teamnyshealth, Author at New York Health Foundation

Progress for Primary Care

Posted on June 12, 2025June 12, 2025 by teamnyshealth

Primary care is the foundation of a cost-effective and high-quality health care system. However, one in three New Yorkers lives in a region with insufficient primary care access, and it’s far worse for rural communities and communities of color. Across the state, New Yorkers have to wait weeks or months to see a primary care doctor or nurse.

Our health care system is out of balance; less than 5 cents of every dollar we spend on health care goes to primary care doctors and nurses, even though they handle 1 in 3 health care visits.

The New York State Senate has acted to correct that by passing the Primary Care Investment Act. It will rebalance health care spending by allocating a greater percentage of what we spend to primary care.

We thank Senator Rivera for championing this policy and applaud the Senate for its leadership in recognizing that a healthier New York starts with strong primary care.

The New York Health Foundation is proud to have supported the Primary Care Development Corporation for its unwavering advocacy. We congratulate them and their coalition of supporters.

The New York Health Foundation also contributed by testifying, speaking out, and convening public events.

This legislation is meaningful progress. But there is still more work to do. Once the policy is fully enacted, New York will join nearly 20 other states in strengthening its primary care infrastructure, saving money, and improving health.

NYHealth Testimony on Increasing Self-Identification by New York City Veterans

Posted on June 10, 2025June 10, 2025 by teamnyshealth

NYHealth Senior Program Officer Derek Coy submitted the following testimony to the June 10, 2025, New York City Council Committee on Veterans Meeting on Oversight – Increasing Self-Identification by New York City Veterans.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the New York Health Foundation (NYHealth) regarding self-identification among veterans. NYHealth is a private, independent, statewide foundation dedicated to improving the health of all New Yorkers, including more than 133,000 veterans who call New York City home.

My name is Derek Coy; I’m a Senior Program Officer at NYHealth and a proud veteran, having served as a Sergeant in the United States Marine Corps.

NYHealth’s work has consistently highlighted the health-related needs of New York’s veteran population, and one of the most persistent barriers to meeting those needs is how we identify—and fail to identify—veterans across service systems. When it comes to identifying veterans, too often we lead with the question: “Are you a veteran?” That may seem straightforward, but for many, it’s a barrier. Women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people of color, those who served during peacetime, and outside of combat zones or in non-traditional roles often don’t see themselves reflected in that label. Others may have been discharged under other-than-honorable conditions or carry stigma around their service.

To address this, we urge New York City to adopt a more inclusive and effective screening question—one that opens the door to care: “Have you or a family member served in the U.S. military?” We know from various state departments of veterans’ services “ask the question” campaigns as well as the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs that how we ask the question matters.^[1] Veterans do not all look the same or identify in the same way. Critically, this question also captures caregivers and family members, many of whom play an essential role in a veteran’s care and may qualify for support services themselves.

Effective identification is not just a best practice—it’s a public health imperative.

The consequences of failing to identify veterans are significant:

NYHealth’s recent analysis shows that veterans in New York City die by suicide at roughly twice the rate of civilians.^[2]
A 2023 RAND study, supported by NYHealth, found more than one-third of New York’s recently transitioned veterans didn’t know what services they were eligible for, and about one in four said they didn’t know where to go to access them.^[3]

When we fail to identify someone as having served, we delay their access to health care, housing, mental health treatment, and suicide prevention services—many of which they earned through their service. When we fail to ask the right question, we fail to connect people with the care they’ve earned.

Currently, veteran identification practices vary widely across City agencies and community organizations. This inconsistency leads to inequitable access and weakens the impact of policies and programs intended to support veterans. Although some New York State agencies have begun adopting more inclusive veteran identification questions, broader implementation—particularly in New York City—remains fragmented and incomplete.

