LIVE NOW: Trump Delivers Remarks on Making Health Technology Great Again
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
an hour ago
- Chicago Tribune
Funding cuts ripple across Northwestern, as faculty urge no deal with Trump
Nearly four months have passed since the Donald Trump administration abruptly froze $790 million in federal funding at Northwestern University, and the school's fragile research infrastructure has been pummeled by cuts. Portions of research and clinical trials have ground to a halt. Labs have been instructed to scrutinize every expense, from equipment to personnel. Some teams are even killing off lab mice because it's cheaper than feeding them and cleaning cages. With university President Michael Schill set to appear again before a congressional committee Tuesday, rumors of a possible deal with the White House have gripped campus. But the situation on-the-ground remains dire, according to faculty and staff. 'Let's say they unfreeze the funds. The damage is done,' said Guillermo Oliver, a professor in the Division of Nephrology and Hypertension. 'Let's be clear, this is not going to be, 'OK, back to business.'' Northwestern never received formal notification of the funding freeze in April, which came amid several federal probes into allegations of antisemitism. The Evanston-based university has been spending about $10 million a week to keep research afloat, faculty told the Tribune in June. That's led officials to pursue a string of belt-tightening measures. Last week, the university eliminated more than 400 positions, half of which were already vacant. A month earlier, officials announced changes to employees' health insurance plans and a hiring freeze. While Northwestern pays out-of-pocket for research, departments have urged scientists to crimp spending. The Feinberg School of Medicine, which receives 70% of the university's research funding, has seen the brunt of those cuts — potentially putting lifesaving work at risk, faculty say. The Oliver Lab at Feinberg studies the biological development of the lymphatic system. Each piecemeal reduction has contributed to an environment of uncertainty among its staff. As the freeze drags on, Oliver isn't sure how long he can maintain bare-bones operations. 'We were asked to cut as many costs as we could, in everything,' Oliver said. 'The stressful question is, 'When will this be over?' We have no idea.' Many Northwestern scientists, including Oliver, utilize genetically engineered mice specifically bred for lab work. But animal costs have had to be reduced, too. 'It was not mandatory,' he said. 'Nobody told us, 'You need to reduce your mouse colony by 50%.' Rather it was, 'Try to reduce as much as you can without major impact to your research.'' Infrastructure for labs and clinical trials takes time to develop, and sudden shifts in resources and personnel can jeopardize years of work. That can't be immediately reversed, researchers say. Scott Budinger, chief of pulmonary and critical care in the department of medicine, has spent more than two decades researching drugs to treat pneumonia. While his team is still able to collect vital patient samples, they've been left untouched in a freezer. 'The work on those new drug targets has virtually stopped … All of that work could be gone in several months,' Budinger said. 'If we start to lose the people and lose the expertise, you can't just step in and rebuild that work.' It's unclear how much longer Northwestern can continue to fund research without reimbursement. A university spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment. Northwestern is among the wealthiest universities in the country, with a $14.3 billion endowment. But the school's business model was built on grants: During its 2023-24 fiscal year, it received $1.05 billion in research funding. Amid the pause, the endowment and donors can only offer so much support. Endowments weren't designed to be rainy-day funds or sitting cash. A large portion of the capital is invested in hedge funds and private equity. Much of the pool is also restricted, meaning the funds are reserved by donors for specific purposes — such as scholarships or academic programs. In a typical year, most universities only draw from their year-to-year earnings at a rate of less than 5% of the total endowment. That uncertainty — coupled with perceived threats to academic freedom — has led some scientists to explore opportunities elsewhere, even outside of the U.S. Faculty members have voiced concerns that a potential exodus of researchers could undermine Northwestern's competitiveness on the global stage. It's an option weighed by Benjamin Thomson, an assistant professor of ophthalmology who said he would consider returning to his home country of Canada. 'I've done some looking at positions,' Thomson said. 'I have no immediate intention of leaving, but it's not something I would necessarily be averse to if the situation were different.' In recent weeks, several Ivy League schools have settled with the Trump administration to restore paused funding. Columbia University, for example, will pay more than $220 million to the federal government and implement several initiatives aimed at addressing antisemitism on campus. The Wall Street Journal reported that Northwestern officials were also in talks with White House. A university spokesperson declined to comment, but rumors of a deal have already rippled through campus. Northwestern's Concerned Faculty Group, which represents hundreds of members, said in a statement last week that a settlement would make the school 'complicit in an assault on institutions of higher education.' The Trump administration has leveraged federal funding to force universities to comply with its agenda, the statement said. 'This is extortion,' said Laura Beth Nielsen, a professor of sociology and member of the group. 'We need to resolve the situation, but not at the expense of academic freedom.' Meanwhile, Schill is set to appear again before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce in a transcribed interview closed to the press Tuesday. When he last appeared before the Republican-led body in May 2024, he was grilled for hours about the campus environment for Jewish students. A committee spokesperson did not directly comment on when or if the transcription might be made public. 'We all agree that if there is an antisemitism problem on campus, that the university is under an obligation to take action to stop it,' said Paul Gowder, a professor of law. 'But we also all agree that this is a pretext.' The situation has left some faculty conflicted. Many are alarmed by the prospect of yielding to federal pressure, but also recognize that an indefinite funding freeze poses serious risks. Melissa Simon, vice chair for research in the department of general obstetrics and gynecology, was one of the highest-funded Northwestern professors through the National Institutes of Health. In May, her research hub, the Center for Health Equity Transformation, was shuttered with just minutes' notice. Simon suspects Northwestern closed the lab to comply with the Trump administration's crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. A few weeks later, she was allowed to resume the center's research under a new name, Elevate Lab. But the whiplash has been draining. 'I'm fighting every day. It has been demoralizing and exhausting,' Simon said. 'But how much will so-called negotiation with Trump help?' Last week, Simon was forced to lay off her program assistant, Chisom Chima, her only staffer not funded by grant money. Both women were devastated. 'It's very heartbreaking, not just to lose a job, but to lose a job working with this team,' Chima said. 'Everyone has been on edge.' Next month, undergraduate students will begin to trickle back to campus. It won't be a typical academic year. When Schill announced the layoffs last week, he called the period of the freeze 'among the most difficult in our institution's 174-year history.' But the message among faculty is clear: The university is at a tipping point for research. 'I think if the freeze were reversed today, we could get things back,' Budinger said. 'I don't think it's too late yet, but time is running out.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
