Federal cuts threaten to undo Kentucky's hard-won progress on addiction and recovery

Kentucky distributed 170,000 doses of Narcan last year, contributing to the state's continued decline in fatal overdoses. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Sarah Ladd)
As the White House and Congress weigh difficult budget decisions, Kentuckians are watching closely, especially those of us who work to address the opioid and overdose epidemic. Proposed federal cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) threaten to dismantle the programs responsible for a 30% reduction in overdose deaths in Kentucky over the past year.
On May 1, Gov. Andy Beshear announced that overdose deaths in the commonwealth decreased for the third year in a row, with a 30.2% decrease in 2024 over the previous year.
Fatal overdoses decreased among Black Kentucky residents from 271 in 2023 to 170 in 2024 — a 37.3% decrease that reversed a recent trend.
According to the 2024 Kentucky Drug Overdose Fatality Report, 1,410 Kentuckians lost their lives last year to a drug overdose.
In 2023, Kentucky reported a 9.8% decrease compared with 2022. In 2022, there was a decrease of 2.5% from 2021, marking the first year Kentucky saw a decrease in overdose deaths since 2018. By working together, the governor said, Kentucky is saving lives. He credited the state's continued decline in overdose deaths to several factors including:
More than $29.7 million was distributed in grant and pass-through funding from the Office of Drug Control Policy;
170,000 doses of Narcan were distributed;
84 syringe exchange program sites served 27,799 unique participants;
More than 17,390 Kentuckians received addiction treatment paid for by the Kentucky Opioid Response Effort;
More than 17,980 Kentuckians received recovery services (housing assistance, employment services, transportation, basic need services, etc.) in their community paid for by the Kentucky Opioid Response Effort;
19 Kentuckians sought treatment through the Kentucky State Police Angel Initiative;
More than 3,320 incoming calls were made to the KY HELP Call Center with more than 14,080 outgoing follow up calls,
And 21 counties are now certified as Recovery Ready Communities representing nearly 1.5 million Kentuckians.
As the leaders of People Advocating Recovery and the Kentucky Office of Drug Control Policy, we have seen the impact of this crisis firsthand — and we have seen the transformative impact of smart investments from public safety and recovery organizations working hand in hand for overdose prevention, treatment and recovery.
Let us be clear: we strongly support responsible governance. Government efficiency, fiscal discipline and strategic workforce development are essential for a thriving nation. But these proposed cuts, particularly to frontline recovery and public health services, will not achieve those outcomes; they will undermine them.
The proposed restructuring of HHS would eliminate approximately 20,000 federal jobs within that agency, including layoffs within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). These are the very institutions leading our nation's response to addiction and mental health. Weakening them now is like pulling fire crews off duty during wildfire season, while the fire is still smoldering.
Equally alarming are reports that Congress is weighing as much as $880 billion in cuts to Medicaid over the next decade. These cuts would devastate the already strained safety net especially in rural areas, like Appalachia, leading to hospital closures, spikes in ER use and inevitably increased incarceration of people with untreated behavioral health needs.
Cutting essential recovery infrastructure is not a pathway to economic stability. In fact, it threatens the very workforce development efforts policymakers want to prioritize. We cannot grow the economy by sidelining millions of Americans who are in or seeking recovery in the midst of this crisis. Instead, we must invest in them. When people recover, they return to work, support their families, contribute to their communities and economy.
This is not the time to abandon our efforts to end this deadly public health crisis. Now is the time to reaffirm our promise to curb addiction, save families and children, and erode this deadly disease once and for all. Kentucky and the nation have made great progress, it's time we turn that progress into prosperity for all and make recovery a national priority.
Tara Hyde, left, is CEO of Pe
ople Advocating Recovery, a nonprofit based in Louisville that works to eliminate barriers to recovery from substance abuse disorder.
Van Ingram is the executive director of the Kentucky Office of Drug Control Policy.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Associated Press