We recommend the City Council support the following actions:

Adopt the use of inclusive veteran identification language. “Have you or a family member served in the U.S. military?” – across all City agency intake forms, service portals, and contracted provider systems.
Incentivize and encourage adoption of this screening question in the private sector. This may include health centers, hospitals, housing providers, crisis response, workforce agencies, and legal intake settings.
Train frontline staff across sectors. This helps to ensure staff understand who may count as a veteran, why identification matters, and how to make appropriate referrals.

This isn’t just about better data—it’s about recognizing the diversity of the veteran community, building trust, improving health outcomes, and ensuring that no veteran or family member goes unrecognized or unsupported in the city they call home.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify and for your commitment to New York City’s veteran community.

References

[1] “About.” Ask the Question. Accessed June 3, 2025. https://www.askthequestion.nh.gov/about.

[2] Cobbs, E. Coy, D. Ford, MM. Havusha, A. Sandman, D. 2024. “Navigating the Crisis: Deaths of Despair and Suicide Among New York City Veterans” New York Health Foundation. New York, NY. Available at: https://nyhealthfoundation.org/resource/nyc-deaths-of-despair-suicide/.

[3] Ringel, Jeanne S., Julia Lejeune, Jessica Phillips, Michael W. Robbins, Melissa A. Bradley, Joshua Wolf, and Martha J. Timmer, Understanding Veterans in New York: A Needs Assessment of Veterans Recently Separated from the Military. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2024. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA3304-1.html. Also available in print form.

Pride Is Healthy

Posted on June 5, 2025June 10, 2025 by teamnyshealth

June is Pride Month for LGBT people. In recent years, it has become a mostly celebratory occasion, marking major policy wins like marriage equality, the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and growing visibility and social acceptance.

This year is different. A backlash against LGBT rights and health is well underway — and it’s being accelerated by the Trump administration. As part of a broader campaign against Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) efforts, attacks on LGBT people have gained political currency. Transgender people, in particular, have become the primary target.

The federal administration has eliminated more than $800 million worth of research into the health of LGBT people. This means the end of studies on cancers and viruses that disproportionately affect LGBT people, as well as research into antibiotic resistance, undiagnosed autism, and suicide prevention.

These cuts will setback progress in controlling and treating sexually transmitted infections. And it’s not just so-called “elite” or “woke” universities that are affected — grants have been canceled for public institutions like Ohio State and the University of Alabama. Florida State University lost a $41 million research grant aimed at preventing HIV among adolescents and young adults — a group that accounts for one-fifth of all new infections each year.

Historically, research grant cancellations have been rare, usually limited to cases of scientific misconduct. These cuts are ideological. They are now the subject of ongoing litigation.

While cuts to research happen behind the scenes, with long-term consequences, the attacks on transgender health are front and center. One of the administration’s early executive orders prohibits hospitals from providing gender-affirming care for youth. A bill passed by the House of Representatives would extend that ban to adults. And in an Orwellian twist, the FBI kicked off Pride Month by asking for tips from the public on “any hospitals or clinics who break the law and mutilate children under the guise of ‘gender affirming care.’”

Even before these recent actions, LGBT people faced health disparities. In New York City, for example, LGBT residents are more likely to experience mental health challenges. According to the City’s health department, 7% of heterosexual adults report serious psychological distress, compared with 12% of gay or lesbian adults. Among transgender adults, that number jumps to 21%. LGBT New Yorkers also experience higher rates of social isolation.

As New Yorkers get ready for Pride, there has been a sharp pullback by corporate sponsors. About a quarter of major sponsors for NYC’s Pride events have canceled or pulled back their support — including brands like Pepsi, Nissan, Mastercard, Citi, and PwC — wary of political backlash from the federal administration.

Pride might be smaller this year, but it should also be louder. It’s not a marketing event. It should be a protest against the harmful policies impacting LGBT health and wellbeing. We don’t need corporate swag; we need rigorous research, access to high-quality services, and policies that promote inclusion instead of discrimination.

That’s the true meaning of Pride. Because being proud is being healthy.

