The 33rd Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI) convened February 22nd – 25th in Denver under extraordinary tension between a pipeline of HIV prevention, treatment, and potential cure tools that could reshape the epidemic’s trajectory, and a global funding crisis actively dismantling the infrastructure required to deliver any of it. As Conference Chair Nicolas Chomont of the Université de Montréal stated in the Opening Session, “we share a responsibility to defend and sustain funding for international HIV programs and research.” That charge framed every session that followed.

Subscribe now

The Funding Crisis: New Data on the Damage

The consequences of disruptions to the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the dissolution of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and National Institutes of Health (NIH) cuts are no longer hypothetical. The CROI session “Sleepless in Denver” presented the first systematic evidence of the damage. Ellen Brazier’s survey data from the International epidemiology Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) consortium found that across 32 countries, 47% of clinics reported disruptions in HIV services, with similar rates of disruption to medication availability, laboratory services, and clinic operations. In KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, Lindsey Filiatreau reported that 39% of clinics experienced disruptions affecting an estimated 830,000 people living with HIV.

The damage is not confined overseas. Aaron Richterman presented data from a rapid survey across three U.S. states showing that 47% of clinics reported HIV service disruptions, including medication shortages. He also demonstratedhow cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the country’s largest targeted anti-poverty program serving more than 42 million Americans, directly undermine treatment outcomes. During the 2025 government shutdown, ART adherence among people living with HIV who receive SNAP benefits dropped to as low as 40%. The connection between food security and viral suppression is well established; cutting one predictably undermines the other. As Filiatreau put it, “These things [HIV services]… can be taken away overnight, but they can’t be rebuilt overnight.”

Prevention: An Expanding Toolkit, a Widening Access Gap

Against this backdrop, CROI delivered a prevention portfolio that is broader and stronger than at any previous conference. Final results from the PURPOSE 1 and PURPOSE 2 trials confirmed the efficacy of twice-yearly injectable lenacapavir for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). In PURPOSE 1, which enrolled cisgender adolescent and young women in sub-Saharan Africa, HIV incidence among lenacapavir recipients was 0.07 per 100 person-years, compared to 1.98 for oral emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF) and 1.94 for emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF), with only two seroconversions among more than 2,000 participants. PURPOSE 2, enrolling men who have sex with men and gender diverse people, showed HIV incidence of 0.11 per 100 person-years for lenacapavir versus 0.92 for F/TDF, with three seroconversions among 2,179 participants.

The five total seroconversions across both studies received considerable attention, with four showing lenacapavir-associated resistance mutations that researchers believe developed during PrEP rather than being transmitted. Research into why these breakthroughs occurred is ongoing. As Gilead’s Stephanie Cox stated, “We don’t know why these occurred… I think the efficacy is very high.” San Francisco AIDS Foundation (SFAF) Medical Director Hyman Scott, MD, MPH, added context: “The breakthrough infections are important to evaluate but are extremely rare among the thousands of study participants.”

The Prévenir study’s final eight-year results from France reinforced that both daily and on-demand oral PrEP are safe and effective, with overall HIV incidence of 0.11 per 100 person-years across more than 3,200 users and 13,000 person-years of follow-up. Switching between daily and on-demand use was the norm rather than the exception, with 59% of daily users changing to on-demand at least once, and 52% doing the reverse. This carries a clear message for implementation: people need flexibility, and rigid one-size prescribing undermines persistence.

The prevention pipeline continues to expand. Merck’s once-monthly oral PrEP candidate MK-8527 selected an 11 mg dose maintaining protective drug levels in at least 95% of participants, with Phase 3 EXPrESSIVE trials now enrolling. Gilead’s PURPOSE 365 study, testing once-yearly lenacapavir for PrEP, is being designed. The SEARCH study showed that community health workers paired with digital tools reduced HIV incidence by 70% in rural populations, a reminder that prevention tools work best when embedded in community-driven delivery.

The problem is reach. Andrew Hill highlighted that only 2.3 million people are currently on oral PrEP, far below UNAIDS targets, and that injectable cabotegravir and lenacapavir represent just 2.9% and 0.9% of total PrEP use, respectively. We have a growing menu of prevention tools. Getting them to the people who need them is where the system breaks down.

Treatment: More Options, Longer Intervals, Patient Choice

The treatment pipeline at CROI 2026 moved toward a central goal: giving people living with HIV more choices that fit their lives. Merck presented late-breaking data from three Phase 3 trials of doravirine/islatravir (DOR/ISL), the first ever once-daily, non-INSTI two-drug regimen. In treatment-naive adults, DOR/ISL demonstrated non-inferiority to bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (BIC/FTC/TAF), with 91.8% achieving viral suppression at Week 48 compared to 90.6%, including participants with high viral loads and low CD4 counts. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set an action date of April 28, 2026 for the DOR/ISL application. For people aging with HIV who manage multiple comorbidities, a two-drug, non-INSTI regimen addresses a real clinical gap. Research presented at this same conference linked the widely used INSTI dolutegravir to neuropsychiatric effects, including blocking a brain enzyme essential for memory and emotional regulation, with one study halted for ethical reasons after participants experienced worsening symptoms. For people navigating tolerability concerns, toxicity issues, or polypharmacy, having a non-INSTI alternative with fewer active agents matters.

Gilead’s ARTISTRY-1 and ARTISTRY-2 trials demonstrated that a bictegravir/lenacapavir (BIC/LEN) single-tablet regimen can maintain viral suppression for people switching from complex multi-tablet regimens (96% at 48 weeks in ARTISTRY-1) or from Biktarvy (93.5% in ARTISTRY-2). For people who have been on complex regimens for years due to resistance histories, this potential simplification addresses a real quality-of-life gap. Gilead plans to submit these results to regulatory authorities.

Long-acting injectables continued their forward march. In ViiV Healthcare’s EMBRACE study, lotivibart (a broadly neutralizing antibody, or bNAb) given as an IV infusion every four months plus monthly cabotegravir maintained viral suppression in 94% of participants at 12 months. Part 2 of EMBRACE, testing lotivibart infusions every six months, is now fully enrolled. ViiV also presented early data on VH-184, a third-generation integrase inhibitor with potential twice-yearly dosing, and VH-499, a capsid inhibitor supporting twice-yearly intervals. The VOLITION study showed that 85% of treatment-naive adults opted to switch from daily pills to bimonthly long-acting cabotegravir/rilpivirine (CAB+RPV LA), with 95% maintaining suppression. Data like VOLITION’s 85% opt-in rate reinforce what the HIV community has long argued: when people living with HIV are offered options that fit their lives, they take them. Payers, formulary committees, and ADAP programs should take note. Treatment is not one-size-fits-all, and coverage shouldn’t treat it as such.

Community activist Shari Margolese put it plainly at CROI’s final Community Breakfast Club: “As a community we need to get much angrier about the fact that we can’t get access to the drugs.” Francois Venter of Ezintsha in South Africa warned that without action, “we might be sitting here again in 10 years’ time” celebrating breakthroughs that never reach communities.

Cure, Comorbidities, and the Equity Question

On the cure front, the RIO trial’s Phase B results offered genuine encouragement. Among the 28 people who received a placebo in Phase A and were then given bNAbs teropavimab and zinlirvimab, 54% had prolonged viral remission after stopping antiretroviral therapy (ART), with two still off treatment after more than a year. Because ART was stopped six months after the bNAb infusions, these results point to an immunological “vaccinal effect” rather than direct viral suppression. A cure remains distant, but these are the kinds of incremental, well-designed steps that build the evidence base forward.

CROI also highlighted the growing urgency of managing comorbidities in aging populations living with HIV. The POPPY study found that depression affects 32.4% of people living with HIV over 50, linked to inflammatory markers rather than psychosocial factors alone. A study of over 1,500 men showed that the combination of age 65 and over, HIV, and metabolic syndrome produced significantly worse cognitive impairment than any factor alone. Metabolic syndrome is the modifiable factor in that triad, which means clinicians and patients can act on it now. CROI data on GLP-1 receptor agonists like semaglutide point toward a potential tool for doing so: in a study of people living with HIV-associated lipohypertrophy, semaglutide produced a 19% reduction in total body fat, a 31% decrease in visceral adipose tissue, and a nearly 50% drop in C-reactive protein, a key inflammatory marker. Separate data presented at the conference found that semaglutide did not worsen depression in people living with HIV, and that people with moderate or severe depression at baseline actually showed improvements. These findings warrant dedicated research into how GLP-1 therapies can address the long-term health consequences of chronic inflammation and aging with HIV. If the evidence continues to support their role, GLP-1 receptor agonists should be evaluated for inclusion in the HIV standard of care, with appropriate insurance and program coverage to match.

The equity question came into sharp focus with data from the ENCORE cohort. Black trans women in the U.S. had an HIV incidence of 15.5 per 1,000 person-years, compared to 1.4 for White trans women. Poverty, houselessness, and lack of insurance were significant drivers, and only 4% of trans women in the cohort used long-acting injectable PrEP. Dr. Sari Reisner of the University of Michigan warned that the current administration’s erasure of gender identity data from federally funded datasets will make it harder to monitor disparities and determine what works. We cannot close gaps we refuse to measure, and they know that.

What Comes Next

CROI 2026 produced a clear picture: we have tools that can change the course of the HIV epidemic, and the systems required to deliver them are being actively undermined. The path forward requires specific action. We must defend and restore funding for PEPFAR, NIH, and the global HIV infrastructure that makes science reach people. State ADAP programs and payers must expand coverage for long-acting prevention and treatment options and remove administrative barriers that delay access. To do that, they need to be adequately funded. PrEP implementation must embrace the full range of validated modalities, from daily oral to on-demand to injectable to monthly oral, with flexibility built into delivery. Care for people aging with HIV must shift toward whole-person approaches that integrate cognitive screening, metabolic risk management, and mental health support alongside viral suppression. And we must protect the community-led surveillance and data collection that allows us to see and respond to disparities, especially for trans and gender-diverse communities.

Wes Sundquist of the University of Utah, who helped develop the science behind lenacapavir, reflected at CROI on the decades-long journey that produced this tool. He warned that while the field now has “a really powerful new tool in the arsenal,” forces are blocking its use. “It will be a human tragedy,” he said, “if we don’t overcome those.” The science has done its part. The rest is a question of political will, policy design, and whether we as a community can sustain the pressure long enough for these tools to reach the people who need them.

The second story is fiscal. Drug rebates generated through the 340B Drug Pricing Program now constitute 52% of total ADAP budgets, dwarfing the federal ADAP earmark at just 29%. A $2.7 billion safety net serving nearly one-quarter of all people living with diagnosed HIV in the country is now majority-funded by a revenue source that multiple federal policy changes are actively eroding. And demand is about to surge.

The Unwinding as Stress Test

The post-COVID Medicaid unwinding that began in April 2023 showed us what happens when coverage shifts push low-income people living with HIV off their insurance. ADAPs absorbed a 30% increase in new client enrollments and an 11% increase in total enrollment compared to 2022. Across 40 jurisdictions with comparable data, prescription drug spending grew 17% in two years, from $1.31 billion to $1.54 billion. Some states faced localized shocks: Pennsylvania's drug costs rose 82%, Arizona's nearly tripled. A JAMA Health Forum study confirmed that more than 25 million people nationally had Medicaid terminated during unwinding, with coverage losses concentrated among younger, healthier adults most likely to fall out of care when coverage disappears.

The system held. But the unwinding was a stress test, not the main event.

The Rebate Dependency Trap

Congressional appropriations for RWHAP Part B totaled $1.41 billion in FY2024, with ADAP-specific funding essentially flat. States have bridged the gap through 340B rebate revenue. In FY2019, 73% of rebates were applied to ADAP budgets; by FY2024, that figure reached 86%. Programs are retaining nearly every rebate dollar generated, and it still barely meets demand.

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) creates an unintended problem here. Its Medicare Part D reforms cap annual out-of-pocket drug costs at $2,000 in 2025 and $2,100 in 2026, which genuinely benefits Medicare beneficiaries. But ADAPs generate "partial-pay rebates" on cost-sharing payments made on behalf of clients enrolled in Medicare Part D. Lower cost-sharing means lower rebate revenue. The IRA's Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is likely to further compress the pricing benchmarks driving rebate calculations. The third negotiation round, announced in January 2026, selected Biktarvy for negotiated pricing effective in 2028. Biktarvy is the most widely prescribed single-tablet HIV regimen in the country and cost Medicare approximately $3.9 billion for 101,000 beneficiaries in the most recent measurement period. A negotiated reduction in Biktarvy's Medicare price could directly lower the "best price" benchmark that determines ADAP rebate revenue on the very drug that anchors most clients' treatment.

Layer on the PBM reform provisions signed into law in February 2026 requiring 100% rebate pass-through in Medicare Part D starting in 2028, plus manufacturer restrictions on 340B contract pharmacies that 54% of ADAPs report are creating payment challenges, and the picture is clear: the revenue stream funding more than half the HIV safety net is being squeezed from multiple directions, all at once, and the pressure is increasing.

Each of these policies may have merit on its own terms. But none were designed with a safety net impact assessment in mind, and the cumulative downstream effect on ADAP financing is significant and remains unaddressed.

The Demand Surge

While revenue contracts, demand is set to spike. H.R. 1, signed July 4, 2025, enacts the largest Medicaid cuts in the program's history. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates $911 billion in federal Medicaid spending reductions over a decade. KFF notes that more than 10.3 million people are likely to lose Medicaid. A Center for American Progress analysis found the bill's approximately $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts is roughly matched by approximately $1 trillion in tax reductions directed to the top 1% of earners. The priorities embedded in that budget math deserve scrutiny, to put it mildly.

And then the enhanced ACA premium tax credits expired at the end of 2025 without extension. Approximately 22 million people received those credits last year, and the average recipient has seen premiums more than double. The Urban Institute estimates roughly 5 million people may drop coverage and go uninsured, with the impact falling disproportionately on Black and low-income communities in metro areas like Houston and Atlanta, per the Economic Policy Institute. When the CBPP tallies all coverage losses, the total reaches roughly 15 million people newly uninsured by 2034.

For people living with HIV, these numbers carry specific weight. Medicaid is the single largest source of coverage for adults living with HIV at an estimated 40%, with 42% of those enrollees qualifying through the ACA expansion pathway H.R. 1's work requirements directly target. People living with HIV also rely on ACA Marketplace plans at higher rates than the general population; at least 40,000 ADAP clients were enrolled in Marketplace plans as of 2023. KFF estimates the premium tax credit expiration alone will cost state ADAPs an estimated $83.7 million in additional premium costs, with ADAPs in non-expansion states facing the steepest increases. If ADAPs cannot absorb those costs, KFF outlines the consequences: reduced income eligibility, restricted formularies, increased utilization management, and the possible return of waiting lists for the first time since 2012.

We don't have to speculate about what this looks like. On January 8, 2026, the Florida Department of Health announced sweeping changes to its ADAP, effective March 1: slashing income eligibility from 400% FPL to 130% FPL, eliminating insurance premium assistance, and removing Biktarvy from the formulary. NASTAD estimates more than 16,000 people will lose ADAP coverage. Florida cited rising premiums and the premium tax credit expiration, yet has not released an ADAP budget in over a year and bypassed the stakeholder engagement required under federal Ryan White guidelines. Every structural vulnerability the NASTAD report identifies played out in a single state in a matter of weeks.

What We Should Be Doing

The NASTAD report warns that H.R. 1 and the premium tax credit expiration threaten to "unravel the coverage gains" it documents. ADAPs serve 23% of all people living with diagnosed HIV. The Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative depends on sustained viral suppression, which depends on treatment access, which depends on these programs remaining solvent. The data demands specific action. Short of reversing the policies of H.R. 1 and actually insuring poor people as a just and moral society might choose to do, several targeted measures could prevent the worst outcomes.

Congress should increase the federal ADAP earmark to reflect documented enrollment growth and the surge H.R. 1 will drive, and pursue RWHAP reauthorization to replace the year-to-year appropriations the program has relied on since its authorization lapsed in 2013. Flat funding in the face of 30% enrollment growth is a policy choice with consequences measured in lives.

Congress should reinstate and make permanent the enhanced ACA premium tax credits. For people already navigating the social determinants of health that create barriers to care, losing insurance coverage removes one of the few reliable pathways to sustained treatment access and viral suppression. Future drug pricing legislation should include safety net impact assessments to identify and offset downstream revenue effects on programs like ADAPs before those effects become crises.

States need targeted investment in ADAP administrative infrastructure to manage the coming enrollment wave. 60% of ADAPs already report maintaining client eligibility as challenging and 38% report difficulties implementing long-acting injectables and provider-administered drugs. The 30% enrollment surge during unwinding stretched existing capacity. What H.R. 1 delivers will be larger and longer-lasting.

The 2026 NASTAD report documents a system that works. An 87% viral suppression rate among a low-income population, achieved through sophisticated fiscal management and a decades-long commitment to keeping people in care, is a public health accomplishment we should be protecting. The question is whether we will defend the infrastructure that makes it possible, or let it collapse under the weight of policy decisions that were never designed to account for it.

The political pairing is unusual: a progressive Democrat and a populist Republican, finding common ground on the idea that a handful of corporate giants have rigged the healthcare supply chain in their own favor. The bill arrives as both parties scramble to address healthcare affordability ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, and just days after President Trump signed an appropriations package containing new PBM transparency rules and issued executive orders directing agencies to "reevaluate the role of middlemen" in prescription drug pricing. The political will to confront healthcare consolidation is clearly building. The question is whether this bill meets the moment.

What the Bill Does

The Break Up Big Medicine Act draws its inspiration from the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which separated commercial and investment banking after the financial system's collapse during the Great Depression. Applied to healthcare, the principle is the same: entities that are supposed to be bargaining competitively with one another should not be owned by the same parent company.

The bill establishes two core prohibitions. First, it bars any person or entity from simultaneously owning or controlling a medical provider or management services organization (MSO) and an insurance company or PBM. Second, it bars common ownership of a provider or MSO and a prescription drug or medical device wholesaler. Companies in violation would have one year to divest. Those who miss divestiture milestones would face automatic penalties, including 10% of profits transferred into escrow on a monthly basis and, eventually, a court-appointed divestiture trustee with authority to force asset sales. Revenue from seized profits would be deposited into a fund created by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and distributed to serve the healthcare needs of harmed communities.

An MSO is an entity that contracts with a medical provider to furnish administrative and business services such as payroll, payer contracting, billing and collection, coding, IT, and patient scheduling. While MSOs do not technically practice medicine, they have become the primary vehicle through which corporate entities, including insurers and private equity firms, exert operational control over physician practices without appearing on paper as the owner. The bill's explicit inclusion of MSOs is a recognition that corporate control of healthcare delivery does not require direct ownership; it can be achieved through the back office.

The enforcement architecture is broad. The FTC, the Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General, state attorneys general, and private citizens can all bring civil actions. The private right of action provision allows treble damages (a legal remedy where a court triples the amount of actual, compensatory damages awarded to a prevailing plaintiff), attorney's fees, and equitable relief. The FTC and DOJ would also retain forward-looking authority to review and block future transactions that would re-create the prohibited conflicts of interest.

The bill's definition of "provider" is notably expansive: it includes pharmacies (both in-patient and outpatient), physician practices, ambulatory surgery centers, urgent care centers, post-acute care facilities, home-health providers, and hospitals. This means the legislation reaches well beyond PBM-owned pharmacies to encompass the full range of insurer-owned care delivery.

