Tariffs are raising health care costs and putting patients at risk
Lately, my bi-weekly calls with my 24-year-old daughter, a medical assistant preparing for med school, are starting to sound more like supply chain audits. She tells me which items are running low at her clinic and how the team is scrambling to provide quality care to patients.
Having been raised by a parent who managed global supply chains, she knows these aren't just inventory issues — they are cracks in a fragile health care system now under further strain from President Trump's tariffs and the uncertainty surrounding them.
Last year alone, the U.S. imported more than $75 billion in medical devices and supplies. While headlines have focused on potentially higher costs for pharmaceuticals and high-tech medical equipment, the more urgent and often overlooked concern is the availability of basic, everyday lifesaving supplies. Gloves, syringes, sterile water, IV fluids and even diapers may seem mundane, but they are the lifeblood of clinical care. Hospitals spend approximately 25 percent of their budget on these high-volume items.
Most of these essentials are imported. For example, two-thirds of non-disposable face masks and 94 percent of plastic gloves used in U.S. health care settings come from China. Already impacted by tariffs implemented last year to counter low-cost imports, these products are now becoming even more expensive.
Enteral syringes used to deliver medication or nutrition through feeding tubes are now subject to a staggering 245 percent tariff, according to one group purchasing organization. If trade tensions continue to escalate, we could see a return to pandemic-era supply shortages — or worse.
As hospitals prepare for these impacts, it's their patients who will bear the repercussions. The American Hospital Association recently reported that 82 percent of health care leaders expect tariff-related price hikes to increase hospital costs by at least 15 percent within six months. One major health system in Washington projected that tariffs could increase annual costs by $10 to $25 million.
With Medicaid reimbursement rates set by the government and private insurance reimbursement rates held in place by contracts, hospitals can't easily pass on these increases. Instead, they absorb the costs and find other cuts, like reducing staffing or delaying upgrades. That could mean longer wait times, postponed procedures and ultimately, worse outcomes for patients.
Rural hospitals and community providers already operating on razor-thin margins will feel these burdens most acutely. Close to 200 rural hospitals have closed in the past two decades, and nearly 700, or close to one-third of all additional rural hospitals, are at risk of closing in the near future.
When policymakers impose sweeping trade measures without fully considering downstream effects, the entire health care system suffers the consequences. The disruption often costs more than the policy itself, in both dollars and diminished patient care.
Health care policy is essential for a productive economy, which is the main goal of the president's tariffs. Medical supplies should be exempted from tariffs. This would help to ensure more consistent pricing and ensure Americans have access to the health care essentials they need.
Policymakers can also help bring manufacturing for some of these products back home by investing in more public-private partnerships and supporting infrastructure and workforce development to encourage companies to make these goods in the U.S. Finally, the federal and state governments can reengineer the procurement processes for Medicare and Medicaid, and enact measures to ensure more efficient practices in the private sector to enable competition and fair prices.
Pharmacy benefit managers and Group Purchasing Organizations need to work on behalf of the patients, hospitals and clinics to better manage costs, similar to processes in other supply chain systems.
Overall, policymakers must understand that while tariffs may shift economic leverage, they also shift risk onto patients.
My daughter is learning this lesson on the front lines. She went into medicine to deliver care. Lately, and too often, she's just delivering bad news.
Jack Buffington is Supply Chain Management Professor at the University of Denver.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Tariffs are raising health care costs and putting patients at risk
Lately, my bi-weekly calls with my 24-year-old daughter, a medical assistant preparing for med school, are starting to sound more like supply chain audits. She tells me which items are running low at her clinic and how the team is scrambling to provide quality care to patients. Having been raised by a parent who managed global supply chains, she knows these aren't just inventory issues — they are cracks in a fragile health care system now under further strain from President Trump's tariffs and the uncertainty surrounding them. Last year alone, the U.S. imported more than $75 billion in medical devices and supplies. While headlines have focused on potentially higher costs for pharmaceuticals and high-tech medical equipment, the more urgent and often overlooked concern is the availability of basic, everyday lifesaving supplies. Gloves, syringes, sterile water, IV fluids and even diapers may seem mundane, but they are the lifeblood of clinical care. Hospitals spend approximately 25 percent of their budget on these high-volume items. Most of these essentials are imported. For example, two-thirds of non-disposable face masks and 94 percent of plastic gloves used in U.S. health care settings come from China. Already impacted by tariffs implemented last year to counter low-cost imports, these products are now becoming even more expensive. Enteral syringes used to deliver medication or nutrition through feeding tubes are now subject to a staggering 245 percent tariff, according to one group purchasing organization. If trade tensions continue to escalate, we could see a return to pandemic-era supply shortages — or worse. As hospitals prepare for these impacts, it's their patients who will bear the repercussions. The American Hospital Association recently reported that 82 percent of health care leaders expect tariff-related price hikes to increase hospital costs by at least 15 percent within six months. One major health system in Washington projected that tariffs could increase annual costs by $10 to $25 million. With Medicaid reimbursement rates set by