Vought has exerted extraordinary control over government spending this year, usurping congressional decisions on how the nation’s money is used. His push for more layoffs during the government shutdown is only the latest blow, following months of firings, canceled grants, and withheld funds.

By cutting and freezing public health funds, in particular, the Trump administration has already begun to undercut efforts to provide medical care, outbreak response, housing assistance, and research across the U.S., according to health officials, nonprofit directors, and federal agency staffers interviewed by KFF Health News.

Since most federal funds for public health flow to states, Vought is rivaling the Department of Health and Human Services secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his ability to upend government-led efforts to keep Americans healthy. In Texas, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funds to stem a measles outbreak weren’t available until after the crisis had subsided and two children had died. A project to protect Alabamans from raw sewage and hookworm was abandoned. People with HIV have had to delay medical care as clinics scale back hours. Time-dependent surveys on HIV and maternal mortality were halted. Food banks have canceled events. Tobacco prevention programs lapsed. Initiatives to protect older adults at risk of falling have been harried.

No matter what budget Congress ultimately passes for next year, the Trump administration may continue to thwart financial support for such programs in ways that will harm people’s health. “The White House has shown that they are willing to unilaterally exert control over funding,” said Gillian Metzger, a constitutional law professor at Columbia University.

“This is a huge deal,” she added, “because the power of the purse is central to Congress’ ability to shape and direct policy.”

Before he was appointed to lead the White House’s Office of Management and Budget this year, Vought outlined budgetary strategies the executive branch could deploy to wrest power from Congress and federal agencies in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s conservative blueprint.

Vought’s tactics unfolded this year, often below the radar. They include abrupt grant cancellations, extraordinary constraints on how funds can be spent, and excessive layers of review, agency officials say, at every step in the grantmaking process. Getting money out the door has been further complicated by layoffs that have gutted offices overseeing grants on chronic disease prevention, HIV, maternal mortality, and more.

Government employees have described these tactics to members of Congress, said Abigail Tighe, executive director of the National Public Health Coalition, a group that includes current and former staffers at the CDC and HHS. “We want Congress to act, because this is preventing states and communities from doing critical public health work to keep our country safe,” she said. “If they don’t have capacity, we all collectively suffer.”

Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees have pushed for transparency, but the extent to which money Congress appropriated for public health in 2024 and 2025 has gone unspent because of the administration’s disruptions is not yet known. “This is a sophisticated strategy to cause money to lapse and then say, ‘If they can’t spend it, they don’t need it,’” said Robert Gordon, a public policy specialist at Georgetown University and a former assistant finance secretary at HHS.

“No one thought this was possible or legal, but that is what’s happening,” he said.

Details on how the administration has subverted health spending have received little attention because many changes have been made quietly — and people who rely on federal funds fear retribution. The Trump administration has defunded and threatened federal offices that hold the government accountable and fired whistleblowers. It has abruptly revoked funds for local governments and organizations.

Vought and spokespeople at the White House and the OMB did not respond to queries from KFF Health News. However, Vought described his intentions in a Sept. 3 speech. He said that federal agencies and Congress had gained more power over spending since the 1970s and that their control became “woke and weaponized” under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

“Thankfully, President Trump won,” he said. “And we have now been embarked on deconstructing this administrative state.”

Many Parts, Many Malfunctions

Like a car, the federal budget process has many components that can break down. Through the OMB and its partner, Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, the administration has intervened at various junctures. “There are so many ways in which money is not operating in the way it is supposed to operate,” said Bobby Kogan, the senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, and a former OMB adviser.

Typically, Congress passes a budget that appropriates money for the next fiscal year to federal agencies. For many public health programs, ranging from housing assistance to cancer screening, agencies then post open calls online for states, local governments, and organizations to apply for funding. Agency experts select winners and send notices of awards — or notices of ongoing funding to groups that previously won multiyear awards.

Next, the OMB, which administers the federal budget, activates money for agencies, like a bank activates a credit card, so that grantees can spend and get reimbursed rapidly. Auditors keep an eye on spending, but the government has in the past limited interruptions so that programs run smoothly.

Early on, the Trump administration canceled billions of dollars in awards granted in 2024 and early 2025 for research and global health. In March, it clawed back $11.4 billion in covid-era funds that Congress had earmarked for health departments that were using the money for disease surveillance, vaccinations, and more.

Although some funds have been restored because of lawsuits, the Supreme Court has allowed other cuts by the administration to stand while the cases move through the courts.

Beyond these “shotgun” cancellations, the administration has taken a quieter, “in-the-weeds, slowing, cutting, conditioning” approach that’s frozen funds for public health, said Matthew Lawrence, a law professor specializing in health policy at Emory University.

By August, the CDC’s center for HIV and tuberculosis prevention had doled out $167 million less than the historical average, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank focused on reducing inequality. The CDC’s funding for chronic disease prevention lagged by $259 million, the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program had underspent by $105 million, and funds for mental health at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration were more than $860 million behind what was expected.

An unknown amount of Congress’ 2025 funding for research and public health has yet to be awarded and will probably lapse this year, said Joe Carlile, an author of the center’s analysis and an associate OMB director during the Biden administration. The obstructions appear to be concentrated in areas where the White House proposed cutting the federal budget next year. “The administration may be executing their 2026 budget request through administrative controls,” Carlile said.

“This is boring but crazy-high stakes,” he added. “A one-branch veto of spending neuters the power of the purse in the Constitution that Madison said was the fundamental check on the executive branch.”

Incremental Chaos

A key tactic Vought described in Project 2025 occurs when the OMB activates funds for agencies in installments, called apportionments. Vought wrote that “apportioned funding” could “ensure consistency with the President’s agenda.”

Under Vought, the OMB shrank the size of apportionments, HHS and CDC staffers said. It’s illegal for agencies to let grantees withdraw money before the total amount is in the metaphorical bank, so that delayed agencies’ ability to greenlight spending.

The OMB and DOGE also placed conditions on apportionments through memos, footnotes, and spoken directives telling agencies to ensure that spending “aligns with Administration priorities,” according to reports and HHS employees who said that notices of funding opportunities and awards required excessive layers of sign-off. The CDC and other agencies circulated lists of priorities that reflect White House stances, including those targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; immigration; and transgender rights. Public health efforts have been especially caught up in red tape, since many focus on populations bearing an unequal burden of death, disease, and injury.

Groups that rely on federal funds have largely been unaware of the reasons grants were held up, but they’ve fielded what they viewed as unsettling queries. For example, Kathy Garner, the head of a Mississippi nonprofit, said officials asked her to defend the exclusion of men from a program to shelter women who experienced domestic violence.

Delays were made worse by uncertainty. Grantees said they’ve been unable to reach program officers because tens of thousands of federal workers have been laid off. Agency officials said firings slow funding further.

“Everyone’s inbox is full of letters from grant recipients asking, ‘How do we proceed?’” one high-ranking CDC official told KFF Health News, which granted agency officials anonymity because of their fears of retaliation. “We just say, ‘Please wait.’”

Time was critical as a measles outbreak surged in West Texas early this year. The state asked for federal funding for the response in March, but it didn’t arrive until May, after the outbreak had largely faded in Texas, according to an investigation by KFF Health News. Apportionment control was a key reason, CDC staffers said.

In July, 81 HIV organizations sent a letter to Kennedy. “With every day of delayed FY2025 funding release, the delivery of essential HIV services is compromised,” said the letter, which was reviewed by KFF Health News. Because of delays and uncertainty, it said, HIV clinics had laid off case managers and reduced clinician hours, closed sites, and pared down hotlines that patients call with urgent questions. The funds arrived about a month later, but HIV providers remain shaken.

Lauren Richey, medical director at University Medical Center’s HIV clinic in New Orleans, backed out of hiring a sorely needed dentist she had recruited. “I was afraid to tell someone to move across the country for a job when I wasn’t sure if or when we’d get the funding for their salary,” she said. “The wait is now three to four months for dental services, when it was usually a couple of weeks at most.”

Tamachia Davenport, program director at the St. John AIDS outreach ministry in New Orleans, said that “a lot of us are having to rob Peter to pay Paul.”

When the group didn’t get CDC funds it expected this summer, Davenport had to decide between cutting staff or supplies. Concerned her top employees would take jobs elsewhere, she stopped buying the condoms they distribute throughout the city to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted infections.

Louisiana already has one of the highest rates of HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea in the country. Condoms cost far less than treating these diseases. For a person infected by HIV at age 35, such costs exceed $326,000.

Groups focused on cancer, diabetes, and heart disease also report lasting repercussions from delays, as well as ongoing fears that they will happen again. Louisiana State University’s Healthy Aging Research Center canceled some of its workshops to train health workers on caring for people with dementia. “There may be fewer people who have this very specific expertise next year in Louisiana and Mississippi,” said Scott Wilks, the director of the center. “That’s on top of the big shortage we have already.”

Nationwide surveys tallying maternal and infant mortality froze for about five months because of funding delays, causing an irrecoverable gap in data that had been collected continuously since 1987, CDC officials say.

“We are seeing the administration get their way with or without an approved budget,” one said. “It’s such a terrible shame to play with people’s health this way.”

DOGE also inserted itself into grant reimbursements this year, stalling the rapid turnaround that public health groups typically expect to cover salaries, rent, and other monthly costs outlined in budgets that have already been approved. In what’s now labeled Departmental Efficiency Review, itemized expenses must be regularly justified by multiple government officials, according to documents reviewed by KFF Health News.

DOGE posted on its website expense reports covering about a month’s span from April to May. Nearly 230 of the individual expenses filed to federal agencies during that period are for $1 or less. Other entries break down monthly salaries for individual employees and petty costs for postage or monthly subscriptions.

“Public funds deserve scrutiny, but this is different from audit practices I’ve been a part of,” Carlile said.

DOGE also stalled calls for applications for 2025 funding — and some calls never appeared as the fiscal year came to a close on Sept. 30. Among them are programs for groups that provide housing assistance. People will be evicted when these organizations run out of money left over from 2024, said Steve Berg, chief policy officer at the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

Other solicitations came out months behind schedule, leaving groups with a few weeks to put together complicated applications for multimillion-dollar awards, including for Alzheimer’s care, addiction recovery, senior support, and chronic disease management.

“They’ve set projects up to fail,” one HHS official said.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

El Programa de Preparación Hospitalaria (HPP) fue creado hace más de dos décadas tras los ataques terroristas del 11 de septiembre de 2001 en el World Trade Center de Nueva York y el Pentágono, así como los letales ataques con ántrax ocurridos días después.

En los últimos 17 años, este fondo ha entregado casi $2.200 millones a estados, territorios, grandes ciudades y entidades para preparar los sistemas de salud ante futuras pandemias, ciberataques o tragedias con múltiples víctimas.

Recientemente, estos recursos se han utilizado para combatir la gripe aviar, que padecieron aproximadamente 70 personas en Estados Unidos, causó por lo menos una muerte y sigue representando una amenaza. También se han usado para responder a crisis por huracanes, tornados, tiroteos masivos, inundaciones y olas de calor.

Sin embargo, la solicitud enviada al Congreso por el director de presupuesto de Trump, Russell Vought, propone suprimir el programa, argumentando que ha sido “un desperdicio” y que “carece de enfoque”. Su eliminación, agregó, permitiría a los estados y ciudades financiar “adecuadamente” sus propios planes de prevención.

Por ahora, cualquier acción sobre este tema está paralizada por el cierre del gobierno, provocada por una disputa entre los partidos sobre los subsidios de salud que están por expirar. Estos subsidios ayudan a muchos de los 24 millones de beneficiarios que compran su seguro médico a través de los mercados de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA).

Tanto los estados republicanos como los demócratas consideran que los fondos para la preparación de los hospitales son indispensables y que no podrían reemplazarse fácilmente con recursos locales.

