How Trump health agency cuts could impact Alzheimer's research and patients
As the Trump administration makes
major cuts to federal health agencies
, including the
National Institutes of Health
, some Alzheimer's experts are worried about research for the
brain-impairing disease
being halted, which could impact treatment options and the lives of patients and their families.
The
Alzheimer's Association
said last week that two related programs have had staff placed on administrative leave as part of the reductions: The
Healthy Brain Initiative
, which aims to improve understanding around brain health, and
Building Our Largest Dementia
(BOLD) Infrastructure for Alzheimer's, which focuses on risk reduction as well as increasing detection and diagnosis.
These programs "have a meaningful impact on Americans everyday," the organization said in a statement, adding that the BOLD program, as well as other Alzheimer's programs, were just
unanimously reauthorized
by Congress last year.
The association's president and CEO Joanne Pike said these public health programs are critical to those dealing with Alzheimer's and dementia across the country.
"Among other things, they ensure that people living with dementia, caregivers and health providers have the information, resources and support they need," Pike said. "The programs remain intact, but continuing on a path of reducing staff and resources could cause irreversible damage."
According to the nonprofit
Alzheimer's Impact Movement
, federal funding for Alzheimer's research accounts for as much as $3.8 billion each year.
"Reduced research funding means we are delaying the development and refinement of treatments that could delay or prevent the onset of dementia symptoms, reducing quality of life and increasing suffering for both patients and families," Jason Krellman, a clinical neuropsychologist and assistant professor at Columbia University Irving Medical Center, told CBS News.
He says this is a crucial time for brain disease research, as drugs are being developed that show potential to treat the underlying causes of Alzheimer's rather than just slowing its symptoms.
"Funding cuts will surely reduce or even stop the progress we are now starting to make toward cures for Alzheimer's disease and related conditions. That is especially problematic because our population is aging more than ever before and these diseases will therefore become much more prevalent in the years to come," he said.
Lawrence Chernin, CEO and co-founder of Dabble Health, a company focused on cognitive health monitoring, worries funding cuts could leave potentially life-changing innovations behind. He and his team are developing an app that he hopes could give people a "cognitive score," similar to health apps that give sleep scores — but further testing is needed for scientific validatation.
Despite promising data from a pilot study, Chernin said traditional investors often consider tools like theirs "too early and too risky."
"Government funding through NIH and SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) grants represents the only viable bridge from promising research to clinical validation," he told CBS News, adding that his company recently applied for an SBIR grant.
"Frankly, without this funding, our company may not survive," he said. "These NIH cuts don't just threaten our company; they threaten the entire pipeline of early-stage medical innovations that could transform Alzheimer's care."
SBIR helps fund the NIH's National Institute of Aging, which makes nearly
$150 million in grants
to small businesses each year. According to the institute, it is the largest source of early-stage funding for aging-related research and development, including interventions for Alzheimer's disease.
And while Chernin recognizes some people think there's a lot of waste in government spending, he says "overall it achieves so much," pointing to
breakthroughs in cancer research
, for example.
"Now, cancer isn't as terrible, actually, in terms of the scope of diseases like Alzheimer's is, because there are remedies for cancer," he said.
Some, however, like Dr. Joshua Hare, who is chairman and chief science officer at biotechnology company
Longeveron
, are optimistic. The company just successfully completed a Phase 2 study, published last month in
Nature Medicine
, for an Alzheimer's medication they've been developing.
"Clearly, we have a president who is changing things big-time in all domains of our lives. ... They want to cut funding and streamline the NIH, that's clear, but I'm not at all convinced that they are anti-health," he told CBS News. Hare said he thinks there will be more funding for areas consistent with the
Make America Healthy Again
initiative, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s platform
focusing on chronic disease, food additives and other priorities.
So while there will be cuts to certain areas —
COVID
and
DEI-related
initiatives are
already being hit
, for example — Hare said he's not so worried about Alzheimer's research being slashed.
