Washington sues over RFK Jr.'s canceled health funding
Vaccination efforts are among the areas affected by the Trump administration's cuts to public health funding. (Photo by)
Washington was among 23 states that sued the Trump administration Tuesday over the cancellation of $12 billion in federal funding to address infectious diseases, substance abuse and mental illness, including about $160 million for Washington.
The lawsuit comes on the heels of the abrupt termination last week of grants related to disease tracking, vaccination efforts and other work that officials said could cost thousands of jobs in public health departments nationwide. This pot of money makes up $11 billion of the $12 billion cut.
The cuts in Washington reportedly include $118 million for the Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Prevention and Control of Emerging Infectious Diseases program, impacting 150 full-time employees. Losing this money will hurt the state's ability to respond to emerging outbreaks, including measles and bird flu, according to the complaint.
That money also continued to support COVID-related surveillance efforts, the lawsuit says.
In total, Washington's Department of Health stands to lose around $130 million, an agency spokesperson said last week, with the termination affecting upward of 200 department employees, and more at local health departments, tribal health clinics and community-based organizations.
One of the specific programs affected is Care Connect, which the department launched early in the pandemic to provide food and other needs to people with COVID so they could isolate. The program later shifted to meet the needs of those suffering from long COVID, among other things.
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown also cites the state's Care-A-Van mobile health clinics that provide vaccinations and other services to underserved communities. Officials have already had to cancel clinics due to the lost funding.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rolled back the grants 'for cause' because 'the pandemic is over,' so the funding is no longer needed, according to the lawsuit. The states counter that the money was never intended to only be used to respond to the COVID pandemic.
The lawsuit also tackles the separate but simultaneous Trump administration axing of another $1 billion in Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration funding, including $34 million for Washington.
Brown is one of several attorneys general leading Tuesday's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Rhode Island. The Department of Health and Human Services and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are named as defendants. The department didn't immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
'We can't make America healthy by spreading preventable diseases,' Brown said. 'Aside from the illegality of these actions, the administration is also choosing to neglect the biggest public health challenges, including substance abuse and mental health crises, facing our communities.'
The states say the cuts violate the Administrative Procedure Act by suddenly terminating the grants without much explanation. The plaintiffs asked a judge for a temporary restraining order to reverse the cuts.
The state Department of Health's now-canceled federal grant dollars were expected to expire between June 2025 and July 2026, agency spokesperson Marisol Mata Somarribas said.
Also on Tuesday, the Department of Health and Human Services began its purge of 10,000 federal workers.
As part of the layoff announcement, Kennedy also said he'd be halving the number of Health and Human Services regional offices from 10 to five. Seattle's office serves Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Alaska. Its fate was unclear Tuesday.
This is at least the 8th lawsuit Brown has led or joined against the Trump administration since January. Most have resulted in preliminary court orders blocking implementation of a variety of actions, including eliminating birthright citizenship, blocking gender-affirming care for minors and mass firings of federal workers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Republican senators' proposed Medicaid cuts threaten to send red states ‘backwards'
Advocates are urging Senate Republicans to reject a proposal to cut billions from American healthcare to extend tax breaks that primarily benefit the wealthy and corporations. The proposal would make historic cuts to Medicaid, the public health insurance program for low-income and disabled people that covers 71 million Americans, and is the Senate version of the 'big beautiful bill' act, which contains most of Donald Trump's legislative agenda. 'With the text released earlier this week, somehow the Senate made the House's 'big, bad budget bill' worse in many ways,' said Anthony Wright, the executive director of Families USA, a consumer healthcare advocacy group, in a press call. The Senate's version makes deeper cuts to Medicaid and so-called Obamacare (Affordable Care Act) plans, 'both by expanding paperwork requirements and making it harder for states to fund Medicaid coverage for their residents', said Wright. Related: Democratic senators call on private firm to reveal how it will profit from Trump's Medicaid cuts If passed, the House-passed bill would have already made the biggest cuts to Medicaid since the program's enactment in 1965. With red tape and an expiration of additional healthcare subsidies to Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the House version would leave 16 million people without health insurance by 2034. CBO has not yet released estimates, or 'scored', the impact of the Senate proposal, but advocates and experts said the cuts are more draconian, 'punish' states that expanded Medicaid, and attack Medicaid by going after its byzantine financing structures. 