Es un ejemplo de cómo los intentos de la Casa Blanca por reducir el papel del gobierno en la respuesta a emergencias de salud pública y desastres naturales han comprometido la capacidad de los gobiernos estatales y locales de apoyarse en los fondos federales para cubrir las necesidades de la población.

“El programa es la principal fuente de financiamiento gubernamental para la previsión de desastres en hospitales, servicios de emergencia médica y otros sectores del sistema de salud”, explicó Chris Van Deusen, vocero del Departamento de Servicios de Salud de Texas.

Texas recibió más de $20 millones del HPP este año, y Van Deusen señaló que es poco probable que el estado pueda cubrir un déficit de financiación federal en el corto plazo, ya que su presupuesto está definido hasta agosto de 2027.

Estos fondos ayudan a que los proveedores de salud en Texas desarrollen planes de emergencia y pongan a prueba la capacidad de los hospitales para ampliar su respuesta ante una crisis, además de facilitar la distribución de recursos médicos y la atención de pacientes sin saturar las instalaciones.

El programa, junto con fondos estatales, financia la Texas Emergency Medical Task Force (TX EMTF), que este año ha respondido a inundaciones fatales y, en 2022, al tiroteo en la escuela de Uvalde, entre otras muchas emergencias.

Georgia, que en 2025 recibió $13,5 millones, “continúa supervisando y planificando ante posibles cambios en el financiamiento federal futuro, mientras garantiza que los esfuerzos de previsión sanitaria en todo el estado se mantengan sólidos y sostenibles”, dijo Eric Jens, vocero de salud pública.

Un funcionario de salud de California calificó esos fondos como esenciales para garantizar que los sistemas de salud locales puedan responder a emergencias más allá de su capacidad habitual. El programa es el único fondo federal destinado a preparar el sistema de salud ante catástrofes, dijo Robert Barsanti, vocero del Departamento de Salud Pública de California.

“Sin este financiamiento, California corre el riesgo de perder infraestructura crítica para responder ante emergencias, debilitando su capacidad para proteger vidas, mantener la continuidad de la atención médica y cumplir con los estándares federales de preparación”, dijo Barsanti.

Como es el estado más poblado del país, California recibe la mayor cantidad de dinero: casi $29 millones este año, mientras enfrenta un enorme déficit presupuestario y mantiene un constante intercambio de acusaciones con funcionarios del gobierno de Trump.

Los fondos se distribuyen entre el  Departamento de Salud Pública del estado, la Autoridad de Servicios Médicos de Emergencia de California (que coordina el sistema médico de emergencias del estado), asociaciones de salud y unas 60 entidades locales.

El condado de Los Ángeles, que alberga a más de una cuarta parte de la población del estado, recibió $11 millones adicionales, y el sistema de la Universidad de California obtuvo $1,2 millones.

Ni la Casa Blanca, ni la Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response—que gestiona el programa bajo el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Estados Unidos (HHS)—, ni la Oficina del Manejo del Presupuesto respondieron a solicitudes reiteradas de comentarios sobre la propuesta de recortes en el HPP.

Según reportó The New York Times, la Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response ha visto una reducción del 81% en su plantilla durante el último año. Es, por mucho, el mayor recorte de personal en el HHS y parte de una política más amplia de despidos en el gobierno federal bajo Trump.

El HHS ya ha retrasado casi tres meses la distribución de los fondos del programa para este año. Se suponía que iban a estar disponibles a partir de julio, pero la mayor parte del dinero no se liberó hasta finales de septiembre. En los últimos días del gobierno de Biden, los funcionarios de salud querían distribuir rápidamente estos recursos como parte de la respuesta nacional al brote de gripe aviar H5N1.

El retraso de varios meses “es otro ejemplo de cómo los cambios e incertidumbres a nivel federal ponen en peligro programas de salud pública cruciales en el estado de Nueva York”, afirmó Cadence Acquaviva, vocera del Departamento de Salud. A pesar de los esfuerzos de las autoridades de salud del estado, “los retrasos o la eliminación de fondos ponen a los neoyorquinos en riesgo significativo en caso de un desastre o emergencia”, advirtió Acquaviva.

El estado de Nueva York recibió cerca de $14 millones y la ciudad de Nueva York más de $9 millones.

Jim Leach, vocero del Departamento de Salud Pública de Illinois, indicó que el sistema médico necesita estos fondos federales para prepararse ante desastres naturales o provocados por el ser humano, “más allá de los altibajos de cualquier enfermedad específica”.

Illinois y la ciudad de Chicago recibieron en conjunto $15 millones del programa.

Durante situaciones de emergencia, el programa de respuesta ante crisis financiado con fondos federales “convierte a cientos de hospitales, servicios de emergencia médica y otros centros de salud de Illinois en un solo sistema coordinado”, explicó Leach, y agregó que esta coordinación permite salvar vidas y recursos públicos.

“Si ocurriera un desastre natural o un brote de una enfermedad infecciosa, un estado no podría reaccionar lo suficientemente rápido sin los fondos del HPP”, expresó.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Hospital Preparedness Program was created more than two decades ago in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York City’s World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and the deadly anthrax attacks that began days later. The fund has provided nearly $2.2 billion to states, territories, major cities, and other entities over the past 17 years to ready health care systems for the next pandemic, cyberattack, or mass-casualty event.

Recently, that money has been used to combat the bird flu that has sickened at least 70 people in the United States, killed at least one, and remains a threat. The funds also have been used to respond to crises such as hurricanes, tornadoes, mass shootings, floods, and heat waves.

But the budget request sent to Congress by Trump’s budget director, Russell Vought, proposes eliminating the program, saying the effort “has been wasteful and unfocused” and that cutting it would allow states and cities to “properly” fund their own preparedness plans. Any action is currently stalled by the government shutdown, which stems from a partisan dispute over expiring health care subsidies that affect many of the 24 million Americans who buy coverage from Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

Red and blue states say the hospital preparedness funds are essential and could not be readily replaced with local funds. It’s an example of how the White House’s efforts to reduce its role in responding to public health and natural disasters have imperiled state and municipal reliance on federal resources to meet community needs.

The program “is the main source of government funding for disaster preparedness among hospitals, EMS providers, and other parts of the health care system,” Texas Department of State Health Services spokesperson Chris Van Deusen said.

Texas received more than $20 million from the Hospital Preparedness Program this year, and Van Deusen said it’s unlikely the state could backfill any federal funding gap in the short term since the budget has been finalized through August 2027.

The funds help Texas’ health providers create disaster plans and test hospitals’ ability to boost their capacity in an emergency, he said, while enabling the distribution of medical resources and patient loads so hospitals aren’t overwhelmed during disasters. The program, along with state funding, supports the state’s Emergency Medical Task Force, which responded to deadly floods this year and the Uvalde school shooting in 2022, among many other emergencies.

Georgia, which received $13.5 million this year, “continues to monitor and plan for potential changes to future federal funding while ensuring health care preparedness efforts across Georgia remain strong and sustainable,” said public health spokesperson Eric Jens.

A California health official called the money vital to ensuring local health care systems can respond to emergencies beyond their usual capacity. The program is the only federal funding devoted to health care system preparedness for such catastrophes, said Department of Public Health spokesperson Robert Barsanti.

“Without this funding, California risks losing critical infrastructure for emergency response, weakening its ability to protect lives, maintain continuity of care, and meet federal preparedness benchmarks,” Barsanti said.

As the most populous state, California receives the most money — nearly $29 million this year — as it struggles with a massive budget deficit and fights a running rhetorical battle with Trump administration officials. The funds go to the state’s public health department; the California Emergency Medical Services Authority, which coordinates the state’s emergency medical system; health care associations; and about 60 local entities. Los Angeles County, with more than a quarter of the state’s population, received an additional $11 million, and the University of California system got $1.2 million.

Neither the White House, the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, which administers the program under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, nor the Office of Management and Budget responded to repeated requests for comment about the May proposal to cut the Hospital Preparedness Program.

The Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response has seen an 81% reduction in employees over the past year, The New York Times reported. It’s by far the largest workforce reduction at HHS and part of the wider culling of federal workers under Trump.

Already, HHS has delayed the distribution of this year’s Hospital Preparedness Program funds by nearly three months. The funds were supposed to be available to states for use starting in July, but the bulk of the money was not released until late September. Health officials in the waning days of the Biden administration had wanted to quickly distribute the funds for the nation’s response to the H5N1 bird flu.

The months-long delay “is yet another example of how changes and uncertainty at the federal level threaten critical public health programs in New York state,” said Department of Health spokesperson Cadence Acquaviva. Despite health officials’ best efforts, “delays or elimination of funding places New Yorkers at significant risk in the event of a disaster or emergency,” Acquaviva said.

New York state received nearly $14 million, and New York City more than $9 million.

Illinois Department of Public Health spokesperson Jim Leach said the medical system needs the federal funds to prepare for natural and human-caused disasters of every sort, “regardless of the ebb and flow of any single disease.”

Illinois and Chicago received a combined $15 million from the preparedness program.

During emergencies, the state’s federally funded crisis response program “turns hundreds of Illinois hospitals, EMS, and other health care facilities into a single, coordinated system,” Leach said, adding it saves both lives and taxpayer dollars. “If there is a natural disaster or an infectious disease outbreak, a state would not be able to react quickly enough without the HPP funds.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The increase in risk was small for any one child, but because millions of women were pregnant during the pandemic, even a small increase matters. The study doesn’t prove that covid infection during pregnancy causes autism or other brain conditions in the fetus, but it suggests that infections and inflammation during pregnancy can affect how a baby’s brain grows, something scientists have seen before with other illnesses. It’s a reason to help pregnant women avoid covid and to keep a close eye on children who were exposed in the womb.

What the Study Found

Researchers at Massachusetts General Hospital examined medical records from more than 18,000 mothers and their children born from March 2020 through May 2021, before vaccines were widely available to pregnant women. Because everyone giving birth during that period was tested for covid, the team could clearly see which pregnancies were exposed to the virus causing it.

About 5% of those mothers had covid while pregnant. Their children were modestly more likely to be diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental condition by age 3 than those whose mothers weren’t infected, even after accounting for differences in maternal age, race, insurance status, and preterm birth.

The link appeared strongest among boys and when infection occurred in their mother’s third trimester. Still, most children in both groups showed typical development.

“This was a very clean group to follow,” said Andrea Edlow, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist at Mass General and one of the study’s authors. “Because of universal testing early in the pandemic, we knew who had covid and who didn’t.”

Independent authorities say covid, which causes a powerful immune response in some people, fits the biological pattern seen with other infections in pregnancy. Alan Brown, a professor of psychiatry and epidemiology at Columbia University who studies maternal infection and brain development and was not involved in this research, explained, “Covid would be a very strong candidate for it to happen because the amount of inflammation is very extreme.”

How Might Infection Affect Brain Development?

Scientists are still piecing together how various infections during pregnancy can affect fetal development. Severe illness can cause inflammation that disrupts brain growth or can trigger preterm birth, which carries its own risks.

“There’s a long history of evidence showing that maternal infection can slightly raise the risk for many neurodevelopmental disorders,” said Roy Perlis, the vice chair for research in psychiatry at Massachusetts General Hospital and co-author of the new study.

Edlow’s lab is investigating how infection and inflammation may interfere with brain development. In a healthy brain, immune cells help shape developing neural circuits by trimming away extra or unnecessary connections, a process known as “synaptic pruning,” which sculpts the brain’s wiring. When a mother’s immune system is activated by infection, inflammatory molecules can reach the fetal brain and alter the pruning process.

Animal studies support Edlow’s hypothesis. When scientists trigger inflammation in pregnant mice, their offspring often show changes in how brain cells grow and connect, changes that can alter learning and behavior.

