As we wait for the outcome of significant legislative discussions concerning government funding for the end of this fiscal year, it’s essential to recognize that federal spending choices can greatly affect state and local economies.
Researchers from the Milken Institute of Public Health at George Washington University have studied the proposed budget for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for fiscal year 2026. They found that cuts to public health funding could jeopardize these vital services and damage both state and local economies.
In brief: every time the federal government reduces the CDC budget as proposed by the president, state and local economies may lose about $1.40.
Other highlights from the research include:
- The proposed budget could slash CDC spending by $3.8 billion, which is a significant 42% decrease compared to 2024.
- This reduction might cost the state’s economy around $5.4 billion in gross domestic product.
- An estimated 42,000 jobs nationwide could be lost, with a significant number outside of public health fields.
- These job losses are quite alarming, and the analysis doesn’t even account for rising healthcare costs, decreased productivity, and premature deaths due to illnesses, all tied to reduced disease prevention initiatives.
This issue extends beyond just the economy; it’s fundamentally about lives. Insufficient federal funding for public health initiatives, worsened by recent legislation aimed at reducing programs like Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, could see losses in the billions over the next decade.
The lack of federal support for health programs puts a strain on state budgets, resulting in local health departments being less prepared to tackle both routine and urgent health challenges.
Public health efforts generally happen at the state and local levels, primarily relying on federal funding, which makes up, on average, about half of their financial resources.
So, what health consequences might arise? According to the analysis of the president’s budget, funding cuts could hinder preparation for infectious diseases like measles, which could lead to more illnesses and fatalities. Additionally, programs aimed at preventing smoking, offering cancer screenings, and diabetes prevention would see significant reductions, likely worsening health outcomes and increasing healthcare expenses. Efforts to prevent HIV and AIDS would also decline, despite the availability of effective prevention measures.
It remains uncertain how closely the final spending package in Congress will align with the president’s budget proposal. Recently, the House and Senate Budget Committees have been operating more along traditional lines.
Earlier this month, the House Appropriations Committee approved funding for the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the Senate Committee followed suit, though both bills diverge significantly from the president’s requests. While the Senate bill essentially maintains current funding and thereby avoids the negative consequences noted in the report, the House bill, while not as drastic as the president’s, still proposes severe cuts to the CDC — more than $1.7 billion — which includes eliminating all HIV prevention funding and reducing chronic disease prevention initiatives.
Regardless of whether these proposals are voted on or if we end up with a temporary solution, it’s important to remember that decisions about CDC funding will have long-lasting implications for the health and economic stability of communities across the country.
