|
One thing about being unemployed - it allows you more time to read and think. In recent months, I’ve started to notice a troubling trend—and based on my research, I don't think I am the only one. Public health policy in the U.S. seems to be shifting away from long-term wellbeing and toward something harder to name, but easier to feel: neglect, erosion, and a quiet normalization of early death. That may sound alarmist. I don’t intend it to be. I’m not promoting conspiracies. But as someone who has worked in and around healthcare technology and policy for years—and someone who cares deeply about what happens to people in this country—I’ve learned to recognize patterns. And this one’s hard to ignore. We’re watching funding cuts and strategic retreats from the very programs designed to keep people healthy before crisis hits. The CDC’s influence has been systematically diminished. COVID booster approvals are now facing new hurdles under current HHS leadership. Chronic disease prevention programs—especially for diabetes and cardiovascular health—are being quietly deprioritized. We’ve even seen federal food assistance programs scaled back, despite mounting evidence that food insecurity is one of the strongest predictors of poor health outcomes. Much of this is happening in plain sight. Some is buried in committee decisions or drowned out by bigger headlines. But the result is the same: less access, less protection, and a slow unspooling of the public health safety net that generations fought to build. I’ve done my research. In 2023, the CDC’s budget for public health preparedness was cut by over $400 million. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reports that more than 16 million people lost Medicaid coverage in the last 18 months—many due to administrative red tape, not changes in eligibility. Under the current administration, the trend has accelerated: career scientists have been sidelined, longstanding sources of public health data and analysis have been defunded or eliminated, and entire branches of preparedness infrastructure are being stripped of resources. States continue to be encouraged to prioritize short-term cost savings over long-term investments in health equity and disease prevention. This isn’t just about policy nuance. This is about lives. And I can’t help but wonder: is this really about “saving money,” or is something deeper at play? Could the withdrawal from public health be part of a broader strategy—conscious or not—to reduce long-term entitlement obligations like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? After all, dead people don’t draw benefits. Or is this more ideological—a reflection of a government that no longer sees public health as its responsibility? I don’t pretend to have the answers. But after watching this space for decades, I know when something doesn’t add up. It wouldn’t be the first time. Public health has always been vulnerable to political cycles and budget cuts. But today’s retreat feels different—not just cyclical, but ideological. When Johns Hopkins reports that 45% of U.S. adults have hypertension, and The Lancet shows that American life expectancy now lags peer countries by nearly six years, the problem isn’t abstract. It’s measurable. It’s visible. And it’s here. We don’t need fear-mongering. We need accountability. We need leadership that values prevention, access, and dignity. The more we undermine public health, the more we normalize early death. That’s not a policy I can support. Source I Used and Related Readings
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorAxel Newe is a strategic partnerships and GTM leader with a background in healthcare, SaaS, and digital transformation. He’s also a Navy veteran, cyclist, and lifelong problem solver. Lately, he’s been writing not just from the field and the road—but from the gut—on democracy, civic engagement, and current events (minus the rage memes). This blog is where clarity meets commentary, one honest post at a time. ArchivesCategories
All
|
RSS Feed