Why Late Pregnancy and Why Boys?

In Edlow and Perlis’ study, the link between covid and developmental delays was strongest when infection occurred late in pregnancy, during the third trimester. That’s also when the fetal brain is growing most rapidly, forming and refining millions of neural connections.

“When we think of organ development, we think earlier in pregnancy, but the brain is an exception in this regard, where there’s a massive amount of brain development in the third trimester. And that continues after birth,” Perlis said. “It is entirely plausible that the third trimester is a period of vulnerability specifically for brain development.”

But not all researchers agree that the third trimester is uniquely vulnerable. Brian Lee, a professor of epidemiology at Drexel University, cautioned that because most mothers in the study were tested at delivery, there were simply more late-pregnancy infections to analyze. “That gives the study more power to find a difference in the third trimester,” he said. “It doesn’t prove earlier infections aren’t important.”

The study also found stronger effects in boys. That pattern is familiar: Boys are generally more likely than girls to have speech or motor delays and to be diagnosed with autism. Researchers suspect that male fetuses may be more susceptible to stress and inflammation, though the biology isn’t fully understood.

What the Study Can and Can’t Show

Edlow and Perlis are careful to say the study shows an association, not proof that covid infection in pregnancy causes developmental problems. Many other factors could explain the correlation.

Mothers who get sick with covid may have other health issues, such as obesity, diabetes, or mental health conditions, that increase the risk of developmental delays in children. “Persons with mental disorders are much more likely to get covid. Women with mental disorders are much more likely to have kids with neurodevelopmental problems,” Lee said. “Mothers with worse physical health are also at higher risk of having children with neurodevelopmental problems.”

Lee’s research has shown that even infections before or after pregnancy can be linked to autism, suggesting that shared genetics or environment, rather than the infection itself, could be at play. That’s why experts say much larger, longer studies are needed to understand the extent of any risk from the infection.

Edlow, Perlis, and their team plan to follow the children in their study as they grow older to see whether early differences persist or fade. They’re also studying how inflammation during pregnancy affects the placenta and fetal brain, and how to counteract these effects.

What About Vaccination?

Because this study followed pregnancies from early in the pandemic, it doesn’t answer whether vaccination changes the risk. But other research offers reassurance.

A large national study in Scotland found no difference in early developmental outcomes between children whose mothers were vaccinated and those who weren’t. Another study in the U.S. found the same: no link between prenatal covid vaccination and developmental delays through 18 months. Both align with decades of data showing that vaccination during pregnancy is safe for both the mother and the baby.

“Vaccination is a short spike … your immune system revs up, then it goes back to normal,” Edlow said. “Covid [infection] is much more prolonged, unpredictable, and people can get … a dysregulated immune phenomenon that really doesn’t exist in vaccine responses.”

What This Means for Parents and Clinicians

Since late 2020, there’s been widespread confusion and misinformation about the safety of covid vaccination during pregnancy. Some women have hesitated to get vaccinated out of fear it might harm their baby. But the evidence since then has been clear: Covid vaccines are safe in pregnancy. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly recommends covid vaccination to protect both mother and child.

Experts say the broader lesson is that pregnancy is a period of vulnerability, and prevention matters, not only for covid, but other infections as well.

Janet Currie, a professor of economics at Yale University, said these risks remain “underappreciated,” despite decades of evidence. “Even though the flu vaccine is recommended for pregnant women, very few pregnant women get it,” she said. “Physicians seem to be reluctant to vaccinate pregnant women.”

As Gil Mor, scientific director of the C.S. Mott Center for Human Growth and Development at Wayne State University in Detroit, put it, “Protecting the mother is protecting the long-term health of the offspring. … The best intervention is vaccination.”

A Century-Old Echo

The idea that what happens in the womb can shape life after birth took root with studies of famine, like the Dutch “Hunger Winter” in the final months of World War II. In 1944 and 1945, as German forces blockaded the western Netherlands, rations fell to just a few hundred calories a day. Thousands died of starvation, and women pregnant during that period gave birth to babies who later faced higher risks of heart disease, diabetes, and schizophrenia. The episode became a cornerstone of the “fetal origins” idea, that deprivation or stress in pregnancy can have lifelong effects.

The 1918 flu pandemic broadened that idea to infection. Babies exposed to influenza in utero later showed small but lasting differences in education and earnings, a sign that illness during pregnancy could affect brain development. Researchers in Taiwan, Sweden, Switzerland, Brazil, and Japan found similar consequences. Some argued that those findings reflected the disruptions of World War I, not the flu itself. But later studies, including those from the United Kingdom and Finland, have strengthened the case for a biological effect, reinforcing that the infection itself, not wartime upheaval, was the key driver.

“It isn’t simply influenza that can alter fetal neurodevelopment,” Kristina Adams Waldorf, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Washington, explained. “Many types of infections … in the mother can be transmitted as a signal to the fetus, which can alter its brain development.”

A century later, the same question has returned with covid: Could infection during pregnancy subtly shape how children grow and learn? The new Massachusetts General Hospital study offers an early look at an answer.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Esa es la práctica estándar, según expertos en salud pública y enfermedades infecciosas consultados por KFF Health News y NPR. El objetivo es evitar que más personas vulnerables se enfermen y recordar al público los beneficios de la vacunación.

Pero este año en Louisiana, no siguieron ese protocolo durante el peor brote de tos ferina en 35 años.

La tos ferina, también conocida como pertussis, es una enfermedad muy contagiosa y prevenible con vacunación que resulta especialmente peligrosa para los bebés más pequeños. Puede causar vómito y dificultad para respirar, y en casos graves puede derivar en neumonía, convulsiones e incluso, aunque rara vez, la muerte.

Madison Flake, residente de pediatría en Baton Rouge, atendió a un bebé que fue hospitalizado durante el brote. El niño, de menos de dos meses, estuvo en cuidados intensivos.

“Tenía episodios de tos muy intensos”, dijo Flake. “Dejaba de respirar durante varios segundos, casi hasta un minuto”.

Los bebés no son elegibles para recibir su primera dosis de la vacuna contra la tos ferina hasta los 2 meses, pero pueden desarrollar inmunidad si la madre se vacuna durante el embarazo.

A finales de enero, dos bebés habían fallecido en ese estado.

Sin embargo, el Departamento de Salud de Louisiana tardó dos meses en publicar un mensaje en redes sociales sugiriendo a la población hablar con sus doctores sobre la vacunación.

La agencia demoró aún más en emitir una alerta sanitaria estatal dirigida a médicos, enviar un comunicado o realizar una conferencia de prensa.

Georges Benjamin, director ejecutivo de la Asociación Americana de Salud Pública (APHA), dijo que ese retraso no es común.

“Particularmente con enfermedades infantiles, solemos actuar de inmediato”, dijo Benjamin, médico que ha dirigido departamentos de salud en Maryland y Washington, D.C. “Son enfermedades y muertes prevenibles”.

Debido a que las enfermedades infecciosas se propagan de manera exponencial, si las autoridades no alertan al público rápidamente, pierden una ventana de oportunidad clave para evitar más contagios, explicó Abraar Karan, profesor en la Universidad de Stanford que ha trabajado en brotes de covid y mpox.

“El tiempo es, quizás, una de las monedas más importantes que se tiene”, agregó.

Prohibida la promoción general de vacunas

Como la inmunidad que ofrece la vacuna contra la tos ferina baja con el tiempo, los casos pueden aumentar o disminuir cíclicamente. Pero en septiembre de 2024, los funcionarios de salud de Louisiana comenzaron a ver un aumento “considerable” de casos, como parte de una tendencia nacional.

A fines de enero, médicos de un hospital del estado advirtieron a sus colegas que dos bebés habían muerto durante el brote.

El 13 de febrero, el director general de salud del estado, Ralph Abraham, envió un memo a su personal poniendo fin a la promoción general de las vacunas y a los eventos comunitarios de vacunación.

Ese mismo día, pocas horas después de que Robert F. Kennedy Jr., un activista antivacunas, fuera confirmado por el Senado como nuevo secretario del Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Estados Unidos (HHS), Abraham publicó otro memo en el sitio web del departamento de salud estatal.

En el documento, afirmaba que la salud pública se había excedido con sus recomendaciones de vacunación, impulsadas por una “mentalidad colectivista de talla única”. Abraham ha calificado las vacunas contra covid como “peligrosas” y ha sido un defensor público de Kennedy.

Cuatro días después, en respuesta a una solicitud del canal WVUE Fox 8 News de Nueva Orleans, el Departamento de Salud de Louisiana confirmó por primera vez por correo electrónico la muerte de dos bebés por tos ferina. WVUE publicó la noticia el 20 de febrero.

Pero el departamento no emitió ninguna alerta, según una revisión de comunicaciones internas y externas hecha por NPR y KFF Health News.

Durante el mes siguiente, otros dos bebés fueron hospitalizados por tos ferina, de acuerdo con correos electrónicos internos obtenidos mediante una solicitud de acceso público a la información.

En marzo, luego de consultas de NPR y KFF Health News sobre el aumento de los casos de pertussis, el departamento publicó sus primeros mensajes en redes sociales sobre el brote y ofreció entrevistas a otros medios de comunicación.

Luego, el 1 de mayo —al menos tres meses después de la segunda muerte infantil— el departamento emitió lo que parece ser su primera y hasta ahora única alerta oficial dirigida a médicos. Al día siguiente publicó su primer comunicado de prensa y luego realizó una conferencia de prensa sobre la enfermedad, el 14 de mayo.

Para ese entonces, 42 personas habían sido hospitalizadas por tos ferina desde que comenzó el brote. Según el departamento, tres de cada cuatro no estaban al día con sus vacunas contra la enfermedad.

Más de dos tercios de los hospitalizados fueron bebés menores de un año.

Durante el verano, los casos de pertussis siguieron aumentando en el estado. Pero el departamento de salud estatal no volvió a publicar información al respecto.

NPR y KFF Health News contactaron al departamento para solicitar comentarios el 25 de septiembre. La vocera Emma Herrock no respondió preguntas específicas sobre la falta de comunicación, pero remitió a una publicación del 30 de septiembre en X del director general de salud estatal.

En la publicación, Abraham dijo que el departamento “reportó consistentemente los casos de pertussis y proporcionó orientación para ayudar a los residentes a mantenerse protegidos” en 2025. Aseguró que la vacuna contra la tos ferina es “una de las menos controversiales” y que la recomienda a sus pacientes.

La publicación en X incluyó una gráfica de casos de pertussis por año, pero omitió los datos de 2024 y 2025. También precisó el momento de las muertes infantiles: una a finales de 2024 y otra a principios de 2025.

Un “desastre anunciado” de casos

Louisiana debió haber comenzado a alertar al público pocos días después de la primera muerte infantil, en lugar de esperar meses, señaló Karan, de Stanford.

“Como mínimo”, dijo, “debió haber una promoción intensa del mensaje: ‘Los bebés están en alto riesgo. Se contagian de personas cuya inmunidad ha disminuido. Si no te has vacunado, vacúnate. Si tienes estos síntomas, hazte la prueba’”.

Las muertes por enfermedades prevenibles con vacunas son trágicas, pero también pueden servir como una oportunidad para educar al público sobre los beneficios de vacunarse y así salvar vidas, dijo Joshua Sharfstein, ex secretario de salud de Maryland y ahora profesor en la Escuela de Salud Pública Bloomberg de la Universidad Johns Hopkins.

“El riesgo de pertussis siempre está presente, pero cuando hay dos muertes infantiles es una oportunidad para comunicar que se trata de una amenaza real para la salud infantil”, afirmó Sharfstein.

Karan dijo que al no actuar con rapidez, el Departamento de Salud de Louisiana podría haber propiciado un brote más grave.

