Public Health Archives - ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ /topics/public-health/ ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ produces in-depth journalism on health issues and is a core operating program of KFF. Fri, 28 Aug 2026 15:05:46 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.8.8 /wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/04/kffhealthnews-icon.png?w=32 Public Health Archives - ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ /topics/public-health/ 32 32 161476233 Trump and Kennedy’s Health Industry Deals Haven’t Been Enforced and Are at Risk of Vanishing /health-industry/trump-kennedy-food-dyes-price-deals-unenforced-vanishing/ Fri, 28 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2278186 In the thick of his competitive reelection race in Michigan, Republican Rep. joined Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at a sprawling 400-acre . They touted Trump administration efforts to improve the American diet, including the removal of some artificial dyes from processed foods.

“We had a great discussion about healthy options for all Americans and taking back control of our healthcare,” Barrett said in a June , after sampling the farm’s apple cider.

Like the focus on artificial dyes, however, many of the administration’s highest-profile health initiatives rely on voluntary agreements. The goals, such as lower drug prices and nutrition classes for doctors, have widespread appeal, cutting across party lines and economic divisions.

But the administration-industry deals lack the enforcement teeth of more traditional federal regulation. Their details are vague, and minimal oversight makes it hard to monitor progress. In some cases, the administration has claimed victories that have yet to materialize.

Republicans consider the dealmaking a winning strategy. It fits with the party’s anti-regulatory stance, they say, and enables the administration to quickly forge agreements President Donald Trump and his allies can tout as accomplishments. In the run-up to the midterm elections, some, like Barrett, hope to woo voters by trumpeting the Trump administration’s efforts to shape health policy.

The practice also raises questions. Though the deals are announced with great fanfare — often during televised events on stages, with live audiences — there’s little documentation or follow-through, creating doubts about whether the administration’s health agenda will lead to lasting change or unravel once the political attention fades.

The distinction could prove important to voters as Republicans defend their health records in November’s midterm elections.

“These deals are often not transparent, so there’s no way for the public to judge how meaningful they are,” said Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ.

Dealing With Dyes

The push to remove certain artificial dyes from food and drugs, for example, was a headline grabber. In April 2025, Kennedy to announce deals with food makers. He was flanked by young children and mothers holding placards reading “Make America Healthy Again.”

He and former FDA commissioner drew a standing ovation from an audience selected by Kennedy’s staff as they said companies had pledged to phase out all petroleum-based synthetic dyes from the nation’s food supply and medicines. They targeted nine synthetic dyes for removal.

Voters love the idea of stopping the use of such dyes. In a nationally representative March survey by Consumer Reports, said they were at least somewhat concerned about synthetic dyes, and two-thirds said companies should be required to phase them out.

A year after making the first announcement at HHS, during a discussion at the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual political event.

“We’ve gotten rid of the nine synthetic-based food dyes,” he said.

Not quite. At the initial HHS event, federal officials said companies would voluntarily stop using six specific synthetic dyes . (The administration has also revoked or proposed revoking authorization for two other synthetic food dyes.)

Later, the FDA on its website quietly to the end of 2027. So, most are still in use.

In fact, the FDA posted a list of 27 companies it said had made voluntary pledges as of December 2025 to remove six synthetic dyes from products such as Doritos and Kellogg’s Froot Loops. More than a year and a half later, — fewer than 30% of those who bought in — had met their promised goals.

Many major food makers, such as the Coca-Cola Co. and Unilever, have made “” to remove the synthetic dyes, according to Consumer Reports. In addition, no pharmaceutical companies have publicly said they have plans to remove dyes from drugs.

“It’s just all talk,” said Leslie Dach, who chairs , a healthcare advocacy group that supports the Affordable Care Act. “They just govern for a day of publicity, and then it’s over. None of it happens. Yet the people don’t know because they have busy lives, so they think, ‘Just look at all these initiatives.’”

In fact, the administration , allowing companies to say their products contain no artificial colors — as long as they don’t use petroleum-based dyes. Previously, food makers could not make that claim unless their products contained no added colors. Some food dyes made from natural ingredients can contain contaminants and may pose their own health risks, .

“The federal government hasn’t taken any regulatory action on food dyes, for the most part, since the beginning of this administration,” said , vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, an advocacy group.

HHS said the voluntary approach has yielded significant action, including commitments to remove synthetic dyes from products sold in schools for the 2026–27 school year.

“HHS and the FDA are moving forward with clear timelines and concrete industry commitments, with major changes expected in foods served in schools during the coming school year and across full product portfolios by the end of 2027,” HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email.

At the same CPAC convention event, Kennedy said “the MCAT testing companies are going to put nutrition on the MCAT for the first time, so the students will actually want to do it.” MCAT refers to the Medical College Admission Test, an exam required for admission to medical schools.

Again, not quite.

The Association of American Medical Colleges administers the MCAT. Spokesperson said Kennedy misspoke and may have meant to refer to a test taken by students to be licensed as doctors.

An Insurance Deal Falls Short of Promises

Kennedy again took to the HHS stage in June 2025, this time with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz, to make what was billed as a game-changing announcement. to reduce the volume of healthcare services subject to prior authorization, a practice widely used by the insurance industry that often requires patients or their medical teams to seek preapproval before undergoing treatment.

The administration said 80% of insurers pledged changes to preauthorization requirements for 80% of diseases and injuries . The administration also promised “” to track progress.

“It will happen very quickly,” Oz said at the event. “Necessary care will be delivered when it’s needed, in the right way.”

As of July, months past that January target date, health plans had reduced prior authorization for medical services by about 11%, according to AHIP, the insurer trade group. But no public dashboards have debuted to track the deal, and some insurers that signed the pledge last summer told ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ this year that they will not implement all the promised reforms as outlined by AHIP.

Hilliard did not respond to questions about the pace of progress.

The American Medical Association, in a 2025 web-based survey, asked 1,000 practicing doctors whether they believed the voluntary pledges would make a meaningful difference. said they believed they would.

Insurers made a , during the previous Trump administration. The next year, more than 80% of doctors said the number of prior authorization requests for drugs and medical services had been increasing, based on .

Meanwhile, the administration is testing an artificial intelligence-powered for Medicare, the federal health program for people 65 and older or with disabilities. In six states, Medicare beneficiaries must get preapproval for a few treatments that CMS considers to have little clinical benefit and to be susceptible to fraud or waste, including skin substitutes and knee arthroscopy for arthritis. The program began in January, the same deadline insurers had set for curtailing preauthorization delays.

Deals and Deregulation

The healthcare industry’s voluntary agreements appeal to voters who feel government regulation drives up costs and places unnecessary burdens on businesses, some supporters say.

“Secretary Kennedy is the antithesis of a public health industry that uses coercion over communication — and has demonstrated this by taking the time and effort to push voluntary initiatives over the typical approach of governmental mandates,” said , a political consultant who was a political appointee at HHS in Trump’s first term.

But voluntary agreements with the health industry can prove ineffective. Former President Jimmy Carter in 1977 proposed a legislative plan to curb rising hospital costs. Hospitals fought back, and Congress rejected the proposal, instead favoring a desired by the industry. It ultimately failed once public attention faded.

One upside: Deals are fast. can take two to three years. And some health analysts say the tempo of the agreements advanced by Kennedy and Trump may help take voters’ attention off the Trump administration’s inability so far to produce a long-promised health plan.

Instead, Republicans can point to the array of accords reached with industry, including the with drugmakers so they’re in line with lower amounts charged in peer countries. The White House calls it the “most-favored-nation” prescription drug pricing policy.

Seventeen companies, including Pfizer and AstraZeneca, with the administration to lower prices for Medicaid enrollees and cash-paying consumers using , a narrow, government-run consumer platform.

Many details remain unknown, but the lower prices apply only to new drugs and existing drugs available through Medicaid. And prices at TrumpRx aren’t as low as out-of-pocket prices for most consumers with insurance. But the voluntary deals appeal to an industry that has railed against mandatory approaches drugmakers deride as harmful price controls.

“Each company makes its own decisions about how it prices medicines, and our industry is committed to working with the Trump administration to ensure Americans have access to affordable medicines,” said Chanse Jones, a spokesperson for PhRMA, a pharmaceutical industry trade group.

Policies that lead to reductions in drug prices typically worry investors because profits also can drop. But rather than seeing their stock prices fall after the agreements were announced, the drugmakers saw largely .

Analysts say that’s partly because the deals are narrow in scope, largely exist only in principle, and don’t apply to existing drugs used by the more than 200 million Americans with commercial or private health insurance.

The Trump administration, however, is .

“The most-favored-nation agreements on drug prices that we just did are delivering the largest drug price cuts in history,” Trump said in June at a in Pennsylvania. “That alone should win us the midterms.”

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

]]>
2278186
A State Gave Sheriffs 20% of Its Opioid Settlement Cash. We Followed the Money. /public-health/louisiana-sheriffs-opioid-settlement-spending-addiction-law-enforcement/ Thu, 27 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2277190

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ worked with three Louisiana news outlets — , , and — to ask all 64 sheriffs in the state how they’ve spent their opioid settlement funds. The responses were shared and presented in a data table for all four newsrooms to use. Reporters then conducted individual reporting for separate articles.

Every state is from companies accused of flooding the nation with prescription painkillers and fueling overdose deaths. But only one state is directing 20% of those payouts to sheriffs — the largest carve-out for law enforcement nationwide.

In Louisiana, sheriffs are elected, do not serve at the pleasure of another local official, and have independent budgets. They’re also not required to proactively report to the public or another authority how they spend billions in opioid settlement cash.

Short of filing public records requests or waiting for official audits, that has made it difficult for the average person to track the windfall. Many consider the dollars to be “blood money” and believe the spirit of the settlements is to spend it all on abating the addiction crisis.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ worked with three Louisiana news outlets — , , and — to track those dollars. The newsrooms contacted all 64 Louisiana sheriffs over five months, often filing public records requests, to produce the first detailed accounting of millions spent.

The findings include:

  • Thirty-eight sheriffs reported spending more than $8.1 million total. Much of it went to crime-fighting equipment, such as surveillance cameras and drug detection products, though smaller amounts funded mobile apps, addiction treatment in jails, and educational programs for youth.
  • $5.4 million, about 66% of reported spending, was deemed inappropriate by a three-person review panel. The panel, assembled by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and its partners, included a Louisiana resident in recovery who lost his son to a fentanyl overdose, an addiction medicine doctor, and a public health policy analyst who has been tracking settlement dollars since 2022. They judged the expenditures using their professional and personal expertise. Expenditures the panel disapproved of included salaries and overtime pay for homicide detectives and officers conducting jail shakedowns to find contraband.
  • $4.7 million, nearly 60% of reported spending, went to items or services that other states say should not be purchased with opioid cash. Six states have , such as technology to extract data from cellphones and automated external defibrillators, which are . Although Louisiana does not have its own “unallowable” list, the state’s — a five-member body that advises sheriffs and parishes but does not control the money — said it has shared the guidance from other states.
  • Nine sheriffs stood out for promising uses: All of their expenditures, totaling nearly $1.8 million, were deemed appropriate by the review panel and allowable in other states. These included providing addiction treatment in jail, training officers to respond to overdoses, and increasing public awareness of addiction resources.
  • Twenty sheriffs did not provide their expenditures, leaving roughly $10.7 million that hidden from public view. The Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office, which covers an area just outside New Orleans and was allotted the highest amount — nearly $4 million through 2025 — did not respond to more than a dozen calls and emails.

Nationwide, debates over law enforcement’s role with opioid settlement money have been underway since the funds began flowing significantly in 2022 and have continued as the pool of money has grown. Purdue Pharma, , finalized its this year, and various settlements are set to pay out for an additional decade-plus.

Since the earliest days, these dollars have been viewed across government agencies and the private sector as a pot of gold for which many are vying.

Law enforcement agencies are part of this scrum. They say seizing drugs and arresting dealers save lives, but that costs money and the addiction crisis has burdened their budgets. However, many recovery advocates staunchly oppose any opioid cash flowing to what they see as the .

Since there are few guardrails on how the money is spent, decisions often come down to how local politicians and residents see addiction and what type of approach they believe will be effective in combating it.

Louisiana provides a natural experiment to see which priorities prevail when money is handed directly to sheriffs.

First Public Look at How Louisiana Sheriffs Have Spent Over $8M in Opioid Settlement Cash

In Louisiana, sheriffs receive 20% of the state's opioid settlement cash — the largest carve-out for law enforcement nationwide. But since sheriffs are not required to proactively report how they spend the money, it's hard to track. Reporters from ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News contacted all 64 sheriffs to uncover spending details. <br><br> Click column headings to sort the table.

Note: In some cases, the amount of money spent exceeds the amount allocated because sheriffs may have reported spending that included their 2026 allocations or because sheriffs combined their opioid settlement dollars with the share received by parish governments or other funding sources. Descriptions of spending are based on emails or phone calls with the sheriffs' offices and have been lightly edited. <br> Source: The money allocated to sheriffs was obtained by summing values for years 1-5, representing 2021-2025, from the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Task Force’s <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">public spreadsheet</a>. Data on money spent was collected by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News. • <a href="/download-the-data-louisiana-sheriffs-opioid-settlement-expenditures/&quot; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Download the data.</a> <br> Credit: ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ' Lydia Zuraw and Aneri Pattani, The Current’s Alena Maschke, Gulf States Newsroom’s Drew Hawkins, and Verite News’ Katie Jane Fernelius

The state’s agreement with parishes and sheriffs receiving settlement cash contains broad categories for , including “law enforcement expenditures relating to the opioid epidemic.”

But even if the sheriffs’ spending is legal, that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate or effective, addiction and public health experts say.

“What’s happening here is they have a lot of money and they want to distribute it to all the wrong places,” said Danny Bolner Jr., a Jefferson Parish resident who has been in recovery from addiction for more than two decades and lost his 28-year-old son to a fentanyl overdose in 2016. On the panel that reviewed expenditures, Bolner represented the view of families who have lost loved ones to the crisis.

The purchase of drones and vehicles struck a nerve for him. He’d prefer for opioid cash to support programs that educate youth about healthy ways to process emotions, provide job training to people in recovery, and distribute overdose reversal medications.

“This money is what we have to save lives,” he said. If sheriffs use it in other ways, the finite pot “is going to be gone and then they won’t have nothing to help.”

A man in a beige brimmed hat and patterned blue short-sleeve shirt stands in a park near a lake and looks at the camera.
Danny Bolner Jr. is a Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, resident who has been in recovery from addiction for more than two decades. Bolner lost his 28-year-old son to a fentanyl overdose in 2016. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

A Safe, a Scanner, and Surveillance Cameras

For , a public health policy analyst and national opioid settlement expert who was a member of the review panel, determining if expenditures fit the spirit of the settlements often centered on whether they facilitated arrests or prevented overdoses.

“The impetus of this opioid settlement money is to spend on innovative ways to not let this happen again,” she said, referring to the overdose crisis that has claimed since 2000. She said sheriffs should be asking, “How could we use this to reinvest in the community, not just build up our office?”

Many of the sheriffs’ equipment purchases didn’t meet her bar.

For example, the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office bought a safe to store evidence from opioid investigations and a scanner for their traffic division to identify narcotics in hidden compartments. The Terrebonne Parish Sheriff’s Office spent $465,000 on , which are automated license plate readers that capture data about passing vehicles and share them with law enforcement agencies nationwide. The Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office purchased 130 body cameras and 50 dash cameras.

Sheriffs already receive taxpayer dollars and federal grants to buy law enforcement tools, Christensen said. Opioid cash, which is finite and has a specific purpose, should not be used for that, she and the other reviewers said. In fact, some states don’t allow it.

13 Louisiana Sheriffs Spent 100% of Opioid Settlement Money Inappropriately, per an Expert Panel

The expenditures were reviewed by Tricia Christensen, a public health policy analyst who has been tracking opioid settlement spending since 2022; Stephen Loyd, an addiction medicine doctor and a person in recovery who serves as West Virginia's drug czar; and Danny Bolner Jr., a person in recovery who lost his son to a fentanyl overdose and is raising his son’s daughter in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana. A majority vote determined which expenditures were appropriate. <br><br> The map depicts the percentage of money each sheriff spent on expenditures disapproved by the reviewers.