The Problem It Targets

The scale of vertical integration in U.S. healthcare is difficult to overstate. Three PBMs, CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx, manage nearly 80% of prescription drug claims for roughly 270 million people. Each is owned by a company that also operates a health insurance plan, physician offices, and pharmacies. Three drug wholesalers control 98% of U.S. drug distribution. As of 2023, UnitedHealth Group, through its Optum subsidiary, controls approximately 10% of all American physicians, making it the single largest employer of doctors in the country. Nearly 80% of physicians now work for a corporate parent, and since 2019, nearly 4,000 independent pharmacies have closed.

The evidence on what this consolidation does to costs and quality is damning. RAND Corporation testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives found that vertical integration of hospitals or health systems with physician practices does not lower spending and does not improve quality of care. Instead, it shifts care to higher-cost settings and increases payment rates through greater negotiating power. Hospital-physician vertical integration has been associated with 10 to 14% price increases for physician services. A Commonwealth Fund analysis found vertical consolidation associated with 14% higher physician prices and 10-20% higher total spending per patient.

The FTC itself has found that vertically integrated PBMs have both the ability and incentive to steer business to their own affiliated pharmacies, reducing competition and increasing prescription drug costs. PBMs engage in spread pricing, charging health plans more for a drug than they reimburse pharmacies and keeping the difference, while simultaneously reducing reimbursements to independent pharmacies to drive them out of business.

The conflicts run deeper. As Wendell Potter detailed in Healthcare Uncovered, the joint ownership of insurance companies, PBMs, provider organizations, and pharmacies allows parent companies to game the Affordable Care Act's (ACA's) medical loss ratio (MLR) requirement. The ACA mandates that insurers spend 80-85% of premium dollars on medical care. When an insurer owns the PBM, the provider group, or the pharmacy, it can count internal payments to those entities as "medical care" for MLR purposes, even though those payments are self-dealing. This accounting maneuver converts premium dollars to profits at a rate Congress never intended.

Antitrust enforcement has proven inadequate to the task. From 2000 to 2020, only 13 mergers out of 1,164 were challenged by the FTC. As Erin Fuse Brown, professor at Brown University's School of Public Health, noted during a recent KFF Health Wonk Shop panel, antitrust enforcement has largely looked the other way on vertical consolidation, and even when agencies have attempted to bring cases, they have struggled to convince courts that vertical mergers pose a competitive risk.

The Promise for Patients and Providers

If enacted, the bill could address several of the structural conflicts of interest that drive up costs and limit patient choice. Forced separation of PBMs from their affiliated pharmacies could create a more level playing field for independent pharmacies, which currently compete against entities that also control their reimbursement rates. For people living with chronic conditions who rely on specialty medications, the current system means that the company deciding what drug is covered, how much the patient pays, and which pharmacy fills the prescription can be the same company. Breaking those links could open real competition in both pricing and access.

The bill would also force the divestiture of insurer-owned physician practices, a development that could restore meaningful clinical autonomy for physicians and potentially slow the trend of care being steered toward affiliated, higher-cost settings. Consolidation has already narrowed provider choice for patients across the country. Hospital consolidation from 1998 to 2021 resulted in 1,887 mergers and reduced the number of hospitals nationwide by about 25%. The GAO reported that rural hospital closures force residents to travel roughly 20 miles farther for common inpatient services and about 40 miles farther for less common services. When consolidated systems close facilities or eliminate services that rarely turn a profit, such as maternity wards, primary care clinics, and emergency departments, patients in underserved and rural communities face fewer doctors, longer wait times, and greater distances to travel for care. For low-income patients who may lack access to paid time off, reliable transportation, or affordable child care, those distances can mean the difference between receiving care and going without. Reducing the financial incentive for insurers to steer patients exclusively to affiliated providers could, over time, help preserve a broader range of care options in the communities that need them most.

The bill's expansive definition of "provider" and its inclusion of MSOs is significant: it closes the backdoor through which corporate entities use management services agreements to exert de facto control over physician practices without technically owning them. The private right of action with treble damages gives patients and affected parties a meaningful tool to hold companies accountable, something traditional antitrust enforcement has failed to do at scale.

The Pitfalls

The bill's ambition is also its vulnerability. A one-year divestiture timeline for restructuring trillion-dollar companies like UnitedHealth Group, CVS Health, and Cigna is aggressive by any measure. The logistics of unwinding these conglomerates, separating data systems, reassigning contracts, re-establishing independent management structures, present real operational risk. Corey Katz, a partner at Bates White Economic Consulting, cautioned during the KFF panel that policymakers should be careful of unintended consequences because the linkages in these systems are complex, and breaking them can produce adverse outcomes that were not anticipated. He pointed to the Haven joint venture between JP Morgan, Amazon, and Berkshire Hathaway, which sought to make healthcare more efficient and collapsed within five years, as evidence that restructuring healthcare delivery is harder than it appears.

Industry has already signaled opposition. CVS Health Group president David Joyner pushed back on the characterization of the system as market concentration at a House hearing in January, describing the integrated model as one that "works really well for the consumer." Evidence would seem to suggest otherwise, but Mr. Joyner is certainly welcome to his opinion.

The bill also has notable gaps. It does not address hospital-to-hospital horizontal mergers, which remain a primary driver of higher prices in local markets. It does not address private equity acquisitions of physician practices, which a GAO analysis found can lead to 4-16% increases in commercial insurance spending depending on the specialty. And it does not address the payment system incentives, particularly the persistent site-of-care payment differentials where Medicare pays two to four times more for identical outpatient procedures performed in a hospital setting versus a physician's office, that create the financial motivation for consolidation in the first place. Fuse Brown acknowledged that structural separation is a "blunt instrument" but argued that we have reached the point where antitrust tools have proven insufficient and bolder approaches are warranted.

What This Means for People Living with Chronic Conditions

For people living with HIV and other chronic conditions, pharmacy access is a persistent concern. The current vertically integrated system can dictate which pharmacy fills a prescription, what drugs appear on a formulary, and what a patient pays out of pocket. PBM-driven patient steering limits access to specialty pharmacies and 340B providers that play a critical role in serving people who are most affected by healthcare costs. Consolidation also disproportionately impacts communities of color, who, as the Commonwealth Fund noted, are more likely to face medical debt, are more vulnerable to increased costs, and are more likely to bear the brunt of the often cruel business practices that consolidation enables.

Separating PBMs from their captive pharmacies could expand real pharmacy choice for patients. But poorly managed divestiture could also temporarily destabilize specialty pharmacy networks or disrupt care coordination for people who depend on uninterrupted medication access. The details of how divestiture is structured and monitored will matter as much as the principle behind it.

Looking Forward

The Break Up Big Medicine Act faces long odds in a divided Congress. But its bipartisan sponsorship reflects a genuine shift in the political calculus around healthcare consolidation, one that cuts across party lines and ideological camps. Whether or not the bill advances, it establishes a policy framework that advocates, policymakers, and the public can build on.

We should watch closely for how recently enacted PBM transparency rules interact with these structural proposals, how state-level merger review and health equity impact assessments continue to evolve, and whether the FTC and DOJ use existing authority to pursue vertical consolidation cases more aggressively. We should also urge our elected representatives to support the bill and, critically, to demand that any restructuring of the healthcare system be evaluated for its impact on patient access, affordability, and health equity. Structural separation is a necessary conversation. Making sure the people most affected by consolidation are centered in that conversation is our responsibility.

The scope of the crisis is not in dispute. According to the White House fact sheet accompanying the Great American Recovery Initiative, 48.4 million Americans, or 16.8% of the population, live with substance use disorder. Nearly eight in ten did not receive treatment in 2024. These numbers should focus policymakers on removing every barrier between people and care. Instead, the administration is simultaneously expanding some pathways while actively dismantling others.

The Biomedical Frontier

One area of genuine scientific promise involves glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, medications originally developed for diabetes and obesity that are showing unexpected potential for treating addiction. These drugs target the brain’s mesolimbic reward pathways, and emerging research indicates they may modulate the dopamine neurotransmission involved in addictive behaviors.

The implications are significant. As the British Journal of Pharmacology notes, no FDA or EMA-approved medications currently exist for cocaine or stimulant use disorders. This treatment gap disproportionately affects marginalized communities, including LGBTQ populations where methamphetamine use remains a significant concern intersecting with HIV and HCV transmission.

Subscribe now

Early evidence is encouraging. A large observational study using the VA database found that people with alcohol use disorder who used GLP-1 medications had a 50% lower rate of alcohol bingeing compared to those not on the medications. People with opioid use disorder on these medications had a 40% lower rate of overdose. Clinical trials are now underway for multiple substance use disorders, including a trial specifically enrolling people with both cocaine use disorder and HIV.

“This research is very important because alcohol and drug addiction are major causes of illness and death, yet there are still only a few effective treatment options,” Dr. Lorenzo Leggio of the National Institute on Drug Abuse and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism noted in October 2025.

The critical question is access. As Penn Medicine researchers have observed, “many who struggle with addiction are multiply marginalized, making access to these medications a potential concern.” The VA study data came largely from older white males, and robust research across demographics remains necessary. Breakthrough treatments mean little if the people who need them most cannot obtain them.

Meaningful Progress

Credit where due: the administration has taken concrete steps to expand medication access for opioid use disorder. On February 2, the Administration for Children and Families announced that buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone now qualify as prevention services eligible for Title IV-E funding. States and tribes can receive a 50% federal match to provide these medications to parents when children are at imminent risk of entering foster care. The policy reflects sound reasoning: keeping families together through effective treatment generally serves children better than separation.

The December 2025 reauthorization of the SUPPORT Act extended substance use disorder programs through fiscal year 2030 after the original legislation had languished since its 2023 expiration. The bill passed with strong bipartisan support, 366-57 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.

There is also useful historical precedent from the first Trump administration. In May 2020, HHS Office for Civil Rights Director Roger Severino secured an agreement with West Virginia establishing that people in recovery using medication-assisted treatment are entitled to ADA protections. “People in recovery from opioid use disorder should never be stigmatized for seeking appropriate medical treatment that can save their lives,” Severino stated at the time. That principle should guide current policy.

Where Policy Contradicts Evidence

Against these advances stands a pattern of actions that undermine the stated goal of connecting people with treatment.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration has lost approximately one-third of its roughly 900 employees over the past year. In January 2026, the administration briefly cancelled nearly $2 billion in SAMHSA grants before bipartisan backlash forced a reversal within 24 hours. Providers report an environment where planning for the future feels impossible.

The administration proposed folding SAMHSA into a new “Administration for a Healthy America.” Congress rejected this in the FY2026 LHHS appropriations package and added structural protections requiring 60 days’ advance notice before HHS reorganizations affecting CDC functions and three days’ notice before grant terminations. These guardrails exist because they proved necessary.

On harm reduction, the gap between evidence and policy is particularly troubling. The July 2025 executive order “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” directed SAMHSA to defund “so-called harm reduction” programs. A subsequent SAMHSA letter drew an explicit line between acceptable overdose reversal tools like naloxone and the “ideological concept of harm reduction.”

This framing ignores the government’s own evidence. In December 2025, the VA published an analysis of its harm reduction programs describing syringe services programs as “one of the most effective public health interventions ever devised.” The data: SSPs decrease new HIV and HCV infections by up to 67%, increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence five-fold, and “do not enable or increase drug use, nor do they cause increases in crime.”

The FY2026 appropriations bill maintains Section 525, the longstanding prohibition on using federal funds for sterile needles or syringes outside narrow outbreak exceptions. Report language frames harm reduction through an abstinence-first lens, treating harm reduction and recovery as opposing forces when the evidence shows they are complementary. Meeting people where they are is how you eventually connect them with treatment.

The Syndemic Reality

These policy contradictions have real consequences for communities facing intersecting epidemics. Syringe services programs are foundational infrastructure for preventing HIV and HCV transmission among people who inject drugs. Cutting STI prevention funding by $10 million while syphilis and congenital syphilis remain at historically high levels makes no public health sense.

The approach to homelessness reveals similar contradictions. The July 2025 executive order abandons Housing First, the evidence-based model that prioritizes stable housing as a foundation for recovery. In its place, the order directs agencies to prioritize jurisdictions that enforce bans on urban camping, loitering, and open-air drug use when awarding federal grants. It encourages states to expand involuntary civil commitment and conditions housing assistance on participation in behavioral health treatment. The Bipartisan Policy Center notes this approach may invite Fair Housing Act lawsuits, since conditioning housing on treatment could constitute discrimination against people with disabilities, including those with substance use disorder.

HHS’s $100 million STREETS Initiative operates within this enforcement-first framework. Kennedy described the model as finding people on the street and moving them “from crisis to detox treatment to housing to employment.” Housing comes after treatment compliance, not before. The National Alliance to End Homelessness has been direct in its assessment: “Deinstitutionalization did not cause homelessness, and re-institutionalization will not solve it.”

The 2024 Point-in-Time count recorded over 770,000 people experiencing homelessness, an 18% increase from the previous year and the largest annual jump ever recorded. Those most affected include people with mental illness or substance use disorder, LGBTQ youth, and veterans, as Harvard’s Howard Koh has noted. A $100 million pilot serving eight cities cannot address a crisis of this scale, particularly when the broader policy framework criminalizes the people it claims to help.

Access barriers to existing treatments compound the problem. The Cato Institute reports that 80% of U.S. counties have no opioid treatment programs, and only 600,000 of the 8 million people meeting criteria for opioid use disorder received methadone in 2024. The bipartisan Modernizing Opioid Treatment Access Act would have enabled primary care prescribing of methadone; it was not reintroduced in the current Congress.

The Path Forward

The promise of emerging treatments like GLP-1 agonists cannot be realized without the infrastructure to deliver them. A breakthrough medication for stimulant use disorder means nothing to someone cycling between encampments and emergency rooms because Housing First was abandoned in favor of treatment mandates they cannot access. Flat funding for SAMHSA, restrictions on harm reduction, and criminalization of homelessness create gaps that no medication can bridge.

“If we want to create a world where there’s opioid recovery, we need to also offer affordable housing and access to affordable food and improved access to health care,” Dr. Sadie Elisseou of Harvard told Behavioral Health Business. This syndemic framing should guide policy. It currently does not.

The administration cannot simultaneously expand medication access, gut the agency responsible for treatment infrastructure, restrict the harm reduction programs that keep people alive and connected to care, and criminalize the circumstances of those most in need of help. These policies do not form a coherent strategy. They form a contradiction.

Congress rejected the administration’s most extreme proposals through the passage of the L-HHS funding package, but holding ground is not progress. Advocates should monitor SAMHSA implementation closely, push for evidence-based harm reduction funding that aligns with the VA’s proven model, defend Housing First against ideological attack, and ensure that new treatments reach marginalized communities rather than only those with private insurance and stable housing.

The tools to address substance use disorder exist. What remains absent is a policy framework that treats people who use drugs as deserving of care rather than punishment. Until that changes, the Great American Recovery will remain a slogan, not a strategy.

This article was written for Community Access National Network (CANN) and originally published at hiv-hcv-watch.com.

After a year of proposed cuts that created significant uncertainty for HIV programs and the communities they serve, Congress has negotiated a spending package that maintains current funding levels while falling short of what ending the epidemic requires. The bill, released January 20, 2026, rejects over $1.7 billion in proposed cuts and preserves funding for Ryan White, the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative, and CDC prevention programs. It also includes the first major pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reforms in Medicare Part D in nearly two decades, a development with significant implications for patient access to HIV and hepatitis C medications.

Yet flat funding cannot meet growing demands, particularly as long-acting therapeutics promise to transform HIV prevention and care for those who need them most. In an environment where maintaining the status quo requires extraordinary effort, advocates must reckon with an uncomfortable truth: the status quo is not enough to end the epidemic.

Subscribe now

What Was at Stake

The path to this appropriations package has been fraught, to say the least. In May 2025, the Trump administration proposed $31.3 billion in cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services, including a 40% reduction to NIH and the consolidation of its 27 institutes into eight. The proposal called for eliminating HIV prevention programs entirely and restructuring HHS agencies, including folding SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) into a new “Administration for a Healthy America.”

The House Appropriations Committee’s September 2025 bill embraced much of this vision. It provided zero funding for CDC HIV prevention programs, proposed cutting the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program by 20%, and would have eliminated the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative completely. CDC funding faced a nearly 20% reduction overall.

The final package represents a decisive rejection of these proposals. Congress preserved the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program at $2.6 billion, maintained the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative at $165 million, and funded CDC HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STDs, and TB Prevention at $1.384 billion. The Minority HIV/AIDS Fund received $56 million. The bill closely tracks the bipartisan Senate proposal that advanced from committee in July 2025, a predictable outcome given the Senate’s historical role as a moderating force on appropriations. The Administration’s proposed cuts and the House bill were never likely to survive a bicameral process intact, but their existence created uncertainty that disrupted planning and strained already stretched public health infrastructure throughout the year.

Flat Funding Is Not Progress

Preserving current funding levels is not the same as meeting current needs. The American Academy of HIV Medicinedescribed the bill as presenting “a mixed picture for domestic HIV programs,” noting that level funding will not achieve the goals set forth in the Ending the HIV Epidemic plan launched during the first Trump administration or address a rise in HIV transmission outbreaks as we’ve seen in Maine and New York.

The timing makes this particularly frustrating. Long-acting injectable treatments and prevention options are transforming what is possible in HIV care. Lenacapavir for PrEP offers twice-yearly dosing. Long-acting cabotegravir and rilpivirine provide monthly or bimonthly treatment options for people who struggle with daily pills or face adherence barriers. These innovations could reach people who have historically fallen through the cracks of our prevention and treatment infrastructure, but scaling them requires investment that flat funding cannot provide.

Prevention initiatives, workforce development, training programs, and the rollout of new innovations are particularly vulnerable under current funding levels. Without targeted investment, long-acting options will remain inaccessible to people in Medicaid-dependent, rural, and underserved areas. The tools exist to end HIV as a public health threat. The political will to fund their deployment does not.

Within the broader infectious disease category, the bill sends mixed signals. Viral hepatitis prevention received a $3 million increase to $46 million, one of the few areas to see any growth. STI prevention, by contrast, took a $10 million cut to $164 million. While provisional 2024 data shows overall STI cases declining for the third consecutive year, reported syphilis cases and congenital syphilis remain at historically high levels, with continued increases in some demographics. Cutting prevention funding while these disparities persist is shortsighted.

Harm Reduction: Evidence Ignored

The bill’s approach to harm reduction reveals a troubling gap between public health evidence and legislative ideology. Section 525 maintains the longstanding prohibition on using federal funds to purchase sterile needles or syringes, with a narrow exception for jurisdictions experiencing or at risk for HIV or hepatitis outbreaks. This reactive approach undermines prevention and contradicts the government’s own evidence base.

The VA, in a December 2025 analysis of its harm reduction programs, described syringe services programs as “one of the most effective public health interventions ever devised,” noting they decrease new HIV and HCV infections by up to 67% and increase the likelihood of achieving abstinence five-fold. The VA further emphasized that these programs “do not enable or increase drug use, nor do they cause increases in crime.”

The appropriations bill ignores this evidence. Report language frames harm reduction through an abstinence-first lens, elevating the administration’s efforts to “prioritize prevention, treatment, and long-term recovery.” This framing treats harm reduction and recovery as opposing forces when the evidence shows they are complementary. Meeting people where they are is essential to eventually connecting them with treatment. Restricting proven interventions on ideological grounds costs lives.

The bill does maintain substance use disorder treatment funding, with SAMHSA receiving $7.44 billion (a $65 million increase), State Opioid Response Grants at $1.6 billion, and CARA First Responder Training at $59 million. These investments matter. But they would matter more if paired with evidence-based harm reduction that keeps people alive long enough to access treatment.

