logo
AAMC Director on NIH cuts: "Health Will Suffer"

AAMC Director on NIH cuts: "Health Will Suffer"

Newsweek21 hours ago

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
This is a preview of Access Health—Tap here to get this newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.
I'm back from my week-long stint in the Mediterranean, which was spent marveling over fresh tomatoes, velvety olive oil and coastlines worthy of a storybook. Although my managing editor may have been skeptical, I truly meant it when I told him I was happy to be back at work. There's a lot going on in U.S. health care right now, and even ~4,700 nautical miles of distance couldn't get the news off my mind.
One conversation in particular has been consuming my thoughts over the past several days. On May 27, I spoke with Dr. Sarah Rossetti, associate professor of biomedical informatics and nursing at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York City. The government recently cancelled $400 million in federal funding to the university—bringing her 15-year research project to an abrupt halt.
Rossetti had been working on the CONCERN Study, which had successfully developed an AI model to detect patient deterioration in the hospital setting. The model could identify risk two days earlier than other models that had attempted to predict bad outcomes; CONCERN differentiated itself by tapping into nurses' practices and detecting patterns of concern in their documentation.
The study had been receiving funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for about nine years, and had just published its largest research paper to date in Nature Medicine—demonstrating that throughout a multi-site clinical trial, the AI model had decreased mortality risk by 35 percent, cut sepsis risk by 7.5 percent and shortened length of stay by more than half of a day.
Then, on a Monday night in March—at around 10 p.m.—the government email came through, alerting Rossetti's team that their funding was slashed.
The email did not give any reasoning or provide clarity on the cuts, Rossetti said. She thought that the word "bias," an important scientific consideration for the evaluation of AI models, may have been confused for a DEI concept and flagged by the Trump administration.
"There's really nothing controversial in the work that we're doing, the methods we're using," she told me. Newsweek reached out to the NIH on Wednesday afternoon and will update the web version of this newsletter if we receive a comment.
Although the research team is exploring new funding avenues, it won't happen overnight, Rossetti added. It takes a long time to submit one grant proposal, and it took three tries to get the original NIH funding for the CONCERN Study. Leaders fear that they won't be able to sustain their teams in the interim—and not just at Columbia, but at academic medical centers across the country.
Yesterday, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) put out a report addressing the cumulative impact of the federal government's actions on academic medicine. So far in 2025, the administration has terminated 1,183 grants and $2 billion of biomedical research funding from U.S. medical schools and hospitals. It also flagged that 50 percent of medical students' loans could be in jeopardy, and critical services that are often provided by academic medical centers—like burn centers, psychiatric services and trauma centers—could be at risk.
"The infrastructure that is required to keep an academic medical center moving forward relies on a partnership with the federal government that is closely linked to research, to medical education and to clinical care," Heather Pierce, Senior Director for Science Policy at the AAMC, told me. "And so as different parts of the mission are impacted, you have to rely on other [parts]. That changes an institution's focus and what they can staff, what they can move forward. All of those specialty areas are potentially at risk."
There's no substitute for that partnership, Pierce said (as so many other health care executives and researchers have agreed).
I've begun conceptualizing all this as a game of Jenga. Yes, our health care system is historically resilient. Yes, our country's best leaders and brightest minds are at its helm. But there are only so many blocks you can pull before the whole tower tumbles. With each project like Rossetti's that is wriggled from the infrastructure, the foundation becomes increasingly unstable. And with every executive order and every Congressional decision, health care leaders' own moves get more precarious.
You can view the full AAMC report here—and read on to the Pulse Check section for more of my interview with Pierce.
Essential Reading
Hospitals are increasingly standing up digital command centers to improve efficiency and oversight of both in-person and virtual services. In my latest deep dive, I connected with four hospitals to learn how these NASA-esque hubs are improving their operations. Get the scoop here.
HHS has removed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices , which is responsible for advising the CDC on vaccine safety and protocol. The 17 sitting members were appointed by the Biden administration. In a HHS news release, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the move was "prioritizing the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or anti-vaccine agenda."