"I can't say that for sure. I'm not in the government. I just listened to the testimony that the
new director of NIH
gave to Congress in his confirmation hearings, and he specifically addressed Alzheimer's research, and he specifically said that there are avenues of research for Alzheimer's that are underfunded and deserve ongoing funding."
His company has previously received NIH funding for a non-Alzheimer's, pediatrics-related trial, while the Alzheimer's Association entirely funded the Phase 1 trial for Longeveron's Alzheimer's drug, Hare said. "If we didn't have that extraordinary funding from Alzheimer's Association and NIH, the company wouldn't have had been able to progress to where we are now." He said company remains "full steam ahead" on getting its product to those who "need it as quickly as possible."
While the long-term impacts of the cuts remain unclear, Charles J. Fuschillo, Jr, president and CEO of the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, said in a statement to CBS News that bipartisan cooperation is essential in the continued fight against Alzheimer's disease.
"We are grateful that federal policymakers in Congress and the White House worked together in a bipartisan manner over the last decade to deliver essential federal funding increases for Alzheimer's research, and appropriately treated Alzheimer's disease as a growing public health crisis, not a political issue," the statement read. "Building on that progress is vital to ensure we reach the finish line of finding a cure for Alzheimer's."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
4 hours ago
Federal judge rules Tump directives canceling NIH grants are 'void,' 'illegal'
A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled on Monday that directives from the Trump administration that led to the cancellations of several research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were "void" and "illegal." U.S. District Judge William Young said the cancellation of the grants -- related to studies involving LGBTQ+ issues, gender identity and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) -- violated federal law, saying it was a case of racial discrimination and discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community, according to the plaintiffs in the case. Two lawsuits had been filed against the administration: One led by the American Public Health Association and the other filed by a group of 16 states. Some estimates have suggested that up to $1.8 billion in research funding had been cut. Young, an appointee of President Ronald Reagan, said he was ordering the NIH to restore the grants that were terminated. In a statement, Andrew Nixon, the director of communications for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the agency stands by its decision to end funding for research "that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people. Under the leadership of Secretary Kennedy and the Trump administration, HHS is committed to ensuring that taxpayer dollars support programs rooted in evidence-based practices and gold standard science – not driven by divisive DEI mandates or gender ideology." Nixon said HHS is "exploring all legal options, including filing an appeal and moving to stay the order." Among the plaintiffs is Dr. Brittany Charlton, an associate professor at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who had all her grants terminated by the NIH. One of the terminated grants focused on documenting obstetrical outcomes for lesbian, gay and bisexual women and another focused on how discriminatory laws impact mental health among LGBTQ+ teens. "As a plaintiff, I felt truly seen -- it was a rare moment when the deep harm caused to researchers and the communities we serve was acknowledged out loud, in front of the world," Charlton told ABC News in a statement. "Sitting there, I felt a wave of relief and hope as the judge condemned the government's actions and ordered the grants to be reinstated," the statement continued. "After so much uncertainty and disruption, it finally felt like justice and the value of our research -- and the communities at its heart -- were being affirmed." The terminations came after President Donald Trump passed a flurry of executive orders including vowing to " defend women from gender ideology extremism" and aiming to dismantle DEI initiatives. According to termination letters sent to researchers at various universities that were reviewed by ABC News, the administration said the canceled projects do not serve the "priorities" of the current administration. "Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans. Many such studies ignore, rather than seriously examine, biological realities. It is the policy of NIH not to prioritize these research programs," some of the termination letters read. "The premise…is incompatible with agency priorities, and no modification of the project could align the project with agency priorities," the letters continued.
