The Coming HIV Care Crisis

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)'s reduction of Medicaid expansion eligibility from 138% to 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL) creates an unprecedented crisis for HIV care in the United States, threatening to force approximately 200,000 people living with HIV off coverage while simultaneously undermining the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program's capacity to serve as an adequate safety net, ultimately jeopardizing decades of progress toward ending the HIV epidemic and disproportionately harming communities of color and rural populations who already face significant barriers to care.

A Crisis at the Intersection of Policy and Survival

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4, 2025, represents, according to the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), a moment when "AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) stand at a critical precipice." Let us not mince words: this legislation systematically dismantles the interconnected safety net that has enabled the United States to achieve the highest rates of viral suppression in the history of the epidemic.

The math, like those who passed this legislation, is cruel and unforgiving. With 40% of non-elderly adults living with HIV relying on Medicaid for coverage—nearly three times the rate of the general population—this eligibility reduction targets precisely the demographic most dependent on public health insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that 7.8 million people will lose Medicaid coverage overall, with advocacy organizations estimating that approximately 200,000 people living with HIV will be among those stripped of coverage.

The timing creates a perfect storm. As NASTAD warns, "enhanced premium tax credits associated with Marketplace plans are set to expire later this year." At the same time, state health departments face "drastic budget cuts and reductions in force because of federal agency cuts." This convergence of federal policy changes threatens to create what NASTAD calls "sharp increases in the number of uninsured people with low incomes," precisely when the safety net programs designed to catch them are facing their own funding constraints.

The Medicaid Foundation: Why This Coverage Matters

The reduction from 138% to 100% of the federal poverty level specifically targets the income bracket where HIV prevalence is highest. Research demonstrates that 42% of Medicaid enrollees with HIV gained coverage through the Affordable Care Act's expansion, with this figure rising to 51% in expansion states. More than a mere statistical abstraction, it represents hundreds of thousands of people living with HIV (PLWH) who gained access to consistent, comprehensive healthcare for the first time.

The financial implications reveal the complexity of HIV care. Average Medicaid spending reaches $24,000 per HIV enrollee compared to $9,000 for non-HIV enrollees, reflecting the intensive medical management required for effective HIV treatment. When coverage disappears, these costs don't vanish—they shift to an already overwhelmed safety net or go unmet entirely, leading to treatment interruptions that increase viral loads and HIV transmission risk.

State-level analyses paint an even grimmer picture. Louisiana and Virginia face 21% spending cuts over the 10-year period, while Southern states that bear 52% of new HIV diagnoses despite comprising only 38% of the population will see disproportionate impacts. The legislation includes five major provisions that collectively cut $896 billion from Medicaid: work requirements, repealing Biden-era eligibility rules, provider tax restrictions, state-directed payment limits, and increased eligibility redeterminations.

The Ryan White Program: Last Resort, Impossible Math

The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program operates on a fundamentally different model than Medicaid—one that makes absorbing massive coverage losses mathematically impossible. With $2.6 billion in discretionary funding requiring annual Congressional appropriations, the program lacks Medicaid's entitlement structure that automatically expands to meet growing needs.

The program's current client base reveals the scale of the challenge. Ryan White already serves over 576,000 clients annually, representing more than half of all diagnosed HIV cases. Critically, 39% of Ryan White clients have Medicaid as their primary payer, meaning they use Ryan White for wraparound services Medicaid doesn't cover. When these people lose Medicaid, Ryan White must suddenly cover their entire care costs—an impossibility given current funding constraints.

NASTAD's analysis warns this would "shift unsustainable burdens to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program," potentially forcing jurisdictions to reintroduce AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) waitlists not seen since the early 2010s. The program's "payer of last resort" status means it legally must serve anyone without other coverage options, creating an unfunded mandate when Medicaid disappears.

Historical evidence demonstrates the program's existing capacity limitations. From 2017-2019, 58.7% of uninsured persons had unmet needs for HIV ancillary care services, yet the program achieved 90.6% viral suppression rates among clients in 2023—a testament to its effectiveness when adequately resourced.