“Lo que vemos después es un desastre, un brote descomunal, muchas hospitalizaciones”, dijo.

El brote continuó

Hasta el 20 de septiembre, la fecha más reciente con datos disponibles, Louisiana había registrado 387 casos de tos ferina en 2025, según los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC). Según los datos disponibles desde 1990, el número más alto de casos había sido 214, en 2013.

El departamento de salud debería responder de forma agresiva y constante, afirmó Joseph Bocchini, presidente del capítulo de Louisiana de la Academia Americana de Pediatría.

Las autoridades deben asegurarse de que “las personas estén informadas de forma regular y se les recuerde lo que deben hacer”, dijo. “Vacúnense. Si están embarazadas, vacúnense. Y si tienen una enfermedad con tos, consulten al doctor”.

Benjamin, de la Asociación Americana de Salud Pública, dijo que el objetivo permanente de la comunicación en salud pública es prevenir la próxima hospitalización o muerte.

“La conclusión es que no es demasiado tarde”, señaló. “Todavía se puede actuar de forma más agresiva y proactiva para enfrentar la tos ferina”.

Este artículo forma parte de una alianza que incluye a WWNO, NPR y  KFF Health News.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

But in Louisiana this year, public health officials appeared to have not followed that playbook during the state’s worst whooping cough outbreak in 35 years.

Whooping cough, also called pertussis, is a highly contagious, vaccine-preventable disease that’s particularly dangerous for the youngest infants. It can cause vomiting and trouble breathing, and serious infections can lead to pneumonia, seizures, and, rarely, death.

Madison Flake, a pediatric resident in Baton Rouge, cared for a baby who was hospitalized during this year’s outbreak. Less than 2 months old, he was sent to the intensive care unit.

“He would have these bouts of very dramatic coughing spells,” Flake said. “He would stop breathing for several seconds to almost a minute.”

Infants are not eligible for their first pertussis vaccine until they are 2 months old, but they can acquire immunity if the mother is immunized while pregnant.

By late January, two babies had died in Louisiana.

But the Louisiana Department of Health waited two months to send out a social media post suggesting people talk to their doctors about getting vaccinated. The department took even longer to issue a statewide health alert to physicians, send out a press release, or hold a news conference.

That lag is not typical, according to Georges Benjamin, the executive director of the American Public Health Association.

“Particularly for these childhood diseases, we usually jump all over these,” said Benjamin, a physician who has led health departments in Maryland and Washington, D.C. “These are preventable diseases and preventable deaths.”

Because infectious diseases spread exponentially, if officials don’t alert the public quickly, they lose a key chance to prevent further infections, said Abraar Karan, an instructor at Stanford University who has worked on covid and mpox outbreaks.

“Time is perhaps one of the most important currencies that you have,” he added.

General Promotion of Vaccines Banned

Because pertussis vaccine immunity wanes over time, cases can ebb and flow. But in September 2024, Louisiana health officials started seeing a “substantial” increase in whooping cough cases, part of a national trend.

In late January, physicians at one Louisiana hospital warned their colleagues that two infants had died in the outbreak.

On Feb. 13, the state’s surgeon general, Ralph Abraham, sent a memo to staff ending the general promotion of vaccines and community vaccine events.

He sent that email a few hours after Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an anti-vaccine activist, won Senate confirmation as the new secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Also that day, Abraham posted a public memo on the state health department’s website. In it, he said public health has overstepped with vaccine recommendations, driven by “a one-size-fits-all, collectivist mentality.” Abraham has called covid vaccines “dangerous” and been a vocal supporter of Kennedy.

Four days later, in response to a request from WVUE Fox 8 News in New Orleans, the Louisiana Department of Health in an email confirmed the deaths of two infants from whooping cough for the first time. WVUE published the news on Feb. 20.

But Louisiana’s health department sent out no alerts, according to a review of external and internal communications by NPR and KFF Health News.

Over the next month, two more infants were hospitalized for whooping cough, according to internal health department emails obtained through a public records request.

In March, after inquiries from NPR and KFF Health News about the growing number of pertussis cases, the department put out its first social media communications about the outbreak and offered interviews to other journalists.

Then on May 1 — at least three months after the second infant death — the health department issued what appears to be its first and so far only official alert to physicians. It put out its first press release the next day and then held a news conference about pertussis on May 14.

By then, 42 people had been hospitalized for whooping cough since the outbreak began, three-quarters of whom were not up to date on their whooping cough immunizations, according to the Louisiana Department of Health.

More than two-thirds of those hospitalized were babies under the age of 1.

Throughout the summer, pertussis cases continued to climb in Louisiana. But there were no further public communications from the state health department.

NPR and KFF Health News contacted the department for comment on Sept. 25. Emma Herrock, a spokesperson, did not answer specific questions about the lack of communications but referred to a Sept. 30 post on X by the state surgeon general.

In the post, Abraham said the department “consistently reported cases of pertussis and provided guidance to help residents stay protected” in 2025. He called the pertussis vaccine “one of the least controversial” and said he recommends it to his patients.

The X post included a year-by-year graphic of pertussis cases that omitted 2024 and 2025. The post also provided a more specific timeframe for when the infant deaths occurred — one in late 2024 and the other in early 2025.

A ‘Train Wreck’ of Cases

Louisiana should have started warning the public within days of the first infant’s death instead of waiting months, said Stanford’s Karan.

“At minimum,” he said, “it should be like heavy promotion of: ‘Hey, infants are at high risk. They get infected by people who have waning immunity. If you haven’t gotten vaccinated, get vaccinated. If you have these symptoms, get tested.’”

Deaths from a vaccine-preventable illness are tragic, but they can also serve as an opportunity to educate the public about the benefits of vaccines and try to save lives, said Joshua Sharfstein, a former Maryland health secretary and now a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

“The risk of pertussis is always there, but when you have two infant deaths it’s a really good opportunity to communicate that this is a real threat to the health of children,” Sharfstein said.

Karan said that by not acting more quickly, the Louisiana Department of Health may have set itself up for a worse outbreak.

“Because then what we see is this train wreck thereafter, of like an insanely large outbreak, a lot of hospitalizations,” he said.

The Outbreak Continued

As of Sept. 20, the most recent date for which data is available, Louisiana had counted 387 cases of whooping cough in 2025, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In data going back to 1990, the previous high was 214 cases, in 2013.

Until the Sept. 30 post on X, the Louisiana Department of Health did not appear to put out any public communications about pertussis over the preceding four months, though hospitalizations continued and case levels surpassed the 2013 levels.

The health department should be responding aggressively and consistently, said Joseph Bocchini, the president of the Louisiana Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Health officials should make sure “people are updated on a regular basis and reminded of what needs to be done,” he said. “Get your vaccines. Moms, if you’re pregnant, get vaccinated. And if you have a cough illness, see your doctor.”

Benjamin, with the American Public Health Association, said the ongoing goal of public health communication is to prevent the next hospitalization or death.

“The bottom line is, it’s not too late,” he said. “It’s not too late to be much more aggressive and proactive about dealing with pertussis.”

This article is from a partnership that includes WWNO, NPR, and KFF Health News.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Bre Dolan, a 35-year-old resident of Hardy County, West Virginia, understands why. Throughout her childhood, when her dad had addiction and mental health crises, police officers were often the first ones to respond. Dolan calls them “good men and women” who “care about seeing their community recover.”

But she’s skeptical that they can mitigate the root causes of an addiction epidemic that has racked her home state for decades.

“Most of the busts that go down are addicts,” she said — people who need treatment, not prison.

Dolan’s father was one of them. And so was she.

Now 14 years into recovery, she’s been surprised to see many local officials spending opioid settlement money — an influx of cash from companies accused of fueling the overdose crisis — on police Tasers, cruisers, night vision gear, and more.

“How is that really tackling an issue?” Dolan said. “How will it help families battling addiction?”

Nationwide, more than $61 million in opioid settlement funds were spent on law enforcement-related efforts in 2024, according to a yearlong investigation by KFF Health News and researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Shatterproof, a national nonprofit focused on addiction. That included initiatives that public health experts largely support, such as hiring social workers to accompany officers on overdose calls, as well as actions they’re more skeptical of, such as beefing up police arsenals.

Over nearly two decades, state and local governments are set to receive more than $50 billion in opioid settlement money, which is intended to be used to fight addiction. The settlement agreements even outlined suggested uses and established other guardrails to limit unrelated uses of the funds — as happened with the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of the 1990s.

But there’s still significant flexibility with these dollars, and what constitutes a good use to one person can be deemed waste by another.

To Stephen Loyd, an addiction medicine doctor who was once addicted to opioids and has served as an expert in several opioid lawsuits, some law enforcement expenses fall into that second category.

Drones and police officer salaries are not “in the spirit of what we wanted to use the money for when we were fighting for it,” Loyd said.

“People died for this money. Families were torn apart for this money. And to not spend it to try to make our system better, so that people don’t have to experience those losses going forward, to me, is unconscionable,” he said.

As part of this investigation, KFF Health News and its partners compiled the most comprehensive national database of opioid settlement spending to date, featuring more than 10,500 examples of how the money was used (or not) last year. The team filed public records requests, scoured government websites, and extracted expenditures, which were then sorted into categories, such as treatment or prevention. The findings include:

• Nearly $2.7 billion — that’s the amount states and localities spent or committed in 2024, according to public records. The lion’s share went to investments addiction experts consider crucial, including about $615 million to treatment, $279 million to overdose reversal medications and related training, and $227 million to housing-related programs for people with substance use disorders.
• Smaller, though notable, amounts funded law enforcement initiatives — such as creating a shooting range and tinting patrol car windows — and prevention programs that experts called questionable, such as putting on a fishing tournament.
• Some jurisdictions paid for basic government services, such as firefighter salaries.
• The money is controlled by different entities in each state, and about 20% of it is untrackable through public records.

This year’s database, including the expenditures and untrackable percentages, should not be compared with the one KFF Health News and its partners compiled last year, due to methodology changes and state budget quirks. The database cannot present a full picture because some jurisdictions don’t publish reports or delineate spending by year. What’s shown is a snapshot of 2024 and does not account for decisions in 2025.

Still, the database helps counteract the secrecy among some of those in charge of settlement money and confusion among those tracking it.

‘How My Population Would Like Me To Vote’

Dolan has seen intergenerational addiction up close. When her father was high, he sometimes kicked teenage Dolan out of the house with her toddler siblings. She started drinking early and progressed to other drugs, eventually landing in prison.

Although she managed to find recovery on her own, even landing a job as an EMT, she wants to make the path easier for others.

If settlement money were used to hire social workers or build family recovery programs, it could change the course of a kid’s life, she said.

“Maybe people could have helped my dad get into recovery and gave him therapy,” she said. “Anything could have happened.”

But many local officials say law enforcement is one of the few tools they have, especially in rural areas. And their constituents believe it’s effective.

“If the goal was treatment and prevention, it would have been better to throw [the money] into a big grant system and give it to treatment centers,” said Cris Meadows, city manager of Oak Hill, West Virginia, which paid more than $67,000 for a drone and surveillance cameras for its police department. “Unfortunately, local governments are really not set up to do that.”

Clarkdale, Arizona, Town Manager Susan Guthrie said her town bought nearly $15,000 worth of drones because they help with enforcement — such as recording crime scenes and conducting search-and-rescue operations — as well as education, when officers interact with kids at community events.

Similar perspectives nationwide have led to spending that includes:

• About $12,000 for rifle suppressors (also known as silencers) in Alexandria, Indiana.
• About $21,000 for Tasers in Mooresville, Indiana.
• About $49,000 to replace outdated body cameras and Tasers in Hardy County, West Virginia.
• Nearly $70,000 in Lewisburg, West Virginia, to add a police officer to the county’s drug task force, replace that officer locally, buy guns and vehicles, and tint car windows.