an hour ago

• Associated Press

CCHR Demands Nursing Home Chemical Restraint Ban and Full Accountability

LOS ANGELES, Calif., June 23, 2025 (SEND2PRESS NEWSWIRE) — Federal health authorities are sounding the alarm over the chronic use of antipsychotic and psychotropic drugs in America's nursing homes. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) has prioritized enforcement actions to reduce psychotropic prescribing—especially among seniors with dementia. With over 15,000 facilities nationwide housing more than 1.2 million elderly residents, mental health watchdog Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHR) warns the unchecked drugging of seniors constitutes systemic elder abuse.[1] CCHR is urging lawmakers to adopt the recommendations of a United Nations human rights expert, Claudia Mahler, who called for prohibiting chemical restraints—drugs used to control behavior—in aged-care settings. Mahler's report criticized the drugging of seniors in care facilities, asserting that older persons are 'more likely to be deprived of liberty in care facilities than in prisons.' She further warned that antipsychotic use in dementia can double the risk of death.[2] Although the National Partnership to Improve Dementia Care in Nursing Homes reported a reduction in antipsychotic use among long-stay residents—from 30.1% in 2011 to 14.5% by the end of 2021—those figures obscure concerning patterns of diagnosis manipulation. For instance, some nursing homes labeled seniors with schizophrenia, a diagnosis virtually unheard of in the elderly, to continue prescribing antipsychotics despite federal restrictions.[3] Federal Warnings Ignored, Harm Continues Warnings about the dangers of these drugs have spanned decades. In 2007, FDA safety official Dr. David Graham estimated at least 15,000 nursing home residents die each year due to antipsychotic use.[4] Dr. Peter Gøtzsche, a Danish physician and internationally recognized expert on pharmaceutical safety, places the toll from psychiatric drugs—including neuroleptics, benzodiazepines, and antidepressants—at approximately 209,000 deaths annually among Americans 65 and older. Sleep medications may contribute to an additional 320,000 to 507,000 deaths per year. Even short-term use has serious consequences. Studies show that for every 100 dementia patients prescribed newer antipsychotics over just ten weeks, one will die. Combining a benzodiazepine with a neuroleptic can increase mortality risk by as much as 65%.[5] Despite federal regulations dating back to 1987 that prohibit psychotropic use for staff convenience or discipline, enforcement has been lax. In 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a black-box warning linking antipsychotics to death in dementia patients prompting some prescribers to sidestep restrictions by re-diagnosing patients.[6] Between 2015 and 2019, schizophrenia diagnoses among nursing home residents rose 194%—an implausible increase, attributed to efforts to preserve prescribing authority.[7] In 2021, a New York Times investigation revealed that 21% of residents were still being given antipsychotics, often based on unsupported or false diagnoses. In 2023, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services launched new measures to identify facilities inflating diagnostic codes to justify drug use—but the problem persists.[8] Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical advertising has also fueled drug overuse among seniors. A 2021 study found that television ads heavily influenced seniors' prescription decisions, especially in areas with high Medicare enrollment. Between 2006 and 2017, $528 million was spent promoting one antipsychotic.[9] In June 2025, the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act was introduced to ban DTCA. Psychotropic drug use in long-term care facilities is a human rights crisis. Studies show that roughly 16% of nursing home residents experience abuse, yet only 1 in 24 cases is reported. Disturbingly, up to 40% of staff admit to having psychologically abused residents.[10] Reforms Urgently Needed The ongoing harm inflicted on elderly residents is not an isolated lapse but a failure of oversight, ethics, and accountability, tantamount to elder abuse. CCHR urges U.S. legislators and regulators to implement such reforms as: 'What's happening in nursing homes today is not care—it's chemical control and a national disgrace,' said Jan Eastgate, President of CCHR International. 'Our seniors are not being treated—they're being sedated for convenience, often at the cost of their lives.' About CCHR: CCHR, established in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and professor of psychiatry Dr. Thomas Szasz, urges Congress and state legislatures to outlaw chemical restraints in aged care and demand accountability from prescribers and nursing homes. 'The nation's elderly deserve compassion and safety, not sedation, and dignity not death by prescription,' Eastgate said. To learn more, visit: Sources: [1] Poliakoff & Associates, P.A., 'Nursing Home Oversight and Antipsychotic Drug Use,' 12 June 2025, [2] ''Chemical Restraints' Deprive Older People of Liberty,' Human Rights Watch, 19 Sept. 2022, [3] 'Brown Study Challenges Common Perceptions of Antipsychotic Use in Nursing Homes,' Brown University School of Public Health, 5 Sept. 2024, [4] Testimony by Dr. David Graham, House Hearing, 110th Congress – The Adequacy of FDA to Assure the Safety of the Nation's Drug Supply General, 13 Feb. 2007, p. 66 [5] Peter C. Gøtzsche, 'Prescription Drugs Are the Leading Cause of Death,' Brownstone Institute, 16 Apr. 2024, [6] 'Phony Diagnoses Hide High Rates of Drugging at Nursing Homes,' The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2021, [7] 'Long-Term Trends of Psychotropic Drug Use in Nursing Homes,' Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, 11 Nov. 2022, [8] 'Phony Diagnoses Hide High Rates of Drugging at Nursing Homes,' The New York Times, 16 Sept. 2021, [9] 'Physicians Treating Alzheimer's Disease Patients Should Be Aware that Televised Direct-to-Consumer Advertising Links More Strongly to Drug Utilization in Older Patients,' Jour. Alzheimers Dis. June 2021, [10] 'Elder Abuse Statistics,' 19 May 2025, MULTIMEDIA: Image link for media Image caption: 'Psychotropic drugs are being used to sedate, restrain, and silence, and, as such, are a tool of oppression. CCHR asserts that this practice meets the legal definition of elder abuse and must be treated as a criminal offense.' – Jan Eastgate, President CCHR International. NEWS SOURCE: Citizens Commission on Human Rights Keywords: General Editorial, CCHR, Nursing Homes, Dementia Care, Chemical Restraint, Citizens Commission on Human Rights International, LOS ANGELES, Calif. This press release was issued on behalf of the news source (Citizens Commission on Human Rights) who is solely responsibile for its accuracy, by Send2Press® Newswire. Information is believed accurate but not guaranteed. Story ID: S2P127084 APNF0325A To view the original version, visit: © 2025 Send2Press® Newswire, a press release distribution service, Calif., USA. RIGHTS GRANTED FOR REPRODUCTION IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY ANY LEGITIMATE MEDIA OUTLET - SUCH AS NEWSPAPER, BROADCAST OR TRADE PERIODICAL. MAY NOT BE USED ON ANY NON-MEDIA WEBSITE PROMOTING PR OR MARKETING SERVICES OR CONTENT DEVELOPMENT. Disclaimer: This press release content was not created by nor issued by the Associated Press (AP). Content below is unrelated to this news story.