, which is responsible for advising the CDC on vaccine safety and protocol. The 17 sitting members were appointed by the Biden administration. In a HHS news release, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said the move was "prioritizing the restoration of public trust above any specific pro- or anti-vaccine agenda." But health care leaders and clinicians have expressed grave concerns about the unprecedented action—and its potential impacts on immunization schedules and vaccine accessibility. The director of Brown University's Pandemic Center laid out the possible consequences in an interview with Scientific American.
The Coalition for Health AI (CHAI) has partnered up with the Joint Commission to co-develop AI playbooks, tools and a new certification program for U.S. hospitals and health systems. Their first guidance will be available in the fall of 2025, followed by AI certification. Read more about the partnership here.
to co-develop AI playbooks, tools and a new certification program for U.S. hospitals and health systems. Their first guidance will be available in the fall of 2025, followed by AI certification. Read more about the partnership here. If you're interested in learning more about CHAI's work, I encourage you to watch Newsweek's recent webinar on AI governance, featuring CEO Dr. Brian Anderson.
UnitedHealth Group's saga continues as the health care giant considers bids that would allow it to exit from Latin America, Reuters reported on Monday. The company lost more than $8 billion in the market last year and has been trying to leave it since 2022—but the situation has grown more urgent in recent months amid leadership shakeups, criminal probes and public discontent, per two unnamed sources.
Pulse Check
Heather Pierce is the senior director for science policy at the Association of American Medical Colleges.
Heather Pierce is the senior director for science policy at the Association of American Medical Colleges.
AAMC
Usually, I do a Pulse Check with a CEO in the industry—but this week, I felt that the AAMC's report deserved some extra attention. Below, find a portion of my interview with Heather Pierce, Senior Director for Science Policy at the AAMC.
Editor's Note: Responses have been edited for length and clarity.
Heather, the report details a number of critical programs that academic medical centers rely on—and that are currently at risk of being cut by the federal government. When you talk to your member organizations about all of these issues, what are their reactions? What are their primary concerns right now?
The mission of academic medicine is to improve the health of all.
Leaders of institutions are looking at these changes, these actions that are impacting their institutions—some in ways that they can understand and calculate, and some that at this point are still highly speculative. But when put together, [these changes] will cause those institutions to have to make difficult choices about where they focus their resources and attention.
It's not just about the institution, because those institutions, of course, have an impact on their local economy. They're usually main economic drivers of the area around them. When we look at the cumulative effect across all institutions, we realize that ultimately, health will suffer and health will not improve in the way that it could. The research that takes place at one institution has potential benefits for the individuals that are there, that are involved in those clinical trials and other research. But the results of that research, of course, are not limited in any way to the patients of that institution or that local area or that state, but are used to develop clinical guidelines and best practices that are implemented nationwide. All of that is at risk now.
Have your members been able to forecast the potential impacts of cuts in each of these areas, from Medicaid to scientific research? Are they making any proactive changes or taking preventative measures?
They're all engaged in predictive modeling, trying to figure out exactly what is happening and what the impact would be for each of them. At this moment, it differs from institution to institution. Some institutions have been directly targeted.
Some have seen bigger cuts than others to their research mission, and many have been forced to make really difficult and devastating decisions about their future workforce—how many graduates should they be taking on next year if half of their NIH grants are cut? What happens with the postdoctoral scholars that are here on international visas, or those that are that are helping to contribute to labs whose funding is in question? Those kinds of decisions are being made on a day-to-day basis, while institutions are doing their best to preserve the current and future generations of physicians, scientists and educators.
C-Suite Shuffles
Allison Viramontes is the new CFO of Jupiter Medical Center . She joins the independent Florida health system from Mayo Clinic Arizona, where she most recently served as CFO.
