Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Take the Shot: The Country’s Future Hangs on Public Health Support

Opinion

Take the Shot: The Country’s Future Hangs on Public Health Support
black and gray stethoscope

The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met this week at a meeting of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It linked 25 unverified reports of child deaths to COVID-19 vaccines as they consider further limiting access to this and other immunizations, like those for hepatitis B and MMRV. But they aren’t just playing politics. They are gambling with a quiet system that keeps Americans alive.

This latest attempt to undermine public health comes on top of the termination of thousands of federal health workers and more than $11 billion in grants that fund lifesaving research and community programs.


Public health isn’t just about pandemics, and cutting funding hurts everyone.

The U.S. already invests far more in treatment than in prevention. Less than 3% of health spending is allocated to public health prevention efforts, while the rest is spent on costly medical care after people are already sick.

Cutting public health prevention is like skipping routine maintenance on a bridge: you save money in the short term, but eventually the bridge collapses under the stress.

People in the U.S. are living longer than they did a century ago. In the early 1900s, you were lucky to make it to your 50th birthday. Cemeteries across the country are dotted with headstones of children who died in infancy or early childhood from infectious diseases rarely reported today.

In 2025, the average life expectancy is 78 years, and most children grow up to become parents themselves. This was no happy accident. This was public health.

Other nations have taken this lesson further. Countries like Japan, Denmark, and Australia, which invest more heavily in public health prevention, not just medical care, experience longer life expectancies at a fraction of the cost of the U.S.

The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other nation, yet it ranks behind its peers in terms of infant mortality and life expectancy. The difference is public health.

Clean air and water, food that’s safe to eat, seatbelts, and airbags? Public health. From modern sanitation practices to reduced smoking rates, from fluoridated drinking water that prevents tooth decay to the worldwide eradication of smallpox—it’s all public health.

The notion that this country no longer needs public health because people are living longer, healthier lives is exactly backward. Those longer, healthier lives are evidence that public health initiatives are effective. When public health is working, “nothing” happens: disease and death are prevented, and people go about their lives without thinking about what might have been.

That invisibility is part of what made this country’s public health system a fragile and susceptible target. When administrations cut back on public health, the consequences only become visible after the damage is done.

But these recent attacks on public health aren’t abstract. They will translate directly into illness, death, and the loss of hard-won progress. It is already visible: the U.S. is currently experiencing the largest outbreak of measles in more than 30 years, the result of fewer children being vaccinated against the disease.

Public health hasn’t always gotten it right. But the solution to imperfection is not destruction. It is a stronger investment, better accountability, and broader reach.

The dismantling of public health that is unravelling in real time may feel like political theater, but the stakes are measured in lives. When you roll back vaccination programs, children die of preventable diseases. When you slash research funding, cures and treatments never materialize. When you gut local health departments, outbreaks spread unchecked.

Public health is everywhere and everything. It’s in every clean glass of water, every road trip made safer by seatbelts and airbags, every child who grows up without fear of polio. Weakening it doesn’t just roll back “government spending.” It rolls back decades of progress and exposes us all to risks we thought we had left behind.

The lesson of history is simple: investing in public health saves lives. The question now is whether policymakers will remember that lesson in time or only after citizens have paid the price.

Each individual can take action now: vaccinate your family, support your local health departments, and speak out against disinformation. Public health is our shared safety net, and protecting it is the responsibility of us all. Contact your representatives and urge them to protect funding for public health. Our lives depend on it.

Rachel Hoopsick, PhD, MS, MPH, MCHES, is an Assistant Professor of Epidemiology and a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project and the University of Illinois.


Read More

White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.

Keep ReadingShow less
Tattered American flag

Trump's "Restoring Truth and Sanity" order targets how museums and parks present slavery and racism. Why one writer says Americans should push back.

Nisian Hughes/Getty Images

Trump's Mendacious, Deceitful Rewriting of American History

History is made of two parts. One is indisputable facts and the other is the interpretation of those facts. The history of history is filled with varying interpretations of the basic facts, usually tinted by the perspective of the historian or commentator. That perspective can be the writer's political leanings, his philosophy, or any number of personal biases.

All historians, however, whether conservative or liberal, regardless of philosophy generally agree on the basic facts. For example, while there are fringe groups and individuals who deny that the Holocaust happened—that 6 millions Jews were killed by the Nazis—no reputable historian disputes that fact.

Keep ReadingShow less
First Amendment being torn

First Amendment text of the US Constitution ripped in half -- Freedom of Speech , Religion or Press unconstitutional concept

Getty Images

Lawsuit Says Press Access Is Essential to Democratic Accountability

When POLITICO, CNN, and MS NOW announced Monday that they were filing a federal lawsuit to restore their reporters’ access to the White House, they challenged more than the sudden and unexplained revocation of press credentials. They underscored a fundamental constitutional principle: a free press does not operate at the government's discretion.

According to their joint statement, the outlets are seeking urgent relief after the Secret Service denied their reporters entry to the White House complex on Saturday and confiscated their credentials. The action followed recent stories by these outlets examining the administration’s handling of classified documents and raising questions about transparency related to policy meetings. They wrote, “Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference.”

Keep ReadingShow less
The sky clears behind the U.S. Capitol after rainy weather

The sky clears behind the U.S. Capitol after rainy weather on Sept. 2, 2026, in Washington, D.C.

Finn Gomez / Getty Images

We Didn't Get This Angry Because Americans Changed: We Got This Angry Because Washington Did

Something unusual has happened on the opinion pages of The New York Times recently.

Three very different writers have described three seemingly different American problems.

Keep ReadingShow less