The proposed FY 2026 budget compounds this crisis by cutting Ryan White funding to $2.5 billion while eliminating Part F entirely. Part F includes AIDS Education and Training Centers that reached 56,383 health professionals last year, representing a critical workforce development component that would disappear precisely when demand for HIV care is expected to surge.

Healthcare Infrastructure Under Siege

Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC), serving as the backbone of HIV care in underserved communities, face an existential crisis. With Medicaid comprising 43% of FQHC revenue, the reconciliation bill threatens the fundamental business model of these safety-net providers. FQHCs currently operate on razor-thin margins approaching negative 2.2%, with 42% reporting 90 days or less cash on hand.

The rural healthcare crisis intensifies these challenges. Over 700 rural hospitals face closure risk—representing one-third of all rural hospitals—with 171 having shut down since 2005. The bill's $25 billion rural transformation fund provides only 43% of what experts calculate is needed to offset Medicaid cuts.

For HIV care, this means losing critical access points in areas already designated as priority jurisdictions for the Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative. Research demonstrates that FQHCs in the rural South could reduce median drive time to HIV care from 50 to 10 minutes—but only if they remain financially viable. When Medicaid patients lose coverage, FQHCs must still serve them as uninsured patients by law, creating additional uncompensated care costs the facilities cannot absorb.

The 340B Program: Hidden Financial Hemorrhaging

The removal of Pharmacy Benefit Manager (PBM) spread pricing prohibitions represents a significant blow to 340B savings that HIV programs depend on for sustainability. The 340B program generated $38 billion in discounts in 2020 alone, with Ryan White clinics using these savings to serve an additional 43,000 people living with HIV.

Without spread pricing protections, PBMs can continue diverting these savings through discriminatory practices. States have documented massive overcharges: Ohio lost $224.8 million in one year, Pennsylvania $605 million over four years, and Maryland $72 million annually to spread pricing schemes. For HIV programs already operating on minimal margins, these losses represent the difference between serving patients, implementing waitlists, or shutting down altogether.

The policy intersection becomes particularly cruel when considering substance use services. While the OBBBA protects substance use disorder services from cost-sharing requirements—a "modest but important win" according to county officials—the broader context undermines these protections. Research shows 23.94% of people with HIV need treatment for alcohol or substance use, with people who inject drugs facing 30 times higher HIV risk than non-users.

Geographic and Demographic Devastation

The reconciliation bill's impacts fall hardest on communities already bearing disproportionate HIV burdens. Black and Hispanic/Latino people account for 64% of all people with HIV while representing only 31% of the population. These communities have higher Medicaid coverage rates due to lower incomes and higher disability rates, making them particularly vulnerable to coverage losses.

Southern states face a catastrophic combination of high HIV prevalence, limited state resources, and political resistance to mitigation strategies. The region accounts for 52% of new diagnoses, and includes many non-expansion states where 66% of HIV-positive adults rely on disability-related Medicaid pathways.

Nine states have trigger laws automatically ending Medicaid expansion if federal matching rates drop, creating immediate coverage cliffs. The intersection of geography, race, and poverty creates concentrated zones where HIV care infrastructure may collapse entirely, reversing decades of progress in communities that have historically faced the greatest barriers to care.

Clearly, This Isn’t About Fiscal Responsibility

The legislation represents fiscal malpractice when considering the long-term costs of new HIV transmissions. Each new HIV infection creates $501,000 in lifetime healthcare costs, while achieving 72% viral suppression would cost $120 billion over 20 years. The math is unambiguous: preventing new infections through sustained treatment is far more cost-effective than treating them after they occur.

The HIV community's response demonstrates the severity of the threat. Over 113 organizations relaunched the #SaveHIVFunding campaign, while the Partnership to End HIV, STI, and Hepatitis Epidemics united major organizations in opposition, emphasizing that "healthcare is not a reward for paperwork—it is a human right."