NYHealth Comments on Front-of-Package Nutrition Information

Posted on May 16, 2025May 30, 2025 by teamnyshealth

NYHealth submitted the following comments in support of the FDA’s proposal to develop a mandatory, interpretive Front-Of-Package labeling system for nutrients to limit (i.e., saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars) and urged the agency to require labeling only when a product is high in these nutrients.

May 16, 2025

Docket Management Staff
Department of Health and Human Services
Food and Drug Administration
5630 Fishers Lane, Rm 1061, Rockville, MD 20852

Docket ID: FDA-2024-N-2910

Re: Food Labeling: Front-of-Package Nutrition Information

Dear Docket Management Staff:

The New York Health Foundation (NYHealth) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) proposed rule regarding front-of-package (FOP) nutrition information. NYHealth is a private foundation that works to improve the health of all New Yorkers, especially people of color and others who have been historically marginalized.^[1] Our Healthy Food, Healthy Lives program seeks to advance policies and programs that connect New Yorkers with the food they need to thrive.^[2] Our work has provided us with in-depth knowledge of how dietary diseases linked to saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars harm New Yorkers, as well as ways the proposed rule could help to improve dietary health in New York and across the country.

We support the FDA’s proposal to develop a mandatory, interpretive FOP labeling system for nutrients to limit (i.e., saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars). We urge the agency to require labeling only when a product is high in these nutrients.

FOP Labeling Could Help to Reduce Dietary Disease in the United States

Dietary diseases are the leading cause of death in the United States. Poor diet, high blood pressure, and obesity are three of the four top risk factors for morbidity and mortality across the country.^[3] New York is no exception; nearly two-thirds of all adults are obese, and approximately one-third have hypertension.^[4],^[5] For Black, Hispanic, and low-income individuals, these rates are typically higher.

Nutrition facts labeling systems could help to reduce dietary disease by promoting healthier consumer choices and industry reformulation.^[6] But to realize these potential benefits, consumers must actually use the labels, and use of the current labeling system is not consistent. Less than half of U.S. adults regularly consult the Nutrition Facts Panel when purchasing a product.^[7] And individuals with lower incomes and lower educational attainment—individuals more likely to suffer from dietary disease—are less likely to use the Nutrition Facts Panel.^[8],^[9] Evidence from countries that have implemented FOP labeling systems suggests that a mandatory, interpretive system that focuses on nutrients to limit and only requires labeling for products that are “high-in” these nutrients could better support consumer choice.^[10],^[11]

FDA Must Mandate FOP Labeling

For the proposed FOP labeling system to be useful, it must be mandatory. Many food and beverage companies are unlikely to adopt FOP labeling if the system is voluntary. Inconsistent adoption by food companies would likely undermine understanding and use of the system, as consumers would not be able to consistently compare products. And most likely, the companies that consumers are most likely to want more information from—companies with products that are high in saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar—would be least likely to adopt the scheme, if voluntary.

Unsurprisingly, in countries that have voluntary policies, uptake has been low. For example, less than half of the eligible products in Australia and only 50% of sales in France, both countries with voluntary schemes, included FOP labeling. Low uptake in countries with voluntary policies has prompted the World Health Organization to recommend that these countries “explore ways to overcome issues with uptake of the FOP [labeling] system in the marketplace, including through mandatory implementation.”^[12] NYHealth agrees with the FDA that the U.S. should learn from other countries’ experiences and mandate FOP labeling.

To Help Consumers Avoid Unhealthy Products, FOP Labeling Must be Interpretive

NYHealth also agrees with the FDA that an interpretive labeling system is necessary. Labels that help consumers translate numbers from the Nutrition Facts Panel—for example, labels that indicate when foods are high in saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars—can help consumers make better choices at the point of purchase. The FDA’s food labeling literature review, its focus groups, and a National Academy of Medicine review all confirm this.^[13],^[14],^[15]

FOP systems that do not help consumers make sense of Nutrition Facts Panel numbers do not typically influence consumer behavior.^[16],^[17] Research shows consumers are much less likely to identify healthier products using FOP systems like Facts Up Front than stoplight or other warning systems.^[18],^[19] To ensure that the new FOP system is as effective as possible, FDA must ensure that the system is interpretive, as the agency has proposed.

