Esther Bejarano’s son was 11 months old when asthma landed him in the hospital. She didn’t know what had triggered his symptoms — neither she nor her husband had asthma — but she suspected it was the pesticides sprayed on the agricultural fields near her family’s home.

Pesticides are a known contributor to asthma and are commonly used where Bejarano lives in California’s Imperial Valley, a landlocked region that straddles two counties on the U.S.-Mexico border and is one of the main producers of the nation’s winter crops. It also has some of the worst air pollution in the nation and one of the highest rates of childhood asthma emergency room visits in the state, according to data collected by the California Department of Public Health.

Bejarano has since learned to manage her now-19-year-old son’s asthma and works at Comite Civico del Valle, a local rights organization focused on environmental justice in the Imperial Valley. The organization trains health care workers to educate patients on proper asthma management, enabling them to avoid hospitalization and eliminate triggers at home. The course is so popular that there’s a waiting list, Bejarano said.

But the group’s Asthma Management Academy program and similar initiatives nationwide face extinction with the Trump administration’s mass layoffs, grant cancellations, and proposed budget cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. Asthma experts fear the cumulative impact of the reductions could result in more ER visits and deaths, particularly for children and people in low-income communities — populations disproportionately vulnerable to the disease.

“Asthma is a preventive condition,” Bejarano said. “No one should die of asthma.”

Asthma can block airways, making it hard to breathe, and in severe cases can cause death if not treated quickly. Nearly 28 million people in the U.S. have asthma, and about 10 people still die every day from the disease, according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

In May, the White House released a budget proposal that would permanently shutter the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Asthma Control Program, which was already gutted by federal health department layoffs in April. It’s unclear whether Congress will approve the closure.

Last year, the program allotted $33.5 million to state-administered initiatives in 27 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., to help communities with asthma education. The funding is distributed in four-year grant cycles, during which the programs receive up to $725,000 each annually.

Comite Civico del Valle’s academy in Southern California, a clinician workshop in Houston, and asthma medical management training in Allentown, Pennsylvania — ranked the most challenging U.S. city to live in with asthma — are among the programs largely surviving on these grants. The first year of the current grant cycle ends Aug. 31, and it’s unknown whether funding will continue beyond then.

Data suggests that the CDC’s National Asthma Control Program has had a significant impact. The agency’s own research has shown that the program saves $71 in health care costs for every $1 invested. And the asthma death rate decreased 44% between the 1999 launch of the program and 2021, according to the American Lung Association.

“Losing support from the CDC will have devastating impacts on asthma programs in states and communities across the country, programs that we know are improving the lives of millions of people with asthma,” said Anne Kelsey Lamb, director of the Public Health Institute’s Regional Asthma Management and Prevention program. “And the thing is that we know a lot about what works to help people keep their asthma well controlled, and that’s why it’s so devastating.”

The Trump administration cited cost savings and efficiency in its April announcement of the cuts to HHS. Requests for comment from the White House and CDC about cuts to federal asthma and related programs were not answered.

The Information Wars

Fresno, in the heart of California’s Central Valley, is one of the country’s top 20 “asthma capitals,” with high rates of asthma and related emergencies and deaths. It’s home to programs that receive funding through the National Asthma Control Program. Health care professionals there also rely on another aspect of the program that is under threat if it’s shuttered: countrywide data.

The federal asthma program collects information on asthma rates and offers a tool to study prevalence and rates of death from the disease, see what populations are most affected, and assess state and local trends. Asthma educators and health care providers worry that the loss of these numbers could be the biggest impact of the cuts, because it would mean a dearth of information crucial to forming educated recommendations and treatment plans.

“How do we justify the services we provide if the data isn’t there?” said Graciela Anaya, director of community health at the Central California Asthma Collaborative in Fresno.

Mitchell Grayson, chair of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation’s Medical Scientific Council, is similarly concerned.

“My fear is we’re going to live in a world that is frozen in Jan. 19, 2025, as far as data, because that was the last time you know that this information was safely collected,” he said.

Grayson, an allergist who practices in Columbus, Ohio, said he also worries government websites will delete important recommendations that asthma sufferers avoid heavy air pollution, get annual flu shots, and get covid-19 vaccines.