As NASTAD's analysis concludes, "When one of these pillars weakens, the others feel the shock waves"—and this bill doesn't just weaken pillars, it demolishes them. Without immediate action to reverse these cuts, the United States will witness a preventable reversal of decades of progress in HIV care, measured not in budget savings but in lives lost to a disease we know how to treat.

RFK Jr's Budget Testimony Reveals Concerning Vision for America's Healthcare Safety Net

In a pair of contentious congressional hearings last week, U.D. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. defended the Trump Administration's proposed fiscal year 2026 budget for HHS—a plan that would slash the department's discretionary funding by 26%, amounting to approximately $33 billion in cuts. These hearings before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and the House Appropriations Committee provided the most comprehensive look yet at the administration's vision for reshaping America's healthcare system and safety net programs.

Secretary Kennedy's testimony, frequently punctuated by tense exchanges with lawmakers, outlined a fundamental restructuring of the federal government's role in healthcare under the banner of "Making America Healthy Again" (MAHA). The vision embraces dramatic cost reductions justified as eliminating "waste" and "bureaucracy," but the evidence suggests these changes would significantly impact access to healthcare for millions of Americans, particularly those living with chronic conditions and those from marginalized communities.

The Magnitude of Proposed Cuts

The scale of proposed reductions across HHS agencies is staggering, particularly for federal research and public health programs. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) faces an $18 billion reduction, nearly 40% of its current budget. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would see cuts of approximately $4 billion. Multiple agencies would be eliminated entirely, including the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), and the Administration for Community Living (ACL).

During his testimony, Kennedy framed these changes as necessary consolidations rather than eliminations: "We had nine separate offices of women's health. When we consolidate them Democrats say we're eliminating them. We're not. We're still appropriating the $3.7 billion," Kennedy told House lawmakers. He further justified the reductions by claiming that "my department grew by 38% over the last four years. I would say that's great if Americans got healthier, but they didn't. They got worse."

But the budget document itself tells a different story. The proposed restructuring would move many functions to a new "Administration for a Healthy America" (AHA) while explicitly cutting total funding. For example, the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which provides critical utility assistance to low-income Americans, would be eliminated entirely based on the rationale that "states have policies preventing utility disconnection for low-income households, effectively making LIHEAP a pass-through benefitting utilities in the Northeast," according to the budget proposal.

Impact on Health Coverage and Access

Perhaps most concerning are the projected impacts on health insurance coverage. The proposed budget works in tandem with the reconciliation bill currently working its way through Congress, which would impose significant changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplaces.

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), these changes could increase the number of people without health insurance by 8.6 million, with the total rising to 13.7 million when combined with the expected expiration of the ACA's enhanced premium tax credits. A Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analysis projects that the uninsured rate would increase by 5 percentage points or more in Florida, Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi, and Washington, with 30 states and the District of Columbia seeing increases of at least 3 percentage points.

When Senator Bernie Sanders asked Kennedy about the reconciliation bill's potential to eliminate health insurance for 13.7 million Americans, Kennedy acknowledged that people would lose coverage but characterized the cuts as "eliminations of waste, abuse and fraud." Yet when pressed for specifics, the Secretary could not provide details on several programs affected, including funding delays for Head Start, impacts on clinical trials, and cuts to childhood lead poisoning prevention.

The Mirage of Medicaid Work Requirements

Central to both the budget proposal and the reconciliation bill is the implementation of Medicaid work requirements. Under these provisions, certain Medicaid recipients would need to work at least 20 hours per week to maintain their coverage. Proponents, including Kennedy, argue this would reduce dependency and promote employment.

However, extensive research contradicts these claims. According to Congressional Budget Office's own analysis, Medicaid work requirements "would have a negligible effect on employment status or hours worked by people who would be subject to the work requirements." This aligns with the real-world experience from Arkansas—the only state to fully implement such requirements—where more than 18,000 people lost coverage while employment rates remained unchanged.