An FOP System Should Only Include Nutrients to Limit

As the FDA has proposed, limiting FOP labeling to saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars should help consumers distinguish healthy from unhealthy products. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans encourages individuals to reduce intake of these three nutrients, yet consumption far exceeds recommended values.^[20] At the same time, individuals’ consumption of many positive nutrients falls short of recommended values. But, including positive nutrients in an FOP system, as some companies might suggest, would be confusing and duplicative. Participants in the FDA’s focus groups struggled to make sense of a system that included both, and the agency already allows companies to advertise health-promoting aspects of food through nutrient-content claims.^[21]

FDA Should Employ a “High In” Style FOP Label

To further reduce confusion, the FDA should only require FOP labeling when a nutrient to limit is “high.” The FDA has proposed a label to disclose whether a product was high, medium, or low in saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar. Under this system, a product like Coca-Cola that was high in added sugar but low in saturated fat and sodium might appear healthier than it is: consumers might misinterpret the two “lows” and one “high” as canceling each other out. In contrast, a single warning for added sugar under the “high in” labeling system would better reflect the nature of the product. Studies of the countries that have instituted “high in” systems suggest this more straightforward approach can improve the healthfulness of foods consumers purchase. Research also suggests that “high in” FOP labeling schemes can encourage reformulation, as companies seek to avoid labeling.^[22] The FDA should adopt this tried-and-true approach and require disclosure only when a product is high in a nutrient to limit.

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this rule. A mandatory, interpretive FOP labeling system has the potential to improve consumer choice and healthy product availability in New York and across America. For these reasons, the New York Health Foundation supports this proposed rule, and we look forward to supporting the FDA’s implementation efforts in the near future.

Sincerely,

Julia McCarthy, J.D.
Senior Program Officer

^[1] New York Health Foundation. What we do. https://nyhealthfoundation.org/what-we-do/. Accessed January 2025.

^[2] New York Health Foundation. Healthy food, healthy lives. Available from: https://nyhealthfoundation.org/what-we-fund/healthy-food-healthy-lives/.

^[3] The US Burden of Disease Collaborators. The state of U.S. health, 1990-2016 burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors among U.S. states. JAMA. 2018;319:1444-1472.

^[4] New York Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Overweight and obesity: New York State adults, 2021. Available from: https://www.health.ny.gov/press/releases/2023/2023-06-20_obesity.html.

^[5] New York Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. High blood pressure: New York State adults, 2021. Available from: https://www.health.ny.gov/statistics/brfss/reports/docs/2023-11_brfss_high_blood_pressure.pdf.

^[6] Food & Drug Administration. FDA’s nutrition initiatives. 2025, May 9. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-food-labeling-and-critical-foods/fdas-nutrition-initiatives.

^[7] Center for Science in the Public Interest. Front-of-package nutrition labeling: leveraging food labels to inform consumers and promote public health. 2023, January 10. Available from:https://www.cspinet.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/FOPNL%20Fact%20Sheet_1.10.23_final.pdf.

^[8] Ollberding NJ, Wolf RL, Contento I. Food label use and its relation to dietary intake among U.S. adults. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(8):1233-1237.

^[9] Storz MA. Nutrition facts labels: who is actually reading them and does it help in meeting intake recommendations for nutrients of public health concern? BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1), 1947.

^[10] Croker H, Packer J, Russell SJ, Stansfield C, Viner RM. Front of pack nutritional labelling schemes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of recent evidence relating to objectively measured consumption and purchasing. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2020; 33(4):518-53

^[11] Song J, Brown MK, Tan M, et al. Impact of color-coded and warning nutrition labelling schemes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. Oct 2021;18(10):e1003765.