PBM Reform: A Genuine Win With Implementation Risks

The inclusion of pharmacy benefit manager reforms represents a genuine policy achievement and the first major PBM reform in Medicare Part D in nearly 20 years. For people living with HIV and hepatitis C who depend on specialty medications, these provisions could meaningfully improve access and reduce costs.

The reforms target the opaque practices that have allowed PBMs to profit at the expense of patients and plan sponsors. Beginning in 2028, PBM compensation in Medicare Part D will be delinked from drug list prices, eliminating the perverse incentive to favor higher-priced medications. PBMs will be required to pass through 100% of manufacturer rebates and fees to plan sponsors. The bill bans spread pricing in Medicaid, where PBMs have profited by charging plans more than they reimburse pharmacies. CMS receives $188 million for implementation and new authority to define and enforce “reasonable and relevant” contract terms between Part D plans and pharmacies.

The transparency provisions are equally significant. PBMs must report pricing information, including all rebates negotiated with manufacturers, directly to plan sponsors and HHS. For PBMs with affiliated mail-order or specialty pharmacies, the bill requires disclosure of any benefit design parameters that steer prescriptions to those pharmacies. This addresses a core concern: vertically integrated PBMs using formulary placement and prior authorization requirements to drive volume to their own pharmacies at the expense of patient choice and community pharmacy access.

For people living with HIV, the stakes are concrete. Specialty HIV medications flow through PBM-controlled channels that have historically lacked transparency around rebates, formulary decisions, and pharmacy reimbursement. The reforms create mechanisms to challenge contract terms that effectively exclude community pharmacies or impose unreasonable administrative burdens. The appeals process for pharmacies to dispute terms that fail the “reasonable and relevant” standard could prove particularly important for independent and specialty pharmacies serving HIV populations.

The risk, as always, lies in implementation and industry adaptation. PBMs have proven adept at restructuring their business practices to maintain margins when regulations target specific revenue streams. The provisions take effect in 2028 for Medicare and 2029 for pharmacy contract standards, giving industry ample time to identify workarounds. Advocates should watch for attempts to shift costs to patients through benefit design changes, or to game the “reasonable and relevant” standard through contract terms that are technically compliant but practically exclusionary. The history of PBM regulation is a history of regulatory arbitrage, and vigilance will be required to ensure these reforms deliver their intended benefits.

Structural Protections and Access Provisions

Beyond funding levels, the bill includes important structural provisions. It rejects the administration’s proposed HHS restructuring and requires the Secretary to provide detailed justification to Congress at least 60 days before any reorganization affecting CDC functions. Grant terminations now require three days’ advance notice to appropriations committees. These guardrails matter in an environment where administrative action has disrupted programs faster than legislative oversight can respond.

The package extends Medicare telehealth waivers through December 31, 2027, maintains community health center funding at $4.6 billion plus bridge funding, and delays Medicaid disproportionate share hospital cuts until September 2028. These provisions support healthcare access in underserved communities where HIV and viral hepatitis programs depend on functioning safety-net infrastructure.

The Work Ahead

Assuming the bill passes as expected, funding appropriated is not funding effectively deployed. The same administration that proposed eliminating these programs will now oversee their implementation. How HHS manages grant administration, staffing, and program guidance will determine whether level funding translates into maintained services or quiet erosion. The bill’s requirements for advance notice on grant terminations and reorganization plans provide some guardrails, but vigilance will be required.

The United States has the tools to end HIV as a public health threat. Long-acting prevention and treatment options could reach people who daily pills cannot. Harm reduction keeps people alive and connected to care. Ryan White and the EHE initiative provide the programmatic infrastructure. What we lack is the political will to fund these efforts at the scale required and the moral clarity to implement evidence-based policy over ideological preference.

Flat funding is not progress. It is a holding pattern in an environment where holding ground required effort. The work ahead is ensuring these programs are implemented effectively while continuing to push for the investment these programs actually need. The fight for adequate funding, evidence-based policy, and equitable access continues.

This article was written for Community Access National Network (CANN) and originally published at hiv-hcv-watch.com.

I grew up in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana. Every morning before school, I stood in a classroom and pledged allegiance to the flag with my hand over my heart. I meant it. I still mean it. My patriotism isn’t performative. It’s not a bumper sticker or a campaign prop. It’s something I carry in my chest, something I learned before I had language for what a country was supposed to be.

I say this because I need you to understand where I’m coming from when I tell you that I am heartbroken. And I am furious.

On January 7, 2026, Renée Good, a 37-year-old American woman, was shot three times by an ICE agent in Minneapolis while sitting in her car. Video evidence contradicts the federal government’s claim that she ran him over. The Department of Justice declined to investigate whether her civil rights were violated. Multiple federal prosecutors resigned in protest.

On January 24, Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old VA nurse who spent his career caring for veterans, was pepper-sprayed, wrestled to the ground by six federal agents, and shot dead on an icy Minneapolis street. He had been filming them with his phone. He had been directing traffic. Video shows an agent removing a gun and stepping away from Pretti roughly one second before another agent killed him.

Two American citizens. Dead. In broad daylight. On camera.

The Department of Homeland Security called them domestic terrorists. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino referred to both of them as “suspects.”

Let’s not mince words about what that language means.

I need to say something here that I’ve been sitting with, and it’s ugly, and it’s true.

I am fully aware of the reality that it took the killing of a white male gun owner to move the needle on this issue in the halls of power.

A dead lesbian didn’t do it. Renée Good was shot three times, on video, and Congress kept moving. The administration kept lying. The machine kept grinding.

Countless dead Black and brown people didn’t do it. ICE has shot 12 people since September. Four others have been killed during federal deportation operations. The bodies have been piling up for months, and the political calculus didn’t shift.

But a white man with a gun, a VA nurse who served veterans, who was armed and exercising his Second Amendment rights? Now suddenly Republicans are calling for investigations. Now the NRA takes issue with the administration’s justifications. Now we’re having a national conversation.

This is not lost on me. I knew this is what it would take. And that is absolutely fucked.

It lays bare who America has always been. Progress be damned.

Years ago, after Charlottesville, I wrote a piece called “Dear America, Own Your Shit.” I was processing my rage at watching Neo-Nazis march through a college town with tiki torches, at watching a white domestic terrorist plow his car through peaceful protesters and not be called what he was, at watching this country show its whole ass and pretend it was surprised by what it saw in the mirror.

I wrote: “Own slavery. Own segregation. Own Jim Crow. Own lynchings. Own gerrymandering. Own the wage gap. Own unjust targeted prosecution and incarceration. Own police brutality. Own the shame. Own the guilt. Because we all let it get this far.”

I’m republishing that piece alongside this one, because the throughline is unbroken. The same country that couldn’t call a white man driving a car into a crowd a terrorist is the same country that calls American citizens “suspects” and “domestic terrorists” for filming federal agents and directing traffic. The same country that has always valued some lives over others. The same country that only pays attention when the right kind of victim dies.

We haven’t learned a goddamn thing. We’ve just gotten more divided and callous, giving over to the fear that feeds authoritarianism.

Here is what I keep turning over in my head:

ICE now has $85 billion at its disposal. That’s $75 billion from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” passed last July, plus its base budget of around $10 billion. That makes it the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the country, larger than the FBI, DEA, ATF, and U.S. Marshals combined.

And what are we getting for that money?

We’re getting agents who refuse to show their faces. Who won’t wear name badges. Who operate in American neighborhoods with less accountability than a mall security guard. We’re getting an agency that the administration has deployed to Minneapolis, not the border, not to the states with the highest undocumented populations, but to a city that opposed its policies. The pattern is unmistakable. This is not about public safety. This is retribution dressed up as law enforcement.

Meanwhile, Congress is fighting over whether to keep the government open. The House bundled DHS funding together with healthcare, defense, transportation, and everything else, then sent it to the Senate like a hostage negotiation. Vote for all of it, or none of it.

And here’s the obscene part: if funding lapses, ICE keeps operating. They have years of funding banked. But FEMA workers go unpaid. TSA agents work without paychecks. The Coast Guard takes the hit. And the healthcare programs that millions of Americans depend on hang in the balance, again, because we cannot stop funding a deportation machine long enough to fund a functional society.

I write about healthcare access for a living. I spend my days tracking what happens when systems fail people, when eligibility gets slashed, when formularies get gutted, when bureaucracy becomes a weapon against the vulnerable. Next week, I’ll be covering the appropriations funding in that capacity for my day job.

But this piece is personal. This is me, sitting with my thoughts, watching my country and trying to make sense of it.

When I watch what’s happening in Minneapolis, I don’t see it as separate from the work I do. I see it as the same disease with a different symptom.

We have $85 billion for ICE and a healthcare system held together with duct tape and expiring subsidies. We have $45 billion earmarked for immigration detention facilities and states like Florida slashing HIV drug access for 16,000 people because they claim they can’t afford it. We have money to triple the budget of a federal agency that kills American citizens on camera, and we have a Congress that spent 43 days shut down last fall because it couldn’t agree on whether people should be able to afford health insurance.

This is not a funding problem. This is a values problem. And the values on display right now are telling us exactly what kind of country we are. What kind of country we have always been.

The First Amendment guarantees the right to observe and film law enforcement. Alex Pretti was exercising that right when he was killed.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. Federal officials cited Pretti being armed as justification, even as video shows an agent removing a weapon and stepping away before the fatal shot. If carrying a gun is grounds for execution by federal agents, then every gun owner in America should be paying attention. But let’s be honest: they’re only paying attention now because the gun owner was white.

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizure. American citizens are being detained, brutalized, and killed in their own neighborhoods.

These are not partisan talking points. These are the foundational rights that generations of Americans have fought and died to protect. And they are being violated, on video, by federal agents with an $85 billion budget and zero accountability.

If DHS agents were acting within the law, they should not be afraid to show their faces. They should not be afraid to wear their names on their chests. They should not be afraid to be filmed in the course of doing their jobs. Thousands of peace officers across this country do exactly that, every single day, because that is what legitimate law enforcement looks like in a democracy.

America does not need a secret police force. The very concept is antithetical to the intent of the Founders and to the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

I know where my patriotism is focused. I know where my loyalty is pledged. And it is not to any man who would consider himself a king.

I love this country. I love it enough to be devastated by what I am watching. I love it enough to be furious at the corruption, the cowardice, and the complicity. I love it enough to say, out loud, what we all know but don’t want to admit: this country has always been this. The violence isn’t new. The dehumanization isn’t new. The selective outrage isn’t new.

What’s new is the scale. What’s new is the budget. What’s new is the brazenness.

And what’s old, what’s exhaustingly, heartbreakingly old, is who has to die before anyone with power gives a damn.

I don’t know how this ends. I don’t know if Congress will find its spine. I don’t know if the appropriations fight will result in accountability or just another round of capitulation dressed up as compromise.

But I know this: the soul of this country is not an abstraction. It is not a talking point. It is measured in how we treat the vulnerable, in what we fund and what we starve, in whether we hold power accountable or look away because it’s easier.

Right now, we are telling on ourselves. We are showing the world, and ourselves, exactly who we are.

I wrote letters to my senators today. I told them what I think. I told them what I need them to do. I’m sharing this with you because I believe you should do the same. Call them. Write them. Show up. Make noise. Do not let this moment pass in silence.

The people who fought and died for this country did not do so for us to hand it over to fear. They did not sacrifice so that we could watch American citizens gunned down in the street and shrug because the politics were inconvenient.

I refuse to accept that. I hope you do too.

If you want to contact your senators, you can find their information at senate.gov.

Tell them you’re watching. Tell them you expect more. Tell them the Constitution demands courage, not compliance.

In love and frustration,

Travis

I wrote the piece below in August 2017, in the days after Heather Heyer was murdered by a white supremacist who drove his car into a crowd of peaceful protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. I was processing my rage, my grief, and my exhaustion at watching this country refuse to look itself in the mirror.

I’m republishing it now, in January 2026, because the mirror hasn’t changed. The reflection has only gotten clearer.

In the past three weeks, federal agents have killed two American citizens on the streets of Minneapolis. Renée Good, a 37-year-old lesbian, was shot three times while sitting in her car. Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old VA nurse and gun owner, was pepper-sprayed, wrestled to the ground by six agents, and shot dead while filming them. The Department of Homeland Security called them domestic terrorists. Video evidence contradicts nearly every official account.

And here is what I cannot stop thinking about: it took the killing of a white man with a gun for Congress to start asking questions. A dead queer woman didn’t move the needle. Countless dead Black and brown people over the past months didn’t move the needle. But a white male gun owner? Now we’re having a national conversation.

This is not new. This is who we have always been. The throughline from Charlottesville to Minneapolis is unbroken.

In 2017, I asked America to own its shit. To own the racism, the violence, the selective outrage, the centuries of brutality we’ve inflicted and excused and forgotten. I asked us to face it so we could grow from it.

We didn’t.

So I’m asking again. Not because I think it will work this time. But because silence is complicity, and I refuse to be silent.

Own this shit, too.

Dear America,

We have a problem. A long-standing, festering, cancerous, disease-on-our-heart kind of problem. I won’t mince words with you, I won’t sugar coat or ease you into the light because we’ve all had plenty of time to look it in the face and say “this is who we are.”

America, we are racists.

From the founding to the 45th, we’ve been racists. We built the country on it. We advanced industry on it. We brutalized, murdered, segregated, and excused paying lower wages because of it. We’ve started wars over it and burned churches, houses, and entire cities to the ground because you guessed it, we’re fucking racists.

Now look in the mirror, and own it.

Own slavery. Own segregation. Own Jim Crow. Own lynchings. Own gerrymandering. Own the wage gap. Own unjust targeted prosecution and incarceration (the new slavery). Own the tone-deaf support of #AllLivesMatter. Own police brutality.

Own accepting the racist rhetoric that led to the election of a leader who is wholly unfit for the office of the President.

Own that it was really this deep-seeded racism that made President Obama’s terms in office so reprehensible to so many. Own that Americans called their first lady a “monkey.” Own the fact that even if you’re poor and white, you’re systemically better off than being poor and black.

OWN CHARLOTTESVILLE.

Own the shame. Own the guilt. Because we all let it get this far. If you’re an American, this is OUR history. Not theirs, not those who came before, it’s ours. Own this shit so that we can face it. Own it so that, hopefully, we can grow from it and become a better nation. Better people. People worthy of being called “the free and the brave.” Because right now, we’re anything but that.

Right now, we’re a country that has free-fallen into a climate where a bunch of butthurt Neo-Nazi white bros with tiki torches think it’s socially acceptable to march into a college town and throw up Nazi salutes with “Heil Trump” and “White Power” spewing from their lips. We created this climate. Own it.

We created a climate (actually, we’ve been legislating this climate) where you can plow your car through a group of peaceful anti-Nazi protesters, killing 1 person and injuring 19 others and not be considered a domestic terrorist. Isis terrorists have been doing this in London and they are called what they are: TERRORISTS. But not here. Not if you’re white.

What do you honestly think would have happened if a group of black people armed with guns, knives, and torches marched on a city en-masse? Well, the white folks did it, and they all just went home after.

And why were they there? Because they cherish the Confederacy. They hold in high esteem the years that America warred against itself over its racist heart. As a point of fact, the Confederacy is not exactly something a non-racist person would cherish. It is a deep and long scar across the face of America. Those statues are not of heroes, they are usurpers. They are traitors. What place of honor do they hold in our town squares? None, you racists. But for 200 years America has been totally cool with their presence. Towering reminders to our black citizens of the bigotry that still lives in so many hearts today. Shameful as fuck. Own it.

The Tweeter-in-Chief says there is “hate on all sides...” and Orin Fucking Hatch says “Their tiki torches may be fueled by citronella but their ideas are fueled by hate, and have no place in civil society.”

WTF. First of all, I don’t see “hate on all sides.” I see racist hatred and justifiable anger opposing each other. Two very different things, Donald. Also, Orin, good on you for attempting to call it out, but maybe also look back at your Good-Ole-Boy GOP voting record and own that shit (see also, systemic racism).

And lest you think I am immune from my own “owning”, I’m not. I grew up outside of New Orleans in a suburb that exploded in growth thanks to “white flight” in the late ‘70’s. I went to very integrated schools, but some part of me seemed to think I was better than the black folk when I was young. Maybe it was all those family gatherings where the word “nigger” was thrown around so easily. Indeed, hate and separation are very much taught values as I’ve come to learn.

But in my personal “owning” of racism and facing its reality in my heart, I have been systematically hunting it down and stepping on its throat until dead because that’s what it deserves. Racism deserves that kind of destruction because, strange as it may seem, black people don’t deserve to be treated differently because they have more damn melanin in their skin, or because they express their culture differently, or because you just don’t like that gosh darn rap music and they need to pull up their pants! Basic shit, I know, but it seems as a society that’s the kind of lessons that need the most teaching - Basic Humanity 101.

My favorite teacher to this day was from elementary school. Ms. Zenon. I remember her well. Not because she had a very unique last name, but because she loved me. She was a strong, fierce, take-no-shit-from-anybody black woman with a strong faith and bold voice who took this troubled young white boy, struggling with who he was at the deepest levels of himself, kept him after class, made him clean erasers, and took him into her loving arms and told him he was loved. Truly loved.

And that stuck in a certain way because I felt it in her soul that she knew what it was to love without condition. I don’t know her background, what she’d been through in life, her hardships, and triumphs, but I do know from experience that people who love like that have been through some hard shit.

My friends - and family - who are black continue to teach me on a regular basis how much I need to own, change, grow, and understand. I don’t shy away from it. Because I know how imperfect I am. I know how I am capable of ridiculous hate. I also know that I am capable of boundless love. And change. I am capable of change.

Owning my issues has allowed me to overcome them. A work in progress for sure. But the pliability of my heart and mind to change toward goodness, justice, and love are the things I strive for and are the things I hope for in my fellow Americans.

We’re all capable, and the first step is to own it.

In Love and Frustration,

Travis

Originally written August 2017. Republished January 2026.

On January 8, 2026, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) sent an email to healthcare partners announcing sweeping changes to the state's AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), effective March 1, 2026. In the days that followed, thousands of Floridians living with HIV received letters informing them that their access to life-saving medications and insurance coverage would be drastically curtailed in less than two months. The announcement came with minimal warning and no prior engagement with the affected community, marking an alarming departure from decades of collaborative public health practice and threatening to unravel progress made toward Ending the HIV Epidemic.

What Florida Is Doing

The changes are significant in scope. Florida DOH is reducing ADAP income eligibility for uninsured clients from 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) down to 130% FPL, which translates to an annual income of approximately $20,345 for a single person. The state is eliminating insurance premium assistance, which previously helped people maintain coverage through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) marketplace. Florida is also removing Biktarvy, the most widely prescribed single-tablet HIV regimen, from the ADAP formulary while restricting Descovy to people with renal insufficiency.

According to the National Alliance of State and Territorial AIDS Directors (NASTAD), Florida ADAP served 32,248 clients in 2024, with 40% at or below 100% FPL, 10% between 101–138% FPL, and 50% between 138–400% FPL. With a cutoff at 130% FPL, NASTAD estimates that more than 16,000 people will lose ADAP coverage. The administration has offered a different estimate. At a January 14, 2026 Florida Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo estimated approximately 10,000 people would be affected.

The numbers matter less than the underlying reality: half of all Floridians currently relying on ADAP for uninterrupted access to HIV treatment face immediate risk of treatment disruption based on an administrative eligibility change, not clinical need.