The evidence shows that most Medicaid recipients who can work already do. A KFF analysis found that 92% of Medicaid adults under age 65 are either working (64%), caring for family members (12%), dealing with illness or disability (10%), or attending school (7%). Only 8% report being retired, unable to find work, or not working for another reason.

Moreover, a recent Commonwealth Fund study projects that implementing nationwide Medicaid work requirements would have devastating economic consequences. Between 4.6 million and 5.2 million adults could lose Medicaid coverage in 2026, cutting federal funding to states by $33 billion to $46 billion in the first year. This would trigger a $43 billion to $59 billion reduction in economic activity, a loss of 322,000 to 449,000 jobs nationwide, and a $3.2 billion to $4.4 billion reduction in state and local tax revenues.

"Our findings demonstrate a paradox of Medicaid work requirement policies: rather than bolstering employment—as claimed by proponents—they could actually reduce employment and people's earnings," the study's authors conclude. These economic impacts would extend beyond just expansion states, affecting all states due to interconnected economies.

Transparency and Public Input Concerns

Beyond specific policy proposals, the administration's approach to transparency and public input has raised alarm. In March 2025, HHS rescinded the Richardson Waiver, which had been in place since 1971 and required public comment periods for certain HHS actions. Senator Ron Wyden characterized this move as a shift from "radical transparency" to "radical secrecy," saying Kennedy has "shut the gates, locking out doctors, patient advocates, and everyday Americans from weighing in on the chaotic disruption of America's healthcare."

When questioned about specific programs being cut, Kennedy repeatedly cited a court order preventing him from discussing reorganization details. Yet this didn't stop him from defending the broader vision of massive structural change, leaving lawmakers and the public with limited ability to assess the full impact of the proposals.

Implications for Patients and Advocates

For people living with chronic conditions, including HIV, hepatitis, and other serious illnesses, the proposed changes would create multiple barriers to care. Reduced funding for research could slow the development of new treatments. Medicaid work requirements could jeopardize coverage for those whose conditions make consistent employment difficult but who don't qualify for disability exemptions. Cuts to public health programs would impact prevention efforts, disease surveillance, and outbreak response capabilities.

Rural communities face particular risks, with hospital closures likely to accelerate. A recent report found that 742 rural hospitals are already at risk of closing, with over 300 classified as being at "immediate risk." Cuts to Medicaid funding would further destabilize these essential providers.

Advocates must understand that while Secretary Kennedy has stated that appropriated funds will be spent as directed by Congress, the administration's budget proposal reveals its long-term vision for drastically reducing the federal government's role in healthcare. This makes engagement with congressional representatives, particularly those on appropriations committees, absolutely critical in the coming months.

The administration's budget proposal represents a fundamental reshaping of America's healthcare safety net that would leave millions of Americans with less access to care, despite evidence that key proposals like Medicaid work requirements fail to achieve their stated goals and may actually harm state economies and healthcare systems. As policymakers debate these changes, the voices of patients and advocates must be centered to ensure that vulnerable populations are not left behind in the pursuit of government efficiency.

When Algorithms Deny Care: The Insurance Industry's AI War Against Patients

The assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in December 2024 laid bare a healthcare crisis where insurance companies use artificial intelligence to systematically deny care while posting record profits. Federal data shows UnitedHealthcare, which covers 49 million Americans, denied nearly one-third of all in-network claims in 2022 - the highest rate among major insurers.

This reflects an industry-wide strategy that insurance scholar Jay Feinman calls "delay, deny, defend" - now supercharged by AI. These systems automatically deny claims, delay payment, and force sick people to defend their right to care through complex appeals. A Commonwealth Fund survey found 45% of working-age adults with insurance faced denied coverage for services they believed should be covered.

The consequences are devastating. As documented cases show, these automated denial systems routinely override physician recommendations for essential care, creating a system where algorithms, not doctors, decide who receives treatment. For those who do appeal, insurers approve at least some form of care about half the time. This creates a perverse incentive structure where insurers can deny claims broadly, knowing most people will not fight back. For the people trapped in this system, the stakes could not be higher - this is quite literally a matter of life and death.