USA Today

3 hours ago

• USA Today

Medicaid handouts only create dependency. Able-bodied adults should work.

Does Medicaid need an overhaul? Does Republicans' proposed $800 billion cuts go too far – or not far enough? Readers respond in USA TODAY's Opinion Forum. With the deadline for President Donald Trump and Republicans' "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" on the horizon, Americans are turning their attention to a major provision of the budget bill: changes to Medicaid. The bill calls for sweeping changes, including cuts of nearly $800 billion to the program, a mandatory work requirement of 80 hours per month, and an overhaul of the current Medicaid and Medicare systems – consolidating them for the purpose of centralized enrollment. Additional changes include banning federal funding for gender-affirming care and transitioning procedures and reducing the amount of federal funding allotted to states for noncitizens. As Congress debates these provisions before a final vote in the Senate, Americans are sounding off – largely in support of the program. More than 71 million Americans benefit from Medicaid, and new polls from KFF Health found 83% of respondents have a favorable view of Medicaid. More than half of respondents who are enrolled in Medicaid say changes to the program will make it "very difficult" to afford medications (68%), see a health care provider (59%) or get alternate insurance coverage (56%). A June 11 Quinnipiac University poll found half of American voters polled said funding for Medicaid should go up, not down, while an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released June 16 found that 50% of Americans think we spend too little on Medicaid. But we wanted to hear from you, our USA TODAY readers, directly. We asked what changes, if any, you want to see to the program and how Medicaid has impacted your life or the lives of those you know. Do the proposed cuts go too far? Or not far enough? Here's what you told us for our Opinion Forum. I couldn't have made it as a mom ‒ or cancer survivor ‒ without Medicaid As a Stage 3 breast cancer survivor, mother to a son with profound disabilities and a full-time working member of society, I've had to navigate the unimaginable. Without Medicaid, I could not have managed any of it. The program covers our son's in-home care, and it gave me the ability to focus on both my treatment and career. For families like mine, Medicaid is not a luxury ‒ it is the foundation that holds everything together. Proposed cuts threaten the care millions rely on. We must protect Medicaid so parents are not forced to choose among their health, their job and their children's needs. — Caroline Johnson, Louisville, Kentucky Able-bodied people should be working. Entitlements weren't meant to last forever. As I understand it, the only people who would be cut from Medicaid are able-bodied adults who would need to work a minimum number of hours a week to keep receiving it. I don't believe that disabled people, older folks and children would be affected. Also, illegal migrants would be kept off, because American taxpayers are not responsible for paying their way. We have enough American citizens who need help. Those who are not supposed to get these entitlements should be cut. These entitlement programs were never meant to be a way of life. They were supposed to be a safety net only for those who really needed them. Able-bodied adults should work. There is pride in working for what you need or want. Handouts only cause dependency, which is not good for anyone. Every citizen who is able should strive to be independent. The same should go for food stamps. It should only be for the really needy disabled, elderly and children with low incomes. — Renee Bertoni, Holley, New York Real government waste is MAGA's excess I am a retired Health and Human Services Department worker. I think this administration is so shortsighted about Medicaid and food assistance cuts for working families and individuals. If low-income people and working families have inadequate food and no medical coverage, it hinders their ability to work and function in society. All people deserve medical coverage and nutritious foods! I don't think I will ever support Republicans again. This is supposed to be a government for the people, by the people and of the people. These MAGA supporters are all lacking in human decency. Yes, I believe they will cut more and more because they are focused on self-indulgence. Increase taxes for the wealthy who have too much and know that "trickle-down economics" is just a buzz phrase. It doesn't work. Big cuts were made to the federal work force with no strategy and no concern for talented and dedicated employees, along