The Stated Rationale and Its Problems

DOH has framed the changes as necessary to prevent a projected $120 million budget shortfall, attributing the crisis to rising health care insurance premiums and the expiration of enhanced ACA premium tax credits at the end of 2025. The federal government shutdown in October 2025, during which Republicans and Democrats fought over the impending expiration of these tax credits, did lead to their lapse on December 31. Florida, with nearly 4.5 million people receiving marketplace insurance and roughly 31% of ADAP clients enrolled in marketplace plans, faces genuine financial pressure.

What DOH has not provided is transparency around its budget calculations. At the Senate hearing, David Poole, who oversaw Florida's AIDS program from 1993 to 2005, pointed out that the state transparency website shows $120 million in rebate revenues from the prior year. Testimony from a former consumer representative to the Florida DOH ADAP Advisory Workgroup indicated that information shared with stakeholders suggests the expanded tax credits had minimal impact on the program, with insurance premiums increasing only about $150 per client annually. The state has not publicly released an ADAP budget in more than a year, according to Malcolm Ried of the U.S. People Living with HIV Caucus.

When Senator Carlos Guillermo Smith asked Kendall Kelly, director of policy and budget under Governor DeSantis, about the state's authority to make such dramatic cuts to a federally funded program, Kelly referenced a potential $700 million shortfall for the health department overall but could not provide specifics about federal funding changes. No other state has made such drastic changes to its ADAP program this year. Pennsylvania, facing similar budget pressures, reduced its eligibility from 500% to 350% FPL—a far more measured response.

The Clinical and Public Health Stakes

Treatment interruption for a person living with HIV is a clinical risk, not an administrative inconvenience. When antiretroviral therapy (ART) is interrupted, viral rebound occurs, drug resistance can develop, viral suppression is lost, and the risk of onward transmission increases. The science is clear: consistent treatment keeps people healthy and prevents new transmissions. This principle underlies the entire Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative, which targets sustained viral suppression as one of its four core strategies.

Dr. Paul Arons, the former Medical Director of the state HIV/AIDS program from 1989 to 2007, testified that asking a person with HIV whose treatment is working to change regimens for non-medical reasons is a traumatic request. According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 89.6% of clients enrolled in the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program achieved viral suppression as of fiscal year 2025. HIV medications have among the highest adherence rates of any chronic disease treatment. Disrupting that success for opaque and questionable budget claims defies logic and evidence-based practice.

The formulary changes compound the harm. Biktarvy is prescribed to 60% of Florida ADAP clients. The state has offered no transition plan, no guidance on which generics will replace it, and a warning that additional formulary restrictions may follow. The International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC) has called this approach drug rationing under the banner of cost control.

A Failure of Process

Federal Ryan White legislation and HRSA HIV/AIDS Bureau (HAB) guidance require states to engage stakeholders, including people living with HIV, in program planning and to explore cost-saving measures before implementing cost-cutting measures like eligibility reductions or formulary restrictions. The ADAP Manual from HRSA HAB distinguishes between cost-saving measures (improving efficiency, expanding health care coverage, maximizing rebate collection) and cost-cutting measures (restricting enrollment or benefits). Waiting lists are described as a last resort.

Florida DOH bypassed this framework entirely. The eligibility level for Florida's ADAP program is established in regulation, requiring a public regulatory process to change. No such process was undertaken before this announcement. The announcement came with less than two months notice, days before the ACA open enrollment period ended, and without prior consultation with advisory workgroups or community partners. Testimony at the January 14 Senate hearing revealed that stakeholders learned of the changes only days earlier and were never brought in to discuss cost containment measures.

The timing compounds the harm. Florida's plan to cancel premium assistance was announced just days before the end of ACA open enrollment. ADAP enrollees had selected plans approved by the program, often with higher premiums, because ADAP covered the cost. Canceling those subsidies as of March 1 leaves people locked into plans they cannot afford with no ability to change their enrollment.

The abrupt nature of the announcement left people living with HIV scrambling. "This is deeply personal for me—not only do I rely on this coverage to stay virally suppressed, but I also need it to manage other health issues as I age with HIV," Kamaria Laffrey, Co-Executive Director of The SERO Project and a Florida resident, told Positively Aware. "With no warning and no transparency, this feels like a random and unjustified attack on people simply trying to live."

The lack of transparency extends to notification. Some people will not receive termination letters because they did not consent to mailings at home. County health departments, according to testimony, have not received guidance on tracking these clients. The two-month transition window is unrealistic for navigating alternative coverage in a fragmented insurance market, particularly after open enrollment has closed.

Historical Echo

This situation carries echoes of an earlier Florida crisis. In the early 2010s, following the 2008 recession, Florida maintained the largest ADAP waiting list in the nation, with thousands of people waiting months to access medications. Advocates fought to implement cost containment measures and stabilize the program. The state eventually recovered, but the lessons of that period—the importance of transparency, stakeholder engagement, and exploring alternatives before cutting eligibility—appear to have been forgotten.

What Happens Next

The policy implications extend beyond Florida. Because all state ADAPs rely on the same federal funding streams, what happens in one state signals possibilities for others. IAPAC has urged clinicians in states with similar political and fiscal dynamics to engage their representatives proactively. The Save HIV Funding campaign has noted that the Florida changes come alongside broader health system destabilization, including Medicaid cuts and disruptions to federal HIV programs, creating a compounding effect.

At the state level, Chair Jay Trumbull of the Senate Appropriations Committee indicated the issue would likely be negotiated during budget talks. Surgeon General Ladapo acknowledged the situation could become a crisis without intervention and suggested funding approaches that might not be onerous. Yet DOH has not requested additional state funds, despite Florida holding $17 billion in reserves.

What Needs to Happen

The immediate need is a complete halt to the March 1 implementation while finances are fully reviewed and medically sound alternatives are developed. Florida must release transparent budget data, engage stakeholders as required by federal law, and explore the full range of cost-saving measures before resorting to eligibility cuts and formulary restrictions.

For advocates and policymakers watching this unfold, the Florida crisis offers a clear lesson: when states treat HIV programs as budget line items rather than public health infrastructure, people fall out of care, viral suppression declines, and new transmissions occur. The economic argument for maintaining access is well-established: keeping people in care and virally suppressed prevents costly emergency interventions, hospitalizations, and new transmissions that carry their own long-term treatment costs.

Florida has the resources, the federal funding framework, and the clinical expertise to maintain a functional ADAP program. What it lacks, at this moment, is the political will to use them or the moral grounding to not sacrifice the most vulnerable. The cost of that failure will be measured in preventable illness, unnecessary suffering, and setbacks to the national goal of Ending the HIV Epidemic. We cannot let that happen.

This article was written for Community Access National Network (CANN) and originally published at hiv-hcv-watch.com.

This is the reality for more than 20 million Americans who benefited from the enhanced subsidies first enacted in 2021 as a COVID-19 pandemic response. The Wall Street Journal reports that roughly four in ten ACA enrollees had been paying nothing toward their premiums under the enhanced credits—more than double the share in 2020. That era ended last week, and Congress is now scrambling to respond amid growing political pressure and the specter of another government shutdown deadline on January 30.

The House Vote: Forcing the Issue

Last Thursday, the House passed a three-year extension of the enhanced subsidies, a bill that has no chance of becoming law in its current form. The Senate rejected an identical measure in December. So why hold the vote?

The answer lies in a procedural rebellion that caught House leadership off guard. Four swing-district Republicans—Reps. Mike Lawler of New York and Robert Bresnahan, Brian Fitzpatrick, and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania—signed a Democratic discharge petition to force the vote over Speaker Mike Johnson's objections. Last Wednesday, nine Republicans joined Democrats on a procedural motion to advance the bill.

These centrist Republicans are calculating political survival. As Rep. Fitzpatrick told The Hill, "Everyone's lamenting discharge petitions. There's an easy way to fix that: Put bills on the floor that have majority support. It's not hard." The vote serves a strategic purpose: it creates a legislative vehicle the Senate can amend and sends a clear signal that inaction carries electoral consequences in November's midterms.

The Senate Framework Takes Shape

While the House engages in political theater, a bipartisan Senate group led by Sens. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) has been negotiating a compromise. According to Politico, legislative text could be ready as early as today.

The emerging framework includes a two-year extension of enhanced subsidies with several Republican-demanded reforms. The Wall Street Journal outlines the key elements: an income cap excluding households earning more than 700% of the federal poverty level (approximately $225,000 for a family of four), a requirement that enrollees pay at least $5 per month toward their coverage, and $100,000 fines on insurers who sign up "phantom enrollees" without their knowledge. In the second year, enrollees would have the option to direct their subsidy funds into a pre-funded health savings account instead of having them flow to insurance companies.

The framework also reportedly includes measures to directly fund cost-sharing reductions (CSRs), which could generate significant savings. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that direct CSR funding would reduce deficits by over $50 billion over a decade while lowering silver plan premiums by 10% to 20%. This would end the practice of "silver loading," where insurers inflate silver plan premiums to compensate for CSR costs the federal government stopped paying in 2017.

Sen. Moreno told NPR, "We're in the red zone. But that does not mean a touchdown. It could mean a 95-yard fumble."

The Barriers to a Deal

Two sticking points threaten to derail negotiations: abortion coverage and the elimination of $0 premium plans.

On abortion, Republicans want explicit language preventing subsidies from flowing to plans that cover the procedure. Democrats counter that current law already addresses this concern—ACA plans that cover abortion must charge enrollees a separate $1 per month, segregating federal funds from abortion services. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) warned Fox News, "I am not going to open the door to Hyde, given what happens and what has been seen historically when you do that. If you open the door, it will get drafty in a hurry."

President Trump complicated matters when he told House Republicans to be "flexible on Hyde," drawing pushback from conservatives. Sen. Moreno has since indicated the framework does not change current abortion policy, calling the issue "peripheral" to the core negotiations.

The second obstacle carries more direct implications for patient access. The proposed $5 monthly minimum premium—designed as an anti-fraud measure—would eliminate $0 premium plans that currently cover millions of low-income enrollees. Sen. Wyden called this a "rate hike" affecting 8 million people. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) noted, "Data shows that you lose a lot of people at the lowest income levels when you do that."

This concern is grounded in evidence. The NIH Clinical Guidelines on Antiretroviral Therapy are direct: "Out-of-pocket costs for people with HIV can be prohibitive, creating a barrier to the initiation and continuation of ART. Cost sharing results in higher rates of people not initiating ART, prescription abandonment at the pharmacy, decreased adherence, and more frequent drug discontinuation." The guidelines note that in 2022, the CDC's Medication Monitoring Project found that among people with HIV who had stopped taking antiretroviral therapy, 34% reported that money or insurance problems contributed to stopping treatment. For people managing chronic conditions requiring consistent care, even modest cost-sharing can disrupt treatment continuity with serious downstream consequences for both personal health and public health goals.

Why This Matters for People Living with Chronic Conditions

The evidence on cost-sharing and health outcomes should inform how we evaluate any compromise. The Commonwealth Fund's 2023 Health Care Affordability Survey found that 37% of marketplace enrollees reported delaying or skipping needed care due to cost in the prior 12 months. Among those who delayed care, 61% said a health problem got worse as a result. One-third of marketplace enrollees reported paying off medical debt.

These affordability challenges fall disproportionately on certain communities. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes that 23% of Black enrollees and 18% of Hispanic enrollees in private insurance reported problems paying medical bills, compared to 15% of white enrollees.

For people living with HIV, coverage continuity directly affects health outcomes. The NIH Clinical Guidelines emphasize that "health insurance and prescription drug coverage can directly affect clinical outcomes for people with HIV; changes to coverage can result in lapses in viral suppression and should be anticipated as best possible." The guidelines specifically warn that disengagement from care occurs more frequently during transitions in coverage, including when people switch insurance plans or experience changes in employment status. With wholesale acquisition costs for commonly prescribed single-tablet antiretroviral regimens ranging from approximately $2,800 to $4,700 per month, the stakes of coverage disruption are substantial.

As CANN's December analysis detailed, New York City's 2024 HIV surveillance data showed diagnoses rising for the fourth consecutive year, with 86% of new diagnoses among Black or Latino people and 48% of those interviewed lacking health insurance. The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program and AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) provide critical safety net support, but these programs work best when complementing stable insurance coverage rather than substituting for it.

The KFF analysis of proposed Medicaid cost-sharing requirements offers a window into what happens when cost barriers are introduced for vulnerable populations. Under a maximum cost-sharing scenario, Medicaid expansion enrollees with three or more chronic conditions could face average annual costs of $1,248—potentially exceeding the 5% of income cap for those at 100% of the federal poverty level.

What Comes Next

Any Senate deal requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning at least seven Democrats must join all 53 Republicans, or significant bipartisan support must materialize. Sen. Moreno has indicated he needs 35 Republican senators on board to feel confident in the level of GOP support. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said any deal must get a "big vote" among Republicans.

The political calendar adds pressure. The January 30 government funding deadline looms, and neither party has appetite for another shutdown after last fall's 43-day standoff. An extended open enrollment period would likely accompany any deal, giving people who dropped coverage due to premium spikes a chance to re-enroll.

For advocates, the coming days demand close attention. The specific legislative text—particularly provisions around minimum premiums, income verification, and any changes to covered services—will determine whether a compromise actually improves access or introduces new barriers. Contact your Senators to emphasize that affordability must remain central to any reform. Monitor for the final text expected early next week. And prepare to help community members navigate an extended enrollment period if one materializes.

The enhanced subsidies enabled record ACA enrollment of 25.2 million in early 2025, according to KFF data. What happens in Congress over the next two weeks will determine whether that progress holds or unravels, and whether the people who depend on affordable coverage can continue accessing the care they need.

This article was written for Community Access National Network (CANN) and originally published at hiv-hcv-watch.com.

These crises share a common thread: they result from policy choices, not external forces. The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) estimates that average ACA out-of-pocket premium payments will increase by 114% if enhanced subsidies expire. New York City's latest surveillance data shows HIV diagnoses rising for the fourth consecutive year. The interconnected nature of these programs means each failure amplifies the others, and the decisions Congress makes in the coming days, and how states respond in the coming months, will determine whether 2026 brings stabilization or acceleration of these access crises.

The ACA Subsidy Showdown

As of this writing, the Senate is scheduled to vote on Thursday, December 11th, on the future of enhanced premium tax credits, and according to Politico, “all proposals appear doomed.” Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, announced Democrats will push a “clean” three-year extension: "This is the bill, a clean three-year extension of ACA tax credits, that Democrats will bring to the floor of the Senate for a vote next Thursday, and every single Democrat will support it. Republicans have one week to decide where they stand."

The measure requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, meaning 13 Republicans would need to cross the aisle. That support is not expected to materialize, as Republicans remain fractured between those who prefer inaction, those insisting on conservative overhaul, and those worried about the political consequences of rising premiums amid the quickly coming midterm fights.

President Trump was poised to release a framework last month extending the subsidies temporarily with income caps at 700% of the federal poverty level and minimum premium requirements. He backed down after some Republican lawmakers insisted any extension restrict ACA plans from covering abortions and include more conservative changes. Majority Leader John Thune acknowledged the abortion issue is "a difficult and challenging one on both sides." The Hydr amendment already forbids federal funds being used to subsidize abortions.

Several competing Republican proposals have emerged, though each carries significant implications for cost and access. Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-La.) wants to redirect enhanced subsidies to health savings accounts tied to bronze-level plans with higher deductibles. The approach would shift costs from premiums to out-of-pocket expenses rather than reduce them, and HSA rules, as they currently stand, prohibit using funds to pay premiums. For people with chronic or complex health conditions requiring consistent care, high-deductible plans create significant barriers: annual HIV medication costs alone range from $36,000 to $48,000, and KFF research shows each $1,000 increase in out-of-pocket costs correlates with decreased medication adherence.

Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed "Trump Health Freedom Accounts" that could be used to pay premiums, though funding levels and eligibility thresholds remain unclear. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has floated allowing people to deduct up to $25,000 in medical expenses from their taxes, but as a deduction rather than a credit, this approach disproportionately benefits higher earners and does nothing at the point of purchase for people who cannot afford premiums upfront.

Neither of these proposals address the systemic issues driving up the costs of premiums, like pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) vertically integrated with their own solely owned pharmacies or the plan that are supposedly contracting with them. Directly, PBMs are setting their own prices to justify higher costs across the board with limited to no transparency or accountability. Changing which hands money comes from would not change this dynamic but it could potentially make it harder to track the source of these cost pressures.

A bipartisan group of 35 House members released a two-year extension proposal retaining enhanced subsidies for people earning up to 600% of the poverty level, with reduced amounts up to ten times the poverty level. But only about 15 Republicans have signed on, far short of the majority-of-the-majority threshold typically required for leadership to allow a floor vote. "I have 40,000 people in my district who rely on this health care and doing nothing to prevent a spike in their premiums is wrong," said Rep. Jen Kiggans (R-Va.), who won reelection last year by less than four percentage points.

The real-world consequences are already materializing. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan reports a 20% spike in call center volume from members facing premium increases. KFF polling found that 58% of ACA enrollees said they couldn't afford a $300 annual increase without significant disruption to their household finances. Yet 72% of Republican ACA enrollees favor extending the enhanced subsidies, as do the same share of MAGA supporters with marketplace coverage.

HIV Programs: Rising Cases Meet Proposed Cuts

As we documented in November, the HIV care system experienced systematic disruption throughout 2025 through administrative obstruction and funding delays, independent of any congressional budget action. The question now is what 2026 holds, and early signals are troubling.

New York City's annual HIV surveillance report, released last week, showed 1,791 new HIV diagnoses in 2024, representing a 5.4% increase from 2023. This follows a 6.9% increase from 2022 to 2023, meaning new diagnoses have increased or remained stable for four consecutive years. Acting Health Commissioner Dr. Michelle Morse noted that "this progress has stalled as new diagnoses have increased or remained stable for the fourth year in a row while lifesaving federal funding for ending the epidemic is in jeopardy."

The federal threat is concrete: New York City would lose more than $41 million for HIV research, treatment, education and services if the proposed closure of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Division of HIV Prevention is approved. Nationally, the House Appropriations Committee's FY2026 bill would eliminate approximately $1 billion in CDC HIV prevention funding and cut the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program by $525 million.

Members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV and AIDS (PACHA) released a letter last week urging the White House and Congress to protect funding, warning that "without continued investment, progress toward ending the HIV epidemic will stall, cases will increase again, and the health of Americans will suffer." Multiple PACHA members told ABC News the council has not met this year, raising questions about its ability to carry out its advisory role. The White House dismissed the council as "a largely symbolic body" engaged in "another useless PR exercise."

The NYC data underscores who bears the consequences of policy failures: 86% of people newly diagnosed with HIV in 2024 were Black or Latino, with 42% living in high-poverty neighborhoods. Among those interviewed by the health department, 48% lacked health insurance.

340B and PBM Reform: Rare Bipartisan Ground

Amid partisan gridlock on coverage questions, 340B Drug Pricing Program and pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) reform showed rare bipartisan momentum in 2025. The October HELP Committee hearing on 340B produced unusual agreement across party lines, with Chairman Cassidy noting that "340B should be about making drugs more affordable, not a line item on an investor call."

CBO's September 2025 analysis confirmed what patient advocates have argued for years: the program expanded 565% from $6.6 billion in 2010 to $43.9 billion in 2021, with two-thirds of this growth stemming from covered entity and third-party behaviors rather than pharmaceutical price inflation. The recently reintroduced 340B ACCESS Act represents the first comprehensive federal response to these documented abuses.