'If we look at the big picture of our healthcare system that's where the inefficiencies are – not in Medicaid – but in all the groups profiting off the system,' said David Machledt, a senior policy analyst at the National Health Law Program, referring to Republicans' assertions that they are targeting 'waste, fraud and abuse' with cuts. 'What these cuts are going to do is look at the most cost-efficient program and squeeze it further, and take us backwards, and put us back at a system where the people at the low end are literally dying to fund these tax cuts for rich people and businesses.' A recent study found that expanding Medicaid, as was done during the Obama administration, probably saved an additional 27,400 lives over a 12-year period, and did so cheaper than other insurance programs. The same study found that about a quarter of the difference in life expectancy between low- and high-income Americans is due to lack of health insurance. Republicans, such as Senator John Thune of South Dakota, argue that their bill 'protects' Medicaid by 'removing people who should not be on the rolls', including working-age adults, legal and undocumented immigrants; by adding work requirements and by going after a tax maneuver states use to bring in more federal Medicaid funding. Related: 'Fiscally irresponsible': Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' benefits the rich at the expense of the poor 'Removing these individuals is just basic, good governance,' said Thune. But experts and advocates argue the cuts will not only remove the targeted individuals, including many who are working but struggle to get through red tape, but will also place states in impossible situations with potentially multibillion-dollar shortfalls in their budgets. Both versions contain so-called work requirements, which analyses show will cause people to lose coverage even if they are eligible, experts said. Instead, the largest difference between the Senate and House versions of the bill is the Senate's attack on Medicaid's complex financing arrangements. Medicaid is jointly financed by states and the federal government, making it simultaneously one of states' largest expenditures and sources of revenue. The Senate's version specifically attacks two ways states finance Medicaid, through provider taxes and state-directed payments. With a provider tax, states bring in additional federal revenue by increasing payments to providers. Because the federal portion of Medicaid is based on a percentage rate, increasing payments to providers in turn increases the amount that federal officials pay the state. States then tax those same providers, such as hospitals, to bring the funding back to the state. Although this maneuver has been criticized, it has also now been used for decades. It's in place in every state except for Alaska, is legal and openly discussed. The Senate bill caps this manuever by cutting the tax rate by about half, from 6% to 3.5%, according to Machledt. [Cuts will] put us back at a system where the people at the low end are literally dying to fund these tax cuts for rich people and businesses David Machledt, National Health Law Program In a 2024 analysis, the Congressional Research Service estimated that lowering the provider tax cap to 2.5% would effectively cut $241bn from Medicaid payments to states. Although the exact impacts of the Senate tax cap are not yet known, Machledt expects it would be in the billions, which states would then be under pressure to make up. 'We took great pains to close a $1.1bn shortfall caused by rising healthcare costs,' said the Colorado state treasurer, Dave Young, in a press call. 'To protect healthcare and education, we had to cut transportation projects, maternal health programs and even $1m in aid to food banks.' Because of taxing provisions in Colorado's state constitution, Young said: 'It will be nearly impossible to raise taxes or borrow money to make up the difference.' Similarly, the Senate bill goes after 'state-directed payments'. To understand state-directed payments, it's helpful to understand a big picture, and often hidden, aspect of American healthcare – health insurance pays providers different rates for the same service. Providers are almost universally paid the worst for treating patients who have Medicaid. Medicare pays roughly the cost of providing care, although many doctors and hospitals complain it is still too little. Commercial insurance pays doctors and hospitals most handsomely. To encourage more providers to accept Medicaid, lawmakers in some states have chosen to pay providers treating Medicaid patients additional funds. In West Virginia, a federally approved plan allows the state to pay providers more for certain populations. In North Carolina, state-directed payments allow the state to pay hospitals rates equal to the average commercial insurance rate, if they agree to medical debt forgiveness provisions. The first state-directed payment plan was approved in 2018, under the first Trump administration. These kinds of payments were criticized by the Government Accountability Office during the Biden