with lots of publicity for fake fraud claims that didn't exist. The minions are hard at work trying to sell the public on their distorted strategy: more for them and less for everyone else. Let's think about the waste of the Trump military parade. That's what's shameful. — Joyce Schulz, Tawas City, Michigan As an ER doctor, I saw what cuts to Medicaid would cost us all As an emergency physician, I cared for uninsured patients who were signed up for Medicaid insurance in the emergency department. Medicaid health insurance allowed these patients to follow up with primary care doctors and providers who otherwise could not afford to care for uninsured people. Studies show that adding Medicaid insurance saves lives. And taking away Medicaid insurance leads to worse health outcomes. I am very concerned that any cuts to Medicaid insurance would lead to avoidable illness and even death for newly uninsured patients. Primary care physicians and specialists cannot afford to care for patients who lose their Medicaid health care coverage. Also, rural hospitals and rural clinics would lose a significant portion of their financial support from Medicaid. Primary care providers and rural hospitals would be forced to close their doors, leaving uninsured patients without access to care. I am afraid that Republican politicians will choose tax cuts for the rich over Medicaid health insurance for the poor. I think that Republican politicians should have their own government health insurance taken away from them. Why should taxpayers pay for the health insurance of these well-off Republicans who are voting to take away Medicaid from poor people? — Gary Young, Sacramento, California I've worked hard to get everything I have. Democrats don't seem to see people like me. I don't see the problem with having work requirements. If you can work, why not? As a taxpayer, I pay for my own medical insurance. I am single and have no dependents. I have no fault with us having a Medicaid program for the elderly, children and disabled, but that should be it unless you are working and need a short-term helping hand. I have been working full-time since I was 22, so I don't understand people having an issue with a work requirement to get medical coverage. I think we have to cut spending across the board. I hear Democrats talking about taking things away, but I don't seem to hear anything from them about how to cut spending. We are over $36 trillion in debt. If spending is not controlled, our country could go bankrupt, and then no one would have any programs to use. What is the Democrats' plan to get the debt under control? They had the past four years to do it, and you see where we are. I'm tired of the talk about these cuts going to the billionaires. We don't know for sure where it's going, and you can't understand how tired of this rhetoric people are. Additionally, I would like to see the cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development and Department of Education all codified so these programs do not exist. There seems to have been a bit of waste and abuse over many years that needs to be dealt with. I make under $70,000 a year, so I have worked hard to get where I am. I was a Democrat for over 35 years, and about five years ago, I went Republican, as parties seem to have switched. I believe that the Democrat Party is full of elitists who feel we poor peons will do what they tell us, rather than realizing a lot of peons can think for ourselves and should not be condescended to and not told we are bad peons if we disagree with them. — Teresa Loy, Tucson, Arizona My brother was saved by Medicaid. Many more would die without it. My brother had AIDS/HIV and AIDS-related cancer. He was too sick to work and relied on Medicaid for all his medical benefits, both physical and mental. He eventually worked for the nonprofit Hope and Help in Orlando. He was a mentor to others, a champion, an activist, an orator and a published writer. He died in August 2020. All his efforts and the efforts of many would die in vain without their medication that was available through Medicaid. I'm extremely worried. The effects aren't self-contained, and the negative effects would permeate into an already strained system. Medical insurance is unaffordable in this country's economy, and it only gets worse. The Republicans need to vote according to the wants and needs of their constituents and reinstall empathy in their party. Maybe that will resonate and 'trickle down.' We have to limit tax cuts for the wealthiest. And here's a novel idea: Let's go back to a time when employers paid for employees' health care and pensions. Those two items can't be supported by today's salaries. — Karen O'Donnell, Lake Mary, Florida

