Check out our expert take on key activity shaping health care policy
Insights
Featured Blogs
On October 11, 2024, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) held the second day of its October 2024 public meeting. The sessions focused on home health and included discussions of recent changes to the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System (PPS) and home health use among Medicare Advantage (MA) enrollees.
On October 10, 2024, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) discussed issues related to Medicare beneficiaries in nursing homes, findings from MedPAC’s annual beneficiary and provider focus group, and supplemental benefits in Medicare Advantage (MA). Read more about the meeting.
In recent years, calls to defund or significantly reduce the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have gained traction among certain Republican factions, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Prominent voices within Congress, aligned with former President Donald Trump, have intensified these efforts, advocating for a rethinking of the CDC’s role and funding in public health. The July 23, 2024, House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee hearing with the CDC Center Directors illustrated the partisan divide, with Republicans doubling down on their concerns that the agency overstepped its bounds during the pandemic and is rife with inefficiencies, and committee Democrats, led by Ranking Member Frank Pallone, defending the role of the agency in responding to global health emergencies. He blasted Republicans for reporting out a partisan Labor-HHS Appropriations bill that reduces the CDC budget by $1.8 billion.
The following details the arguments for and against maintaining and increasing the budget for the CDC.
Republican Arguments for Defunding the CDC
- Government Overreach
Many Republicans have argued that the CDC overstepped its authority during the COVID-19 pandemic when the agency enforced policies such as mask mandates and lockdowns. They assert that these decisions should be left to individuals or local governments rather than dictated by federal agencies.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has made calls for defunding the CDC due to its overreach during the pandemic. He has criticized the agency for infringing on individual freedoms through mandates on masks and vaccines, suggesting that such decisions should not come from a federal entity.
During the July 23, 2024, House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) expressed serious concerns over the CDC’s actions during the pandemic. McMorris Rodgers questioned the agency’s authority to impose mandates restricting personal freedoms, echoing the broader Republican argument against what they see as federal overreach in health policy.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) has taken her opposition to the CDC further by introducing legislation in 2021 to defund the agency, citing violations of constitutional rights during the pandemic. She maintains this stance, calling for dismantling the CDC to prevent future government overreach.
- Inefficiency and Bureaucracy
Several Republicans have argued that the CDC has become inefficient, suggesting that reducing the agency’s budget would force the agency to focus on its core mission rather than expand into what they view as politically charged areas, like gain of function research.
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) has prioritized advocating for reducing the size of federal agencies, including the CDC, citing inefficiency. He criticized the CDC during the COVID-19 response, suggesting in 2023 that its bloated bureaucracy prevented the agency from functioning effectively and that budget cuts going forward would help streamline its operations.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) echoed similar concerns, arguing that unchecked funding leads to inefficiency within large federal agencies like the CDC. In early 2023, Cruz called for greater oversight and budget reductions, noting the CDC’s inconsistent messaging during the pandemic as evidence of poor management.
- Economic and Social Impact
Many Republicans contend that the CDC’s recommendations during the pandemic, such as business closures and stay-at-home orders, caused unnecessary economic harm. They argue that defunding the CDC would prevent similar policies from being implemented in the future.
In 2023, Sen. Cruz continued to push for budget reductions in the CDC, claiming that the agency’s pandemic policies contributed to significant economic damage, particularly for small businesses. He argued that budget cuts would reduce the CDC’s ability to impose economically harmful measures in the future.
Sen. Paul has similarly highlighted the negative economic impact of the CDC’s pandemic restrictions. In 2023, he renewed calls for defunding the agency, suggesting that this would prevent the CDC from causing similar disruptions in future health emergencies.
Democratic Arguments for Maintaining or Increasing CDC Funding
In contrast, some Democrats argue that defunding the CDC would severely weaken the country’s ability to respond to health emergencies. They contend that the agency’s funding should be maintained or increased to ensure the U.S. remains prepared for future health crises.
- Public Health Protection
Democrats consistently argue that the CDC plays a crucial role in protecting public health, particularly in managing pandemics and responding to bioterrorism threats. They contend that defunding the agency would leave the U.S. vulnerable to future health crises.
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) has consistently advocated increasing the CDC’s budget. In 2023, she argued that cutting the agency’s funding would leave the country unprepared for future public health emergencies, putting lives at risk.
- Research and Innovation
Democrats emphasize that the CDC is a leader in public health research, including vaccine development and disease surveillance. They argue that defunding the agency would stifle innovation and slow the development of treatments for infectious and chronic diseases.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee, has consistently highlighted the CDC’s critical role in public health research. In 2023, she argued that reducing the CDC’s budget would halt progress on key research initiatives essential for preventing future outbreaks.