administration. Related: Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending bill, from tax cuts to mass deportations However, the Senate bill goes after these rates by tying them to Medicaid expansion – a central tenet of Obamacare – and gives stricter limits to the 41 states that expanded the program. Doing this will effectively be 'punishing them', Machledt said, referring to states that participated in this key provision of Obamacare, 'by limiting the way they can finance'. Advocates also warned of unintended knock-on effects from such enormous disruption. Medical debt financing companies are already readying new pitches to hospitals. Even people who don't lose their insurance and are not insured through Medicaid could see prices increase. When Medicaid is cut, hospital emergency rooms are still obliged to provide stabilizing care to patients, even if they can't pay. Hospitals must then make up that shortfall somewhere, and the only payers they can negotiate with are commercial: for example, the private health insurance most people in the US rely on. 'Folks who do not lose their health insurance will see increased costs,' said Leslie Frane, the executive vice-president of SEIU, a union that represents about 2 million members, including in healthcare. 'Your copays are going to go up, your deductibles are going to go up, your bills are going to go up.' Republicans hope to pass the bill by 4 July.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
New maternity investigation to look at 10 ‘worst services'
A new maternity investigation is set to focus on the 10 'worst performing' maternity services in England. Leeds and Sussex maternity services will be examined as part of the investigation, officials confirmed after Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced a national investigation into maternity services. There have been a series of maternity scandals in recent years, with official reviews launched into a number of services including those in Nottingham; East Kent; Shrewsbury and Telford and Morecambe Bay. Officials said these independent reviews found similar failings in compassionate care – including the failure to listen to women, concerns over safety and issues with leadership and culture. Bereaved families in other areas have also called for their own inquiries, including families in Sussex, Leeds and Oxford. The Department of Health and Social Care said the new investigation will consist of two parts. The first will investigate up to 10 of the most concerning maternity and neonatal units, including Sussex, in the coming weeks to give affected families answers as quickly as possible, according to the Department of Health. The second will be a 'system-wide' look at maternity and neonatal care, uniting lessons from past maternity inquiries to create one clear set of actions designed to improve national NHS care. Officials have confirmed there will be local reviews into services in Leeds and Sussex, with the other areas to be confirmed 'shortly'. The Department of Health and Social Care said that during the next month NHS England chief executive Sir Jim Mackey and chief nursing officer Duncan Burton will meet the trusts of greatest concern, including Leeds, Gloucester, Mid and South Essex and Sussex. It is expected that during these meetings the top NHS officials will 'hold them to account for improvement'. 📢 National maternity and neonatal investigation to be launched Too many families have suffered preventable harm. The investigation will urgently look at services with specific issues and the entire maternity system, making sure each family receives safe and compassionate care. — Department of Health and Social Care (@DHSCgovuk) June 23, 2025 Wes Streeting said he would be looking at individual cases of families in Leeds and Sussex who suffered from NHS failures. Speaking at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists conference in London, he said: 'We'll bring in a package of measures to start taking action now, increasing accountability across the board, and bringing in the cultural change we need to see. 'Within the next month, the NHS chief executive, Jim Mackey, and the chief nursing officer, Duncan Burton, will meet the trusts of greatest concern, including Leeds, Gloucester, Mid and South Essex and Sussex, to hold them to account for improvement.' He added: 'I'm currently discussing with Leeds families the best way to grip the challenges brought to light in that trust by their campaigning, reports in the media and the latest CQC report, and I'll be ordering an investigation into nine specific cases identified by families in Sussex who are owed a thorough account of what happened in those cases.' A spokesperson for Families Failed by OUH Maternity Services – a campaign calling for an investigation into maternity services at Oxford University Hospitals – said: 'We are pleased to see Wes Streeting launch a national investigation into maternity services – it is vital and long overdue. 'We urge him to include Oxford University Hospitals Trust as one of the 10 units. 'Over 500 Oxfordshire families who have suffered serious harm in the care of OUH maternity services have joined together to raise awareness of the devastating failures happening in the trust – highlighting the need for an investigation.' The NHS paid out £2.8 billion in compensation last year, with 41% of all payouts related to maternity care, according to data obtained by the Liberal Democrats from the House of Commons Library which was published earlier this year.
