
Research cuts pose ‘existential threat' to academic medicine and put nation's health at risk, new report says
Federal research funding cuts pose an 'existential threat' to academic medicine that will have repercussions for patient care in the US, according to a new report from the Association of American Medical Colleges, highlighting what it calls significant damage already done to the nation.
The association, which represents 172 MD-granting US and Canadian medical schools and more than 490 teaching hospitals and health systems, noted in Wednesday's report that proposals in the House GOP tax and spending cuts bill could lead to a loss of health insurance for 11 million people enrolled in Medicaid or Affordable Care Act coverage and jeopardize loans for half of medical students.
This is the first time in recent history when all three missions of academic medicine – research, education and patient care – are threatened, said Heather Pierce, the association's senior director for science policy. Typically, she said, when one is under fire, the others can compensate to ensure that health care is not compromised.
'This is the first time that all the missions of academic medicine simultaneously face these threats from our federal partners,' Pierce said.
Should this trend continue, Pierce said, the United States will probably face a physician shortage, stagnation in scientific progress and a decline in the quality of medical care.
Academic health systems, which include medical schools and teaching hospitals, educate future physicians and investigate complex medical cases, treating the sickest patients. The new report says these institutions are also twice as likely as other hospitals to provide clinical services such as trauma centers, organ transplant centers, birthing rooms and substance use disorder care.
The report says patients treated at major teaching hospitals – where future health care professionals receive practical hands-on training – have up to 20% higher odds of survival than those treated at non-teaching hospitals.
Funding cuts to these institutions have effects that trickle down to patients nationwide. The report noted that academic health systems conduct the majority of research funded by the US National Institutes of Health, and complex patient care is made possible only through extensive medical research.
As of June, more than 1,100 NIH grants have been terminated since the beginning of the second Trump administration, according to the report. These include at least 160 clinical trials to study HIV/AIDS, cancer, mental health conditions, substance abuse and chronic disease.
Although not all clinical trials involve life-saving treatments, for some people who have diseases that have no established therapies, trials may be their only option.
'We've made terrific progress in many diseases, but there are many diseases where we have a long way to go to be able to offer a newly developed treatment that we know can improve or lengthen their lives,' Pierce said. 'With those diseases, in many cases, the only way to try to move forward is with what scientists think are the very best potential treatments for those diseases.'
Some of the clinical trials were terminated before their conclusion, which is unethical, she said.
'Halting a clinical trial before it ends at any point, even if all of the patients who are in the clinical trial finish their treatment, before data analysis has been done, before the results are released, renders that clinical trial less useful and less ethical,' she said.
Patients take on the risk of uncertainty when they join clinical trials, not knowing whether the treatment will be effective. 'If we never know the outcome, all of that time, all those patients launching everything that they did to bring science forward has been wasted. In some cases, it could be years of progress.'
The report notes that research funding has made crucial contributions to life-saving care.
For example, the NIH funded the development of the first artificial heart valve with the first successful replacement at the NIH Clinical Center in 1960. Today, more than 100,000 heart valve replacements are performed each year. And a study also found that NIH funding contributed to research associated with every new drug approved from 2010 to 2019.
Each year, medical schools and teaching hospitals that are members of the Association of American Medical Colleges train about 77,000 residents nationwide, making these institutions the primary producers of primary care and specialty physicians. Medicare offsets a portion of the costs for the majority of trainees, and teaching hospitals fully cover the cost of training for the rest of the residents.
The proposed elimination of federal student aid programs and changing eligibility requirements for loan forgiveness would affect nearly half of all medical students, the new report says.
Should investment not increase, the association predicts that the nation will face a shortage of up to 86,000 physicians by 2036.
As federal partnerships with research institutions continue to falter and immigration restrictions become more strict, the United States is becoming a less attractive place for students to pursue science, Pierce said.
The nation has benefited from their longstanding global medical and scientific approach, she said.
'There is information being shared between countries, people being trained all over the world,' Pierce said. 'The United States has always been the place where people want to come, trained to be scientists and trained to be physicians, and we have benefited from that.'
Nearly half of US graduate students in STEM fields are from other countries. If the United States is not seen as a place that will collaborate with and welcome international scholars, students and researchers will leave, Pierce said.
She emphasizes that what makes US innovation unique is that research comes 'with not the support but the full partnership of the federal government.' A weakening of this partnership will make it 'harder for the United States to stay as the driver of innovation and science progress,' Pierce said.
A physician shortage coupled with declining research investment leads to the suffering of patient care, she said.
