US Global Health Spending in Dispute, & More from CRS
The Trump Administration budget request proposes a substantial cut to US spending on global health programs, as described in a new report from the Congressional Research Service. But Congress appears poised to provide at least some of the funds that the executive branch had sought to eliminate.
“The FY2018 budget request includes almost $7 billion for global health assistance, roughly 30% less than the FY2017-enacted level,” CRS noted.
“The budget request proposes halving the USAID global health budget through the elimination of funding for global health security, vulnerable children, and family planning and reproductive health. Budget reductions are also recommended for all other health programs,” including various programs to combat infectious diseases around the world.
The US is the largest contributor to international health programs. But according to the Trump budget request, “other stakeholders must do more to contribute their fair share to global health initiatives.” See U.S. Global Health Assistance: FY2001-FY2018 Request, updated October 6, 2017.
Other noteworthy new products from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
U.S. Response to Injuries of U.S. Embassy Personnel in Havana, Cuba, CRS Insight, October 6, 2017
Attack on U.S. Soldiers in Niger: Context and Issues for Congress, CRS Insight, October 5, 2017
Wildfire Suppression Spending: Background, Issues, and Legislation in the 115th Congress, October 5, 2017
Electoral College Reform: Contemporary Issues for Congress, updated October 6, 2017
Overview of Continuing Appropriations for FY2018 (P.L. 115-56), October 6, 2017
Kosovo: Background and U.S. Relations, October 6, 2017
Options to Cease Implementing the Iran Nuclear Agreement, updated October 5, 2017
As humans expand our geographic reach, encroach on untouched natural territories, and interact more with animal populations, we will encounter novel zoonotic diseases that threaten the human body. The sooner we act to address these risks, the better.
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.