Safeguarding lives: The urgent need for congressional action on illicit Xylazine
Today, foreign manufactured, illicit fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances drive the opioid epidemic. Despite being 50 to 100 times stronger than their prescription counterparts, these synthetic opioids are often mixed with toxic cutting agents to increase potency and street value, while decreasing production costs.
In recent years, cartels and criminal organizations have increasingly used xylazine, a powerful veterinary sedative, as a low-cost cutting agent for illicit fentanyl. This lethal combination is known as 'tranq.'
Designated as an emerging threat to the United States in 2023, illicit xylazine poses grave health and safety risks when ingested by humans, including depressed breathing and heart rate, unconsciousness, severe necrosis and death. As of 2022, the Drug Enforcement Administration had seized xylazine and fentanyl mixtures in 48 states.
At the same time, licit xylazine has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for veterinary use since 1972 and remains a critical tool for veterinarians, farmers and ranchers. They use this drug to treat livestock and wildlife. In cattle, xylazine is the only safe and effective drug. There is no alternative.
Currently, the DEA is in the process of making xylazine a controlled substance; however, scheduling xylazine without protecting its legitimate use may limit veterinary professionals' ability to treat animals and could increase the risk of supply disruption. Further, given xylazine is a low-volume, low-margin, generic animal drug, high regulatory burdens could force the few remaining domestic manufacturers to discontinue production altogether.
Congress must fight the spread of illicit xylazine while preserving its veterinary use.
That's why, over the last two years, we've worked with congressional colleagues, federal agencies and stakeholders like the American Veterinary Medical Association to craft a solution that achieves both goals, titled the Combating Illicit Xylazine Act. Our bipartisan, bicameral bill classifies xylazine as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, and contains several statutory provisions to preserve veterinary professionals' access and provide the DEA transparency into xylazine's market. This added market transparency would allow law enforcement to better track the legitimate sales of xylazine, as well as how the drug is diverted to the black market or illegally imported from China.
Last Congress, language containing core components of the Combating Illicit Xylazine Act passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support. This Congress, we reintroduced the bill with updated language to strengthen its provisions. Our legislation is supported by the DEA, multiple law enforcement organizations, including the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Attorneys General and 30 state attorneys general, and all 50 state veterinary medical organizations. Attorney General Pam Bondi also advocated for the scheduling of xylazine on her first day in office.
More than half of states have passed, proposed or implemented xylazine-related legislation or regulations. Passing the Combating Illicit Xylazine Act would alleviate this growing patchwork of state-by-state xylazine restrictions. Congressional inaction would compromise the DEA's ability to effectively combat the ongoing drug epidemic and weaken the nation's public health infrastructure.
The Combating Illicit Xylazine Act is a commonsense solution that will help keep deadly xylazine off the streets, without threatening the livelihood of farmers and ranchers nationwide. We urge our colleagues in Congress to join us in support of this legislation and work swiftly to pass it into law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Debt and delayed care forecast for some who lose insurance under tax and spending law
Delayed treatments, canceled doctor visits, skipped prescriptions. Losing insurance is bad for your health. The Congressional Budget Office forecasts that the U.S. uninsured population will grow by 10 million in 2034, due to the tax and spending bill signed into law by President Donald Trump. And, thanks to a natural experiment nearly two decades ago, researchers can forecast what that will mean for patient care. Among the problems they predict will develop as a direct result of these people losing coverage: — About 2.5 million people may no longer have a personal doctor. — About 1.6 million patients will take on medical debt. — The lack of care may cause nearly 22,000 deaths annually. 'There's really no questioning the basic reality that you can't take health care away from 10 million people without causing many preventable deaths,' said Dr. Adam Gaffney, lead researcher on a team that explored the new law's impact. Here's a deeper look at the research and challenges that could develop. How the law may affect coverage It will become harder for many people to enroll in Medicaid or individual insurance plans and then stay covered. Medicaid is a state and federally funded program that covers care for people with low incomes. States will have to verify every six months whether someone remains eligible for Medicaid. That could cause coverage lapses for people with incomes that fluctuate or for those who move and miss renewal paperwork. Many also are expected to lose coverage as states require Medicaid recipients to work, volunteer or go to school unless exempted. Enrollment in Medicaid has swelled in recent years. Republicans are cutting