The Rise of AI in Claims Processing

Health insurers have increasingly turned to AI systems to automate claims processing and denials, fundamentally changing how coverage decisions are made. A ProPublica investigation revealed that Cigna's PXDX system allows its doctors to deny claims without reviewing patient files, processing roughly 300,000 denials in just two months. "We literally click and submit. It takes all of 1.2 seconds to do 50 at a time," a former Cigna doctor reported.

The scope of automated denials extends beyond Cigna. UnitedHealth Group's NaviHealth uses an AI tool called "nH Predict" to determine length-of-stay recommendations for people in rehabilitation facilities. According to STAT News, this system generates precise predictions about recovery timelines and discharge dates without accounting for people's individual circumstances or their doctors' medical judgment. While NaviHealth claims its algorithm is merely a "guide" for discharge planning, its marketing materials boast about "significantly reducing costs specific to unnecessary care."

Only about 1% of denied claims are appealed, despite high rates of denials being overturned when challenged. This creates a system where insurers can use AI to broadly deny claims, knowing most people will not contest the decisions. The practice raises serious ethical concerns about algorithmic decision-making in healthcare, especially when such systems prioritize cost savings over medical necessity and doctor recommendations.

Impact on Patient Care

The human cost of AI-driven claim denials reveals a systemic strategy of "delay, deny, defend" that puts profits over patients. STAT News reports the case of Frances Walter, an 85-year-old with a shattered shoulder and pain medication allergies, whose story exemplifies the cruel efficiency of algorithmic denial systems. NaviHealth's algorithm predicted she would recover in 16.6 days, prompting her insurer to cut off payment despite medical notes showing she could not dress herself, use the bathroom independently, or operate a walker. She was forced to spend her life savings and enroll in Medicaid to continue necessary rehabilitation.

Walter's case is not unique. Despite her medical team's objections, UnitedHealthcare terminated her coverage based solely on an algorithm's prediction. Her appeal was denied twice, and when she finally received an administrative hearing, UnitedHealthcare didn't even send a representative - yet the judge still sided with the company. Walter's case reveals how the system is stacked against patients: insurers can deny care with a keystroke, forcing people to navigate a complex appeals process while their health deteriorates.

The fundamental doctor-patient relationship is being undermined as healthcare facilities face increasing pressure to align their treatment recommendations with algorithmic predictions. The Commonwealth Fund found that 60% of people who face denials experience delayed care, with half reporting their health problems worsened while waiting for insurance approval. Behind each statistic are countless stories like Walter's - people suffering while fighting faceless algorithms for their right to medical care.

The AI Arms Race in Healthcare Claims

Healthcare providers are fighting back against automated denials by deploying their own AI tools. New startups like Claimable and FightHealthInsurance.com help patients and providers challenge insurer denials, with Claimable achieving an 85% success rate in overturning denials. Care New England reduced authorization-related denials by 55% using AI assistance.

While these counter-measures show promise, they highlight a perverse reality: healthcare providers must now divert critical resources away from patient care to wage algorithmic warfare against insurance companies. The Mayo Clinic has cut 30 full-time positions and spent $700,000 on AI tools simply to fight denials. As Dr. Robert Wachter of UCSF notes, "You have automatic conflict. Their AI will deny our AI, and we'll go back and forth."

This technological arms race exemplifies how far the American healthcare system has strayed from its purpose. Instead of focusing on patient care, providers must invest millions in AI tools to combat insurers' automated denial systems - resources that could be spent on direct patient care, medical research, or improving healthcare delivery. The emergence of these counter-measures, while potentially helpful for providers and patients seeking care, highlights fundamental flaws in our healthcare system that require policy solutions, not just technological fixes.

AI Bias: Amplifying Healthcare Inequities

The potential for AI systems to perpetuate and intensify existing healthcare disparities is deeply concerning. A comprehensive JAMA Network Open study examining insurance claim denials revealed that at-risk populations experience significantly higher denial rates.

