evolved over centuries to survive. So when people try to kill themselves, something has gone wrong. Typically, the assumption is that something happened in the person’s mind — a mental illness.

But in recent decades, there’s been a growing movement to ask a different question: What went wrong in the world around that person?

For Chris Pawelski, it was a torrent of factors. His dad — one of his best friends, whom he worked with daily for decades — was diagnosed with renal cancer and died six months later. Pawelski was left as the primary caregiver for his mom, who had dementia.

His family’s in New York’s Orange County — where he first worked as a 5-year-old, collecting onions that fell out of crates — was hemorrhaging money. Pawelski said he was growing roughly $200,000 worth of crops some years but took home only about $20,000, unable to negotiate higher prices with wholesale buyers that dominated the market.

Debt to suppliers and equipment vendors piled up, and the burden strained his marriage. He had little time for friends, working sunup to sundown seven days a week, desperately trying to preserve his family’s legacy.

“It’s all stuff collapsing down upon you,” he said. “It’s weeks, months, years of dealing with all sorts of pressures that you can’t alleviate.”

Pawelski started wondering what it would be like to get hit by a truck on the busy road in front of his house. “You think you’re already on your way out, so why wait?” he said.

A barn is seen behind a man driving a green tractor across a field
  (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)
A man wearing a red shirt and a baseball cap is seen through a cracked windshield
After his father died, Pawelski became his mother’s primary caregiver. Meanwhile he was struggling to preserve his farm — his family’s legacy. “It’s all stuff collapsing down upon you,” he says. (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Millions of Americans have , and tens of thousands . Suicide repeatedly ranks among the — making the U.S. an .

Prevention efforts have typically focused on connecting individuals in crisis with treatment — despite therapy and medication being , the healthcare system , and a consensus that suicide is caused by a , including but not limited to mental illness.

Now, many people working to prevent suicide, including some who have tried to harm themselves or lost a loved one to it, are calling for a broader approach. Some were galvanized by the covid pandemic, when rates of — not because everyone’s brain chemistry suddenly changed but because the world changed. That led many to believe that, while treatments and crisis care are vital, the goal of suicide prevention needs to expand beyond stopping people from dying to also giving them reasons to live.

“It’s not rocket science,” said , a psychologist and internationally recognized suicide prevention researcher who lost her brother to suicide. If “you have happier, healthier people, they live longer, happier lives.”

That means suicide prevention shouldn’t be limited to answering hotlines or treating patients in psychiatric wards, she said. It should also involve running food banks to ensure families don’t go hungry or hosting weekly book clubs for homebound seniors to make friends. It can take the form of school programs that build resilience in children or housing policies that prevent evictions.

U.S. Suicide Rate One of the Highest Among High-Income Countries (Bar Chart)

shows these — even if they don’t have the words “mental health” or “suicide” in the title — can reduce the number of people who kill themselves. They often lower rates of crime, addiction, and poverty, too.

The U.S. has lagged other countries in adopting this approach, Spencer-Thomas said, perhaps because it’s easier — and more politically palatable — to tell someone to go to therapy than it is to enact sweeping policy changes, such as an .

“As long as we have that convenient narrative that it’s just a bunch of broken people needing medicine and treatment, then we’re never accountable for fixing the broken things in our communities,” Spencer-Thomas said.

The Trump Administration’s Approach

Overhauling suicide prevention efforts to focus on broad social and economic policies might seem overwhelming and unrealistic — especially right now. This approach requires large upfront investments that lack across-the-board support, either because of budgeting realities or ideological bents.

President Donald Trump and his appointees have said little about suicide directly, but many of their policies do the opposite of what shows .

The administration has championed and the that are projected to leave and in coming years. It has injected uncertainty into the economy through , , and . It has for school-based mental health initiatives, gutted federal programs that focus on at-risk blue collar workers, and . (Suicides are the in America.)

“All of these changes are creating a firestorm,” said , the chief advocacy officer for the National Alliance on Mental Illness. They can cause “extreme stress and anxiety” in people’s lives, she added, and “when people feel desperate, that’s when crises can emerge.”

A woman wearing red glasses stands in front of a screen as she holds a microphone.
Sally Spencer-Thomas, a psychologist and researcher, says suicide prevention shouldn’t be limited to hotlines or psychiatric wards. She says it should also involve programs that help improve people’s lives and make them feel more connected to one another. (Sally Spencer-Thomas)

Federal health officials insist that suicide prevention remains a priority.

, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s injury center, said the agency is focused on creating systems that can support people “no matter what may be happening” in the world around them. “There’s always going to be turmoil in people’s lives,” she added.

Arwady and , who leads suicide prevention work at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, said several of the Trump administration’s priorities align with an upstream approach.

For example, they said, its could help address the , since exercise is proven . Similarly, people who are homeless have , and the administration has been . Federal officials have also encouraged , and research shows members of faith communities are .

However, the Trump administration has made at and and has for , leading to questions about whether or how this work will continue.

A History of Medical and Crisis Care

Suicide prevention reached the national stage in the late 1990s, said , who worked at the CDC for 15 years before joining the , a nonprofit focused on teen and young-adult mental health.

As suicide rates grew among young people, a group of government officials, clinicians, and advocates gathered in Reno, Nevada, in 1998 to discuss the pressing issue. Over the next few years, the surgeon general and the federal government published its .

These documents acknowledged the role of society and economics in suicide risk but focused heavily on identifying people in crisis and increasing access to medical treatment.

Those are critical steps to suicide prevention, many mental health researchers and clinicians say. They’re also politically favorable. For elected officials, who have a few years to demonstrate their achievements before the next campaign, it’s easier to count the number of people receiving therapy than the number of people who never developed suicidal thoughts because long-term economic and social investments helped them maintain steady jobs and strong friendships.

The push for individual treatment also comes from a pervasive misconception that suicide is always the result of an underlying mental illness, said , who is the senior director of population health at Mental Health America and contributed to a .

Although how many people who die by suicide — with estimates from to — the takeaway is that mental illness is not the sole cause, Reinert said. That means treating it can’t be the sole response.

Plus, mental illnesses can be by life circumstances. Treating depressive symptoms without looking at factors such as childhood trauma, the loss of a loved one, or being laid off from a job is an incomplete approach, many mental health researchers and clinicians say.

The covid pandemic, especially, made people in the field recognize “we really need to address all of these conditions that are creating stress, anxiety, and crises,” Stone said.

In July 2022, the federal government — a shorter number for the national suicide crisis line, meant to provide an alternative to 911 for mental health emergencies.

, who led federal work on 988, said the infusion of money and attention on the hotline helped states build better crisis response systems, from centers that answer calls to mobile crisis units.

But that’s not enough to solve America’s suicide problem, she said. “You’ll never be able to build a system based on crisis alone.”

After big losses in 2020, Pawelski and his wife, Eve, decided they could no longer farm onions for wholesale buyers. They called NY FarmNet, which helped them develop a plan to change to small-scale farming and sell directly to consumers. (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

Help for the Farm and the Farmer

Pawelski, the onion farmer in New York, hit his breaking point in 2020.

He had a decent crop that year, but Canadian exporters were into American markets, making it difficult for him to sell his product.

“I was having to beg people” to buy, he said. And when he managed to sell, prices were comparable to prices in the 1980s.

By the end of the season, he had incurred losses of a few hundred thousand dollars.

He said he and his wife decided, “We couldn’t afford to grow onions again.”

The idea that his family’s onion farm would end with him was “soul-crushing,” Pawelski said. He lost weight rapidly and thought about ending his life.

He and his wife called for help. Founded at Cornell University in 1986, the free program connects farmers with two consultants: a financial analyst specializing in farm planning and a social worker focused on emotional concerns and family dynamics.