Yahoo

7 hours ago

• Yahoo

Key RFK Jr advisers stand to profit from a new federal health initiative

Federal health officials are seeking to launch a 'bold, edgy' public service campaign to warn Americans of the dangers of ultra-processed foods in social media, transit ads, billboards and even text messages. And they potentially stand to profit off the results. Ultra-processed foods are a fixation for the US health and human services (HHS) secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine skeptic who believes the US industrialized food supply is a 'primary culprit' behind many chronic diseases. 'We need to fix our food supply. And that's the number one thing,' Kennedy said at his confirmation hearing. Bringing healthier foods to Americans has proved to be one of the most resonant issues of Kennedy's 'Make America healthy again' (Maha) campaign – and arguably the only one that Democrats and Republicans agree on in principle. Kennedy has spent most of his tenure as health secretary dismantling key components of US vaccine infrastructure, instituting mass firings and defunding chronic disease prevention programs, such as for tobacco use. The secretary has been less successful in reigning in food makers. Food advocates have described voluntary changes between the government and manufacturers 'disappointing'. Kennedy was criticized by congressional Republicans for targeting agricultural pesticides in the 'Maha' report before it was even released – showing the limits of Republicans appetite for regulation, then the report itself was riddled with errors, likely generated by AI. 'The campaign's creative content will turn heads, create viral moments on social media, and – above all else – inspire Americans to take back their health through eating real food,' said a document published by the federal government that described the campaign. The campaign is expected to cost between $10m to $20m, according to documents. Anyone seeking to apply for the award will have a quick turnaround – the deadline is 26 June. 'The purpose of this requirement is to alert Americans to the role of processed foods in fueling the diabetes epidemic and other chronic diseases, inspire people to take personal responsibility for their diets, and drive measurable improvements in diabetes prevention and national health outcomes,' it continued. The new public relations campaign also highlights the Trump administration's unconventional approach to hiring – including its reliance on special government employees. A key adviser to Kennedy, Calley Means, could directly benefit from one of the campaign's stated aims: popularizing 'technology like wearables as cool, modern tools for measuring diet impact and taking control of your own health'. Calley Means is a senior Kennedy adviser, and was hired as a special government employee to focus on food policy, according to Bloomberg. He founded a company that helps Americans get such wearable devices reimbursed tax-free through health savings accounts. Casey Means is Calley's sister. She also runs a healthcare start-up, although hers sells wearable devices such as continuous glucose monitors. She is Kennedy's nominee for US surgeon general, and a healthcare entrepreneur whose business sells continuous glucose monitors – one such wearable device. Calley Means's company also works with Casey's company. Due to Calley Means's status as a special employee, he has not been forced to divest from his private business interests – a situation that has already resulted in an ethics complaint. Consumer advocates, such as the non-profit group Public Citizen, had warned such hiring practices could cause conflicts of interest. HHS did not respond to a request for comment about Calley Means's private business interests, or his role in crafting the publicity campaign. Although the publicity campaign focuses on the ultra-processed foods connection to diabetes, at least one high profile nutritionist was queasy about its focus. 'The ultra-processed foods – some of those include breakfast cereals that are ultra-processed because they are fortified with vitamins,' said Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health. 'Those are good if they're whole grain breakfast cereals and whole grain breads,' he said. Ultra-processed foods are generally recognized as sodas, salty snacks and frozen meals engineered to be shelf-stable, convenient and inexpensive. Such foods are associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes – or insulin resistance. The mechanism by which such foods could increase risk of diabetes is unknown, a problem that extends in part from the 'heterogeneous category' of foods that the ultra-processed category encompasses. The publicity campaign proposal does not venture into defining the category, even as Kennedy has fixated on it 'poisoning the American people'. 'When you say processed foods you don't envision a Coke in your brain, and that's the biggest problem,' said Willett, who added that most public service campaigns are carefully crafted and tested for effectiveness.