The research found:

• Low-income patients had 43% higher odds of claim denials compared to high-income patients

• Patients with high school education or less experienced denial rates of 1.79%, versus 1.14% for college-educated patients

• Racial and ethnic minorities faced disproportionate denial rates:

  • Asian patients: 2.72% denial rate

  • Hispanic patients: 2.44% denial rate

  • Non-Hispanic Black patients: 2.04% denial rate

  • Non-Hispanic White patients: 1.13% denial rate

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) Consumer Representatives report warns that AI tools, often trained on historically biased datasets, can "exacerbate existing bias and discrimination, particularly for marginalized and disenfranchised communities."

These systemic biases stem from persistent underrepresentation in clinical research datasets, which means AI algorithms learn and perpetuate historical inequities. The result is a feedback loop where technological "efficiency" becomes a mechanism for deepening healthcare disparities.

Legislative Response and Regulatory Oversight

While California's Physicians Make Decisions Act and new Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) rules represent progress in regulating AI in healthcare claims, the NAIC warns that current oversight remains inadequate. California's law prohibits insurers from using AI algorithms as the sole basis for denying medically necessary claims and establishes strict processing deadlines: five business days for standard cases, 72 hours for urgent cases, and 30 days for retrospective reviews.

At the federal level, CMS now requires Medicare Advantage plans to base coverage decisions on individual circumstances rather than algorithmic predictions. As of January 2024, coverage denials must be reviewed by physicians with relevant expertise, and plans must follow original Medicare coverage criteria. CMS Deputy Administrator Meena Seshamani promises audits and enforcement actions, including civil penalties and enrollment suspensions for non-compliance.

The insurance industry opposes these safeguards. UnitedHealthcare's Medicare CEO Tim Noel argues that restricting "utilization management tools would markedly deviate from Congress' intent." But as the NAIC emphasizes, meaningful transparency requires more than superficial disclosures - insurers must document and justify their AI systems' decision-making criteria, training data, and potential biases. Most critically, human clinicians with relevant expertise must maintain true decision-making authority, not just rubber-stamp algorithmic recommendations.

Recommendations for Action

The NAIC framework provides a roadmap for protecting patients while ensuring appropriate oversight of AI in healthcare claims. Key priorities for federal and state regulators:

• Require comprehensive disclosure of AI systems' training data, decision criteria, and known limitations

• Mandate documentation of physician recommendation overrides with clinical justification

• Implement regular independent audits focused on denial patterns affecting marginalized communities

• Establish clear accountability and substantial penalties when AI denials cause patient harm

• Create expedited appeal processes for urgent care needs

Healthcare providers should:

• Document all cases where AI denials conflict with clinical judgment

• Track patient impacts from inappropriate denials, including worsened health outcomes

• Report systematic discrimination in algorithmic denials

• Support patient appeals with detailed clinical documentation

• Share denial pattern data with regulators and policymakers

The solutions cannot rely solely on technological counter-measures. As the NAIC emphasizes, "The time to act is now."

Conclusion

The AI-driven denial of care represents more than a technological problem - it's a fundamental breach of the healthcare system's ethical foundations. By prioritizing algorithmic efficiency over human medical judgment, insurers have transformed life-saving care into a battlefield where profit algorithms determine patient survival.

Meaningful change requires a multi-pronged approach: robust regulatory oversight, technological accountability, and a recommitment to patient-centered care. We cannot allow artificial intelligence to become an instrument of systemic denial, transforming healthcare from a human right into an algorithmic privilege.

Patients, providers, and policymakers must unite to demand transparency, challenge discriminatory systems, and restore the primacy of human medical expertise. The stakes are too high to accept a future where lines of code determine who receives care and who is left behind. Our healthcare system must be rebuilt around a simple, non-negotiable principle: medical decisions should serve patients, not corporate balance sheets.