A woman stands at a kitchen countertop with two cats behind her and a man sits at a kitchen table in the background
Eve Pawelski encouraged her husband, Chris, to change the way their farm operates and go to therapy to improve his mental health. (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)
A woman stands at a sink while looking out a kitchen window
Together, they transitioned to small-scale farming, stabilized their business model, and are paying down debt. (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)

The financial specialist helped Pawelski develop a new business plan. Instead of farming onions for wholesale, he could grow greens, tomatoes, peppers, and eggplants at a small scale to sell directly to consumers. He could upgrade an old truck with a cooler and deliver produce to people’s doors. He would supplement that income with teaching, speaking engagements, and other work that took advantage of his master’s degree in communications.

The social worker helped him accept that new reality — equally crucial, Pawelski said. “If you’re pissed off” about the change, “no matter what kind of proposal or idea they have, it’s not going to go anywhere.”

The adjustment took months. Pawelski also saw a therapist during that time.

Then one day a neighbor noted that Pawelski seemed much happier. That “caught me off guard,” Pawelski recalled. He didn’t realize his inner transformation was so apparent.

Today, Pawelski’s business has stabilized, and he and his wife are paying down debt. Pawelski advocates for programs to help farmers’ mental health and address their .

That can mean crisis hotlines and access to affordable therapy, Pawelski said. But what he really wants are policy changes that help farmers get fair prices for their produce, debt relief, and the installation of broadband internet in rural areas so farm families and employees can be connected.

“We need to think broader and longer-term than a helpline,” he said. That’s “a band-aid on a gunshot wound.”

A drone photograph of farm fields with hills in the background and a green tractor in the foreground
With his farm more financially stable, today Chris Pawelski advocates for programs to help farmers’ mental health and address their higher-than-average suicide rates. (Jeffrey Basinger for Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News)
Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2230139
A New CDC Nominee, Again /podcast/what-the-health-442-cdc-director-nominee-rfk-hearing-april-17-2026/ Fri, 17 Apr 2026 18:35:00 +0000 /?p=2182989&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2182989 The Host
Mary Agnes Carey photo
Mary Agnes Carey Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News Mary Agnes Carey is managing editor of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News. She previously served as the director of news partnerships, overseeing placement of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News content in publications nationwide. As a senior correspondent, Mary Agnes covered health reform and federal health policy.

President Donald Trump this week nominated a former deputy surgeon general who has expressed support for vaccines to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Considered a more traditional fit for the job, Erica Schwartz would be the agency’s fourth leader in roughly a year, should she be confirmed by the Senate. 

And Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appeared on Capitol Hill this week in the first of several hearings discussing Trump’s budget request for the department. But the topics up for discussion deviated quite a bit from the subject of federal funding, with lawmakers raising issues of Medicaid fraud, measles outbreaks, the hepatitis B vaccine, peptides, unaccompanied minors, and much, much more. 

This week’s panelists are Mary Agnes Carey of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Emmarie Huetteman of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Anna Edney photo
Anna Edney Bloomberg News
Emmarie Huetteman photo
Emmarie Huetteman Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News
Joanne Kenen photo
Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Trump on Thursday named four officials to the CDC’s leadership team. Schwartz, whom he picked as director, is a physician and Navy officer who served as a deputy surgeon general during Trump’s first term. She has voiced support for vaccines and played a key role in the covid-19 pandemic response.
  • RFK Jr. testified before three committees of the House of Representatives this week on the president’s budget request for HHS. While the hearings touched on a wide variety of topics, notable moments included a slight softening of Kennedy’s stance on the measles vaccine, including the acknowledgment that being immunized is safer than having measles — although he also stood by the decision to remove the recommendation for the newborn dose of the hepatitis B vaccine.
  • New studies on the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy and the effects of water fluoridation on cognitive function refute Trump administration claims. And a White House meeting that brought together Trump, Kennedy, and other leaders of the Make America Healthy Again movement aimed to soothe concerns among supporters — yet there’s reason to believe the overture won’t completely mend fences between the Trump administration and the MAHA constituency ahead of the midterm elections.

Also this week, Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ Julie Rovner interviews Michelle Canero, an immigration attorney, about how the Trump administration’s policies affect the medical workforce.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read (or wrote) this week that they think you should read, too: 

 Mary Agnes Carey: Politico’s “,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “,” by Teddy Rosenbluth.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg’s “,” by Anna Edney.

Emmarie Huetteman: Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Your New Therapist: Chatty, Leaky, and Hardly Human,” by Darius Tahir.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

  • JAMA Pediatrics’ “,” by Kira Philipsen Prahm, Pingnan Chen, Line Rode, et al.
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences’ “,” by John Robert Warren, Gina Rumore, Kamil Sicinski, and Michal Engelman.
  • Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News’ “Pennsylvania Town Faces Fallout From Trump’s Environmental Rule Rollback,” by Stephanie Armour and Maia Rosenfeld.
  • The New York Times’ “,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.
  • Wakely Consulting Group’s “,” by Michelle Anderson, Chia Yi Chin, and Michael Cohen.
Click to open the transcript Transcript: A New CDC Nominee, Again

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.] 

Mary Agnes Carey: Hello from Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and WAMU radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Mary Agnes Carey, managing editor of Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, filling in for Julie Rovner this week. And as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, April 17, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. 

Today we’re joined via videoconference by Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

Carey: Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Carey: And my Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News colleague Emmarie Huetteman. 

Emmarie Huetteman: Hey there. 

Carey: Later in this episode, we’ll play Julie’s interview with immigration attorney Michelle Canero about the impact the Trump administration’s immigration policies are having on the medical workforce. But first, this week’s news — and there is plenty of it. 

On Thursday, President [Donald] Trump nominated Dr. Erica Schwartz to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Schwartz, a vaccine supporter, served as a deputy surgeon general in President Trump’s first term, and during the coronavirus pandemic she ran the federal government’s drive-through testing program. She’s also a Navy officer and a retired rear admiral in the Commissioned Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service. Her appointment requires Senate confirmation. President Trump also announced other changes to the agency’s top leadership: Sean Slovenski, a health care industry executive, as the agency’s deputy director and chief operating officer; Dr. Jennifer Shuford, health commissioner for Texas, as deputy director and chief medical officer, and Dr. Sara Brenner, who briefly served as acting commissioner of the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], as a senior counselor to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr. So we’ve discussed previously on the podcast several times that the CDC has lacked a permanent director for most of the president’s second term. Will Dr. Schwartz, if confirmed, and the other members of this new leadership team make the difference? 

Huetteman: I think that we’ve seen a CDC that’s been in a protracted period of turmoil, and this is going to be an opportunity for maybe a shift in that. Dr. Schwartz would actually be the agency’s fourth leader in a little more than a year, and we’ve talked on the podcast about how naming someone who could fit the bill to lead the CDC was a difficult task facing the Trump administration. They needed someone who could support the MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] agenda while not embracing some of the more anti-vaccine views, and that person needed to be able to win Senate confirmation, which isn’t a given, even with this Republican-controlled Senate. 

Edney: And I think we’ve seen that there have been some people already in the MAHA coalition that have come out and been upset about this pick. So I think what that shows is a calculated decision by the administration to, kind of, as they’ve been doing for this year, is kind of not focus on the vaccine part of Secretary Kennedy’s agenda and to, as Emmarie said, try to get someone that can get through Senate confirmation. We’ve already seen the surgeon general nominee be held up in the Senate because she was not as strong on vaccines as I think some would have liked to see when she had her confirmation hearing. 