the government and private insurance reimbursement rates held in place by contracts, hospitals can't easily pass on these increases. Instead, they absorb the costs and find other cuts, like reducing staffing or delaying upgrades. That could mean longer wait times, postponed procedures and ultimately, worse outcomes for patients. Rural hospitals and community providers already operating on razor-thin margins will feel these burdens most acutely. Close to 200 rural hospitals have closed in the past two decades, and nearly 700, or close to one-third of all additional rural hospitals, are at risk of closing in the near future. When policymakers impose sweeping trade measures without fully considering downstream effects, the entire health care system suffers the consequences. The disruption often costs more than the policy itself, in both dollars and diminished patient care. Health care policy is essential for a productive economy, which is the main goal of the president's tariffs. Medical supplies should be exempted from tariffs. This would help to ensure more consistent pricing and ensure Americans have access to the health care essentials they need. Policymakers can also help bring manufacturing for some of these products back home by investing in more public-private partnerships and supporting infrastructure and workforce development to encourage companies to make these goods in the U.S. Finally, the federal and state governments can reengineer the procurement processes for Medicare and Medicaid, and enact measures to ensure more efficient practices in the private sector to enable competition and fair prices. Pharmacy benefit managers and Group Purchasing Organizations need to work on behalf of the patients, hospitals and clinics to better manage costs, similar to processes in other supply chain systems. Overall, policymakers must understand that while tariffs may shift economic leverage, they also shift risk onto patients. My daughter is learning this lesson on the front lines. She went into medicine to deliver care. Lately, and too often, she's just delivering bad news. Jack Buffington is Supply Chain Management Professor at the University of Denver. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Don't cut off Medicaid for people in jail awaiting trial
Every day across this country, thousands of people presumed innocent are locked up awaiting trial. For many of them — particularly those battling substance use disorders or mental illness — that jail cell is more than just a loss of freedom. It often comes with the loss of health care coverage. In many states, Medicaid and other health care benefits are suspended or terminated the moment the patient is booked into jail. This policy puts lives at risk and creates gaps in care. And for those of us who have lived through addiction or worked alongside people in recovery, we know just how dangerous that gap can be. Our prison and jail systems need the Due Process Continuity of Care Act, because it will help maintain Medicaid coverage during pretrial incarceration. It's up to Congress to follow through and pass this important piece of legislation, to shift from a model that prioritizes severe punishment to one that prioritizes care and continuity. People are struggling and deserve a chance to get better, not get worse, simply because they were arrested. The link between incarceration and behavioral health is no coincidence. So many people end up in jail not because they're dangerous, but because they're living with untreated mental health challenges or deep in addiction and haven't gotten the help they need. And the damage doesn't stop at the jail door. When people are released, often without any plan to restart their medical benefits or reconnect to care, they walk right back into the same instability, only now with deeper trauma and fewer resources. It's no surprise that the risk of overdose skyrockets after release. Studies show people are up to 129 times more likely to die of a drug overdose in the first two weeks after leaving jail or prison. I've seen firsthand the deadly consequences when someone is locked up pretrial and loses access to their medications, therapy or support systems. People are in withdrawal. They suffer in silence and spiral without the care they relied on outside those walls. Our jails, already under-resourced and overwhelmed, have become the frontlines of a behavioral health crisis they were never built to manage. They're acting as detox centers and psychiatric hospitals by default, and that's not just unsustainable, it's inhumane. Keeping health care coverage active during pretrial incarceration isn't just the right thing to do morally, it's smart policy. It prevents needless suffering, reduces recidivism, and eases the burden on emergency services and hospitals. It helps people transition from jail back into their communities with the support they need to stay healthy and free. And ultimately, it saves money by keeping people out of crisis and out of the revolving door of the criminal legal system. Let's be clear: taking health care away from someone who hasn't yet been convicted of a crime is not justice. It's a systemic failure. If we truly believe in second chances, if we believe in treating addiction and mental illness as health issues, not criminal ones, then we have to make sure that care doesn't stop at the jailhouse door. Health care is a lifeline. Let's stop cutting that lifeline when people need it most. John Bowman is Kentucky senior campaign organizer. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Fast Company
an hour ago
- Fast Company
‘We dissent': NIH scientists sign letter criticizing Trump's cuts in public health research