New CDC Data Shows Progress on STI and Overdose Prevention

New data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) marks the first significant declines in both sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and drug overdose deaths after nearly two decades of consistent increases. According to CDC's 2023 STI surveillance report, STI rates have decreased by 1.8% from 2022 to 2023, while provisional data through June 2024 indicates a 14.5% decline in national overdose deaths compared to the previous year. These improvements highlight the impact of recent targeted public health interventions, but significant barriers remain, especially in underserved populations and high-burden regions. The incoming Trump Administration's approach to public health funding raises concerns about the stability of these gains, as political shifts can lead to funding uncertainties and program disruptions.

A Closer Look at the STI Data

The CDC's 2023 STI surveillance report reveals encouraging improvements across several key metrics. Gonorrhea cases declined by 7.2%, falling below pre-pandemic levels, and primary and secondary (P&S) syphilis cases decreased by 10.2%, marking the first substantial decline in over two decades. Perhaps most notably, the rate of congenital syphilis increase slowed significantly to 3% compared to previous annual increases of up to 30%.

Despite these positive trends, persistent disparities continue to be a significant concern. Young people aged 15-24 years account for 48.2% of all reported STI cases, although they represent only 25% of the sexually active population. Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) remain disproportionately affected, making up 32.7% of all P&S syphilis cases in 2023. Racial and ethnic disparities are also evident, with Black and American Indian/Alaska Native populations experiencing significantly higher rates of all measured STIs compared to other groups.

Geographic disparities further complicate the picture. The South and West regions of the United States report the highest STI rates, with limited testing accessibility and healthcare infrastructure contributing to these regional differences. Targeted prevention measures in high-burden regions will be critical to further reducing these disparities and sustaining progress.

Progress in Overdose Prevention

CDC provisional data through June 2024 indicates a significant decline of 14.5% in national drug overdose deaths compared to the previous year. Forty-five states report decreases in overdose deaths, with North Carolina, Nebraska, and West Virginia showing the most notable reductions of 30%, 23%, and 19%, respectively. However, five Western states continue to report increases, highlighting ongoing geographic disparities in overdose prevention effectiveness.

One of the key factors contributing to these improvements is the expanded access to naloxone, particularly after its approval for over-the-counter use in March 2023. Increased naloxone availability, paired with interventions to reduce solitary drug use, is estimated to have the potential to reduce overdose deaths by up to 37.4%.

Despite this progress, access to overdose prevention services remains inconsistent. Rural areas, especially in the Western United States, face unique challenges due to limited availability of treatment options and prevention tools. This calls for more targeted interventions to bridge the gap between urban and rural areas.

Federal Investments and Policy Shifts

Recent federal funding initiatives signal a strategic shift towards integrated prevention approaches. The Biden Administration's $65.7 million prevention and treatment package, announced in August 2024, emphasizes coordinated responses to overlapping public health challenges, including STIs and substance use disorders. Of this, $27.5 million is specifically allocated for substance use prevention services across states, local governments, and tribal communities.

Additional investments include the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ (HHS) Minority HIV/AIDS Fund's $4.8 million support for initiatives targeting doxycycline post-exposure prophylaxis (doxy PEP) and point-of-care testing for HIV and syphilis in 13 jurisdictions. These efforts focus on regions identified as having high unmet needs, aiming to reduce barriers to STI prevention and treatment, particularly for marginalized populations.

However, funding sustainability remains an ongoing challenge, especially with the uncertainty introduced by the changing political landscape and the potential for shifts in federal priorities under the new administration. The 2023 rescission of $400 million in disease intervention specialist funds has forced staff reductions across state health departments, compromising the ability to provide essential contact tracing, partner services, and community outreach. While the Senate Appropriations Committee has proposed a $2 million increase for STI prevention programs, it falls significantly short of offsetting previous cuts, posing a substantial risk to the gains made in recent years.

Barriers to Sustained Progress

Despite progress, systemic barriers threaten the sustainability of current improvements in STI and overdose prevention. Key challenges include limited workforce capacity, geographic disparities in access to care, and medical supply chain issues.

