Healthy Returns: What to know about Trump’s NIH funding cuts

A version of this article first appeared in CNBC’s Healthy Returns newsletter, which brings the latest health-care news straight to your inbox. Subscribe here to receive future editions.

The Trump administration is trying to implement major funding cuts to the National Institutes of Health that would cap medical and public health research payments to universities, medical centers and other grant recipients. 

The move would save the federal government more than $4 billion a year, according to the NIH, the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world. 

But hospitals, universities and other members of the research community have slammed the effort, saying it would hurt American patients who benefit from life-saving medical discoveries related to cancer, diabetes and other chronic and devastating diseases. 

The policy targets funding for so-called “indirect” facilities and administrative costs, which are still essential for conducting research. Those include costs related to operating and maintaining faculties, such as electricity, water and heating, and back-office financial, technology, legal and compliance support. 

Trump first announced the policy change on Friday, and it went into effect Monday morning.

But a federal judge temporarily blocked the implementation of the cuts on Monday afternoon after attorneys general from 22 states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration. That same judge extended that pause to the rest of the country later Monday in response to a lawsuit filed by associations representing teaching hospitals, public health and pharmacy schools and Boston- and New York-area hospitals.

The two restraining orders issued by the judge, who was nominated by President Joe Biden in 2021, halts the policy nationwide pending further arguments from the Trump administration and states. A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 21 for both cases. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Trump’s pick to lead the larger federal health agency that oversees the NIH, may undo the funding cuts, according to a statement from 

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine. Collins said she called Kennedy on Monday to express her strong opposition to the effort. 

The Senate is expected to vote by Thursday on whether to confirm Kennedy after his nomination cleared the Senate’s finance committee last week.

Here’s what to know about the funding cuts. 

The NIH said in a memo it would cap at 15% the amount of funding for “indirect costs,” which are not directly linked to the goals of a scientific project. Direct costs include scientists’ salaries, along with lab equipment and supplies needed to complete a project.

The average that NIH pays in indirect costs is around 27% to 28%, but some of the nation’s most elite research universities receive 50% or more, the agency said. For example, Harvard, Yale and Johns Hopkins each receive above 60%, the NIH said. 

“The United States should have the best medical research in the world,” the NIH said in the memo. “It is accordingly vital to ensure that as many funds as possible go towards direct scientific research costs rather than administrative overhead.”

In a post on X, the NIH said that $9 billion of the $35 billion the agency spent on research grants during fiscal year 2023 went to indirect costs. 

But the lawsuit filed by states and backed by university presidents alleged that reducing funding for indirect costs would “result in layoffs, suspension of clinical trials, disruption of ongoing research programs, and laboratory closures.”

“NIH’s extraordinary attempt to disrupt all existing and future grants not only poses an immediate threat to the nation’s research infrastructure, but will also have a long-lasting impact on its research capabilities and its ability to provide life-saving breakthroughs in scientific research,” the suit said. 

Katherine Newman, University of California system provost and executive vice president for academic affairs, said funding cuts would “disrupt a critical relationship to the pharmaceutical and device industry partners who rely on our independent research and clinical trials to establish the efficacy of emerging treatments,” the LA Times reported. 

The UC system of 10 campuses across California is a global leader for influential research, with more than 27,000 research personnel. Newman said indirect money pays for “personnel who assure the safety of adults and children enrolling in clinical trials” and the ethics teams working on trials.

We’ll continue to monitor the fate of the funding cuts, so stay tuned for our coverage. 

Feel free to send any tips, suggestions, story ideas and data to Annika at [email protected].

It’s been more than two years since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the constitutional right to abortion. But following President Trump’s victory in November, Americans are feeling more uneasy about access to reproductive health care than ever before. 

That’s according to Maven Clinic, a digital health-care startup that aims to support patients throughout their reproductive life cycle. Maven released its annual “State of Women’s & Family Health Benefits” report on Wednesday, which found that nearly half of respondents are more worried about their reproductive health than in years past. 

Maven CEO Kate Ryder said the company has never seen the anxiety levels as high as they are in the latest report.  

“Because there’s been so much legislation and a patchwork of laws that are dictating access to care, there’s just more confusion than we’ve ever seen and more anxiety when people start that family building journey,” Ryder told CNBC in an interview. 

Rising costs are not helping matters. 

Maven contracts with health plans and employers, and 70% of employers the company surveyed said the cost of fertility care has increased in the last three years. The cost of in vitro fertilization medications alone have surged by 84% since 2014, which drastically outpaces the 37% rise in list prices across all prescription drugs, according to a September report from GoodRx.

More than 90% of employers surveyed said they are “concerned about the rising cost of fertility care,” Maven’s report said. 

“The cost is front and center this year, whereas a few years ago, it just wasn’t,” Ryder said. 

But in light of the anxiety and rising costs of care, more employers are thinking about reproductive benefits as a way to retain talent, Maven said. Around 85% of employers said they recognize these benefits as “critical for retention,” and nearly 70% said they are planning to increase the number of vendors they use over the next two to three years.

This includes more care and support for men, as 65% of employers surveyed said they are increasing their coverage of men’s reproductive health counseling and wellness services. 

Nearly 70% of employees surveyed said they have “taken, considered, or might take a new job” if it offered better family and reproductive benefits, the report said.

Maven surveyed 3,752 full-time employees and 1,569 HR leaders across the U.S., the U.K. and India to conduct its report. 

Read the full report here. 

Feel free to send any tips, suggestions, story ideas and data to Ashley at [email protected].