Several elected officials said their choices reflect local politics.

That’s “how my population would like me to vote,” Hardy County Commissioner Steven Schetrom said of his commission’s goal to spend about a quarter of its settlement money on law enforcement.

Mooresville Town Council President Tom Warthen told KFF Health News, “People have petitioned our government for less taxes but have never petitioned for less services” from the local police force. With federal and state budget cuts looming, the town must be resourceful, he said, adding that the Tasers were bought with a portion of settlement funds that have no restrictions.

After these purchases, an Indiana commission issued a list of law enforcement equipment that it cautioned against buying with restricted settlement dollars. California, Kansas, and Virginia have released similar lists.

Research backs those restrictions. Studies have shown that drug busts and arrests can exacerbate the overdose crisis. Officers responding to overdoses often arrest people, making people who use drugs fearful of calling 911 or seeking treatment through police.

In contrast, equipping police officers with overdose reversal medications has been shown to save lives. That’s a key component of an $18 million effort in Texas, the state with the highest percentage of reported law enforcement spending.

Police and Firefighter Salaries

Some places used settlement funds to maintain basic first responder services.

For example, Mantua Township, New Jersey, used about $79,000 to “offset police salary and wages” and, according to its public spending report, plans to do so annually. Township officials did not respond to requests for comment.

Los Angeles County allocated $1 million to cover a portion of firefighter salaries and benefits last year and estimates it will use another $1 million this year.

County fire department spokesperson Heidi Oliva said opioid funds were used to fill a budget gap until revenue kicked in from a new tax voters approved last November.

The use of funds was “appropriate,” she said in an email, because “the opioid crisis presents a significant burden to EMS response, from dispatch through arrival at hospitals, clinician mental health/burnout, and a variety of other factors.”

Using opioid money to replace other revenue is legal in most places. But it’s considered bad practice.

“I don’t want to see this money used to make up for stuff that would be paid for anyway,” said Daniel Busch, chair of the FED UP! Coalition, a national advocacy organization representing many parents who’ve lost children to addiction.

Settlement dollars are “the only financial representation from the governments and from the drug companies” of families’ losses, Busch said. To see that money used to maintain the status quo is “painful” and “distressing.”

Busch fears this practice will become more common as states grapple with federal budget cuts.

Already in New Jersey, lawmakers allocated $45 million in settlement funds to health systems to cushion against anticipated Medicaid losses — a move opposed by the state’s attorney general, opioid settlement advisory council, and advocates.

However, some states are taking proactive steps.

Colorado released guidance this year against such actions.

“These dollars can’t be part of budget games where we simply backfill existing programs,” state Attorney General Phil Weiser told KFF Health News. “We have to build on whatever we’re doing because it hasn’t been enough.”

Other states, such as Maine, Maryland, and Kentucky, are newly requiring local governments to report how they spend the money, which may make it easier to spot disputed practices. Officials in Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Missouri said they expect to revamp their public reporting systems to increase transparency by early 2026.

In Mississippi, which produced no substantive public reports last year, the attorney general’s office has set up a website that will host spending information after Dec. 1.

Jennifer Twyman is anxious to see some positive changes.

“We have people literally dying on our sidewalks,” said the Louisville, Kentucky, advocate.

Twyman struggled with opioid misuse for 20 years and now works with Vocal-KY to end homelessness and the war on drugs. To her, any spending that doesn’t directly help people with addiction betrays the settlement’s purpose.

“It is the blood from many of my friends, people that I care deeply about,” she said. “That money could have been me, could have been my life.”

Read the methodology behind this project.

KFF Health News’ Henry Larweh; Shatterproof’s Kristen Pendergrass and Lillian Williams; and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Abigail Winiker, Samantha Harris, Isha Desai, Katibeth Blalock, Erin Wang, Olivia Allran, Connor Gunn, Justin Xu, Ruhao Pang, Jirka Taylor, and Valerie Ganetsky contributed to the database featured in this article.

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has taken a leading role in providing guidance to state and local governments on the use of opioid settlement funds. Faculty from the school collaborated with other experts in the field to create principles for using the money, which have been endorsed by over 60 organizations.

Shatterproof is a national nonprofit that addresses substance use disorder through distinct initiatives, including advocating for state and federal policies, ending addiction stigma, and educating communities about the treatment system.

Shatterproof is partnering with some states on projects funded by opioid settlements. KFF Health News, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Shatterproof team that worked on this report are not involved in those efforts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

In many cases, this type of community event would be unremarkable. But Irvington’s concerts stood out for their funding source: settlement money from companies accused of fueling the opioid overdose crisis.

As part of national settlements, more than a dozen companies that sold prescription painkillers are expected to pay state and local governments upward of $50 billion over nearly two decades. Governments are supposed to spend most of the windfall combating addiction. Officials who negotiated the settlements even outlined suggested uses and established other guardrails to avoid a repeat of the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of the 1990s, from which paltry amounts went to anti-smoking programs.

But there’s still significant flexibility with these dollars, and what constitutes a good use to one person can be deemed waste by another.

In Irvington, township officials said they used the money appropriately because the concerts reduced stigma around addiction and connected people to treatment. But acting state Comptroller Kevin Walsh called the concerts a “waste” and “misuse” of the settlements, which resulted from the overdose deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Similar disputes are intensifying nationwide as officials begin spending settlement money in earnest — all while grappling with slashed federal grants and looming cuts to Medicaid, the state-federal public insurance program that is the largest payer for addiction treatment.

To shed light on these discussions, KFF Health News and researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Shatterproof, a national nonprofit focused on addiction, conducted a yearlong effort to document settlement spending in 2024. The team filed public records requests, scoured government websites, and extracted expenditures, which were then sorted into categories such as treatment or prevention.

The result is a database of more than 10,500 ways settlement cash was used (or not) last year — the most comprehensive national resource of its kind. Some highlights include:

• States and localities spent or committed nearly $2.7 billion in 2024, according to public records. The bulk went to investments addiction experts consider crucial, including about $615 million to treatment, $279 million to overdose reversal medications and related training, and $227 million to housing-related programs for people with substance use disorders.
• Smaller, though notable, amounts funded law enforcement gear, such as night vision equipment, and prevention efforts that experts called questionable, such as hiring a drug awareness magician.
• Some jurisdictions paid for basic government services, such as firefighter salaries.
• The money is controlled by different entities in each state, and about 20% of it is untrackable through public records.

This year’s database, including expenditures and untrackable percentages, should not be compared with the one KFF Health News and its partners compiled last year, due to methodology changes and state budget quirks. The database cannot present a full picture because some jurisdictions don’t publish reports or delineate spending by year. What’s shown is a snapshot of 2024 and does not account for decisions in 2025.

Still, the database helps counteract a tendency toward secrecy among some of those in charge of settlement money and confusion among people trying to track it.

More than $237 million — about 9% of all trackable spending in 2024 — went to efforts broadly aimed at preventing addiction, according to public records. These ranged from putting on community awareness events, like the concerts in Irvington, to hiring mental health counselors in schools.

Many of the examples raised red flags for researchers, including:

• Suffield, Connecticut, held a 1950s-style sock hop, at which kids and seniors wore poodle skirts, posed with inflatable guitars, and pledged to remain drug-free.
• Vernon, Connecticut, hosted a mixed martial arts demonstration, at which a fighter spoke about his experience with addiction.
• Hardy County, West Virginia, spent $60,000 to repair a school track.

“There is no evidence” to back those efforts, said Linda Richter, who leads prevention-oriented research at the nonprofit Partnership to End Addiction.

Elected officials like the events because “you can announce to the community that you did something,” she said. But unless they’re part of larger initiatives that incorporate other approaches, such as screening students for mental health concerns or supporting parents struggling with addiction, they’re unlikely to have lasting impact.

And when settlement funds pay for those one-offs, there’s less left for strategies “that we do know work,” Richter added.

School assembly speakers were also popular, with three Connecticut towns spending more than $30,000 total for former Boston Celtic Chris Herren to share his addiction story with students.

“You get 1,200 kids in the gym and you can hear a pin drop when he talks,” said Joe Kobza, superintendent of schools in Monroe. He described Herren’s talks to students and parents as “pretty impactful.”

But emotional impact isn’t necessarily effective, Richter said. Speakers often talk about drugs messing up their lives even though they’ve become wealthy celebrities. “The messages are so mixed,” she said.

Many local officials admitted their spending decisions weren’t evidence-based. But they meant well, they said. And they received little to no guidance on how to use the money.

Kelly Giannuzzi, Suffield’s former director of youth services, who organized the sock hop, said the goal was to raise awareness and combat loneliness.

Hardy County Commissioner Steven Schetrom said spending money on track repairs made sense, since he’d seen the positive impact the sport had on his son’s life. He wanted other kids to have the same opportunity.

David Owens, a spokesperson for Vernon, said the town’s mixed martial arts event was the kickoff to an ongoing campaign, meant to show people that athletics can help them build connections and avoid drugs. The event brought out young men, who are often difficult to reach, he said.

But the town has no way of knowing if the event had lasting traction.

In New Jersey, acting Comptroller Walsh released a report this summer calling on Irvington township officials to repay the settlement money spent on the concerts.

“If they’re going to hold big parties, that’s up to them and the taxpayers,” Walsh told KFF Health News. “But they can’t use opioid money for that.”

He also suggested the concerts were political rallies for the mayor, Tony Vauss.

Irvington officials strongly objected to the report and unsuccessfully sued Walsh to try to block its release. Vauss told KFF Health News it was “misleading and flat-out wrong.”

Vauss said the township distributed overdose reversal medications at the concerts and spread messages about seeking help. At least four people sought treatment on-site, the township said in its lawsuit.

“We felt as though we did everything correctly,” Vauss said.

However, some of the research Irvington cited in the lawsuit to support its case appeared irrelevant, such as a study in rural Ghana and a graduate thesis.

Irvington officials did not respond to questions about those citations.

As this dispute — and others like it nationwide — continue, people affected by the crisis say it’s crucial to remember the moral weight of these settlements.

It’s “blood money,” said Stephen Loyd, an addiction medicine doctor who was once addicted to opioids and has served as an expert in several opioid lawsuits.

He’s seen many family members lose parents, children, and siblings.

“I don’t know how I would look a family in the face” if this money isn’t used to prevent more losses, he said.

Read the methodology behind this project.

KFF Health News’ Henry Larweh; Shatterproof’s Kristen Pendergrass and Lillian Williams; and the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Abigail Winiker, Samantha Harris, Isha Desai, Katibeth Blalock, Erin Wang, Olivia Allran, Connor Gunn, Justin Xu, Ruhao Pang, Jirka Taylor, and Valerie Ganetsky contributed to the database featured in this article.

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has taken a leading role in providing guidance to state and local governments on the use of opioid settlement funds. Faculty from the school collaborated with other experts in the field to create principles for using the money, which have been endorsed by over 60 organizations.

Shatterproof is a national nonprofit that addresses substance use disorder through distinct initiatives, including advocating for state and federal policies, ending addiction stigma, and educating communities about the treatment system.

Shatterproof is partnering with some states on projects funded by opioid settlements. KFF Health News, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Shatterproof team that worked on this report are not involved in those efforts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The event, titled “The 3 Big C’s: Courage, Censorship & Cancer,” was sponsored by the We the People Health and Wellness Center, a clinic, funded by a Jan. 6 marcher, where patients can bask in red light, sit in ozone-infused steam baths, or get their children treated for autism with an experimental blood concentrate.

In Venice, in Sarasota County, a “medical freedom” movement forged in opposition to covid lockdowns blends wellness advocates, vaccine-haters, right-wing Republicans, and angry parents in a stew of anti-government absolutism and mystical belief.