Workforce Capacity and Geographic Barriers

The loss of $400 million in disease intervention specialist funding has significantly impacted state-level prevention efforts, leading to workforce reductions across health departments and limiting their capacity to provide necessary prevention services. The impacts of these workforce reductions are most acutely felt in the South and West regions, where both STI and overdose rates remain highest.

Healthcare delivery infrastructure also presents notable barriers. In rural and underserved communities, access to testing and prevention services remains a critical issue. Without targeted investment in these areas, disparities in healthcare access will persist, undermining the broader public health goals of reducing STI and overdose rates.

Supply Chain Vulnerabilities

Another critical challenge lies in supply chain vulnerabilities, particularly for key medications like Bicillin L-A, which is the only approved treatment for congenital syphilis. Shortages in Bicillin L-A have complicated the treatment of congenital syphilis, which already poses a substantial burden on maternal health services. The 2023 STI surveillance report highlights 3,882 reported congenital syphilis cases, including 279 stillbirths and infant deaths, emphasizing the urgent need for stable access to treatment.

Funding Instability

Funding instability continues to undermine long-term progress. The inconsistent nature of prevention program funding—often reliant on short-term grants—makes it challenging for state health departments to maintain consistent services and infrastructure. Transitioning to sustainable funding models that support long-term planning and implementation is crucial if gains are to be maintained and expanded.

Path Forward: Scaling Effective Models and Sustainable Funding

To build on recent successes in reducing STI and overdose rates, it is essential to strengthen and expand effective prevention models, address healthcare access disparities, and secure sustainable funding sources. Below are recommendations to ensure continued progress:

1. Transition to Sustainable Funding Mechanisms

Federal and state funding for STI and overdose prevention programs must transition from sporadic grants to more reliable, sustained funding streams. The restoration of the $400 million disease intervention specialist funding should be prioritized to rebuild essential workforce capacity. Without a stable financial foundation, health departments will struggle to maintain prevention programs and respond effectively to emerging challenges.

2. Expand Proven Prevention Models Nationally

Programs such as CDC's PS-24-0003, which supports HIV prevention in sexual health clinics, and PS-23-0011, which expands services in high-burden communities, have demonstrated effectiveness in improving health outcomes. Scaling these models to a national level, with an emphasis on high-burden regions, will help ensure that the successes seen in certain areas can be replicated more broadly.

3. Strengthen Healthcare Access in Underserved Areas

Addressing geographic disparities requires focused efforts to expand healthcare access in rural and underserved communities. Efforts should include increasing the availability of rapid testing, supporting mobile health units, strengthening telemedicine infrastructure, and investing in the development of local healthcare workforces. Such measures will help bridge the gaps in access and contribute to reducing the unequal burden of STIs and overdose deaths across regions.

4. Address Supply Chain Issues for Essential Medications

To mitigate the impact of medication shortages, federal policy must prioritize securing stable supply chains for essential treatments like Bicillin L-A. This might include incentives for domestic production or other strategies to ensure a consistent supply of critical medications.

5. Enhance Data Collection and Integration

Modernizing data collection and surveillance systems will enhance the ability to track health outcomes and guide resource allocation. Improved integration between public health and healthcare systems can facilitate more timely and effective responses, reduce duplicative efforts, and enhance the overall efficiency of prevention programs.

Moving Towards Sustainable Progress

Recent data showing reductions in STI and overdose rates demonstrate the positive impact of well-targeted public health interventions. However, sustaining and expanding upon this progress requires systematic policy changes and sustained commitment to prevention infrastructure. Addressing systemic barriers—including funding instability, geographic and racial disparities, workforce limitations, and supply chain challenges—will be crucial to achieving long-term success. By scaling effective programs, ensuring equitable access to healthcare services, and committing to long-term funding, there is potential not only to maintain recent gains but to significantly move towards reducing the incidence of STIs and overdose deaths nationwide.