NIH reportedly loses two top leaders in two days
Two key staff members at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are reportedly leaving the agency amid ongoing efforts by the Trump administration and Department of Government Efficiency head Elon Musk to drastically cut down the size of the federal workforce.
NIH Principal Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak told staffers in an email Tuesday that he was retiring effective immediately, according to CBS News. Along with being principal deputy director, Tabak also served as the agency's deputy ethics counselor, having been appointed to both roles in 2010.
Tabak temporarily served as acting head of NIH between December 2021 and November 2023, after the institute's former director Francis Collins stepped down.
As CBS reported, Tabak had not been expected to retire until the fall but told a colleague that he felt it was necessary to retire at this time.
Just a day after Tabak's abrupt retirement, it was reported that Michael Lauer, deputy director of the National Institutes of Health's extramural research, will be leaving the agency at the end of the week.
According to STAT, acting NIH director Matthew Memoli informed staff in an email of Lauer's departure, thanking him for his "exemplary service to NIH and the American people."
The Hill has reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services and the White House for comment.
These departures are occurring as the NIH is currently undergoing significant upheaval. Last week the agency issued an order slashing federal funding for research projects, alarming lawmakers, universities and institutions across the country. The order has been stayed, though biomedical researchers remain weary for the future.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
20 minutes ago
- New York Times
The Senate Wants Billions More in Medicaid Cuts, Pinching States and Infuriating Hospitals
The Senate policy bill released Monday would cut billions of dollars more from Medicaid than the earlier, House-passed legislation — in large part by cracking down on a budgeting maneuver used by 49 states that congressional Republicans have called a scam or gimmick. It does this by limiting Medicaid provider taxes, a loophole that states use to collect more federal matching funds for Medicaid, an insurance program for the poor that covers roughly 70 million Americans. For decades, taxing providers like hospitals has been a major part of how states pay Medicaid bills, but this tactic has come under scrutiny in Congress this year as Republicans look for ways to help pay for President Trump's tax cuts. Cutting provider taxes would probably mean funding shortfalls of hundreds of billions of dollars for states over the next decade, leaving them with budget holes to fill. To offset the losses, states would most likely need to explore cutting other services or raising other taxes. In scaling back Medicaid provider taxes, Senate Republicans are pursuing cuts that their House colleagues were hesitant to propose. House members had landed on freezing provider tax rates at current levels instead of reducing them. If the Senate passes its plan for provider taxes, the House and the Senate will have to reconcile their differences. The basic way Medicaid payments work A state pays a hospital $1,000 for a patient's medical expenses. The federal government reimburses the state a share of the amount, in this case 60 percent. $1,000 payment $600 reimbursement State government $400 paid on net Federal government Local hospital How states use provider taxes A state pays a hospital a higher amount, but charges some of it back in taxes, in this case $30. The federal government calculates its share based on the original payment. The state can keep the extra money. $1,030 payment $618 reimbursement $30 tax State government $382 paid on net The tax generates an additional $18 for the state. Federal government Local hospital The basic way Medicaid payments work How states use provider taxes A state pays a hospital $1,000 for a patient's medical expenses. The federal government reimburses the state a share of the amount, in this case 60 percent. A state pays a hospital a higher amount, but charges some of it back in taxes, in this case $30. The federal government calculates its share based on the original payment. The state can keep the extra money. $1,030 payment $1,000 payment $600 reimbursement $618 reimbursement $30 tax State government State government $400 paid on net $382 paid on net The tax generates an additional $18 for the state. Federal government Local hospital Federal government Local hospital The basic way Medicaid payments work A state pays a hospital $1,000 for a patient's medical expenses. The federal government reimburses the state a share of the amount, in this case 60 percent. $1,000 payment $600 reimbursement State government $400 paid on net Federal government Local hospital How states use provider taxes A state pays a hospital a higher amount, but charges some of it back in taxes, in this case $30. The federal government calculates its share based on the original payment. The state can keep the extra money. $1,030 payment $618 reimbursement $30 tax State government $382 paid on net