Axios
3 hours ago
- Axios
Accidental death data threatened by Trump CDC cuts
The CDC center that provides a window into how Americans are accidentally killed could see much of its work zeroed out under the Trump administration 2026 budget after it was hit hard by staff cuts this spring. Why it matters: Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death for Americans younger than 45, and the data the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control churns on fatal car accidents, drug overdose deaths, firearm injuries and even dog bites help inform public health strategies. The Trump budget targets the CDC with more than $3.5 billion in proposed cuts and lists the injury center under "duplicative, DEI or simply unnecessary programs" that can be conducted more effectively by states. Where things stand: The center was hit by layoffs under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s reorganization of federal health agencies, losing about 200 staffers in April who primarily worked on violence prevention and unintentional injuries. That crippled key data repositories, such as a web-based injury statistics system called WISQAR and the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS), with few data scientists and other technicians left to crunch the numbers, current employees and advocates say. "Those are existing in name only from here on, because the staff who have the expertise and the know-how and the access to the databases and all of that were RIF'd," Sharon Gilmartin, executive director of the Safe States Alliance, told Axios. Trump's 2026 budget request would eliminate funding for both data repositories and the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS). Between the lines: Also potentially at risk is the CDC's federal surveillance report of drowning statistics, which found the number of drowning deaths among kids 4 and younger increased 28% during the pandemic, between 2019 and 2022. That information revealed COVID-era patterns, such as kids spending more time at home or distracted parents juggling remote work with child care, that may have increased their risk, Katie Adamson, vice president of health partnerships and policy for YMCA, told Axios. That kind of data, as well as $5 million in funding for drowning prevention programs such as swimming lessons, from groups like the YMCA, has been cut. "Why wouldn't the federal government have a role in [addressing] the leading cause of death in our babies?" Adamson said. The cuts extend beyond the CDC to grantees around the country who use the data to implement prevention strategies, said one CDC official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press. Among the uses of funding specifically eliminated in the president's budget is money for a network of 11 Injury Control Research Centers at universities around the country that assist in researching the most efficient prevention programs based on the data collected by the CDC. The work includes a University of Michigan study of the effectiveness of anonymous tip lines at schools. Over four years, it identified more than 1,000 opportunities for mental health intervention, with dozens of weapons recovered from schools and several students with school shooting plans. "The return on investment for preventing these kinds of injuries and deaths is enormous," the official said. "If you care about saving dollars, you should be investing in the kind of work that the CDC injury center has historically done. It's not duplicative, it's unique." The other side: HHS has indicated plans for some of the work would be transferred within the planned Administration for a Healthy America. "HHS and CDC remain firmly committed to maintaining the availability of high-quality public health data essential to injury prevention and response nationwide," an HHS spokesman said. "As part of Secretary Kennedy's broader vision to streamline HHS operations and improve government efficiency, the CDC's critical work will continue to inform data-driven strategies that protect the health and safety of the American people." Yes, but: It's not that easy to just shift the work of the injury center and its complex data infrastructure, including laboratory work and response work, to another agency, the CDC official said. "Everybody's really worried around here. We've already lost the world's experts in a lot of these topics and a lot of incredible work in every one of these areas. It's not easy to just turn that back on or rebuild," the CDC official said.
