Health

As the world still recovers from the effects of COVID-19, the culture of large in-person sporting events is nowhere close to finished. Big games bring joy to the diverse crowd in the stands, who bond over their favorite teams and players. Sports games are a sign of hope and fun after being confined due to the pandemic. 

However, these events can still be a major public health concern. While it may not have been given a second thought before early 2020, large sporting events can become a breeding ground for widespread diseases in mere seconds. To be able to continue these events, places holding them must act accordingly to keep the fans, and by extension, the world, safe.

The United States is soon to have a large influx of visitors from across the globe, who have the potential to cause a new outbreak. The 60,000+ capacity Philadelphia Stadium is preparing for one of its most anticipated events in 2026: the FIFA World Cup. 

Over the course of 3 weeks, Philadelphia will host 6 games with a large worldwide audience. Philadelphia’s public health officials are gearing up for any potential health hazards. The city is currently hosting the FIFA Club World Cup (a smaller version of the actual World Cup) and is using this event to prepare for what needs to happen next year. 

Disease surveillance measures are in place—one includes identifying the countries of visitors and their respective health concerns. Measles, in particular, is a top health priority. It is a highly infectious respiratory disease that can spread like wildfire in large settings, especially if people are unvaccinated or have a compromised immune system. Health professionals are prepared to watch out for its key symptoms and to nip the spread of the disease in the bud. Health professionals across Philadelphia are collaborating on health protocols as a preventative measure for what they believe will be the inevitable.

Can an outbreak really occur from this event? Yes, as no amount of safety procedures can one hundred percent guarantee that a massive crowd, such as this one, will not have any consequences. 

At the 2022 Beijing Olympics, despite their “zero COVID” health protocols and lack of the large audience the Olympics are used to, many people involved in the event still suffered from respiratory disease. Athletes were put at risk as their behind-the-scenes personnel tested positive. 

A more recent event includes the 2024 Paris Olympics. Complacency in implementing strict health procedures resulted in participating athletes and the city of Paris being hit with a rise in COVID cases. More rules were put in place after an increase in positive tests.

Large sporting events still have major positive effects despite being a source and cause of concern. They bring unlikely people and large communities together and encourage physical activity. It’s still possible to bring together everyone from across the globe, while continuing to have detailed measures that can control these potential problems. Philadelphia is an example of the world making the effort to safely have these events while still keeping the public’s health at the forefront. 

Measles was once declared eliminated in the United States by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2000 due to the success of vaccination efforts—however, it has made a quiet but alarming comeback. This raises a red flag for medical experts nationwide as measles is a highly contagious disease that causes a high fever, rash, cough and red eyes, mostly occurring in childhood.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported that as of June 19, 2025, a total of 1,214 confirmed measles cases were reported by 36 jurisdictions. From Alaska to Florida, the outbreak is spreading fast and trust is breaking faster. Yet as the numbers rise, the head of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is a longtime vaccine skeptic, has maintained a perplexing stance on vaccinations. While he now endorses vaccination publicly, his mixed messaging—promoting nutrition and vitamin A as alternatives while exaggerating vaccine risks—has raised doubt and confusion about vaccine safety.

 Dr. Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota and a former health department official, says the HHS actions on measles are “shouting with a whisper.” 

Public health experts warn that in the post-pandemic climate of digital misinformation and political sensitivity, this inaction could carry consequences far beyond measles.

The Avoidance Strategy

As cases rise, the federal response remains sadly minimal. Officials have urged parents to check their children’s immunization records, but have avoided stronger national measures. Unlike previous outbreaks, HHS has issued no public health emergency, mandated no national vaccination campaign, and initiated no coordinated messaging effort. The agency has instead leaned into a decentralized approach, leaving vaccination outreach to individual states and emphasizing voluntary vaccination and localized decision-making.

While this aversion may appear rooted in federalism, many analysts suggest it reflects a deeper political assessment. The backlash to COVID-19 policies—from mask orders to school closures—left federal institutions wary of overstepping.

Fatigue and Fragility

The U.S. is not alone. The current outbreak mirrors a larger global trend in the public health crisis. The World Health Organization has reported increasing measles cases in Europe, Southeast Asia and Africa, often in communities with declining vaccination rates.

Three years of managing COVID-19 left many national health systems financially strained and politically fragile. In the U.S., trust in public health institutions remains broken. For many health workers and policymakers, burnout has replaced urgency.

Preventable diseases are slipping through the cracks while no one’s watching. Right now, measles is just the first to make it loud.

The Misinformation Wildfire

The digital era has worsened vaccine skepticism, turning it into a fast-moving force. Misinformation, once confined to online forums, now spreads through short-form video, encrypted messaging apps, and AI-generated content. TikTok influencers and Telegram groups are amplifying conspiracy theories, often faster than platforms or public health agencies can respond.

A Pew Research Center study found that up to 65% of Americans have encountered vaccine misinformation online. 

An April 2025 poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 25% of U.S. adults falsely believe the measles vaccine causes autism. Nearly 1 in 5 think the vaccine is more dangerous than the virus itself. This is a claim not supported by any major health organization.

Despite this, HHS has yet to implement a significant strategy to counter false narratives or improve digital health literacy.

Lessons Ignored

Delays in federal public health responses are not new. In 1976, the U.S. launched a rushed swine flu vaccine rollout under public pressure. During the early AIDS crisis, political hesitation slowed life-saving action. Even during COVID-19, inconsistent messaging around masks and vaccination created long-term confusion.

These moments share a familiar pattern: warning signs, followed by inaction, followed by reactive pivots often too late to prevent widespread harm.

The current measles outbreak fits this pattern. Despite clear warning signs and available tools, national leadership has remained restrained.

The Crossroads

The United States can reverse this trend. Vaccines are widely available. Public health expertise is intact. But the willingness to act boldly appears uncertain.

Federal leaders now face a choice: prioritize science and clarity, or continue to tread lightly in fear of political fallout. Either way, the nation is watching.

It’s up to HHS now—act decisively, or let the virus decide what happens next.

Where is the line drawn for the safety and consideration of women with the rise of regressive abortion laws? There seems to be a lack of any drawn clearly enough. On June 13th, the baby of Adriana Smith, who was pronounced brain dead over four months ago, was delivered via emergency C-section in Georgia at Emory University Hospital.

In February, Smith, who was nine weeks pregnant, reported a series of headaches, but she hadn’t received further testing or scans. According to ABC News, her boyfriend woke up to her gasping for air. Hours later, after being transported from Emory Decatur to Emory University Hospital, she was declared brain dead. Her body was then kept on a ventilator, despite her overall condition.

Why was she kept alive?

Due to Georgia’s personhood, the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and Smith’s nine-week pregnancy, Emory University Hospital stated they were required to keep Smith on the ventilators. 

This situation goes all the way back to 2019, when Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signed into law the LIFE Act. According to a NIH study, most women do not know they are pregnant, or have “pregnancy recognition,” until after 7 weeks. Some women can not know they are pregnant until up to 20 weeks. However, the LIFE Act bans abortions once a heartbeat is detected, which usually occurs at six weeks. Women aren’t given the choice to have an abortion once that happens, despite them possibly not having the physical, mental, or financial circumstances to carry and raise a child safely. Smith was brain-dead, with no ability to protest her situation.

The 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade, which originally granted the federal right to have an abortion, also contributed to the decision by Emory University Hospital to keep Smith on ventilators. The LIFE Act was originally blocked, but was reinstated once the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision overturned Roe.

How could this happen?

The landmark Dobbs decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is a testament to the movement pushing for stronger control over abortion. This movement to remove abortion’s enshrined status as a right was abrupt, even though Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on the legality of abortion have long differed. Presently, the Pew Centre reports that the 46 percentage point partisan gap today is considerably larger than it was in the recent past, and that this change can be attributed to the current rise in conservatism. Right-leaning voters mention “family values” and reducing promiscuity as reasons for why they wish to remove abortion, thinking this would serve as the motivator for women to become more traditional, religious and marriage-oriented. 

Many ethicists have opined on their views on abortion, and more specifically on the right to have an abortion. These views differ again when we look at the stages of a pregnancy and if a pregnant woman has an equally valid right to abortion during each stage of her pregnancy. 

Celia Wolf-Devine from Stonehill College, a Catholic institution, explored contemporary society’s emphasis on the virtue of inclusion and the vice of exclusion. She claims that the call for inclusion emphasises the need to pay special attention to the more vulnerable members of society, who can easily be treated as non-persons in society’s commerce. She argued that our national practice of abortion, comparatively one of the most extreme in terms of legal permissiveness, is contradictory to the good of inclusion. Why? Because by classifying a fetus as a non-human, we witness extreme legal permissiveness to exclude them from life by condemning an entire category of human beings to death, often on the slightest of grounds. “There is something contradictory in a society that claims to be welcoming and protective of the vulnerable but that shows a callous indifference to the fate of human beings before the moment of birth…” writes America Magazine. It is posited that the exclusion of caring for a fetus is to turn away from protecting one of the most vulnerable, under the assumption that of course, the fetus embodies personhood, consciousness and the act of abortion to protect a mother's bodily autonomy is a harmful act to the fetus with equal measure of harm done.

In this case, it cannot be stated that Georgia would have shown callous indifference, given she is non-consenting. Being brain-dead would mean never being able to show conscious feeling, emotion, choice or movement. Yet, they keep her body alive as the law has stated her body’s functions serve a purpose in keeping a fetus alive. The moral right to life is being upheld for the fetus, at the expense of a moral grievance of keeping a forever-unconscious individual alive. 

In “A Defense of Abortion”, Judith Jarvis Thomson states that the right to life can never be equated, or cause one to be entitled to the right to use another person’s body to live. Georgia being kept on a ventilator is a sign that the fetus’s right to life was being placed above her own, despite the fetus never being able to keep itself alive. 

Family opinions and fetal law—what can be done next?

Adriana Smith has now been taken off life support and is officially declared “dead”. 

Typically, for cases such as Smith, in which she was brain dead, the choice to end life falls on other family members if advanced directive papers are not available. According to Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist from NYU Grossman School of Medicine, "There's no ethical justification for making unilateral decisions about what happened to Ms. Smith,” as he told ABC News.

The Georgia Advance Directive for Health Care Act of 2007 should not have applied to Smith, according to Thaddeus Pope, a law professor at the Mitchell Hamline School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota. Although the Act bars taking a woman off life support if a viable fetus is found, it wouldn’t have applied to Smith, as she was brain-dead. The decision to end life while terminating the pregnancy could have been up to Smith’s family members. Smith’s family didn’t have to legally be subject to watching their child be kept alive for another.

What does this mean for all women in the U.S. moving forward?

The baby, Chance, was delivered at 1 pound and 13 ounces, according to ABC News. His body measurements and overall condition are extremely under average for a newborn baby. He is now in the NICU, where he will have to remain for an unknown time. 

Now that the baby has been born, there are concerns about what will happen next for the future of women in America. 

If the baby can survive these next few weeks in the NICU and lead a “successful” life, will it give people an opportunity to argue that this was morally right? That turning a brain-dead woman into an incubator as her family hopelessly has to watch, is okay as long as there is some sort of life that comes out of it? Does the consideration of respecting a woman’s life and her family’s concerns no longer matter? 

The rise of more inhumane cases is possible if Smith’s baby remains alive. A future “I told you so” for conservatives who believe in no abortions or respecting a woman’s life.

The life of Adriana Smith and now her newborn baby was essentially turned into an experiment, an argument for those who support pro-abortion bans. She was forced to test how far hospitals, and more so the government, can control the lives of pregnant women who may not have any means to carry a child. As cases like these rise, the U.S. continues to push the boundary for how much women and their bodies can be controlled.