The tax generates an additional $18 for the state. Federal government Local hospital Note: States pay different shares of Medicaid costs. This example illustrates when a state pays 40 percent, a common scenario. The New York Times Estimated share of federal Medicaid funding from hospital and nursing home taxes 0% 10% 20% 30% Wash. Maine Mont. N.D. Minn. Vt. Ore. N.H. Idaho Wis. N.Y. S.D. Mich. Wyo. Conn. Pa. Iowa N.J. Neb. Nev. Ohio Md. Ill. Ind. Utah Colo. Calif. Va. Kan. Mo. Ky. N.C. Tenn. Okla. Ariz. Ark. S.C. N.M. Ala. Ga. Miss. La. Texas Alaska Fla. Hawaii Estimated share of federal Medicaid funding from hospital and nursing home taxes 0% 10% 20% 30% Wash. Maine Mont. N.D. Minn. Vt. Ore. N.H. Idaho Wis. S.D. N.Y. Mass. R.I. Conn. Mich. Wyo. Pa. N.J. Iowa Neb. Nev. Ohio Del. Md. Ill. Ind. Utah Colo. Va. Calif. Mo. Kan. Ky. N.C. Tenn. Okla. Ariz. Ark. N.M. S.C. Ga. Ala. Miss. La. Texas Alaska Fla. Hawaii Source: The Hilltop Institute This map underestimates the effect of provider taxes in the Dakotas, which tax other health care providers, and North Carolina, which recently made major policy changes. The New York Times Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Feeling drained? These ‘battery drainers' are zapping all your energy: study
If you're tired reading this, you're not alone. One in three Americans are drained before the day even starts. And what precious energy they do have is quickly zapped away, according to a survey of 2,000 people which pinpointed what drains Americans' energy the most. Results showed that the pain of being interrupted, being forced to engage in awkward small talk and being on the receiving end of unsolicited advice are some of the biggest 'battery drainers,' according to new research. The survey conducted by Talker Research on behalf of Zipfizz examined the energy levels of 2,000 Americans and asked them to name the things that zap their energy day to day and their social stamina. Dull interactions, even duller weather and worries over finances were among the most common drains. Additional social energy suckers were dealing with office gossip (6%), being subjected to overly personal conversations with coworkers (4%) and colleagues showing you something on their phone (3%). No wonder then a further one in three blamed their jobs for leaving them drained. And it's not just our jobs leaving us drained. The survey also found the biggest hits to our physical energy were lack of quality sleep (42%) and the never-ending cycle of housework (28%). While 56% of participants said they believe staying hydrated plays a key role in their energy levels, the average reported water intake was just 5.3 cups per day, well below the recommended 15.5. And that lack of hydration, sleep and social drainage all take their toll with many Americans reporting crashes during the average American starts to fade by 11:54 a.m. — right before lunch. So how do people power through the dreaded mid-day slump? A quick caffeine fix (25%), turning up the music (15%) or sneaking in a nap (14%) are the go-to energy boosts for getting through the day. Thirteen percent reported exercising or mindful movement, while 8% said they take a break to enjoy the outdoors if they feel their energy crash during the day. 'This survey really shows how quickly our energy can take a hit — even before lunchtime,' said Marcela Kanalos, spokesperson for Zipfizz. 'From housework to weather, it's the small, constant drains that add up. Knowing how to recover from that dip can make all the difference.' And when the weekend finally hits? For 48%, it doesn't bring the relief they hoped for — they're still feeling wiped out. More than a quarter (28%) believe that making small habit changes, like drinking more water, can have a significant impact on how energized they feel. When asked what they'd do if they could reclaim just one hour of daily energy, their answers revealed what many are missing most: time to unwind. The top choice was simply relaxing (15%), followed by being physically active or exercising (14%) —and ironically — getting more sleep (13%). Others said they would spend more quality time with friends or family (10%) and catch up on chores (9%). 'When people are running on empty before noon and the weekend doesn't offer the recovery they hoped for, it's a sign that quick fixes aren't enough,' added Kanalos. 'Real energy comes from small, consistent choices — like better sleep, hydration and meaningful downtime — that add up over time. We don't just need to push through the day; we need to learn how to recharge in ways that actually last.' TOP 10 BIGGEST SOCIAL BATTERY ZAPPERS Being interrupted or talked over (15%) Awkward small talk (11%) Customer service interactions (9%) Talking to strangers (9%) Unsolicited advice (8%) Office gossip (6%) Group video calls (4%) Overly personal conversations with coworkers (4%) Coworkers showing you something on their phone (3%) Networking events (3%) BIGGEST ENERGY SUCKERS Lack of quality sleep (42%) Housework/chores (28%) Finance worries (26%) Bad weather (20%) Dull social interactions (19%)Talker Research surveyed 2,000 Americans; the survey was commissioned by Zipfizz and administered and conducted online by Talker Research between May 1 – May 5, 2025.