- Preventing Future Crises
Democrats argue that investing in the CDC now will help prevent costly public health crises in the future. They contend that cutting its budget would increase the likelihood of more frequent and severe outbreaks.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has long argued that public health funding is critical for crisis prevention. In 2023, she warned that defunding the CDC would undermine the country’s ability to detect and respond to emerging health threats.
- Economic and Social Stability
Democrats argue that a well-funded CDC protects public health and supports economic stability. By preventing widespread disease outbreaks, the CDC helps avoid the economic disruption seen during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee has stressed the economic benefits of a robust public health infrastructure. He has pointed out that the CDC’s work in preventing diseases and managing outbreaks keeps people in the workforce and reduces health care costs. He has consistently supported increased funding for the CDC, warning that cuts would put public health and the economy at risk.
Conclusion
The debate over CDC funding reflects deep partisan divisions. On one side, Republicans like Sen. Paul and Rep. Taylor Greene argue that the CDC has overreached, is inefficient, and should have its budget reduced or eliminated.
On the other side, Democrats like Sen. Murray, Rep. DeLauro, and Rep. Pallone argue that the CDC is essential for public health protection, research, and crisis prevention. They warn that defunding the agency would leave the country unprepared for future health emergencies, threatening public safety and national security.
Further partisan disagreement over CDC funding is likely to continue into the lame duck session and efforts to fund the government in FY 2025.
We caught up with our Associate, Alexandra Costa, to learn more about her and how she plans to use her experience in political communications and government affairs to advance the interests of clients at Chamber Hill Strategies.
What sparked your interest in health care policy, and how did you decide to pursue a career in this field?
My mother and friends work as nurses in nursing homes and hospitals. They share with me the struggles they have providing the best care possible for their patients. After learning more about the difficulties many patients accessing health care services, I wanted to learn why the health care system is the way it is and how to make it better.
Tell us about your experiences working in political communications. How have these experiences prepared you for work at Chamber Hill Strategies?
My experiences with political communications began when I was a student at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire, home of the famed New Hampshire Institute of Politics. There, I worked for CNN and helped with political events for candidates on both sides of the aisle, including former President Donald Trump and Rep. Dean Phillips (D-MN). I also worked with the communications team to produce the college’s blog on political events.
These experiences sharpened my writing skills and taught me how to prepare quality work even when faced with tight deadlines. In the fast-moving world of politics and policy, clients need to be able to count on receiving accurate and timely updates.
You’ve also worked in government affairs at the state and local level. What did you learn from this experience that will be relevant to your work at Chamber Hill Strategies?
My time working for a government relations firm focused on state and local issues was my first step into government affairs. Regardless of which type of government your focus is, many of the required skills are the same. I learned how to properly cover legislative hearings and how to translate “inside baseball” political jargon into meaningful insights for clients.
What drew you to Chamber Hill Strategies, and how do you see your role fitting into the firm’s broader mission?
A colleague told me about Chamber Hill Strategies and knew I would learn and benefit from being under the strong leadership of Jennifer Bell. Along with its health care focus, I was attracted to the firm because of its firm belief in bipartisan representation. I see my role as assisting the team in advancing the interests of our clients and keeping them informed about what is going on in the world of health care law and regulation.
What are you most excited about learning or accomplishing as you start your career in Washington at Chamber Hill Strategies?
I am excited to learn from my colleagues here at Chamber Hill Strategies and to make various connections in Washington. Additionally, I hope to learn more about policies that expand health care to rural communities.
How do you plan to approach learning from and collaborating with more experienced colleagues and clients in the health care policy space?
I love learning from others and am eager to learn about health care policy. Chamber Hill Strategies provides an excellent place for me to grow given the experience this team has working in health care policy in both government and the private sector. I am also excited to learn more about our clients and the specific ways that Chamber Hill Strategies works to ensure their voice is heard in Washington. I hope to learn from their mentorship and guidance throughout my time in Washington.
Outside of health care policy, what personal interests or activities are you passionate about? How do those influence your approach to your work?
I grew up as a competitive figure skater and then became a coach when I retired from competing. Growing up in competitive sports helped me develop a strong work ethic, strong determination, and taught me how to face constructive criticism from peers. These are all traits that I will bring to my work at Chamber Hill Strategies.
Looking ahead, where do you see yourself in five years, and what key milestones are you hoping to achieve at Chamber Hill Strategies?
In five years, I hope to obtain a master’s degree specializing in health care policy. As I pursue this goal, I want to embrace every opportunity here at Chamber Hill Strategies and in Washington to learn about the intricacies of health care policy.