is the new of . She joins the independent Florida health system from Mayo Clinic Arizona, where she most recently served as CFO. Sutter Health , based in Sacramento, California, has named Dr. Ashley Beecy its chief AI officer . She previously worked as medical director of AI operations at NewYork-Presbyterian.
, based in Sacramento, California, has named its . She previously worked as medical director of AI operations at NewYork-Presbyterian. Dr. John Whyte has stepped down from his role as chief medical officer at WebMD to become CEO of the American Medical Association.
Executive Edge
Sach Jain is the founder and CEO of Carrum Health.
Sach Jain is the founder and CEO of Carrum Health.
Carrum Health
Sach Jain is the founder and CEO of Carrum Health, a value-based care platform providing specialty care through a Centers of Excellence (COE) network. Under Jain's leadership, the company has grown to include more than 1,100 COEs since 2014 and has helped employers curb the cost of specialty care procedures by up to 45 percent.
In addition to leading Carrum Health and navigating the complicated payer-provider ecosystem, Jain is a parent, and travels frequently to headline executive roundtables and industry conferences. This week, I asked how he maintains healthy habits and balance within his schedule.
He told me that he works to incorporate lifestyle habits across three pillars: nutrition, exercise, and mental health. Here's what he does to keep them all in check:
Nutrition: "I start most days—five or six days a week—with oatmeal. It's become a reliable routine. For lunch during the workweek, I go for salads as much as possible. I tend to eat small portions overall. When I travel and it's difficult to avoid fancy meals, eating small portions is really helpful. Dinner is usually home-cooked during the week, and we often will eat out on weekends. I call it collecting points during the week and spending them on the weekend. I also avoid eating after 8 p.m. to ensure I give myself the best chances of a restful, full night's sleep. I love my wine but limit alcohol to just one drink a week, even in social settings and while traveling."
"I start most days—five or six days a week—with oatmeal. It's become a reliable routine. For lunch during the workweek, I go for salads as much as possible. I tend to eat small portions overall. When I travel and it's difficult to avoid fancy meals, eating small portions is really helpful. Dinner is usually home-cooked during the week, and we often will eat out on weekends. I call it collecting points during the week and spending them on the weekend. I also avoid eating after 8 p.m. to ensure I give myself the best chances of a restful, full night's sleep. I love my wine but limit alcohol to just one drink a week, even in social settings and while traveling." Exercise: "I run about three times a week for about an hour— usually along the coast in San Diego. I typically use that time to listen to podcasts and that's my best trick to tune out from work. We also have a basic gym at home that I use a few times a week, focusing on weights and stretching. On days I don't run, I usually take a long walk after dinner. I also try to hit a few tennis balls when the schedule allows."
"I run about three times a week for about an hour— usually along the coast in San Diego. I typically use that time to listen to podcasts and that's my best trick to tune out from work. We also have a basic gym at home that I use a few times a week, focusing on weights and stretching. On days I don't run, I usually take a long walk after dinner. I also try to hit a few tennis balls when the schedule allows." Mental Health: "I give myself digital silence from Friday evening to Sunday morning—no emails or Slack. Sunday afternoons are for planning, reflection, and deep work. I've followed this practice for over a decade. It started during my consulting days when Monday [to] Thursday were always travel days, so you had to get your ducks in a row on Sunday before you took off on Monday morning. I spend time with my family in the mornings before school, and we eat dinner together most nights. I make sure that Saturdays and Sunday mornings are fully reserved for family and friends.
"I give myself digital silence from Friday evening to Sunday morning—no emails or Slack. Sunday afternoons are for planning, reflection, and deep work. I've followed this practice for over a decade. It started during my consulting days when Monday [to] Thursday were always travel days, so you had to get your ducks in a row on Sunday before you took off on Monday morning. I spend time with my family in the mornings before school, and we eat dinner together most nights. I make sure that Saturdays and Sunday mornings are fully reserved for family and friends. I avoid days packed with non-stop meetings—they can be exhausting and unproductive. As Carrum has grown, my role has also evolved. I'm more selective now about where I devote time. I try to shoot for fewer but more meaningful meetings, as much as possible."
This is a preview of Access Health—Tap here to get this newsletter delivered straight to your inbox.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