^[12] Kelly B, Jewell J. What is the evidence on the policy specifications, development processes and effectiveness of existing front-of-pack food labelling policies in the WHO European Region? Vol. Report 61. 2018. Available from: https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/384460/Web-WHO-HEN-Report-61-on-FOPL.pdf

^[13] Verrill L, et al. Consumer reactions to front-of-package nutrition labeling schemes on foods versus beverages—2023 focus group findings. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. 2023. Available from: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=202008-0910-021&icID=262002.

^[14] Verrill L, et al. Front of package labeling literature review. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. 2023. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/food/nutrition-food-labeling-and-critical-foods/front-package-nutrition-labeling.

^[15] Wartella EA, et al. Examination of front-of-package nutrition rating systems and symbols: promoting healthier choices. The National Academies Press. 2012. Available from: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/13221/front-of-package-nutrition-rating-systems-and-symbols-promoting-healthier.

^[16] Neal B, Crino M, Dunford E, et al. effects of different types of front-of-pack labelling information on the healthiness of food purchases-a randomised controlled trial. Nutrients. Nov 24 2017;9(12).

^[17] Ducrot P, Julia C, Mejean C, et al. Impact of different front-of-pack nutrition labels on consumer purchasing intentions: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. May 2016;50(5):627-636.

^[18] Deliza R, de Alcantara M, Pereira R, Ares G. How do different warning signs compare with the guideline daily amount and traffic-light system? Food Quality & Preference. 2020;80.

^[19] Arrua A, et al. Warnings as a directive front-of-pack nutrition labelling scheme: comparison with the Guideline Daily Amount and traffic-light systems. Public Health Nutr. Sep 2017;20(13):2308-2317.

^[20] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Health & Human Services. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020-2025. 9th ed. 2020. Available from: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ sites/ default/ files/ 2020-12/ Dietary_ Guidelines_ for_ Americans_ 2020-2025.pdf.

^[21] Verrill L, et al. Consumer reactions to front-of-package nutrition labeling schemes on foods versus beverages—2023 focus group findings. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. 2023. Available from: https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAViewIC?ref_nbr=202008-0910-021&icID=262002.

^[22] Rebolledo N, et al. Changes in the critical nutrient content of packaged foods and beverages after the full implementation of the Chilean Food Labelling and Advertising Law: a repeated cross-sectional study. BMC Medicine. 2025;23(1):46.

What’s at Stake?

Posted on May 13, 2025May 13, 2025 by teamnyshealth

The first 100 days of the Trump administration have come and gone. For supporters, it was a period of triumph and promises kept. For opponents, it was a chaotic disaster. Public opinion polls show that Americans remain divided, with a slight and growing majority expressing disapproval.

One thing most people might agree on: it was a sweeping and unprecedented use of executive authority. To date, President Trump has signed 147 executive orders in this term — more than President Biden signed during his entire four-year term.

But the dynamic is about to shift. To move forward with much of his remaining agenda, the President will need legislative approval. He’s released a broad outline of his budget proposal, which Congress will now consider. Appropriations legislation requires 60 votes in the Senate, meaning bipartisan support will be necessary.

What’s at stake in this budget? Just about everything.

The President’s budget proposal would drastically reshape domestic priorities, further downsize the federal government, and slash — or eliminate entirely — funding for core programs. The overall proposed reduction is $163 billion annually, or 22.6% below current spending levels.

Here are some key areas I’m watching:

⸻

Cuts to Programs

Medicaid:
This is the big one. Medicaid is jointly funded by federal and state governments and administered by the states within federal guidelines. In New York State, Medicaid accounts for about 28% of the total state budget and is the largest payer of health and long-term care services.

Potential federal cuts of $880 billion over 10 years are on the table and included in a recent House budget resolution. For New York, this could mean a staggering $10 billion loss annually. The specific impact depends on how the cuts are implemented, but the outcome could be devastating. Medicaid cuts are politically toxic, even among some Republicans, but hitting the proposed budget targets may not be possible without them. The pressure is on from all sides.

