Tuesday, the New York Times Editorial Board published an editorial in response to last week’s House vote to repeal the Prevention and Public Health Fund. The editorial, “So much for that ounce of prevention,” strongly condemned the vote and made a robust argument in support of federal investment in prevention. Framing like this in the national media networks is critical to maintaining the momentum for prevention fund—most particularly when they are framing the issue exactly in the way we would like to see it discussed. This week, we invite you to use this editorial in your efforts to ensure that federal investments in prevention remain secure, and to help generate broad-based support for prevention:

Submit a Letter to the Editor at the New York Times, thanking the editorial board for speaking up for prevention. Regardless of whether or not the letter is published, it is critical that we let the editors know that they got it right.
Share the editorial with your congressperson and key partners, both national and local. The commentary makes a compelling case using many of the same talking points that advocates are hoping to elevate to the national conversation:

Prevention works: Prevention saves money and lives by keeping people from becoming ill or injured in the first place.

Prevention happens locally: Prevention funding in health reform delivers much-needed funding directly to communities to support their efforts to keep people healthy.