In his confirmation hearings to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya pledged his openness to views that might conflict with his own. 'Dissent,' he said, 'is the very essence of science.' That commitment is being put to the test. On Monday, scores of scientists at the agency sent their Trump-appointed leader a letter titled the Bethesda Declaration, challenging 'policies that undermine the NIH mission, waste public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.' It says: 'We dissent.' In a capital where insiders often insist on anonymity to say such things publicly, 92 NIH researchers, program directors, branch chiefs and scientific review officers put their signatures on the letter — and their careers on the line. An additional 250 of their colleagues across the agency endorsed the declaration without using their names. The four-page letter, addressed to Bhattacharya, also was sent to Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and members of Congress who oversee the NIH. White House spokesman Kush Desai defended the administration's approach to federal research and said President Donald Trump is focused on restoring a 'Gold Standard' of science, not 'ideological activism.' Confronting a 'culture of fear' The signers went public in the face of a 'culture of fear and suppression' they say Trump's administration has spread through the federal civil service. 'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety and faithful stewardship of public resources,' the declaration says. Bhattacharya responded to the declaration by saying it 'has some fundamental misconceptions about the policy directions the NIH has taken in recent months.' 'Nevertheless, respectful dissent in science is productive,' he said in a statement. 'We all want the NIH to succeed.' Named for the agency's headquarters location in Maryland, the Bethesda Declaration details upheaval in the world's premier public health research institution over the course of mere months. It addresses the termination of 2,100 research grants valued at more than $12 billion and some of the human costs that have resulted, such as cutting off medication regimens to participants in clinical trials or leaving them with unmonitored device implants. In one case, an NIH-supported study of multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis in Haiti had to be stopped, ceasing antibiotic treatment mid-course for patients. In a number of cases, trials that were mostly completed were rendered useless without the money to finish and analyze the work, the letter says. 'Ending a $5 million research study when it is 80% complete does not save $1 million,' it says, 'it wastes $4 million.' The mask comes off Jenna Norton, who oversees health disparity research at the agency's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, recently appeared at a forum by Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., to talk about what's happening at the NIH. At the event, she masked to conceal her identity. Now the mask is off. She was a lead organizer of the declaration. 'I want people to know how bad things are at NIH,' Norton told The Associated Press. The signers said they modeled their indictment after Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration in 2020, when he was a professor at Stanford University Medical School. His declaration drew together likeminded infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists who dissented from what they saw as excessive COVID-19 lockdown policies and felt ostracized by the larger public health community that pushed those policies, including the NIH. 'He is proud of his statement, and we are proud of ours,' said Sarah Kobrin, a branch chief at the NIH's National Cancer Institute who signed the Bethesda Declaration. Cancer research is sidelined As chief of the Health Systems and Interventions Research Branch, Kobrin provides scientific oversight of researchers across the country who've been funded by the cancer institute or want to be. Cuts in personnel and money have shifted her work from improving cancer care research to what she sees as minimizing its destruction. 'So much of it is gone — my work,' she said. The 21-year NIH veteran said she signed because she didn't want to be 'a collaborator' in the political manipulation of biomedical science. Ian Morgan, a postdoctoral fellow with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, also signed the declaration. 'We have a saying in basic science,' he said. 'You go and become a physician if you want to treat thousands of patients. You go and become a researcher if you want to save billions of patients. 'We are doing the research that is going to go and create the cures of the future,' he added. But that won't happen, he said, if Trump's Republican administration prevails with its searing grant cuts. The NIH employees interviewed by the AP emphasized they were speaking for themselves and not for their institutes nor the NIH. Dissenters range across the breadth of NIH Employees from all 27 NIH institutes and centers gave their support to the declaration. Most who signed are intimately involved with evaluating and overseeing extramural research grants. The letter asserts 'NIH trials are being halted without regard to participant safety' and the agency is shirking commitments to trial participants who 'braved personal risk to give the incredible gift of biological samples, understanding that their generosity would fuel scientific discovery and improve health.' The Trump administration has gone at public health research on several fronts, both directly, as part of its broad effort to root out diversity, equity and inclusion values throughout the bureaucracy, and as part of its drive to starve some universities of federal money. At the White House, Desai said Americans 'have lost confidence in our increasingly politicized healthcare and research apparatus that has been obsessed with DEI and COVID, which the majority of Americans moved on from years ago.' A blunt ax swings This has forced 'indiscriminate grant terminations, payment freezes for ongoing research, and blanket holds on awards regardless of the quality, progress, or impact of the science,' the declaration says. Some NIH employees have previously come forward in televised protests to air grievances, and many walked out of Bhattacharya's town hall with staff. The declaration is the first cohesive effort to register agency-wide dismay with the NIH's direction. The dissenters remind Bhattacharya in their letter of his oft-stated ethic that academic freedom must be a lynchpin in science. With that in place, he said in a statement in April, 'NIH scientists can be certain they are afforded the ability to engage in open, academic discourse as part of their official duties and in their personal capacities without risk of official interference, professional disadvantage or workplace retaliation.' Now it will be seen whether that's enough to protect those NIH employees challenging the Trump administration and him. 'There's a book I read to my kids, and it talks about how you can't be brave if you're not scared,' said Norton, who has three young children. 'I am so scared about doing this, but I am trying to be brave for my kids because it's only going to get harder to speak up.