back in part to help fund tax breaks and pay for other priorities like border security. They also say they are trying to root out waste and fraud by rightsizing Medicaid for the population it was initially designed to serve — mainly pregnant women, the disabled and children. People covered through the Affordable Care Act's individual insurance marketplaces also will see shorter enrollment windows and no more automatic renewals. About the research Gaffney, of Harvard Medical School, and other researchers looked to past studies to measure how many people would experience detrimental effects, like going without prescriptions, from the upcoming changes. Gaffney updated the published analysis, which was originally based on the House version of the bill, at the AP's request. One study in particular was critical for their work: In 2008, Oregon offered a rare opportunity to compare groups of people enrolled in Medicaid with those who were not. After a four-year period of frozen enrollment due to budget limitations, the state determined it could enroll 10,000 more people in Medicaid. It used a lottery system to make the selection amid high demand. That gave researchers a chance to follow people who got coverage and those who did not, similar to how scientists testing a new drug might compare patients taking it to those given a placebo. 'This is a gold standard research design because it replicates a randomized-controlled trial,' said Christine Eibner, a senior economist at RAND Corp. who was not involved in the study. Applying results from that study and other research to the recent CBO estimate allowed Gaffney and other researchers to estimate specific effects of losing coverage. 'By taking coverage away, we are putting patients in a terrible position,' said Gaffney, a former president of Physicians for a National Health Program. Care could grow complicated Amanda Schlesier went four days without her cancer treatment Calquence this spring and wound up in a local emergency room, delirious with pain. The leukemia patient worries about what might happen if she stops treatment again for a longer stretch because she's lost Medicaid. 'God forbid I forget to fill out a page of documentation, and suddenly I lose access to my medication or my doctors or any of the treatment that I've been going through,' the 33-year-old Farmington Hills, Michigan, resident said. People can still receive care when they don't have coverage, but important steps often are delayed, said Dr. Gwen Nichols, chief medical officer of The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. Patients may be able to visit a doctor, but they would have to line up coverage or help before they can receive expensive chemotherapy. Diagnosis also may be delayed. Meanwhile, the patient's cancer continues to grow. 'It's a ticking time bomb,' Nichols said. Preventive care may lapse The first thing patients often ditch when they lose coverage are screenings designed to catch health problems before they become serious, said Dr. Jen Brull, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians. That could mean patients skip tests for high cholesterol, which can contribute to heart disease, or colonoscopies that detect cancer. Researchers forecast that a half million fewer women will have gotten a mammogram within the past year by 2034. When patients struggle financially and lose coverage, they focus on things like keeping a place to live and food on their table, said Brull, a Fort Collins, Colorado, physician. 'Seeing a doctor because you don't want to get sick feels like a much lower priority,' Brull said. Financial pressure can build Patients start taking financial hits at all ends of care when they lose coverage. They may have to pay up front or start a payment plan before they receive care, said Erin Bradshaw, an executive vice president with the nonprofit Patient Advocate Foundation, which helps people with medical bills. Anyone with an outstanding balance will have to pay it before the next appointment. Financial assistance may be available, but patients don't always know about it. Getting help also may take time and require the submission of tax returns, pay stubs or some validation that the patient no longer has coverage. Bradshaw said letters stating that a patient has lost Medicaid sometimes arrive a couple months after the fact. That can contribute to treatment delays or missed medication doses. Some patients also try to avoid financial stress by skipping care. Schlesier said she delayed seeing a doctor when she first felt symptoms of her cancer returning because she had no coverage at the time. Staying on medications If prescriptions are too expensive, patients may simply not get them or split the doses to stretch the medicine. For Thomas Harper, it's a question of priorities. 'Sometimes you have to make a choice, how well do you want to eat this week versus taking your medicine,' he said. The West Monroe, Louisiana, truck driver has around $300 a month in prescriptions as he deals with diabetes and recovers from non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a type of blood cancer. Harper, 57, recently returned to work. That meant he lost Medicaid, which covered more of his prescription costs. He's balancing buying his meds with shopping for healthy food that keeps his blood sugar in check and builds his immune system. 'I'll survive, but I know there's people out there that cannot survive without Medicaid,' he said. ___ AP video journalist Laura Bargfeld contributed to this report. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content. Tom Murphy And Nicky Forster, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Fox News