After years of complaints from physicians, patients, and policymakers, major U.S. health insurers promise to streamline the long-dreaded prior authorization process. These promises come in response to growing federal pressure, lawsuits, and widespread public frustration over treatment delays.

On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services  (HHS) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a new agreement with over 50 major health insurers to overhaul the prior authorization process. These companies—including UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates, and CVS Health—committed to reforms that will affect over 257 million Americans.

The initiative, coordinated by America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), aims to make prior authorization faster, more transparent, and easier for both patients and providers. AHIP President and CEO Mike Tuffin said insurers are working to “deliver a more seamless patient experience and enable providers to focus on patient care, while also helping to modernize the system.”

Kim Keck, President and CEO of the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, called the reforms “a meaningful step forward” in building a better system powered by technology and interoperability.

The Prior Authorization Problem

Prior authorization (PA) is the process by which insurers must approve certain medications, procedures, or specialist visits before coverage is granted. Initially designed as a cost-control mechanism, it has become synonymous with delays, denials, and administrative gridlock.

An American Medical Association survey found that 94% of physicians reported care delays due to PA requirements. Even for those with insurance, access to care was often at the mercy of paperwork and call center queues.

These burdens have triggered bipartisan concern. Lawmakers and patient advocacy groups alike have criticized PA as both opaque and outdated too often leaving patients in limbo and providers entangled in bureaucracy.

The Insurers' New Playbook

In response, some of the nation's largest insurers have announced voluntary moves to automate and expedite prior authorization processes. New AI-driven tools aim to process requests faster, and some insurers have committed to reducing the number of services that require PA altogether.

These efforts mirror CMS’s new federal rules, which require Medicare Advantage and Medicaid plans to respond to urgent PA requests within 72 hours by 2026 (CMS). But private insurers are not bound by the same enforcement mechanisms. This raises concerns about consistency and follow-through.

Automation may speed up the process, but it does not guarantee transparency, nor does it fix the fragmented structure that made prior authorization necessary in the first place.

Promises on Paper

According to the pledge, insurers will adopt real-time electronic prior authorization (ePA) systems by 2027, reduce the number of services requiring PA, and ensure that authorizations remain valid for at least 90 days—even when patients switch plans.

These reforms aim to cut administrative burden, reduce care delays and improve transparency for both patients and providers. The commitments include:

• Standardizing electronic prior authorizations using FHIR-based technology
• Reducing the number of services subject to PA by January 1, 2026
• Honoring existing authorizations during plan transitions
• Increasing transparency around decisions and appeals
• Expanding real-time decisions by 2027
• Requiring medical professionals to review all clinical denials

AI: The Shadow Behind the Streamlining

Earlier this year, the AMA also warned that insurers were increasingly relying on artificial intelligence to issue automated denials of care. These systems often generate "batch denials" with minimal human oversight, leading to delays, confusion, and in some cases, patient harm.

A March 2025 Investopedia report revealed that UnitedHealthcare’s AI-powered system, NaviHealth, contributed to a dramatic increase in denied post-acute care claims. Experts have warned that these tools lack transparency and are poorly regulated.

AI may speed up approvals but it’s also making it easier to deny care without oversight.

The Policy Gap

Despite the June pledges, insurers are not required to track or report the impact of AI on prior authorization outcomes. Nor are they bound by regulation to human-review thresholds or transparency standards.

That lack of enforceability has some experts calling for federal legislation that defines how AI can be used in medical decision-making and when humans must step in. These reforms may modernize paperwork, but without guardrails, AI may still call the shots.

The Road Ahead

Insurers say they want to rebuild trust. The June pledge is a signal that the industry is aware of its growing credibility crisis, especially among providers.

But true reform requires more than statements of intent. It demands transparency, accountability, and policy that matches the pace of technology.

Cannabis as a cure has been a long-held issue, constantly debated as to whether its medicinal and recreational uses are worth the potential harms. The shift towards legalization began as cultural ideology changed, pushing for the normalization of cannabis. Some advocate for its medical purposes, to help relieve certain symptoms, while others simply support it because it makes them feel good. 

The Title of Legalization

Currently, for adults, cannabis is legalized for recreational use in 24 states, medical use in 15 states, and illegal in 12 states. The legal status of cannabis entails more than just its public use; supporters of cannabis argue that its legalization will redirect sales from underground sites to trackable venues. Allowing cannabis to be more easily traced can help reduce crime rates caused by illegal markets. This relieves drug-related crime cases from law enforcement, letting them relocate their time to more significant issues. Frequent victims of unfair marijuana-related prosecution include minority groups, deemed criminals from racist foundations. 

Opponents of cannabis legalization claimed that its normalcy will cause a domino effect, leading to more detrimental drugs being smuggled into the U.S. borders. Furthermore, its legalization for adults will most definitely affect children under 18 as well—cannabis could be easily obtained and dealt with, just like alcohol.

In addition to its effect on crime, cannabis legalization would put it under economic consideration. Cannabis sales could be taxed by the state and greatly increase state tax revenue. Colorado, Washington, Oregon, and California all imposed heavy taxes on recreational cannabis in addition to baseline state taxes. For Colorado, this resulted in almost a $20 million increase per month for recreational cannabis. 

Medicinal Use

Cannabis is heavily used as a pain-reliever, and is shown as a more effective treatment than traditional painkillers. For patients suffering from other illnesses and run-off symptoms, cannabis would help them withstand painful yet necessary treatment. 

CBD, which is found in cannabis, is often prescribed in forms of oils, tablets, and other tinctures. CBD specifically has been found to relieve alcohol and opioid addiction. It can reduce the psychological effects caused by alcohol withdrawal, such as anxiety and stress. However, substituting CBD for alcohol must be a careful and gradual process, as alcohol abuse could turn into CBD addiction, which is equally harmful. 

For more specific ailments, CBD is currently being studied to relieve or cure Parkinson’s disease, schizophrenia, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, and more. Make note that cannabis as a whole is not seen as medically helpful—only CBD, the “mellow” component in cannabis, is used, as opposed to THC, which causes the “high” cannabis is most known for. THC specifically cannot be prescribed. Doctors may only recommend specific doses and quantities taken, but cannot supersede federal law, which makes THC illegal, even in states where it's legalized.  

Cannabis as a whole has not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for medical use. While components of it are legally offered as treatment, more studies must be done to determine the extent of cannabis’ medical use.

Cannabis for Health

This topic is still being researched by the top facilities and hospitals around the world. Determining whether cannabis should be legalized for its medical purposes also brings forth a flood of factors to consider regarding recreational use. Even just for health reasons, cannabis is too unknown to completely support or object to. Current research shows that cannabis can alleviate many symptoms and even act as a treatment in some cases, but there are many outlets still too unknown to fully determine whether reward overcomes risk. 

If cannabis gets legalized for health purposes, recreational use will follow suit, a social issue that intertwines with broader issues like crime and the economy. For now, hospitals and the FDA will continue to research the impacts of cannabis medically and help determine whether federal legalization is the next step forward.

“The One Big Beautiful Bill” Passes the House

On July 3rd, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act to be sent to the President’s desk to be signed. In a narrow vote of 218-214, after an already close vote in the Senate at 51-50, the Big Beautiful Bill is set to be signed into action by President Donald Trump on July 4th.

What does this mean for the future of Americans’ Healthcare? 

Many proposals were introduced in the One Big Beautiful Bill, many involving budget cuts for millions of Americans’ healthcare. About 1.04 trillion dollars from the federal budget will no longer be going to Medicaid over the next ten years. 

There are new requirements for receiving Medicaid in the 40 states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. This includes having to prove that one is working, going to school, or volunteering at least 80 hours a month. Exceptions to this rule will have to be applied for and approved, such as proving having taken care of a young child. The other 10 states that did not expand Medicaid coverage to disabled people will not have to abide by these rules. 

Along with the budget cuts, rural hospitals will face danger in remaining open. Although the “One Big Beautiful Bill” allocates 50 billion to supporting rural hospitals, ultimately, it is not enough to offset the money that will be lost in the Medicaid Provider Tax Cuts. Provider taxes have kept many rural hospitals afloat; however, with the reduction of taxes from 6% to 3.5%, these rural healthcare settings will lose a significant amount of funding.

Who is Most Affected by This?

Millions of Americans are set to lose their healthcare coverage, and nearby hospitals. 

Those who are unable to work full time or leave their home, such as the mentally and physically disabled, will most likely lose their Medicaid status as they will be unable to fulfill the 80-hour per month work requirements. Others who will lose out on Medicaid due to this requirement include family caregivers and new parents who must be at home, and those who are unable to have a regular paying job. 

Rural populations will lose out. Many populations rely on one nearby hospital, with the next one over being tens or hundreds of miles away from their home. With the provider tax cuts that these hospitals rely on being cut, more rural hospitals will continue to close. About 200 rural hospitals have closed due to funding problems within the past two decades, and now more are at risk over the next few years. Examples of the states that will be most affected by this include Kentucky, North Carolina, Illinois, and New York. More than 10 states will be heavily affected by these rural hospital closures.

What are the projected health outcomes?

Americans losing their healthcare is only projected to increase financial strain and worsen overall healthcare outcomes. The Americans who lose their Medicaid coverage will have to budget even more to survive and get their basic needs (food, shelter, etc.) met. Americans will delay getting the immediate help and prescriptions they need, which will affect their overall physical and mental health. More people will have to suffer from serious illness and injury.

In rural areas, especially, death rates and long-term illness will only increase. Without the ability to receive immediate attention in the case of an emergency, paired with lost healthcare coverage, rural populations will not receive the care they need on time. 

Politicians who voted for this bill will now be responsible for the inevitable lives that will be lost due to these Medicaid cuts and lower provider tax rates.

On June 25, 2025, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the Tristin Murphy Act (Senate Bill 168) and a complementary mental health initiative (SB 1620), marking a significant shift toward mental health care over direct incarceration. These statutes include mandatory early mental health screenings for inmates and diversion pathways to treatment, alongside rural school mental health reforms. 

The new laws respond to tragic cases and long-standing systemic gaps. Backed by bipartisan support, these reforms represent one of the most comprehensive mental health expansions in recent Florida history.

Florida’s Growing Mental Health Crisis

Recent findings from the Florida Department of Children and Families present a serious reality: mental health challenges are widespread across the state and growing more urgent. Over the past year, an estimated 400,000 children and adolescents in Florida have struggled with serious emotional, behavioral, or developmental issues directly placing additional strain on already limited support systems.

Mental health concerns among youth have also intensified, with nearly one in three reporting they had seriously considered suicide within the last 12 months. This is a troubling indicator of a deeper crisis in adolescent well-being.

Among adults, the data paints a similarly concerning picture. Approximately 5% of Florida’s civilian population lives with a serious mental illness, and 15% have struggled with substance use disorders in the same period. Both conditions often go untreated due to a lack of access.

One of the most significant barriers remains a lack of providers. As of the latest assessment, almost every county in Florida—a staggering 98.5%—is experiencing a shortage or total absence of local mental health professionals. This has pushed vital mental health support into alternative spaces like schools and correctional facilities, making programs like SB 168 and SB 1620 all the more essential.

And yet, even as mental health needs rise, Florida ranks among the lowest in the nation for calls made to the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

A Legislative Response to Tragedy

Named after Tristin Murphy, a 37-year-old inmate with schizophrenia, who died by suicide in 2021 while in prison and had been denied mental health treatment and medication in the weeks leading up to his death. His mother, Cindee Murphy, told lawmakers there were several missed opportunities to save him. The Tristin Murphy Act aims to reduce the incarceration of nonviolent individuals struggling with severe mental illness. Under SB 168, arrested individuals will be screened for mental illness within 24 hours of booking; eligible cases may be diverted to mental health treatment rather than jail. By October 1, new diversion programs—spanning misdemeanors to pretrial felonies—will be operational across Florida counties.