Ladapo’s wife, Brianna, a self-proclaimed “spiritual healer” who says she speaks with angels and has prophetic visions, chaired a panel at the event at the Venice Community Center. The keynote speech was by William Makis, a litigious covid conspiracist who, after losing his medical license in 2019, has made a living treating cancer patients with antiparasitic drugs including ivermectin, which was also championed in some circles as a covid treatment during the pandemic.

Clinical trials showed that ivermectin didn’t work, but covid skeptics viewed medicine’s rejection of it as part of a conspiracy by Big Pharma against a cheap, off-patent drug. Some of the patients in his care have what he calls “turbo cancers,” Makis says, blaming alleged impurities in mRNA vaccines that he says have killed millions of people.

For Makis, it’s all one big conspiracy — the virus, the vaccine, and the suppression of his therapies.

Brianna Ladapo has her own take on medicine, based on the idea of good and bad spiritual energy. She wrote in a memoir that as the pandemic began she intuited that it had been planned by “sinister forces” to “frighten the masses to surrender their sovereignty to a small group of tyrannical elites.” She has written that the government hides vaccination’s risks.

She sees “dark forces” all over the place, including, she said in a podcast interview earlier this year, in “chemtrails” shaped like a pentagram. “They’ve been plastering it in the sky right outside our house for the last few weeks,” Ladapo said. The chemtrails “they are dumping on us,” she said, had sickened her and her three sons. “The dark side are no fans of ours.”

(“Chemtrails” are a favorite topic of conspiracy theorists who say they think that contrails, the condensation formed around commercial airplane exhaust, contain toxic substances poisoning people and the terrain. Although there is zero evidence of that, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. plans to look into whether they are part of a clandestine effort to use toxic chemicals to change the weather.)

Ladapo’s husband hasn’t publicly endorsed all her beliefs, but as surgeon general he’s reversing decades of accepted public health practice in Florida and embracing untested therapies. “We’re done with fear,” Joseph Ladapo said after being named surgeon general in 2021. He wants to ban mRNA vaccines in Florida, and on Sept. 3 he announced plans to end childhood vaccination mandates in the state.

A few days after the Venice event, Ladapo said he hoped to support Makis’ work — though his treatments are unproven and potentially dangerous — through a new $60 million cancer research fund created by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his wife, Casey.

Vic Mellor, CEO of a local concrete business, founded and owns We the People. He’s an associate of retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was briefly President Donald Trump’s national security adviser in 2017 before being dismissed for lying to the FBI about his contacts with Russians. Trump later pardoned him, and Flynn since has become a leader of the Christian nationalist movement.

We the People provides vitamin shots but no vaccines. In fact, many of its offerings are treatments for supposed vaccine injuries. Part of the We the People building is a broadcasting studio, where conservatives hold forth on what they see as the villainy of liberals and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

Mellor was at the U.S. Capitol during the riot on Jan. 6, 2021 — he said he “just knocked on front doors,” according to a Facebook post described by The Washington Post. He returned home and started building a 10-acre complex that hosts weddings and right-wing assemblies, with playgrounds, a butterfly garden, a zip line over a pond visited by alligators, and an attached, separately owned gun range.

Visitors who travel down a dirt road to The Hollow — named for the hollow-core concrete that made Mellor wealthy — can enter the compound through a dark, cavernous passage lined with neon signs illuminating maxims from the likes of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and Flynn.

The Hollow has hosted clinics for unvaccinated kids and events for Ladapo, anti-vaccine activist Sherri Tenpenny (who in 2021 told legislators at an Ohio House hearing that covid vaccine made people magnetic), and other “medical freedom” advocates. Mellor created a medical home for such ideas by opening We the People in 2023.

The year before, three “medical freedom” candidates had won seats on the board overseeing Sarasota’s public hospital and health care system, after protests over the hospital’s refusal to treat covid patients with ivermectin and other drugs of choice for covid contrarians.

On a recent afternoon at The Hollow, manager Dan Welch was clearing brush when approached by KFF Health News. As a foe of vaccinations, he welcomed Ladapo’s move to end vaccine mandates. “Maybe in their inception, vaccines were created to prevent what they were supposed to prevent,” Welch said. “But now there’s so much more in there, the metals, aluminum, mercury. Since they started vaccination, the autism rate went through the roof, and I believe these vaccines are part of it.”

The theory that vaccines cause autism has been debunked, and manufacturers removed mercury from childhood vaccines 24 years ago, although Welch said he doesn’t believe it.

Vaccination faces additional challenges in a century-old Sarasota County neighborhood of low-slung bungalows called Pinecraft, home to about 3,000 Mennonites — and double that number when Amish snowbirds arrive in the winter. Pastor Timothy Miller said that while Sarasota’s Mennonites are less culturally isolated than the Mennonite community in West Texas, site of a measles outbreak in January, many in his community also shun vaccination.

His cousin Kristi Miller, 26, won’t vaccinate her 9-month-old daughter or any of the other children she hopes to have, she said, because she thinks vaccines probably cause autism and other harms.

As for vaccine-preventable diseases like measles, she doesn’t worry about them. Like the Ladapos, “I don’t live in fear,” she said. “I have a God who’s bigger than everything.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Open enrollment for 2026 Affordable Care Act insurance plans starts in most states Nov. 1, with no resolution in Congress about whether to continue more generous premium tax credits expanded under President Joe Biden or let them expire at the end of this year. It is unclear whether the backlash from millions of enrollees seeing skyrocketing premiums will move Democrats or Republicans to back away from entrenched positions that are keeping most of the federal government shut down.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration — having done away earlier this year with a Biden-era regulation that prevented medical debt from being included on consumers’ credit reports — is now telling states they cannot pass their own laws to bar the practice.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Post, Maya Goldman of Axios, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Tens of millions of Americans are bracing to lose government food aid on Nov. 1, after the Trump administration opted not to continue funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program during the shutdown. President Donald Trump and senior officials have made no secret of efforts to penalize government programs they see as Democratic priorities, to exert political pressure as the stalemate continues on Capitol Hill.
• People beginning to shop for next year’s plans on the ACA marketplaces are experiencing sticker shock due to the expiration of more generous premium tax credits that were expanded during the covid pandemic. The federal government will also take a particular hit as it covers growing costs for lower-income customers who will continue to receive assistance regardless of a deal in Congress.
• In state news, after killing a Biden-era rule to block medical debt from credit reports, the Trump administration is working to prevent states from passing their own protections. In Florida, doctors who support vaccine efforts are being muffled, and the state’s surgeon general says he did not model the outcomes of ending childhood vaccination mandates before pursuing the policy — a risky proposition as public health experts caution that recent measles outbreaks are a canary in the coal mine for vaccine-preventable illnesses.
• And in Texas, the state’s attorney general, who is also running for the U.S. Senate as a Republican, is suing the maker of Tylenol, claiming the company tried to dodge liability for the medication’s unproven ties to autism. The lawsuit is the latest problem for Tylenol, with recent allegations undermining confidence in the common painkiller, the only one recommended for pregnant women to reduce potentially dangerous fevers and relieve pain.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Many Fear Federal Loan Caps Will Deter Aspiring Doctors and Worsen MD Shortage,” by Bernard J. Wolfson.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “Citing Trump Order on ‘Biological Truth,’ VA Makes It Harder for Male Veterans With Breast Cancer To Get Coverage,” by Eric Umansky.

Paige Winfield Cunningham: The Washington Post’s “Study Finds mRNA Coronavirus Vaccines Prolonged Life of Cancer Patients,” by Mark Johnson.

Maya Goldman: KFF Health News’ “As Sports Betting Explodes, States Try To Set Limits To Stop Gambling Addiction,” by Karen Brown, New England Public Media.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “Average Obamacare Premiums Are Set To Rise 30 Percent, Documents Show,” by Paige Winfield Cunningham
• KFF Health News’ “Doctors Muffled as Florida Moves To End Decades of Childhood Vaccination Mandates,” by Arthur Allen.
• CBS News’ “The Quiet Collapse of America’s Reproductive Health Safety Net,” by Céline Gounder.

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, from KFF Health News and, starting this week, from WAMU public radio in Washington, D.C., and welcome to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Oct. 30, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve 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: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Good to be here. 

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast one of our original panelists, Paige Winfield Cunningham of The Washington Post. So great to see you again. 

Winfield Cunningham: Hi, Julie. It’s great to be back. 

Rovner: Before we dive in, we have a little of our own news to announce. Starting this week, we’re partnering with WAMU, Washington D.C.’s public radio station, to distribute the podcast. That means you can also now find us on the NPR app. And welcome to all you new listeners. OK, onto the news. We are now 30 days into the federal government shutdown, and there is still no discernible end in sight. And this Saturday is not only the start of open enrollment in most states for the Affordable Care Act health plans, which we’ll talk more about in a minute. It’s also the day an estimated 42 million Americans will lose access to food stamps after the Trump administration decided to stop funding the SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance] program. That’s something the administration did keep funding during the last Trump shutdown in 2019, and, according to budget experts, could continue to do now. So what’s behind this? As I think I pointed out last week, not such a great look to deprive people of food aid right before Thanksgiving. 

Ollstein: So I think this follows the pattern we’ve seen throughout the shutdown, which is just a lot of picking and choosing of what gets funded and what doesn’t. The angle of this I’ve covered is that out of all of the uniformed forces of the government, the Trump administration dug around and found money to keep paying the armed members, but not the public health officers, who are also part of the uniformed branches of the country. And yeah, you’re seeing this in the SNAP space as well. President Trump and his officials have openly threatened to go after what they see as Democrat programs. So it’s just interesting what they consider in that category. But you’re seeing a lot of choices being made to exert maximum political pressure and force various sides of this fight to cave, but we’re not seeing that yet either. 

Rovner: Yeah, they are. I mean, it seems this is also backwards because it’s usually the Republicans who are shutting down the government, the Democrats who are trying to pressure them to reopen it. And now, of course, we’re seeing the opposite because the Democrats want the Republicans to do something about the Affordable Care Act subsidies, and the Republicans are going after previously what had been kind of sacrosanct bipartisan programs like food stamps and the WIC [the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children] program, for pregnant and breastfeeding moms and babies. And now, apparently, they’re going to stop funding for Head Start, the preschool program for low-income families with kids. On the one hand, you’re right, they are programs that are very cherished by Democrats, but I feel like this whole shutdown is now sort of going after the most vulnerable people in America. 

Goldman: It’s also been interesting because [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] has tried to use SNAP as a vehicle for his Make America Healthy Again agenda, right? Trying to get states to limit the sugary drinks that their SNAP programs offer. And he’s, like, really touted that as part of the agenda. And now there does not seem to be any interest from HHS in speaking out about that. 

Rovner: Well, of course, and SNAP isn’t an HHS program. 

Goldman: Exactly. Exactly. 

Rovner: It’s a program in the Department of Agriculture, which is even more confusing, but you’re absolutely right. I mean, it’s odd that some of the things that he’s been pointing to are things that this administration is kind of trying to lay at the Democrats’ feet, as in, You want this program, reopen the government. So as I mentioned, Saturday is the start of Obamacare open enrollment in most of the states. And, Paige, you got a sneak peek at the premiums for plans in the 30 states that use the federal marketplace, which is now open for what we call window-shopping before open enrollment officially begins. What did you find? 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. So I got some documents at the end of last week showing that the average premium for the second-lowest-cost silver plan — which, of course, is what, we know … that’s what the subsidies are pegged to — is going up 30%, which is the second-highest premium increase. The highest we saw was 2017 to 2018. But this is a really, really significant increase. And of course, CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] didn’t include that number in the document that it finally released this week. So the documents I saw had some sort of numbers like that, which were all stripped out of the official documents. But all of this is just so interesting because I was thinking about, back to 2017-2018, and the politics of this are so flipped right now because basically it was the Democrats then who didn’t want to talk about premium increases and the Republicans who were yelling about it. 