'When the research stops, progress stops,' Pierce said. 'Scientific progress toward more treatment, towards more cures, towards a better quality of life, is all dependent on this ecosystem [of academic medicine] that is more intertwined than I think anyone realized.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
30 minutes ago
- CBS News
Chevron Richmond refinery, Air District reach agreement on hazardous gas monitoring
The Bay Area Air District (BAAD) reached an agreement with Chevron on a new air pollution monitoring system at its Richmond refinery that will bring enhanced monitoring for hydrogen sulfide, a smelly and potentially dangerous gas previously not properly monitored according to the Air District's standards. Chevron is the first of the five oil refineries in the nine-county BAAD to reach an agreement with the Air District after all the refineries' fenceline monitoring programs were deemed insufficient and were "disapproved" in October 2023. The agreement announced by the Air District Tuesday will implement a new, more robust monitoring system for hydrogen sulfide, increased data sharing, and more community outreach from the company. Chevron also agreed to pay a penalty of $100,000 to the Air District and agreed to pay further penalties if it violates the settlement agreement, according to the Air District. Hydrogen sulfide, or H2S, is a colorless, hazardous gas that is heavier than air and is a biproduct of the refining process. It can smell like rotten eggs in low concentrations and is also referred to as sewer gas, swamp gas, stink damp, and sour damp, according to the U.S. Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). Health effects can occur even at low levels and include tearing eyes, headaches, nausea and vomiting. Exposure to sulfur dioxide can cause loss of consciousness or death, according to OSHA. The Air District previously required refineries in the Bay Area to monitor the gas with an "open line" monitoring system, which uses a beam of light to measure the presence of hydrogen sulfide over a large area. But in 2022 it told Chevron and others that their fenceline monitoring plans, which detect pollutants at the properties' edge, or fenceline, were deficient and needed to be remade. When the companies submitted their new plans the following year, they were each deemed out of regulatory compliance. Chevron's deficiencies, and necessary corrections, centered around the number of data points that would be created by the monitoring technology, which are supposed to hit a certain threshold both hourly and quarterly. Other issues revolved around how the data was formatted and transmitted to regulators and retained for public review. Under the settlement agreement, Chevron will install a network of four "point monitors" which will have a lower detection threshold for hydrogen sulfide. They detect the gas at certain points rather than over large areas and are said to be more accurate than the open line system currently being used. They are also more reliable in bad weather conditions, such as dense fog, that hampered the open line monitors, according to the BAAD. "This settlement goes beyond what's required, and it reflects the Air District's commitment to transparency, enforcement and public health," said the Air District's executive officer, Philip Fine. "It raises the bar for transparency and community access to air quality data, setting a positive example for the industry." The website maintained by Chevron to report air quality data to the public, will now maintain data for five years, rather than the current three months, and make the data downloadable. A spokesperson for Chevron said the agreement would essentially enhance the monitoring the company was already doing at the refinery. "We know data and transparency are important to our community and are proud to be the first refinery in the Bay Area to move forward with these improvements," the company said in a statement. Chevron will also hold a community meeting to discuss its monitoring program sometime before the end of the year, but it was not yet scheduled as of Wednesday.


Entrepreneur
33 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
Your 'Culture' is a Lie Until You Fund Mental Health
Mental health should be treated as a core component of your company's infrastructure, not an afterthought or perk. Neglecting it leads to diminished productivity, burnout and high employee turnover. Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. When we think about business infrastructure, we typically envision things like servers, supply chains, office furniture and even our workforce — the tangible things that, in our minds, are essential to keep a company running effectively. But there's another, often overlooked, part of the business infrastructure: mental health. Ignoring the mental health of yourself and your employees comes at a high cost, including burnout, high turnover, low morale and in extreme cases, teams or even entire companies falling apart. The numbers speak for themselves. Depression and anxiety cost the global economy over $1 trillion in lost productivity. More than 55% of workers in North America show signs of burnout. Mental health concerns are particularly prevalent in younger employees. Sixty-one percent of Generation Z respondents said they would strongly consider leaving their current job if they found one that took mental health seriously. But it's not just the younger generations that value workplace well-being: 92% of all employees reported that working for an organization that values their emotional and psychological well-being is important. Mental health should not be treated as a luxury. If you care about sustainable growth and strong leadership, it has to be part of the plan from day one, not as a perk, but as something built into how your company operates. The old model is broken, and everyone knows it Let's be honest. Traditional approaches to mental health are largely performative and ineffective. You've likely seen or done it: a mindfulness app no one uses, a #selfcare Slack channel full of quotes or a quiet mention of an Employee Assistance Program. Maybe even a designated "Mental Health Day" filled with lofty promises. But once the day passes, it's back to business as usual. Nothing meaningfully changes. These quick fixes might look good on the surface, but they don't solve the root of the problem. Mental health is not just about managing stress. It's about addressing boundary breakdowns, organizational culture and unhealthy work habits — challenges an app won't fix. Reacting after the fact doesn't work and certainly doesn't scale. No founder waits for their website to crash before buying reliable hosting. So why wait for burnout before checking in with your people? Mental