Kenen: So this happened late yesterday, and I’ve been traveling this week, but I did have a chance to talk to some public health people about her, and there was sort of this audible sigh of relief. The Senate is a very unpredictable place, and we live in very unpredictable times. At this point, my initial gut reaction is she’s got a pretty good chance of confirmation. The other thing, I think some of the other appointees, there’s a little bit more concern about, but what really matters is who is the face of the CDC, and she would be the face of the CDC. She would be in charge, and people like her. Also, this is an administration that has not had a lot of minorities, and she will be, she’s a Black woman. respected in her field. And that also is going to — she needs to be able to speak to all Americans about their health, and I think that people welcome that as well, both her credentials and her life experience. So, yeah, I think that MAHA is sort of in this funny moment now, because clearly Kennedy isn’t doing everything that people wanted or expected. And so we’ll sort of see how the — I think if he had his ideal CDC director, this, we can probably surmise that this would not, she would not be the first on his list. But there’s a certain amount of adaptation going on at the moment. So I think many, many people will be relieved to see somebody get through, confirmed pretty quickly. People can get held up for things that have absolutely nothing to do with the CDC or public health. The Senate has all sorts of peculiarities. But I think there’s probably going to be a desire to get this done pretty quickly. 

Carey: All right. Well, we’ll see what happens, and we will go back to the MAHA folks a little bit later in the podcast. But right now I want to shift to Capitol Hill. Thursday was a very big day on the Hill for HHS Secretary Kennedy. He kicked off a series of appearances before Congress. This week he’s testifying before three House committees before he heads over to the Senate next week. This is the first time that the secretary has visited some of these House panels, and while the purpose of the latest congressional visit is to talk about President Trump’s HHS budget request, this also was the first time that a lot of lawmakers ever had an opportunity to talk to Kennedy, and what they asked him sometimes deviated, maybe quite a bit, from that subject of federal funding. The topics included Medicaid fraud, measles outbreaks, the birth-dose recommendation for the hepatitis B vaccine, peptides, unaccompanied minors, and more — actually, much more when you look at the hearings from yesterday, and I’m sure that will also happen with today’s session. What stood out to you about Kennedy’s testimony this week? 

Edney: I think it was the mix of questions, and you sort of alluded to this, but they wanted, the members of Congress wanted to talk about so many things. And I feel like in the earlier hearing, which was in the House Ways and Means Committee, that it was, there was a lot of focus in the beginning on fraud, and that sort of surprised me, and then we saw maybe one or two questions on vaccines. And so I thought the mix of questions, the things that members were interested in, were really interesting. And it did — there were some fiery moments, but for his first time on the Hill in a while, for such a controversial Cabinet member, I thought they were pretty tame. 

Kenen: Yeah, I watched a fair amount of the morning. I did not see the afternoon, but I read about the afternoon, and I totally agree with Anna’s take. This administration and Kennedy did what this administration has been doing. They blame all problems on [former president Joe] Biden and the prior administration. And to be fair, Democrats, when they’re in power, they, I don’t think they do it quite to this extreme, but Democrats spend, when they have the chance, they blame things on Republicans. So that’s sort of Washington as usual. The emphasis on fraud has been a hallmark of this administration, particularly in health and social services. And you’ve seen, of course, in the way they’ve gone after blue states in particular. And a lot of their justification for the changes in Medicaid that are coming in the coming year are supposedly because of massive fraud and they’re cracking down. It was not dominated by vaccines, and I was watching Kennedy’s face really carefully. When he was asked about the first child to die of measles in Texas last year, and a Democrat asked him could the vaccine have saved her life, and you could sort of see him just, you just sort of watch his facial expressions, and he knew he had to say this, and he came out with the word “possibly,” and, which is a change. And then in the afternoon — where I did not, as I said, I did not watch the afternoon, but I read about it — he was much more certain. He was much stronger about the measles vaccine and said it’s, the measles vaccine, is safer than measles, which is a big signal shift there. 

Huetteman: It’s true, although I will point out, though, that he did stand by the decision to remove the recommendation for the birth dose of the hepatitis B vaccine when he was pressed on that. So it was, I agree it was a softening, I’d say. At least it wasn’t a dramatic turnaround from what he’d said or not said in the past. But for him, it was at least a softening. 

Kenen: In the hepatitis B recommendation, he said that the biggest threat to infection was at, through birth, at, through the mother, and if you test the mother, the baby is not at risk. And that’s partially true, and that is a significant factor to eliminate risk. It doesn’t — it minimizes risk. It does not eliminate risk. Babies can and have been infected in the first weeks of life in other ways. The recommendation was not to totally eliminate that vaccine. It was to postpone it. But there’s, public health, still believe that, in general, many public health leaders would still say that the vaccine at birth is the better way of doing it. 

Carey: The focus was, theoretically, on the budget request from the administration. Did the secretary shed any light on those priorities or their impacts? I was taken, I think in the afternoon hearing I read about various lawmakers, including Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut, who sort of just said: A CDC cut of 30%? We’re not gonna do that. And there were also some Republican members who jumped in to sort of say, I don’t think we’re going to do the cuts you envision. But did the secretary defend them? Did he bring any new clarity to them? 

Edney: I don’t feel like I gained any new clarity on it. I think to bring it back to Budget 101, I guess, is like when the president, when the administration, sends down their budget, I think a lot of people already assume it’s dead on arrival. And maybe even though Kennedy is there to talk about the budget, it does become this broader hearing, because they don’t get him on the Hill that often and people go there to talk about all kinds of things, and I think that he probably knew that he didn’t have to defend it in the same way, because it’s not going to happen. 

Carey: Sure. As they say, the president proposes and Congress disposes. But Joanne, you want to jump in? 

Kenen: Yeah, there’s something significant about this administration, which is Congress has repeatedly authorized more money for various health programs and science programs, and the administration doesn’t spend it, so that there’s a different dynamic. Traditionally, yes, Congress — the president proposes, Congress legislates, and then people go off and spend money. That’s what people like to do. And in this case, when Congress has, in a bipartisan way, differed with the administration and restored funding, it hasn’t all gone, those dollars haven’t gone out the door. So the entire sort of checks-and-balances system has been askew in terms of funding. I agree with everybody here. I do not think that Congress is going to accept these extreme cuts across the board in health care and health policy, in public health and science and NIH [the National Institutes of Health] and everything, but I don’t know what they’re actually going to spend at the end of the day. 

Carey: Emmarie, you wanted to jump in. 

Huetteman: Yeah, there was one striking exchange to me where the secretary acknowledged he wasn’t happy with the cuts that were proposed. I think those were his words. But he pretty quickly added, and neither is President Trump, and he framed it as a matter of making hard decisions when faced with federal budget shortfalls. 

Carey: All right. Well, we’ll keep watching this as it moves through Congress. Also during yesterday’s House Ways and Means hearing, some Democrats took issue with past statements from Secretary Kennedy and President Trump that linked Tylenol use during pregnancy to autism in children. released this week in JAMA Pediatrics found that the use of Tylenol by women during pregnancy was not associated with autism in their children. This nationwide study from Denmark followed more than one and a half million kids born between 1997 and 2002, including more than 31,000 who were exposed to Tylenol in the womb. in another medical journal examining community water fluoridation exposure from childhood to age 80 found no impact on IQ or brain function. Kennedy has claimed that fluoride in water has led to IQ loss in children. These studies clearly debunk medical claims that have gotten a lot of attention. Will these findings have an impact now? 

Kenen: I think we’ve seen over and over and over again that there are people who are very deeply wedded to certain beliefs, and new science, new research, does not deter them from those beliefs. We also see some people who are sort of in the middle, who are uncertain, and new findings can shift their beliefs, right? And then, of course, there’s a lot of — these are not new studies. I mean these are new studies but they are not the first of their kind. The reason we’ve been using fluoride for, what, 60 years now in the water. Tylenol has been around a long time. So is it going to change everybody’s belief? No. Is it going to perhaps slow the push to ban fluoridation? Perhaps. But I just don’t think we know, because we’re sort of on these dual-reality tracks regarding a lot of science in this country, where once people sort of buy into disinformation, they’re very, it’s very hard to change — or misinformation — it’s hard to change people’s minds. 