The bill entails the following:

• Allows counties and municipalities to establish misdemeanor mental health diversion programs and pretrial felony diversion programs.
• Gives sheriffs, courts, and treatment providers a clear process for routing people with serious mental illness out of the criminal justice system and into care.
• Expand the Criminal Justice, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse Reinvestment Grant Program to include a new focus on veteran treatment court programs and emergency responder training.
• Requires mental health evaluations for individuals with a history of incompetency adjudications before they’re placed on probation and returned to society, closing a dangerous loophole.

Investment in a Broader Mental-Health Strategy

Alongside prison reform, SB 1620 implements recommendations from the  Florida Commission on Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder.  The bill represents a more comprehensive effort to address mental health systematically across Florida. It includes enhanced discharge planning—incorporating long-acting injectable medications—expanded mobile crisis teams for seniors, and workforce development incentives. It also renamed the University of Southern Florida Mental Health Institute the “Senator Darryl E. Rouson Center” to lead substance abuse and behavioral health research. 

SB 1620 also targets Florida’s education system, mandating biennial reviews of telehealth accessibility in K–12 settings. This initiative aims to close digital access gaps and ensure students in remote areas are not left without support. The bill provides funding to expand school-based mental health services, especially in underserved and rural areas. It also establishes a framework for school districts to collaborate with local mental health providers and develop comprehensive crisis response plans.

Broader Context and Implementation Outlook

Together, SB 168 and SB 1620 reflect a growing acknowledgment that mental health is integral to public safety, education, and community well-being. They also signal a policy shift—one that favors proactive mental health care rather than reactive intervention.

However, questions remain about implementation. Advocates have raised concerns about funding consistency, staffing shortages in behavioral health professions and ensuring these programs reach the people most in need.

Still, mental health advocates have welcomed the effort.

In late March 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a sweeping reorganization of the department, eliminating roughly 10,000 positions and consolidating 28 sub-agencies into 15. Branded the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, the restructuring aimed to streamline operations and reduce federal bureaucracy.

By July, the department had finalized a portion of those cuts amid growing legal scrutiny.  On July 1, a federal judge halted further terminations, issuing a preliminary injunction that labeled the layoffs “likely unlawful.” Legal experts and employee unions argue the changes violated federal hiring protections and risk destabilizing crucial public health services.

Scope of the Layoffs

The scale of the job cuts is massive. According to CNN, the reorganization reduced the HHS workforce from 82,000 to roughly 62,000. Around 10,000 of those positions were cut outright, while another 10,000 employees left voluntarily amid internal uncertainty.

Furthermore, there are about 5,200 probationary workers who have been in their positions for less than a year or two and were terminated in June. Most have been placed on paid temporary administrative leave while their futures are decided in federal court. 

The cuts heavily impacted public health divisions, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which repeatedly rescinded layoffs affecting hundreds of employees, including in branches that monitor HIV, hepatitis, and other diseases: the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Many employees reported system lockouts and sudden termination notices.

Legal Pushback

On July 1, U.S. District Court Judge Melissa DuBose granted a preliminary injunction sought by a coalition of attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia in a lawsuit filed in early May. These legal backers argued the restructuring violated statutory requirements for fair process and congressional oversight.

She emphasized that employees were suffering "irreparable harm," and ruled that the cuts appeared “arbitrary and capricious” because they bypassed federal civil service protections. DuBose also stated the executive branch lacked the authority to unilaterally dismantle agencies created by Congress.

Legal Context & Court Developments

• Initial injunction: Issued on July 1, it immediately blocked any additional layoffs.
• Supreme Court impact: A separate Supreme Court decision earlier in July lifted lower court blocks on similar actions, allowing federal agencies—including HHS—to proceed with mass layoffs pending ongoing litigation. HHS formally commenced cuts again shortly after.
• Court ruling: On July 14, a federal court ruled in favor of HHS, allowing the department to move forward with the restructuring and layoffs despite ongoing legal challenges..

Justifying the Cuts

Kennedy defended the downsizing, characterizing it as a necessary step to streamline costly agencies and reduce redundancies at HHS. He cited plans to eliminate "inefficient and wasteful bureaucracy," and to save an estimated $1.8 billion annually. He told AP News the agency needed to "do more with less" and restore mission focus.

He also stated, “There’s so much chaos and disorganization in this department” during the May 14th hearing.

Public Health Fallout

Many experts worry the layoffs have real-world health consequences. ABC News reports that reductions at the CDC threaten current disease surveillance, while the FDA’s ability to inspect and regulate food and drugs has also been weakened.

Milwaukee’s health commissioner, Mike Totoraitis, said his team had been depending on CDC experts for support in investigating lead exposure and assisting affected families, only to find out that the entire CDC team they were collaborating with had just been laid off.

Internal memos, reviewed by CNN, show slowed response times for vaccine distribution grants and reduced lab staffing, raising concerns over preparedness for future health crises.

The Road Ahead

In the wake of ongoing restructuring, the Department of Health and Human Services is proceeding with a controversial reorganization plan that has triggered legal challenges and public concern. Following a Supreme Court ruling, HHS finalized a portion of its employee layoffs, part of a broader initiative to consolidate operations and reduce its workforce. While the legal battles continue for some employees, the long-term effects on public health services, staff capacity, and agency trust remain uncertain. The department now faces the critical task of implementing reform without compromising its core mission.

139 employees of the Environmental Protection Agency have been put on administrative leave since July 3rd. But why? 

On Monday, June 30th, a disinterest letter was made public, supported by over 170 employees of the EPA. About 100 employees signed in anonymously, out of fear of backlash and retaliation. Under the Trump Administration, many changes have been made to the EPA that the employees stated “undermine the EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment". These changes include reducing funding for environmental justice programs in America’s most vulnerable communities (People of Color, LGBTQ+, disabled, etc.), supporting the use of AI without acknowledging its large use of natural resources, the move to repeal rules that would limit air pollution in national parks and Native American reservations, and more. 

The employees stated their devotion to the EPA mission for the American people, listed their five primary concerns, and called on the new Administrator Zeldin to listen and follow the oath of the EPA.

Not long after, during that same week, 139 employees were put on administrative leave. In an email obtained by the Associated Press, the notice letter stated that employees were being put on “temporary, non-duty, paid status” for the next two weeks, pending an “administrative investigation”. 

More than the EPA: The NIH’s Similar Letter

EPA has not been the first federal agency to express its frustration towards the ongoing changes and cuts due to the Trump Administration. Since Trump has entered office, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Education, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and more have gone through extreme position terminations, research study cancellations and discontinuations, and more.

In Early June, employees of the NIH released their letter of dissent, The Bethesda Declaration, stating how the federal budget cuts to research will hurt Americans, and essentially, the globe, without efforts to further science and findings. However, unlike the EPA employees, the NIH members were not put on administrative leave for supporting the letter.

Fear and Free Speech

The move by the EPA to put their employees on administrative leave only furthers the letter’s fifth concern, which was “Promoting a culture of fear, forcing staff to choose between their livelihood and well-being.”. EPA employees stated how OMB director Russel Vought has said, "When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down so that the EPA can’t enforce all of the rules against our energy industry [...] We want to put them in trauma.” 

Vought’s previous statement and actions within the EPA thus far do not promote a safe working environment for those at the EPA. 

If federal agencies’ employees cannot stand up for their mission without backlash, who can? Employees cannot even sign a public letter of dissent with their names for fear of retaliation, with their fears being proven right with the EPA’s recent leave notices. 

The EPA’s move to scare employees who simply disagree and criticize the current Administration’s actions into submission only pushes forward the notion of America’s fall into authoritarianism. Every day, more people, from federal agency employees to immigrants entering the country, are barred from their jobs and futures for their public dissent against the Trump Administration's actions against the average American citizen. 

There’s no telling what can happen next for those who disagree with not wanting budget cuts that protect the health and well-being of millions. One day, it can be administrative leave, the next, more extreme measures to protect and shield conservative actions made by the government.

The odiferous scent of secondhand smoke is quite familiar to many. Constant exposure has resulted in long-lasting health issues, making nonsmokers cautious of its presence. But how does one avoid such an environment when air itself harbors cancer-causing pollutants? 34,000 adults prematurely die annually from heart disease caused by secondhand smoke. While constant exposure is the cause for serious maladies, a slight inhalation of cigarette smoke can set the cancer particles in motion. The fortunate aspect is that these risks can be mitigated by extra trepidation and care, especially in larger urban areas where secondhand smoke may be more prevalent. But now, micro-pollutants are found to be more detrimental. For nonsmokers, evading coronary heart disease, strokes, and lung cancer just became a lot harder.

The Study

The experiment involved 871 nonsmokers across diverse geographic locations. Through these participants, researchers found that the TP53 gene—normally altered due to tobacco—was also afflicted in the nonsmokers. Telomeres, sections of DNA found at the end of chromosomes, were also identified to have prematurely shrunk. This is usually found among the elderly, whose cells are unable to replicate further. 

This study brought forth a new perspective; before this, most cases of lung cancer and such were focused specifically on tobacco smokers. This revelation in cancer-related DNA mutations shows the extent of the environment’s influence and may cause more studies to be done on preventative measures. Hopefully, the level of damage may alert corporations and the public to find alternatives to combat micro-pollutants caused by motor vehicles and other fossil fuel-dependent machinery. 

The surprising conclusion of this study was that while secondhand smoke was linked to “slightly higher mutation burdens and shorter telomeres,” the tumors in non-exposed patients had increased cancer-related mutations, positing that air pollution is more gene-mutation causing than tobacco. 

Global Effects 

The concern is that while smoking is globally decreasing, particularly in the U.S. and U.K., the majority of lung cancer patients are becoming nonsmokers who are exposed to poor environments out of their control. In China, more than a million deaths occur due to smoking and worsening air quality. East Asia, in particular, is more prone to certain cancers than other geographic regions. 

Seoul, Korea, in particular, is cited as having one of the worst air qualities in the world. Many of its pollutants are caused by Korea’s dependence on diesel fuel, once again, to power motor vehicles. “In 2019, the average concentration of ultrafine dust (PM2.5) in South Korea was the worst among the member countries of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).” Chile faces similar problems. 

Air pollutants have diffused across the globe and will remain a prevalent issue for decades to come. Attempts at clean energy are more significant than ever, not just for the future of our planet, but for the current population as well.

In 1796, Edward Jenner administered the first ever successful vaccine. Smallpox, one of the deadliest diseases ever, caused an estimated 300-500 million deaths in the 19th century. It is now the only human disease to have been completely eradicated through vaccination. Today, AI is being used to create drugs and, like the vaccine, cure diseases, marking a major advancement in medicine and healthcare. 

The First AI-Developed Drug to Reach Human Trials

Isomorphic Labs, a subsidiary of Alphabet, recently revealed that it was preparing to begin the first human clinical trials of medicines designed entirely by artificial intelligence. Colin Murdoch, the President of Isomorphic Labs and Chief Business Officer at Google DeepMind, told Fortune that the company is gearing up to test its AI-created drugs on real, human patients. These drugs for cancer were developed through human-AI collaboration. 

The company, which spun out of Google DeepMind in 2021, has already established major partnerships with pharmaceutical giants Novartis and Eli Lilly. In March 2025, Isomorphic Labs raised an impressive $600 million in its first external funding round, signaling strong support for its AI-driven approach to medicine. 