Disproportionate Risk

Asthma disproportionately affects communities of color because of “historic structural issues,” said Lynda Mitchell, CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Network, citing a higher likelihood of living in public housing or near highways and other pollution sources.

She and other experts in the field said cuts to diversity initiatives across federal agencies, combined with the rollback of environmental protections, will have an outsize impact on these at-risk populations.

In December, the Biden administration awarded nearly $1.6 billion through the EPA’s Community Change Grants program to help disadvantaged communities address pollution and climate threats. The Trump administration moved to cut this funding in March. The grant freezes, which have been temporarily blocked by the courts, are part of a broader effort by the Trump EPA to eliminate aid to environmental justice programs across the agency.

In 2023 and 2024, the National Institutes of Health’s Climate Change and Health Initiative received $40 million for research, including on the link between asthma and climate change. The Trump administration has moved to cut that money. And a March memo essentially halted all NIH grants focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI — funds many of the asthma programs serving low-income communities rely on to operate.

On top of those cuts, environmental advocates like Isabel González Whitaker of Memphis, Tennessee, worry that the proposed reversals of environmental regulations will further harm the health of communities like hers that are already reeling from the effects of climate change. Shelby County, home to Memphis, recently received an “F” on the American Lung Association’s annual report card for having so many high ozone days. González Whitaker is director of EcoMadres, a program within the national organization Moms for Clean Air that advocates for better environmental conditions for Latino communities.

“Urgent asthma needs in communities are getting defunded at a time when I just see things getting worse in terms of deregulation,” said González Whitaker, who took her 12-year-old son to the hospital because of breathing issues for the first time this year. “We’re being assaulted by this data and science, which is clearly stating that we need to be doing better around preserving the regulations.”

Back in California’s Imperial Valley — where the majority-Hispanic, working-class population surrounds California’s largest lake, the Salton Sea — is an area called Bombay Beach. Bejarano calls it the “forgotten community.” Homes there lack clean running water, because of naturally occurring arsenic in the groundwater, and residents frequently experience a smell like rotten eggs blowing off the drying lakebed, exposing decades of pesticide-tinged dirt.

In 2022, a 12-year-old girl died in Bombay Beach after an asthma attack. Bejarano said she later learned that the girl’s school had recommended that she take part in Comite Civico del Valle’s at-home asthma education program. She said the girl was on the waiting list when she died.

“It hit home. Her death showed the personal need we have here in Imperial County,” Bejarano said. “Deaths are preventable. Asthma is reversible. If you have asthma, you should be able to live a healthy life.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post In a Dusty Corner of California, Trump’s Threatened Cuts to Asthma Care Raise Fears appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content emphasizes environmental justice, public health protections, and critiques of budget cuts under the Trump administration, framing them as harmful to vulnerable and low-income communities. It highlights the negative impact of deregulation and funding reductions on asthma programs, particularly those benefiting marginalized groups. While it maintains a factual and measured tone, its focus on environmental regulation, public health funding, and social equity aligns with center-left perspectives that prioritize government intervention to address health disparities and environmental issues.

ST. LOUIS — Violent crime was already trending down from a covid-era spike when President Donald Trump presented a picture of unbridled crime in America on the campaign trail in 2024. Now his administration has eliminated about $500 million in grants to organizations that buttress public safety, including many working to prevent gun violence.

In Oakland, California, a hospital-based program to prevent retaliatory gun violence lost a $2 million grant just as the traditionally turbulent summer months approach. Another $2 million award was pulled from a Detroit program that offers social services and job skills to young people in violent neighborhoods. And in St. Louis, a clinic treating the physical and emotional injuries of gunshot victims also lost a $2 million award.

They are among 373 grants that the U.S. Department of Justice abruptly terminated in April. The largest share of the nixed awards were designated for community-based violence intervention — programs that range from conflict mediation and de-escalation to hospital-based initiatives that seek to prevent retaliation from people who experience violent injuries.

Gun violence is among America’s most deadly public health crises, medical experts say.

Among programs whose grants were terminated were those for protecting children, victims’ assistance, hate-crime prevention, and law enforcement and prosecution, according to an analysis by the Council on Criminal Justice, a nonpartisan think tank. The grants totaled $820 million when awarded, but some of that money has been spent.

