Health care has proven a vulnerable target for the fire firelessness and policy changes that President Donald Trump has ordered in the name of waste reduction and improving efficiency. But most of the impact is not as tangible as, say, higher prices of eggs to the grocery store.
One thing that experts in a wide range of areas, from fundamental science to public health, get along: damage will be varied and immense. “It is extremely stupid to reduce funding in this way,” said Harold Varmus, a winning scientist of the Nobel Prize and former director of the National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute.
The fire fire gave absurd and perhaps involuntary consequences. Consider cases where subsidy financing is canceled after two years of a three -year project. This means, for example, that $ 2 million has already been spent, but there will be no return to this investment.
Some of the targeted areas are not administration priorities. This includes the abrupt end of studies on a long core, which affects more than 100,000 Americans, and the interruption of work on mRNA vaccines, which are promising not only in infectious diseases but also in the treatment of cancer.
Although charity dollars have sank to connect certain shortcomings, “philanthropy cannot replace federal funding,” said Dustin Sposato, communications director for Philanthropy Alliance science, a group that works to stimulate the support of charity organizations for fundamental scientific research.
Here are critical means whose Trump administration cuts – proposed and real – could affect American health care and, more importantly, the health of American patients.
Cup at the National Institutes of Health: The Trump administration has reduced $ 2.3 billion to new subsidies since the start of its mandate, as well as the end of existing subsidies on a wide range of subjects – hesitation in the vaccine, HIV / AIDS and COVID -19 – which do not align with its priorities. The national subsidies of health institutes have annual renewal clauses, but it is rare that they are dismissed, according to experts. The administration has also reduced “training subsidies” so that young scientists join the NIH.
Why is it important: The NIH has long been a crucible of fundamental scientific research – the type of work that industry is generally not. Most pharmaceutical patents have their roots in the work carried out or supported by NIH, and many scientists from pharmaceutical manufacturers have learned their profession in institutions supported by NIH or NIH itself. The termination of certain subsidies will directly affect patients because they have involved in progress clinical studies on a range of conditions, including pediatric cancer, diabetes and long. And, more broadly, the reductions in public funding for research could be costly in the longer term, because a shortage of new discoveries will mean less new products: a reduction of 25% of public spending and development would reduce the country’s economic production of a comparable amount of gross domestic product during the great recession, revealed a new study.
University Cup: The Trump administration has also tried to wear a heartbreaking blow – currently blocked by the courts – to scientific research in universities by reducing additional money that accompanies research subsidies for “indirect costs”, such as libraries, laboratory animal care, support staff and computer systems.
Why is it important: Righter universities can find funds to compensate for reductions in Draconian indirect costs. But the poorest – and many state schools, many of which in red states – will simply stop doing research. A good number of crucial discoveries emerge from these laboratories. “Medical research is a proposal that loses money,” said a dean of the state school with former links with IVIes. (The Dean asked for anonymity because his current employer told him that he could not talk about the file.) “If you want to close the research, that will, and it will first go to places like the University of Tennessee and the University of Arkansas.” It also means fewer opportunities for students from state universities to become scientists.
Public health cut: These successes came in many forms. The administration has cut or threatened to reduce long -standing block subsidies for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Covid subsidies; And subsidies linked to diversity, equity and inclusion activities – which often resulted in grants to improve health care for the badly served. Although the cocovated pandemic has faded, these subsidies were used by states to improve laboratory capacity to improve detection and monitoring. And they were used to officially train the country’s public health workforce, many of whom learn from work.
Why is it important: Public health officials and researchers worked hard to facilitate a faster and more thoughtful response to future pandemics, a special concern, because the bird flu is looming and measles has a resurgence. Mati Hlatatshwayo Davis, Director of Health of St. Louis, was canceled four subsidies, three in one day. A subsidy that came under the COVID section included programs to help members of the community to make lifestyle changes to reduce the risk of hypertension and diabetes – the type of chronic diseases that the secretary of health and social services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said that he will focus on fighting. Others have paid the wages of the support staff for a wide variety of public health initiatives. “What was disappointing is that decisions have been made without reasonable diligence,” she said.
Impact linked to the health of prices: Although Trump has exempted drugs on prescription from his radical prices on most imports so far, he has not excluded the possibility of imposing such rates. “It is a target in motion,” said Michael Strain, an economist of the American Enterprise Institute, noting that, as the high drug prices are already a burden, the addition of any tax is problematic.
Why is it important: This supposed exemption does not fully assume American patients of higher costs. About two-thirds of prescription drugs are already manufactured in the United States, but their raw materials are often imported from China-and these do not benefit from any price exemption. Many basic supplies used in hospitals and doctors’ offices – syringes, surgical curtains and personal protective equipment – are also imported. Finally, even if the prices do not undertake the price themselves to buy ingredients and medical supplies, the Americans can suffer: prices in mind on such a range of products, from steel to clothes, means that fewer ships will cross the Pacific to make deliveries – and that means delays. “I think there is an uncomfortably high probability that something breaks in the supply chain and we end up with shortages,” said Strain.
Modifications to Medicaid: Trump has promised to protect Medicaid, the prison health insurance program for Americans with low incomes and disabilities. But the Republicans of the Chamber looked at the program as a possible source of compensation to help pay what Trump calls “the big and beautiful bill” – radical budgetary legislation to extend his 2017 tax reductions. The amount of money that GOP managers indicated that they could withdraw from Medicaid, which now covers around 20% of Americans, were in hundreds of billions of dollars. But the deep cuts are politically heavy.
To generate savings, administration officials sometimes indicated that they were open to at least a few Medicaid adjustments. An idea on the table – Work requirements – would require that adults on Medicaid work or in a kind of vocational training. (Almost two thirds of the beneficiaries of Medicaid aged 19 to 64 already operate.)
Why is it important: In 2024, the uninsured rate was 8.2%, near the lowest of all time, largely due to the expansion of Medicadaid under the affordable care law of 2010. Critics claim that the work requirements are a way to cool the Medicaid rollers, because the paperwork requirements of these programs have proven if expensive that eligible people abandon increased rate not guaranteed. A report from the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the proposed change would reduce coverage by at least 7.7 million in a decade. This leads to higher rates of unpaid care, by putting vulnerable health establishments – think of rural hospitals – in danger.
Kff Health News is a national editorial hall that produces in -depth journalism on health issues and is one of the main KFF operating programs – an independent source of independent research, survey and journalism. Learn more about KFF.
Use our contents
This story can be republished for free (details).