SNAP:
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) is the nation’s most powerful tool to fight hunger and food insecurity. It serves 42 million Americans monthly, including 2.8 million New Yorkers. The proposed cuts — $230 billion over the next decade — are severe.

For New York, this could result in a combined $18 billion loss. Reductions could come through several mechanisms: shifting costs to states, revising the Thrifty Food Plan, imposing stricter work requirements, or eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility. The full impact on New York depends on which combination of options are selected.

WIC:
The Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program is an essential nutrition support for pregnant women and low-income families with children under age 5. It provides free, healthy foods, personalized nutrition education, breastfeeding support, and more. On average, WIC helps 6.2 million Americans each month, including 450,000 New Yorkers — about two-thirds of those eligible.

While the President’s budget does not directly target WIC for cuts, changes to Medicaid and SNAP could indirectly affect WIC participation, as eligibility is often tied to those programs.

Cuts to Health Agencies

The administration has already taken a heavy hand to shrink the federal government, and this budget proposal would go even further. It calls for $33.3 billion in cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) — about a third of its current budget. While it would create a new “Administration for a Healthy America” (AHA) with a $500 million allocation, it proposes major reductions elsewhere:

National Institutes of Health (NIH): A proposed $18 billion cut would cripple biomedical research on cancer, heart disease, stroke, HIV/AIDS, and more.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): The CDC’s budget would be nearly halved, from $7.5 billion to $4 billion. The proposal cuts funding on infectious disease, opioids, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted infections, and tuberculosis in half. It also eliminates centers on disease prevention and health promotion, environmental health, injury prevention and control, global health, public health preparedness and response, as well as preventive health and human services block grants.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA): A $1.7 billion cut would impact the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, family planning, maternal and child health, and health workforce development.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA): The budget proposes folding SAMHSA into the new AHA and slashing its funding by $1 billion.

⸻

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA):

The VA is an exception. Its budget would increase by $5.4 billion — largely to modernize electronic health records and reduce veteran homelessness. It’s a bit of a headscratcher, as the VA also plans to lay off 80,000 workers. You can read more about what’s happening at the VA here.

⸻

Budgets are, of course, about numbers. And in the federal government, those numbers are enormous. But it’s about so much more than numbers. It’s about our health and wellbeing, hunger and poverty, national security, economic prospects, our priorities and values as a nation, and our collective future. Everything that matters is at stake.

By David Sandman, President and CEO, New York Health Foundation
Published on Medium on May 13, 2025

A Win for Health, A Win for Children

Posted on May 9, 2025June 10, 2025 by teamnyshealth

Today we celebrate a major victory for health, children, education, and equity. The 2025–2026 New York State budget expands and fully funds universal free school meals, ensuring that 2.7 million students across the State have the food they need to be healthy and ready to learn.

Universal school meals are a proven strategy to reduce food insecurity, improve mental and physical health, boost academic performance, and increase educational and economic equity.

We thank the Governor for her leadership and applaud the Legislature for its support—especially Senator Hinchey and Assemblymember Gonzalez-Rojas, who championed the policy in their respective houses.

The New York Health Foundation is especially proud to have supported the educational and advocacy efforts that helped make this possible. Hunger Solutions New York and Community Food Advocates, both NYHealth grantees, led an unwavering campaign to advance this policy. We congratulate them and their coalition of supporters.

NYHealth leaned in hard and acted as a changemaker—not just a grantmaker—to help drive this policy forward. We testified about it, wrote about it, and spoke about it at public forums to build momentum and support.

We also recognize that proposed federal funding cuts for school food programs and new administrative burdens could threaten this progress. Such actions would be devastating to children, families, and local economies—and should be rejected. A healthy nation depends on affordable access to nutritious food for all.

By enacting this sweeping policy change, New York State has affirmed its commitment to the health and wellbeing of its residents. It’s a proud moment for New York.

Top searches

Author: teamnyshealth