Note: The reviewers voted on the propriety of each expenditure based on their own views of the purpose of opioid settlement money. The rates of opioid-involved deaths are age-adjusted. Rates based on counts <5 were suppressed by the Louisiana Department of Health to protect privacy. "Opioid-involved deaths" include deaths in which opioids were present in the body and/or contributed to death, even if they were not the sole cause of death. <br> Sources: Settlement spending and reviewer opinions collected by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News; opioid-involved death rates from the Louisiana Department of Health <br> Credit: ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ' Lydia Zuraw and Aneri Pattani, The Current’s Alena Maschke, Gulf States Newsroom’s Drew Hawkins, and Verite News’ Katie Jane Fernelius

But taxpayer money may not cover everything sheriffs need, said , executive director of the Louisiana Sheriffs’ Association. “Our budgets are overloaded,” he said.

Complex investigations to dismantle drug trafficking syndicates can require advanced equipment, , a spokesperson for the East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office, wrote in a statement.

“While treatment and recovery services are indispensable components of addressing opioid addiction, they address the consequences of addiction after these drugs have already reached our community,” she wrote. “Law enforcement has a different, but equally essential, responsibility: preventing those deadly drugs from reaching potential victims in the first place.”

First Lt. Blake Tabor, a spokesperson for the Terrebonne sheriff’s office, similarly wrote, “Our role as a law enforcement agency is primarily focused on disrupting the criminal activity that fuels addiction in our community.” That effort complements other entities’ work in prevention, treatment, and recovery, he added.

The Bossier Parish Sheriff’s Office declined to comment.

Where Public Health Meets Public Safety

Not all sheriffs spent the money on enforcement.

Acadia Parish Sheriff directed all his settlement cash to provide treatment in jail. He said he hopes to break cycles of addiction and crime.

“I want people back into society, being productive,” he said.

Research shows for opioid use disorder behind bars and .

In St. Martin Parish, settlement funds helped launch a of officers that connects people with substance use disorders or related mental illness to treatment, said Chester Cedars, chief legal counsel for its sheriff’s office. Officers also try to coordinate support services for family members and assist with questions around paying for care.

“We’re not clinicians,” Cedars said, but we “serve as a broker” between people who need services and those who provide them.

, an addiction medicine doctor and the West Virginia drug czar, who was the third member of the review panel, said he loved the comprehensive nature of the program. Addiction “is a family issue,” he said. “Every time that phone rings, it’s a potential family crisis.”

A view from above of a plaque in the ground just in front of a bench that reads "Spread your wings and look down upon us, Daniel. Maw maw & Papa Dan," with images of two praying angles, a tractor, and a pig. Two people sit on the bench to either side of the plaque and their feet are in the frame.
Bolner and his granddaughter sit on a bench dedicated to his son and her father, Daniel, at Lafreniere Park in Metairie, Louisiana. Daniel died of a fentanyl overdose in 2016 on his 28th birthday. (Christiana Botic/Verite News and CatchLight Local/Report for America)

It’s not a coincidence that these parishes earned top marks from the reviewers. Cedars is the former chair of the , and Gibson is the current chair. That’s the body meant to guide others on priority uses of settlement cash.

Cedars was clear that the St. Martin sheriff’s office was not using “one penny for any enforcement activity,” because that’s not what the settlement “intended to accomplish.”

Gibson was more hesitant, saying the legal guidelines are broad and “I’m not here to criticize anybody.”

He has advised about a dozen sheriffs who have reached out with questions, but he knows they’re not required to heed his guidance.

A from the Louisiana Legislative Auditor found that the task force has no teeth to enforce its recommendations.

If people want stronger guardrails on the opioid cash, state lawmakers need to enact new rules, Gibson said.

Stepping Up Oversight

The Louisiana state legislature in May calling for the legislative auditor to review how all parishes and sheriffs are handling their opioid settlement money and report to lawmakers prior to the 2027 legislative session.

State Sen. , a Republican who co-authored the resolution, said the goal is to shed light on where dollars are flowing, if jurisdictions are spending them at all, and which funded programs are effective.

With that information, Myers said, he and others could “absolutely” introduce bills “to tighten up how funding is spent.”

Louisiana Sheriffs Spent $4.7M in Opioid Settlement Cash on Items, Activities Deemed Unallowable in Other States

Six states — <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">California</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Indiana</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Kansas</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Michigan</a>, <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">South Carolina</a>, and <a href="; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">Virginia</a> — have created lists of items and services that they say opioid settlement funds should not be spent on, including surveillance cameras and vehicles. Although Louisiana does not have its own "unallowable" list, the state's Opioid Abatement Task Force said it has shared other states' guidance with some sheriffs. Yet nearly 60% of the sheriffs' spending involves items found on such lists.

Note: Unallowable lists may not be legally binding in each state but are considered strong guidance. <br> Source: Data collection by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News <br> Credit: ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ' Lydia Zuraw and Aneri Pattani

Meanwhile, the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Task Force is trying to strengthen its oversight.

Curtis Nelson is executive counsel for the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Administration Corporation, a nonprofit that supports the task force. He said the body is seeking quotes from accountants to conduct ongoing forensic audits of parishes and sheriffs. The goal is to audit 10 to 15 entities annually, starting with those receiving the most money. If the audits turn up misuse, the task force could withhold future payments from those parishes or sheriffs, Nelson said.

The task force is also exploring creating its own unallowable list, like those in other states, Nelson said.

Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry and Attorney General Liz Murrill did not respond to questions about whether they’d support an unallowable list or take other actions to address opioid settlement spending.

But many advocates are hopeful that an unallowable list could curb spending they found concerning.

“You’re keeping them on the track when you tell them what they can’t use it for,” said Bolner, the Jefferson Parish resident who lost his son to overdose and is raising his son’s daughter.

While he awaits greater oversight for sheriffs, Bolner plans to continue the work he’s been doing for years: distributing overdose reversal medications at schools, hospitals, and bars; participating in grief support groups with other families; and showing up at community events to raise awareness about addiction. He said he’ll keep speaking with sheriffs and parishes about what he considers the best use of settlement money.

“If I save one life, it’s accomplished,” he said.

Methodology

Reporters from ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, The Current, Gulf States Newsroom, and Verite News worked together to contact all 64 sheriffs’ offices in Louisiana and ask how they’d spent opioid settlement funds. The outreach involved dozens of emails and phone calls from March to July.

If a sheriff’s office did not respond or did not provide specific dollar amounts spent on programs or services, it was labeled “Did not provide expenditures.” All other responses were summarized in a data table.

The amount of settlement money each sheriff’s office received through 2025 was obtained from the Louisiana Opioid Abatement Task Force’s . Allocations for years 1 through 5 were summed, representing 2021 through 2025.

In the few cases in which a sheriff’s office reported spending more money than the task force said it had been allocated, it was often because the sheriff’s office had combined its share of opioid settlement dollars with the share received by the parish government or another funding source. Some sheriffs may have also reported money spent from their 2026 allocation.

Once all the data was collected, the reporters used two methods to analyze the results.

For the first, the reporters created an unduplicated list of expenditures and de-identified them by removing the sheriffs’ offices names. That list was shared with three reviewers: , a public health policy expert who has been tracking opioid settlement spending since 2022; , an addiction medicine doctor and a person in recovery who previously served as chair of Tennessee’s Opioid Abatement Council and is currently West Virginia’s drug czar; and Danny Bolner Jr., a person in recovery from addiction who lost his son to a fentanyl overdose and is raising his son’s daughter in Jefferson Parish, Louisiana.

Each reviewer voted on each expenditure description as an appropriate or inappropriate use of opioid settlement money. The majority vote determined the final designation.

Reporters calculated how much of the money spent by each sheriff’s office went to expenditures the review panel deemed inappropriate. This value was divided by the total spent to determine the percentage of expenditures deemed inappropriate by the panel. The second approach to analyzing the sheriffs’ spending was as follows: Six states (, , , , , and ) have created lists of items and services that they say opioid settlement funds should not be spent on, often known as “unallowable lists.” ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ calculated how much money spent by each Louisiana sheriff’s office went to expenditures on one of these lists. This value was divided by the total spent to determine the percentage of expenditures that would have been unallowable or not recommended in one or more of these states.


The Current’s Alena Maschke, Gulf States Newsroom’s Drew Hawkins, and Verite News’ Katie Jane Fernelius contributed to the database featured in this article.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

]]>
2277190
Where Florida’s Gun Violence Exacts Its Biggest Toll on Black and Latino Children /public-health/florida-gun-violence-kids-data-analysis-jacksonville-black-latino-disparities/ Tue, 25 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2278230 JACKSONVILLE, Fla. — Just west of the St. Johns River, which divides this sprawling city racially and economically, 2-year-old A’mahri Robinson was murdered in his mother’s arms.

Ladonna Johnson was rocking A’mahri to sleep in March when he was shot in the head with a gun she kept for protection.

A’mahri loved going outdoors and taking rides in his pull-along wagon. His mother called the toddler “sweet” and “affectionate.” When he was around, she said, “you just felt love.”

The child was close with Steven Dodson Jr., his mother’s boyfriend, who had reached for the gun during an argument. Dodson, 21, in June to murder and aggravated child abuse and was sentenced to life in prison.

A’mahri died in one of Florida’s most violent places for children: Jacksonville. This city has three ZIP codes that rank among the 10 worst in the state for firearm injuries involving children.

A photo of a two-year-old standing outside.
Two-year-old A’mahri Robinson was murdered while in his mother’s arms in March. (Ladonna Johnson)

Every year, hundreds of children are hospitalized in Florida with gunshot wounds, and overwhelmingly, they come from a tiny number of ZIP codes, an exclusive analysis of hospital data by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and The Trace found.

Hospital billing data obtained from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration shows that from 2018 to 2024 more than 4,000 children 17 or younger were hospitalized for firearm injuries — a rate of about 1.5 a day.

The newsrooms gathered data that the state’s hospitals use to collect payments from insurance companies or the government. The information does not identify patients but includes details about where they lived and their age, race, and other demographics.

The number of children killed in Jacksonville has grown so large that , Families of Slain Children, built a “Wall of Compassion” memorial listing hundreds of people killed by gunfire in the city. Memorial organizers have stood up a second wall nearby that is filling with names.

A photo shows a length of white wall on a square of grass. Crosses line the top of the wall. Names are written on the wall.
The Jacksonville nonprofit Families of Slain Children has built a memorial called the “Wall of Compassion” that lists the names of hundreds of people who have been killed by gun violence in the city. (Daniel Chang/³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ)

The numbers reflect how Florida’s long history of racial discrimination and permissive gun laws undermine public health, said researchers, public officials, community activists, and grieving parents.

Jacksonville kids were shot most often in racially segregated neighborhoods — a legacy from the early 20th century of state-sanctioned discrimination in housing, banking, and investment. These areas today are plagued by pollution from defunct city-run trash incinerators, garbage-strewn lots, dilapidated housing, poverty, and other problems that local leaders have been promising to fix for more than 50 years.

Nearly all the Florida ZIP codes with the highest rates of firearm injuries for children have large Black or Latino populations.

Perhaps nowhere is the toll of gun violence more evident than at UF Health Jacksonville, a safety net hospital and the only Level I trauma center in northeastern Florida.

As chief of acute care surgery, sees firsthand the toll exacted by guns.

“You see it day in and day out,” Madbak said. “I’m working tonight, and I suspect I’ll see a couple victims.”

A table of Florida zip codes with city and county columns, ranked by the number of under-18 gunshot wound patients from 2018 through 2024. A column of the rate of U18 GSW patients per 100k children per year is shaded blue, darker for higher rates, lighter for lower ones.

Florida ZIP Codes With Highest Youth Gunshot Wound Hospitalizations

A table of Florida zip codes with city and county columns, ranked by the number of under-18 gunshot wound patients from 2018 through 2024. A column of the rate of U18 GSW patients per 100k children per year is shaded blue, darker for higher rates, lighter for lower ones.

ZIP codes with 1-10 youth GSW hospitalizations over the 2018-2024 period are omitted due to privacy laws.<br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

, a UF Health pediatrician and former health director for Duval County, which includes Jacksonville, said state and local leaders have failed to address what he called the “root causes” of preventable firearm injuries and deaths, such as poverty, lack of opportunity, and neglect.

“The bottom line is nobody gives a flying f— about these young men,” Goldhagen said.

Gun violence victims and their families of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other mental health problems.

Throughout U.S. history, local governments have pushed industrial plants, , and highways through Black neighborhoods even as to increased risks of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, cancer, preterm births, and gun violence.

But the Florida Department of Health does not focus on gun violence as a public health threat, Goldhagen said, despite its being the nation’s for children and teens.

The , a set of goals developed by the health department and an advisory committee, does not mention guns, the toll they take on children, or efforts to reduce firearm deaths and injuries to young people.

Instead, its goals include preventing or reducing sudden unexpected infant deaths and youth drownings, emergency room visits for motor vehicle crashes, and hospitalizations for traumatic brain injuries.

And yet, no one with the authority to address this public health crisis would agree to talk to ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ about gun violence and its toll on Jacksonville’s children — not the Florida health department, Gov. Ron DeSantis, Mayor Donna Deegan, or 18 of 19 members of the Jacksonville City Council.

()

Only Council member Jimmy Peluso responded. Peluso said the city has long ignored the needs of neighborhoods with high rates of firearm injuries among children.

“A lot of these neighborhoods have just felt like the wealth has left them,” he said, “and the city didn’t come in to put in the amount of work they needed to.”

DeSantis, a Republican, in public comments has called for few limits on how people purchase or carry firearms. He to allow Floridians to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

When then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy declared firearm violence a public health crisis in 2024, DeSantis called the advisory an “.”

DeSantis said Florida would not follow the advisory, which recommended policies including universal background checks for gun purchases and requirements for secure storage.

DeSantis spokesperson Molly Best declined an interview request and to answer questions about the governor’s gun policies.

“There isn’t an agenda to end gun violence in the state of Florida,” said Jean Francis, a former pediatric nurse who leads the Jacksonville chapter of Moms Demand Action, part of a nonprofit that advocates for stronger firearm laws.

Research has linked increases in pediatric gun deaths from 2011 to 2023 to state-level gun policies.

States with permissive gun policies, such as “stand your ground” and open carry laws, reported higher rates of firearm deaths among children than states with strict regulations, such as weapon and age restrictions, according to a .

The study ranked Florida among a group of 30 states with the most permissive gun policies. Four states with comparatively strict gun laws — California, Maryland, New York, and Rhode Island — saw a decrease in pediatric gun deaths over the same time period.

prevents cities and counties from enacting stricter gun safety measures.

kids in disadvantaged neighborhoods are up to 20 times more likely to suffer firearm injuries than their peers in the most advantaged areas.

“It’s disheartening,” Madbak said. UF Health Jacksonville treated 255 patients for gunshot wounds in 2024, including 32 who were 17 or younger, he said.

A zip code choropleth map of Florida shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21,21-44,44-79,79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

In Some Florida Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of Florida shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21,21-44,44-79,79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Broward County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Fort Lauderdale area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Duval County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Jacksonville area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21,21-44,44-79,79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Miami-Dade County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A ZIP code choropleth map of the Miami area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21,21-44,44-79,79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Orange County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Orlando area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21,21-44,44-79,79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Palm Beach County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Palm Beach area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with fewer than 10 hospitalizations are suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Escambia County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Pensacola area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Manatee and Sarasota County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Sarasota area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Pinellas County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Saint Petersburg area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Leon County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Tallahassee area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In Some Hillsborough County Neighborhoods,<br>Child Gunshot Hospitalizations Are Common

A zip code choropleth map of the Tampa area shaded in blue by gunshot hospitalizations per 100k children. Shade buckets are: No cases, 0-7, 7-21, 21-44, 44-79, 79-140, Population too small. Click the city names to visit those regions and see zip codes with smaller geographic areas.