“Not only are these funds being pulled away from worthy investments that will save lives,” said Thomas Abt, founding director of the Violence Reduction Center at the University of Maryland, “but the way that this was done — by pulling authorized funding without warning — is going to create a lasting legacy of mistrust.”

The Justice Department “is focused on prosecuting criminals, getting illegal drugs off the streets, and protecting all Americans from violent crime,” according to a statement provided by agency spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre. “Discretionary funds that are not aligned with the administration’s priorities are subject to review and reallocation, including funding for clinics that engage in race-based selectivity.”

The Council on Criminal Justice analysis of the terminated grants found that descriptions of 31% of them included references to “diversity,” “equity,” “race,” “racial,” “racism,” or “gender.”

Baldassarre’s statement said the department is committed to working with organizations “to hear any appeal, and to restore funding as appropriate.” Indeed, it restored seven of the terminated grants for victims’ services after Reuters reported on the cuts in April.

But the cuts have already prompted layoffs and reductions at other organizations around the country. Five groups filed a lawsuit on May 21 to restore the grants in their entirety.

Joseph Griffin, executive director of the Oakland nonprofit Youth Alive, which pioneered hospital-based violence intervention in the 1990s, said his organization had spent only about $60,000 of its $2 million grant before it was axed. The grant was primarily to support the intervention program and was awarded for a three-year period but lasted just seven months. The money would have helped pay to intervene with about 30 survivors of gun violence to prevent retaliatory violence. He’s trying to find a way to continue the work, without overtaxing his team.

“We will not abandon a survivor of violence at the hospital bedside in the same way that the federal government is abandoning our field,” he said.

Related Links

• Hospital Gun-Violence Prevention Programs May Be Caught in US Funding Crossfire Mar 13, 2025
• Super Bowl Rally Shooting Victims Pick Up Pieces, but Gun Violence Haunts Their Lives Oct 17, 2024
• ‘Everybody in This Community Has a Gun’: How Oakland Lost Its Grip on Gun Violence Nov 28, 2023

The cuts are also hitting St. Louis, often dogged by being labeled one of the most dangerous cities in America. The city created an Office of Violence Prevention with money available under former President Joe Biden, and various groups received Justice Department grants, too.

Locals say the efforts have helped: The 33% drop in the city’s homicide rate from 2019 to 2024 was the second-largest decrease among 29 major cities examined by the Council on Criminal Justice.

“I don’t think there’s any doubt that there’s some positive impact from the work that’s happening,” said University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist Chris Sullivan, who received a grant from the Justice Department to assess the work of the city’s new Office of Violence Prevention. That research grant remains in place.

But the Justice Department slashed two other grants in St. Louis, including $2 million for Power4STL. The nonprofit operates the Bullet Related Injury Clinic, dubbed the BRIC, which provides free treatment for physical and mental injuries caused by bullets.

The BRIC had about $1.3 million left on its grant when the award was terminated in April. LJ Punch, a former trauma surgeon who founded the clinic in 2020, said it was intended to fund a mobile clinic, expand mental health services, evaluate the clinic’s programs, and pay for a patient advisory board. The BRIC won’t abandon those initiatives, Punch said, but will likely need to move slower.

Keisha Blanchard joined the BRIC’s advisory board after her experience as a patient at the clinic following a January 2024 gun injury. Someone fired a bullet into her back from the rear window of a Chevy Impala while Blanchard was out for a lunchtime stroll with a friend from her neighborhood walking group. The shooting was random, Blanchard said, but people always assume she did something to provoke it. “It’s so much shame that comes behind that,” she said.

The 42-year-old said the shooting and her initial medical treatment left her feeling angry and unseen. Her family wasn’t allowed to be with her at the hospital since the police didn’t know who shot her or why. When she asked about taking the bullet out, she was told that the common medical practice is to leave it in. “We’re not in the business of removing bullets,” she recalled being told. At a follow-up appointment, she said, she watched her primary care doctor google what to do for a gunshot wound.

“Nobody cares what’s going to happen to me after this,” Blanchard recalled thinking.