Edney: I do think, on the Tylenol front — I absolutely agree with what Joanne said overall. And I think on the Tylenol front that it’s possible that this study will give pediatricians something to give and talk about with parents that are asking. I think there still is some confusion among some people. It’s not a huge, I don’t think, widespread thing, but I think there are some new parents who are wondering. And if you are able to take this study that is published in 2026 — it just happened, it was after Trump made his statements — I think maybe that would give them something to talk about with their patients. 

Kenen: I agree with Anna. I think the Tylenol one is easier to change than some of the fluoridation stuff going on, partly because so many of us — and we should just say, it’s not just the Tylenol, the brand. It’s acetaminophen, which I’ve never pronounced right. I think those of us who have been pregnant, we’ve taken that in our life before and we don’t think of it as a big, dangerous, heavy prescription drug. I think we’ve, it’s something we feel comfortable with. And I think there’s also the counterinformation, which is, a fever in a pregnant woman can, a pregnant person can be dangerous to the fetus. So I think that one’s a little — and I don’t, also, I don’t think it’s as deep-rooted. The fluoridation stuff goes back decades, and the Tylenol thing is sort of new. And it might be, I’m not sure that the course of these arguments — I think that Tylenol is easier to counter than some other things, because partly just we do feel safe with it. 

Carey: All right. We’re going to take a quick break. We’ll be right back. 

We’re back and talking about how the Trump administration is managing the voters behind the Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, movement, which helped President Trump win the 2024 election. My colleagues Stephanie Armour and Maia Rosenfeld wrote about the administration’s recent decision to give coke oven plants in the U.S. a one-year exemption from tougher environmental standards. And that was a move that angered some MAHA activists who wondered if the GOP is more beholden to industry than the MAHA agenda. President Trump, HHS Secretary Kennedy, and other top administration officials met recently at the White House with a group of MAHA leaders to calm concerns that the administration is moving too slowly on food policy changes, and they are concerned about the president’s recent support of the pesticide glyphosate. According to press reports, the MAHA folks seem to feel their concerns were heard during that session. But is this ongoing conflict between the president and this key political constituency, will it be one that keeps brewing as the midterm elections approach? 

Edney: Yes, 100%. I think it will continue to brew. I think that meeting was thrown together so quickly that some members of the MAHA movement who were invited couldn’t even make it. So it wasn’t exactly a long-planned, seemingly deep desire to fix everything. But it was, as you’ve said, an effort to kind of hear them out and make them feel heard. No one that I’ve talked to has said everything is fixed now. It’s more of a to-be-determined We will see what the administration will do moving forward, if they will listen to any of our plans — which we will not share with you, by the way — to make us happy. And I think that that’s going to continue. There’s a rally planned in front of the Supreme Court on glyphosate later this month where a lot of those people will be, and so I think that they’re upset and they’re stirring up, that concern is only going to get stirred up more. 

Carey: Emmarie. 

Huetteman: It’s a small thing, but our fellow podcast panelist Sheryl Stolberg at The New York Times during this White House meeting where President Trump was meeting with MAHA leaders, one of the leaders made a joke about how this is not a group that’s going to be, quote, “Team Diet Coke,” and the president apparently took that as a cue to press that Diet Coke button he famously has on his desk and summon a server who apparently brought him a Diet Coke. Supporters of MAHA have been clear that they want not just for the Trump administration to promote policies supporting priorities like healthy eating and removing food dyes, but also they want them to rein in or end policies they don’t support. And that weed-killer executive order, that really was a big example of that. The MAHA constituency made it clear that they felt betrayed by that order, and they’re going to have to do some work to walk that back. 

Carey: We’ll also see how, with their concerns about the new CDC director nominee, which they’re already voicing, we’ll see how that plays out. 

Kenen: No, I just think that we are, as we mentioned at the beginning, we’re seeing cracks, right? We’re seeing — none of us are privy to any conversations that President Trump has had privately with Secretary Kennedy. But his, Secretary Kennedy’s, public statements have been a little different than they were a few months ago. There’s certainly been reports that he’s been told to soft-pedal vaccines and talk about some of the things that there’s more unanimity across ideological and party lines. Healthier food — there’s debate about how to, whether, there’s debate about how Kennedy defines healthier food. But in general, should we eat healthier? Yes, we should eat healthier. Should our kids get more exercise? Yes, our kids should get more exercise. Do we have too much chronic disease? Yes, we have too much chronic disease. So they’re sort of this, trying to move a little bit more, sort of this sort of top line, very hazier agreement. But at the same time, the people who are sort of really the core of MAHA, as Kennedy has sort of created it or led it, there’s cracks there. 

Carey: All right, we’ll see. We’ll see where that goes. But let’s go ahead and move on to ACA enrollment. A found that 1 in 7 people who signed up for an Affordable Care Act plan failed to pay their first month’s premium. The analysis from Wakely consulting group found that nationally around 14% of those who enrolled in ACA plans didn’t pay their first bill for January coverage. Now we know the elimination of the enhanced ACA tax credits and higher premium costs led to lower enrollment in the ACA exchanges, with sign-ups for 2026 falling to 23 million from 24 million a year ago. But how do you interpret this finding that 14% of enrollees didn’t pay their January premium? Is it a sign of more trouble ahead? 

Edney: I think it could be a sign of more trouble ahead. Some — what we’re seeing is sticker shock. And there may be some people who are trying to deal with that and won’t be able to as the months go on. And so, yeah, I think it could mean that even more drop out, and that means more people lose coverage and are uninsured. 

Kenen: I think there was sort of a general, initial, misleading sigh of relief when in December, when the enrollment figures, the drop wasn’t as bad as some feared. But at the same time, people said: Wait a minute. This doesn’t really count. Signing up isn’t the same thing as staying covered. The drop in January was significant, we now know. And I agree with Anna. I think we don’t know how many more people will decide they can’t afford it. Or we don’t know whether the big drop is January. Probably a lot of it is, because you get that first bill. But can, will more people drop? Probably. We have no way of knowing how many. And it also depends on the economy, right? If more people lose jobs, right now it’s still pretty, kind of still pretty stable, but we don’t know what’s ahead. We don’t know what’s going to happen with the war. We don’t know many, many, many — we don’t know anything. So the future is mysterious. I would expect it to drop more. I don’t think, I don’t know whether this is the big drop or February will be just as bad. I suspect January will be the biggest. But who knows? It depends on other outside factors. 

Huetteman: We’re also seeing a drop-off in the kind of coverage that people are choosing. That analysis that you referenced, Mac, showed that there was a 17% drop in silver plan membership, with most of those folks switching to bronze plans, which, in other words, that means they switch to plans that have lower monthly premiums but they have higher deductibles. And that means that when you get sick, you owe more, in some cases much more, before your insurance starts picking up the tab. And I think really what this means is people are more exposed to the high charges for medical services, bigger bills when you get sick. I think that 

Kenen: I think that the Republicans were seen as having pushed back a lot of the health impacts of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill and that it would be after the election. And I and others wrote: No, no, no, no, no. We’re going to see this playing out before the election. This is a really big political red flag, right? This is a lot more people becoming uninsured, which makes other people worried about their insurance and stability. So I think this is definitely going to — it may not be. There are other things going on in the world. Health care may not be the dominant theme in this year’s election. But yes, this is going to be, the off-year elections are going to be health care elections, like almost every one else has been for— 

Carey: Oh yeah. 

Kenen: —since the Garden of Eden, right? 

Carey: Absolutely, it’s a perennial. All right, we’ll keep our eye on that. That’s this week’s news. Now we’re going to play Julie’s interview with immigration attorney Michelle can arrow, and then we’ll be back with our extra credits. 

