Photo credit: www.cbsnews.com
Federal Judge Halts Trump Administration’s Proposed Cuts to Medical Research Funding
A federal judge intervened on Wednesday to prevent the Trump administration from enacting significant reductions to medical research funding, a move that many experts believe could jeopardize patient care and lead to extensive job losses within the sector.
The administration’s proposed policy from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) aimed to eliminate funding for indirect costs associated with essential medical research. These cuts would potentially deprive research institutions of hundreds of millions of dollars, adversely affecting studies on critical conditions such as Alzheimer’s, cancer, and heart disease. The scope of research affected ranges from clinical trials of novel therapies to fundamental laboratory studies that are crucial for breakthroughs.
In response to the proposed cuts, a coalition of 22 states, along with various organizations representing universities, hospitals, and research facilities across the nation, filed lawsuits asserting that these reductions would result in “irreparable harm.”
U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley, based in Boston, had initially issued a temporary block against the cuts last month. On Wednesday, she expanded the hold by issuing a preliminary injunction that will pause the implementation of the cuts pending the resolution of the ongoing legal challenges.
As the leading source of funding for biomedical research, the NIH allocated approximately $35 billion in grants to numerous research organizations last year. This financial support is categorized into “direct” costs, which cover researchers’ salaries and laboratory materials, and “indirect” costs, which encompass necessary administrative and facility expenditures that support research activities.
The Trump administration had characterized these indirect costs as mere “overhead.” However, universities and hospitals contend that these expenses are vital for continued research operations. They encompass essential services such as electricity for advanced machinery, hazardous waste management, compliance personnel who oversee safety protocols, and custodial staff.
Previously, the federal government engaged in negotiations with institutions regarding these cost rates. For instance, an organization with a 50% indirect cost rate would receive an additional $50,000 to address indirect expenses for a project costing $100,000. The new NIH policy seeks to impose a flat rate cap of 15% on indirect costs, which is projected to save the agency around $4 billion annually.
Current and former health officials have expressed disbelief regarding this change, emphasizing that federal oversight of funding allocation for indirect costs is thorough and rigorous. One previous official noted the intense efforts that are made to keep funding rates minimized.
“We fight diligently to maintain the integrity of these rates,” the official shared, underscoring how negotiations often involve extensive assessments of facilities and interviews with researchers to validate funding requests.
Dr. David J. Skorton, representing the Association of American Medical Colleges and one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, commended the ruling, stating, “These unlawful cuts would hinder medical advancements and endanger lives,” while also highlighting that research funded by the NIH ultimately benefits all Americans.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which manages NIH, has not yet provided a comment regarding the recent developments.
Source
www.cbsnews.com