ZIP codes with 1-10 hospitalizations have data suppressed or represented as ranges to comply with privacy laws. <br><br>GSW = gunshot wound<br><br>

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

In 2025, the hospital treated 269 patients for firearm injuries, including 22 who were under 18, according to Dan Leveton, a hospital spokesperson. As of Aug. 19, the hospital has treated 137 patients for gunshot wounds this year, including 18 who were 17 or younger.

Preventing gun violence “shouldn’t be a political issue, even though it is,” Madbak said, adding that there is a lot of room for more effective advocacy for violence prevention.

“It’s really an American issue,” Madbak said, “and our state has been impacted tremendously by this kind of violence.”

The Pain of Mothers, Grandmothers, and Aunts

A white woman stands outside by a tree surrounded with flowers.
Kim Crow, grandmother of Bryce Williams, who died at age 17 from being shot in a neighborhood park in an Orlando suburb in 2018. Crow says her grandson’s death has left a void in her life. “I’m not me anymore,” she says. (WFTV)

In Orlando, one ZIP code — 32805 — had the state’s highest rate of children under 18 hospitalized for a gunshot wound from 2018 through 2024, with a total of 25 children, or 125.8 per 100,000.

On New Year’s Day 2018, Bryce Williams, 17, was in Casselberry, an Orlando suburb. He was found dead after crashing his blue Kia into a home near the park.

Williams’ death devastated his family, his grandmother Kim Crow told WFTV in Orlando.

“First off, you can’t believe that someone is taken from you so violently,” Crow said. “It’s heartbreaking.”

In April, Daesean Moctezuma Orland, 18, was while attending a house party outside Orlando. Two others wounded in the shooting were taken to the hospital. Police arrested a 16-year-old boy about a month after the shooting and charged him with Moctezuma Orland’s death.

Moctezuma Orland’s grandmother Iveliz Moctezuma told WFTV that a friend of her grandson’s called her and daughter Noemi Moctezuma to tell them that he had been shot. The women drove to four hospitals, including one in Tampa, searching for him.

A Latina woman sits for a television interview in her home. She is tearing up.
Iveliz Moctezuma, grandmother of Daesean Moctezuma Orland, who was shot and killed at age 18 at a house party in Davenport, Florida, in April. “It was the hardest night of my life,” she says. “They ripped him away from us.” (Keary Croskrey/WFTV)

“My every day is crumbled,” Iveliz Moctezuma said. “It’s hard to work. You sit there and you watch the news. You’re like, oh my God, there goes another kid getting killed by gun violence.”

“It’s a hole in my chest, a hole in my mind,” Noemi Moctezuma said. “It’s like the biggest void that you could ever possibly imagine, that not even the happiest moments can fill a void like that.”

Jacksonville, a city of about 1 million, is particularly treacherous for children living in areas north and west of downtown.

The victims include a gunned down while playing in front of a house, a fatally wounded coming home from a football tryout, and a killed by a stray bullet as she sat in a parked car.

Advocates for victims said that gun violence has ripped any sense of normalcy from families and entire neighborhoods. Grieving mothers fear fireworks and other loud noises that sound like gunshots. Grappling with their own emotions, they said, they sometimes struggle to help their surviving children cope with the loss.

“When you hear their stories, you think, ‘This is the worst thing I have ever heard,’” Francis said, “until you hear the next one.”

Hours after graduating from Jacksonville’s Raines High School in May 2022, , 18, was shot and killed while arriving at a friend’s celebration. Fields was walking into the party when a car pulled up and opened fire, his mother, Yvonne Fields, told Action News Jax in an interview.

A defensive lineman on his high school football team, Fields had been offered a full scholarship to play for Keiser University in West Palm Beach. His parents were planning a party for the following day to celebrate his graduation.

“Everybody loved him,” Yvonne Fields said of her youngest son, calling him “the life of the party.”

A Black woman sits for a TV interview indoors.
Yvonne Fields of Jacksonville talks about the death of her son, Rashaud Fields, 18, who was shot and killed in May 2022 at a high school graduation party. (Kevin Jordan/Action News Jax)

“Rashaud loved to dance. He was a joke teller. He was funny,” Fields said.

At the time, Rashaud Fields was at least the ninth 17- to 19-year-old homicide victim in the city that year, according to the , the local newspaper. Yvonne Fields said she has kept her son’s room exactly as he left it the day he was killed. She smells his shirt every day.

“I know he’s not coming back,” she said, “but I can feel the spirit.”

Two days after celebrating his 18th birthday, Maurice Hobbs was fatally shot in January 2017 as he waited for his mother to pick him up.

“I was not even a block away,” Latasha Hobbs said to Action News Jax.

A photo shows a white woman being hugged outside in the evening at a gathering.
Latasha Hobbs receives a hug at a gathering to end gun violence in Jacksonville on Aug. 27, 2018. Her son, Maurice Hobbs, was shot and killed two days after celebrating his 18th birthday in January 2017. (Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

A singer, rapper, and poet, Maurice Hobbs wanted to perform and launch a clothing line. He dreamt of making enough money to give homes to everyone in his family so they could all live on the same street.

His mom recalled celebrating his birthday with cake and dancing in the kitchen and his reaction to turning 18.

“He was like, ‘Oh my God, Mom, I made it to 18,’” Latasha Hobbs said. “So it’s hard to swallow knowing that my baby didn’t make it to 19. It’s not fair. My baby deserves to be here.”

Pamela Howard has struggled for nearly two decades with the pain of the killing of her son Derrell Baker at age 17.

Howard, a mother of five, called her son energetic and an anchor for his younger siblings. Baker excelled at football, she said, and was on track to graduate high school despite having severe attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Someone shot Baker in September 2008 as he walked to school. A passerby found him by the road.

A Black woman sits outside as she holds two framed photos of her son.
Pamela Howard has spent nearly two decades trying to help police find the person who killed her son Derrell Baker, 17, as he walked to school in 2008. (Malcolm Jackson for ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ)

Howard said she thought Baker was at school and later football practice. The family learned something might be wrong only when a sibling heard that Baker had been shot.

Howard called area hospitals in search of her son. By the time she found him at UF Health Jacksonville, it was too late, she said: He had died hours earlier.

“I don’t remember anything after they told me” he was dead, Howard said. “My friends say they just heard me scream.”

For the mothers Fields, Hobbs, and Howard, the sudden, unexpected death of their children cut deep. The lack of closure is painful. Police have not made an arrest in any of the cases.

“When I get justice,” Yvonne Fields said, “maybe I’ll be a little at peace.”

()

Leading Cause of Death

, chief of pediatric surgery and trauma at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, said there has to be an appetite in state capitals to regulate firearms and protect children from gun violence.

Nance co-authored a in JAMA Pediatrics finding that the number of states where guns were the leading cause of death for children and teens increased from zero over the period 2004 to 2008 to 24 from 2019 to 2023.

Motor vehicle deaths among children, once the leading cause of death in that group, have declined primarily because of safety interventions undertaken by governments and car manufacturers, he said, from seat belt laws and speed limits to air bags and antilock brakes.

“That progress has been pretty universal across the U.S.,” he said, “but firearm stuff is just all over the map.”

Guns don’t have federal safety standards, Nance noted. They aren’t regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a federal agency that protects the public from dangerous products, and they can’t be recalled the way unsafe toys or cars can be.

“We’ve really done almost nothing to change the trajectory of firearm injuries in kids,” Nance said.

Goldhagen, the UF Health pediatrician, said Jacksonville leaders tried to address gun violence through the Jacksonville Journey, an initiative launched in 2008 — when Duval County was the murder capital of Florida — under former Mayor John Peyton.

The program for children at risk of violence provided mentorship, summer camps, job training, and nonpolice strategies such as neighborhood beautification projects and community center programs. The Journey also partnered with the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office on gang intervention focused on young people.

Officials credited the effort with a nearly 40% reduction in homicides in Duval County in its first four years.

After Peyton left office in 2011, program spending of about $15 million was slashed to $8.6 million in 2012 and about $2.3 million in 2014. The scaled-back program was eventually combined with another children’s initiative to form the , which uses city, state, and federal grants to fund youth services and intervention programs.

Duval County is the only large county in Florida that does not have a child services tax dedicated to programs for children, including efforts to reduce youth crime.

City leaders believe “public safety is about fire and police, but not social services,” said Vicki Waytowich, executive director of the , a nonprofit funded through grants and contracts that provides health and juvenile justice services for children and families in Jacksonville.

“There is absolutely zero political will to do anything that remotely resembles a child services tax,” she said.

In 2024, on a gun violence prevention program called Cure Violence, which tried to squash beefs between youths before they escalated to shootings. A city Office of Inspector General report and sound financial practices.

“We have a public health system that doesn’t focus on this as a public health or population health issue,” Goldhagen said.

Waytowich said crime is a symptom of much deeper problems on the north side of Jacksonville, from neighborhood decay to generational trauma and lack of job opportunities.

“We don’t really have the funds to address the root causes,” she said. “What we’re doing is slapping a band-aid on things.”

Unlike in Mandarin, a predominantly white neighborhood on the south side of Jacksonville with easy access to about seven grocery stores, children of the city’s north side have poor nutrition, Waytowich said, and many walk more than a mile to get to school.

“We can see that kids don’t have hope,” Waytowich said. “When kids believe they’re going to die at 21, then what’s the use of goal-setting and résumé-building workshops?”

In 2025, Jacksonville Mayor Deegan launched a program to address gun violence called .

But like its predecessor, Journey Forward does not have a dedicated, ongoing source of funding.

Hard Memory

On March 22, Ladonna Johnson said, she broke up with Dodson because she saw that he was sharing location information with other women on his cellphone.

She said she went into a bedroom where A’mahri and his sister were watching television and put her son on her lap. Dodson followed Johnson into the room, she said, then went into a closet and retrieved the gun.

“He just kept asking me, ‘What are we doing?’” Johnson said.

Moments later, Johnson said, she heard a loud bang. Her daughter started to cry.

They will both need therapy, she said. She is dedicated to preserving A’mahri’s memory: “I want people to know how adorable and sweet my son was.”

Still, she said, “I feel like I will never be OK.”

Methodology

To find that more than 4,000 children under 18 had been treated in Florida hospitals for gunshot wounds from 2018 to 2024, The Trace and ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ analyzed two datasets obtained from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration via a data request:

  • In the emergency department file, which contained records of 67,565,314 ER visits that did not result in an inpatient admission, we identified 37,415 gunshot wound cases using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s .
  • In the inpatient file, which contained records of 21,857,664 hospital visits in which patients were admitted, we identified 28,149 gunshot wound cases using the CDC definition.

We defined children as 17 and under and filtered the patient age column to find that 2,340 children had been treated in ERs and 1,684 admitted to hospitals with gunshot wounds. To avoid double-counting, we excluded patients from the emergency department file whose records indicated that they were transferred to a different inpatient facility.

Demographic breakdowns were generated using the race and ethnicity columns in the datasets.

To examine the geographic distribution of the burden of gun violence, we grouped child gunshot wound victims by the ZIP code provided. Importantly, this ZIP code is the location not of the shooting but of the child’s residence. A small number of children in the data had out-of-state ZIP codes, or placeholder ZIP codes indicating they were homeless or from a foreign country. These children are included in statewide totals as children treated in Florida hospitals but not in ZIP-level results.

This data does not include children who were shot but died at the scene or before reaching the hospital or who never received medical treatment.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ data editor Holly K. Hacker contributed to this report.

This report was produced by ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, The Trace, Action News Jax in Jacksonville, and WFTV in Orlando.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

]]>
2278230
Ebola Is Still Killing in Central Africa. These Groups Are Working To Save Lives. /public-health/ebola-response-organizations-central-africa-democratic-republic-congo/ Mon, 24 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2270820 Misinformation and distrust are among the challenges facing public health workers in the Democratic Republic of Congo as they confront the on record. Even though the virus has faded from U.S. headlines, key organizations are still at work providing medical care and training to counter the spread of the disease.

Since the World Health Organization’s of a public health emergency, over 5,200 cases of the Bundibugyo strain of the Ebola virus have been confirmed and more than in Congo, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

More than 550 people were in isolation with Ebola in Congo as of Aug. 7, the country’s National Public Health Institute said. Twenty cases and two deaths were reported in neighboring Uganda as well, but no new cases have been reported there since June 21, the World Health Organization said.

The in history, which hit several countries in West Africa from 2014 to 2016, claimed over 11,300 lives.

The current outbreak is only the third of the Bundibugyo strain in central Africa. Congo officials are reporting a for the rare strain, which have a vaccine. Military conflict in eastern Congo, where the outbreak is centered, has made the medical response more difficult.

“When everybody became aware of what was happening, we were already months behind where we should have been as a global community in stopping the spread of this disease,” said Erica Tavares, a senior director of the International Medical Corps.

The U.S. has pledged in response to the outbreak and enacted a , temporarily preventing non-U.S. citizens traveling from the affected region from entering the country.

Meanwhile, public health workers in Congo continue to toil against Ebola.

Below, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ profiles five organizations involved in the ongoing public health work there. A fraction of the groups working in Congo, they’re a mix of smaller, local organizations and larger, internationally known groups.

1. Africa Centres for Disease Control and Prevention

Africa CDC is the , in charge of helping health institutions in its member states with disease threat detection and response. With the WHO, Africa CDC announced a on June 5. The organizations said they would need more than $500 million over the following six months for the effort.

Their primary goal is to strengthen cross-border communication and collaboration under a unified “One Response” plan. Africa CDC has for travel and public gatherings, urging people to implement prevention methods including avoiding contact with bodily fluids instead of issuing blanket travel restrictions to affected areas.

2.

This subagency within the Congolese Ministry of Public Health is tasked with monitoring and documenting the virus. Institute officials are conducting on-the-ground testing and have set up laboratories in Ituri province, the area hardest hit by the virus.

In July, the agency said it had also stepped up detection and monitoring of the virus’s evolution. Genomic surveillance, or analyzing the virus’s genetic code, is an “essential tool” for containing the virus, officials said in a news release. It also helps with vaccine development, which is underway of potential vaccines.

3. Doctors Without Borders

has worked in Ituri for over two decades responding to humanitarian and medical crises. The well-known international organization provides emergency medical aid, as well as disease surveillance.

Kate White, an emergency medical coordinator for the organization, is working in Bunia, the capital of Ituri. In a phone interview, she said the financial stability and size of MSF, the abbreviation for the group’s French name, enable it to work with partner organizations in the region to distribute resources and care. More than 1,400 MSF workers are responding to the current Ebola outbreak.

Looking forward, she said, MSF will reinforce some of its existing programs, including providing general healthcare, to prepare for any additional spread of the Ebola virus.

4. International Medical Corps

Since mid-May, members have provided case management and community education specific to Ebola and the current outbreak.

IMC operates rapid response teams in the region and has established treatment centers where patients can receive medicine and other care, as well as centers where people await test results.

“We’re also supporting the continuity of primary healthcare in the most at-risk regions,” Tavares said in an interview. “We want people to continue to come to facilities.”

The training of local health professionals is a focus of IMC’s work in Congo. It is also one way the organization partners with other entities, such as .

“Historically, we’ve always had training as part of our response program,” Tavares said. “It means that [other organizations] will just have that much more capacity in the future and looking forward.”

Eventually, IMC-run facilities will be turned over to local healthcare leaders, Tavares said, and her hope is that the communities will then be better equipped to respond to future outbreaks. IMC also focuses on improving hygiene and water sanitation, she said.

5. SOFEPADI

is a Congolese nonprofit that primarily serves women and girls. The women-led organization works to prevent gender-based violence, reduce inequality, and help women take charge of their own healthcare.