FACT FOCUS: Trump says he's cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That's not possible
Days after he sent letters instructing top pharmaceutical manufacturers to use a 'most favored nation' pricing model for prescription drugs, President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had cut costs by up to 1,500%. But Trump's grandiose claim is mathematically impossible. Here's a closer look at the facts. TRUMP: "You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don't mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.' THE FACTS: This is false. Cutting drug prices by more than 100% would theoretically mean that people are being paid to take medications. The Trump administration has taken steps to lower prescription drug prices, but experts say there's no indication costs have seen such a massive drop. Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the University of Southern California's Schaeffer Center, called Trump's claim 'total fiction' made up by the Republican president. He agreed that it would amount to drug companies paying customers, rather than the other way around. 'I find it really difficult to translate those numbers into some actual estimates that patients would see at the pharmacy counter,' said Mariana Socal, an associate professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University who studies the U.S. pharmaceutical market. She added that Trump's math is 'really hard to follow.' Asked what Trump was using to back up his claim, White House spokesman Kush Desai said: 'It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people.' The White House provided a chart of price differentials for drugs in the U.S. and comparable countries, but did not offer any other evidence. On Sunday, Trump also described cuts to drug prices as a future development, not that already happened. 'So we'll be dropping drug prices,' he said. 'It will start over the next two to three months by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400%.' Prices for most prescription drugs — unbranded generics are the exception — are higher in the U.S. than they are in other high-income countries. This is in large part due to the way drug prices are negotiated in the United States. Trump made his recent appeal in letters to 17 pharmaceutical manufacturers, the White House announced last week. He asked them to reduce costs in the U.S. by matching the lowest prices of prescriptions drugs in other comparably developed countries. Some drugmakers have since indicated that they are open to cutting costs. This move follows an executive order Trump signed in May setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices in the U.S. or face new limits in the future over what the government will pay. The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. It's unclear what — if any — impact the Trump administration's efforts will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance. Socal pointed out that if drug manufacturers had cut costs to the extent Trump claims, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, especially given the heat they've taken over the years for their pricing practices. 'My expectation would be that they would make announcements — public announcements — and that those announcements would come way in advance of the actual effective dates when those price cuts would come into effect,' she said. Joyce agreed that there has been no indication of a substantial cut. 'Not at all, not at all, none whatsoever,' he said. 'And let alone 1,500.' ___ Find AP Fact Checks here:
Associated Press
2 hours ago
- Associated Press
FACT FOCUS: Trump says he's cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That's not possible
Days after he sent letters instructing top pharmaceutical manufacturers to use a 'most favored nation' pricing model for prescription drugs, President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had cut costs by up to 1,500%. But Trump's grandiose claim is mathematically impossible. Here's a closer look at the facts. TRUMP: 'You know, we've cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don't mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.' THE FACTS: This is false. Cutting drug prices by more than 100% would theoretically mean that people are being paid to take medications. The Trump administration has taken steps to lower prescription drug prices, but experts say there's no indication costs have seen such a massive drop. Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the University of Southern California's Schaeffer Center, called Trump's claim 'total fiction' made up by the Republican president. He agreed that it would amount to drug companies paying customers, rather than the other way around. 'I find it really difficult to translate those numbers into some actual estimates that patients would see at the pharmacy counter,' said Mariana Socal, an associate professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University who studies the U.S. pharmaceutical market. She added that Trump's math is 'really hard to follow.' Asked what Trump was using to back up his claim, White House spokesman Kush Desai said: 'It's an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it's an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people.' The White House provided a chart of price differentials for drugs in the U.S. and comparable countries, but did not offer any other evidence. On Sunday, Trump also described cuts to drug prices as a future development, not that already happened. 'So we'll be dropping drug prices,' he said. 'It will start over the next two to three months by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400%.' Prices for most prescription drugs — unbranded generics are the exception — are higher in the U.S. than they are in other high-income countries. This is in large part due to the way drug prices are negotiated in the United States. Trump made his recent appeal in letters to 17 pharmaceutical manufacturers, the White House announced last week. He asked them to reduce costs in the U.S. by matching the lowest prices of prescriptions drugs in other comparably developed countries. Some drugmakers have since indicated that they are open to cutting costs. This move follows an executive order Trump signed in May setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices in the U.S. or face new limits in the future over what the government will pay. The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. It's unclear what — if any — impact the Trump administration's efforts will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance. Socal pointed out that if drug manufacturers had cut costs to the extent Trump claims, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, especially given the heat they've taken over the years for their pricing practices. 'My expectation would be that they would make announcements — public announcements — and that those announcements would come way in advance of the actual effective dates when those price cuts would come into effect,' she said. Joyce agreed that there has been no indication of a substantial cut. 'Not at all, not at all, none whatsoever,' he said. 'And let alone 1,500.' ___ Find AP Fact Checks here:
