CDC chief picks 6 'winnable battles' in health

September 30, 2010 By MIKE STOBBE , AP Medical Writer
In this May 18, 2009 photo, former New York City Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden, right, addresses a City Hall news conference on the swine flu outbreak with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in New York. Now director of the CDC, Frieden has chosen six priorities _ winnable battles, he calls them. The six public health problems are smoking, AIDS, obesity/nutrition, teen pregnancy, auto injuries and health care infections. (AP Photo/Richard Drew, File)

(AP) -- Where would you start if you were charged with keeping the nation healthy? Dr. Thomas Frieden, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has chosen six priorities - winnable battles, he calls them.

They are smoking, AIDS, obesity/nutrition, , auto injuries and health care infections. These are long-standing, major challenges that get a lot of attention already.

But elevating a handful of problems above dozens of others is a bold move for a official. So far, it's been received like a bucket of cold water - invigorating some, infuriating others.

Many advocates, legislators and others in public health have devoted their lives to problems that did not make Frieden's short list. So there are complaints.

A CDC employee blog is peppered with postings like, "I guess climate change is not a battle worth winning," and "Don't we still owe the patients of tomorrow an investment in things that may not pay off immediately?"

Some advocates wonder aloud just how targeted federal public health dollars are going to be. A particular point of concern is hepatitis C, a long under-recognized liver-destroying virus which has infected more than 3 million Americans. Some experts consider the issue a ticking time bomb and have called for the government to step up efforts to prevent it and better diagnose and treat people who already are infected.

and C already are "badly neglected" by the CDC, and their omission from Frieden's winnable battles list is more bad news, said Bruce Burkett, past president of the National Advocacy Council.

"I was very disappointed that it wasn't on there. This is going to affect millions by not being on there," he said.

Frieden, who took over CDC in June last year, already had a reputation as something of a public health maverick. When he started his previous job as New York City's health commissioner in 2002, he began by identifying the city's most pressing health issues. He led campaigns to ban smoking in the workplace, tax soda, cut salt in processed foods, and ban artificial trans fats in restaurants.

It's no surprise that he is boldly painting targets at the CDC, said Dr. Jo Ivey Boufford, president of the New York Academy of Medicine. She's a fan of Frieden's who worked with him as a member of an advisory council to the city health department.

Frieden's CDC job, ironically, does not provide the same kind of power he had in New York City to engineer bans or tax increases. But Frieden calls his new short list "winnable battles" because, he says, proven programs can save lives and reduce harm from each of these health problems. He believes government can make dramatic improvements if available money and manpower are focused.

"In each of these areas we know what to do to make a difference and we need to do it to a much greater extent," he said in an interview.

Frieden, with a low-key demeanor, has said relatively little about this to the public, though he seems to be building support within the public health community.

There is some nervousness about how far Frieden's going to take this.

"I think everyone is going to be cautious in how the focus on winnable battles is balanced against other areas" that are also deemed important but may not be as easy to dent, said Jeff Levi, who heads Trust for America's Health, a research group.

Top CDC officials have been quick to say they have no intention of walking away from other public health missions. They couldn't even if they wanted to, because much of the agency's funding is directed to certain causes by Congress. According to one estimate, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of CDC's $6.6 billion budget is discretionary money that can be channeled into the winnable battles campaign. Indeed, the agency has been asking for more flexibility.

But there's power in perception, especially concerning CDC's grant money to states. Nearly a quarter of that is targeted at the six battle areas, which already were major areas of interest. State health officers say they're acutely aware of Frieden's priorities and want him to know it when they apply for CDC money.

"We're in the position of focusing pretty much on what we can get federal funds for," said Will Humble, director of the Arizona Department of Health Services.

Humble and several other public health leaders applaud Frieden's priorities as an overdue attempt to narrow the public health message and better market health improvement to Americans.

"You can't market if your message is too diffuse," Humble said. "If we're all on the same page and working in the same direction, we can get a lot more momentum."

This isn't how many public health officials traditionally operate, partly because they tend to worry about alienating employees, legislators and advocates, observed Stanton Glantz, a University of California-San Francisco expert on the health effects of smoking.

Other top federal health officials have not been as specific. U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Regina Benjamin, the government's chief health educator, has made the broader themes of prevention and wellness her focus.

But Frieden clearly has the blessing of his Obama administration bosses to set clear targets.

"Getting focused, and getting some quick wins under your belt, is terribly important," said Victor Strecher, a University of Michigan health behavior expert.

Progress in these areas has long been measured by health statistics. What exactly will constitute a win? Frieden hasn't said yet.

More information: CDC Web page describing winnable battles:


Related Stories

Recommended for you

Calcium and Vitamin D supplements are not associated with risk of heart attacks

February 16, 2018
New research from the University of Southampton has found no association between the use of calcium or vitamin D supplementation and cardiovascular events such as heart attacks.

Women who clean at home or work face increased lung function decline

February 16, 2018
Women who work as cleaners or regularly use cleaning sprays or other cleaning products at home appear to experience a greater decline in lung function over time than women who do not clean, according to new research published ...

Study shows options to decrease risk of motor vehicle crashes for adolescent drivers

February 16, 2018
Adolescents who receive comprehensive and challenging on-road driving assessments prior to taking the license test might be protected from future motor vehicle crashes, according to a University of Alabama at Birmingham study ...

Being a single dad can shorten your life: study

February 15, 2018
The risk of dying prematurely more than doubles for single fathers compared to single mothers or paired-up dads, according to a study of Canadian families published Thursday.

Keeping an eye on the entire ageing process

February 15, 2018
Medical researchers often only focus on a single disease. As older people often suffer from multiple diseases at the same time, however, we need to rethink this approach, writes Ralph Müller.

Study suggests possible link between highly processed foods and cancer

February 14, 2018
A study published by The BMJ today reports a possible association between intake of highly processed ("ultra-processed") food in the diet and cancer.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

2 / 5 (2) Sep 30, 2010
Unfortunately, in the case of smoking, not only are most smokers not quitting, now California is legalizing Marijuana which is only going to make matters worse.

Instead of people smoking one addictive, cancer cause poison, they'll be smoking two now.

Cigarettes should be banned, along with alcohol and marijuana. instead, because the government knows they can just tax it and let somebody else pay for the addict's cancers, liver disease, automobile accidents, violence, etc, they aren't interested in doing that.

Auto accident injuries are on his list.

You can prevent as much as 20% of auto accidents by banning alcohol, and in the same step you'd cut at least 40% of domestic violence, and a huge portion of liver disease.

You can cut huge portion of lung, mouth, nose, and thoat cancers by banning tobacco. But nobody in power REALLY cares about healthcare, because they make too much money off these poisons OR the taxes associated with them.
3.3 / 5 (3) Sep 30, 2010
We tried banning alcohol, in fact it was even a constitutional amendment. It didn't work out so well... People didn't even drink less, and organized crime became even more powerful. Banning things creates huge lucrative black markets that only bring more crime and corruption (like the current Mexican drug wars fueled by the high cost of illegal drugs). I support legalization of marijuana, and keeping cigarettes and alcohol legal, but I also support high taxes on them (just make the taxes high enough to cover the related medical/social expenses), bans on excessive advertising of them, and programs to help people who get addicted/prevent addiction. I agree that the people in charge don't really care about healthcare though.
1 / 5 (1) Oct 01, 2010

the second hand smoke and the auto accidents and other related crimes and accidents against people who don't even use this crap doesn't bother you?

You're ridiculous. Alcohol is legal, and the consequences are that thousands of people die each year and scores of times as many are injured in "accidents" often not even their fault, often it's the tee-totaller who was minding their own business gets killed or maimed by a drunk.

But of course, your solution is to slap the "irresponsible" drunk on the wrist after the fact, when the life can't be saved, rather than having really prevented the CRIME in the first place.

The same is true for cigarettes, as people get second hand smoke and cancers even having never touched a cigarette in their lifetime.

Your stupid tax money doesn't buy an innocent victim's life or quality of life back.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.