Business Insider
6 hours ago
- Business Insider
Senate Republicans abandon Medicare cost cuts, Bloomberg reports
Senate Republicans are proposing cuts to Medicaid for low-income and disabled people that are more aggressive than policies the House passed to help pay for President Trump's tax package, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg reports, citing people familiar with the legislation. Senate Republicans, however, abandoned efforts to cut costs in Medicare, which is good news for Humana (HUM) and UnitedHealth (UNH), which are major players in the Medicare Advantage insurance market, according to Bloomberg. The Senate plan, to be be released on Monday, solidifies Republicans' decision to cut funding for Medicaid health insurance for the poor to pay for tax cuts, Bloomberg adds. Publicly traded companies in the space health insurance space include CVS Health (CVS), Centene (CNC), Cigna (CI), Elevance Health (ELV), Humana (HUM), Molina Healthcare (MOH) and UnitedHealth (UNH). Confident Investing Starts Here:
Los Angeles Times
9 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Judge rules some NIH grant cuts illegal, saying he's never seen such discrimination in 40 years
WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled Monday it was illegal for the Trump administration to cancel several hundred research grants, adding that the cuts raise serious questions about racial discrimination. U.S. District Judge William Young in Massachusetts said the administration's process was 'arbitrary and capricious' and that it did not follow long-held government rules and standards when it abruptly canceled grants deemed to focus on gender identity or diversity, equity and inclusion. In a hearing Monday on two cases calling for the grants to be restored, the judge pushed government lawyers to offer a formal definition of DEI, questioning how grants could be canceled for that reason when some were designed to study health disparities as Congress had directed. Young, an appointee of Republican President Ronald Reagan, went on to address what he called 'a darker aspect' to the cases, calling it 'palpably clear' that what was behind the government actions was 'racial discrimination and discrimination against America's LGBTQ community.' After 40 years on the bench, 'I've never seen government racial discrimination like this,' Young added. He ended Monday's hearing saying, 'Have we no shame.' During his remarks ending the hearing, the judge said he would issue his written order soon. Young's decision addresses only a fraction of the hundreds of NIH research projects the Trump administration has cut — those specifically addressed in two lawsuits filed separately this spring by 16 attorneys general from Democratic states, public health advocacy groups and some affected scientists. A full count wasn't immediately available. In the California lawsuit, filed in April with the other Democratic states, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said the UC system had received more than $2 billion in NIH awards in 2024 and that CSU had spent more than $90 million on NIH-funded research the same year. At the time of filing, Bonta wrote that the UC system's five health centers were awaiting action on grant proposals totaling $563 million. While Young said the funding must be restored, Monday's action was an interim step as the ruling could be appealed. The Trump administration is 'exploring all legal options' including asking the judge to stay the ruling or appealing, said Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for NIH's parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services. 'HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people,' he said in an email. While the original lawsuits didn't specifically claim racial discrimination, they said the new NIH policies prohibited 'research into certain politically disfavored subjects.' In a filing this month after the lawsuits were consolidated, lawyers said the NIH did not highlight genuine concerns with the hundreds of canceled research projects studies, but instead sent 'boilerplate termination letters' to universities. The topics of research ranged widely, including cardiovascular health, sexually transmitted infections, depression, Alzheimer's and alcohol abuse in minors, among other things. Attorneys cited projects such as one tracking how medicines may work differently in people of ancestrally diverse backgrounds, and said the cuts affected more than scientists — such as potential harm to patients in a closed study of suicide treatment. Lawyers for the federal government said in a court filing earlier this month that NIH grant terminations for DEI studies were 'sufficiently reasoned,' adding later that 'plaintiffs may disagree with NIH's basis, but that does not make the basis arbitrary and capricious.' The NIH, lawyers argued, has 'broad discretion' to decide on and provide grants 'in alignment with its priorities' — which includes ending grants. Monday, Justice Department lawyer Thomas Ports Jr. pointed to 13 examples of grants related to minority health that NIH either hadn't cut or had renewed in the same time period — and said some of the cancellations were justified by the agency's judgement that the research wasn't scientifically valuable. The NIH has long been the world's largest public funder of biomedical research. Neergaard writes for the Associated Press. Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this story.