In the Ebola outbreak, SOFEPADI officials say, they are working to protect women. During past outbreaks, women have been due to their increased exposure as caregivers in their communities. The functioning of communities, in turn, is dependent on the health of women. “If the women fall, the whole community falls with them,” SOFEPADI officials wrote in French in a June 1 post on their website.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

]]>
2270820
How Louisiana’s New Surgeon General Wants To Transform Public Health /public-health/louisiana-surgeon-general-evelyn-griffin-transform-public-health/ Fri, 21 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2276502 Evelyn Griffin had led a life out of the spotlight until she testified at the Louisiana Statehouse five years ago and experienced what she called her “great awakening.”

The state health department wanted to add covid vaccines to the school immunization schedule, a move no state has ever implemented. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., then known as a leading vaccine skeptic, had already claimed the covid shot was “the deadliest vaccine ever made” during a poster board presentation at the legislative hearing.

Griffin, a longtime OB-GYN, relied on nearly identical images during her own blistering testimony against the proposal. After the hearing, she expected splashy headlines about Kennedy’s assertions, shifting the public debate over covid policies and vaccines. But that did not happen; one news outlet dismissed him as a . Griffin was shocked.

That is “when I saw how the world worked,” she recalled in a podcast interview. Griffin said she and her husband, a vascular surgeon, decided to take action and “shine light on things.”

Now, Kennedy is the nation’s health secretary, and Griffin holds prominent roles that position her to help carry out his vision.

Last September, Kennedy appointed her to ACIP, the advisory panel for federal immunization policy, where she voted to recommend limiting access to covid vaccines and ending universal newborn immunizations for hepatitis B, steps that a . In December, Gov. Jeff Landry of Louisiana, a conservative Republican and an ally of President Donald Trump’s, named Griffin as the state’s surgeon general.

That makes her the top public health physician in Louisiana, which has the among states.

She is an unconventional choice. Griffin has no background or specialty training in infectious diseases or public health. She is aligned with alternative health movements — including Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA — and has hosted some speakers promoting fringe medical views.

Griffin declined interview requests for this article. “My vision as Louisiana’s surgeon general is to help shift our healthcare system toward preventing disease, not just managing or treating it,” she said in a statement.

Eight months into her tenure, she has yet to make major changes at the health department. She has faced hurdles in her efforts to tighten access to vaccines and limit public health powers, testifying on several bills that legislators rejected.

Still, Griffin’s political rise of Kennedy’s vaccine agenda at the , a vital testing ground for laws aimed at eroding government mandates. State officials have enormous power to set health policy and beat back infectious disease outbreaks. While Griffin’s post is largely a bully pulpit, she could spur real change by advising the governor, state health secretary, and lawmakers.

Some public health and infectious disease experts warned that if Griffin eventually succeeded in curtailing the state’s authority, illnesses and deaths could escalate and Louisiana could be hamstrung in a future pandemic. At one vaccine panel meeting last year, she said it was “unclear” whether vaccines were linked to autism, as Kennedy has suggested. When asked by The New York Times, she declined to say whether she believed any vaccines should be mandated for schoolchildren.

“Someone who has expressed the views she has, who’s now in a public policy position, is very dangerous,” said , the chief executive of the American Public Health Association.

But , a pastor and pediatric cardiologist who serves as chair of the federal vaccine panel, defended Griffin as an “excellent choice” for surgeon general. “No one should be afraid of Dr. Evelyn Griffin having the heart’s desire to take care of the population of Louisiana,” he said in an interview.

While Griffin is on a learning curve as a political novice, she has signaled big ambitions.

She called for “dramatic transformational change” during a public meeting in January, promising to focus on women’s health, rural health, and the root causes of disease. An accompanying said Louisiana would lead through “family, faith, and fearlessness.”

Griffin, 49, often cites her family background in explaining her trajectory.

She was born Ewelina Bulczynski under Communist rule in Poland in 1976. When she was 5, her family defected to a refugee camp in Austria before immigrating to Canada. She and her two brothers later came to the United States to practice as physicians. She has credited this history with giving her a “different perspective” as a doctor and influencing her skepticism of government mandates.

“My parents escaped Communist Poland so that we could come here for the freedoms, such as medical freedom, that this country has,” she told Louisiana lawmakers in 2022.

Griffin is seen with her husband at an event.
Evelyn Griffin, Louisiana’s surgeon general, and her husband, Joseph Griffin, attend a wellness event sponsored by the Northshore Alternative Health Alliance in Mandeville, Louisiana, in June. (Christiana Botic for The New York Times)

She met her husband, Joseph Griffin, while they attended Ross University School of Medicine, then located in Dominica. After residency programs in New Orleans, they settled in Baton Rouge and raised two children.

People who have known Griffin during her 20-year career delivering babies and treating women described her as a kind, caring, and smart physician. “Patients loved her,” said Francis Dauterive, who worked with her.

In the years before the pandemic, Griffin had noticed a rise in chronic health problems among her patients. She began studying how nutrition and lifestyle choices could treat and prevent illness, and pursued online training in functional medicine. She started an filled with images of jackfruit sloppy Joes and vegan jambalaya, her dog lounging on a yoga mat, and her backyard strawberry plants.

She also learned of Barbara O’Neill, a Christian wellness figure popular on social media. O’Neill was from giving medical advice in Australia after claiming that cancer was caused by a fungus and could be treated with baking soda, and that vaccines caused “an epidemic of ADHD, autism, epilepsy and cot death.” In a , Griffin called O’Neill a “sage” teacher who was ostracized for focusing on lifestyle solutions to medical issues. She said she kept O’Neill’s advice for a healthy life — including exercise, sunshine, and trust in God — posted on her fridge.

But it was the pandemic that transformed her career. In speeches and interviews, she said she began to question public health guidance and that of her former employer, Ochsner Health, Louisiana’s largest health system, on masking, vaccines, and mandates.

Griffin wanted to share research with colleagues that wasn’t “mainstream” science, studies she said were from contacts in Europe on early covid treatments. Griffin was repeatedly rebuffed, she said.

Eventually, she resigned. “I’m going to stick to my principles,” she later recalled thinking. She now works at the Baton Rouge General health system. Ochsner officials declined to comment.

Louisiana had been hit hard by the pandemic. By December 2021, more than 14,000 people had died from covid. That summer, the Delta surge had killed six pregnant women there over two months, and maternal health organizations were urging vaccination.

But in her testimony to lawmakers that December, Griffin had questioned the vaccine’s safety after health officials had reported . She invoked a public health catastrophe: The , prescribed during pregnancy in Europe (and tested in the United States) in the 1950s, had left thousands of babies with missing or malformed limbs. She also reminded lawmakers of the Nuremberg trials, where Nazi collaborators had been for medical experimentation.

“So everyone has to be on notice when making these types of decisions,” Griffin said, looking at the politicians. The state later dropped plans to require covid vaccines for students.

Griffin and her husband have since embedded themselves in Louisiana’s right-leaning alternative health communities. They have espoused views that, amid the swirl of social-media-fueled wellness trends, pandemic backlash, and widespread dismay over Americans’ poor health, have become ascendant in the second Trump presidency.

A photo of a Louisiana Senate hearing. Louisiana Sen. Jay Luneau is speaking.
Jay Luneau (top center), a Democrat in Louisiana’s Senate, questions Griffin in May about a bill to prohibit businesses and schools from mandating new vaccines or other medical interventions. (Christiana Botic for The New York Times)

Griffin returned to the state Capitol over the next three years to testify for favored causes, including bills supported by Health Freedom Louisiana, a group aligned with Kennedy. to , an antiparasitic drug popular among vaccine skeptics, though numerous studies have shown it is ineffective in treating covid, and future government health mandates, which Griffin has Neither got out of committee. She also testified in support of a ban on gender-transition treatments for minors, which .

After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 and Louisiana’s near-total took effect, Griffin became an ally of Louisiana Right to Life, the state’s leading anti-abortion group. She recorded videos arguing that the law did not impede pregnancy care. The ban was later and lead to unnecessary cesarean sections, according to doctors and reproductive rights groups.

Griffin and her husband struck up a friendship with Tony Spell, the in Baton Rouge, sometimes joining him for Bible study. Pastor Spell refused to shut his evangelical church during the pandemic, leading to that were overturned by the Louisiana Supreme Court. Griffin called him “an absolute hero.”

A photo of Benjamin Clapper speak to Evelyn Griffin as they walk into the Louisiana Capitol.
Benjamin Clapper, executive director of Louisiana Right to Life (center left), speaks to Griffin at the Louisiana Capitol in May. (Christiana Botic for The New York Times)
A man in a suit stands for a portrait outside. A woodsy background is behind him.
Tony Spell, the pastor at Life Tabernacle Church in Baton Rouge, is friends with Griffin and her husband. (Christiana Botic for The New York Times)

She has spoken at annual health freedom gatherings on the church’s sprawling grounds and launched her own wellness events there two years ago. Guests have talked about backyard gardening, naturopathic medicine, the benefits of doulas and raw milk — a — which recently sickened nearly a dozen Louisiana residents.

One speaker, an OB-GYN, said contraception encouraged abortion. Another, an ophthalmologist, questioned the safety of wireless technology, as has Griffin. Quoting O’Neill, the Australian wellness figure, Griffin warned the crowd to “stay away from sunscreen,” adding there were “lots and lots of chemicals” in it.

Spirituality is “the foundation for health,” she said during the event in 2025, and some of her speakers have presented faith in Jesus as essential to being healthy. At the 2024 gathering, Sean Troxclair, an internist who is now her deputy, said that when he was “injured” by a vaccine, “I got with Jesus.” He added, “If you’re not with him, no matter what you do, you’re not going to get better.”

In written comments to the Times, Griffin said that faith was not a prerequisite for good health, and that she “may not share every perspective presented” by her speakers.

Griffin’s appointment is among Gov. Landry’s wider efforts to move Louisiana, already a deeply red state, further to the right. He has supported a who mail abortion pills to Louisiana patients and a to stop the practice nationwide. The U.S. Supreme Court said the pills could still be sent by mail while the FDA case continues in the lower courts.

The governor’s first appointee as surgeon general, , another supporter of Kennedy’s, blocked his staff from promoting any vaccines amid an that killed two babies.

Griffin has begun her tenure more quietly, seeking ties with the state’s medical community while trying to find her place in a health department hierarchy where the secretary still wields much of the power.

A photo of Evelyn Griffin walking outside at an event.
Griffin and her deputy, Sean Troxclair (right), attend a women’s wellness event at the Louisiana Capitol in May. (Christiana Botic for The New York Times)

For her staff, she’s recruited figures from wellness and vaccine-skeptical circles, including Troxclair and Kathleen Willis, an internist who has of the childhood vaccine schedule, .

A surprising presence in the department is Griffin’s husband, whom she’s called “like-minded.” Though he is not employed by the agency, he has joined her appointments with state and federal officials and participated in department meetings, sometimes providing feedback or asking questions, according to two people present at the sessions. Griffin has also placed him on a . Griffin said in a statement that he was “not involved in formal decision-making.”

Bruce Greenstein, the state health secretary, introduced the couple during a public meeting in January, saying, “We basically get two doctors for the price of one.” In May, Griffin’s husband joined the governor on a to Greenland, which Trump has periodically .

Griffin’s beliefs represent a shift away from public health policies that prioritize the protection of the wider community in favor of ones that prioritize individual choice. Like Kennedy, she has said this is necessary to restore faith in public health systems battered by the anger over pandemic restrictions.

Such a reframing of the government’s role would upend long-standing public health principles and risk harming society’s most vulnerable, said Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“Are we in no way responsible for people who we are going to sit next to on a bus or get into a crowded elevator?” he asked. “Do we have no sense of responsibility to other members of society?”

Florida’s former health secretary and surgeon general, whose vaccine mandates, said rising vaccine skepticism was already contributing to and . “This is something that our country will regret as we start seeing our sons, daughters, neighbors, friends, cousins, pay the price,” he said in an interview.

Even though Griffin has allied herself with some lawmakers in the Republican-controlled legislature, she testified on three bills this year that failed to proceed. One would have created new for vaccines — including banning mothers from agreeing to vaccines for 12 hours after giving birth, when Griffin said hormones and other factors could impede their thinking.

Another would have the government’s ability to require vaccines, testing, or masks in a future outbreak, mandates that Griffin testified infringed on individual rights and were discriminatory. A , her own proposal, would have given her office sweeping access to all medical records in the state, which are now protected by medical privacy laws.

Gov. Landry did not publicly push for the measures, a sign that they may not be priorities for his administration. A majority of Louisiana voters support school vaccine mandates, according to polls by and the . Most proposals to weaken vaccine laws also this year.

Since her appointment, Griffin has traveled the state to meet with residents. In June, she and her husband wandered through a wellness event, sponsored by the Northshore Alternative Health Alliance, in Mandeville. She had been invited to give the keynote address by Abigail Licatino, a member of Health Freedom Louisiana who has said that .

Booths featured local farmers, reiki practitioners, functional medicine doctors, chiropractors, spiritual healers, and purveyors of peptides, supplements, and IV treatments. The event represented some of the “holistic approaches” Griffin said she planned to highlight as surgeon general.

In speeches before her appointment, Griffin had offered a far-reaching vision. While conventional medicine would still play an indispensable role, she said, the current health system was failing Americans and would “collapse.” The health freedom and wellness movements would help show “the path forward.”


The New York Times’ Kitty Bennett, Sheelagh McNeill, and Kirsten Noyes contributed research for this article.


³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

]]>
2276502
Headless FDA Gets a New Nominee /podcast/what-the-health-460-fda-nominee-trump-heidi-overton-august-20-2026/ Thu, 20 Aug 2026 20:02:39 +0000 /?p=2275237&post_type=podcast&preview_id=2275237 The Host
Julie Rovner photo
Julie Rovner ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ Read Julie's stories. Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ weekly health policy news podcast, "What the Health?" A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book "Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z," now in its third edition.

Heidi Overton, a physician and White House domestic policy adviser, is President Donald Trump’s choice to be the next head of the Food and Drug Administration. Overton, an abortion opponent and supporter of Trump’s proposed changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, has made enemies while working on health policy from the White House and could face some tough questioning from senators.

Meanwhile, prescription drug prices are dropping for some people, and the wholesale retailer Costco is entering the Medicare market. Still, overall, the problem of healthcare being too expensive remains stubbornly hard to solve.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen photo
Joanne Kenen Johns Hopkins University and Politico
Shefali Luthra photo
Shefali Luthra The 19th
Alice Miranda Ollstein photo
Alice Miranda Ollstein Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

  • Trump’s selection of Overton to lead the FDA is prompting concerns from a diverse crowd of skeptics that includes Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and adherents to the Make America Healthy Again movement. Her lack of managerial experience and history of controversial writings could be liabilities during the confirmation process, though Trump has a decent track record of clearing nominees through a hesitant Senate.
  • Grant money continues to be held up at the National Institutes of Health pending political reviews, and new reporting sheds light on “zombie programs” at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where money has been appropriated but there’s no staff to use it. Plus, the trend of declining childhood immunizations continues, with vaccine exemptions for kindergartners jumping to another high.
  • New data shows the largest drop in prescription drug prices since the 1960s, and while the Trump administration is taking credit, it’s unclear what exactly caused it. Meanwhile, the federal government is investigating major health companies for allegedly dodging taxes or engaging in anticompetitive practices. And the wholesaler Costco is getting into the health insurance game, partnering with a nonprofit insurer to provide Medicare Advantage or Medigap plans in a few states.

Also this week, as part of the “How Would You Fix It?” series, Rovner interviews billionaire businessman Mark Cuban, who has already reshaped the generic drug market and now has his eye on the rest of the healthcare system.

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

Julie Rovner: Mother Jones’ “,” by Sophie Hurwitz.

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “,” by Barbara Rodriguez.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Texas Observer’s “,” by Mary Tuma.