Julie Rovner: I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Michelle Canero. Michelle is an immigration attorney from Miami and a member of the board of Immigrants’ List, a bipartisan political action committee focused on immigration reform. Michelle, thanks for joining us. 

Michelle Canero: Thank you for having me. 

Rovner: So, we’ve talked a lot about immigration policy on this podcast over the past year, but I want to look at the big picture. How important to the U.S. health care system are people who originally come from other countries? 

Canero: I think the statistics speak for themselves. One in three residency positions can’t be filled by American graduates alone. That means 33% of these residency positions are being filled by immigrant workers. Twenty-seven percent of physicians are foreign-born. Twenty percent of hospital workers are immigrants. And, at least in Florida, a large percentage of our home health care workers happen to be immigrants. And we depend on this population heavily in the health care sector. 

Rovner: Now, we talk a lot about the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration, but we talk a little bit less about their sort of messing with the legal immigration system. And there’s a lot going on there, isn’t there? 

Canero: There is. And I think that the campaign talking points were illegal immigration but what we’re actually seeing is a little more sinister. I think that the goal of leadership at the head of DHS [the Department of Homeland Security] and DOS [the State Department], or really Stephen Miller, is pushing something called reverse migration, which is really not about limiting illegal immigration but reducing the immigrant population in the United States. And I think that’s where the real concern is and why you’re seeing these policies that directly affect legal immigrants. 

Rovner: We talk a lot about doctors and nurses and skilled, the top skilled, medical professionals who make up a large chunk of the United States health care workforce. We don’t talk as much about the sort of midlevel professional workers and the support staff. They’re also overwhelmingly immigrant, aren’t they? 

Canero: Yeah, and whether it’s your IT- and technical-knowledge-based workers in hospitals who facilitate all the technology — we rely on an immigrant workforce for a lot of the technology sector. And then you’ve got research professionals. A lot of clinical researchers, medical researchers, are foreign-born. So it’s not just about the doctors. It’s also the critical staff that keep the hospitals operating. And I’m from Florida. For us, it’s the home health care workers. We have an aging population, and a large percentage of the home health care workers, particularly in Florida, happen to be Haitians on TPS [temporary protected status] or people with asylum work authorizations. And when we lose that, our aging population is left with no resources, because that’s not something AI or technology can fix. You can’t turn someone over in a bed with a robot yet, and we’re probably decades away from that. 

Rovner: So what’s the last year been like for you and your clients? 

Canero: I think it’s a lot of uncertainty. A lot of these policies are percolating, and we’re assuming that they’ll be resolved in litigation, but the damage is being done in real time. So we’re seeing hospitals turning away from hiring foreign workers, because of the H-1B penalty now. The suspension of J-1 processing created backlogs. These visa bans that affect 75 countries on certain visas and 39 countries on others. You’ve got thousands of health care workers that are stuck outside the U.S. So what’s happening, really, is that hospitals and medical providers are just shutting down, and they’re cutting back services, and that means that there are less available services and resources for the same population and the same demand. People are waiting longer for doctor’s appointments. People are finding that they’re not able to get to the specialist that they need to get to in time. And so for us as practitioners, I think, we’re trying to navigate as best we can, but we’re just seeing a lot of people, employers that traditionally would rely on our services, give up and foreign workers looking to go elsewhere. 

Rovner: I noticed during the annual residency match in March that it worked out, I think, fairly well for most graduating medical students. But the big sort of sore thumb that stuck out were international medical graduates. That’s going to impact the pipeline going forward, isn’t it? 

Canero: From what I understand, it takes like seven to 15 years to get to that level, and we just don’t have the student body to meet the demand of residency positions. From my understanding, there’s a gap between American graduates and the demand for residents that’s usually filled by foreign workers. And if we don’t have those foreign workers, those residency positions just don’t get filled. And that becomes more expensive for hospitals, and that transfers to our medical bills. 

Rovner: And people assume that, Oh well this doesn’t impact me. But it really impacts all patients, doesn’t it? And I would think particularly those in rural areas, which are less desirable for U.S.-born and -trained medical professionals and tend to be overrepresented by immigrants. 

Canero: Yeah, I think a lot of the J-1 doctors and H-1B doctors are what facilitate, are working at, our veterans hospitals and our rural medical facilities. And what’s ending up happening is the very same people that this administration touts to support their interests are being forced to travel farther for specialists, right? If there isn’t an endocrinologist in your area, you may have to drive 100 miles to go see that specialist, and you may forgo necessary medical care because of the inconvenience or the cost. And I think that’s hitting at our health. 

Rovner: So you’re on the board of Immigrants’ List, which is working to change things politically. What’s one change that could really make a big difference in what we’re starting to see in terms of immigration and the health care workforce? 

Canero: Well, asking Congress to actually do something. It’s been a problem for decades. So I don’t really know, but I think there’s a couple of things, whether it’s just policymakers supporting our fight against some of these illegal policy changes in courts, organizations supporting us with amicus briefs. For example, there’s a lot of lawsuits challenging these visa bans and these adjudicative holds and the H-1B fine. The more support that the plaintiffs in the litigation get, the more likely we are to resolve that through the court system. And then I hope that there’s enough pressure from hospitals and organizations that have real dollars that impact these elected officials to get them to start seeing, Hey, we need to pass reasonable immigration reform to address some of the loopholes that this administration is using to cause chaos in the system, right? They’re able to do this because we have a gap. We allow them to terminate TPS. We don’t have a structure to ensure that a community that’s been on TPS for 20 years gets grandfathered into some sort of more stable visa. We don’t have a system that precludes the administration from just putting a hold or a visa ban on nationalities. So it’s something that Congress is going to have to step up and do something about. 

Rovner: What worries you most about sort of what’s going on with the immigration system and health care? What keeps you up at night? Obviously you, I know you work on more than just health care. 

Canero: I think my concern is that the American people aren’t seeing what’s happening, or they’re sort of turning a blind eye to it, and by the time it starts to actually impact them and they start asking, Wait, wait, wait. Why is this happening? I don’t understand, it’s going to be too late. Because it’s not hitting their pocket, because it’s not their suffering at this point, they’re not standing up and saying, Hey, this needs to stop, at the level that we need, opposition, to make it stop. And by the time it does hit their pocket and it does affect them directly, I think, it’ll be a little too late. I think people will be scared off from coming here, people that we needed will be gone, and to reverse the system is going to take decades. 

Rovner: Michelle Canero, thanks again. 

Canero: No, you’re very welcome. Thank you for your time. 

Carey: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment, and that’s where we each recognize a story we read this week and we think that you should read it, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll post the links in our show notes. Joanne, why don’t you start us off this week? 

Kenen: Well, this is by Teddy Rosenbluth in The New York Times. The headline is “” This is one of those stories where you know exactly how it’s going to end in the first paragraph, and yet it was so compellingly and beautifully written that you kept reading until the last word. It is, as the headline suggested, a young man who is an expert on AI and cognitive science named Ben Riley discovered that his father had been lying about a controllable, treatable form of leukemia. He had denied treatment, he’d refused treatment, he had ignored his oncologist because he was relying on AI. And as we all know, AI has its up moments and its down moments. And he was getting incorrect information, distrusted the diagnosis, refused treatment, getting sicker and sicker and sicker as the oncologist and the family got increasingly desperate. And the son, Ben Riley, had, like, skills. He knew how to find scientific evidence, and his father just would not believe it. And by the time his father finally consented to treatment, it was too late, and he did die. And his father was a neuroscientist, a retired neuroscientist, but he found a neuroscience rabbit hole. 

Carey: That’s amazing. Anna, what’s your extra credit? 