Before she was referred to the BRIC, she said, she was treated as though she should be happy just to be alive. But a part of her died in the shooting, she said. Her joyful, carefree attitude gave way to hypervigilance. She stopped taking walks. She uprooted herself, moving to a neighborhood 20 miles away.

The bullet stayed lodged inside her, forcing her to carry a constant reminder of the violence that shattered her sense of safety, until Punch removed it from her back in November. Blanchard said the removal made her feel “reborn.”

It’s a familiar experience among shooting survivors, according to Punch.

“People talk about the distress about having bullets still inside their bodies, and how every waking conscious moment brings them back to the fact that that’s still inside,” Punch said. “But they’re told repeatedly inside conventional care settings that there’s nothing that needs to be done.”

The Justice Department grant to the BRIC had been an acknowledgment, Punch said, that healing has a role in public safety by quelling retaliatory violence.

“The unhealed trauma in the body of someone who’s gotten the message that they are not safe can rapidly turn into an act of violence when that person is threatened again,” Punch said.

Community gun violence, even in large cities, is concentrated among relatively small groups of people who are often both victims and perpetrators, according to researchers. Violence reduction initiatives are frequently tailored to those networks.

Jennifer Lorentz heads the Diversion Unit in the office of the St. Louis Circuit Attorney, the city’s chief prosecutor. The unit offers mostly young, nonviolent offenders an opportunity to avoid prosecution by completing a program to address the issues that initially led to their arrest. About 80% of the participants have experienced gun violence and are referred to the BRIC, Lorentz said, calling the clinic critical to her program’s success.

“We’re getting them these resources, and we’re changing the trajectory of their lives,” Lorentz said. “Helping people is part of public safety.”

Punch said the BRIC staffers were encouraged during the Justice Department application process to emphasize their reach into St. Louis’ Black community, which is disproportionately affected by gun violence. He suspects that emphasis is why its grant was terminated.

Punch likened the grant terminations to only partially treating tuberculosis, which allows the highly infectious disease to become resistant to medicine.

“If you partially extend a helping hand to somebody, and then you rip it away right when they start to trust you, you assure they will never trust you again,” he said. “If your intention is to prevent violence, you don’t do that.”

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post Trump Decried Crime in America, Then Gutted Funding for Gun Violence Prevention appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This content critically highlights the Trump administration’s decision to cut funding for community-based violence prevention programs, portraying these cuts as harmful to public safety and supportive efforts, especially for marginalized communities affected by gun violence. The emphasis on the negative impacts of the cuts, inclusion of expert criticism, and detailed depiction of social programs suggest a perspective more aligned with center-left viewpoints that prioritize public health approaches to crime and emphasize the importance of community intervention and support services.

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to block a California law from taking effect next year that will require nursing homes to have a 96-hour backup power supply, potentially giving the industry a reprieve from having to spend over $1 billion in capital investments.

The Democratic governor tucked the suspension into his budget update to address a projected $12 billion state deficit. If lawmakers go along, it will be the second time nursing homes have forestalled spending on generators or other power supplies required to keep ventilators, feeding and IV pumps, and medication dispensing machines running during emergencies, such as wildfires.

“Really? After what just happened earlier this year in Los Angeles, we think fire safety and emergency preparedness is where we want to make cuts?” said Tony Chicotel, a senior staff attorney with the California Advocates for Nursing Home Reform. “The timing is really just shocking.”

California law requires skilled nursing facilities to provide six hours of backup power, from generators or other sources, to run heating and cooling systems and lifesaving medical equipment when utilities shut off power to prevent wildfires or when power is lost. Federal guidelines require nursing homes to have emergency response plans that include backup power or building evacuation.

Starting next year, most of California’s roughly 1,200 facilities must extend their backup power capability to 96 hours under AB 2511, which lawmakers passed and Newsom signed in 2022. The bill was a victory for patient advocates who for years had urged the state to stretch the requirement, with power shutoffs becoming more frequent and lasting longer. Shutoffs in October 2019 lasted days, cutting power to more than 100 nursing homes in the state.

The governor’s office did not return multiple requests for comment.