CANN's Director of 340B Policy Kalvin Pugh anticipates reform momentum will continue: "Next year begins several HRSA changes to 340B. I anticipate continued movement in Congress to try to realign the now second largest drug discount program to its original intent. I also anticipate continued efforts on the state level as large hospital systems and other margin motivated players will look for other ways to extract value from 340B."

On PBMs, the Federal Trade Commission's January 2025 interim staff report documented that PBM-affiliated pharmacies extracted over $7.3 billion in revenue above estimated acquisition costs on 51 specialty generic drugs between 2017-2022. The report's unanimous approval by FTC commissioners reflected the undeniable nature of these practices, yet the failure to enact meaningful federal PBM reform demonstrated that industry lobbying power remains formidable.

Support for these reforms has existed for some years and has been growing but has thus far stalled. How much these reforms will remain prioritized in a midterm election year, again, remains a question.

State Experiments and Federal Shadows

State Prescription Drug Affordability Boards (PDABs) continued their problematic trajectory in 2025. Colorado and Maryland, the two states furthest along in setting Upper Payment Limits (UPLs), are basing their limits on federal Maximum Fair Price (MFP) without conducting thorough cost-benefit analyses or assessing potential adverse system outcomes.

CANN's Drug Pricing Policy Director Ranier Simons offered a pointed assessment: "As 2025 comes to a close, PDABs remain expensive experiments built upon unsound foundations with nebulous projections of incalculable benefits. As state PDABs and other entities lean into equally untenable federal actions the outlook for positive change in 2026 is not promising."

Simons additionally warned that while the appetite for PDABs may be fading, it is likely to be replaced by legislative bully behavior or legislatures attempting to pass direct MFP bills, foregoing the facade of the Boards themselves.

The federal Most Favored Nation (MFN) executive order signed in May 2025 has since evolved into TrumpRx, a direct-to-consumer website set to launch in 2026. The administration has announced deals with five manufacturers, including Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Novo Nordisk, touting discounts averaging 50% and reaching as high as 85%. The framing as "MFN pricing" is generous. TrumpRx functions as a cash-pay portal where consumers bypass insurance to purchase directly from manufacturers. The 92% of Americans with health insurance likely won't benefit, since purchases don't count toward deductibles or out-of-pocket maximums, and insured consumers often pay less through their pharmacy benefit. I-MAK CEO Tahir Amin called it "political theater" that won't deliver "substantial savings for the government or patients," noting that pharmaceutical stocks rose after the announcements. The specific terms of manufacturer deals remain confidential, making it impossible to verify whether "MFN prices" for Medicaid will actually be lower than the rebated prices Medicaid already receives under existing federal law. Medicaid is already guaranteed the lowest market cost on medications under the “best price” rule.

As we analyzed in August, true MFN pricing tied to international benchmarks risks importing discriminatory QALY-based frameworks. TrumpRx sidesteps that concern by avoiding genuine price regulation altogether.

Utilization Management: The Quiet Expansion

While coverage debates dominate headlines, a less visible threat to medication access is accelerating: the expansion of utilization management (UM) tools by both public and private payers. The U.S. drug utilization management market reached $39.82 billion in 2024 and is projected to more than double to $82.07 billion by 2034.

The Inflation Reduction Act's Part D benefit redesign creates new incentives for expanded UM. With Part D plans now responsible for 60% of costs in the catastrophic phase (up from 15% in 2023), plans face financial pressure to restrict access through step therapy, fill limits, and prior authorization requirements. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission found that Part D and Medicare Advantage plans now apply some form of utilization management to more than half of drugs on their formularies. In June, a coalition of 60 patient advocacy organizations wrote to CMS Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz warning that "restrictive cost-control measures can delay or prevent beneficiaries from accessing necessary treatments."

CMS is currently engaged in investigations on Medicare Advantage Plans abusing UM practices to deny care. Because these abuses are so well-know, the agency's proposal to adopt these practices for traditional Medicare might seem hypocritical, if not foretelling.

Payers are increasingly deploying AI to automate these decisions. A Bain & Company survey found that approximately 80% of payers now have an AI strategy in place or in development, with prior authorization automation among the top use cases. Industry analysts frame this as reducing "administrative gridlock," but the concern for patients is that automation makes it easier to deny care at scale. A 2024 American Medical Association survey found that 93% of physicians reported prior authorization led to delays in necessary care, and 82% said the process can lead patients to abandon their recommended treatment. For people managing HIV, cancer, and other chronic conditions, automated denials represent a new front in the fight for treatment access that demands sustained advocacy attention in 2026.

The Crossroads of 2026

The policy decisions of the coming days will shape healthcare access for years. Lawmakers increasingly view January 30, the next government funding deadline, as the real cutoff for a healthcare deal if Thursday's vote fails. If ACA subsidies expire, KFF projects marketplace enrollment dropping from 22.8 million to 18.9 million in 2026 alone.

Looking further ahead, Medicaid work requirements under H.R. 1 take effect January 2027, requiring adults ages 19-64 to complete 80 hours monthly of approved activities to maintain coverage. Planning for that implementation begins now.

GOP strategist Jason Cabel Roe captured the political bind: "This is an issue we've been railing on for how many years? And now, all of a sudden, we have to deal with it, and there are no good proposals right now to get us out of this. If we don't fix it now, we risk letting Democrats fix it later, and we're not going to like that fix."

Whether Congress finds pragmatic solutions or continues partisan paralysis will determine whether 2026 brings relief or deepening crisis for the millions of Americans whose healthcare access hangs in the balance.

This article was written for Community Access National Network (CANN) and originally published at hiv-hcv-watch.com.

If I trace the line back to where it all began, the ink is more Rorschach blot than paint-by-numbers. I didn’t grow up dreaming of writing about HIV policy or public health or anything remotely adult and sensible. I grew up absorbing the quiet and not-so-quiet messages that who I was needed correcting. And to be fair, I didn’t just sit there and take it. I came out of the closet young for the time, ran headfirst into freedom, and made choices that would make Freud say, “see what I mean?”

But those early church scripts are stubborn. They cling like glitter after vacation Bible school. So in my twenties I did what far too many queer kids raised in pews eventually do: I marched myself right back into the sanctuary and tried to pray myself straight. Ten years of shrinking, contorting, and spiritual self-flagellation in the name of being “acceptable.” When I finally came up for air, gasping and blinking, trying to remember what it was like to breathe again, the universe had a plot twist waiting for me.

“Sir, your test results are in. We need to see you in our office.” The nice lady from the Wake County Health Department had no idea I’d been laid off from my job the day before, that her timing would land like a comedic beat in a very dark sitcom. Better get that COBRA coverage, hunny. In reality, the voice I heard when I was diagnosed with HIV in 2013 wasn’t the clinician’s. It was the church. “See, [insert slur]? You deserved this.” Not God. Not my mother. Not anyone who actually loved me. Just that old, well-worn shame cassette clicking into place like it had been waiting years for its solo. Shame doesn’t need facts. It doesn’t need context. It just needs a crack in the door. It can take a moment of pure biology and twist it into prophecy.

I wish I could say I rose to the occasion right away, but life isn’t linear or cinematic. There was no orchestral swell, no title card reading The Turning Point. The years after my diagnosis were a blur of contradictions. Some spiraling, yes, but also a lot of functioning. A lot of over-functioning, honestly. Working nonstop. Achieving. Pouring every unresolved fragment of identity and trauma into my career like it was mortar holding me together. I got married. I excelled. I tried to be “good enough,” whatever that meant. Worthy. Whole. Not broken. Oh, the stigma of it all. Oh, the pain we carry.

So when COVID hit and work evaporated overnight, it wasn’t just a job loss. It was an identity collapse. The marriage, which had long been more about me playing savior than building a partnership, blew apart next. Everything I’d built in the name of being acceptable crumbled at once. And when I let a man put a needle in my arm for the first time, it wasn’t rebellion or thrill-seeking. It was because I genuinely believed I had nothing left to live for.

And then, because life is bizarre and occasionally merciful, I met Jen. You may know him as CANN’s CEO. I knew him first as “Jen,” the guy I met through a mutual friend at a time when I wasn’t exactly giving “promising candidate” energy. Somehow, in the middle of my scrambled-brain era, he saw something I had long since stopped recognizing. He believed in me when I didn’t trust my own wiring.

So when he asked me to write for CANN in September 2023, it wasn’t about being rescued. It was about being reminded. There was still something in me worth tapping into. Something I’d buried but not lost. Even through the fog, I could feel it: I wasn’t finished. Not by a long shot.

And then I looked around at the moment I was walking into and thought: You’ve got to be kidding me.

Public health under political attack. HIV programs being destabilized and dismantled. Cuts that would undo decades of progress. LGBTQ+ people being treated like legislative piñatas. Clinics forced to scale back services while they wait for grants that used to arrive on time. Providers trying to keep people in care while the system beneath them is being quietly hollowed out. Everyone exhausted, angry, anxious.

This is when I show up? Now? When everything is on fire?

A hell of a time to get into advocacy.

But maybe that’s the point. You don’t get to choose the moment you’re needed. You only get to decide whether you’re going to show up, shaky knees, frayed edges, all of it.

My gratitude this Thanksgiving won’t be found on a Pinterest board. It’s not arranged on a charcuterie board with rosemary sprigs. It’s the gritty kind, the kind that comes from knowing how close I came to disappearing. The kind born from surviving things I absolutely should not have survived. I didn’t get here because I was virtuous or inspiring. I got here because people threw me ropes when I was sinking, and because I had access so many people don’t. Access to meds, to care, to community, to plain dumb luck. Privilege wrapped in trauma wrapped in stubborn persistence. I think about that every day.

That’s why the work isn’t abstract to me. When I write about funding cuts or bureaucratic sabotage, I’m not theorizing. I know what it feels like when systems fail. I know how shame can warp a diagnosis into a death sentence. I know what happens when care depends on luck, or geography.

And this work, as infuriating as it is, lets me fight back. For myself. For my people. For the folks who didn’t get the lifelines I did, who missed the right friend or the right doctor or the right skin tone. I get to push against systems built to confuse and exhaust people. I get to challenge the ridiculous fiction that some lives deserve less and that some people are worth more.

And strangely, I’m even grateful that advocacy requires actual humanity. Not rage-tweet humanity. Real humanity. The kind that asks you to hold onto your heart even when you’d rather slam a door. It’s easy to fight enemies. It’s harder, and far more necessary, to fight for justice while refusing to lose yourself.

Hope feels irresponsible these days. Believing in institutions feels like bad budgeting. But here I am. Here we are. Somehow still choosing to show up.

I’m grateful, not neatly, not saintly, but honestly.

Grateful to still be alive.

Grateful to have crawled out of the wreckage and found something worth rebuilding.

Grateful for every rope thrown my way, even the ones I didn’t think I deserved.

Grateful that CANN took a chance on me, the recovering, rewiring, not-exactly-LinkedIn-ready version of me, and said, “Yeah, this guy has something worth hearing.”

Grateful that I get to use every broken, complicated, hard-won piece of my story to help someone else carry theirs.

And I’m grateful, truly, that I get to show up in this exact moment, look around at the mess, and still say: I’m here. I’m ready. Let’s fight.

These numbers tell an important story, but not the one many headlines suggest. The disruptions in this survey are not the result of Congressional budget cuts to HIV programs. No legislation has eliminated Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funding or CDC prevention dollars. Instead, they stem from administrative actions, grant recissions, and bureaucratic obstruction that destabilized HIV services months before Congress debated any cuts at all.

That distinction matters. It reveals how vulnerable the HIV care infrastructure has become, and how much worse things could get if proposed eliminations of HIV programs and broader healthcare funding cuts move forward.

The Administrative Stranglehold

The current disruptions trace directly to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought’s systematic manipulation of the federal budget process. Before joining the Trump administration, Vought outlined these tactics in Project 2025, describing how “apportioned funding” could “ensure consistency with the President’s agenda.” He has executed this strategy with precision.

Rather than releasing appropriated funds to agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in standard apportionments, Vought shifted to monthly releases requiring Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) review for every grant award. By August 2025, the CDC’s center for HIV and tuberculosis prevention had spent $167 million less than historical averages, the Ryan White Program underspent by $105 million, and mental health funds at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration lagged by more than $860 million.

The money exists. Congress appropriated it. Administrative roadblocks are what prevent it from reaching clinics, health departments, and community organizations.

The human cost is visible in provider reports. When funding delays hit in July 2025, 81 HIV organizations wrote to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warning that “with every day of delayed FY2025 funding release, the delivery of essential HIV services is compromised.” Clinics laid off case managers, reduced clinician hours, closed sites, and scaled back hotlines. The funds eventually arrived about a month later, but the damage—to staff capacity, patient trust, and continuity of care—was done.

At St. John AIDS outreach ministry in New Orleans, program director Tamachia Davenport faced a choice: cut staff or cut supplies when CDC funds did not arrive on time. To keep staff from fleeing to more stable jobs, she stopped buying condoms the organization distributes to prevent sexually transmitted infections—despite Louisiana’s already high rates of HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea, and the fact that condoms cost far less than treating any of them.

One CDC official summarized the view from inside: “Everyone’s inbox is full of letters from grant recipients asking, ‘How do we proceed?’ We just say, ‘Please wait.’”

Robert Gordon, a public policy specialist at Georgetown University and former assistant finance secretary at HHS, described the strategy plainly: “This is a sophisticated strategy to cause money to lapse and then say, ‘If they can’t spend it, they don’t need it.’”

The Unlegislated Threat

While administrative actions create the current disruptions, proposed legislation in Congress represents a qualitatively different threat.

In September 2025, the House Appropriations Committee released its FY2026 funding bill eliminating all CDC HIV prevention funding—approximately $1 billion—and cutting the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program by $525 million, or 20%.

The bill does not merely trim budgets. It eliminates program components entirely. Ryan White Part F, including AIDS Education and Training Centers, the Dental Reimbursement Program, and the Minority AIDS Initiative, would disappear. The $220 million for the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative would be eliminated. Direct grants to more than 400 HIV clinics providing care and treatment through Ryan White Parts C and D would end.

Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, summed up the stakes: “This is not a bill for making America healthy again, but a disastrous bill that will reignite HIV in the United States.”

The Senate tells a different story. In July 2025, the Senate Appropriations Committee advanced a bipartisan bill that maintains flat funding for all parts of the Ryan White Program ($2.57 billion), level funding at $220 million for Ending the HIV Epidemic, and flat funding for CDC HIV prevention. The contrast could not be clearer.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins Medicine modeled what would happen if federal funding for Ryan White ended. Their study in the Annals of Internal Medicine projects 75,436 additional HIV infections through 2030, a 49% increase. As senior author Dr. Todd Fojo noted, effective treatment is the most powerful form of HIV prevention.

No final FY2026 budget has been enacted. The government is operating under a continuing resolution, and the gap between House and Senate proposals is unresolved. But the threat is not hypothetical, and the clinician survey’s forward-looking data reflects it: 72% anticipate moderate or significant service disruptions in the next 6–12 months, rising to 77% for the following 12–18 months.

The Broader Ecosystem Under Siege

The clinician survey captures disruptions to direct HIV services, but not the compounding pressures from Medicaid restructuring that threaten both coverage for people living with HIV and the financial stability of AIDS service organizations.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, reduces Medicaid expansion eligibility from 138% to 100% of the federal poverty level, affecting an estimated 200,000 people with HIV. This is not a marginal tweak: 40% of non-elderly adults with HIV rely on Medicaid, nearly three times the rate of the general population. Starting in 2027, expansion adults ages 19–64 must complete 80 hours per month of approved activities to maintain coverage, and semi-annual eligibility redeterminations will replace annual reviews, injecting churn into programs where uninterrupted access to antiretroviral therapy is a clinical requirement, not a luxury.

Many AIDS service organizations converted to Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) status after the Affordable Care Act to serve newly insured patients and stabilize revenue. Medicaid comprises 43% of FQHC revenue. The OBBBA cuts into this income through provider tax caps that ratchet down over time and by capping state-directed payments at 100% of Medicare rates in expansion states. At the same time, the Congressional Budget Office projects 7.8 million people will lose Medicaid coverage overall. Enhanced ACA premium tax credits expire at the end of 2025, and so far Congress has not extended them.

As Davenport of St. John AIDS outreach told KFF Health News, “A lot of us are having to rob Peter to pay Paul.” But what happens when Peter gets defunded? Maybe the “Good Christians” in the halls of Congress can tell us.

Ground Truth: What’s Happening Now

Local decisions layered on top of federal obstruction are already shutting people out of care.

In Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, the public health department laid off six workers, including half its disease investigators, when HIV prevention and surveillance grants expired at the end of May with no information about future funding. The grants were restored a month later, but only half the positions were refilled. “So now we’re behind, and cases are still being reported every day that have to be investigated,” said director Raynard Washington.

In Dallas County, Texas, public health director Philip Huang waits for nearly 30% of the promised award for emergency preparedness with no timeline or clarity, making basic staffing decisions feel like a gamble.

Breanne Armbrust, executive director of Richmond’s Neighborhood Resource Center, summed up the cumulative burden on patients: “They’re already sick or in need of care and asking them to do one more thing when their acuity levels might be high is too much, and it’s unreasonable.”

The Warning We Cannot Ignore

The clinician survey documents disruptions caused by administrative obstruction at a time when HIV programs still technically have appropriated funding. It is a snapshot of a system that is already unstable.

If the House FY2026 proposal eliminating CDC prevention funding and cutting Ryan White by $525 million becomes law, these disruptions will not simply “increase,” they will scale into system failure. Each new HIV infection carries an estimated $501,000 in lifetime healthcare costs. The Ryan White Program in 2023 achieved a 90.6% viral suppression rate among 576,000 clients. These programs work. Dismantling them would reverse decades of progress in a matter of years.

The workforce crisis compounds the threat. The United States needs 1,500 additional HIV specialists to reach 90-90-90 benchmarks. The South already has only 8 providers per 1,000 people with HIV, compared with 11 nationally. Counties that have reached at least one 90-90-90 target have 13 providers per 1,000. Eliminating AIDS Education and Training Centers, as the House bill proposes, would deepen that shortage just as demand for services intensifies.

None of this is theoretical. Administrative sabotage is already cutting off care people depend on to stay healthy, alive, and connected to treatment. Layer a legislative funding strike on top of a system this fragile, and the outcome is entirely predictable: preventable infections, preventable deaths, and preventable suffering concentrated among people already pushed to the margins.

Policymakers do not need another awareness campaign to understand the stakes. They need to treat these proposals for what they are, a slow-motion dismantling of the HIV care infrastructure that has held the epidemic in check. The choice in front of them could not be more plain: reinforce that infrastructure, or stand in history as merchants of death.

That foundation is now under strain. A series of converging federal policy changes threatens to unravel the safety net that ensures continued access to lifesaving HIV treatment.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted July 4, 2025, combined with the expiration of enhanced ACA Premium Tax Credits on December 31, 2025, and proposed federal funding reductions for Fiscal Year 2026, have created what NASTAD describes as "an unprecedented fiscal storm." The Congressional Budget Office estimates that H.R. 1, combined with the end of enhanced Premium Tax Credits, will leave 14.2 million more Americans uninsured by 2034. Another 750,000 to 1.8 million Marketplace enrollees are projected to lose coverage under the 2025 Marketplace Integrity Rule.

For ADAPs, the timing could not be worse. NASTAD data show ADAP enrollment increased 8 percent between 2019 and 2023, with new enrollment rising 28 percent and prescription drug expenditures up 10 percent. Program administrators are already managing cost growth, changing insurance landscapes, and expanding client need. The convergence of these federal shifts represents not a single budget gap, but a cumulative structural failure that could overwhelm the system responsible for sustaining treatment access for more than 270,000 people nationwide.