Edney: Mine, I’m highlighting a story that I wrote in Bloomberg called “.” And this is, I wanted to dive into this policy that the FDA had implemented. The commissioner has long talked about and felt that perimenopausal and menopausal women were not getting access to the treatments that maybe they really needed, because there had been sort of this two-decade-old study that had showed there were some safety issues regarding breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, but the issue being that those studies had looked at older forms of the medication and also at women who were much older than those who might benefit from taking it. And so they, the agency, asked the companies to remove those warning labels, at least the strongest ones. And what we’ve seen, why — I wanted to dive into the numbers specifically. Bloomberg has some prescription data that was able to help me out here and just look at when this started rising. You could see that the prescriptions started going up around 2021. I feel like a lot of influencers, a lot of celebrities, were talking about this. And then in 2024 to 2025 when the FDA started talking about this, it really just goes, the prescription numbers just go straight up on the scale. And so there were about 32 million prescriptions written last year, which is a huge increase. And I just dove into some of this, some of the companies, what kind of drugs there are out there, and talked to some women who are benefiting but also, because of this pop, experiencing shortages, because the companies aren’t quite keeping up with the products. 

Carey: Wow, that sounds like an outstanding deep dive. Thank you. Emmarie. 

Huetteman: Yeah, my extra credit is from my colleague at Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News who covers health technology. That’s Darius Tahir. The headline is “Your New Therapist: Chatty, Leaky, and Hardly Human.” The story looks at the proliferation of AI chatbot apps that offer mental health and emotional support, particularly the ones that market themselves as, quote-unquote, “therapy apps.” Darius counted 45 such apps in Apple’s App Store last month, and he uncovered in some cases that safety and privacy concerns existed, such as minimal age protections. Fifteen of the apps that he looked at said they could be downloaded by users who were only 4 years old. His story also explored the tension between the risks of sharing sensitive data and the interests of app developers and collecting that data for business purposes. It’s a good read. All right, 

Carey: All right. Thanks so much. My extra credit is from Politico, and it’s written by Alice Miranda Olstein, and she’s a frequent guest here on What the Health? The headline is, quote, “,” close quote. The headline kind of says it all. Alice writes that Nebraska is racing to implement Medicaid work requirements by May 1, and that’s eight months ahead of the national deadline that was set by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Nebraska state officials plan to do this without hiring additional staff, even as other health departments in other states prepare to bring in dozens, if not hundreds, of new employees. Alice writes that advocates for people on Medicaid fear that this rush timeline and lack of new staff will cause many problems for Medicaid beneficiaries who are just trying to meet those new work requirements. 

All right. That’s this week’s show. Thank you so much for listening. Thanks, as always, to our editor and panelist Emmarie Huetteman, to this week’s producer and engineer, Taylor Cook, and to my KFF colleague Richard Ho, who provided technical assistance. A reminder: What the Health? is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever you get your podcasts, as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. Also, as always, you can email us with your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, . Joanne, where can people find you these days? 

Kenen: and , @joannekenen. 

Carey: OK. Anna? 

Edney: and and , @annaedney. 

Carey: And Emmarie. 

Huetteman: You can find me on . 

Carey: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Taylor Cook Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2182989
As US Birth Rate Falls, Feds’ Response May Make Pregnancy More Dangerous /public-health/us-birth-rate-decline-title-x-family-planning-grants-contraception-pronatalist/ Thu, 16 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2228147 The number of babies born in the United States fell again last year.

This story also ran on . It can be republished for free.

According to new data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were 3.6 million births in 2025, a from 2024. The fertility rate dropped to 53.1 births per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, down 23% since 2007.

The Trump administration has said it wants to reverse this trend. President Donald Trump has called for “a new baby boom,” and aides have solicited proposals from outside advocates and policy groups ranging from baby bonuses to expanded fertility planning. The administration is also the federal government’s only dedicated family planning program: Title X.

For more than five decades, Title X has been geared — with bipartisan support — toward giving low-income women access to contraception, screening for sexually transmitted infections, and reproductive health care regardless of ability to pay. At its peak, the served more than 5 million patients a year. Title X clients have reported the program as their sole source of health care in a given year.

In early April, the Department of Health and Human Services for Title X grants for fiscal year 2027, which begins in October. The 67-page Notice of Funding Opportunity included only one mention of contraception — describing it as overprescribed, associated with negative side effects, and part of a broader “overreliance on pharmaceutical and surgical treatments.”

The grant notification reshapes the program from its traditional public health intervention efforts to focus on fertility, family formation, and reproductive health conditions such as polycystic ovary syndrome, endometriosis, low testosterone, and erectile dysfunction.

While Title X will continue to help women “achieve healthy pregnancies,” the grant document does not explicitly reference preventing unintended pregnancies — a long-standing goal of the program.

Jessica Marcella, who oversaw the Title X program as a senior official in the Biden administration, said the new funding notice amounts to a wholesale redefinition of family planning.

“What we’re seeing is trying to use our nation’s family planning as a Trojan horse for an entirely different agenda,” Marcella said, noting that Trump eliminating Title X altogether.

Birth Rates and Fertility Trends

The administration is overhauling Title X in the context of declining birth rates. But researchers who study fertility trends say the decline is driven by forces that have little to do with contraception access and that restricting it is unlikely to produce more births.

The most important factors, according to demographer Alison Gemmill of UCLA, are timing-related. “Childbearing is increasingly delayed as part of a broader shift toward later adult milestones, including stable employment, leaving the parental home, and marriage,” she said.

Most American women, she said, still complete their childbearing years with an average of two children, suggesting a shift toward smaller families rather than an increase in childlessness.

“Having children has become more contingent and more planned,” she said.

Much of the decline since 2007 reflects women postponing births rather than forgoing them.

“The average number of babies women are having in their whole lives has not fallen. It’s still more than 2.0 for women aged 45,” said Philip Cohen, a professor of sociology at the University of Maryland.

Phillip Levine, an economist at Wellesley College, said the birth rate has declined due to shifts in how women approach work, leisure, and parenting. “Efforts to reverse those patterns would be more successful if they can make childbearing more desirable, not make it harder to prevent a pregnancy,” he said.

Asked about the role of contraception in reducing maternal mortality and how the new funding notice advances that goal, HHS press secretary Emily Hilliard said in a statement: “Applicants for the 2027 Title X funding cycle will be expected to align with the administration’s stated priorities in the released Notice of Funding Opportunity. HHS, under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy and President Trump, will continue to support policies that support life, family well-being, maternal health, and address the chronic disease epidemic. HHS remains focused on improving maternal outcomes and ensuring programs are administered consistent with applicable law.”

Marcella said the new funding notice is the product of two converging forces: the Make America Healthy Again movement, with its skepticism of conventional medicine and emphasis on lifestyle and behavioral interventions, and a pronatalist agenda that seeks to boost birth rates by steering policy toward family formation.

The document’s language reflects both: It repeatedly invokes “optimal health” and “chronic disease” while sidelining the contraceptive services that have defined Title X for .

Clare Coleman, president and CEO of the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association, which represents health professionals focused on family planning, said tying Title X to birth-rate goals replaces individual decision-making with a government objective. The program “is designed to facilitate access to family planning services, including services to achieve and prevent pregnancy,” she said.

Title X’s New Focus

The administration’s changes have been welcomed on the right.

Emma Waters, a senior policy analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, who has advocated for what she calls “restorative reproductive medicine,” said the new funding notice reflects overdue attention to neglected aspects of women’s health.

“I was particularly encouraged to see language that spoke to the delays in diagnosis for conditions like endometriosis, the need for women to practically understand how their cycle and fertility works, and to ensure that real root-cause was promoted through Title X,” Waters said.

She described the notice as an expansion, not a narrowing, of the program’s mission: “I see this iteration of Title X as the fulfillment of its purpose. The goal was never just ‘more contraception’ but a wholesale empowerment of women to govern their own fertility.”

