STLPR0%

Budget cuts leave fate of Missouri’s overdose reversal program uncertain 18%

By Danny Wicentowski0%

4/22/2026, 4:20:40 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Negativity Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 19.9% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 477 faulty-reasoning hits from 321 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.3% and a BS Rank of 18% (17,977 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.10% of the article peer group.

Missouri is on the brink of changing how it funds and provides naloxone to first responders. 
The program is credited for reducing overdoses, but it faces a potential budget cut of $8 million, more than 50% of the state's overall funding. 
On this episode of “St. 
Louis on the Air,” University of Missouri-St. 
Louis professor Rachel Winograd shares her insights on the origins, successes and uncertain future of naloxone in Missouri. 
Winograd is the director of addiction science at the Missouri Institute for Mental Health. 
Her team is responsible for distributing naloxone for the entire state. 
“We got our first funding for naloxone in 2017, and that year we gave out about 1,100 naloxone kits,” she said. 
“Last year, we distributed over 650,000 naloxone kits across the state. 
That has been a huge amount of growth.” 
Lawmakers continue to debate the final budget before the legislative session ends next month. 
Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee discussed restoring $5 million for naloxone funding, the Missouri Independent reported. 
However, that proposal comes with a requirement that the state purchase Narcan, the more expensive, brand name version of naloxone. 
Winograd called the committee’s proposal “scandalous.” 
“[Narcan] is more than a $7 difference per box,” she said. 
“You multiply that by hundreds of thousands of boxes, [and] we are talking about losing out on almost 100,000 doses of naloxone.” 
To hear the full conversation about the status of naloxone in Missouri with Rachel Winograd, listen to “St. 
Louis on the Air” on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or YouTube, or click the play button below. 
“St. 
Louis on the Air” brings you the stories of St. 
Louis and the people who live, work and create in our region. 
The show is produced by Miya Norfleet, Emily Woodbury, Danny Wicentowski, Elaine Cha and Alex Heuer. 
Layla Halilbasic is our production assistant. 
The audio engineer is Aaron Doerr. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.5%Danny Wicentowski: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias2.5%This article: 7.8%Danny Wicentowski: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias7.8%This article: 3.4%Danny Wicentowski: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic3.4%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.9%Danny Wicentowski: 5.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect19.9%This article: 14.6%Danny Wicentowski: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion14.6%This article: 4.4%Danny Wicentowski: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Danny Wicentowski: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias10.6%This article: 12.8%Danny Wicentowski: 4.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Danny Wicentowski: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Danny Wicentowski: 3.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect7.8%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.8%Danny Wicentowski: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Danny Wicentowski: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 6.9%Danny Wicentowski: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope6.9%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 3.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.9%Danny Wicentowski: 5.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion1.9%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 1.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.5%Danny Wicentowski: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal2.5%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.8%Danny Wicentowski: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.8%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.8%Danny Wicentowski: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote11.8%This article: 1.9%Danny Wicentowski: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection1.9%This article: 5.6%Danny Wicentowski: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice5.6%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny Wicentowski: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Danny Wicentowski: 4.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.6%

321 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers43%attributed speech182writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Winograd • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Winograd • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Winograd • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Winograd • 21 words • 100.0% coverageRachel Winograd • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Winograd • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageSenate Appropriations Committee • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Winograd • 6 words • 100.0% coverageRachel Winograd • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Winograd • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words12% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Senate Appropriations Committee: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -18.7 ptsWriter: 18.7%Senate Appropriations Committee: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Senate Appropriations Committee: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.