When the Safety Net Last Failed

The last major ADAP funding crisis, in 2010 and 2011, offers a clear warning. During that period, national ADAP waitlists grew from 2,937 to 9,217 people within twelve months, even after an emergency $25 million federal allocation. The consequences were immediate and measurable. Three deaths in South Carolina among people waiting for medication became a national call to action. Congress responded by reprogramming Ryan White funding and authorizing additional emergency allocations between 2010 and 2013, and waitlists were fully eliminated by 2017.

The difference today is scale and complexity. The current threat is not a temporary funding shortfall but a sequence of federal policy changes that simultaneously reduce insurance coverage, restrict Medicaid access, and diminish the resources available to offset those losses. Each component amplifies the pressure on ADAPs, narrowing every available safety valve.

The lessons from 2010 remain relevant. When the safety net fails, the consequences are measured not in spreadsheets but in treatment interruptions, declining viral suppression rates, and preventable deaths. Without urgent federal and state intervention, ADAPs face conditions that could produce a repeat of that crisis, magnified by broader systemic strain and political indifference.

Medicaid Work Requirements: Paperwork as Policy Weapon

H.R. 1 introduces the largest reduction to Medicaid in U.S. history, with nearly $1 trillion in cuts projected from 2025 through 2034. Beginning January 1, 2027, most Medicaid expansion adults will be required to document at least 80 hours of “qualifying activities” each month to maintain coverage. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that these provisions will result in 4.8 million more people losing coverage by 2034.

Research shows that two out of three enrollees who lose Medicaid under work requirement policies are already employed or qualify for exemptions. The result is not an increase in employment but a rise in administrative loss of coverage.

Arkansas’s 2018 work requirement experiment illustrates what lies ahead. More than 18,000 people lost coveragewithin months, primarily due to confusion and difficulties with the state’s online reporting system. Employment rates did not increase.

Nationally, about 10 percent of Medicaid renewals currently result in “procedural disenrollment,” meaning people lose coverage for paperwork reasons despite remaining eligible. H.R. 1 worsens this by requiring Medicaid enrollees to renew eligibility every six months instead of annually, doubling the opportunities for administrative failure.

For people living with HIV, Medicaid is a primary source of healthcare coverage. Nationally, approximately 40 percent of people receiving HIV care are enrolled in Medicaid. These provisions directly threaten treatment continuity by increasing administrative barriers and coverage interruptions. The legislation also reduces retroactive eligibility from three months to one or two months, raising costs for ADAPs that depend on retroactive reimbursement for medications dispensed while coverage applications are pending.

The Marketplace Affordability Cliff

The expiration of enhanced ACA Premium Tax Credits will create an affordability crisis for people living with HIV who earn too much to qualify for Ryan White services but depend on subsidized marketplace plans. KFF estimates that marketplace enrollees will see average premium payments more than double in 2026, increasing by 114 percent from $888 annually to $1,904. Approximately 1.5 million people earning above 400 percent of the federal poverty level will lose all subsidies entirely.

A larger share of people living with HIV receive marketplace coverage than the general population. For a 45-year-old in Miami-Dade County earning $38,000, annual premiums would rise by $1,699, from $117 to $259 per month. Given that antiretroviral therapy typically costs $36,000 to $48,000 annually and total healthcare expenses average $30,000, marketplace affordability is critical to maintaining viral suppression.

Insurers are building in additional premium increases of roughly four percent in anticipation of the subsidy expiration, assuming healthier enrollees will drop coverage and leave behind a sicker risk pool. Average Healthcare.gov plan premiums are projected to rise 26 percent for 2026. The Congressional Budget Office projects that the uninsured population will grow by 2.2 million people in 2026 alone without an extension of the tax credits, eventually reaching 4.2 million.

Federal Funding Cuts Compound the Crisis

While coverage losses increase, federal budget proposals for FY2026 would eliminate the very programs that support ADAPs and coordinated HIV care. The White House budget proposes a $74 million reduction to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, lowering total funding to $2.5 billion by eliminating Part F programs that include the AIDS Education and Training Centers, dental programs, and Special Projects of National Significance.

The House Appropriations Committee proposes deeper reductions, eliminating $525 million in Ryan White funding, or roughly 20 percent of the program’s total. These cuts would affect more than 400 HIV clinics that provide medication, case management, and medical care nationwide.

The House proposal also eliminates the entire $1 billion budget for CDC HIV prevention, including $220 million for the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative. The HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute describes this as “not a bill for making America healthy again, but a disastrous bill that will reignite HIV in the United States.” The Foundation for AIDS Research projects that ending prevention funding alone could lead to 144,000 new HIV diagnoses, 15,000 deaths, and $60.3 billion in healthcare costs by 2030.

The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected these reductions by a bipartisan vote of 26–3, maintaining existing levels for domestic HIV prevention programs. This outcome offers temporary stability, but reconciliation between House and Senate versions remains uncertain.

Immediate Actions Required

The NASTAD analysis warns that the convergence of federal coverage losses and funding reductions could force ADAPs into crisis conditions reminiscent of 2010. While states can employ fiscal management strategies to delay the impact, the core solutions lie in federal policy.

Congress must extend enhanced Premium Tax Credits through at least 2027 to stabilize the individual marketplace and prevent subsidy loss for people living with HIV who rely on private coverage. Lawmakers should reject proposed eliminations of Ryan White Part F and CDC HIV prevention funding, which have produced measurable long-term savings by reducing new infections and sustaining treatment continuity. Maintaining these investments is far less costly than responding to the resurgence of uncontrolled HIV transmission.

States also play a central role. Strengthening coordination between Ryan White programs, ADAPs, and marketplace enrollment systems, as demonstrated in California and New York, can mitigate insurance disruptions and preserve treatment adherence during policy transitions.

NASTAD emphasizes that continuity of care must remain the guiding principle throughout any period of programmatic change. Ensuring uninterrupted access to medication, case management, and communication between providers and clients is critical to maintaining public trust and preventing viral rebound.

The intersection of these federal policies represents a defining test for HIV care in the United States. The ADAP crisis of 2010 showed that delay has a human cost measured in treatment lapses and preventable deaths. Policymakers again face a choice between sustaining a proven safety net or repeating the mistakes that history has already documented.

This was predictable. In May 2023, the Community Access National Network (CANN) cautioned against premature declarations of victory over mpox, warned that insufficient vaccine coverage among marginalized communities risked endemic transmission, and urged public health agencies to take community reports seriously rather than "paternalistically denying the potential or possibility of new outbreaks or breakthrough cases." Two and a half years later, the infrastructure to respond to those warnings has been systematically dismantled precisely when the more dangerous strain has arrived.

What We Failed to Build

Only 21-23% of at-risk populations nationally have received the full two-dose JYNNEOS vaccine series. This means 66-78% remain unvaccinated against a virus now spreading domestically. Even California, ranked third nationally with 43% of at-risk populations fully vaccinated, leaves more than half of vulnerable people unprotected. None of the three confirmed Clade I cases had been vaccinated.

The racial disparities are unchanged from 2022. As of April 2023, 77.9% of Black people in vaccine-eligible populations remained unvaccinated, despite experiencing mpox incidence 5.8 times higher than White people during the August 2022 peak. The vaccination-to-case ratio during the 2022 outbreak tells the story precisely: for every mpox case in a White male, 43 White males were vaccinated. For Black males, 9 were vaccinated per case. For Hispanic males, 17 per case.

JYNNEOS was added to CDC immunization schedules in October 2023. Most health plans have been required to cover vaccination without cost-sharing since January 1, 2025. Access improved. Utilization did not. Dr. Peter Chin-Hong of UCSF explained the gap: "They might have gotten the first shot back in 2022 when everyone was afraid, and people knew a lot of people who had it." As mpox faded from headlines, vaccination rates declined. Series completion rates remain at 64.5% in California. The consequence is massive population vulnerability to a virus significantly more dangerous than the 2022 strain, spreading now in the communities with the lowest vaccination coverage.

What We Are Dismantling

The federal government shutdown that began October 1, 2025, continues through October 22, now the second-longest in modern U.S. history. Only 37% of CDC staff continue working. Disease surveillance analysis has halted for certain diseases. Guidance to state and local health departments has been suspended. Communication lines are severely limited.

On October 10, approximately 600 CDC workers were cut when 1,300 employees received Reduction in Force (RIF) notices. These targeted staff in infectious disease programs, Laboratory Leadership Service, the CDC Library, chronic disease programs, global health initiatives, and health statistics. The entire CDC Washington Office was eliminated, destroying the agency's Congressional liaison capacity. Dr. John Brooks, former CDC Division of HIV Prevention official, explained the significance: "CDC has worked directly with Congress for decades to help constituents by providing data, expertise and insight when needed. These firings mean Congress no longer has a means of direct access to the agency it funds when it needs information or briefings."

This followed March 2025 HHS restructuring under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that eliminated approximately 3,000 CDC positions, a 25% workforce reduction. The Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) failed to publish for the first time in its 60-year history. Dr. Karen Remley, former CDC official and Virginia health commissioner, described the practical impact: "Sometimes that help might be sending some people to help you investigate this. Sometimes that might be talking to somebody who's the world's expert on a specific type of infection or exposure. Now, there's nobody to answer the phone."

The California Department of Public Health acknowledged: "The department continues to work with available staff at CDC, but the recent federal government shutdown and other actions at the federal level have added a layer of uncertainty to the current work environment." Joseph Osmundson, Clinical Associate Professor of Biology at NYU, stated it plainly: "The infrastructure we built during the 2022 outbreak has just been eviscerated. The very things we need to understand if we have a problem now, and if we will have a problem in the future, are being systematically dismantled."

What We Refused to Fix

Provider knowledge gaps documented in 2022 persist unchanged. A Johns Hopkins study analyzing 1,024 mpox tests across different clinical settings found anogenital examination performed in only 44.5% of emergency department visits and 40.4% of primary care visits, compared to 82.4% in infectious disease clinics. An HIV activist in New York's Hell's Kitchen reported in early 2023: "A number of my friends, as well as myself, if I'm being honest, have reported that their physicians are both unaware that reinfection with MPV [MPOX Virus] is possible and that infections can still occur in people who have been fully vaccinated, and as a result of their knowledge gap are refusing to test MPV lesions."

Spanish-language materials were not available until August 2022, three months into the outbreak. Technology-dependent scheduling systems requiring monitoring of health department social media accounts favored digitally connected populations. Uninsured patients were vaccinated significantly later than privately insured patients, 83 days versus 41 days. Three years later, these barriers remain unaddressed.

The vaccination disparities - 77.9% of Black people unvaccinated, 9 vaccinated per case compared to 43 per case for White people - reflect structural access failures compounded by medical mistrust rooted in documented sterilization programs, non-consensual experimentation, and systemic racism in healthcare delivery. As CANN documented in 2022, these historical harms manifest in current provider interactions: "Moral judgments are made, stories get told, patients are admonished and made to feel ashamed. The impacts of these behaviors, both short-term and long-term, can lead to patients refusing to seek testing or treatment." The barriers are known. The solutions are known. We have chosen not to implement them.

What Works and What We Abandoned

Community-based vaccination programs work. CDC's Mpox Vaccine Equity Pilot Program launched in September 2022 received 35 vaccination project proposals, with 22 completed projects administering 25,675 vaccine doses at targeted locations including Pride events and sexual health clinics. The program partnered with community-based organizations serving gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men and transgender people, used trusted messengers, and eliminated eligibility documentation barriers. It was proven effective. It was never scaled to address the 66-78% of at-risk populations who remain unvaccinated.

No real-world effectiveness data exists for JYNNEOS against Clade I. The vaccine is expected to provide protection based on its mechanism and animal studies showing 100% protective efficacy against death. But antibody levels wane significantly 6-12 months post-vaccination, dropping to levels at 12 months comparable to peak single-dose levels. Whether booster doses might be needed remains unresolved. CDC currently does not recommend third doses.

Epidemiological models suggest vaccination coverage above 50% is needed to prevent mpox outbreaks in high-risk populations. California's 43% falls short. Most states are far below that threshold. As CANN wrote in 2023: "If we are ever going to eradicate MPV in the United States, we are going to have to do a significantly better job of getting vaccine supplies to those most likely to be impacted and do a better job of overcoming the cultural and hesitancy barriers that exist in those communities."

The recommendations are unchanged because the problems are unchanged. Increase investments in mobile, pop-up, and community-based healthcare delivery. Provide culturally competent care that meets people where they are. Address provider knowledge gaps through comprehensive education. Eliminate technology-dependent barriers to vaccine access. Collect complete demographic data to track and address disparities. Hold health departments accountable for being "responsive, creative, and careful as community members and advocates identify potential cases and outbreaks."

The Choice We Face

These are early days of this outbreak. But the October 2025 California cases represent something no other country has reported: Clade I mpox transmission without international travel links. Sweden, United Kingdom, Germany, Thailand, Australia all successfully prevented community transmission when they detected imported cases through rapid surveillance, contact tracing, and adequate public health capacity. No wider community transmission occurred in any of these countries.

The California cases emerged during a 22-day federal shutdown, with CDC operating at 37% staffing. State health departments report "nobody to answer the phone" when they need federal expertise. Whether this degraded capacity contributed to these cases spreading undetected, or whether it will hamper efforts to contain them, remains to be seen.

Whether California can contain these three cases depends on rapidly closing vaccination gaps in communities with lowest coverage and highest risk, restoring adequate federal public health capacity to support state and local response, and implementing the equity-centered strategies that worked in 2022 but were never sustained. The infrastructure to accomplish these goals did exist.

Three cases with no identified connections between them and no clear source of transmission suggests either multiple introductions or undetected spread. The systems that failed to prevent these cases being the first domestic transmissions must now prove they can contain them. The question is whether they still have the capacity to do so.

When Trans Women Saved Gay Men

In the early 1980s, when mothers and fathers refused to enter hospital rooms where their gay sons were dying, when disease transmission was a mystery, and the government stayed silent, Miss Major did what she always did: she organized.

She founded Angels of Care, mobilizing trans women in New York, San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles to care for dying gay men. Many of the them were sex workers with no medical training, stepping into the void left by government inaction and familial abandonment. "No one wanted to take care of those gay guys when they first got AIDS," she later said. "And a lot of my transgender women stepped up to the plate to do it."

It wasn’t charity, it was survival. Mutual aid. Trans women needed work in a society that offered them none. Gay men needed someone willing to touch them without fear. Miss Major built a community-based health network on the principle she learned from fellow organizer Frank “Big Black” Smith in the 1970s: you don’t leave anyone behind.

By the 1990s, she was driving San Francisco’s first mobile needle-exchange van, bringing harm-reduction services directly to people who had nowhere else to turn. At the Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center, she founded GiGi’s Place: a drop-in site with a refrigerator for HIV meds that needed cold storage and washing machines so unhoused people could clean their clothes. Her colleague Yoseñio Lewis called these “small interventions that removed major barriers to care.”

When her partner, Joe Bob Michael, died of AIDS in 1995, her resolve only deepened. “The best trait an organizer can have is to listen,” she said decades later, “and to listen closely to what the people want…find out what it is they need.”

That ethic could not be more relevant today. Structural discrimination and systemic neglect have created conditions where Black trans women face HIV rates 26 times higher than other Black Americans, and trans women overall experience 42% HIV prevalence, not because of who they are, but because of who society excludes. Barriers to care, job discrimination that forces many into survival sex work, and incarceration that disrupts treatment continue to drive these disparities. Despite 92% awareness of PrEP, only 32% of eligible trans women have recently used it, a gap born of access barriers, not ignorance.

In 2025, as structural cuts unravel the safety nets meant to protect the same communities Miss Major once organized, those with the least access and the greatest burden of disease again bear the weight as the L, G, and B reap the benefits of privilege and attempt to discard those they deem “problematic” to their politics. Her method - meeting people where they are, removing practical barriers, and listening first - remains a blueprint for survival when institutions fail and care becomes a collective act. Forty years later, the people she fought alongside still face epidemic-level HIV rates as funding collapses around them. The trans women who cared for gay men when no one else would are still waiting for the community to return the favor.

Stonewall's Inconvenient Truths

The historical record shows that trans women and drag queens were on the front lines of resistance when police raided the Stonewall Inn on June 28, 1969. On the second night of rioting, Marsha P. Johnson climbed a lamppost and dropped a heavy bag onto a police car, shattering the windshield. Miss Major was knocked unconscious by police and thrown in jail. Sylvia Rivera, though her presence that first night remains disputed by historians, became a fierce advocate for trans rights immediately following Stonewall, co-founding Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries with Johnson in 1970.

At the first Pride parade in 1970, organizers asked trans people to march in the back, but they refused. "The trans community said, 'Hell no, we won't go.' We fought for this as much as you did, or even started it," said Victoria Cruz, who was there. "And we just mingled throughout the crowd." By 1973, organizers barred drag queens including Johnson and Rivera from speaking at the Christopher Street Liberation Day Rally, claiming they would give the movement a "bad name." Rivera grabbed the microphone anyway during a speech by lesbian feminist Jean O'Leary that was critical of drag queens. The mostly white, cisgender crowd booed as she shouted: "I have been beaten. I have had my nose broken. I have been thrown in jail. I have lost my job. I have lost my apartment for gay liberation and you all treat me this way?"

Before her death in 2002, Rivera said: "I gave them their Pride, but they have not given me mine."

The pattern repeated in 2007 when Representative Barney Frank introduced an Employment Non-Discrimination Act explicitly excluding gender identity protections, arguing there weren't enough votes for trans-inclusive legislation. The Human Rights Campaign endorsed this strategic abandonment. Over 400 organizations formed United ENDA in opposition, but the message was sent: when political calculus demands it, trans people are expendable.

Miss Major was characteristically direct about this long history of exclusion. "The shame of it was that after it [Stonewall] happened, most of the Black girls that had been involved in it, we got whitewashed out of it," she told SF Weekly. "The gay and lesbian community just took it over and acted not only as if we did not exist, but that we weren't even there."

She was equally clear about the cost of these betrayals: "If these are my allies, well, I'll take my chance with my enemies because at least my enemies might have enough decency to stab me in the front."

In January 2025, the Trump Administration removed the word "transgender" from the Stonewall National Monument website, literally erasing trans contributions to the history trans women created. The erasure continues.

The Bodies Piling Up

This is not an abstract debate about political strategy. Real people are dying while our community calculates costs.

In 2025, 965 anti-trans bills have been filed across 49 states plus 81 federal bills. Twenty-seven states have banned gender-affirming care affecting approximately 120,400 transgender youth - 40% of all trans youth in America. Six states classify providing such care as a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison.

The Trevor Project documented a 72% increase in suicide attempts in states with restrictive policies compared to states without such laws. Already, 46% of LGBTQ+ youth seriously considered suicide in the past year. The day after the 2024 election, the Trevor Project's crisis services saw a 700% volume increase, with 40% of contacts from trans and nonbinary youth.

In 2024, at least 36 trans people were murdered, with 50% being Black trans women despite Black people representing just 13% of the population. The youngest victim was Pauly Likens, murdered at age 14 in Pennsylvania. In U.S. data, trans people face nearly double the mortality rate of non-trans peers, and some estimates place their median life expectancy about 7 years shorter.

Republicans spent $215 million on anti-trans television advertisements during the 2024 election cycle, with Trump's campaign alone spending $95 million in the final two weeks - more than on housing, immigration, and the economy combined. Yet polling consistently showed 80% of Americans agreed both parties "should spend less time talking about transgender issues." Trans people represent roughly 0.5% of adults and 1.4% of teenagers, yet became scapegoats for a conservative movement seeking cultural wedge issues.