Since the 96-hour bill became law, the long-term care sector has made multiple requests for an extension, citing costs over $1 billion to make capital investments. They won a two-year extension last year. Only 34 nursing homes comply with the law, according to the California Department of Health Care Access and Information.

Corey Egel, a spokesperson for the California Association of Health Facilities, said nursing facilities are asking for funding to make the changes. He said that between 800 and 900 of the state’s 1,241 nursing facilities will need “substantial modifications,” costing at least $1 million per facility, to meet the requirements of AB 2511. He added that some building upgrades will cost as much as $3.2 million.

Adding backup power supplies often requires big changes to electrical and HVAC systems, all of which need state and local permits. The process can take years, and current supply chain constraints and tariff-related delays could add to those challenges, Egel said.

“A number of facilities, especially those in urban areas, were not constructed with adequate space for generators of this size. In some instances, accommodating a unit comparable in size to a semitruck is not feasible,” Egel said.

Charlene Harrington, a professor and researcher at the University of California-San Francisco who studies nursing homes, said the industry’s lobbying against stricter regulations and enforcement has succeeded largely because nursing home owners have been good at hiding their profits.

“When you have a governor who is running for president, they’re susceptible to tremendous influence,” Harrington said of Newsom, who is widely expected to launch a 2028 presidential bid. And nursing homes, she said, “have been very effective in arguing that they’re losing money.”

Nationally, efforts to more effectively regulate the nursing home industry or enforce tougher standards have often fallen flat, even as the quality of care in skilled nursing facilities has been a concern for years.

In April, a federal judge in Texas blocked a Biden administration rule to increase staffing at nursing homes, even though research has found low staffing to be at the root of many of the quality issues across such facilities. An investigation published in early May by Harrington and other researchers found that most facilities have nurse staffing levels “well below” the expected staffing based on resident needs and federal minimum staffing requirements.

“They’re jeopardizing the safety of their patients,” Harrington said.

While federal regulations require nursing homes to have emergency plans with options for backup power or evacuations, some states demand additional preparedness. After 12 people died in an overheated nursing home after Hurricane Irma knocked out the power, Florida in 2018 enacted legislation requiring nursing homes and assisted living facilities to have a generator capable of keeping patient areas at 81 degrees Fahrenheit or lower for at least four days. One report found most facilities were compliant by 2021.

Maryland requires assisted living facilities to maintain emergency generators that can run for 48 hours, and Virginia requires generators on-site. And this year, Texas lawmakers have filed bills to require generators in nursing homes and assisted living facilities.

In California, it took groups representing about 400,000 nursing home residents several years to secure the rule for extended backup power, overcoming a veto by Newsom in 2020. “Put simply, any loss of electrical power puts nursing home residents in peril, since most are extraordinarily vulnerable, and many rely on electrical-powered life support systems,” state AARP director Nancy McPherson wrote in a December 2020 policy letter to the California Department of Public Health. “Unsafe temperatures, unrefrigerated medications, and medical devices without power can all have deadly consequences for nursing home residents.”

It’s unclear whether lawmakers will go along with Newsom’s request. State senators are advancing separate legislation in committee that would mandate 72 hours of backup power at assisted living facilities that are home to 16 or more residents. Such facilities are not considered health care operations and have different regulations in California.

Democratic Assembly member Jacqui Irwin, who authored the 96-hour law, expressed frustration with the governor for “attempting to bureaucratically veto” her legislation, noting that climate-related threats, such as power shutoffs, have only increased.

Irwin said Newsom’s budget proposal “for an indefinite suspension of the requirement abandons California seniors and those recuperating from an illness or surgery.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The post Newsom’s Push To Block Law Could Save California Nursing Homes Over $1 Billion appeared first on kffhealthnews.org

Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.

Political Bias Rating: Center-Left

This article is primarily focused on government regulation, healthcare policy, and consumer protections, particularly concerning vulnerable populations like nursing home residents. It critiques Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democratic governor, for proposing to delay a safety regulation, while highlighting the safety risks and advocating for stronger protections. The piece emphasizes the influence of industry lobbying against stricter rules and brings forward patient advocates’ concerns. While it presents the industry’s financial and logistical challenges, the overall tone leans toward supporting regulatory oversight and protecting public health, which generally aligns with center-left perspectives.