The AI models used by Isomorphic Labs can analyze vast amounts of biological data, identify drug targets, and design new compounds. Their model is a more refined version of AlphaFold, an AI developed by John Jumper and 2024 Chemistry Nobel Prize Winner Demis Hassabis. AlphaFold can predict individual protein structures and model complex molecular interactions. Inspired by this, Isomorphic Labs enhanced its functionality, allowing it to model interactions between proteins and molecules like DNA and drugs. Its evolution was essential to its role in streamlining the drug discovery process and accelerating the development of new medicines. 

Isomorphic Labs is placing all its bets on AI, which it believes is the key to unlocking drug discovery at a rate and scale unlike anything seen before. Its mission is to “solve all diseases” with AI, and human trials for its AI-developed drug are just the first step. 

AI in Medicine

Aside from drug development, AI has shown signs of progress in other areas of medicine, including diagnosis, screening, and treatment. Microsoft’s new AI Diagnostic Orchestrator (MAI-DxO) is a generative artificial intelligence tool used to accurately support complex medical diagnoses. Acting as a “virtual panel of diverse physicians,” the system takes on the role of multiple general and specialized doctors -- dubbed in a new report as “medical superintelligence”. The Microsoft report claims that their AI tool is around four times more accurate than a human physician in diagnosing complex issues--and it does so at a lower cost.

MAI-DxO was paired with OpenAI’s 03 reasoning model to understand complex topics. The pairing creates an AI-generated panel of doctors to ask questions, order medical testing, and provide a diagnosis based on follow-ups. When compared with the diagnostic results of 21 human physicians in 304 cases, MAI-DxO solved 85.5% correctly, while the real-life physicians only solved 20% correctly. The disparity can be largely attributed to the physician’s lack of access to books and tools they’d typically use, but this highlights how the AI can speed up the healthcare process and decrease costs for patients. 

Furthermore, the report reveals that Microsoft’s AI consumer products see more than 50 million health-related queries every day, emphasizing the growth of the digital health market. 

Another AI device called iSeg, which can perform tumor segmentation, was developed by Northwestern Medicine. Tumor segmentation, which involves identifying and outlining tumors within medical images, is a complex and challenging process for doctors. It can take multiple visits and scans, and lots of time and energy for a patient.

iSeg employs 3D imagery to clearly understand the tumor -- even as the patient moves or breathes. The AI mapping can also expose areas that doctors may miss with manual segmentation. These areas are usually critical to diagnosis and determining the outcome for a patient. AI technology not only helps doctors treat cancer even more precisely but also closes socioeconomic gaps in healthcare by providing easier diagnoses to certain underdiagnosed groups. 

AI has made strides in medicinal research, development, and diagnosis already, but further testing is needed, and limitations still exist. AI developments have yet to pass clinical trials. Once they do, they can be used in real medical situations, where consistency and accuracy are not just a wish but a necessity. 

Implications and Future Use

As the medical industry approaches an inflection point, AI is redefining the boundaries of care. While models like those from Isomorphic Labs and Microsoft continue designing drugs and making diagnoses more accurately than doctors, medical innovation is shifting to algorithms and technology. All eyes are on the future, where medicine may be led by data-driven AI rather than experience-driven doctors. 

At the same time, AI is collapsing the timeline of medical progress. What once took decades is now feasible in months. At this rate, AI will redefine what it means for a disease to be “incurable” or an issue “undiagnosable.” The future of healthcare is in AI, and the future of AI is in our hands.

On July 2, 2025, the World Health Organization unveiled “3 by 35,”  an ambitious global campaign to increase taxes on tobacco, alcohol, and sugary beverages by at least 50% by 2035. The WHO says this tax boost could prevent 50 million premature deaths over the next five decades and generate up to US$1 trillion in revenue for health and social programs.

Why “3 by 35” Matters

Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs)—like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes—are the leading cause of death and disability worldwide and claim over 75% of deaths globally, largely due to unhealthy consumption patterns. Tobacco alone causes over 7 million deaths annually. The WHO maintains that price hikes on harmful products are one of the most cost-effective tools for cutting use and saving lives, as well as a way of raising money, as development aid is shrinking and public debt is rising.

From 2012 to 2022, nearly 140 countries raised tobacco taxes enough to push retail prices up by more than 50% and generate up to US$3.7 trillion in new revenue globally within five years, or an average of US$740 billion per year – equivalent to 0.75% of global GDP.. That track record proves that large-scale change isn't sci-fi and can really happen. 

Revenue as Prevention

The WHO estimates the campaign could mobilize US$1 trillion over the next decade by 2035 based on evidence from health taxes in countries such as Colombia and South Africa. This would give countries essential funds for domestic health systems amid declining foreign aid and growing public debt.

"Health taxes are one of the most efficient tools we have," said Jeremy Farrar, WHO assistant director-general of health promotion and disease prevention and control. "It's time to act." 

Speaking at a global health financing summit in Seville, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus emphasized that raising taxes on harmful products like tobacco, alcohol, and sugary drinks could help countries "adjust to the new reality" and bolster their health systems with the money raised.

His remarks come as many low- and middle-income nations face shrinking international aid, particularly due to reductions led by the United States, which crippled vital health services related to HIV, nutrition, maternal and child health, and reproductive health in many African, Asian, and Latin American countries. Notably, the U.S did not participate in the Seville conference and is currently in the process of formally exiting the World Health Organization.

An example given by WHO health economist Guillermo Sandoval showed that middle-income nations raising taxes on the product will push prices to rise from $4 today to $10 by 2035, taking into account inflation, netting huge revenue boosts.

Global Backing & Real-World Wins

The initiative is backed by Bloomberg Philanthropies, the World Bank, the OECD, and a coalition of civil society partners.

 Around the world, nations are witnessing tangible outcomes from raising taxes on harmful products. In places like Colombia and South Africa, these measures have not only curbed the consumption of unhealthy goods but also boosted government revenue.

Countries including Lithuania and Sri Lanka have reported positive health and economic impacts after increasing alcohol taxes. More recently, Brazil, Vietnam, and Bhutan have also moved to hike taxes on alcoholic beverages, joining the global shift toward using fiscal policy to protect public health.

Pushback from Industry

Major beverage industry groups are pushing back against the initiative, claiming that health taxes are ineffective and may even lead to unintended consequences like increased illicit trade. Kate Loatman, Executive Director of the International Council of Beverages Associations, criticized the WHO's stance, arguing there’s “over a decade” of data showing no real impact on health or obesity from sugar-sweetened beverage taxes.

However, data from countries that implemented sugary drink taxes suggest otherwise. For instance, two years after Mexico’s first sugary sweetened beverage (SSB) tax was first adopted, there had been a 37% reduction in total volumes of drinks purchased, one study found. Furthermore, after South Africa’s 10% sugary drink tax (excluding fruit juice), sugar consumption from these drinks dropped by 57% among lower-income groups. In response, manufacturers reformulated products to reduce sugar content. This highlights both behavioral and industry-level shifts.

Three Core Strategies

“3 by 35” has a playbook of three key actions:

1. Mobilize political momentum by engaging heads of state, ministries, and civil society.
2. Support country-specific policy design, including legal frameworks and data guidance.
3. Build commitments and partnerships for public advocacy and multisectoral accountability.

Challenges Ahead

Tax hikes in this situation are smart but not easy. Countries must navigate industry resistance, balance affordability and equity, and plug loopholes like tax exemptions.

Tying taxes directly to domestic health spending will be essential to maintaining public trust. WHO also warns that long-term investment contracts and incentives to unhealthy industries remain key roadblocks.

Broader Implications

“3 by 35” isn’t just about better taxes; it is a call for self-reliant health financing, especially in low and middle-income nations. With Official Development Assistance (ODA) shrinking, low- and middle-income countries may lean on these revenues to sustain Universal Health Coverage and other health goals.

The campaign also sends a clear signal ahead of the UN High-Level Meeting on NCDs in September 2025, reinforcing taxation as a cornerstone strategy.

Final Insight

The "3 by 35" initiative—aiming to help 75% of countries implement health taxes by 2035—is a big and bold move by the World Health Organization (WHO). It is not just talk but backed by real evidence showing health taxes work. They reduce harmful consumption and boost government revenue, making it both a public health strategy and an economic one.

The hardest part is doing the work, not just announcing it. Governments of different countries have to step up, pass laws, and stand up to industry pressure, integrating the health taxes into national policy.

The challenge has been issued. WHO is calling out world leaders: Will they do this? Or just nod at the idea and keep things business as usual?

The recent endorsement of psychedelic therapies by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and a cohort of former Trump administration officials marks an unusual development in American health policy. MDMA, commonly known as ecstasy or Molly, has been illegal under U.S. federal law since 1985. It is classified as a Schedule I substance, alongside drugs like marijuana and psilocybin. In the aftermath of the FDA’s recent rejection of MDMA-assisted therapy for veterans’ PTSD during the Biden administration, a new, growing coalition of political figures is pressing for a reassessment of how psychedelic compounds might be used to treat mental illnesses.

Advocacy Realignment

By July 2025, support for psychedelics had moved beyond its traditional base. Kennedy, along with former Trump officials Ben Carson and Jerome Adams, expressed interest in advancing psychedelic therapies for hard-to-treat mental health conditions, “This line of therapeutics has tremendous advantage if given in a clinical setting and we are working very hard to make sure that happens within 12 months.” said Kennedy to Congress, as reported by AP News.

Historically, MDMA has long been tied to counterculture movements, criminalized in the 1980s, and associated with raves and progressive reform circles. The involvement of more mainstream and conservative figures is a shift in the voices advocating for these therapies, moving the issue into bipartisan territory.

Regulatory Caution and Potential Reconsideration

Within the past year, federal regulators have pushed back. In June 2024, the FDA’s advisory committee voted 10 to 1 against approving MDMA therapy for PTSD due to concerns about “flawed data and questionable research”. More specifically, panelists raised concerns about unblinded study designs that may have biased results, the potential for therapist influence on participants’ responses, and insufficient long-term safety data, resulting in the ultimate conclusion that the results, while promising, were not reliable enough to justify approval at this stage.

However, the agency has demonstrated openness to reconsideration. FDA Chief Marty Makary explained to Kennedy that the review of MDMA and similar psychedelic treatments is a “top priority” and outlined new initiatives to accelerate approval. 

Veteran Branding

Veterans have become a central focus in the effort to advance psychedelic medicine. Organizations like the Veterans Mental Health Leadership Coalition have pushed lawmakers to prioritize research into MDMA-assisted therapy, framing it as a moral obligation to support those who served. Through centering veterans, figures who often facilitate bipartisan respect, advocates are depoliticizing the issue and expanding its reach. 

But this also raises an equity concern: If veteran-focused appeals drive legislative action, will similar support be extended to other marginalized groups experiencing trauma, such as incarcerated populations or those with treatment-resistant depression, who lack similar symbolic capital?

State-Level Legislation

Oregon became the first state to legalize the supervised use of psilocybin in 2023 due to recent research supporting the treatment of PTSD, depression, end-of-life anxiety, and other mental health concerns. Colorado followed in 2022, decriminalizing certain natural psychedelics and creating a regulated access model for psilocybin therapy. Other states, including California and Washington, are considering similar legislation. 

Next Steps and Conclusion

Looking ahead, research into psychedelic therapies is expanding rapidly as interest and publicity grow. A 2022 Johns Hopkins study funded by the NIH found that psilocybin-assisted treatment significantly eased major depression symptoms, with benefits lasting up to a year for some patients.