a day ago
- Fox News
Democrats escalate anti-Trump lawfare by targeting Congress in Planned Parenthood funding fight
Abortion providers and Democrat-led states are bringing lawsuits over the Trump administration's decision to defund Planned Parenthood, a legal fight that raises the stakes by challenging the will of both Congress and the president. Planned Parenthood and several blue states have sued over the provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that strips Medicaid funding from certain abortion providers for one year. The bill was passed by Congress and signed by the president in July. The legislation advances the pro-life movement's longtime goal of defunding Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider, but a federal judge in Massachusetts has temporarily blocked the Trump Health and Human Services Department from carrying it out. Derek Muller, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, told Fox News Digital that taking on two branches of government sets this litigation apart from many of the hundreds of other lawsuits targeting the Trump administration. "Congress has the power of the purse," Muller said. "Congress has a lot of discretion [over] how it wants to spend its money, and this is not an instance where the executive has been engaged in overreach or doubtful conduct. … This is ordinary legislation, and when it comes to ordinary legislation, there's more deference given to Congress, and certainly more in how it chooses to subsidize things, where it wants to give money or where it doesn't want to give money." The judge's decision to temporarily block the funding cuts stemmed from a lawsuit brought by Planned Parenthood, a nonprofit with hundreds of facilities across the country that provide abortions and other reproductive health services. Planned Parenthood's attorneys alleged in court papers that the provision was unconstitutional, arguing it would deprive the nonprofit of millions of dollars in Medicaid reimbursements, causing it to lose half of its patients and forcing it to shutter up to one-third of its facilities. Katie Daniel, counsel at SBA Pro-Life America, told Fox News Digital Planned Parenthood was making a "desperate argument" that "totally undermines Congress' ability to determine how taxpayer dollars are spent." It also signals that Planned Parenthood was not a solvent business, she said. "It's a business that really can't keep itself afloat without getting hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars," Daniel said. Planned Parenthood's attorneys noted that Medicaid does not typically cover abortions and that the funding cuts would affect other services. Cancer and sexually transmitted infections would go undetected, especially for low-income people, and more unplanned pregnancies would occur because of a lack of contraception access, the attorneys said. "The adverse public health consequences of the Defund Provision will be grave," the attorneys wrote. Daniel said the Medicaid marketplace includes other options for clinics and that those options "outnumber Planned Parenthood nationally 15 to one." Judge Indira Talwani, an Obama appointee, said she was inclined to agree with Planned Parenthood that the legislation violated several provisions in the Constitution and granted a preliminary injunction, which the Department of Justice is now appealing. That lawsuit has been joined by two others challenging the bill. A coalition of 21 states with Democratic attorneys general, along with the District of Columbia and Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, brought one of them on Monday. Maine Family Planning, which operates 18 health facilities in the Pine Tree State, has also sued over the legislation. While lawmakers have touted that the bill defunds Planned Parenthood, it was written to include other entities, including Maine Family Planning, as a way to pass parliamentarian scrutiny. Daniel told Fox News Digital she anticipates the higher courts will rule in favor of the Trump administration but that the bill's one-year limit on the funding cuts works in Planned Parenthood's favor. "At this point for Planned Parenthood, it's really about running out the clock," Daniel said. "The defund provision is for one year, so every single day that they can keep getting money. … That's existential to them." If the Trump administration ultimately wins the court fight, it could attempt to claw back the Medicaid funds it lost while Talwani's injunction was in place. Daniel noted, however, that "it's incredibly difficult, it's time-consuming, it's costly, and Planned Parenthood is relying on all of that." Among Planned Parenthood's allegations was a longshot claim that Congress's bill violates the Constitution's bill of attainder clause because it singles out and punishes Planned Parenthood without a trial. Bills of attainder are pieces of legislation that serve to bypass the role of judges and punish people or entities. The Constitution prohibits bills of attainder because they infringe on the function of the courts. Muller told Fox News Digital he believed the bill of attainder argument was a "nonstarter." "People have tried to argue that certain things that Congress does, singling out or targeting individuals, could rise to a bill of attainder," Muller said. "This has gotten some traction in lower courts. It has never really gotten traction in the courts of appeal because it is far afield from the original meaning of the Constitution on this topic."
Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
Senate Committee Endorses NIH Budget Increase, Goes Against Trump's 40% Cut
You know that whole checks and balances thing laid out by the U.S. Constitution? It's where Congress is not supposed to automatically agree with what the Executive Branch of the U.S. government wants to do. Well, on Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee essentially checked what U.S. President Donald Trump has been trying to do to the National Institutes of Health and showed that it doesn't quite agree. In its budget for the U.S. government's 2026 fiscal year, the Trump Administration had proposed a rather massive $18 billion cut to he NIH, which would amount to a 40% chop in funding from fiscal year 2025 levels. But the Senate Committee ended up voting for kind of the opposite: a bill and budget that would give the NIH a $400 million budget increase. The Senate Budget Would Include Modest Increases For The NIH This budget increase would include a $30 million bump in funding to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a $50 million bump to the National Cancer Institute, bringing the total funding to these two institutes up to $6.59 billion, and $7.37 billion, respectively. There's also an $12 million increase in funding for the longstanding BRAIN Initiative, which has supported different researchers across the country to study and better understand, you guessed, the brain. That's after this heady initiative had suffered cuts for the past two years. All in all, the currently proposed Senate budget would leave the NIH's total budget for FY 2026 at $48.7 billion. The Senate Budget Includes All 27 NIH Institutes And Centers Not only that. The preliminary budget that emerged from the Senate committee kept all current 27 NIH institutes and centers essentially intact. That's notable because it goes against the Trump Administration's plan to go bye-bye-bye to many of these centers and institutes and effectively shrink the NIH. For example, soon after he took office, Trump issued an Executive Order that has led to the termination of numerous federal grants that mention diversity, equity or inclusion in some way. Many of these grants were originally issued by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. But the Senate Committee kept the NIMHD budget for FY 2026 essentially the same as it was this past year. The Senate Budget Does Not Include The AHA Plan From RFK, Jr. And there weren't any AHA moments in the Senate budget, so to speak. AHA is the acronym for the Administration for a Healthy America, the name of the agency that U.S. Department of Health and Human Secretary Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been wanting to create. Kennedy has sought to eliminate many existing health programs across different government agencies and then roll them into the new AHA. But the Senate bill made no mention of this plan and basically ignored it. I am reaching out to contacts at HHS and NIH for their reactions. The Senate Budget Maintain NIH Funding Rates For Indirect Costs Finally, the Senate committee essentially said, 'Oh, no you don't' to the Trump Administration's plans to cap funding for indirect cost payments at a 15% rate. Such a rate would be well below what they've been for most universities, academic medical centers and other research organizations, as I've detailed previously in Forbes. That's prompted lawsuits against the Trump Administration that led to a federal judge blocking the proposed indirect cost funding change and the Trump Administration appealing the ruling. The Senate Committee Vote For The NIH Bill Was A Bipartisan 26-3 And the vote wasn't a party all the time situation either. The committee voted 26-3 for all of the above, which meant that the vote wasn't simply split across party lines as so many Congressional votes seem to go these days. No, this looked like bipartisan opposition to what the Trump Administration wants to do to the NIH. Prominent Republican supporters of the bill included Senators Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina). Could this be a 'Back to the Future' situation where the NIH has support from both major political parties? Perhaps. Historically, at least until recent years, the NIH has enjoyed bipartisan support, probably because most people are in favor of the whole find-and-fund-new-ways-to-prevent-and-treat-disease thing that the NIH has been doing. Of course, the budget wrangling is far from done. The Senate still has to go through the rest of the appropriations process, which undoubtedly will include more wheeling and dealing and maybe at least a few social media posts from who knows who. Then there's the other side of Congress, the House of Representatives, that has to go through the whole appropriations thing as well. Plus, the White House and its Office of Management and Budget have continued to take steps that appear to bypass Congress's authority to oversee the budget for the NIH. For example, last week, the NIH had implemented what would be a major shift in how it issues grant funding to external researchers. The longstanding policy was that if you were awarded say a five-year grant, the funding for each year would come from that year's NIH budget. Going forward, the NIH wants to change it so that the entire five years of funding would be issued from the NIH budget year corresponding to the first year of the grant. This would severely limit and drop the number of awards that the NIH could issue in a given year. And earlier this week, the OMB tried to put a pause on the NIH issuing any new grants, as I described in Forbes. But when blowback ensued, the White House put a pause on this pause, reversed course and allowed the NIH to issue funding to external researchers again. The concern is that such shifts in policies and pauses as well as grant terminations may be ways to slash the NIH budget without the approval of Congress. Nevertheless, after several months of the Trump Administration cutting and terminating NIH grants, contracts, personnel and influence seemingly with impunity, this marks the first big, concrete pushback from Congress. It is a reminder that it's Congress and not the White House or the rest Executive Branch that ultimately decides who gets what money. Congress was bestowed that power by that thing called the U.S. Constitution. This separation of powers was done to prevent any single branch or person from becoming too powerful and basically take over the country.