Joanne Kenen: Politico’s “,” by Owen Dahlkamp.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

Click to open the transcript Transcript: Headless FDA Gets a New Nominee

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and WAMU Public Radio in Washington, D.C. Welcome to What the Health? I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ. And, as always, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters covering Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 20, 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 are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have another “How Would You Fix It?” interview, from his car, with businessman and entrepreneur Mark Cuban, who’s now devoting most of his professional attention to the mess that is U.S. healthcare. But first, this week’s news. So, we finally have a nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration, which has been without a Senate-confirmed commissioner since Marty Makary resigned in May — officially, over a dispute about flavored vapes. The winner of the search is Heidi Overton, a 37-year-old physician and former protégé of Makary’s from Johns Hopkins, who currently oversees the health portfolio at the White House Domestic Policy Council. What do we know about Dr. Overton, and what are her prospects for confirmation? We’ve already seen HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy say on social media that he has “concerns” about her, but he’s voted for nominees about whom he’s had concerns as recently as — checks notes — earlier this month. 

Kenen: I mean, Cassidy’s saying he has concerns is not indicative of where this ends up. At the end of the day, President [Donald] Trump has gotten most of his choices through a Senate that often begins hesitant to recalcitrant and usually gives him what he wants. So … sometimes it doesn’t. I mean, it’s not 100%. So, Cassidy is in a different position politically since he’s about to leave the Senate, and partly because President Trump. So we just don’t know where Cassidy is. But it’s not a great start. But it doesn’t mean … it’s the end. 

Rovner: What do we know about Heidi Overton, though? Everything I’ve read about her, she’s either pro-MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] or the MAHA people don’t like her, or she’s, you know, of Marty Makary or not of Marty McCarry. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So my colleagues and I wrote about this yesterday, and a lot of the leading MAHA activists view her as having been a roadblock in the White House to their efforts around pesticides, around vaccines, and other things, and so they are up in arms about the pick. They are, you know, saying she’s … part of the swamp and not part of, you know, the movement that they want to see sweep aside some of these government practices. And I think that her time in the White House and her previous work for the America First Policy Institute could really come back to haunt her. She wrote a lot of papers and op-eds with some controversial takes and policy positions, and I think everybody is sort of scrambling to go over that. People are also talking about her lack of managerial experience. You know, managing a huge agency with a huge staff, and you know, obviously, we have seen recent examples of people who lack that experience being appointed. So that’s also not a deal-breaker necessarily. But all of these things could add up to be problematic for her in the confirmation process. And then what I focused on was her anti-abortion record, which, you know, both could help and hurt her depending on whose votes we’re talking about. 

Rovner: That’s right. I mean, we saw [Sen.] Patty Murray, senior member of the HELP Committee, come out and, you know, and say, Not somebody that I could ever vote for. And also, I mean, she was at the signing of the vaccine executive order that the president had. So that puts her — whether, whatever she says in her confirmation hearings — that sort of puts her with the “Let’s change the vaccine schedule” group. I mean, she seems to fit in nowhere. I guess that’s sort of my question here. 

Luthra: That’s what’s so interesting about her is that there are these sorts of different interests and constituencies that have concerns about her, but sometimes they feel as if they could be contradictory. You obviously have, I mean, Patty Murray — I don’t know if she was ever going to vote for whoever Trump picked — but then you have Susan Collins in a very difficult reelection race, where abortion is a concern. You now have these concerns about vaccines. You have people saying maybe she’s not MAHA enough. And I mean, I think to Joanne’s point, Trump has gotten most people he has wanted. However, this does feel like this could get very complicated, just given how many people may be bringing different criticism from different vantages that could ultimately add up. 

Kenen: I’m not sure we’ve ever seen anything on the Senate floor where she’s going to be called anti-abortion and pro-pesticide. If it gets to the floor, I mean, it’s a weird one. But at the end of the day, you know, does it go through? You know, if you made me bet, my bet would be yes, but I wouldn’t want to bet a whole lot of money. 

Rovner: Well … we’re going to talk about reproductive health later in the podcast, but I do want to talk about abortion right now in the context of this nomination because, Alice, as you point out, Overton is known to be a fairly strident abortion opponent, and if she is confirmed, she’ll take over the study of the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone, which, as we have mentioned many, many, many times, the administration has sort of backbenched, if you will. Given that the new attorney general, Todd Blanche, has raised the specter of invoking the 1873 Comstock Act to bar the mailing of abortion pills, or anything else used for abortions, what is the outlook for medication abortion if Overton actually becomes the FDA commissioner? 

Ollstein: Well, it’s hard to say because we’ve really seen decision-making centralized in the White House, and so often it doesn’t matter what the Cabinet secretaries want to do. It’s about what the White House wants. And the White House, I think, has made it pretty clear that this is not a top, you know, restricting abortion is not a top priority for them. They are certainly sensitive to the politics of it, and so there is speculation that, you know, there’s a delay until after the midterms for anything meaningful on this front, so as not to risk the kind of backlash we saw in 2022 after the fall of Roe v. Wade. But I think it’s also pretty clear that this is just not a top priority for the White House. That doesn’t mean they won’t allow some of these, you know, former activists to do what they want to do — so Blanche, and now Overton potentially. But I think it’s not really a given either way. 

Rovner: Yeah. All right. Well, meanwhile, in administration news that we’ve talked about before but is still relevant, we’re just over a month from the end of the fiscal year, and grant money is still being held up at the National Institutes of Health, according to our podcast pal Paige [Winfield] Cunningham at NOTUS. Despite pressure from Congress, the agency is still delaying funds for already-approved grants while it conducts searches for keywords that could signal that the grant does not adhere to the administration’s political priorities. And it’s not just keywords. Reading from : “In multiple flagged grants, officials expressed concerns that they weren’t worth funding because their only practical use might be to support the writing of new laws.” Now, this is going on against the backdrop of a proposal from the Office of Management and Budget that would officially insert political approval into grant funding. That’s something the Senate has voted to at least temporarily block, but the House hasn’t weighed in on it yet. This could not only have huge implications for federally funded research going forward, but you could argue it’s having implications now. We’re seeing researchers, you know, taking opportunities overseas because they don’t know what their, you know, grant funding continuation is going to look like, and students not going to graduate school or not pursuing research careers. I mean, this is … even some of these sort of small things are having these bigger potential ripples as they go outward, right? 

Kenen: Colleagues who are grant-funded, NIH-funded, or other government-funded. I mean, they try to track the ever-changing rules. First of all, it’s very murky. It is changing. They keep adding things. Basically, they don’t want — not just the banned words — they don’t want research that can be bad, that can be used for policy …  

Rovner: For things they disagree with, for policies they disagree with. 

Kenen: They don’t say it … right. Guidance doesn’t come out and say “policy that you know we don’t like.” It just says “policy.” But it’s really vast and confusing. It’s not new. What Paige wrote about is an update. I mean, this is still happening. It’s been happening since the beginning of the Trump administration. NIH is the biggie. There are some smaller agencies, like Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research [sic], AHRQ, right? 

Rovner: Research and Quality. 

Kenen: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. That’s pretty much defunct now. But those grants, the money stopped going out the door many months ago. So …  

Rovner: And the National Science Foundation. I mean, NIH is sort of the biggest of them. Yeah. 

Kenen: It has to have the word “science.” … NIH is the biggie, right? I mean, and it’s also the bench science, the science that the drug industry … people don’t understand, they say, Let the drug industry do it. They can’t do this kind of basic bench research. They take this research and develop drugs, but the fundamental cellular level is NIH, or NIH-funded. And it’s really, I mean, clinical trials have been stopped in the middle — really promising research that is not partisan. … Disease doesn’t care. It’s cliché, and it’s also true. It just stopped, and work has been lost. But people haven’t done things that are several years in. … The deadline, also, for fiscal year spending is, if it’s not out the door, which is Sept 30, anything that’s out that door is, like, that’s done. It’s it. Bye-bye. The money isn’t gonna, unless it would go through a whole new process next year, which is unlikely in these grants, that’s the end of that. 

Rovner: Yeah, and that’s, I mean, my point in wanting to bring this up again — and you’re right, it is sort of an update of what we’ve seen — is that every time one of these top administration officials comes to Congress, they say, You’re supposed to be spending the money that we have appropriated, and they say, Oh yeah, not a problem. We’re going to spend the money that you’ve appropriated. And yet we keep seeing these stories that they are not spending money that Congress has appropriated. 

Kenen: Yeah, and historically NIH has been reasonably bipartisan. There have been years when there have been fights. There’s obviously stem cells and sort of certain issues have been, you know, very hot potato. But the basic enterprise of U.S. science, health science, has been largely bipartisan. Again, not every appropriation season, not every bill. But if you look at the overall arc, it’s bipartisan. 

Rovner: It was Republicans who doubled NIH funding in the 1990s — who led it.  

Kenen: [Arlen] Specter. 

Rovner: It was Newt Gingrich, actually. I mean. 

Kenen: Yeah, Gingrich, too, was very into health tech and things like that before his time. I mean, the War on Cancer was federal, right? That was [President Richard] Nixon. So, but we’re now in a …  

Rovner: Different place. 

Kenen: Yeah, frozen. 

Rovner: Yeah. Meanwhile, Mike Stobbe at the AP is at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — again, where money’s been appropriated, but there is literally nobody at home. At the agency’s Office on Smoking and Health, and offices on Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy, and sickle cell data collection, funds are allocated, but all the staffers have either been laid off or are still on administrative leave. So they’re being paid, but they are banned from working. This is yet another immediate challenge for new CDC Director Erica Schwartz, who had her first meeting with CDC staff yesterday. What do we expect her to take on first? 

Luthra: I don’t envy her. It, frankly, seems very difficult to figure out what your priorities are or should be, if you perhaps don’t have staff. It does seem like, from the reporting, perhaps a priority that she has outlined might be morale. And we know that morale has been very low in a lot of government agencies and the executive — especially places like the CDC, where you have a lot of career people who are mission-oriented, really believe in doing things for public health, and have seen that really attacked. And so I don’t know if that is enough to actually translate into things that are supposed to happen actually happening. But that seems like probably a place where it makes sense to start, right?, is just to help people feel confident that they actually will be able to do the work that they signed up to do. 

Rovner: Yeah, and you know, as you say, CDC is perhaps the most mission-oriented of all the HHS agencies. And because they’re in Atlanta, and you know not in the Washington area the way most of the rest of HHS is, they do often feel cut off. So she does have … she has a lot on her plate. And speaking of the CDC, the agency put out a rather cryptic press release this week on vaccine uptake among kindergartners entering school, noting that “CDC continues to encourage parents to discuss vaccination options with their doctors.” Meanwhile, the data linked to in the press release shows a small increase in parents opting out of having their children vaccinated nationwide. But that masks a much larger increase in some states. In Idaho, for example, just 75% of kindergartners entering school have had the MMR [measles, mumps, and rubella] vaccine. That’s obviously well below the 95% needed to provide herd immunity for measles. As my friend Jonathan Cohn put it in his piece for The Bulwark. “The scientific term for that is yikes.” Yikes indeed. 

Kenen: And it’s even within states … and some rural counties … there’s a lot of variation. The trend … for a number of years now has been dropping vaccine rates. Period. So I mean, whether CDC wants to engage in this as their first issue, they’re going to be asked about it. … They track it … can’t avoid it, because they have to approve and recommend, and, you know, insurance coverage, all sorts of things are imminent. So decisions have to be made. … Back to school’s already started in some parts of the country. 

Rovner: And so … I would say new CDC Director Schwartz was rather pointedly not in the room when the president signed the executive order on vaccines, even though now-FDA nominee Heidi Overton was. 

Kenen: She cannot put her head in the sand on this one. She’s going to have to … 

Rovner: “She” Schwartz?  

Kenen: Yeah. So she’s she says, I mean, what we know so far is she’s been quite, you know, she went to the CDC, and the reports are that she came out and said, you know, I’m going to stick to the science, and the science supports vaccines.  

Ollstein: I thought what was really interesting about the recent reports is that, you know, the executive order the Trump administration signed doesn’t actually change anything legally, but it’s designed to put pressure on states to change their recommendations. And it’s been fascinating to me to see that even the reddest states really aren’t going for it yet. But that doesn’t mean that everything’s fine and everyone’s getting vaccinated. What we are seeing is, you know, individual parents making these moves away from vaccination. And so even without the state officially changing its requirements, the environment is just shifting, and using the bully pulpit in this way is changing people’s behavior — building on trends that were already happening: distrust and misinformation, and all of that. And so … even a small, small decline in the vaccination rate can have huge negative effects. I mean, the difference between having 97% vaccination vs. 91% — it may not seem like a big deal, but that’s the difference between herd immunity and people really being vulnerable. 

Rovner: And lots and lots more cases of measles, as we are seeing already this year. I mean, it’s, you know, talk about things that were completely predictable. Well, meanwhile, as my ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ colleagues Amanda Seitz and Stephanie Armour point out this week, all of this public pronouncing by the president and other health officials about the supposed dangers of vaccines comes as HHS Secretary RFK Jr. blows past deadline after deadline to uncover the promised cause of the rising cases of autism. The story notes that the secretary “has looking for root causes in a research effort that’s offered no public status updates and few details about who, or even which agency, is leading the effort.” We do know that one of the people working on the project is Reyn Archer — he’s a noted vaccine critic, son of a former House Ways and Means Committee chairman, and was head of the Title X Family Planning Program during the George H.W. Bush administration in the early 1990s — even as he was publicly opposing legalized birth control, which of course is what the Title X program does. He later served as Texas’ state health commissioner under then-Gov. George W. Bush, although he was eventually fired for making racist remarks to a subordinate. I had not heard his name since, until now. But he’s going to uncover the root causes of autism, am I right? That’s the plan? 

Kenen: More power to him. I mean, autism. It’s not like there’s no research, and the conclusion is that it’s multi-causal. That there’s not one cause. That’s the current state of the science, which can always evolve. But the current belief is there’s probably a genetic component, but it’s a mix of factors that we don’t fully understand. But vaccines is not one of them. 

Rovner: Or at least so every study, every big study, we have seen continues to say. Well, moving on, lots of news about healthcare prices this week, which remain a pressing issue for both Republican and Democratic voters as the midterms draw near. One interesting story this week noted that prescription drug prices fell year over year by more than 3% — that’s the largest drop since the early 1960s — but it’s not entirely clear why. The Trump administration, of course, says it was their efforts, particularly to bring down the price of those popular but very expensive GLP-1 weight loss drugs. Analysts say it’s more likely the result of the Biden-era Medicare drug price negotiations, which involved more widely used medications. Whichever, I imagine if you’re not seeing your prices drop at the pharmacy, and those drops may well be absorbed by insurers and middlemen and all the people we talk about, will this good news even have much of an impact when people go to the polls? 

Luthra: I can’t imagine it necessarily would be that meaningful because overall the macro trends remain pretty bad. Health insurance is still getting very expensive. Employers are really struggling — those that offer it — they are largely passing more costs to consumers. And so people are getting to have to pay more for healthcare, even if their drug prices may be decreasing in the aggregate. And so it’s just hard to really suggest that this good news could really outweigh those other factors, especially when you think about the broader sort of angst that exists around costs and costs continuing to go up. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, in wonky news that could actually have a larger impact on what people pay for medical care, the Trump administration is actually going after some deep-pocketed healthcare providers. Stat News reports, in separate stories, first that the — that’s the parent of UnitedHealthcare, the insurer, and Optum, the services and tech arm — for allegedly underpaying taxes by funneling money through a foreign subsidiary. And second, the for potential antitrust violations. State attorneys general are also looking at Epic’s alleged anticompetitive practices. Cracking down on some of the monopolistic practices of the largest payers in the healthcare system actually could end up saving the system money, right? I mean, this was … something that we saw a fair bit of during the Biden administration, particularly from the Federal Trade Commission, and not so much of during the Trump administration, which has seemed to have been more favorable, if you will, to big companies. 

Luthra: I guess there’s still that question about providers, and obviously bringing down prices and addressing consolidation in payers, amongst things like electronic health record companies, can be effective, but we probably also would want to see meaningful movement in terms of provider consolidation as well, and that just seems potentially like a bigger hill to climb. 

