State and local public health departments are bracing themselves as the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention pulls back about $11.4 billion in grants that were allocated to state and community health departments during the Covid-19 pandemic response.
“The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago. HHS is prioritizing funding projects that will deliver on President Trump’s mandate to address our chronic disease epidemic and Make America Healthy Again,” the US Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement Wednesday.
These funds were largely used for Covid-19 testing, Covid-19 vaccination and Covid-19 global projects, according to HHS, including for community health workers focused on populations most at risk from Covid-19.
Since the start of the pandemic five years ago, the United States has had more than 100 million Covid-19 cases and about 1.2 million deaths, according to data from KFF. People who are older, in some racial and ethnic minority groups or who have certain medical conditions have been more likely to experience severe outcomes from the virus.
The CDC expects to start recovering this money in about 30 days, according to HHS.
Notices about this termination in funding were sent out earlier this week to local health departments and organizations, said Lori Tremmel Freeman, chief executive officer of the National Association of County and City Health Officials. NACCHO could see about $10 million in funding rescinded, she said.
“These are Covid-era grants. Basically, they began during the Covid response, but they were largely part of agreements that extended beyond the emergency, so that some of the work of the emergency could be extended in an effort to prepare better for the next emergency, or to build infrastructure,” Freeman said, adding that some examples of this work include laboratory testing when people are sick, keeping immunization rates up and monitoring wastewater samples for the spread of disease. Some of these reductions in funding could lead to significant layoffs.
“These are things that could potentially, all of a sudden, impact what we’re doing on the ground today, even as we’re responding to current emergencies and outbreaks,” she said.
Brian Castrucci, president and CEO of the de Beaumont Foundation, a nonprofit that studies and supports the US public health workforce, called the termination “a devastating blow to public health” across the country, in big cities and rural areas.
The funds may not have been spent yet, but local health organizations would already have had plans for it, he said.
“People will lose jobs, programs will be reduced or cut, communities will be less safe,” Castrucci said. “That much money will likely touch nearly every aspect of the health department. This decision makes our communities and our country weaker, less safe, and threatens our economy.”
The federal funds were building the framework for stronger health responses going forward, including for measles and bird flu outbreaks happening now, said Dr. Joseph Kanter, the CEO of the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
“With congressional and executive branch support, these funds were being used to modernize data systems, bolster laboratory capacity, improve electronic case reporting of time-sensitive infectious disease outbreaks, improve H5N1 and measles testing, and enhance biomedical terrorism preparedness, to name just a few examples,” Kanter said in a statement. “We worry the abrupt loss of these activities will impair states and territories in their ability to respond to current and future threats.”
In Texas, Dr. Philip Huang, the director of Dallas Health and Human Services, said the cuts would impact epidemiology, contact tracing and lab testing, but would also hit efforts like diabetes education programs at local community centers.
The Minnesota Department of Health said the cuts terminated $226 million in grants to the state.
Typically, the federal government provides enough notice about funding changes to allow the state to secure other resources and avoid putting residents’ health at risk, it said. This time, the department said, the “unprecedented” change came suddenly, after spending was already approved by the federal government.
“In the past we could count on the federal government to uphold its commitments and obligations,” the health department said in a statement.
“It will take time to figure out all of the impacts of this action, but these cuts are a tremendous loss—made worse by the uncertainty and chaos that our federal partners have introduced into this process.”