The political landscape around psychedelic therapy is dynamic, bringing together voices from across the spectrum. Although this growing support offers an opportunity to rethink mental health treatment, it also introduces a new challenge: policymakers must balance the public demand with standards of scientific evaluation.

New data released by the World Health Organization and UNICEF show that in 2024, 89% of infants received at least one diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis (DTP) vaccine dose, while 85% completed the full three‑dose course. Yet behind these figures lies a critical concern: 14.3 million infants received no routine vaccines at all, remaining completely unprotected against preventable diseases. These “zero‑dose” children threaten to reverse decades of progress in global child health. Most of these cases are concentrated in conflict-affected and low-resource settings, raising serious alarms among global health leaders.

 The Scope of the Problem  

• Approximately 115 million infants received at least one DTP dose, and 109 million completed all three doses, which is just a modest gain from 2023.
• Yet nearly 20 million infants missed at least one DTP dose, which includes the 14.3 million zero‑dose children—4 million more than the 2024 Immunization Agenda 2030 target.
• These zero‑dose cases are largely concentrated in just 26 fragile or conflict-affected countries, which collectively account for 50% of all children with no vaccinations.

Where the Zero-Dose Focus Fell Short

Zero-dose surveillance   is weakest where it's needed most:

• Many affected countries lack subnational monitoring, making it harder to target outreach.
• Stigma, misinformation, and distrust prevent caregivers from seeking vaccines.
• Supply chain problems and fragmented health systems lead to missed coverage in rural or conflict zones.

U.N. experts have said that access to vaccines remained “deeply unequal” and that conflict and humanitarian crises quickly unraveled progress; Sudan had the lowest reported coverage against diphtheria, tetanus, and whooping cough. The data showed that nine countries accounted for 52% of all children who missed out on immunizations entirely: Nigeria, India, Sudan, Congo, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Angola.

Why This Matters

DTP3 coverage is a global benchmark for routine immunization strength. While 85% is stable, it still falls short of the 95% targets necessary for herd immunity, leaving millions vulnerable to diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis.

The persistent zero-dose rate signals deep health access inequity: conflict zones, supply interruptions, insufficient outreach, and misinformation remain core barriers.

Small Gains Aren’t Enough

•  In 2024, 1 million more infants completed the full DTP series, and about 171,000 more received at least one dose than in the previous year. These are positive signs, but not enough to close the zero-dose gap.
•  Meanwhile, the number of measles-first-dose recipients rose slightly to 84%, still below the 2019 benchmark of 86%. 
• The Expanded Programme on Immunization estimates that vaccines have saved 154 million lives since 1974, cutting global infant mortality by nearly 40%. But with 14.3 million children still left out, those gains remain at risk.

The bottom line: improvement exists, but progress is too slow and uneven.

Disparities in Coverage

• Even before the pandemic, rising zero-dose numbers were observed, but fragile settings amplified the problem. In half of the affected countries, unvaccinated children increased from 3.6 million in 2019 to 5.4 million in 2024. 
• Only 17 out of 64 countries with DTP1 coverage below 90% in 2019 have improved since then. Meanwhile, 47 other countries saw coverage stall or decline.

Why Coverage Plateaued 

WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warned that: “Drastic cuts in aid, coupled with misinformation about the safety of vaccines, threaten to unwind decades of progress.”

Three key factors prevented progress:

1. Conflict and instability disrupted vaccine delivery in war zones and humanitarian crises.
2. Funding shortfalls following aid cuts, especially from the U.S., starved immunization programs of resources.
3. Vaccine misinformation—some promoted by influential figures —eroded public trust in vaccination.

Why It Matters: Stakes Are High

Global immunization coverage may look stable, but it hides a critical weakness. According to the WHO, after stagnating at 84%, efforts have barely nudged higher. Persistent zero‑dose figures signal widening health inequality and future outbreaks.

Furthermore, vaccines are one of the most effective public health tools in preventing millions of deaths annually. But stagnant global coverage and persistent zero‑dose gaps threaten to reverse these gains. Without real momentum, outbreaks of measles, polio, and other diseases remain risks.

"We've hit this very stubborn glass ceiling, and breaking through that glass to protect more children against vaccine-preventable diseases is becoming more difficult," WHO's director of the Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals, Kate O'Brien,  told reporters.

What Needs to Change

UNICEF Executive Director Catherine Russell emphasized: “Closing the immunization gap requires a global effort with governments, partners, and local leaders investing in primary health care and community workers.”

WHO and UNICEF are urging governments and partners to:  

• Close the funding gap for Gavi's 2026–2030 plan to protect children in low-income countries.
• Strengthen immunization efforts in conflict zones to reach zero-dose children and stop disease outbreaks.
• Prioritize local strategies and boost domestic investment to make immunization part of routine primary health care.
• Tackle vaccine misinformation and increase uptake using evidence-based communication.
• Improve data and disease tracking systems to make immunization programs more effective.

Spotlight on Progress 

Some wins exist, though:  

• HPV vaccine coverage rose internationally: from 20% to 27% among girls, thanks to momentum in Gavi-supported nations.
• Measles-first-dose coverage rose modestly to 84%, second-dose to 76%. But both are still below the 95% needed for reliable herd immunity.

Final Insight

Global vaccine numbers are stable, but not enough. The persistence of 14.3 million zero‑dose infants reveals a hidden weakness in global health systems. It shows the risk of outbreaks persists, and equity in healthcare remains out of reach. Stability is not progress unless every child has access to vaccinations. This means there must be real investment in fragile systems, better tracking, and courageous leadership. Anything less leaves progress undone. Global leaders must choose action over complacency if immunization gains are to be sustained.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) just announced the clawback of $78 billion in Medicare drug payments 10 years earlier than its original intended date. In addition to this sped up timeline, CMS also intends to survey hospitals about their drug costs, which could give the Trump Administration more leverage to recover more Medicare funds. 

The 340B Drug Program

The 340B Drug Program is a provision of the Public Health Services Act that mandates drug manufactures participating in Medicaid to sell outpatient pharmaceuticals at a discounted price for unsupported or low-income patients. For 340B hospitals, this allows them to offer a wider breadth of healthcare for more patients; free vaccines, mental health services, and general care are all offered under the 340B program. 

Opposition to 340B hospitals demand scaling back the extent of benefits these eligible patients receive. Much of the concern lies in the fact that qualified hospitals for drug discounts do not necessarily have to utilize excess funds for patient care services. While intended for charity care, a study found that hospitals that applied for 340B status in 2004 or after were actually found to treat less low-income and more health insurance-covered individuals than non 340B hospitals. It was shown that the 340B hospitals enjoyed the benefits of discounted drug prices more so than the intended beneficiaries. In addition to the possible redirection of funds, the higher the drug costs, the larger the discounts. Medicare pays 340B hospitals at the same rate as other hospitals (106% of average sales price) for their outpatient drugs, but 340B hospitals receive a greater discount on drugs which grants them large profit meant to be reinvested in patient care. Another concern is the lack of oversight on the 340B program, however the American Hospital Association counters this by emphasizing the significant supervision by the Health Resource and Services Administration. 

The Trump administration tried to combat 340B in the past by attempting to cut Medicare’s payment to hospitals for their outpatient drugs. The standard was formerly the average sales price (ASP) plus 6% to cover the costs of transportation and other unforeseen variables. However, the Trump administration felt that Medicare gave inflated reimbursements to 340B hospitals, which already received discounted prices on drugs. To amend the payments, Trump moved to alter the payment for ASP minus 22.5%, though the Supreme Court ruled against it due to procedural failures in accounting for hospitals’ acquisition costs. 

This time, the CMS is intent on passing cuts towards Medicare by complying with the Court’s ruling by paying “...$9 billion in lump-sum payments to account for drug cuts from previous years…” In order to recoup the lump-sum payments the CMS is making, to maintain budget-neutrality, they had planned to clawback $7.8 billion that came from the costly non-drug services. This was originally planned for 2041, though now has been pushed forward to 2031, and is applied to all hospitals, 340B or not. 

The Backlash on This Plan

Critics of this clawback are claiming that it “...punishes 340B hospitals for the agency’s own mistake in implementing a policy that a unanimous Supreme Court held to be unlawful.” Ashley Thompson, the senior AHA Vice President, is a strong opponent to this callback of Medicare funds, claiming it is still “unlawful” and “unwise.” She also displayed strong concerns about the drug cost surveys set to span the hospitals across the nation, as this could also be another factor the Trump administration uses in degrading 340B hospitals. As the administration continues to place obstacles for 340B hospitals, many see it as a way to achieve their original goal of cutting the Medicare outpatient drugs. This could mean intense legal backlash for the Trump administration who already ignored the Supreme Court ruling once before; a second time could be more detrimental on a legal front. 

Retrieving $7.8 billion from Medicare in an attempt to alter the 340B plan would be detrimental to the low-income and uninsured patients who depend on this free or discounted healthcare. Already receiving limited federal resources, lessening the funding amount could significantly curb the outreach of this program, prevent lifesaving drugs from reaching patients, and block the very individuals this program was created for. 

The "Great Genes" Controversy

American Eagle's viral July campaign, starring Sydney Sweeney, has generated more than just social media buzz; it has reignited debate about what constitutes “good genes” and the troubling history of eugenics in U.S. health policy. While the slogan might seem like simple wordplay, critics argue its language recalls a legacy where pseudoscience shaped laws on sterilization, immigration, and reproductive rights, showing how archaic ideas can subtly re-emerge in modern culture.

Defining Eugenics

Eugenics is the belief that society can be improved by controlling reproduction and manipulating the gene pool to favor certain traits. The word originates from the Greek words "eu" (meaning "good") and "genos" (meaning "birth" or "race"). Coined in 1883 by British scientist Sir Francis Galton, it was based on Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, proposing that "better breeding" could strengthen society.

From the beginning, it was presented as a population health strategy: governments and reformers claimed it could prevent disease, reduce poverty and crime, and "improve" the population. However, these goals were based on pseudoscience, targeting individuals based on race, disability, class, and perceived morality.

Positive vs. Negative Eugenics

 Eugenics policies have historically taken two forms:

 Positive eugenics encouraged reproduction among those with desirable traits, such as being white, healthy, and financially stable. Incentives to reproduce included tax breaks, marriage loans, and public recognition for large families. The "Fitter Families for Future Firesides" contests at the Iowa State Fair in 1911 awarded points for traits such as straight teeth, musical talent, or family longevity, portraying eugenics as wholesome entertainment.

 Conversely, negative eugenics sought to reduce or eliminate reproduction among those labeled "unfit" through involuntary sterilization, marriage restrictions, institutionalization, and immigration bans or quotas. These measures disproportionately affected immigrants, communities of color, and people living in poverty.

 Although both approaches were introduced as public health strategies, negative eugenics policies caused direct harm by stripping individuals of reproductive autonomy and reinforcing systemic inequalities.

The American Experiment

In the early 1900s, eugenics became official U.S. health policy. Driven by fears of poverty, disability, and xenophobia, leaders like Charles Benedict Davenport, a Harvard-trained biologist and one of the founders of the American eugenics movement, used his position at the Eugenics Record Office to advocate for sterilization laws and strict immigration controls as public health "safeguards."

Indiana passed the world's first sterilization law in 1907, authorizing state institutions to permanently prevent people with mental illness, disabilities, or criminal records from having children. Over the next three decades, 31 U.S. states followed suit.

In Buck v. Bell (1927), the Supreme Court upheld Virginia's sterilization statute. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. infamously declared, "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Carrie Buck, the case's plaintiff, had been institutionalized after being assaulted by a foster relative, labeled "feebleminded," and sterilized, despite later evidence that she had average intelligence. 