So it’s funny how that has changed. But I guess on the politics of this, it seemed for a while like Democrats were thinking maybe the Nov. 1 start of open enrollment would provide this out for them to pass the spending bill because they could say, like, OK, we tried. Now open enrollment has started, or the premiums are kind of baked, so we can’t really do anything to change it now. But I don’t think we’re going to have anything this week. It seems like both sides are pretty dug in still. I mean, I guess the other thing I would say on these costs, it’s really highlighting a weakness that we’ve known for a long time in the Affordable Care Act, which is that, like, yes, it made health insurance affordable for a lot of people, but there’s always been this smaller number of people that are above 400% federal poverty that have had no shield from insurance costs. They have the last four years, and now they’re not going to have one anymore. And it’s funny because Democrats are talking about this, but that’s sort of a problem they hadn’t wanted to acknowledge for a long time in the early years of the Affordable Care Act. And as you guys all know, there’s not going to be any political will for bipartisan work to create affordable options for these folks unless the subsidies get extended, which, of course, that doesn’t seem very likely at the moment from how things stand. 

Rovner: Yeah. Going back to what the Republicans sort of announced, their talking points, is that, well, first the premium increases aren’t that big and that the expiring extra subsidies aren’t that big a piece of it, both of which are actually kind of true. But, of course, that’s not where the sticker shock is coming from. The sticker shock is coming from the expiration of those tax credits that’s going to …  

So people who had been shielded from these very high premiums are no longer going to be shielded from them. And that’s why, if you look at social media, you see all these screenshots now of insurance that costs $3,000 a month for people who were paying $150 a month, which is obviously not affordable. Why is it so difficult to explain the difference? I’ve been working on different ways to explain it for the last three weeks. 

Goldman: I was trying to figure this out last night, when I was writing something for my newsletter today. And I think one of the really confusing parts about this is that, like Paige said, like Paige scooped, premiums are going up a certain amount, and that’s not actually what people are seeing. That’s not what almost anyone is going to actually face. Either you’re getting that huge sticker shock because you’re losing your subsidies that you had this year or you’re continuing to have subsidies, they’re not quite the same, but you’re still not going to pay a 30% increase. And so I think that that’s really confusing for me even, and hard to explain. 

Winfield Cunningham: I think one way to think about this is like the party that is going to bear the brunt of the premium costs to a large degree is the government because for people that are before 400% federal poverty, they are basically guaranteed under the Affordable Care Act that they’re not going to have to pay more for premiums over a certain percentage of their income. And so this just means, like, the subsidies are getting really expensive for the federal government, which goes back to the issue of kind of like why Democrats didn’t extend these enhanced premiums indefinitely — because it’s just expensive to do it. This is the government subsidizing private health insurance. And then it’s also significant again for those people over 400% poverty who had had a cap on what they would pay. I think it was 9.5% of their income under the enhanced … and now they have no cap. 

Rovner: I think 8.5% of their income, actually, under the enhanced premiums. 

Winfield Cunningham: Under the enhanced. OK. 

Rovner: It’s going to go back to 10%. 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. Yeah. But there’s no cap if you’re like over, over 400%. 

Rovner: 400%. 

Winfield Cunningham: Right. Yeah. Yeah. 

Rovner: That’s right. 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. But that’s why people are confused. And the other thing is, like, the administration is correct, that the vast majority of people in the marketplaces will continue to get subsidies. And we are basically going back to what the situation was before covid, but it’s that smaller number of people that are at the higher income levels. But the other thought I had was, of course, the health care industry and Democrats are talking a lot about this and spreading these huge premium increases far and wide and making sure everybody hears about them, but it’s like a relatively small number of people, if you think about it. 

And I think it’s only like a couple million people in the marketplaces who are at that higher income levels. And I wonder if that factors into Republicans’ calculations here, where they’re looking at how many voters are actually seeing these massive premium increases, having to pay for all of them. And in the whole scheme of the U.S. population, it’s not like a ton of people. So I just wonder if that’s one reason they’re sort of, like, seem to be increasingly dug in on this and very reticent to extend these subsidies. 

Rovner: Although I would point out that when the Affordable Care Act started, it was only a small number of people who lost their insurance, and that became a gigantic political issue. 

Winfield Cunningham: This is very true. 

Rovner: So it’s the people who get hurt who sometimes yell the loudest, although you’re right. I mean, at that point, the Democrats stayed the course and eventually, as Nancy Pelosi said, people came to like it. So it could work out the same way. It does help explain why everybody’s still dug in. Maya, you wanted to say something. 

Goldman: I was just going to say, I think it’ll be interesting to see, if subsidies aren’t extended, how this affects premiums next year for people and for the federal government, because if a couple million people drop out of the ACA marketplace because it’s too expensive, and those people tend to be healthier, then the remaining pool of people is sicker, and then that’s the death spiral, right? So … 

Rovner: Yeah. Although it is … 

Goldman: Obviously, that’s a lot of what ifs, but … 

Rovner: … only the death spiral that goes back to prior to covid, which — it was kind of stable at 12 million. I’m sort of amused by seeing Republicans complaining about subsidizing insurance companies. It’s like, but this was the Republicans’ idea in the first place, going back to the very origin of the ACA. 

Ollstein: And we should not forget that there is a group of people who are going to be losing all of their subsidies, not just the enhanced subsidies. And that’s legal immigrants, and that’s hundreds of thousands of people. So, like Maya said, that will probably mean a lot of younger, healthier people dropping coverage altogether, which will make the remaining pool of people more expensive to insure. So these things have ripple effects, things that impact one part of the population inevitably impact other parts of the population. And again, these are legal tax-paying immigrants with papers — will be subject to the full force of the premium increases because they won’t have any subsidies. 

Rovner: Yes, our health system at work. All right, we’re going to take a quick break. We will be right back with more health news.  

Moving on, the federal government is technically shut down, but the Trump administration is still making policy. You might remember last summer, a federal judge blocked a Biden administration rule that prevented medical debt from appearing on people’s credit reports. The Trump administration chose not to appeal that ruling, thus killing the rule. Now the administration is going a step further — this week, putting out guidance that tries to stop states from passing their own laws to prevent medical debt from ruining people’s credit, and often their ability to rent, or buy a house, or purchase a car, or even sometimes get a job. According to the acting head of the federal Consumer Financial Protection [Bureau], Russell Vought — yes, that same Russell Vought who’s also cutting federal programs as head of the Office of Management and Budget — states don’t have the authority to restrict medical debt from appearing on credit reports, only the federal government does, which of course he has already shown he doesn’t want to do. Who does this help? I’m not sure I see what the point is of saying we’re not going to do it and states, you can’t do it either. Part of this, I know, is Russell Vought has made no secret of the fact that he would like to undo as much of the federal government as he can. In this case, is he doing the bidding of, I guess it’s the people who extend credit, who, I guess, want this information, want to know whether people have medical debt, think that that’s going to impact whether or not they can pay back their loans, or is this just Russell Vought being Russell Vought? 

Goldman: I guess, in theory, maybe it goes back to the idea that if you have consequences for medical debt, then people will pay their bills, and maybe that would help the health systems in the long run. But I also think that — I don’t know what health systems have said about this particular move, to be honest — but I think there’s an interest in making medical debt less difficult for people to bear in the whole health system. So I’m not sure how popular that is. 

Rovner: Yeah. Yes. Another one of those things that’s sort of like, we’re going to hurt the public to thwart the Democrats, which kind of seems to be an ongoing theme here. Well, as we tape this morning, the Senate health committee was supposed to be holding a hearing on the nomination of RFK Jr. MAHA ally Casey Means to be U.S. surgeon general. Casey Means was going to testify via video conference because she is pregnant, but, apparently, she has gone into labor, so that hearing is not happening. We will pick up on it when that gets rescheduled. Perhaps she will appear with her infant. 

Back at HHS, a U.S. district judge this week indefinitely barred the Trump administration from laying off federal workers during the shutdown, but at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it appears the damage is already done. The New York Times’ global health reporter, Apoorva Mandavilli, reports that the agency appears to have had its workforce reduced by a third and that the entire leadership now consists of political appointees loyal to HHS secretary Kennedy, who has not hidden his disdain for the agency and the fact that he wants to see it dissolved and its activities assigned elsewhere around the department. What would that mean in practice if there, in effect, was no more CDC? 

Winfield Cunningham: Hopefully we don’t have another pandemic. There’s just a lot of stuff the CDC does. And it’s been really confusing to follow these layoffs because in this last round, I remember trying to figure out with my colleague Lena Sun how many people were sent notices and then hundreds were sort of, those were rescinded and they were brought back. But yeah, I mean, I think we’re going to see the effects of this over the next couple of years. When I’ve asked the administration broadly about the reductions to HHS, what they say is that the agency overall has grown quite a lot in its headcount through the pandemic, which is true. I think they got up to like 90,000 or so. And then, according to our best estimates, maybe they’re back around 80,000, although I’m not entirely sure if that’s accurate. Again, it’s really been hard to track this. 

Rovner: Yeah. I’ve seen numbers as low as 60,000. 

Winfield Cunningham: It may be lower. Yeah. Yeah. So I think actually the 80,000, that may have been the headcount before the pandemic. Anyway, all that to say, it did grow during the pandemic, and that’s kind of the argument that they’re making, is that they’re just bringing it back to pre-pandemic levels. 

Rovner: But CDC, I mean, it really does look like they want to just sort of devolve everything that CDC does to the states, right? I mean, that we’re just not going to have as much of a federal public health presence as we’ve had over these past 50, 60 years. 

Winfield Cunningham: For sure. They’ve definitely targeted CDC. I mean, they mostly left CMS alone and FDA because, statutorily, I think it’s easier for them to shrink CDC, but it definitely is going to have massive effects over the next couple of years, especially as we see future pandemics. 

Ollstein: And the whole argument about returning to pre-covid, that doesn’t fit with what they’re actually cutting. I mean, they’re gutting offices that have been around for decades — focused on smoking, focused on maternal health, all these different things. And so this is not just rolling back increases from the past few years. This is going deeper than that. 

Winfield Cunningham: Well, yeah, it’s not like they’re just cutting the roles that were added since the pandemic. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: It’s not a last-in, first-out kind of thing. Well, as I said, since it looks like public health is now mostly going to be devolved to the states, let’s check in on some state doings. In Florida, where state Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo last month announced a plan to end school vaccination mandates. My KFF Health News colleague Arthur Allen has a story about how health officials, including university professors and county health officials, who actually do believe in vaccinating children, are effectively being muzzled, told they cannot speak to reporters without the approval of their supervisors, who are likely to say no. Seeing the rising number of unvaccinated children in a state like Florida, where so many tourists come and go, raising the likelihood of spreading vaccine preventable diseases, this all seems kind of risky, yes? 

Goldman: Yes. That was a fantastic article from your colleague, and there was a really illuminating line, which I think had been reported before, but a reporter asked the surgeon general if he had done any disease modeling before making the decision. And he said, Absolutely not, because this to him was a personal choice issue and not a public health issue. And I think that just goes to show that we have no idea what is going to happen as a result of this public health decision and it could have massive ripple effects. 

Rovner: But what we are already seeing are the rise of vaccine-preventable diseases around the country. I mean, measles, first in Texas, now in South Carolina; whooping cough in Louisiana; I’m sure I am missing some, but we are already seeing the consequences of this dwindling herd immunity, if you will. Alice, you’re nodding your head. 