Some Democrats have responded to this onslaught by going quiet on trans rights, calculating that defending trans people was politically costly. The bodies keep piling up regardless of political strategy. Twenty-nine percent of trans people live in poverty compared to 16% of the general population. Forty-seven percent have been fired, not hired, or denied promotion for being trans. Forty-seven percent of Black trans people have been incarcerated at some point, compared to 16% of all trans people.

Miss Major spent her final months despite declining health traveling to let young trans people "see and touch me. I'm alive. There aren't that many Black girls still alive. Let them know that they can get here too."

She kept fighting because she understood what some in our community seem to have forgotten: "You can't throw anybody under the bus. You can't leave anybody behind," she insisted. "It has to include all of us, or it's not going to work."

The question facing the LGBTQ+ community is whether we believe her. Trans women cared for gay men when we were dying of AIDS. They fought at Stonewall while others watched from windows. They built our movement while we pushed them to the margins. Now they're dying, from suicide, from violence, from AIDS related complications, while we debate whether defending them is politically expedient.

Miss Major would ask what she always asked: What kind of community are we? Are we one that protects its most vulnerable members, or do we abandon them when solidarity becomes inconvenient? Her mantra echoes as both eulogy and call to action: “I'm still fucking here. We're still fucking here.” The debt remains unpaid.

The numbers tell a story every HIV provider knows. One in four people living with HIV (26.3%) has experienced intimate partner violence. When abusive partners prevent medication adherence, sabotage appointments, or create chaos that interrupts treatment, survivors show 36 percent lower odds of achieving viral suppression than those without IPV histories. Women carry a disproportionate burden, but men with IPV history face nearly triple the HIV prevalence of men without, and transgender people report lifetime IPV rates between 31 and 50 percent while experiencing 66 times higher HIV prevalence than the general population.

For HCV, the overlap is even tighter. Sixty-eight percent of women who inject drugs have HCV, and 40 to 60 percent of domestic-violence cases involve substance use. These aren’t parallel epidemics - they’re feedback loops. Violence undermines treatment; HIV or HCV status becomes a weapon of control; trauma drives relapse. Each condition magnifies the others, and when federal support for survivor-centered programs collapses, the entire structure of prevention and recovery begins to unravel.

The Bidirectional Syndemic

The relationship between intimate partner violence and HIV is both brutally direct and insidiously complex. Women in abusive relationships face a 48% higher likelihood of HIV infection than those in non-abusive relationships. Abusive partners often sabotage safer-sex practices - research shows that condom negotiation attempts frequently trigger coercion or violence. Among people living with HIV, 24% of women experience abuse after disclosing their status, and those reporting recent gender-based violence are significantly less consistent in condom use. Gay men report 26% lifetime IPV prevalence, underscoring that control operates across gender and orientation.

The link to hepatitis C exposes another layer of risk. In relationships where both partners inject drugs, power imbalances determine who controls access, dosing, and the act of injection itself. Partners with more control may withhold drugs to induce withdrawal or insist on injecting the other, reinforcing dependence and exposure. Violence-related bleeding raises the odds of HCV infection 5.5-fold, what researchers call “a previously unrecognized mechanism for HCV transmission.” Among women who inject drugs, 60% report receptive syringe sharing, a behavior shaped by depression and low self-esteem resulting from abuse.

Trauma also drives substance use itself. Eighty percent of women in drug treatment report lifetime sexual or physical assault. Reductions in PTSD severity correspond to four-fold decreases in substance use, while the reverse is rarely true - reinforcing the self-medication model in which survivors use substances to cope with violence.

This syndemic runs both ways. HIV, HCV, and substance-use disorders not only result from domestic violence - they also increase vulnerability to it. Nearly one-third of people living with HIV experience violence following serodisclosure, including coercion, control, and financial or sexual exploitation. Nearly one-third of survivors report that partners deliberately withheld essential medication, from HIV antiretrovirals to HCV or opioid-use-disorder treatments, weaponizing care itself as a means of control.

When Laws Become Weapons

HIV criminalization laws in 32 states create a deadly double bind for domestic violence survivors. Enacted largely between 1986 and 2000 - before modern antiretroviral therapy and long before the U=U consensus - these statutes criminalize potential exposure regardless of actual transmission, condom use, or viral suppression.

Twenty-four states require disclosure of HIV status before any sexual activity. Penalties range from 3 to 10 years in prison, extending to 25 or more in some states. At least five mandate sex-offender registration for HIV-related convictions.

The control dynamic is devastatingly simple. Disclosure can trigger violence - studies show 18% to 80% of women living with HIV experience violence after disclosing their status - yet non-disclosure remains a felony. Abusers exploit this legal trap, threatening to report partners to police or weaponizing the risk of decades-long sentences and sex offender registration as blackmail.

Research from Canada illustrates the toll: one-fifth of women living with HIV said criminalization laws increased violence in their relationships. The perverse outcomes are clear. In one documented case, a woman reported her partner for abuse, only to be charged herself after he alleged non-disclosure during a single encounter, despite a four-year relationship in which she had disclosed her status.

The 2025 Federal Funding Crisis

Hours after the government shut down on October 1, 2025, the Trump Administration furloughed staff in the Department of Justice’s grant-making offices, halting support for organizations that serve victims of domestic violence and other violent crimes. Officials cited the shutdown as the cause, but former staffers told Politico it didn’t have to be this way - these programs had operated during past shutdowns with existing funds.

“Their own contingency plan says that they have funds. So it’s a choice to say, ‘We want this to hurt,’” said Marnie Shiels, who worked 24 years in the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). “I can’t know for sure what they’re thinking, but I very much fear that it is about a political motivation of wanting to get rid of this issue, get rid of this office, get rid of the staff.”

The furloughs followed a year of escalating disruptions. In February, OVW abruptly removed all eight fiscal-year 2025 funding notices, including a $40 million transitional-housing program that had served hundreds of survivors for nearly two decades. In April, the Department of Justice terminated more than 360 grants, cutting roughly $500 million in remaining funds and affecting hundreds of sub-awards for violence prevention, victim services, mental-health treatment, and reentry programs.

When new opportunities appeared in May, they came with expanded “out-of-scope” rules that barred activities “framing domestic violence or sexual assault as systemic social-justice issues.” The language aligned with a January 2025 executive order, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism,” and a subsequent directive ordering agencies to remove “gender ideology” from contracts, websites, and correspondence. PEN America later documented more than 350 banned words, including gender, women, trans, LGBTQ+, diversity, and disability - effectively erasing the terminology needed to describe many of the populations these programs serve.

The effects reach beyond domestic-violence services. NIH canceled dozens of HIV-related research grants in March; five CDC HIV-prevention branches were dissolved; and hepatitis funding was cut by $77 million. Proposed reductions to the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program total $239 million.

For organizations serving survivors living with HIV, hepatitis C, or substance-use disorders, these converging cuts are existential - removing both their funding streams and, in some cases, their ability to even describe who they serve. Shiels noted that leadership had “said that they want federal employees to feel ‘trauma,’” and recalled the president’s remark that “a little fight with the wife shouldn’t be a crime.” The contrast, she said, “shows they don’t understand or care about these issues.”

The Office on Violence Against Women - created in 1995 and made independent in 2004 - has awarded more than $4.7 billion in grants since its inception, including $684 million across 880 awards in FY 2024. That bipartisan infrastructure recognized what decades of data confirm: 55 percent of women living with HIV have experienced intimate-partner violence, a link directly associated with lower care engagement, higher viral loads, and worse health outcomes.

Now, the systems built to protect those lives hang by a thread.

What We Must Do Now

The convergence of domestic violence, HIV, hepatitis C, and substance use disorders is not theoretical - it’s the reality providers see every day. Survivors’ viral loads rebound when housing instability forces them back to abusive partners. Hepatitis C treatment stalls when the only culturally competent program loses its grant. Trauma-informed care disappears, and relapse follows. The nation’s Ending the HIV Epidemic and hepatitis C elimination goals cannot succeed while survivors are forced to choose between safety and survival.

Rebuilding that safety net demands more than temporary fixes. The Department of Justice must reopen its grant-making offices - shutdown or not - and restore continuity for organizations on the front lines. Congress must fully fund these programs and eliminate restrictions that prevent them from even naming the people they serve. States must modernize or repeal HIV criminalization laws that trap survivors in violent relationships under the guise of public health.

A syndemic is not fate; it is a policy choice repeated, ignored, and justified until it becomes another fading bruise on a battered cheek. The systems we built to keep people alive are being dismantled in plain sight - not through neglect, but intent. And when government decides that survival itself is partisan, silence becomes complicity.

Yet congenital syphilis increased 2% to nearly 4,000 cases in 2024, continuing a 700% climb since 2012 that resulted in 279 stillbirths and infant deaths in 2023 alone. CDC analysis shows 88% of these cases were preventable with timely testing and treatment. This divergence—overall rates declining while the most vulnerable populations remain unreached—reveals a deeper crisis: we are systematically dismantling the healthcare infrastructure necessary to sustain these gains precisely when evidence demonstrates what works.

The Systematic Dismantling

The erosion of STI prevention capacity unfolded across three stages. It started with CDC's Division of STI Prevention losing 40% of its purchasing power since 2003 through chronic underfunding, while local health departments shed 20% of workforce capacity from 2008 to 2019. A Harvard study documented that nearly 50% of state and local public health employees left their jobs between 2017 and 2021. Decades of flat or declining budgets hollowed out the workforce that conducts contact tracing, provides testing and treatment, and links patients to care.

In June 2023, the Fiscal Responsibility Act eliminated $1.3 billion in CDC funding specifically intended to expand Disease Intervention Specialist capacity, with states like Nevada losing over 75% of their STI prevention budgets. These cuts targeted the 2,200 people nationwide who conduct partner services and contact tracing that prevent transmission chains. The 2024 data showing declining rates was collected during this period, demonstrating what the system could achieve even as Congress pulled resources.

Then in March 2025, the Trump Administration terminated $11.4 billion in pandemic-era grants. Under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the department eliminated 31% of its workforce. The President's proposed FY 2026 budget cuts CDC funding by 53% compared to FY 2024. A George Washington University analysis projects 42,000 eliminated jobs nationwide, with states losing hundreds of millions in funding. The Administration also withheld Title X grants from 23 states, threatening 200 Planned Parenthood clinics serving 2.8 million people annually. Utah's sole Title X recipient lost $2.8 million, forcing closure of clinics that served 26,000 patients.

The consequences are materializing. Penobscot County, Maine, faces the largest HIV outbreak in state history—28 new cases over two years, seven times typical rates, nearly all among people who use drugs and are homeless. The outbreak emerged after supply shortages forced closure of the region's largest syringe services program, then accelerated following February 2025 clearing of the city's largest homeless encampment. Broome County, New York, reported in September 2025 that new HIV diagnoses among people with injection drug use history exceed the previous four years combined. The 2015 Scott County, Indiana HIV outbreak that infected over 200 people occurred after public health funding cuts eliminated syringe access. We know what happens when we strip prevention infrastructure. We are choosing to repeat it.

Interconnected System Failures

The public health workforce collapse intersects with physical infrastructure deterioration to compound access barriers. American hospitals carry $390 billion in deferred maintenance, with 50% of health systems managing buildings over 50 years old. Deteriorating facilities cannot maintain proper medication storage, provide adequate clinic space for confidential counseling, or support infection prevention protocols that 80% of hospitals lack sufficient staff to implement.

Infrastructure failures drive facility closures that eliminate access entirely. Over 100 rural hospitals closed from 2013 to 2020, forcing residents to travel 20 miles farther for common services and 40 miles farther for specialized care. Deferred maintenance becomes a death spiral: aging infrastructure drives up operating costs, reducing resources for patient care, making facilities financially unsustainable. The closures concentrate in rural areas and communities serving predominantly low-income populations and people of color - the same populations bearing the highest STI burdens. Meanwhile, as we reported in our article titled, “CBO Data Proves Hospital Systems Exploit 340B Drug Program for Billions,” when hospitals do invest in facilities, they target affluent white neighborhoods.

A Center for Economic and Policy Research analysis documents that hospitals serving communities of color receive systematically less infrastructure investment. Hospital occupancy rates are 11 percentage points higher than pre-pandemic, driven by a 16% reduction in staffed beds. Overcrowded, understaffed, aging facilities cannot deliver consistent prenatal screening to prevent congenital syphilis.

Medication access compounds these failures. Pfizer's April 2023 Bicillin L-A shortage, ongoing through 2025 with July 2025 recalls further limiting supply, eliminates the only CDC-recommended treatment for syphilis in pregnancy. A November 2023 survey found 68% of health departments stated the shortage would directly increase syphilis rates. Among 2022 congenital syphilis cases, 37.9% of birth parents received no prenatal care whatsoever.

Who Bears the Cost

Geographic and economic barriers determine who suffers these system failures. Thirty-five percent of U.S. counties are maternity care deserts with no birthing facility or obstetric clinician, affecting 2.3 million people of reproductive age. Patients in these areas face twice the uninsured rates, 13% increased preterm birth risk, and average drive times of 38 minutes versus 16 minutes nationally. These are the predictable results of decades of policy choices that prioritized cost containment over access.

Racial disparities reveal who we are willing to sacrifice. Black populations account for 32.4% of all chlamydia, gonorrhea, and primary/secondary syphilis cases despite comprising 12.6% of the population, experiencing gonorrhea at 7.7 times the rate of White populations. American Indian and Alaska Native infants face congenital syphilis rates 75 times higher than Asian families, with maternal syphilis among American Indian and Alaska Native mothers increasing 783% from 2016 to 2022. Mississippi data shows African American infants account for 71.1% of congenital syphilis cases while representing 43.3% of the general population, with 92.6% of cases among Medicaid recipients.

CDC acknowledges explicitly: "Differences by race and/or Hispanic ethnicity cannot be understood without consideration of long-standing structural contributors that are not adequately captured in case notification data such as systemic racism, challenges with healthcare access, and disparities in social determinants of health." Eight percent of Americans—27.1 million people—lack insurance coverage, with 1.5 million in the Medicaid coverage gap in ten non-expansion states, over 60% people of color.

The 2% increase in congenital syphilis amid overall STI declines tells us exactly who cannot access care: pregnant people, disproportionately Black and brown, in maternity care deserts, served by overwhelmed safety-net systems, facing medication shortages, unable to reach closing clinics. This is the distribution of harm we accept when we defund infrastructure.

The Choice Before Us

The 2024 data was collected before March 2025 grant terminations fully materialized, before spring clinic closures accelerated, before proposed 53% CDC budget cuts take effect. The encouraging trends reflect a system already deteriorating through chronic underfunding and workforce elimination. They do not reflect what comes next if current trajectories continue.

We have evidence. Disease Intervention Specialists, syringe services programs, prenatal screening, Bicillin access, Title X clinics—these interventions work. The 22% drop in primary and secondary syphilis demonstrates it. The HIV outbreak in Maine after syringe program closure demonstrates the cost of abandonment. The congenital syphilis crisis demonstrates who pays when we moralize instead of invest.

This is not a resource constraint. It is a priority choice. We can reverse the 2025 funding cuts and restore public health workforce capacity. We can address the $390 billion hospital infrastructure deficit with focus on facilities serving communities of color. We can secure medication supply chains through domestic manufacturing and emergency stockpiles. We can eliminate maternity care deserts and expand Medicaid in ten remaining states. We can fund what works.

The 2024 data proves progress is possible. The 2025 policy choices determine whether it endures or whether we return to climbing rates, preventable infant deaths, and widening disparities. Tough budget choices may be required. But the health and survival of pregnant people and their babies should not be on the chopping block. We know what works. The question is whether we value those lives enough to fund it.

The data from Europe reveals a system in distress: only 29% of innovative medicines are fully available through EU reimbursement, down from 42% five years ago. This decline translates into life-threatening delays for patients, with those in Malta waiting nearly three years for new treatments while Germans wait four months, creating a geographic lottery where your passport determines your access to life-saving care.

Engineering a Pharmaceutical Desert

European International Reference Pricing mechanisms create precisely the downward spiral that current MFN executive orders would import to America. Twenty-six of 28 EU states use reference pricing systems, where countries systematically reference each other's prices in an interconnected web that drives pharmaceutical companies out of markets entirely.

The cascade effect reveals how a single policy decision triggers global consequences. Belgium references prices in the Netherlands, Germany, France, and the UK, taking the average to set maximum reimbursement rates. When Lithuania references Belgium's price and negotiates an even lower rate, those reductions automatically flow back through every system that references Lithuanian pricing, and round and round it goes. Research demonstrates that a 10% price reduction in Switzerland forces dozens of countries that reference Swiss prices to demand similar cuts, creating €495.2 million in additional global losses from that single initial reduction.

This interconnected pricing web forces pharmaceutical companies into difficult strategic positions that directly harm patients. For example, when a breakthrough hepatitis C cure could command €50,000+ per treatment in wealthy countries like Germany and France, but Poland negotiates for €15,000, companies face a choice: launch in Poland and watch Germany demand the same low price, or delay the Polish launch to protect higher-value markets. Pharmaceutical companies are compelled to act in the interest of their shareholders, and patients with hepatitis C develop cirrhosis or die waiting while companies and governments play pricing chess across borders.

Countries systematically exploit this system through 'free-riding' behavior, with wealthier nations deliberately referencing poorer countries' prices to secure discounts below their economic capacity. Nations reference varying numbers of other countries when setting drug prices, from as few as four countries (Netherlands) to all other EU countries (Belgium), creating a complex web where no country wants to be the highest price in anyone else's reference basket. One consequence of these pricing games is less investment: studies demonstrate that a 10% price drop in the EU correlates with a 14% decrease in venture capital biomedical funding, showing how European pricing policies directly undermine global pharmaceutical development.

Michiel Peters from the Global Coalition on Aging, who brings EU policy experience to his current advocacy role, warned in our interview that this system creates inevitable consequences: "What you're likely to see is just a smaller total amount of money going into biopharmaceutical research leading to a smaller pipeline of drugs in the future." European governments treat breakthrough medicines as commodities rather than recognizing their unique value, systematically destroying the economic foundation that makes pharmaceutical innovation possible.

Corporate Flight Accelerates Under Pricing Pressure

The reference pricing spiral has triggered an unprecedented corporate exodus from European markets, with major pharmaceutical companies choosing public confrontation over traditional behind-the-scenes negotiations. This shift has been accelerated by Trump Administration threats to implement MFN pricing that would tie U.S. prices to European levels, creating additional pressure for companies to establish pricing precedents that protect their American revenue streams.

Take, for instance, Bristol Myers Squibb's September 2025 announcement. The company declared it would launch Cobenfy at full U.S. pricing ($22,200 annually) in the UK, explicitly threatening to "walk away" if UK authorities refused to recognize the value of the first novel schizophrenia treatment in 70 years. This represents a fundamental shift from accepting European pricing terms to demanding recognition of the value of innovative treatments.

The UK's deteriorating investment climate illustrates how pricing pressures create economically unsustainable market conditions. Under the Voluntary Pricing Agreement, pharmaceutical companies must pay rebates to the NHS when industry sales exceed predetermined growth rates. These repayment rates have escalated beyond reason, from just 5.1% of revenue in 2021 to 26.5% in 2023. Companies must now return more than a quarter of their UK revenue to the government, making market participation economically untenable. Both AbbVie and Eli Lilly withdrew from the agreement entirely in January 2023, with Eli Lilly stating the scheme "has harmed innovation, with costs spiraling out of control."