By the mid-20th century, over 60,000 Americans had been sterilized under state authority. 

Eugenics in Immigration & Nazi Policy

U.S. eugenics shaped not only domestic health policy but also immigration law. The Immigration Act of 1924 imposed strict quotas on arrivals from Southern and Eastern Europe and banned most Asian immigration, with proponents claiming to protect the nation's “racial stock” under the guise of public health.

These same policies and sterilization statutes caught the attention of Nazi officials. When drafting the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 — which stripped Jewish people of citizenship and prohibited marriage between Jews and non-Jews — German lawmakers studied American legal precedents. The Nazi regime adopted both positive eugenics, rewarding “Aryan” families to have more children, and negative eugenics on an unprecedented scale through forced sterilization, euthanasia programs, and genocide.

Contemporary Eugenics

Although discredited after World War II, eugenics never entirely disappeared from public discourse. Coercive sterilizations continued into the late 20th century, mainly affecting Puerto Rican women, Native American women, and incarcerated groups, often justified as medical treatment. Reports of non-consensual sterilizations in ICE detention centers as recent as 2020 show these abuses still happen. 

Today, new technologies such as embryo screening and gene editing raise significant ethical concerns. While they can help prevent some genetic disorders, they also risk increasing inequality if access is limited or if traits like disability are seen as undesirable. 

Civil commitment laws, which permit indefinite detention of people considered dangerous, also raise concerns about rights, primarily when used on marginalized groups or in poorly monitored facilities.

This history matters because remnants of eugenic thinking still appear in policy debates and popular culture. Language and images that once supported discriminatory laws can reappear in advertising, entertainment, and media.

The Sydney Sweeney Ad as a Cultural Flashpoint

In July 2025, American Eagle launched a denim campaign featuring Sydney Sweeney, with the slogan "Sydney Sweeney Has Great Jeans." In one ad, Sweeney connected her blue eyes to genetic inheritance, with a voiceover praising her "great genes." Another version visually replaced "genes" with "jeans."

Critics argued the ads echoed historic eugenics ideas, where traits like blue eyes were promoted as signs of genetic "fitness." The homage to provocative 1980s Calvin Klein ads, along with the focus on physical characteristics, made the campaign a lightning rod for discussions about how genetic language is used in pop culture.

Supporters dismissed the criticism as an overreaction, but the controversy increased brand visibility, and American Eagle's stock rose in the following days. The episode shows how marketing can both use and normalize rhetoric, given its complex history with public health.

Why It Matters for Health Policy

Eugenics is not solely a historical issue; it acts as a warning of how public health can be misused to justify control over marginalized groups. Contemporary debates about genetics, reproductive rights, and institutional authority reflect many of the same tensions that existed a century ago. In health policy, the message is clear: any population-level intervention must be ethical, evidence-based, and protect civil liberties.

In mid‑2025, the biotech world reached a major milestone: for the first time ever, a cancer drug created entirely via AI is officially being tested on humans. After years of hype about how AI could transform medicine, we're finally seeing it in action. 

On June 18,  Insilico Medicine reported dosing the first patient in a global, multicenter Phase I trial of ISM3412, a generative-AI-designed MAT2A inhibitor targeting MTAP-deleted solid tumors. Meanwhile, Isomorphic Labs —Alphabet’s spinout powered by DeepMind’s AlphaFold 3—is poised to begin its own oncology trials shortly. 

This breakthrough marks a big shift: from lengthy, empirical drug design pipelines to AI-guided discovery. These aren’t just AI-assisted ideas. These drugs were discovered, designed, and refined using algorithms trained on years of molecular data. 

The result? Potential cancer treatments that could hit targets traditional drug discovery missed or took far longer to find. This isn't just a medical milestone. It could completely change how fast, how affordable, and how personally we treat cancer in the future.

Pipeline Disruption: Insilico and ISM3412

Insilico’s trial investigates ISM3412, an oral, selective MAT2A inhibitor powered by their Chemistry42 platform. This drug is designed to exploit synthetic lethality in MTAP-deleted cancers—including lung, bladder, and pancreatic tumors— where MTAP is common. This means the drug is built to attack certain cancer cells that are missing a key gene called MTAP (a gene that helps normal cells stay healthy). These types of cancers include some lung, bladder, and pancreatic tumors. The missing gene creates a weak spot and the drug is designed to hit it hard. If you hit the cancer in just the right spot (the weak point), the cell dies but healthy cells stay fine. It received FDA IND approval in April 2024  and thus began human dosing a year later. This is one of multiple AI-designed molecules now in early clinical testing.

Emerging Frontiers:  Isomorphic Labs & DeepMind.

Isomorphic Labs, spun out of Google DeepMind, is preparing its first human trials using oncology compounds generated by AlphaFold 3-driven models, which is an AI system with the ability to predict protein structures and model interactions between biological molecules, to accelerate and enhance drug discovery. 

According to company president Colin Murdoch, the approach enables virtual simulation of protein-ligand interactions, compressing traditional discovery timelines from years to months. He also has stated they are "getting very close" to initiating human trials and are currently staffing up for them. The company raised $600 million in its first major funding round, led by Thrive Capital in April 2025 forming partnerships with leading pharmaceutical companies such as Novartis and Eli Lilly.

Why AI Matters in Oncology

• Traditional drug discovery averages 10–15 years, costs over $2 billion, and faces >90% failure rates. AI tools aim to cut cost and time by rapidly generating and filtering candidates.
• 
  
• Platforms like Insilico’s Chemistry42 and DeepMind’s AlphaFold accelerate predictive modeling (predict which molecules might bind to disease targets), drug-target identification and simulation (simulate how drugs interact with the body—without stepping into a lab), and molecular optimization (suggest tweaks to make those molecules more effective and less toxic).
• 
  
• Recursion and Xaira also reported multiple AI-originated drug candidates entering human trials—including oncology compounds.

Regulatory Frontiers 

As AI begins designing actual drug candidates, regulators like the FDA (U.S.) and EMA (Europe) are facing new challenges. Unlike traditional drug discovery, where scientists can explain each step, many AI-generated molecules come from complex models that even experts can’t fully explain. And that raises big questions about how we regulate something we don't fully understand.

Let’s break down the challenges and what’s being done about them:

• Transparency: Many AI systems that design drugs—like AlphaFold or generative models from companies like Insilico Medicine—are based on complex algorithms. These systems analyze massive amounts of data to suggest which molecules might work as treatments. But even the developers can’t fully explain exactly how the AI arrived at a specific drug design. This is what people mean by a “black box.” It's like getting an answer without seeing the math.

 Why this matters:

Regulators like the FDA or EMA are responsible for public safety. They need to understand: why a drug was designed a certain way (rationale), where the idea came from (provenance), and whether it can be reliably recreated (reproducibility).

An Example: If an AI proposes a molecule to treat lung cancer, but no one can explain why it would work—or how to recreate it in another lab—that’s a problem for approval.

• Addressing Algorithmic Bias: AI systems are trained on historical data. But if most of that data comes from one region or population, the AI could “learn” biased patterns.

Why it matters:

A drug that works great in clinical trials (say, mostly conducted in the U.S. or Europe) might not perform the same way in African, Asian, or Indigenous populations. Most regulators now require that datasets used for AI models are diverse and representative—so the drugs work safely across different age groups, ethnicities, and genders.

• International Collaboration– Everyone Needs to Agree on the Rules: Drug development is international. A medicine developed in the US could be tested in South Korea and sold in Nigeria.

 The challenge: If each country has a different set of rules for AI in drug development, it creates confusion and slows progress. That’s why global agencies like the WHO, ICH, and OECD are working with countries to create shared standards and develop a harmonized international standard.

• Ensuring Reliability and Safety: It’s not enough to approve a drug once and forget about it. Regulators need to track: How the drug performs in the real world, whether unexpected side effects emerge, and how future updates to the AI affect safety (yes, AI models can be updated like apps). This process is called post-market surveillance, and AI adds a new layer of complexity. Regulators now need tech experts alongside clinicians to monitor these drugs.
• Evolving Regulations:
• Regulatory bodies like the FDA and EMA are actively developing guidelines for AI in drug development. They are already holding public workshops on AI explainability, releasing draft guidance documents for AI use in drug development and collaborating with academia and tech companies to build smarter evaluation tools. They’re focused on data integrity, algorithm transparency, clinical validity.

Ethical Frontiers  

But There Are Risks and Unknowns

Yes, this sounds like the future and it probably is. But experts are also sounding the alarm about:

• Bias in the algorithms: If you train AI on biased data, it may produce drugs that don’t work for everyone.
• Lack of transparency: Some AI-designed drugs are based on models that aren’t peer-reviewed.
• High costs: Even if drugs are discovered faster, will they be affordable? Will low-income countries benefit?

There is also no guarantee these drugs will work because still in very early stages.

Implications for Global Health & Pharma

• For patients, faster, more precise drug development could mean earlier access to effective treatments.
• For Research and development, AI may usher in a shift from empirical pipelines to predictive modeling, reducing costs and increasing success rates.
• For low-resource settings, equitable access hinges on pricing, licensing, and inclusion in global trial networks but not guaranteed.
• 
  

AI’s Entrance Into Mental Health

Artificial intelligence is rapidly advancing into the mental health field, with various tools such as chatbots, virtual therapists, and mood tracking apps being promoted as always-available companions that offer anonymity, affordability, and 24/7 support. For millions facing waitlists or high costs, this appeal is strong. However, as these tools transition from low-stakes wellness aids to complete therapeutic solutions, increasing lawsuits and clinical research suggest that they may raise significant ethical and public health concerns.

The Appeal

AI chatbots provide accessibility that traditional care cannot. They are always available, affordable, and stigma-free, making them an appealing option for people hesitant to seek professional help. Early research is promising: a Dartmouth randomized clinical trial found that a chatbot based on cognitive behavioral therapy significantly reduced symptoms of mild depression and anxiety. This potential for positive impact should not be overlooked in the discussion of AI in mental health. AI has the potential to fill the gaps in mental health care, providing support to those who might not have access to traditional therapy.

For some users, chatbots offer structure through journaling prompts, mindfulness exercises, or encouragement to connect with loved ones. Supporters claim that, in a country with a severe provider shortage, AI can serve as a valuable bridge to healthcare accessibility and equity.

The Perils

Despite this, mental health experts warn that chatbots can also reinforce feelings of isolation, confirmation biases, validate harmful thinking patterns, and even contribute to tragedies. A Stanford-led study found that AI therapy tools often do not meet clinical standards and may unintentionally reinforce damaging beliefs.

Psychiatrists have reported cases of "AI psychosis," a term some clinicians have used informally in early case reports, where vulnerable patients develop delusions or paranoia after heavy use of chatbots. These cases, such as one in Florida where a mother claims that an AI companion encouraged her son to kill himself, are alarming and highlight the need for careful consideration of the potential risks of AI in mental health.

Unlike human clinicians, AI cannot intervene during a crisis. It cannot break confidentiality, urge hospitalization, or contact emergency services. These safeguards are foundational to mental health ethics, yet absent in AI tools. Its aim, which is to be agreeable, emphasizes user satisfaction over accuracy, allowing individuals to hide their worst impulses while still receiving supportive responses.

Ethical Fault Lines

The rise of AI "therapists" raises concerns that extend beyond their effectiveness. A significant issue is the duty of care. Human therapists follow strict ethical guidelines, including mandated reporting, to act if someone is at risk of harming themselves or others. AI companions, however, lack these responsibilities. Without systems in place to address emergencies, these tools are not bound by the same safety standards that govern human clinicians.