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
RFK Jr. plans crackdown on pharma ads in threat to $10 billion market
The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending. Although the U.S. is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it's instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren't authorized to speak publicly on the matter. The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad - likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive - or removing the industry's ability to deduct direct-to-consumer advertising as a business expense for tax purposes, these people said. The discussions are ongoing and plans could still change before the agency undertakes any action, they said. Limiting pharma ads would be a major win for Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's long wanted to more strictly regulate how medicines are promoted. He's said he believes Americans consume more drugs than people in other countries because of the U.S. drug companies' ability to directly advertise to consumers. The new policies could threaten a key source of revenue to advertising and media companies, as well as the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. Companies spent $10.8 billion in 2024 on direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising in total, according to a report from the advertising data firm MediaRadar. AbbVie Inc. and Pfizer Inc. were particularly big spenders. AbbVie alone spent $2 billion on direct-to-consumer drug ads last year, primarily on advertising for the company's anti-inflammatory drugs Skyrizi and Rinvoq. The medicines brought in more than $5 billion for AbbVie in the first quarter of 2025. "We are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers," HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said in a written statement, adding that no final decisions have been made. AbbVie shares fell as much as 2.3% on Tuesday, their biggest drop in a month. Pfizer shares slipped as much as 1.7%. Ad reversal Before the loosening of advertising regulations by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997, U.S. pharma companies had to list all possible side effects for a medication if they wanted to mention which condition the drug being advertised was intended to treat. Reading out a list of side effects took so long it drove up the cost for air time and meant there wasn't as much broadcast advertising as there is today, said Jim Potter, executive director of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication, a trade association. The FDA change allowed ads to disclose fewer side effects and also allowed companies to direct customers to talk to their doctors, call a telephone number, or visit a website to get more information on the advertised drugs. In the following years, TV pharma ad spending surged. In 2024, 59% of the pharmaceutical industry's spend was on television advertising, making pharma the third-highest spending industry on television ads, according to MediaRadar. If the Trump administration brings back some of those restrictions, broadcast ads may become more "impractical," according to Meredith Rosenthal, a professor of health economics and policy at Harvard University's school of public health, who has studied the impacts of pharma advertising. More specific drug ads could have benefits for patients who might be prompted to talk to their doctor for the first time about a medical condition like depression or erectile dysfunction, Rosenthal said. However, there are also drawbacks. Drug ads can be used to drive sales of expensive, brand-name medicines when lower-cost generic alternatives may be appropriate, she said. When asked if a crackdown on ads would hurt its business, AbbVie chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart told analysts at a conference in May that the company "would have to pivot." He said the company could shift its investment to "disease awareness" or through advertising on digital channels rather than through mass media. Tax changes The Trump administration could also work with Congress to prohibit pharmaceutical companies from deducting direct-to-consumer advertising costs as business expenses on their taxes. House lawmakers discussed the idea in talks over President Donald Trump's tax cut legislation, but ultimately left the measure out of the bill. The Senate omitted it as well. HHS has been supportive of those discussions, according to a person familiar with the talks. Kennedy has also said publicly he's having conversations about tax changes within the administration, telling Senator Josh Hawley during a May hearing on Capitol Hill that he expected an announcement on the matter "within the next few weeks." Joe Grogan, who served as White House Domestic Policy Council chief during President Donald Trump's first term and now consults for health-care companies, said it's unclear whether lawmakers will have an appetite to crack down on the pharmaceutical industry further given Trump's tariff threats and demands to dramatically lower drug prices. Meanwhile, the pharmaceutical industry has warned that allowing lawmakers to regulate advertising by changing the tax code to single out pharmaceutical companies could set a dangerous precedent and raise the specter of lawsuits. Other industries also can deduct advertising costs as business expenses, heightening concerns they could be targeted next. "If you choose a sector, if one becomes a target, everyone becomes a target," said Potter of the Coalition for Healthcare Communication. The National Association of Broadcasters, which represents companies that own radio and television stations, said the group opposes restrictions on direct-to-consumer advertising, and that revenue from ads allows local broadcasters to staff newsrooms and invest in weather technology. "Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns," NAB spokesperson Alex Siciliano said. (With assistance from Madison Muller.) Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
