Double Trouble for Public Health: Facing Two Major Challenges Head-On

The two-hit hypothesis originally describes how cancer may develop due to two critical mutations—one that can be inherited and another influenced by environmental factors. Lately, we can see a parallel in public health, which appears to be facing its own two hits: significant budget cuts at both federal and state levels.

In recent weeks, we’ve seen drastic reductions in funding for public health programs that have safeguarded communities for decades. The situation is dire, as these cuts leave public health systems particularly vulnerable.

Under the 10th Amendment, states largely control public health. However, since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s time, federal support has been essential for managing health crises. For example, the CDC’s Vaccines for Children program has saved millions of lives by preventing vaccine-preventable diseases. The CDC has also worked alongside organizations like the World Health Organization to manage infectious disease outbreaks, which can cross borders quickly.

Public health isn’t just about stopping infections; it also involves improving community health through various programs. The CDC deals with issues from air quality to mental health, addressing chronic diseases and promoting safety.

However, the landscape has changed dramatically recently. Under Trump’s presidency, there were significant shifts in public health strategy. Nominees for health roles suggested a reduced federal role, placing more responsibility on local health departments. As the CDC’s connection with the WHO waned, states and local departments began to fill the gap, often mobilizing faster than the federal response.

Historically, CDC funding has been critical for state health departments, especially during crises. The Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity (ELC) program, for instance, gained momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic due to increased needs for surveillance and testing. Now, that funding is diminishing, leaving many departments scrambling.

Recently, the announcement of $11 billion in funding cuts for local health departments has raised alarms. The reasoning behind these cuts hinges on the claim that the pandemic is over, but many states are grappling with budget shortfalls and need stable funding. In some areas, this translates to cuts that affect crucial health programs.

On top of state cuts, more reductions have hit federal health services. The recent decision slashed key programs aimed at controlling diseases like tuberculosis and distributing HIV prevention resources. This move undermines the national response capability for current and future health crises.

Without adequate funding, states can only do so much. Universities and public health schools face their own financial challenges, limiting their ability to support local efforts effectively. The impacts of these cuts will emerge in waves. We will likely see a rise in outbreaks of diseases like measles, alongside complications from respiratory pathogens like COVID-19, flu, and RSV. There’s also concern over the rise of chronic diseases as vital community health initiatives fade away.

As all these changes unfold, the repercussions of weakened public health infrastructure are likely to affect education, business, and overall community well-being. With each passing year, the dedicated public health workforce will shrink, further crippling our ability to respond to health emergencies.

In short, the two-hit scenario facing public health isn’t just a theory—it’s a reality that could have major consequences for all of us. Dr. Scott A. Rivkees, a public health expert and former state surgeon general, warns that we must recognize these signs and act accordingly to support our health systems before it’s too late.

For further insights into this public health crisis, you can read more from the CDC’s official report on funding cuts.

Check out this related article: Sanford Health’s Mission: Enhancing Rural America’s Access to Quality Healthcare