Rovner: But this is a start. One would say, particularly this administration, going after United, which is sort of the the biggest … United’s power threatens the federal government’s bargaining power at this point. I was interested to see, you know, this story, if nothing else, made public, because obviously somebody leaked it. We will see how these all shake out. Well, finally, Costco, home of the cheap rotisserie chicken and the $1.50 hot dog and soda, is entering the Medicare market, . According to the Journal, Costco will partner with the nonprofit SCAN Group to offer Medicare Advantage plans in two states and a Medicare supplement, Medigap, plan in a third state. Could this eventually make a dent in the private Medicare market? Costco already does big business selling discount prescription drugs, eyeglasses, and hearing aids. I get my dog’s flea and tick medication at Costco. It costs half of what it does at my vet’s office. One presumes this could be, you know, a leader. We’ve not seen this before, right? 

Kenen: The head of SCAN, which is a pretty reputable insurance company … 

Rovner: Nonprofit insurance company. 

Kenen: Nonprofit insurance, and I should say I know … personally the current CEO, president, whatever his post is. I mean, but you know, I’ve written a lot about aging over the years, and it’s basically considered … one of the higher-quality, more reliable elderly-focused health plans. And he has something interesting to write when he announced it or wrote about on LinkedIn about how he personally, like, is a big Costco guy. But he talked about trust, which we’re all talking all the time about how there’s a lack of trust in healthcare. There’s a lot of trust in Costco, and he talked about how branding, SCAN, and Costco, you know … obviously it’s a business decision he made, but he’s also, like, this big Costco guy and who worries — I know him through conferences on trust, actually, that’s where I met him — and he’s thinking, OK, Costco, in addition to, like, giving you way too much of whatever it is you thought you needed, it can also fix the trust crisis in America. Right? 

Rovner: Hey! 

Kenen: And they’re efficient, right? I mean, I don’t know if all four of us are Costco people, but the, you know … 

Rovner: I am. 

Kenen: I saw her. I ran into her buying her veterinarian [unintelligible, through laughter] … I was in the photo section. … It is a trusted brand, and it’s an interesting — and they have national reach in there, you know. 

Rovner: And you will hear in my conversation with Mark Cuban that trust is a really big deal in healthcare right now. I mean, we obviously talk about this every week. I mean, I’m, obviously this is a very small step, but I’m really interested in where it turns out. 

Kenen: It’s a smart business move, and it’s a talker, too. Like, people are gonna see this headline and pay attention to it because it’s, like, just a thing. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back. 

So, a good bit of reproductive health news this week. Glad to have both Alice and Shefali here. We will start in Idaho, where a federal district court judge ruled that the state’s abortion ban cannot be used to prosecute doctors who perform abortions to protect the pregnant person’s health, not just her life. Of course, abortion opponents vehemently oppose health exceptions, as they’re called, because they say health includes mental health, and that becomes a loophole so big that it basically eviscerates the ban. The state’s attorney general, former congressman Raúl Labrador, said he would appeal and was confident the decision would be overturned. I would imagine that he’s probably right. Is the Supreme Court eventually going to have to spell this out? I wouldn’t be that surprised if they wanted to. 

Ollstein: I think this gets into some of the same EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act] territory, where we have seen the Supreme Court sort of back away from in recent years. But again, we just keep circling around and around the same question, which is, when is an abortion OK for a medical emergency purpose? How close to dying does a woman have to get before a doctor can perform an abortion? And we’ve seen again and again in Idaho that doctors are scared and confused, and even when they think that they should have the right to perform the procedure, you know, they’re still putting women on these dangerous life flights to other states in order to get care, leading to hours and hours of delays and potential complications. And so, you know, this court case and this court ruling was sort of aimed at clarifying that and giving doctors the confidence to be able to intervene when they feel it’s medically necessary. But now we’re seeing the state challenge that, and we’re just going around and around. And, you know, there have been similar cases in other states, just a whole mix of rulings, one way or the other, and that just creates more of a patchwork where, you know, some somebody’s ability to get care varies completely between states — and even within states, between hospitals, based on how much you know institutional backing doctors feel like they have. You know, will their hospital’s lawyers go to the mat for them or not? Do they work in a private practice vs. a big hospital system? All of these things come into play, 

Rovner: And, of course, we’ve also seen doctors, particularly in Idaho, leaving the state because they’re afraid that they can’t practice. I mean, they can’t adequately care for their patients. Shefali, I see you nodding. 

Luthra: Yeah, and what’s interesting about this case, other than the fact that Idaho will actually have an abortion ballot measure this November, is that we do have a federal judge here saying, in particular contexts, I see a right to an abortion. And I was talking to some abortion legal scholars about this, and they made the point that, in a way, this runs afoul of the Dobbs decision, because you do have a federal judge saying people are actually entitled to abortions, and that is a right that they have, even if it is much narrower than what Roe v. Wade guaranteed. And obviously, this is going to be appealed. This is going to continue to be litigated. We may not see immediate change for people’s ability to get healthcare in Idaho or other places with very strict bans, but it does underscore how unsettled these legal questions remain — how there remains a lot of debate over whether Dobbs was actually a correct interpretation of constitutional law. And I think it really takes us back to the argument we heard from some of the conservative majority that this would now settle every question about abortion. Obviously, it has not. Obviously, many more questions will continue to be argued and litigated in the courts. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, meanwhile, in other breaking news, a federal judge here in Washington blocked the Trump administration’s changes to the teen pregnancy prevention program that funds classes on contraception and abstinence, among other things. But they’re still not necessarily getting the money appropriated by Congress, right, Alice? 

Ollstein: So a judge in D.C. is blocking the administration from using its very strict new guidance going forward when it doles out money for the program, but it’s not ordering the administration to give back the money that was already cut earlier this summer from all of these grantees around the country. And, by the way, the money was cut both from grantees like Planned Parenthood, where you would say, “Oh, well, that sort of makes sense that the administration would go after their money.” But they’re also cutting funding from, you know, faith-based programs, abstinence-only programs in very red states, and prompting a fair amount of backlash that I’ve been covering. You know, places like Texas and South Carolina and West Virginia have also lost funding. And, of course, all the programs in those states had to abide by state restrictions around what can be taught. And so they were already following these very conservative guidelines. But that’s not conservative enough for the administration, which put out this guidance saying, you know, while abstinence-only was an option before, now it is basically mandatory. And so that guidance is on hold, but, again, the judge said that he didn’t know if he had the authority to order them to give back the money, or if some other jurisdiction could handle that. And so, this is just a preliminary injunction, which means there’s going to be months and months of litigation going forward. 

Rovner: Finally, this week, a story from the “Who Could Ever Have Imagined This?” files: A California couple hired a surrogate in Alaska to carry their pregnancy. After the fetus was diagnosed with a life-threatening heart condition, the couple exercised their option in the surrogacy contract to terminate the pregnancy. But the surrogate refused to have an abortion, and she traveled to Texas, where abortion is illegal, and gave birth to a baby boy last week. News reports say the baby, who is now in the custody of the couple who are biologically his parents, had the first of several surgeries needed to treat the heart condition. But this is a genuinely wrenching situation. Who gets to decide what here and under which state’s laws? Bioethicist Arthur Caplan told Houston Public Media that there are so many ethical issues here, he could spend an entire semester’s course teaching it. 

Luthra: And I think what is important about this case as well is, I mean, it’s obviously just like so, so, so sad, and this poor family is just having to deal with something really heartbreaking that no one should have to navigate under the national spotlight in Texas. It is really energizing conservatives who want to ban surrogacy, and we have already heard from lawmakers in the state legislature say they will be looking at surrogacy specifically when they convene next year. I have talked to anti-abortion activists in the state who are very hopeful that this case will give them new impetus to ban, at the very least, commercial surrogacy. They would love to ban all forms of surrogacy. And it is seen by a lot of anti-abortion folks who oppose fertility treatment, including IVF [in vitro fertilization], as something maybe easier to target. And I think it’s politically really complicated, because Americans don’t know as many people who get pregnant through surrogacy as they do people who might use IVF. But when I was talking to, again, legal experts about this, one point they made is that if surrogacy restrictions do take off in a meaningful way, often, the intellectual framework and arguments being made are ultimately the ones that would be used for IVF restrictions as well. And so, there is a possibility of a real slippery slope and more of that opening the door to fertility treatment restrictions that could affect a lot of people. 

Kenen: I think there’s a lot of public misunderstanding about what a gestational carrier is. When surrogacy became, not common, but sort of emerged in the public eye, there were a couple of really high-profile court cases. This was in the late ’80s. The “Baby M” was the most famous. And these were situations, at that point, where the woman carrying the child, it was her egg. So in the Baby M case, it was a couple that couldn’t have children. She was-— I don’t even know if that was — that wasn’t probably IVF. That was probably some other kind of artificial insemination. But the woman who decided she didn’t want to give up the baby after carrying it — it was, in fact, her biological child — and the practice became not to let, to separate the surrogate carrier from the egg donor. It’s not 100%. It’s not that it never happens, particularly if there’s family situations where maybe an aunt carries, etc. In this case, we’re really, based on public record, because I did a little reading on it this morning, it’s not clear, of the “biological parents,” it’s his baby. It’s not 100% clear on the public record that it’s actually her egg, the wife’s egg. But it is not the carrier’s egg. The woman suing to keep the child, saying she wants to have the baby, it is not her, it was not her egg. State law varies. Most states say that the surrogate in this kind of situation does not have maternal rights; that it’s the couple that hired her. Texas is, I believe, more blurry. There are a few states that it is more ambiguous, and also remember that this is a really tight, unusually and unexpectedly tight Senate race in Texas, where a very anti-abortion state, obviously, and also in this case the couple says they didn’t even ask for the abortion, but that’s he-said-she-said-they-said, we don’t know. I don’t know, at least, right? But abortion is a huge political driver in Texas; it’s a close race. [Ken] Paxton, who is the state attorney general, who is taking the side of the surrogate mother, is also the Senate candidate. You know, this is, you know, we’re 2½ months out, whatever, from the election. Three, I guess, closer to three still. But it’s very political in a state that probably has more politics around abortion than probably any other state. 

Rovner: Just what we needed: another thorny issue to throw into this mix. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much of it as we could get to. Now we will play my in-the-car interview with Mark Cuban, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome businessman and entrepreneur Mark Cuban to “How Would You Fix It?” Mark is probably best known to most people as a former shark on the TV show Shark Tank and the former [co-]owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team. But he’s also the co-founder of the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drugs company, which sells generic medications directly to consumers at transparent prices and big discounts. More recently, he’s been talking about even bigger reforms to the healthcare system, which is why I’m so excited to have him here. Mark Cuban, thank you so much for joining us. 

Mark Cuban: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: I’m curious: Your background’s been mostly in tech and in sports. How did you come to make healthcare such a priority? 

Cuban: I got a cold email from my now co-founder, Dr. Alex Oshmyansky, and he wanted to build a compounding pharmacy that made sterile injectables that are on the FDA short-supply list — which it’s crazy that there is a short-supply list for generic injectables. So that was great, but it wasn’t big enough. And as I looked into it, it was right around the time that “pharma bro” [Martin Shkreli] was going to jail, and I was like, “How can this dude jack up the price of a generic medication to the detriment of so many people?” And then it became obvious that nobody knew what a medication costs, nobody knew why it cost what it costs, and nobody understood why everybody paid a different price for the same medication. That list led to us launching costplusdrugs.com in January of 2022, and it’s just been growing like a weed ever since. 

Rovner: For decades now, the big debate in health policy has been whether the system should be more run by the government or more run by the private sector. Is that even the right way to focus on this anymore? Now everything is sort of hybrid and a mess. 

Cuban: Yeah, no, it’s not, because if the government doesn’t have data, and the government can’t trust the vendors that they’re working with, it doesn’t matter that it’s the government doing all the negotiating. And you see that in other countries. For instance, we get emails from countries around the world — from Canada, England — asking to buy generics from us ’cause our prices for generics, particularly specialty generics, are less expensive than what they sell for in countries that have single-payer or universal care. And so, while I’m not opposed to single-payer or universal healthcare at all, and kind of the analogy I use is: If healthcare costs $1 per person per year — yeah, great, taxpayers would pay that. But it would be a set $1 and it’d be obviously inexpensive. But when you don’t know all the costs, when there’s no transparency, it’s impossible to determine if it’s a better solution or not. 

Rovner: Are there segments of the healthcare industry that would work better if the private sector ran them, and better if the government ran them? I’m thinking, you know, hospitals, doctors, drugs.  

Cuban: I don’t think it’s like that at all. I think it depends on how much transparency there is. The fundamental issue is transparency and trust. If you don’t know … like, there are a lot of hospitals, and you know this better than anybody, that don’t know their costs. And if you just hire the same people and just say, “Look, we’re going to pay Medicare pricing to Mayo Clinic, and Mayo Clinic doesn’t know all their costs,” or “We’re going to take an urban hospital and continue to pay them Medicare and Medicaid because that’s most of their business,” and they don’t know their cost, they just know their cash balance, it doesn’t matter who runs it. 

Rovner: So, what do you fix first? 

Cuban: Transparency. You have to be able to publish contracts so that any contract that’s signed with a federal agency, the federal government, a state agency, a city, not only are the terms of the contract published, but the prices are published, so that Tricare would be required to publish their prices. By seeing the actual contract, you can see where the city-state agency is getting ripped off. Because right now there’s confidentiality requirements, and the companies, like the big insurance conglomerates, they say, you know, we can’t do this. We can’t show this, it’s proprietary information, which is nonsense. You’ve got hundreds of thousands of companies. You’ve got hundreds of agencies and states and cities that negotiate the same contracts. So lots of people know, but they do it to make it more complicated. And so, as a result, nobody knows how the deals are structured. And if you don’t know how the deals are structured, it’s impossible to negotiate better ones. And if they’ll sue you for discussing it with their peers, then nobody … it’s like Fight Club. The No. 1 rule [of] Fight Club is you can’t talk about Fight Club. The No. 1 rule of healthcare contracts is you can’t talk about healthcare contracts. 

Rovner: Yeah, and we’ve, you know, Congress has passed laws. The president has pushed a lot of these transparency rules, and basically, the health industry has said, “Yep, sorry, we can’t do it,” or “We’re going to do it in such a way that you can’t find it out anyway.” 

Cuban: Correct. 

Rovner: “We’re going to send you reams and reams and reams of data, and you can go digging if you would like.” 

Cuban: Correct. And so you take that to the next step. The big healthcare companies — first of all, they’re vertically integrated. They have hundreds, if not thousands, of subsidiaries. People don’t even know what the subsidiaries are when they do business with them, right? And so, when that happens, there’s just no way for any of the states, cities, federal government to enforce the laws. The big healthcare companies have more lawyers, move faster, are better able to find loopholes than the government and the agencies that enforce it are able to enforce it. And so, what ends up happening. You see all these fines. This PBM, this insurance company, whatever got fined for A, B, or C, and then they just go right back to doing business with them. So when I talk to governors, one of the first things I say in terms of reform is A) publish the contracts, and B) if you are doing business with a vertically integrated healthcare company, and they are fined by any federal agency or any state government, they get one mulligan. If they are fined a second time, they can’t do business with you for five years. That will act as the enforcement mechanism to keep them in line. And then the third thing that I always push is that anybody is able to go out and make a cash purchase, whether it’s medical or pharmacy, as long as it’s less expensive than their out-of-pocket, and have it by law count towards their deductible and max out-of-pocket. When you do that, you give them the opportunity to shop. When something is shoppable — not everything is — but you give them the opportunity to shop, and that helps force down prices. 

Rovner: So, I’ve been doing this since the 1980s, and it’s always been the Democrats beating up on the big insurance companies, and the Republicans basically defending them. Now that Republicans are beating up on the big insurance companies, are we kind of inevitably going towards a government-run single-payer? 