Waters also argued that untreated reproductive health problems may contribute to lower birth rates.

“One of the interesting aspects of this debate, and one that is often overlooked, is the degree to which painful and unaddressed reproductive health problems may suppress or create ambivalence around a woman’s desire to have kids,” she said, pointing to endometriosis.

An estimated of reproductive age have endometriosis, and of those, . Scientifically speaking, the relationship is an association, not a proven cause. Women aren’t screened for endometriosis if they don’t have symptoms, and the condition may be more prevalent than is recognized. Researchers still do not fully understand why some women with endometriosis struggle to conceive while others do not, and treating the disease does not reliably restore fertility.

Infertility rates in the U.S., meanwhile, have not risen. An found them essentially flat between 1995 and 2019, even as the national birth rate fell sharply — a divergence that points away from untreated reproductive disease as an explanation.

Meanwhile, in February, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists enabling earlier diagnosis of endometriosis without surgery, a step toward addressing the delays Waters described. But the first-line treatment ACOG recommends is hormonal therapy, part of the same category of care the funding notice dismisses as part of an “overreliance on pharmaceutical and surgical treatments.” The effect, reproductive health experts say, is a contradiction: Title X is now prioritizing diagnosis of endometriosis while deemphasizing the drugs clinicians use to treat it.

Treatments that have been shown to improve fertility in women with endometriosis, such as laparoscopic surgery and in vitro fertilization, are . When President Richard Nixon signed Title X into law in 1970, as a way to expand access to family planning services — helping women determine the number and spacing of their children by making contraception and related preventive care more widely available, particularly for those who could not afford it. , not Title X, is the primary government health insurance program covering health care for low-income women, but, like many commercial insurance plans, it .

Many of the conditions prioritized in the funding notice deserve attention, said Liz Romer, a former chief clinical adviser for the HHS Office of Population Affairs who helped write updated guidelines for the family planning program. But they fall outside the scope of what Title X can realistically provide.

“There’s not even enough funding to support the core premise of contraception,” Romer said. “And so, if you want to expand Title X funding, you can expand the scope, but you can’t move away from the foundation.”

The emergence of an anticontraception ideology within federal health policy is striking, she said, given how broadly the public supports access to birth control. Eight in 10 women of childbearing age surveyed by KFF in 2024 reported having in the previous 12 months.

Laura Lindberg, director of the Concentration in Sexual and Reproductive Health, Rights and Justice at Rutgers School of Public Health, said, “If contraception is sidelined in Title X, it won’t just change language on paper but will show up as fewer options and more barriers for patients.” Funding could move away from providers who offer a full range of contraceptive care, she added, “toward organizations that are ideologically opposed to contraception and don’t deliver the same standard of health care services.”

The Stakes Are High

The United States already has one of the highest maternal mortality rates among wealthy nations — as of 2024. According to the CDC, in the U.S. may be preventable. Medical research shows that pregnancy carries substantially higher risks of blood clots, stroke, and cardiovascular complications than hormonal contraception.

And since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision in 2022, which overturned the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade, access to abortion has been significantly curtailed across much of the country. While national abortion numbers have risen, driven largely by telehealth and interstate access, research shows births have increased in states with bans, with an estimated , disproportionately among young women and women of color.

Dr. Christine Dehlendorf, who directs the Person-Centered Reproductive Health Program at the University of California-San Francisco, said “there is absolutely no evidence for any positive outcome of restricting access to contraception.” Restrictions would instead increase demand for abortion care and make it harder for women to prevent high-risk pregnancies.

Since Trump returned to office, more than a dozen Title X grantees have had their grants frozen, forcing some health centers to stop delivering services, lay off staff, or close. During the first Trump administration, regulatory changes led to a decline in Title X participation from more than . The program grew slowly under the Biden administration, reaching about 3 million clients, before the current round of disruptions began.

The second Trump administration’s overhaul of the program, Marcella said, “directly undermines the public health intent of our nation’s family planning program and will potentially exclude millions of individuals from getting the care they have relied on for decades. It’s bad policy.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2228147
CDC’s Acting Chief Promises a Return to Stability in a Tumultuous Moment /public-health/cdc-jay-bhattacharya-acting-director-search-nomination-staff-cuts-morale/ Wed, 25 Mar 2026 23:00:00 +0000 President Donald Trump will soon nominate a permanent director for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, its acting chief, National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya, told agency employees at a Wednesday staff meeting.

According to a recording obtained by Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News, Bhattacharya at one point suggested to CDC staff that Trump could name a new leader for the agency as soon as Thursday. “But if not, I don’t think much will change,” he said.

Though his official position as acting director was set to expire Wednesday, Bhattacharya will continue to lead the agency until the top spot is filled. Meanwhile, news outlets including and reported that the administration was postponing filling the permanent director job amid the challenges of gaining Senate confirmation and other political pressures.

Bhattacharya opened the meeting by acknowledging over the past year. Workers faced waves of job losses, and a gunman attacked the CDC’s Atlanta campus in August, killing a police officer and causing significant property damage. “I want to acknowledge very honestly that I know that it has been such a difficult year for the CDC and for every single one of you here,” Bhattacharya said.

He said the agency has begun to fill its leadership gaps. During his first meeting with the agency’s top leaders, he said, “I noticed almost every single one of them is acting.”

“We’ve made progress in filling key roles across the agency,” he said. “Leadership stability is essential to delivering our mission.”

The aim, he said, is to leave the agency in “a solid, secure place” so it can do its work “without so much of the turmoil that we’ve seen the last year.”

Bhattacharya invited questions from the CDC staffers, who repeatedly asked about staffing losses, morale, and their job security, as well as Trump’s decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization.

“The politics of WHO withdrawal are above my pay grade,” Bhattacharya said. “What I do know is that without the CDC, the world will be in much worse health.”

Workforce Concerns

One employee told Bhattacharya the agency had lost a “huge amount” of “internal capacity and expertise in the past year” and it “continues to be very challenging for staff to do their jobs,” adding that “certain conditions are a bit demoralizing.”

The CDC can “function without leaders,” another speaker said. “We function without directors. And this entire team will make CDC run without you if you’re not here.”

Schedule F, an effort to reclassify certain federal employees in policy-related roles and reduce their civil service protections, drew some of the strongest statements from the staff. While it’s not fully implemented, the policy could make it easier for Trump to fire thousands of federal workers.

“What’s scaring the hell out of us right now is Schedule F,” an employee said. “We are terrified that ‘at will’ means you’re gone, you’re not here, you’re fired.”

“The Schedule F fight’s above my level,” Bhattacharya replied. He said his focus is on making sure the “work is supported.”

He said the agency should seek to “depoliticize what we do fundamentally” so that “every American sees us as working for their benefit.”

“When I say ‘depoliticize,’ I don’t mean you can’t say the hard or talk about the hard things,” he added. “I mean that you’re free to talk about the hard things without fear that you’re gonna be retaliated against.”

On hiring and operations, he pointed to ongoing efforts but acknowledged delays. The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the CDC, is “moving at the speed of bureaucracy,” he said, adding that he’s trying his best. “We have to move past the last year, and I think we now have an opportunity really to do that.”

Vaccine Policy

On vaccines, Bhattacharya said one of the first things he did in his role as acting CDC director was to record a video “strongly encouraging parents to vaccinate their kids from measles.”

He said rebuilding trust requires engagement. That means working with communities without denigrating them, and respecting how “they think and their values,” he said.

Bhattacharya said he would like the NIH and CDC to coordinate more, particularly on HIV prevention. He described his approach as “an implementation science strategy so that we can use these two pieces of the HIV tool kit to actually end the HIV pandemic.”