6 simple ways to protect your hearing now before it's too late, according to experts
6 simple ways to protect your hearing now before it's too late, according to experts

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

6 simple ways to protect your hearing now before it's too late, according to experts

Hearing loss is one of the most common conditions affecting older adults, with about one in three Americans between 65 and 74 affected, according to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). While some of this loss is due to the hair cells in the inner ears breaking down with age and not picking up vibrations as well, per WebMD, there are some risk factors that can be controlled with behavior modifications. Making small changes now can help protect your ears and hearing later in life, experts advise. Below are some practical tips you can start implementing today. Common Aging Symptom Could Worsen Loneliness In Seniors Whether it's a crowded concert, heavy traffic or the constant hum of power tools, repeated exposure to high noise levels is known to cause permanent damage to the delicate structures in the inner ear. One of the most effective ways to protect your hearing as you age is to limit your exposure to these loud environments, the NIH states. Read On The Fox News App Even small adjustments, like lowering the volume on your headphones or taking quiet breaks during a noisy event, can make a big difference over time. Damage to the inner ear can happen long before it shows up on a hearing test, according to the NIH, which means prevention is key. When loud situations are unavoidable, and you expect to be exposed for more than a few minutes, experts recommend wearing ear protection, such as foam earplugs or noise-canceling earmuffs. Foam earplugs are an affordable, easy-to-carry option that reduce noise by 15 to 30 decibels, WebMD states. Earmuffs, which cover the entire ear, offer similar protection and can be worn with earplugs for added defense. Some earplugs are designed to reduce sound evenly across all frequencies, making them ideal for musicians or anyone who wants clear but quieter audio. Just like dental cleanings or eye exams, regular hearing checkups are an important part of maintaining overall health. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that adults aged 50 through 64 should have their hearing screened by an audiologist every five years. Hearing exams are particularly important for those who have a family history of hearing loss, notice difficulty hearing conversations, have a high degree of noise exposure, often hear ringing in the ears or have no previous testing history. Your healthcare provider will assess how well your hearing is functioning and check for any early signs of hearing loss. Women May Hear Better Than Men, New Study Suggests "Screening doesn't always mean undergoing a full hearing test," Lindsay Creed, a Maryland audiologist and associate director of audiology practices at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA), told Fox News Digital. "It can start with a few simple questions from your doctor during a routine physical, or even a short questionnaire as a first step." Smoking doesn't just affect your lungs and heart — it can also harm your hearing. According to a study conducted by the NIH, current smokers are 61% more likely to experience prevalent hearing loss compared to non-smokers. 'I'm A Neurologist — Here's Why Dementia Is Rising And How To Reduce Your Risk' The good news? Quitting makes a difference. Former smokers who quit for longer than five years reduced their risk to nearly as low as individuals who have never smoked, the same study found. Although hearing loss is common with age, it's not the only auditory issue. According to the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons), conditions like tinnitus, which often peaks between age 60 and 69, can also develop. Tinnitus causes persistent sounds such as ringing, hissing, buzzing or whooshing in the ears. Most cases are linked to sensorineural hearing loss, the type that typically occurs with age, the American Tinnitus Association notes. While there's no cure, various treatments can help reduce the impact of symptoms. Another condition that becomes more common with age is benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), which causes brief but intense episodes of dizziness, according to Mayo Clinic. This occurs when tiny calcium crystals in the inner ear shift out of place. Click Here To Sign Up For Our Health Newsletter Audiologist Lindsay Creed noted that head trauma is usually the cause in younger people, but in those over 50, natural age-related changes in the inner ear are more likely the culprit. Once someone experiences BPPV, future episodes become more likely. The condition can often be treated with a simple in-office maneuver performed by a medical professional to reposition the crystals, although Creed advises against attempting it at home without guidance. Many drugs are known to cause impaired hearing, including some cancer medications and antibiotics, according to WebMD. For more Health articles, visit If you take a prescription medication, experts recommend checking with your physician to ensure that it isn't known to impact ear article source: 6 simple ways to protect your hearing now before it's too late, according to experts

Volunteer Track The $10 Billion Blow To American Science
Volunteer Track The $10 Billion Blow To American Science