Cuban: No. Like, if you look up, if you look at the Break Up Big Medicine bill that was introduced by Josh Hawley, a Republican, and Elizabeth Warren, to me that’s the first step. So the good news: It was introduced on a bipartisan basis. Because if you break up these big, huge conglomerates, everything changes. The price of everything drops like a rock. But the problem is, nobody else, no senators have supported it, and nobody in the House has introduced a comparable bill. Everybody just chickened out. And so that’s the first step. Put aside the economics. Put aside that we don’t know the cost. Put aside that we have no transparency. All those things are important, but making sure we have health care for everybody is more important. That’s the difference. I think that also should be an American dream. As an entrepreneur, I’m a big fan of the American dream. But being able to be healthy and not be afraid that you can’t afford what you need or your family needs, that’s wrong in our American dream. And you know, when we talk about healthcare as a right, doctors freak out because they presume that they’re going to be paid Medicare rates, and they lose control of their life, right? And they talk about opting out and not doing it, you know. And so you need to get all these stakeholders accounted for. And until you start to do that and put together a plan that people will accept, we’re not going to ever be in a position to take care of people like so many of us hope to do. 

Rovner: And yet that would require both parties to basically lay down their arms.  

 

Cuban: Yes, which I think is possible. I think it’s doable because the No. 1 thing that, in every poll, people are concerned about healthcare costs. It’s not the quality of healthcare. Nobody really complains about the quality. Our doctors are great. Our systems are great. It’s the economic side. And who defines the economic side? Those humongous healthcare conglomerates. And what’s the best way to get to a point where we have transparency at the contract level, you know, flexibility and understanding, etc., all the things I mentioned? You break up those huge conglomerates that have thousands of subsidiaries that do $150-plus billion in intercompany transfers, that game the medical loss ratio. I mean, all these things happen because those big companies have more control over the economics of our healthcare system than the government does. 

Rovner: Well, I hope we actually get to that point, and I hope you’re around to help with some of these stakeholder conversations. 

Cuban: Oh, hopefully I’m not going anywhere. 

Rovner: Thank you so much. 

OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, you picked first. Why don’t you go first this week? 

Luthra: Sure. My story is from The 19th by my colleague Barbara Rodriguez. The headline is “.” And I love this whole genre of story. The GLP-1 market is exploding because these drugs can be so expensive to get from your healthcare provider. You see advertisements everywhere, all over social media, people promising to sell you a GLP-1. And as Barbara’s story gets into, often they are not actually GLP-1s. It is something fake. It is not actually going to help you lose weight, but it is going to take your money. And I just think that this is such an exploding market. So much has changed that we can’t read enough about how the, just the growth of options, or not legitimate options, is affecting people, and I’m really glad she did this story. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was a really good story. Alice. 

Ollstein: I have a story from The Texas Observer by Mary Tuma, and it’s called “.” So this is taking a deep dive on the situation in Texas, but the article does a good job of pointing out that this is a trend across several states that implemented abortion bans, where there was, you know, efforts to pause or revamp, or obscure, or change in some way the groups in every, that exist in every state that study maternal deaths. And there is just a suspicion that this is an attempt to hide from the public the impact of the abortion ban on maternal mortality. You have a lot of experts quoted in this piece. You have the family members who have lost their wives and mothers to pregnancy-related deaths, and so this is just an ongoing fight. And, you know, doctors say we really need this data and this analysis to know how to better provide care in the future. It’s not just a political football; it’s actual medical knowledge that we need to build. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think ProPublica did this for Georgia, I think, last year, so yet another in these series. Joanne. 

Kenen: There’s a story in Politico by Owen Dahlkamp: “.” This is not unique to health law, but given how complicated health law is and how much health law Congress deals with in any given year, it’s quite relevant to health law. So staffers are using AI to actually draft legislation, not just to research something. And I mean, it’s hard to get away from AI now. It’s, like, even pops up on people’s phones, right? But drafting legislation is very precise and complicated, and AI is apparently not very good at it. So the House counsel, which is the Office of Legal Counsel, which actually has to make sure the legislative language is correct and doesn’t accidentally reveal the wrong thing, they’re having a hard time. Although they have now created their own tool to try to correct the AI slop, but they’re getting overwhelmed. There’s, you know, we’ve all seen stories, we’ve all gotten pitches about, you know, so-and-so introduced a law. What the general public doesn’t understand is introducing a law, you know, it’s good for a press release — introducing a bill, excuse me. Introducing a bill does not mean a whole hell of a lot, except that you’re satisfying some constituent or constituent group, right? But congresspeople and senators like to say they introduce this and they introduce that and they introduce the other thing. So the number of bills being introduced was already rising spectacularly, and now with the slop, there’s like the slopth degree of it. So it’s messy. 

Rovner: It is messy, and it does, I mean, it sort of prevents the real work of actually drafting legislation that’s going to become law from getting done. 

Kenen: There’s going to be something, like, really bad that comes out that somebody in the poor OLC office doesn’t catch, and it’s going to repeal, like, you know, the flag. 

Rovner: Yeah. We will see. All right my extra credit this week is from Mother Jones by Sophie Hurwitz. It’s called “.” And you may have heard that ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is spending $20 million to buy these gloves, which administer an electric shock at the touch of a button on the wrist for their officers. What makes them better than a Taser or other non-[lethal] device? Well, one Missouri police officer whose force uses them said the gloves “allow their wearer to inflict pain without leaving the sort of marks that could look bad to witnesses or leave an officer vulnerable to lawsuits.” In other words, they make it easier for people to inflict pain on others, whether warranted or not, without likely recourse. How very 2026. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our fill-in producer-engineer this week, Zach Dyer. We also had production help from Taylor Cook. 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 your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X , and on Bluesky . Where are you guys hanging these days? Alice? 

Ollstein: on Bluesky and on X. 

Rovner: Shefali. 

Luthra: on Bluesky. 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: Mostly on and on . 

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

Credits

Zach Dyer Audio producer
Taylor Cook Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman Editor

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ” on , , , , , or wherever you listen to podcasts.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

]]>
2275237
You Want To Join a Clinical Trial. Here’s What To Know About the Hurdles. /health-industry/clinical-trials-patients-hhs-easier-advice-on-how-to-enroll-seriously-ill-cancer/ Wed, 19 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2271463 Connecting people with clinical trials is complicated — even if people identify a promising match, there’s a slew of potentially thorny factors, including geographic incompatibility, and financial and time considerations.

Simply finding an appropriate trial can present an enormous hurdle. In a recent of more than 2,000 adults, 71% of patients with chronic conditions said they would be likely to participate in a clinical trial if given the chance. But two-thirds said that their healthcare provider had never discussed clinical trials with them. According to using data from 2020, just 9% of adults reported ever being invited to participate in a clinical trial.

Clinical trials are essential to the development of new and effective medical treatments. But gathering the real-world human data necessary to win Food and Drug Administration approval for drugs, devices, and other interventions can be an arduous task. By , up to 86% of clinical trials don’t meet their recruitment targets during the trial time frame.

Getting people signed up isn’t the only challenge.

“Recruitment is one thing — retention is another,” said Alan Balch, executive board chair at the Patient Advocate Foundation, which has a and maintains extensive educational materials online. “Every touchpoint is an opportunity for access and affordability to be a problem.”

The need to improve patient participation in clinical trials is not a new concern, but it’s attracting new interest.

In June, the Department of Health and Human Services to streamline and enhance clinical research in the United States. It included a public about whether to modify federal rules that currently deter some trial sponsors from paying clinical trial participants for expenses such as travel and lodging.

In July, a group of nearly 200 patient advocacy and public health groups to the Senate sponsors of the Clinical Trial Modernization Act, urging its passage. The bill would allow trial sponsors to cover trial participants’ medical costs, such as insurance deductibles and copays, and nonmedical expenses like travel and childcare. It would also exclude up to $2,000 in financial support for clinical trial participation from federal taxes, so people wouldn’t risk losing their eligibility for Medicaid or other income-based programs if they signed on.

While these efforts to improve clinical trials and patient participation are ongoing, here are answers to some questions about how the system works now and what patients can do if they want to take part.

Why Be a Guinea Pig? Understand the Facts

In some trials, some participants are given a new drug or therapy that’s being investigated while others receive a placebo with no physical effect.

But there are many . Some test different drug combinations, for example. They can test medical devices, preventive measures such as vaccines, or lifestyle changes. Others test ways to screen for or diagnose medical conditions.

For people with very serious illnesses, a clinical trial may offer the best hope for extending their life or improving their quality of life.

“Cancer is often a fatal disease, and clinical trials offer an opportunity to try something that may or may not be better,” said Mark Fleury, the policy principal for emerging science at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. “If you know the existing standard of care has an average survival of eight months, you want something with a better opportunity.”

In addition, even if patients don’t receive the therapy being tested in the clinical trial, they are monitored closely throughout and receive the gold standard of care, which they might not receive elsewhere, patient advocates said.

Some people decide to participate in trials to aid in advancing science.

Jim Taylor’s wife, Geri, died of Alzheimer’s disease two years ago, more than a decade after her diagnosis in 2012. The couple for people with the disease, and Taylor is continuing that effort. He’s currently participating in three observational Alzheimer’s trials that are employing cognitive tests and scans to track how his brain is changing compared with the brains of people who’ve been diagnosed with the disease.

“The reason I’ve done it is so I can explain to people, with some authenticness and experience, what a trial is like,” he said.

Finding a Clinical Trial

Despite widespread interest in clinical trial participation, most patients don’t know how to find one.

They can’t necessarily count on their doctors for help. According to an of just over 500 primary care physicians in March, sponsored by the Patient Advocate Foundation, even though 86% of respondents said they were somewhat or very likely to refer their patients to a trial, only 37% had ever done so. When doctors did discuss clinical trials with their patients, it was usually because they had asked about them (67%), they weren’t responding to standard treatment (65%), or their disease was progressing (55%).

But for time-strapped doctors, identifying clinical trials for which patients might be eligible isn’t a simple task. A community oncologist, for example, would typically have to conduct a search using one of the available clinical trial search engines ( is the most comprehensive), type in all the patient’s characteristics, look at the trials that might be appropriate, and call the site to ask whether the trial is still open, Fleury said.

“And if they’re successful, what happens? They lose their patient,” he said.

Patients may have an even tougher time searching for trials on their own. Some patient advocacy groups have in-person or online navigators that can help people identify trials they might be eligible for.

The American Cancer Society has a , for example. Organizations such as the and the have information about disease-specific trials on their websites.

If a hospital or health facility is part of a clinical trial, patients there are often best positioned to enroll. Patients can ask their doctor or the facility for more information.

“Most recruitment for a trial happens at the site where the trial is happening,” Balch said.

There’s a Trial, but You Can’t Enroll

Much of the clinical research in the U.S. is conducted at large, often urban, academic medical centers. It can be tough for patients to enroll in a trial at a site unless they live nearby or are already being treated there, according to clinical trial experts.

To participate in a trial, people generally have to meet periodically with the researchers conducting it. They may also need to get regular blood draws or imaging, or to answer questionnaires to monitor their progress.

“The number one barrier keeping patients out of trials is a lack of onsite clinical trials,” Fleury said.

A that examined 8,893 cancer patients’ participation in clinical trials found that more than half (55.6%) didn’t have an available trial for their type and stage of cancer at the medical facility where they were being treated. An additional 21.5% didn’t meet the eligibility criteria for an available trial.

If a patient identifies a clinical trial at a viable location and wants to be considered, the patient should contact the trial recruiters directly and ask them, Balch said.

“That’s just the beginning,” he said. Patients also need to find out whether they meet a trial’s eligibility requirements and whether it’s covered by insurance, and to consider how they’re going to pay for any medical or nonmedical costs.

Recently there’s been a lot of interest in decentralized access to clinical trials, so patients could do at least some of the trial tasks at home or at their local cancer center, for example.

“It’s not common yet,” Balch said. But if decentralization grows, he said, it will open up the opportunity to more patients — and more representative groups of patients.

There’s a Trial, but You Can’t Afford It

If someone participates in a clinical trial, the trial sponsor picks up the tab for costs stemming directly from the trial, including the drug or device being investigated.

In addition, under the Affordable Care Act, most commercial health plans are required to cover associated with participating in a clinical trial.

But that doesn’t mean members won’t owe anything. They are generally still responsible for any deductibles, copays, or coinsurance amounts for the routine care that they receive during a clinical trial. And the ACA doesn’t require plans to have out-of-network benefits. That means if a clinical trial is sponsored by a provider that is out of someone’s provider network, the plan might not cover those costs.

and have similar requirements for coverage of routine clinical trial costs.

For some patients, incidental expenses can put participation in a clinical trial out of financial reach. Participants may face costs for travel to the trial site, parking, lodging, childcare, or taking time off work.

“There shouldn’t be an added set of concerns and disincentives around costs and financial toxicity,” said , the founder and CEO of WSCollaborative, a healthcare consultancy. Selig is also the project lead for , which aims to eliminate incidental costs for patients in trials.

Some trial sponsors pay for incidental expenses but might not make that clear up front to patients who are considering participating.

Patients should take the initiative and ask, Selig said. “There may in fact be help, and you should take advantage of it if it’s available.”

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

]]>
2271463
Drive for Nuclear Power Boosts Uranium Industry — And Tribal Health Concerns in Southwest /public-health/tribal-health-concerns-utah-uranium-mining-industry/ Tue, 18 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2264983 WHITE MESA, Utah — On a hot April day, Malcolm Lehi maneuvered his Jeep Wrangler over a rough dirt road past junipers and sagebrush in search of Entrance Spring on land long connected to his tribe, the Ute Mountain Ute.

The cool, mossy spring lies just across the highway from White Mesa Mill, the nation’s , which produces yellowcake for nuclear power fuel.

For decades, the mill has sparked debate over whether radioactive contamination threatens human health by getting into the water and the air. Concerns run especially deep in the White Mesa Ute Community, where Lehi and about 200 members of his tribe live some 5 miles south of the facility.

State regulators and the company that owns the mill contend that any pollution associated with it is contained. That’s little consolation to nearby tribal members, who — aware of uranium’s deadly legacy across the Colorado Plateau — have raised questions about the potential spread of toxic waste. Many won’t drink the local water, relying on bottled water instead.

Now the tribe’s concerns have taken on new urgency as the U.S. pushes to revive domestic uranium production. A federal law, passed in 2024, by 2028, increasing pressure to develop domestic fuel supplies. President Donald Trump U.S. nuclear energy capacity by 2050. He to prioritize mining on federal lands and fast-track approval of mining projects. The Velvet-Wood uranium mine in Utah, for instance, in 11 days, to the who were given one week to offer input.

Trump’s goal of quadrupling nuclear power capacity will be hard to meet, because it would require constructing more reactors — which are difficult to build and often meet local opposition, said , a senior fellow for climate and energy at the Council on Foreign Relations. But data centers and rising electricity demand have intensified interest in nuclear power as a low-carbon energy source, he said. And are to it.

So the effort to obtain the key ingredient, uranium, is underway.

The White Mesa Mill, built in 1980 near what is now in southeastern Utah, is a focal point of this latest uranium boom — and the tensions between local tribal concerns and national economic interests. Increased demand draws a steady flow of trucks carrying uranium ore to the mill from regional mines, including one near the Grand Canyon where the Havasupai Tribe lives. That ore is trucked through the Navajo Nation. And the mill plans to expand its waste storage, as well.

A former tribal councilmember, Lehi is part of a growing opposition that includes members of the Havasupai and Navajo (Diné) tribes, who are now linked by the uranium trucking routes passing through their lands. The Havasupai and Ute Mountain Ute tribes share concerns that toxic wastewater from uranium mining and milling may move through the ground and poison drinking water for future generations.

A photo shows a sign in front of White Mesa Mill. The facility is seen in the background.
White Mesa Mill, 5 miles north of White Mesa, Utah, on April 21. (Melissa Bailey for ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ)

A History of Distrust

One spring morning in White Mesa, Yolanda Badback gazed out an open door not far from the highway and watched three uranium trucks drive by.