Another significant ethical issue involves informed consent. Many users might not realize that AI is not a proper replacement for therapy. Marketing that presents chatbots as "friends," "guides," or near-human companions blurs the line, undermining informed consent and misleading users into misplaced trust.” This confusion weakens care quality and gives users a false sense of security about what these systems can do.

There are also concerns about exploitation and vulnerability. Chatbots are often designed to encourage attachment, leading users to return frequently and become more dependent. For people who feel lonely, or for adolescents whose judgment is still developing, these design choices risk exploiting the very vulnerabilities they claim to address.”. In these cases, the aim shifts from supporting well-being to boosting engagement and profits, often at the expense of the most vulnerable.

Finally, privacy and data use are ongoing worries. Unlike licensed providers who are bound by confidentiality, AI companies face few limits on how they store, analyze, or sell deeply personal information. Sensitive conversations about trauma, suicidal thoughts, or health issues could be mined by tech companies or sold to third-party advertisers. Without explicit protections, the ‘intimacy’ that encourages users to open up to AI companions can become a source of exploitation rather than support.

Regulatory Response

Lawmakers are beginning to act. Illinois, Nevada, and Utah have all passed laws restricting the use of AI in therapy and prohibiting companies from marketing chatbots as replacements for licensed professionals.

In Texas, investigators are examining whether AI companies misled consumers by presenting their products as therapeutic tools without proper medical oversight.

Internationally, the UK's National Health Service has taken a different approach by adopting Limbic, a clinically validated chatbot used to assist, rather than replace, therapists. Unlike consumer apps, Limbic underwent peer review and clinical trials before integration.

These early efforts underscore the importance of comprehensive regulation. The future of AI therapy hinges not only on innovation but also on the guardrails that ensure its ethical use. Responsible regulation is crucial for maximizing the benefits and minimizing the risks associated with AI therapy. This comprehensive regulation will provide reassurance and security to all stakeholders involved. 

Policy Pathways

Policymakers and ethicists have outlined key safeguards to strike a balance between innovation and public safety. Clear disclosure is essential: users must know that AI companions are not licensed therapists and cannot provide crisis intervention. Built-in safety protocols could require chatbots to escalate when users disclose suicidal thoughts, guiding them toward hotlines or requiring a safety plan before further interaction. Regulators are also considering treating mental health chatbots like medical devices, subjecting them to trials, audits, and peer review to ensure they meet minimum standards of care. Bias and privacy protections are equally critical, with calls for representative datasets and strict limits on the storage and use of sensitive health disclosures. Public education campaigns, in particular, can help vulnerable users, especially adolescents, understand both the promise and the limitations of AI support, empowering them with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions and reducing the risk of misplaced reliance.

Conclusion

AI companions and therapy chatbots will continue to grow in number. Their appeal is clear: they offer immediate, tireless, and responsive support. However, the ethical stakes are just as clear. As lawsuits increase and evidence builds, the question is no longer whether AI can provide comfort, but whether it should ever do so without proper safeguards that oversee human care. Technology can augment but not replace the human connection essential for healing. The challenge for policymakers, developers, and clinicians is to harness the potential of AI while establishing clear ethical boundaries. AI developers, in particular, have a crucial role in ensuring that their products are designed and used ethically, before more tragedies expose the dangers of outsourcing care to machines.

Beauty standards change over decades, and that pattern is the same when it comes to favored skin color. Prior to the 1920s, it was preferred to have fair skin, because the lighter complexion meant money. It was associated with wealth because a fair complexion requires staying inside instead of working in the sun and this was only possible if there was a good amount of money to fund staying inside all day. However in the 1920s, Coco Chanel popularized the tan, making it a highly desired fashion statement. Except the rise of the tan was just as connected to wealth as fair skin was; a tan meant enough wealth to afford vacations to get tanned in the first place (Defino, 2022). Many countries still see “fair” skin as the superior skin tone, but the West has moved their obsession on to that perfect beach tan. What’s surprising however, is that it seems no one chases a good tan more than the U. S Congress. 

Some Big Beautiful Bills

There has been no shortage of media coverage over the Big Beautiful Bill that passed on July 4, 2025, but for review, the bill was essentially a ton of decisions on the economic spending of the country and taxes in order to better benefit the working class (The White House, 2025). It sought to remove taxes on tips, overtime, social security, and….tans? The bill that passed fortunately did not include the removal of tax on indoor tanning services, but this was not the first time congress faced the tan tax. The tan tax is a 10% tax on all indoor tanning services that employ any electronic product designed to incorporate one or more ultraviolet lamps intended for the irradiation of an individual by ultraviolet radiation, with wavelengths in air between 200 and 400 nanometers, to induce skin tanning, under the Affordable Care Act in 2010. In fact the tax was actually an attempt to deter people from getting UV induced tans (Smith, 2025 pg. 26). The Big Beautiful Bill aimed to benefit the working class, but the working class is not interested in indoor tanning, the rich are. A 2022 study shows that for every 10% increase in income, tanning bed usage increases by 8.23% (Meredith, 2022). For a service so coveted by the rich, it seems that a tax is too much to pay. The efforts to repeal the tan tax started back in 2015, brought up by Representative George Holding who reasoned that the tax targeted small businesses, and then in 2018 by Senator Rand Pau (Sepp, 2015)l. This repeal was attempted again in 2023 and this year, 2025, through the Big Beautiful Bill and again this year through H. R. 1940 which has been introduced to Congress (Congress, 2025). It’s almost ridiculous how many times it was attempted to repeal the tax and each one has always focused on the small businesses that were burdened by the 10% tax (Paul, 2023). Yet every single time, the attempt was rejected. This rejection was supported by organizations like The Department of Health and Human services because as intended, the tax deterred people from the tanning beds (Philips, 2025). 

But Why Are These Indoor Tanning Services so Bad?

Indoor tanning causes irreversible damage to the skin. At its core, UV tanning damages the cells on your outermost skin by harming the DNA in it. In order to protect itself, the skin then starts producing melanin, darkening the skin. This damage ends up being the base for all other indoor tan related problems. Indoor tanning can cause sunburn, premature aging, skin cancer, solar keratoses, eye damage, immune system suppression, and more. Commonly, the UV rays damage the outer layer of the skin. These cells then start sending signals to the body which induces the feeling of burning pain in the sun burnt area. The immune system will get rid of the damaged skin cells, causing more reddening, itchiness, and peeling. While this side effect amongst others like eye damage and immune system suppression are pressing concerns, the reason most professionals advise against tanning is cancer (FDA, 2023). UV light has been determined to be a carcinogen or a cancer causing agent. This carcinogen causes skin cancers of which the three most common are Melanoma, Basal Cell Carcinoma, and Squamous Cell Skin Cancer. Overall, the genetic damage from UV rays is what causes skin cancer, but there are some more specific ways that each type of cancer may be developed. The UV light from tanning beds and other indoor tanning services increases chances of developing a cancerous benign mole which leads to Melanoma. This type of cancer is the most dangerous and causes the most deaths out of skin cancer related mortalities (AAD, 2025). Basal Cell Carcinoma on the other hand causes the patch of discolored skin to form. This type of cancer stems from genetic damage in the basal cells under the epidermis which is a common effect of UV rays (Karagas, 2025). Squamous Cell Carcinoma is similar to Basal Cell in that it is also mainly developed because of the genetic damage done to its DNA and also causes an area of discoloration. What’s similar about squamous and basal cell carcinomas is that they both can develop quickly because of the harm done to the immune system by the UV rays. Because both types of cells rely on the immune system to help do their job properly, the weakening of it makes it harder for them to fight abnormal and cancerous cells, leading much faster to their respective types of cancer (FDA, 2023). 

Health organizations have been fighting against the tanning trend ever since the evidence of its role in cancer has come out. Although the trend has lost some traction, it seems that congress cannot get over the craze. It’s not worth it to repeal the tax because lives matter and cancer is not forgiving, especially not to a tan.

Americans will have to wait several weeks for the Trump administration's next steps in its agenda to "Make America Healthy Again," according to three people familiar with the matter. The delayed release of the second MAHA Commission report threatens to stall critical policy decisions affecting children's nutrition programs, environmental health regulations, and federal health initiatives just as the new school year approaches.

Commission Meets Deadline, But Public Release Stalled

While President Donald Trump's MAHA Commission will submit its strategy to the White House on Tuesday — sticking to an executive-ordered deadline — scheduling issues stand in the way of its public release. White House spokesman Kush Desai confirmed the commission remains "on track" to deliver its report by August 12, but coordination challenges with presidential and cabinet schedules have created the holdup.

Officials are aiming to launch their strategy by the end of this month, according to the three people familiar. The delay comes at a crucial time as school districts finalize nutrition policies and federal agencies prepare fall regulatory guidance.

What's in the Delayed Report

The second installment is expected to propose strategies and reforms to tackle those issues. Actions can include, per the president's executive order, ending certain federal practices that "exacerbate the health crisis" and "adding powerful new solutions."

The upcoming report builds on the commission's May assessment, which identified three primary culprits behind America's childhood health crisis: ultraprocessed foods, overuse of pharmaceuticals, and environmental toxins. Much of the reports' findings echoed longtime arguments of health secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who leads the commission.

Unlike the first report's focus on problem identification, this delayed strategy document promises concrete policy recommendations. Areas expected to be addressed include school meal program reforms, federal food safety regulations, and environmental protection standards affecting children.

Industry Groups Voice Concerns

The delay has heightened anxiety among agricultural and food industry stakeholders who fear sweeping regulatory changes. There is lingering unease among farmers and agricultural groups after the first report flagged studies that suggest links between commonly used pesticides and various illnesses such as cancer and liver problems.

Groups like the American Farm Bureau Federation have pushed back against what they call "unproven theories," warning that questioning pesticide safety could undermine public confidence in America's food supply. Federal health and agricultural officials sought to reassure farmers in the ensuing weeks.

Environmental Protection Agency officials have attempted to calm industry concerns. This month, a high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency official told attendees at a sugar industry conference that agencies would "respect" the current regulatory framework.

Ultraprocessed Foods Battle Lines Drawn

Another potential battleground is the federal path forward on ultraprocessed foods. Kennedy has pursued voluntary agreements with major food manufacturers to remove artificial additives and dyes, but health advocates are demanding stronger regulatory action.

Recent developments have raised stakes in this debate. This month, a former leader of the US Food and Drug Administration challenged the agency to remove ultraprocessed foods from the market by essentially outlawing certain ingredients.

The tension reflects broader questions about whether the MAHA initiative will rely on industry cooperation or federal enforcement. Jim Krieger, executive director of Healthy Food America, expressed skepticism about voluntary approaches during a recent briefing: "Will [the MAHA commission] move beyond PR efforts, voluntary agreements and handshakes — none of which have really worked to improve the food system in the past — and suggest regulatory action with real teeth?"

Impact on School Health Programs

The delay particularly affects school districts preparing for the fall semester. Many administrators had expected federal guidance on nutrition standards, environmental safety protocols, and health screening programs based on the commission's recommendations.

Without clear direction from the delayed report, districts must navigate conflicting pressures from health advocates pushing for stricter standards and industry groups warning against disruptions to established supply chains and practices.

Vaccination Policy Questions Linger

Though the commission's initial report focused primarily on nutrition and environmental factors, public health officials anticipate the strategy document will address childhood vaccination policies—an area where Kennedy has previously expressed controversial views.

The delayed release leaves schools, pediatricians, and public health departments without federal guidance as they prepare for routine childhood immunization campaigns typically launched in late summer and early fall.