Ollstein: Yeah. And I’ve heard from experts that measles is really sort of the canary in the coal mine here because it’s so infectious. It spreads so easily. You can have an infected person cough in a room and leave the room, and then a while later, someone else comes in the room and they can catch it. Not all of these vaccine-preventable illnesses are like that. So the fact that we’re seeing these measles outbreaks is an indication that other things are probably spreading as well. We’re just not seeing it yet, which is pretty scary. 

Rovner: And of course, one of the things that the CDC does is collect all of that data, so we’re probably not seeing it for that reason, too. Well, meanwhile, in Texas, Attorney General and Republican Senate candidate Ken Paxton is suing the makers of Tylenol. He’s claiming that Johnson & Johnson spun off its consumer products division — that includes not just Tylenol, but also things like Band-Aids and Baby Shampoo — to shield it from liability from Tylenol’s causing of autism, something that has not been scientifically demonstrated by the way — even Secretary Kennedy admits that has not been scientifically demonstrated. My recollection, though, is that Johnson & Johnson was trying to shield itself from liability when it spun off its consumer products division, but not because of Tylenol, rather from cancer claims related to talc in its eponymous Baby Powder. So what’s Paxton trying to do here beyond demonstrate his fealty to President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? 

Ollstein: I was interested to see some GOP senators distancing themselves from the Texas lawsuit and saying like, Look, there is no proof of this connection and this harm. Let’s not go crazy. But as I’ve reported, it’s just very hard to get good information out to people because there just isn’t enough data on the safety of various drugs, because testing drugs on pregnant women was always hard and it’s gotten even harder in recent years. And so, based on the data we have, this is a correlation, not causation. But it would be easier to allay people’s fears if we had more robust and better data. 

Rovner: Yeah. Does a lawsuit like this, though, sort of spread the … give credence to this idea that — I see you nodding, Maya — that there is something to be worried about using Tylenol when pregnant? Which is freaking out the medical community because Tylenol is pretty much the only drug that currently is recommended for pregnant women to deal with fever and pain. 

Goldman: Yeah. I think some of my colleagues have reported on the concern of another death spiral here, right? Where people get concerned, perhaps without basis, of taking Tylenol or any other drugs, vaccines even, because there are lawsuits and then the makers of these drugs say it’s not worth it for us to make these anymore. And then they don’t make them. And then it’s like a bad cascade of events. And so it’s obviously too soon to see if that’s what’s happening here, but it’s certainly something to watch. 

Rovner: But as we’ve pointed out earlier, not treating, particularly, fever can also cause problems. So … 

Ollstein: Right. Basically all of the alternatives are more dangerous. Not taking anything to treat pain and fever in pregnancy can be dangerous and can lead to birth effects. And taking other painkillers and fever reducers are known to have dangerous side effects. Tylenol was the safest option known to science. And now that that’s being questioned in the court of public opinion, people are worried about these ramifications. 

Winfield Cunningham: I think about the effect on moms who have kids with autism who are now thinking back to their pregnancies and thinking, Oh my gosh, how much Tylenol did I take? I know I took, I had pregnancies that I took plenty of Tylenol during. My nephew has autism, and I was talking to my sister about this, and she was like, “I took Tylenol.” And what they’re doing is, I guess, other reflection I have on it is, in general, there’s just less research on most things than we need. And there are some studies showing a correlation, which as we all know is not causation. And what it looks like the administration did was they took those tiny little nuggets of suggestions and have blown them up into this overly confident declaration of Tylenol and pregnancy and probably unnecessarily causing many women to blame themselves or think, Should I have done something differently during my pregnancy? when they were really just doing what their doctor recommended they do. 

Ollstein: I’m surprised that we haven’t seen legal action from Tylenol yet. I imagine we might at some point, especially if there is some kind of government action around this, like a label change. I think we will see some sort of legal action from the company because this is absolutely going to impact their bottom line. 

Rovner: Yeah. All right. Well, finally this week, more news on the reproductive health front. California announced it would help fund Planned Parenthood clinics so they can continue providing basic health services, as well as reproductive health services, after Congress made the organization ineligible for Medicaid funds for a year and the big budget bill passed last summer. California’s the fourth state to pitch in joining fellow blue states Washington, Colorado, and New Mexico. Meanwhile, family planning clinics in Maine are closing today due to that loss of Medicaid funding. And at the same time, the Health and Human Services Office of Population Affairs, which oversees the federal family planning program, Title X, is down apparently from a staff of 40 to 50 to a single employee, according to my colleague Céline Gounder. Is contraception going to become the next health care service that’s only available in blue states, Alice? 

Ollstein: So Title X has been in conservatives’ crosshairs for a long time. There have been attempts on Capitol Hill to defund it. There have been various policies of various administrations to make lots of changes to it. Some of those changes have really limited who gets care. And so it’s been a political football for a while. Of course, Title X doesn’t just do contraception. It’s one of the major things they do, providing subsidized and sometimes even free contraception to millions of low-income people around the country. But they also provide STI testing, even some infertility counseling and other things, cancer screenings. And so this is really hitting people at the same time as the anticipated Medicaid cuts, and at the same time Planned Parenthood clinics are closing because they got defunded. And so it’s just one on top of another in the reproductive health space. Each one alone would be really impactful, but taken all together, yeah, there’s a lot of concern about people losing access to these services. 

Winfield Cunningham: I think the politics of this are more interesting to me than the practical effect. I mean, under the ACA, birth control has to be covered, right? by marketplace plans. Generally speaking, if people have insurance, they do have coverage for a range of birth control. But the Title X program is interesting because it seems to like overlap between the MAHA priorities and the social conservatives. Of course, as Alice said, this has long been a target of social conservatives. I think in Project 2025 called for any Title X, I believe. And then there’s this current in the MAHA movement that’s kind of like anti-hormonal birth control and there’s also these kinds of streams of pronatalist people, of have more babies, don’t take birth control. So that’s kind of interesting to me because there’s this larger narrative I think in HHS right now of the RFK MAHA people versus the traditional conservative, anti-abortion people. So that’s just like one program where I see overlap between the two. 

Rovner: One of my favorite pieces of congressional trivia is that Title X has not been reauthorized since 1984, which, by the way, is before I started covering this. But I’ve been doing this 39 years and I have never covered a successful reauthorization of the Title X program. So it’s obviously been in crosshairs for a very, very long time. Maya, did you want to add something? 

Goldman: I was just going to say to Paige’s point, telling women that they can’t take any painkillers during pregnancy is not a good way to raise the birth rate. 

Rovner: Yes. That’s also a fair point. Well, meanwhile, red states are trying to expand the role of crisis pregnancy centers, which provide mostly nonmedical services and try to convince those with unplanned pregnancies not to have abortions. In Wyoming, state lawmakers are pushing a bill that would prohibit the state or any of the localities from regulating those centers “based on the center’s stance against abortion.” This comes after a similar proposal became law in Montana, the efforts being pushed by the anti-abortion group Alliance Defending Freedom. Is the idea here to have crisis pregnancy centers replace these Title X clinics and Planned Parenthoods? 

Ollstein: I think there are a lot of people that would like to see that, but, as you said, they do not provide the same services, so it would not be a one-to-one replacement. Already, there are way more crisis pregnancy centers around the country than there are Planned Parenthood clinics, for example, but that doesn’t mean that everyone has access to all the services they want. 

Rovner: And many of these crisis pregnancy centers don’t have any medical personnel, right? I mean, some of them do, but … 

Ollstein: It’s really a range. I mean, some have a medical director on staff, or maybe there’s one medical person who oversees several clinics, some do not. Some offer ultrasounds, some don’t, some just give pamphlets and diapers and donated items. It’s just really a range around the country. And states have also been grappling with how much to, on the conservative side, support and fund such centers. And on the other side, states like California have really gone to battle over regulating what they tell patients, what they’re required to tell patients, what they can’t tell patients. And that’s gotten into the courts and they’ve fought over whether that violates their speech rights. And so it’s a real ongoing fight. 

Rovner: Yes, I’m sure this will continue. All right, that is the news for this week. Now 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’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Maya, why don’t you go first this week? 

Goldman: Sure. So this story is from KFF Health News and New England Public Media. It’s called “As Sports Betting Explodes, States Try To Set Limits To Stop Gambling Addiction,” by Karen Brown. And I think this stood out to me because I was just in Vegas last week for health, but this, I think, is a really interesting issue to explore through a public health lens, the issue of sports betting and betting addiction. And there are states that are trying to do a lot of work around this and just organizations. And then of course the gaming companies themselves have their own pushback on that, and I think this story just lays it out really well and it’s an important issue that gets very overlooked. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is a public health issue, an interesting one. Alice? 

Ollstein: I chose a story from ProPublica by reporter, Eric Umansky, and it’s called “Citing Trump Order on ‘Biological Truth,’ VA Makes It Harder for Male Veterans With Breast Cancer To Get Coverage.” So this is one of many examples that you could give of policies intended to target transgender folks having spillover effects and impacting cisgender folks, too. In this instance, it’s now harder for male veterans to qualify to get treatment for breast cancer. Men can get breast cancer. Let’s just say that. Men can and do get breast cancer, and it can be harder to detect and very lethal, and obviously very expensive to treat if you don’t have coverage. And so this story has a lot of sad quotes from folks who are losing their coverage, especially because they likely acquired cancer by being exposed during their service to various toxic substances. And so I think, yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah. A combination of a lot of different factors in that story. 

Ollstein: Definitely. 

Rovner: Paige? 

Winfield Cunningham: Yeah. So my story is by, actually, my colleague Mark Johnson. I sit next to him at The [Washington] Post, and the headline is “Study Finds mRNA Coronavirus Vaccines Prolonged Life of Cancer Patients.” I was really struck by this story because it talks about how patients with advanced lung cancer, they were given the covid vaccines and it somehow had the effect of supercharging their immune systems. And, actually, their median survival rates went up by 17 months compared with those that weren’t given the vaccines. And, of course, this administration has really gone after the covid vaccines and the mRNA research, in particular, and canceled $500 million in funding for mRNA research. And all of the ACIP’s [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’] moves on vaccines have gotten so much attention. But I think the thing that also is going to be perhaps even more impactful is pulling back on this really promising research, because it has sort of become politicized because the covid vaccines have become politicized. And it seems a shame that we’re pulling back on this really promising research. So I thought that was a really interesting story by my colleague. 

Rovner: Yes. Yet another theme from 2025. My extra credit this week is from my KFF Health News colleague Bernard J. Wolfson, and it’s called “Many Fear Federal Loan Caps Will Deter Aspiring Doctors and Worsen MD Shortage.” And it’s a good reminder about something we did talk about earlier this year when the Republican budget bill passed. It limits federal grad school loans to $50,000 per year at a time when the median tuition for a year in medical school is more than $80,000. The idea here is to push medical schools to lower their tuition, but in the short run, it’s more likely to push lower-income students either out of medicine altogether or to require them to take out private loans with more stringent repayment terms, which could in turn push them into pursuing more lucrative medical specialties rather than the primary care slots that are already so difficult to fill. It’s yet another example of how everybody agrees on a problem: Medical education is way too expensive in this country. But nobody knows quite how to fix it.  

OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks this week to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. A reminder, “What the Health?” is now available on WAMU platforms, the NPR app, and wherever else you get your podcasts, as well as, of course, kffhealthnews.org. If you already follow the show, nothing will change. The podcast will show up in your feed as usual. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me at X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Maya? 

Goldman: I am on X as @mayagoldman_ and I’m also on LinkedIn, just under my name. 

Rovner: Alice? 

Ollstein: @alicemiranda on Bluesky and @AliceOllstein on X.  

Rovner: Paige? 

Winfield Cunningham: I am still @pw_cunningham on X. 

Rovner: Great. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Click here to find all our podcasts.

And subscribe to “What the Health? From KFF Health News” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app, YouTube, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).