“There goes another one,” Badback said with a tone of exhaustion. She is a Ute Mountain Ute member and leader of the advocacy group that has been fighting the mill.

The mill receives 10 to 15 trucks each weekday, said Curtis Moore, senior vice president of marketing and corporate development at , which has owned the facility since 2012. The majority pass through White Mesa.

The mill’s business is picking up after a quiet 15 years, Moore said. The White Mesa Mill produced 1 million pounds of yellowcake last year; the company that this year, he said. The mill has also diversified into processing radioactive waste from as far away as and Japan, and received a from the Defense Department to scale up its domestic processing of rare earth elements.

The new rare earths business alone could create 100 permanent jobs, Moore said. About half of the mill’s 105 workers are Indigenous; Moore estimated that no more than two belong to the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe.

“When it comes to tribes in the area, I do very much understand their skepticism of uranium,” Moore said. “They’ve been lied to before.”

An aerial view of a desert community with mountains in the distance.
Federal highway 191 brings trucks carrying uranium ore through the White Mesa community (in foreground) in Utah to White Mesa Mill, about 5 miles to the north. Shown overhead from a plane on March 22. (EcoFlight)

A uranium boom driven by the U.S. government from the 1940s through the 1980s, much of it concentrated around the Four Corners area of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado, exposed miners to from lung and other cancers. Federal reviews found that the miners, many of them Navajo (Diné), even after government scientists understood the dangers. Mining companies left behind thousands of abandoned waste sites that have leached contamination into surrounding soil and water, including on and near the Navajo Nation.

But Moore said things have changed a lot since the 1950s. He said workers today are exposed to 15% to 20% of allowable radiation limits, and outside the mill it’s “effectively zero.”

Government agencies and Energy Fuels officials have said there’s no evidence that the mill is affecting White Mesa’s drinking water supply, which comes from a deep aquifer protected by a thick rock barrier known as an aquitard.

“It really is the perfect site for a uranium mill,” Moore said.

A photo of a 10-wheeler dump truck hauling a dump trailer behind it.
A truck leaves White Mesa Mill. (Melissa Bailey for ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ)

Scott Clow, environmental programs director of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, said that deep aquifer does have quality issues — including arsenic, iron, and manganese — but the public drinking water is filtered and safe to drink.

Adam Wingate, uranium recovery manager at the , said he understands why some residents are concerned. White Mesa is downslope in terms of underground water flow from the uranium mill.

If locals hear about the plume of contamination in a different, shallower aquifer beneath the mill — even if it’s not the source of their drinking water — and their own water tastes funny, “that’s a scary spot to be in,” he said. But based on available evidence, Wingate said, locals’ “health is not at risk because of the mill.”

Even so, Lehi and Badback said that the tap water smells of sulfur and has a milky color, and that people in White Mesa typically don’t drink it.

“I don’t trust it,” said Badback, whose family has been fighting the mill for decades. “My main goal is to shut the mill down.”

A Native American woman speaks at a microphone. An American flag is seen flying above her.
Yolanda Badback speaks at a No Kings rally in Moab, Utah, on March 28. (Melissa Bailey for ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ)

An sponsored by Badback’s group has grown over the past decade amid deep distrust rooted in uranium mining’s history. Much of the opposition centers on the mill’s toxic waste, which is stored in five lined pits called tailings cells occupying 284 acres of land.

Badback vows to fight expansion plans that include new tailings cells located about a quarter-mile closer to the White Mesa community than the current ones. Moore said the cells will be triple-lined per modern standards.

“They want to expand south towards my reservation,” Badback said. “That’s the reason why I am standing up and doing whatever I can to stop that from happening.”

Concerns About Air Quality

At a No Kings rally in March in Moab, about 80 miles north of White Mesa, Badback gave a speech and staffed a table offering T-shirts and information.

“No Uranium,” the T-shirts read. “Protect White Mesa Ute Community.”

In 2021, her tribe stating that the White Mesa Mill “has had severe health impacts on the residents of White Mesa and should cease entirely.”

A group of people sit near an information booth set up at a rally. Several are wearing red shirts with white text that read, "Protect White Mesa Ute Community."
Badback (second from right) of White Mesa Concerned Community and Sarah Fields (at right) of Uranium Watch run an information table about White Mesa Mill at a No Kings rally in Moab, Utah, on March 28. (Melissa Bailey for ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ)

While their psychological stress is palpable, other health effects have been hard to prove.

A 2023 concluded that radiation levels measured at the tribe’s air monitor in the center of White Mesa from 2013 to 2019 were unlikely to harm human health. But the authors said they could not evaluate whether the mill’s radon emissions could affect bordering properties or residents. They recommended that the tribe collect air samples closer to the mill, during times of heightened mill activity.

In December 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency found the mill was violating the Clean Air Act by failing to cover one of its tailings cells with liquid to limit emissions of radon, a known cause of lung cancer. The EPA called the violation “egregious in nature and duration” and temporarily barred the mill from receiving waste from Superfund cleanup sites.

The mill corrected the problem, according to state regulators, and passed its latest in 2025.

An aerial view shows  tailing ponds amidst a mesa landscape. The wing of an airplane from which the photo was taken is seen in the frame.
White Mesa Mill’s radioactive waste is stored in five tailings cells, which occupy 284 acres of land in Blanding, Utah, as shown overhead from a plane on March 22. (EcoFlight)

Still, some White Mesa residents remain uneasy. Badback and Lehi complained of odors, which they attribute to the mill, that smell like chemicals or rotten eggs. She has raised concerns about air quality and rates of cancer and asthma, which are being explored by a University of Utah health survey.

Moore denied that any odors from the mill could be smelled beyond the mill parking lot.

Utah air quality officials said the state does not conduct ambient air monitoring in White Mesa and does not regulate odors.

Watching the Water

That spring day, Lehi continued to look for Entrance Spring. On the horizon lay the silhouette of Sleeping Ute Mountain, a landmark of the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, said to be the body of a great warrior god.

Along the way, Lehi pointed out a circle of stones that he thought looked like an ancestral burial site. After parking the Jeep, he walked down a faint trail through a lush grove of willows and found his way into a streambed that he reckoned would lead to the spring.

The tribe doesn’t rely on the spring for drinking water. But it’s one of the seeps and springs that the tribe, the state, and the company monitor, because they offer clues to whether the mill’s waste ponds are leaking into a less protected aquifer.

In the late 2000s, an found elevated contamination by radionuclides — atoms that emit radiation as they decay — at Entrance Spring. EPA water samples found that uranium concentrations at times exceeded the federal drinking water standard. EPA and U.S. Geological Survey fieldwork suggested the uranium at Entrance Spring came not from leaking waste ponds but from dust that blew off the mill’s ore storage pads.

The from 2025 showed Entrance Spring had uranium levels at 22.5 micrograms per liter (µg/L) — within the federal drinking standard of 30 µg/L but still elevated.

Clow said the tribe continues to keep a close eye on the seeps and springs.

“We’re concerned about the pollution of those springs,” he said. “We are looking towards many generations in the future here.”

Clow is also closely watching the Burro Canyon Aquifer, which lies beneath the mill’s toxic waste cells and feeds the local springs. A plume of chloroform and another of nitrates already pollute the aquifer, said Wingate, with the state. He said Energy Fuels is pumping out the contamination.

When contaminants increase, it’s hard to prove whether they stemmed from natural causes or mill activity, since substances such as sulfate and manganese occur naturally in the local bedrock. So Clow, the company, and state officials continually debate whether the tailings ponds are leaking. What’s not in dispute is that the mill produces radioactive waste — and once that exists, it can linger for tens of thousands of years.

Lehi followed the stream to where it ends in a curved grotto — the site of Entrance Spring. Water oozed from a rock face into a pool, offering cool relief from the desert. Lehi looked around with wonder at the dripping green moss. A descendant of medicine men, Lehi said he feels a duty to protect the landscape as his ancestors did, even if the tribe doesn’t currently use this spring for drinking water.

 “Water is life,” Lehi said, “because that’s where we all began.”

A photo of Malcolm Lehi reaching down to touch the water of Entrance Spring.
Lehi touches the cool water of Entrance Spring. (Melissa Bailey for ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ)

This article was supported by , an independent journalism initiative based at the University of Colorado-Boulder’s Center for Environmental Journalism.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

]]>
2264983
Kennedy’s Quiet Hunt for Autism Culprits Stalls as Trump Orders Baseless Changes to Childhood Shots /public-health/autism-vaccines-rfk-trump-childhood-schedule-changes-debunked-link/ Mon, 17 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2273540 President Donald Trump has ordered a reduction in childhood vaccines — publicly faulting the shots for an increase in autism cases — even as the nation’s top health official, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has failed to produce evidence linking vaccinations to the disorder.

While the released Aug. 10 does not directly mention autism, Trump’s demand to limit vaccine recommendations has puzzled leading medical groups, doctors, and political analysts alike. The directive landed less than 90 days before midterm elections, which Trump’s own could be jeopardized by anti-vaccine rhetoric.

“The political timing, particularly for members on the Republican side in swing districts, is not good,” said , a former Republican congressman and retired doctor.

Trump’s willingness to gamble on the issue underscores the president’s impatience for his health secretary to deliver on a promise that he’d pinpoint a culprit for the sharp rise in autism diagnoses.

After more than a year, Kennedy and his close, anti-vaccine allies have blown past a deadline to turn up definitive answers in a multimillion-dollar research mission shrouded in secrecy, leaving the president to recycle debunked notions as he publicly assaults vaccines.

“This is about the most closed project that I’ve ever heard of,” Helen Tager-Flusberg, a renowned psychologist who runs the Coalition of Autism Scientists, said of Kennedy’s autism research efforts. “They’re treating it like the Manhattan Project in the 1940s. This is as opaque as it could possibly be.”

The White House did not answer questions about what research is informing the president’s opinions or which vaccines he believes could be linked to autism.

The Department of Health and Human Services said the president’s action builds on the agency’s January announcement that it was reassessing the nation’s vaccine schedule and recommended reducing childhood immunizations based on peer countries’ guidance. However, no other peer country separates the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine as the president has now ordered.

“As the secretary said, HHS will examine every biologically plausible hypothesis, follow the evidence wherever it leads, and make findings and actions available as they are ready,” HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email.

Trump Dreams of a ‘Big Day’

Trump especially has been enamored with finding autism’s cause, saying in August 2025 that it will be “such a big day” after Kennedy assured his boss that he had identified “clearly, almost certainly” factors causing autism that would soon be publicly revealed.

Decades of existing research and scientific studies show genetics is a leading factor. — including prenatal exposure to pollution, the age of the father, and maternal health — can also play a role.

But Kennedy has flatly rejected that science, often calling autism a “.” As health secretary, he has looking for root causes in a research effort that’s offered no public status updates and few details about who, or even which agency, is leading the effort.

Prominent autism advocacy groups, scientists, and researchers have not been consulted on the project. Nor have career scientists working at the federal health agencies, according to two officials ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ is not naming because they were not authorized to speak on the record about the matter.

Requests to meet with Kennedy on the issue have been ignored, said Delancy Allred, public policy manager at the Autism Society. Allred said that other federal agencies, such as the Department of Education, have engaged more directly with leading autism advocacy groups during meetings.

“No one has gotten to Kennedy. No one has gotten to the secretary level, that I’m aware of,” Allred said. “I think he likes to isolate himself with folks that are in his domain and group.”

Indeed, Kennedy has relied on allies, who’ve joined him over the years on a crusade against childhood vaccines, to lead the agency’s autism research and strategy efforts. It’s a top priority for his closest adviser, , a former environmental activist and , according to the unnamed sources. Spear did not respond to requests to talk about the autism study.

William “Reyn” Archer III — a former Texas health official, trained obstetrician-gynecologist, and whom Kennedy hired as a senior adviser — has spent months acquiring Americans’ medical records for political appointees to research a link between vaccines and autism. The National Institutes of Health under Trump has also issued about $50 million in grants to scientists at universities around the country for autism research, although most of the studies are not scheduled to be completed for a few years.

In January, Kennedy also restocked the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee — an under-the-radar but influential group — with a full new slate of 21 members. His appointees include parents of autistic children, vaccine skeptics, and a doctor who was sued for “dangerous” autism treatment. It has met only once during Trump’s current term.

Late last month, the committee abruptly dropped a 336-page strategic plan that echoes some of Kennedy’s talking points: Federal researchers have focused too much on genetic links to autism, the plan suggests.

Diagnoses of autism, a that affects how people communicate and behave, the past couple of decades. The increase is attributed partly to and screening, a more expansive definition of the disorder, and parents having children at a later age, .

Trump and Kennedy have falsely claimed that the rise in diagnoses is isolated among American children — though diagnoses have dramatically and .

Despite his efforts to launch new research, Kennedy has provided Trump with no conclusive explanation for these increases. Trump began publicly pressing his health secretary on the issue last month when he asked Kennedy: “How are you doing on the autism research?”

Kennedy replied, “We will have an answer for you,” before Trump cut him off.

“That is so important,” the president pressed.

Kennedy’s vaccine agenda has been stymied, in part, by the White House’s infighting. Behind the scenes, White House officials have spent months waving Kennedy off his vaccine agenda amid a historic wave of measles infections.

With his Aug. 10 Oval Office signing, Trump made clear Kennedy’s vaccine agenda remains a top priority. The signing also came at a politically convenient moment: The Senate broke for a five-week recess, just after the White House secured the votes it needed for crucial confirmations of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Erica Schwartz and Attorney General Todd Blanche.

Kennedy Misfires

Many of Kennedy’s claims so far on autism have not withstood scientific scrutiny. Last year, the health secretary said Tylenol use in pregnancy can lead to autism. A major new study in the peer-reviewed journal JAMA debunked the connection — a political stumble for Trump, who had publicly repeated the claim and urged women not to take the pain reliever.

Kennedy also offered that circumcision could be a cause during a Cabinet meeting in October. published in August in JAMA Pediatrics found no such evidence. He said in 2025 that a linked the in autism. However, his remarks misrepresented the findings; the he referred to later studied thimerosal exposure in vaccines and .

And Kennedy for research that was underway to search for autism’s causes, including potential environmental sources.

Pressed on details about the administration’s work studying autism, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya admitted that no conclusion had been reached during an interview .

“If you ask me, as a scientist, do I know why we’ve seen this rise in autism? I’ll tell you I don’t know the answer to that question,” he said Aug. 9.

Seated at his desk in the Oval Office the next day, Trump repeatedly made the connection between autism and vaccines just before signing the executive order calling for fewer childhood shots.

Appearing alongside Trump, Kennedy seemed intent on quelling expectations that HHS would produce results expeditiously. He told the president he was racing to find answers before the end of his term.

“Mr. President, you have told us you want answers. So do I,” Kennedy said. “We have just over two years to finish the work, and I know you’re impatient, and we are moving with an urgency that that deadline demands.”

While Trump has repeatedly claimed there’s a link between autism and vaccines, he has not revealed which of the routine vaccinations he believes might be to blame, and he praised the polio vaccine as “amazing” during the White House event.

White House officials declined to answer questions about the status of Kennedy’s efforts to identify the cause of autism during a call a few hours later.

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

]]>
2273540
Gounder Brings Clarity to Egg Freezing, AI Virus Creation, and New Trump Vaccine Order /on-air/on-air-august-15-2026-public-health-vaccines-egg-freezing-organ-donation/ Sat, 15 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000 /?p=2273171&preview=true&preview_id=2273171

Céline Gounder, ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed Americans’ skepticism toward public health experts and President Donald Trump’s executive order on childhood vaccines on CBS News 24/7 and CBS News’ CBS Mornings, respectively, on Aug. 11.

On Aug. 10, Gounder discussed the risks and benefits of egg freezing on CBS Mornings.

Gounder also discussed organ donation and scientists’ creation of new viruses with AI on CBS Mornings and CBS News 24/7, respectively, on Aug 7.

  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .

³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ 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 ³Ô¹Ï²»´òìÈ and is republished here under a .

]]>
2273171