The search for a permanent CDC director is being led by HHS officials on behalf of the White House and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Bhattacharya said he’s friends with Kennedy and called “the caricature of him that I’ve seen in the press” unfair. Kennedy “really does have a deep desire to make America healthy,” he said.

For now, Bhattacharya said, he expects to stay in place at the CDC, as “either acting director or acting in the capacity of the director, whatever the heck that means.”

He joked about the ambiguity: “It’s like an Office episode, you know?”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2173895
Newsom Picks a Dogfight With Trump and RFK Jr. on Public Health /public-health/gavin-newsom-california-public-health-fight-west-coast-alliance-trump-hhs-rfk/ Mon, 09 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000 SACRAMENTO, Calif. — California Gov. Gavin Newsom has positioned himself as a national public health leader by staking out science-backed policies in contrast with the Trump administration.

After Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez for refusing what her lawyers called “,” Newsom to help modernize California’s public health system. He also gave a job to Debra Houry, the agency’s former chief science and medical officer, who had resigned in protest hours after Monarez’s firing.

Newsom also teamed up with fellow Democratic governors Tina Kotek of Oregon, Bob Ferguson of Washington, and Josh Green of Hawaii to form the , a regional public health agency, whose guidance would “uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys” the CDC’s credibility. Newsom argued establishing the independent alliance was vital as Kennedy leads the Trump administration’s rollback of national vaccine recommendations.

More recently, California became the a global outbreak response network coordinated by the World Health Organization, followed by Illinois and New York. Colorado and Wisconsin signaled they plan to join. They did so after President Donald Trump officially from the agency on the grounds that it had “strayed from its core mission and has acted contrary to the U.S. interests in protecting the U.S. public on multiple occasions.” Newsom said joining the WHO-led consortium would enable California to respond faster to communicable disease outbreaks and other public health threats.

Although other Democratic governors and public health leaders have openly criticized the federal government, few have been as outspoken as Newsom, who is considering a run for president in 2028 and is in his second and final term as governor. Members of the scientific community have praised his effort to build a public health bulwark against the Trump administration’s slashing of funding and scaling back of vaccine recommendations.

What Newsom is doing “is a great idea,” said Paul Offit, an outspoken critic of Kennedy and a vaccine expert who formerly served on the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine advisory committee but was removed under Trump in 2025.

“Public health has been turned on its head,” Offit said. “We have an anti-vaccine activist and science denialist as the head of U.S. Health and Human Services. It’s dangerous.”

The White House did not respond to questions about Newsom’s stance and HHS declined requests to interview Kennedy. Instead, federal health officials criticized Democrats broadly, arguing that blue states are participating in fraud and mismanagement of federal funds in public health programs.

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said the administration is going after “Democrat-run states that pushed unscientific lockdowns, toddler mask mandates, and draconian vaccine passports during the covid era.” She said those moves have “completely eroded the American people’s trust in public health agencies.”

Public Health Guided by Science

Since Trump returned to office, Newsom has criticized the president and his administration for engineering policies that he sees as an affront to public health and safety, labeling federal leaders as “extremists” trying to “weaponize the CDC and spread misinformation.” He has for erroneously linking vaccines to autism, the administration is endangering the lives of infants and young children in scaling back childhood vaccine recommendations. And he argued that the White House is unleashing “chaos” on America’s public health system in backing out of the WHO.

The governor declined an interview request. Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar said it’s a priority of the governor “to protect public health and provide communities with guidance rooted in science and evidence, not politics and conspiracies.”

The Trump administration’s moves have triggered financial uncertainty that local officials said has reduced morale within public health departments and left states unprepared for disease outbreaks and . The White House last year proposed cutting HHS spending , including . Congress largely rejected those cuts last month, although funding for programs focusing on social drivers of health, such as access to food, housing, and education, .

The Trump administration announced that it would claw back in public health funds from California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, arguing that the Democratic-led states were funding “woke” initiatives that didn’t reflect White House priorities. Within days, and a judge the cut.

“They keep suddenly canceling grants and then it gets overturned in court,” said Kat DeBurgh, executive director of the Health Officers Association of California. “A lot of the damage is already done because counties already stopped doing the work.”

Federal funding has accounted for of state and local health department budgets nationwide, with money going toward fighting HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, preventing chronic diseases, and boosting public health preparedness and communicable disease response, according to a 2025 analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News.

Federal funds account for $2.4 billion of California’s $5.3 billion public health budget, making it difficult for Newsom and state lawmakers to backfill potential cuts. That money helps fund state operations and is vital for local health departments.

Funding Cuts Hurt All

Los Angeles County public health director Barbara Ferrer said if the federal government is allowed to cut that $600 million, the county of nearly 10 million residents would lose an estimated $84 million over the next two years, in addition to other grants for prevention of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. Ferrer said the county depends on nearly $1 billion in federal funding annually to track and prevent communicable diseases and combat chronic health conditions, including diabetes and high blood pressure. Already, the the closure of that provided vaccinations and disease testing, largely because of funding losses tied to federal grant cuts.

“It’s an ill-informed strategy,” Ferrer said. “Public health doesn’t care whether your political affiliation is Republican or Democrat. It doesn’t care about your immigration status or sexual orientation. Public health has to be available for everyone.”

A single case of measles requires public health workers to track down 200 potential contacts, Ferrer said.

The U.S. but is close to losing that status as a result of vaccine skepticism and misinformation spread by vaccine critics. The U.S. had , the most since 1991, with 93% in people who were unvaccinated or whose vaccination status was unknown. This year, the highly contagious disease has been reported at , , and .

Public health officials hope the West Coast Health Alliance can help counteract Trump by building trust through evidence-based public health guidance.

“What we’re seeing from the federal government is partisan politics at its worst and retaliation for policy differences, and it puts at extraordinary risk the health and well-being of the American people,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, a coalition of public health professionals.

Robust Vaccine Schedule

Erica Pan, California’s top public health officer and director of the state Department of Public Health, said the West Coast Health Alliance is defending science by recommending a vaccine schedule than the federal government. California is part of a coalition over its decision to rescind recommendations for seven childhood vaccines, including for hepatitis A, hepatitis B, influenza, and covid-19.

Pan expressed deep concern about the state of public health, particularly the uptick in measles. “We’re sliding backwards,” Pan said of immunizations.

Sarah Kemble, Hawaii’s state epidemiologist, said Hawaii joined the alliance after hearing from pro-vaccine residents who wanted assurance that they would have access to vaccines.

“We were getting a lot of questions and anxiety from people who did understand science-based recommendations but were wondering, ‘Am I still going to be able to go get my shot?’” Kemble said.

Other states led mostly by Democrats have also formed alliances, with Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and several other East Coast states banding together to create the .

HHS’ Hilliard said that even as Democratic governors establish vaccine advisory coalitions, the federal “remains the scientific body guiding immunization recommendations in this country, and HHS will ensure policy is based on rigorous evidence and gold standard science, not the failed politics of the pandemic.”

Influencing Red States

Newsom, for his part, has approved a recurring annual infusion of nearly $300 million to support the state Department of Public Health, as well as the 61 local public health agencies across California, and last year authorizing the state to issue its own immunization guidance. It requires health insurers in California to provide patient coverage for vaccinations the state recommends even if the federal government doesn’t.

Jeffrey Singer, a doctor and senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said decentralization can be beneficial. That’s because local media campaigns that reflect different political ideologies and community priorities may have a better chance of influencing the public.

A KFF analysis found some red states are joining blue states in decoupling their vaccine recommendations from the federal government’s. Singer said some doctors in his home state of Arizona are looking to more liberal California for vaccine recommendations.

“Science is never settled, and there are a lot of areas of this country where there are differences of opinion,” Singer said. “This can help us challenge our assumptions and learn.”

Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about .

This article first appeared on Ñî¹óåú´«Ã½Ò•îl Health News and is republished here under a .

]]>
2164665