Political Stakes of the Delay

Public health experts, MAHA supporters and industry advocates alike have been anxiously awaiting the commission's recommendations, and how far they will go. The administration faces pressure to balance its "Make America Healthy Again" promises with economic concerns from agricultural and food industry constituencies.

The scheduling delay, while attributed to logistical challenges, may also reflect internal debates over how aggressive the recommendations should be. With the report's eventual release, the administration will need to demonstrate concrete progress on childhood health while managing potential economic disruption to established industries.

As the delay stretches into late August, the window for implementing significant policy changes before the 2026 midterm elections continues to narrow, potentially limiting the scope and impact of any eventual recommendations.

Introduction

In the latest addition to a series of recent changes to the Department of Health and Human Services, the Trump Administration has released a 281-page document announcing foreign aid cuts to global vaccination programs. These cuts have hit global NGOs the hardest, including the international organization Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance. 

The agency that oversees a majority of U.S foreign aid is the U.S Agency for International Development (USAID), with roughly one percent of the federal budget on foreign development assistance. USAID’s work expands across several global regions and helps to provide essential access to healthcare.

Termination of these programs will disrupt vital distribution of healthcare, specifically vaccines, leaving millions of people vulnerable. Most critically, immunization centers across Africa and Latin America, specifically in countries like Burkina Faso, Nigeria, and Afghanistan are at the brink of closure. With over 21 million children around the world currently under-immunized, cutting vital front-line immunization programs, the IRC states, could allow diseases to spread unchecked as threats to global health security. 

NGO Responses to Policy Shifts

Global NGOs working in regions across Africa and Latin America have expressed their disdain for the recent administration policies. Abby Maxman, CEO of a confederation of 21 NGOs called Oxfam, points out that the decision to shut down the USAID means that the U.S. government is “severely impaired in its ability to respond to the humanitarian crisis in Myanmar.” 

In situations where time is of the utmost importance, these aid cuts will most severely affect people enduring poverty, conflict, and life-threatening emergencies around the globe. More specifically, these NGOs will face difficulties in every step of their efforts: from vaccine supply and procurement to hiring of a local workforce for awareness and surveillance. Women and children will also be at a significantly higher risk of preventable disease and due to limited funding, experts expect to see seasonal upticks of malaria and measles cases in the following years.

Maxman further emphasized the heavy dependence of African countries on American aid. He stated that “in Côte d’Ivoire, 70 percent of antiretroviral medication in the country, on which people living with HIV and AIDS depend, is provided through PEPFAR (the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief).”

The cuts additionally outline the termination of more than 10,000 foreign aid grants and contracts, including clients of the International Rescue Committee (IRC). The IRC provides about 4.3 million services for communicable diseases around the world, including children under the age of 5. 

One of the IRC’s most impactful projects, Reaching Every Child in Humanitarian Settings (REACH) was conducted in partnership with Gavi, and leveraged flexible methods (including mobile clinics, mapping tools, local teams) to administer over 13 million vaccine doses to children across multiple regions of Africa. In South Sudan, REACH collaborated with local community health workers to raise vaccine awareness and combat misinformation. 

Economic Losses

These recent policy shifts have further caused ripple effects in the funding of NGOs across the world, led by Gavi. They predict that American aid withdrawal could leave over 75 million children without access to routine immunizations and cause over 1.2 million preventable deaths. Paired with facility closures and health worker layoffs, this shortfall compounds to an estimated economic loss of around $25 billion. 

Also, while the State Department has responded with the fact that “critical USAID awards remain active,” the slashed funds have heavily jeopardized childhood vaccine programs. And while the policy cuts may reduce upfront investment, NGOs report every dollar invested in early vaccination has the potential to save much more money in comparison to future disease treatment. Vaccines, in particular, can serve multiple epidemiological roles as either primary prevention (stopping the disease before it starts) or secondary prevention (preventing further progression for the disease). 

According to UNICEF, immunization is one of the most cost-effective public health interventions, preventing an estimated 4.4 million deaths yearly. Adaptable, low-resource interventions such as the ones used in REACH allow for the delivery of polio, measles, and diphtheria vaccines to children while maintaining the maximum impact per dollar.

A Historical Look into Global Vaccination

Since the early 20th-century, compulsory campaigns for disease like smallpox or yellow fever were often carried out coercively by colonizers in subject countries. However, the formal entry of the United States into global health aid was in 1948, when the U.S. helped found the World Health Organization in an effort to focus on humanitarian relief post-WWII.

In the 1980s, the U.S was instrumental in funding the eradication of smallpox and polio. This further spurred development of large-scale programs such as the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI) that covered childhood vaccination against several major preventable diseases. During the Cold War tensions, the motivations for global health aid shifted, as they were seen as a tool for international diplomacy to counteract communism in several regions. 

American leadership promoted a revolution of global vaccination through Gavi starting in the early 2000s, consisting of structural reforms to strengthen national health systems and help the most vulnerable communities. 

Disease prevention through vaccination and routine immunization through frontline efforts have proven to be highly effective. The direct promotion of malaria immunization through USAID and the Presidential Malaria Initiative helped cut malaria deaths by over 60%. 

Until recently, U.S global health funding had continued to increase with the creation of PEPFAR, emergency regulations following COVID-19, and donor contributions to multilateral organizations.

Geopolitical & Regional Consequences

In Africa, Malawi, Kenya, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and South Africa are among the countries most reliant on U.S fundings, receiving major support for routine immunization, polio, and HIV/HPV programs. Immunization shortfalls not only result in millions of children missing critical vaccines, but also risk undermining long-term research into vaccine research for the region. Several HPV vaccine campaigns that were scheduled for rollout are being scaled back, which could have major effects on future cancer rates. In particularly conflicted countries like Sudan and Burkina Faso, closing of clinics and layoff of health workers have left refugees and displaced people particularly exposed to outbreaks, according to Doctors Without Borders. 

The Pan America Health Organization (PAHO) leads immunization programs in Latin America countries like Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua, but the cuts might cause children to go without routine vaccination for an estimated five years. Due to a spike in measles cases in Venezuela in 2024, experts predict a rapid resurgence without sustained vaccination efforts as well. Similar to Africa, HPV vaccinations are facing cancellations and the population hardest hit are the migrant and displaced populations along the Venezuela-Colombia border or in Central America. 

While both of these regions face severe crises due to their vulnerable populations, infectious diseases know no borders. It will only be a matter of time that these global outbreaks could cause the emergence of these preventable infections within the United States. It has already been reported that cases of measles have reached a high in the past 20 years as domestic vaccine policy under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy has significantly lessened over the past year. 

Conclusion

Overall, the U.S foreign aid cuts have the potential to endanger not only global but American interest by threatening the prevalence of infectious disease control, economic efficiency and geopolitical relations. 

In just a few budget cycles, this is evident that the recent wave of foreign aid retrenchment have reversed decades of bipartisan investment and progress into the global health sector, signaling the Trump administration’s narrower focus on national interest. The United States has shown the implications of prioritizing self-interest over collective global efforts, but is that an ethical way to approach humanitarian aid policy?

And while private philanthropists and other countries have pushed for emergency funds, these schemes are largely unable to quickly replace the scale and reach of American aid, which was one of the largest in the world. It is worth watching out for changes in the global health environment, as unstable sources funding could shift the importance of nation-affiliated donors to cultivating private and local resources. 

Since the exact cut amounts are yet to be determined by Congress, only time will tell the complete extent to which global vaccination campaigns will be affected.

In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court denied immediate relief for researchers and universities, allowing the Trump administration to cut nearly $800 million in National Institutes of Health grants tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion. 

The Court held that challenges to funding cancellations cannot be brought in district courts but, rather, must be brought in the Court of Federal Claims, a much more specialized forum that typically handles contract disputes. In forcing such a venue, the High Court greatly narrowed legal pathways due, simply, to numbers. There are 94 district courts and only one Court of Federal Claims, which can only hear so many cases.

It, however, did not endorse the administration’s criteria for terminating grants—a methodology that has already been found unlawful by lower courts.

For a funding system that distributes nearly $40 billion annually and serves as the backbone of American medical research, the ruling raises questions about not only administrative law but academic freedom more broadly.

Academic Freedom in a Constitutional Gray Zone

At the heart of the dispute is the question of whether academic freedom enjoys robust constitutional standing. Universities and academics alike have long defended the principle as necessary to scholarship, while courts have provided inconsistent protections. 

In a 1957 case, Sweezy v. New Hampshire, the Court notably recognized “the dependence of a free society on free universities.” In contrast, a judge in the Southern District of New York held, just months ago, that Columbia University faculty did not have standing to litigate the Trump administration’s $400 million budget cut. Neither the High Court nor any lower court has firmly established academic freedom as an independent constitutional right. 

This recent ruling only further amplifies the ambiguity. By funneling all claims into the Court of Federal Claims, the High Court reduced researchers' ability to make constitutional claims such as free speech or due process. The paradox is striking: while the ruling acknowledges that funding disputes touch on legal rights, it simultaneously denies scientists a straightforward venue to defend them. 

For researchers whose projects are defunded because they intersect with politically sensitive topics, such as climate change and reproductive health, the practical message is that meaningful recourse is limited.

Risks to Research

The most immediate danger is to the peer-review process. The NIH and other agencies rely on experts to evaluate the quality and impact of proposals. However, if agencies become more concerned with defending their decision in court, scientific merit may be forced to take a back seat. 

The decision also creates procedural risks. By diverting disputes to the Court of Federal Claims, the ruling ensures that challenges will become slower, more technical, and less accessible. Researchers may hesitate to pursue claims at all, particularly early-career academics who lack institutional backing. The chilling effect could discourage innovative or controversial work precisely when it is most needed.

At a time when federal university funding has been slashed, the higher costs institutions face as they support faculty in grant disputes and litigations may divert resources from supporting students and other critical operations. This dynamic also risks deepening inequality in the research ecosystem: well-funded, prestigious universities may manage, while smaller, less-advantaged universities could be left vulnerable. 

More broadly, the ruling threatens to exacerbate the politicization of research. The NIH has been repeatedly drawn into political battles whether it be with COVID-19 or stem cell research in the early 2000s. By restricting legal remedies, the Court may inadvertently embolden the current and future administrations to use grants and research as a political tool. 

Silver Linings and the Path Forward

Despite the many risks, the ruling could produce some constructive outcomes. Particularly, it could encourage greater transparency. When faced with the prospect of legal scrutiny, institutions and agencies become more compelled to articulate clearer reasoning for fiscal decisions. This transparency could improve accountability to the public that funds a great deal of scientific research through tax dollars. Over time, this clarity could reduce public skepticism and strengthen trust in scientific institutions.

The High Court’s ruling has made it clear that individual faculty members are limited in their ability to litigate funding decisions. However, this limitation may actually encourage institutions to adopt broader internal mechanisms such as contingency funds or legal support structures.

Additionally, the ruling can serve as a catalyst for political reforms. The legal constraints imposed reveal gaps in the statutory and regulatory framework. As a result, lawmakers may feel increased pressure to codify protections for researchers. 

Finally, if federal funds become unpredictable, universities, foundations, and private philanthropists may develop new models for supporting high-risk research. Public-private partnerships, endowment-backed fellowships, or universities pooling resources are all possibilities in a future with highly politicized research funding. 

Grants, Courts, and the Future of Research

The Supreme Court’s ruling on NIH grant cancellations highlight the complex interactions between the law, federal oversight, and scientific research. There is a steady balance needed for all three to coexist efficiently. It is quite evident that that equilibrium has been disrupted, raising broader questions for all stakeholders: scientists, lawmakers, and, most importantly, citizens.