health must be part of the foundation, not a last-minute add-on. Related: How Following These 5 Practices Saved My Mental Health Rethinking the foundation of well-being at work How do we move beyond performative solutions? Start by listening. One tech startup I worked with enhanced its mental-health-related benefits — not on a consultant's advice, but because they engaged their team directly. They offered monthly therapy sessions and an on-demand mental health platform. It didn't solve everything, but it showed they cared. More importantly, they asked: What's draining our team? That question led to big shifts: fewer back-to-back Zoom/Teams calls, mental health check-ins in performance reviews and an end to glorifying 12-hour workdays. Instead, they celebrated focus and prioritization. None of this happened by accident. It took intention. Leaders had to recognize mental health not as a perk but as part of the company's operating system. That means budgeting for it, maintaining it and staying committed to continual improvement. Culture isn't what you say — It's what you fund In my work with entrepreneurs and social impact leaders, I've seen one truth again and again: real culture change starts with investment. There's no one-size-fits-all formula. It might mean small budgets for peer support circles, journaling sessions or rest periods. It could be schedule changes to support parents, caregivers or neurodiverse work styles. Sometimes, it means partnering with clinics or nonprofits, especially to reach marginalized employees who are often overlooked by traditional benefits. Ultimately, leaders must take ownership of mental health. Do not hand it off to HR. Do not treat it as optional. But lead it with the same seriousness as cybersecurity, product strategy or sales. Modeling mental health as a priority The other key is understanding that your team takes its cues from you. If you say mental health matters but never take a vacation, your employees won't either. If you set the expectation that you are never really "off" – checking and sending emails on the weekend or when on holiday, your employees will never feel comfortable logging off. I've lived that. In my first organization, I wore burnout like a badge of honor. I worked nonstop, ignored the signs and paid the price with my family and my own mental health. And when leaders burn out, the team usually follows. Now, I treat rest and reflection like maintenance, not a reward. I do it for myself and to show others it's okay to do the same. Related: 5 Ways to Protect Your Mental Health as an Entrepreneur Mental health as a long-term strategy Building a business means creating an ecosystem. Your team is a vital part of that. If your people aren't doing well, neither is your company. Businesses that invest in mental health see stronger ideas, smarter decisions and better retention. So ask yourself: What would you do differently if mental health were as critical as cybersecurity or logistics? What systems would you build? What investments would you make? What culture would you lead? Your future doesn't just depend on funding rounds; it depends on whether you and your people are well enough to build what comes next.


Washington Post
41 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Supreme Court makes it easier to sue schools over disability accommodations
The Supreme Court on Thursday made it easier for students to prove schools are not making proper accommodations for their disabilities, ruling for the family of a Minnesota teen with a severe form of epilepsy who claimed a school district must do more to offer her instruction outside normal school hours. In a unanimous decision, the justices sided with the family of Ava Tharpe who argued that schoolchildren had to meet an unfairly high burden to show schools are falling short under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act and other disability statutes. The ruling means students' claims against schools are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in an opinion that some lower courts were 'implicitly limit[ing] the ability of disabled schoolchildren to vindicate their independent ADA and Rehabilitation Act Rights, thereby making it more difficult to secure statutory remedies provided by Congress.' Ava's case began in 2015 when she transferred to a Minnesota school. She has a rare form of epilepsy that causes the most intense seizures in the morning, so she is unable to attend classes before noon. She also needs help walking and using the bathroom. Ava's old school accommodated her needs by giving her evening instruction, but Osseo Area Public Schools denied her request for similar accommodations. The schools offered shifting rationales, including that providing the services would set an unfavorable precedent for other school districts and that they did not want to teach Ava in her home. Between 2015 and 2018, Ava received only 4¼ hours of instruction per day as opposed to 6½ hours of instruction for a typical student. After the school district proposed additional cuts, Ava's parents filed a discrimination claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which provides federal funds to states in exchange for guarantees that disabled students receive a 'free appropriate education.' An administrative law judge found Osseo schools had violated IDEA, and federal courts affirmed the decision. The family then sued under the ADA and other provisions requesting a permanent injunction, but a district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit issued a summary judgment for the school district. The 8th Circuit found that a student must show 'something more than a mere failure to provide' a free appropriate education. For technical reasons, the court found the appropriate bar should be a heightened standard of 'bad faith and or gross misjudgement' — one not used in other types of disability discrimination cases. Other courts use an easier-to-prove requirement known as 'deliberate indifference.' 'It's wrong to impose any sort of uniquely stringent standard on children facing discrimination in schools,' Roman Martinez, an attorney for Ava's family, told the justices during oral arguments in April. Lisa Blatt, an attorney for Osseo schools, told the justices that the 'district cares deeply about Ava and gave her more service than any other student' but that changing the legal standard for proving a disability claim would weigh heavily on schools. She said schools would be exposed to more legal action and possibly severe sanctions under the ADA. 'Reversing … would expose 46,000 public schools to liability,' Blatt said. 'Every good-faith disagreement would risk liability or even the nuclear option — the loss of federal funding.' This is a developing story. It will be updated.