The cumulative effect is a pharmaceutical industry in retreat. Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan warned that "30 to 40 percent of cancer drugs are delayed or not launched on the European market at all," with this proportion expected to increase as pricing pressures intensify. The UK has fallen from 4th to 98th place in overall pharmaceutical trade balance since 2010, reflecting the systematic hollowing out of European pharmaceutical markets under aggressive pricing policies.

The Cost of Withheld Access

Behind these policy failures are people whose lives depend on accessing breakthrough treatments, but who find themselves trapped in bureaucratic systems that prioritize budget control over medical necessity. Take Estonian cancer patient Kadri Tennosaar for example. She required €20,000 for three months of Enhertu treatment for metastatic breast cancer. Despite the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approving Enhertu in January 2021, Estonia's government refused reimbursement, forcing her to seek treatment through charity. Her situation illustrates how European "universal healthcare" systems systematically exclude the treatments patients need most.

Romania has developed an even more troubling solution: systematic reliance on court orders for cancer treatment access. Over 1,000 people received medications through legal action in 2023, with courts consistently ruling in favor of patients seeking approved treatments. This judicial intervention effectively acknowledges that Romania's formal reimbursement system fails to provide medically necessary care, forcing dying patients into litigation to access drugs their doctors have prescribed and European regulators have approved.

The system's fundamental contradictions become clear when European patients living under universal healthcare systems resort to American-style fundraising for medical care. As Peters observed in our interview, "European patients will still start a GoFundMe to get an innovative treatment in the US because…if you're dying of a rare disease you're not going to wait 600 days." That 600-day figure represents the average time from regulatory approval to patient availability across EU countries. That’s nearly three years for treatments already deemed safe and effective by European regulators. For patients with aggressive cancers or degenerative diseases, these delays often mean death.

America's IRA Lessons Preview MFN's Future

The Inflation Reduction Act's differential treatment of small molecules versus biologics provides real-time evidence of how pricing policies reshape innovation incentives, offering a preview of MFN's likely effects. Investment in small molecules has declined 70% since September 2021, with the University of Chicago projecting this will result in 188 fewer small molecule treatments over 20 years, leading to 116 million life-years lost.

Small molecules remain particularly critical for neurological diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, which require blood-brain barrier penetration that biologics cannot achieve. The National Pharmaceutical Council found that 77% of investors report the IRA's "pill penalty" creates a disincentive for small molecule investing, with venture capital flowing overwhelmingly toward biologics. This shift away from small molecules threatens entire categories of medical innovation precisely when aging populations need breakthrough treatments for neurological conditions most.

Meanwhile, China has emerged as the global innovation leader. China's pharmaceutical contribution to the global R&D pipeline has increased from 4% in 2013 to 28% in 2023, surpassing Europe and ranking second only to the United States. From 2019-2023, China led globally with 256 new drug approvals, ahead of the US (243) and EU (191). The funding patterns confirm this shift. China accounts for over 75% of all biotech VC/PE funding in Asia-Pacific since 2019, with late-stage expansion rounds increasing 1.5x from 2019-2024. This demonstrates the systematic migration of pharmaceutical investment toward Asian markets as Western pricing policies make innovation economically unviable in traditional centers of drug development.

MFN: Importing Europe's Failures Through Executive Order

Current MFN executive orders, which have attracted bipartisan Congressional support, would import these European failures directly into American Medicare and Medicaid programs. The fundamental premise, that forcing pharmaceutical companies to accept European prices will reduce costs without affecting innovation, ignores overwhelming evidence of investment withdrawal and patient access failures across Europe.

The United States market accounts for 64% to 78% of worldwide pharmaceutical profits, making the European model economically impossible to replicate without devastating consequences for future drug development. As our previous analysis pointed out, "Europe won't catch up. Neither will China. No other country is prepared to step into the innovation gap the United States represents." Eliminating American profit margins means eliminating the economic foundation that funds global pharmaceutical research.

The projected consequences align with European experience. The CMS Office of the Actuary projected that 9%-19% of drugs would be inaccessible under the 2020 MFN proposal because manufacturers would not sell products at MFN prices, with the American Society of Clinical Oncology's analysis indicating that up to 19% of Medicare beneficiaries would lose access to care. These projections mirror current European realities, where patients routinely face treatment delays, denials, and geographic access barriers under government-controlled pricing systems.

Innovation is Access

For people living with HIV, cancer, rare diseases, and other life-threatening conditions, access to novel treatments represents the difference between survival and suffering. European pricing policies demonstrate that short-term cost savings achieved through price controls create long-term access barriers that cost far more in human suffering and economic burden than the original pharmaceutical investments.

The European experience reveals a brutal truth: government-controlled pricing systematically eliminates the treatments patients need most. Estonian cancer patients rely on charity. Romanian patients require court orders. European patients start GoFundMe campaigns to access treatments readily available in America. These policies have transformed medical innovation into a geographic lottery where your passport determines your survival prospects.

U.S. MFN policies follow the same flawed logic, promising immediate savings while systematically destroying the economic foundation that makes future cures possible. The 70% collapse in small molecule research since the IRA, combined with China's emergence as the global innovation leader, proves that pricing policies have consequences extending far beyond budget spreadsheets into the fundamental question of which countries will develop tomorrow's treatments, if they are developed at all.

Europe's pharmaceutical desert offers a preview of America's future under MFN: innovation migrating eastward, patients waiting years for approved treatments, and governments prioritizing short-term savings over long-term survival. America faces a hard choice: maintain our position as the country where breakthrough treatments emerge and are accessed first, or follow Europe's path toward innovation rationing and access lotteries. That future remains avoidable, but only if we choose innovation over rationing, access over austerity, and tomorrow's cures over today's pennies.

The timing creates a perfect storm of healthcare disruption. Enhanced ACA subsidies expire December 31, 2025, but insurers have already built the expected 75% premium increases into their 2026 rates. When open enrollment begins November 1, Americans shopping for coverage will immediately see these massive premium spikes, creating intense political pressure on Congress just as government funding battles reach their peak.

For people living with HIV who rely on ACA marketplace plans, this convergence threatens treatment continuity at the worst possible moment. Many earn too much to qualify for Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program services but depend on enhanced subsidies to make coverage affordable. The prospect of 75% premium increases forces impossible choices between maintaining viral suppression and financial stability.

Premium Sticker Shock Meets Shutdown-Threatened Infrastructure

Insurers nationwide have proposed a median premium increase of 18% for 2026, more than double last year's 7% median increase. The majority explicitly cite the expected expiration of enhanced premium tax credits as driving rates an additional 4 percentage points higher than they would otherwise charge.

Average out-of-pocket premium payments will increase by more than 75% when enhanced subsidies expire, translating to roughly $700 more annually for the typical family. People earning between 100% and 150% of the federal poverty level would see their average premiums rise from $0 to $387 per year. In Maryland, carriers requested 17.1% increases, but rates would drop to 7.9% if Congress extends enhanced subsidies, illustrating the immediate financial impact of political inaction.

These massive increases hit Americans during November open enrollment while government infrastructure faces shutdown disruption. The September 30 deadline threatens systems needed for November 1 enrollment, and even the Republican stopgap bill expires November 21 during the critical enrollment period.

Healthcare.gov and state marketplaces require functioning federal systems to process applications and verify income for subsidy eligibility. Historical shutdown impacts show services degrade rapidly during funding lapses. The timing compounds administrative challenges from the Trump administration's Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Rule, requiring people in $0 premium plans to verify eligibility or face minimum $5 monthly charges starting in 2026.

Insurers cannot adjust these rates after open enrollment begins. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont warns that healthier members will leave at a disproportionately higher rate than those with significant healthcare needs, worsening the risk pool. This death spiral dynamic makes immediate Congressional action an absolute necessity, both politically and practically, as Americans navigate premium increases while government systems fail to function.

Political Standoff Intensifies as Healthcare Costs Hit Constituents

Traditional shutdown politics change fundamentally when constituents experience immediate healthcare cost increases during an election cycle. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer argues Democrats hold a stronger position because Republicans face blame for both the shutdown and healthcare cost increases their policies created.

House Speaker Mike Johnson insists ACA subsidy negotiations belong in December when they expire, calling them "a December policy debate and decision, not a September funding matter." This ignores the practical reality that Americans need certainty when making coverage decisions during November open enrollment. Families cannot wait until December to learn whether their January 2026 premiums will be affordable.

The electoral pressure becomes intense when 22 million Americans face premium increases. TD Cowen's analysis notes that "many Congressional Republicans are also eager to extend these subsidies for fear of health insurance sticker shock in advance of the November 2026 midterms." Only Senator John Fetterman has indicated willingness to vote for Republican funding without healthcare provisions, suggesting Democrats maintain unity while Republicans need Democratic cooperation they have refused to seek.

The Trump Administration compounds uncertainty through potential "pocket rescissions" that could cancel federal funding without Congressional approval. Budget Director Russell Vought defended this controversial tactic, noting "the money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year." This raises constitutional questions about Congressional spending authority and creates a trust crisis for Democrats who fear GOP leaders could agree to healthcare provisions in negotiations only to have the Administration cancel funding through rescissions after a continuing resolution passes. Lawmakers must consider both immediate shutdown impacts and the Administration's demonstrated willingness to bypass Congress on funding decisions.

State and Local Healthcare Programs Face Immediate Funding Disruption

Government shutdowns immediately disrupt state and local healthcare programs through suspended grant payments and federal workforce reductions. During shutdowns, 45% of HHS staff are furloughed, including personnel who process grants to state health departments and community organizations providing HIV services. The 2013 shutdown left 477 grant payment requests totaling $165 million unpaid while programs continued operating on dwindling reserves.

State health departments must issue stop work orders to community organizations when Ryan White grant payments cease during shutdowns. State AIDS Drug Assistance Programs face immediate medication supply crises as federal funding stops flowing to programs serving 265,000 low-income Americans with HIV medications. Unlike programs with multi-year appropriations, these discretionary programs lose payment authority immediately when government shuts down.

Community health centers serving 32.5 million Americans operate on margins where federal grants constitute 11-18% of revenue. Recent funding disruptions provide a preview of shutdown impacts: Virginia's 16 of 31 federally qualified health centers lost federal funding access, forcing three Richmond facilities to close entirely. Centers typically maintain 100 days to six months of reserves, making extended shutdowns particularly devastating.

The Women, Infants, and Children program loses funding within days of shutdown, cutting services to 6.3 million participants including 39% of all U.S. infants. State health departments lack reserves to float these federal programs, forcing immediate service reductions that disproportionately impact communities already facing healthcare access barriers.

Healthcare Access Cannot Wait for Political Theater

People living with HIV and other chronic conditions cannot afford treatment interruptions while Congress debates funding priorities. Those caught between Ryan White eligibility limits and unaffordable marketplace premiums face a healthcare access crisis manufactured by political inaction.

Healthcare advocates must demand that any continuing resolution include immediate extension of enhanced ACA subsidies through 2026. Congressional Republicans who claim to support these subsidies must prove their commitment by including them in September funding legislation, not promising future action that may never materialize.

State and local health officials should prepare contingency plans for potential grant payment disruptions while advocating with their Congressional delegations about immediate shutdown impacts on essential services. Community health centers and organizations serving people living with HIV need to communicate directly with patients about potential service disruptions and alternative care options.

Congress must choose between responsible governance that prioritizes patient care or political theater that forces impossible choices between treatment adherence and financial survival. For people living with HIV and millions of others depending on stable healthcare access, the time for action could not be shorter.

The CBO's findings demolish the hospital industry's primary defense of 340B expansion: that growth reflects rising drug costs rather than system manipulation. The program expanded 565% from $6.6 billion in 2010 to $43.9 billion in 2021, with federal economists confirming that two-thirds of this growth stems from covered entity and third-party behaviors, not pharmaceutical price inflation. As CANN CEO Jen Laws noted, "It is a HELL of a thing that CBO found program growth is driven more by how hospitals and middlemen game the system than by the 'rising drug costs' hospitals always blame."

The implications extend far beyond 340B reform to fundamental questions about healthcare market structure and the accountability of tax-exempt institutions capturing billions in public benefits as “profit” while abandoning charity care and drowning patients in medical debt in the process.

How Hospitals Weaponize 340B for Anti-Competitive Consolidation

The CBO analysis reveals the precise mechanisms through which hospitals transform 340B discounts into acquisition capital. Hospital outpatient departments and satellite clinics control 87% of total 340B spending, providing massive cash flows that traditional community providers cannot match when competing for physician practices or specialty services.

Cancer drugs represent 41% of all 340B spending at approximately $18 billion annually, creating particularly lucrative acquisition targets. When hospitals acquire independent oncology practices, they can immediately capture 340B discounts on existing patient treatments while expanding their geographic footprint. This explains why 70.1% of buyer hospitals in mergers and acquisitions from 2016-2024 were 340B covered entities, compared to just 59.9% of hospitals nationally.

The regulatory framework enables this exploitation through geographic eligibility rules that allow hospitals to extend 340B benefits to satellite facilities serving affluent populations, provided they maintain connection to a qualifying parent institution. Off-site outpatient clinics participating in 340B exploded from 6,100 in 2013 to 27,700 by 2021, with many located in wealthy suburbs far from the low-income communities that justify program participation.

Contract pharmacy arrangements provide additional consolidation leverage, growing 2,400% from approximately 1,000 locations in 2010 to 32,069 by 2025. Hospitals negotiate exclusive arrangements with pharmacy chains, effectively controlling medication access across entire markets while extracting profits from every prescription filled by their "340B-eligible" patients, regardless of the patient's income or insurance status.

Laws captured the patient harm precisely: "hospital systems are exploiting cancer patients to drive revenue that would otherwise be considered 'profit' and further anti-competitive behaviors to the detriment of patient access." The mechanism creates a feedback loop where 340B profits fund acquisitions that eliminate competition, enabling hospitals to raise prices and reduce services while maintaining program eligibility despite providing declining levels of actual charity care.

The Charity Care Shell Game Exposes Regulatory Failure

Hospital claims about using 340B savings to support vulnerable populations collapse under scrutiny of actual charity care data. The Government Accountability Office's 2018 report documented that 340B hospitals experienced "steady decline in both charity care and uncompensated care" during the period of explosive program growth, revealing a fundamental disconnect between rhetoric and practice.

The regulatory structure enables this deception through definitional ambiguity. Hospitals routinely conflate charity care, which involves writing off debt with no patient obligation, with uncompensated care, which includes bad debt that hospitals aggressively collect through lawsuits and wage garnishments. As CANN has emphasized, "charity care is care provided at no cost or debt to the patient. Moving forward, we must not confuse, conflate, or combine generalized uncompensated care with charity care."

Johns Hopkins Hospital demonstrates how prestigious 340B institutions exploit this definitional confusion. The hospital filed more than 2,400 lawsuits against patients since 2009, with cases increasing from 20 in 2009 to 535 in 2016. Despite obtaining wage garnishments in more than 400 cases for a median amount of only $1,438, Johns Hopkins simultaneously received $36 million more in state charity care support than it actually provided.

This pattern reflects systematic regulatory failure rather than isolated incidents. A 2018 GAO survey found that 57% of 340B hospitals do not provide discounted drug prices to low-income, uninsured people at their contract pharmacies. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) lacks enforcement mechanisms to ensure program benefits reach intended populations, creating an accountability vacuum that hospitals exploit with impunity.

The policy implications prove profound. Medical debt grew from $81 billion in 2016 to $140 billion in 2019 during massive 340B expansion, precisely when enhanced hospital resources should have reduced financial barriers to care. A Pioneer Institute study found Massachusetts General Hospital's charity care dropped from 3.8% to 1% of patient revenue between 2013 and 2020, even as 340B profits increased substantially.

State Legislation Creates Compliance Theater That Benefits Hospitals

The proliferation of conflicting state 340B laws represents a masterclass in regulatory capture. Seven states enacted contract pharmacy protection laws in 2025 alone, joining eight states with similar 2024 legislation. These laws create administrative complexity that large hospital systems navigate easily while imposing crushing compliance burdens on community health centers and rural clinics.

The policy design reveals sophisticated lobbying influence. Hospital-backed legislation focuses on procedural requirements and reporting obligations that sound patient-protective but actually entrench existing power structures. Meanwhile, substantive reforms addressing charity care requirements, geographic restrictions, or patient benefit mandates remain absent from most state proposals.

One rural federally qualified health center reported 60% erosion in 340B savings resulting in a loss of $531,720 per year, forcing closure of oral health centers serving low-income patients. Large hospital systems with dedicated compliance departments experience no similar hardships, instead benefiting from reduced competition as smaller providers struggle with regulatory complexity.

Federal courts have begun recognizing this manipulation. West Virginia's S.B. 325 was blocked in December 2024when Judge Thomas E. Johnston ruled it "stands as an obstacle to achieving the federal objective of preventing fraud in the 340B Program." The emerging circuit split creates additional uncertainty that benefits well-resourced hospitals while harming smaller safety-net providers unable to navigate conflicting legal requirements.

Even supportive officials recognize the limitations. Utah Governor Spencer Cox allowed his state's legislation to become law without signature, explicitly stating the bill "does not go far enough to ensure cost savings experienced by 340B covered entities are passed onto patients." This acknowledgment exposes the fundamental inadequacy of state-level approaches to addressing federal program failures.

ACCESS Act Addresses Root Causes, Not Just Symptoms

The recently reintroduced 340B ACCESS Act represents the first comprehensive federal response to CBO-confirmed abuses. As CANN stated in its press release, "The 340B ACCESS Act is an excellent starting place to reform the 340B program. The legislation, in deep alignment with currently proposed federal rules, puts patients in the driver's seat for the first time since the program was established in 1992."

The legislation addresses structural incentives that enable hospital exploitation through hospital transparency requirements and administrative fee limits that target the accountability vacuum in current regulations. The bill's provisions for "reducing patient out-of-pocket costs through sliding fee scale drug discounts" directly address the patient access barriers created by current hospital practices.

Crucially, the ACCESS Act would "ensure PBMs appropriately reimburse on 340B drugs" and limit "third-party administrator fees," addressing the middleman extraction that enables massive profit-taking from vulnerable patient populations. The legislation also addresses gaps in the Ryan White Program's 318 grants that created the issues highlighted in the Sagebrush lawsuit, where manufacturers challenge STI clinic eligibility for 340B participation.

The legislation is far from perfect, including a six-month limitation on telehealth provisions that may harm people seeking outpatient methadone services and legitimate PrEP clinics. However, as CANN's Kalvin Pugh noted, "The 340B ACCESS Act is a critical start to putting patient need over hospital greed and finally bringing the program back to its original intent”

Federal Action Required to Restore Program Integrity

The CBO report eliminates any remaining doubt about 340B's transformation from safety-net support to hospital profit extraction scheme. The data confirms what patient advocates have documented: hospitals systematically reduce charity care while using 340B revenue to finance anti-competitive consolidation that harms the communities supposedly being served.

State legislative responses have failed because they address symptoms rather than causes. The ACCESS Act offers comprehensive federal reform that could restore program integrity by ensuring 340B savings benefit patients rather than hospital shareholders. Without such intervention, the program will continue enriching hospital systems while people living with HIV lose access to Ryan White clinics, cancer patients face treatment delays due to provider consolidation, and rural communities watch their last remaining healthcare options disappear despite billions in program funding ostensibly flowing to support them.

The choice facing policymakers is clear: prioritize patient need over hospital greed through meaningful federal reform, or continue enabling a system that betrays every principle underlying the 340B program's original mission.