Forbes

time2 hours ago

  • Forbes

Volunteer Track The $10 Billion Blow To American Science

Thousands of research grants issues by the NIH and NSF have been terminated under the Trump ... More administration In early 2025, as reports of mass grant terminations at NIH and NSF rippled across the scientific community, two researchers stepped in to provide what was missing: a comprehensive, verifiable record of what was being lost. Noam Ross, an ecologist and data scientist, began digging through government databases to see whether the terminations could be tracked. Scott Delaney, an epidemiologist and lawyer, opened a public spreadsheet to crowdsource reports from affected scientists. Their efforts soon merged into what is now the most comprehensive public record of science funding terminations in the United States: Grant Watch. Grant Watch is a volunteer-run effort to track the termination of federal research grants, specifically those issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Since its inception, the project has compiled data on nearly 4,000 grants. According to Grant Watch's most recent weekly report, NIH alone accounts for approximately $3.2 billion in 'lost funding'—defined as funding awarded but not paid out due to terminations. However, Ross estimates that across both NIH and NSF, the total value of terminated grants exceeds $10 billion, including both already-spent funds and future support that will no longer be realized. Roughly half of that amount represents sunk costs for work already begun; the other half consists of future funding that will now never materialize. The economic value of basic research is substantial: federal science funding consistently yields returns that far exceed its costs. In that sense, it is one of the rare public investments that effectively pays for itself. If the current budget proposal is enacted, the estimated $10 billion in terminated grants would translate into significantly greater losses in future productivity, innovation, and economic growth. The scope of the terminations is unprecedented, and that is what prompted Ross, Delaney and their colleagues to start collecting data. 'We sort of stumbled into doing this. Scott and I, and not just us, each started something independently and somewhat joined forces. Suddenly we have a code base and a website, a growing team and a Signal hotline, and now it was cited by a federal judge from the bench.' What began as spreadsheets and amateur sleuthing now underpins lawsuits from organizations like the ACLU, feeds investigative reporting by national news outlets like the Atlantic and the New York Times, and has been cited in federal court filings. The team—which also includes data scientists Anthony Barente and Emma Mairson and a growing team of volunteers—gathers information from public databases, whistleblowers, and grant recipients themselves, who can submit documentation through web forms. They vet each case, verify grant IDs and award data, and attempt to match submissions with official government records. Selected NIH grants identified by Grant Watch as terminated, excerpted from the complaint filed in ... More American Public Health Association et al. v. National Institutes of Health et al., U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:25-cv-10787, filed April 2, 2025). The group operates without institutional funding. 'We are in some conversations with funders to just get enough to bring in someone for a day and a half a week to help with back-end database and website maintenance stuff, so we can focus on more investigations and outreach. But so far no one has paid for anything,' Ross said. Ross, who also works on infectious disease forecasting and serves as executive director of rOpenSci, a project that focuses on improving the R programming language, sees Grant Watch as a kind of data journalism project—one that enables rather than replaces traditional reporting. 'We can't tell all the try to present the information as richly and with as much context as possible so that others can.' That model is working. In just a few months, Grant Watch has become an essential resource for understanding the rapid dismantling of American scientific infrastructure. While official agency reports are often incomplete or internally contradictory, Grant Watch cross-references its data, flags discrepancies, and updates entries as new information becomes available. When asked why anyone should trust the data that Grant Watch is producing, Ross replied: 'My first and favorite reason is that scientists are very quick to tell us if we are wrong about their stuff. We have made mistakes, but we've been told immediately about them every time.' Despite its technical complexity, the project is ultimately motivated by a basic civic concern: transparency. The federal government is not just reducing science budgets; it is actively terminating grants, in some cases midstream, without clear justification or process. The result is not only the loss of valuable research but also a profound disruption to the scientific enterprise itself—students without funding, labs disbanded, data lost. And while the political motivations remain murky, the operational reality is plain to see. As Ross put it: 'We can't tell all the stories. But we can make sure no one can say they didn't know.'

These states have the highest rates of dementia in the U.S., new study finds
These states have the highest rates of dementia in the U.S., new study finds

Yahoo

time3 hours ago

  • Yahoo

These states have the highest rates of dementia in the U.S., new study finds

Dementia affects more than 6 million Americans and accounts for more than 100,000 deaths each year, according to the National Institutes of Health. Further, researchers estimate that 42% of Americans over 55 will eventually develop dementia—and that an aging U.S. population could cause the number of new dementia cases per year to double by 2060. Now, researchers at the University of California San Francisco have identified the U.S. regions, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where dementia occurs most often. The large and comprehensive study, published in JAMA Neurology, examined data on more than 12.6 million veterans 65 and older enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration system; only 2% were women. Researchers found the highest incidence in the Southeast (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida) and the lowest in the Mid-Atlantic states (Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, New Jersey, Washington D.C.). Further, using the low Mid-Atlantic region for comparison, dementia incidence was: 25% higher in the Southeast (Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippi) 23% higher in the Northwest (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington) 23% higher Rocky Mountains (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) 18% higher in the South (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas) 13% in the Southwest (Arizona, California, Hawaiʻi, and Nevada) 12% higher in the South Atlantic (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida) 12% higher in the Midwest (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska) 7% higher in the Northeast (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, and New York) 7% higher in the Great Lakes (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin) Regional variation may be influenced by several factors, the study notes, pointing to prior research which suggests demographic factors including sex, race, ethnicity, and education level impact the risk of dementia across populations. The prevalence and management of cardiovascular disease and related risk factors, known to increase risk of dementia and cognitive decline, vary across the country. 'Rurality of residence may also play a role,' wrote the researchers, 'with studies showing greater dementia and cognitive impairment among rural adults, possibly due to health care access or poverty.' The results, they add, 'underscore the influence of regionally patterned risk factors or diagnostic practices, highlighting the importance of tailored health care strategies, public health initiatives, and policy reforms.' The varied findings highlight the need for targeted health care planning, public health interventions, and policy development—as well as more research. 'Quality of education, early life conditions, and environmental exposures may be among those factors,' lead author Christina Dintica, PhD, said in a news release. But the next important step, she said, is to investigate the factors driving these differences. More on dementia: It's not just forgetfulness: 8 early warning signs of dementia Marriage has a surprising link to dementia risk, new study finds Paying attention to these 14 risk factors can reduce your risk of dementia, science says This story was originally featured on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store