Administration Moves Forward with NIH Funding Cuts, Restructuring
On Friday, May 2, the White House released the president’s budget request for Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26). As is typical in the first year of a presidential term, the budget lacks many details, and so it is informally referred to as a “skinny budget.” The budget outlines deep cuts to many of the Society’s priorities. Of particular concern, the budget proposes a nearly 40% cut ($17.965 billion) to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the consolidation of the NIH’s 27 Institutes and Centers (ICs) down to five, and transfers several ICs, including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), outside of the NIH entirely.
While the budget provides a high-level overview of the president’s priorities for the next fiscal year, Congress will determine how many of the administration’s priorities to implement and at what funding levels. However, the administration already is moving forward with plans to significantly restructure the NIH while many funds obligated to the agency have not yet been distributed. Meanwhile, the House and Senate have yet to mount a significant challenge to the president’s proposed cuts.
The House of Representatives and Senate have conducted several hearings on the impact of funding cuts to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). On April 30, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a bipartisan hearing with testimony from four biomedical research organizations and a mother and patient advocate, who shared the need to prevent cuts to funding for the NIH and protect the United States’ leadership of the biomedical research enterprise. Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) were both critical of the administration’s attempts to cut biomedical research funding, expressing how cuts would threaten the health for the public and the economy. As part of the Society’s advocacy efforts to protect biomedical research funding, we submitted a statement for the record for this hearing.
The Endocrine Society strongly opposes the proposed $17.965 billion cut to the NIH, which would be detrimental for biomedical research and human health, and we continue to advocate to Congress for protection of your research funding.
On May 14, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., testified to the House and Senate in two hearings regarding President Trump’s budget proposal. The first hearing was organized by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Related Agencies (LHHS). During the hearing, Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) challenged Secretary Kennedy on the proposed NIH cuts, and whether they would prevent the NIH from supporting research according to appropriations law. Kennedy maintained that funds would be spent this year according to law, but also defended the administration’s proposed cuts, claiming that consolidation of institutes and centers within the NIH would enhance efficiencies and enable the agency to “do much more with less.” Policymakers in both hearings, on both sides of the aisle, asked Kennedy to ensure any funds appropriated by Congress would be spent as directed without impoundment.
The Endocrine Society strongly opposes the proposed $17.965 billion cut to the NIH, which would be detrimental for biomedical research and human health, and we continue to advocate to Congress for protection of your research funding.
If you are experiencing difficulty in obtaining your funding or cannot draw down funds, please email us at [email protected] to make sure we can let Congress know about the extent of the challenges facing the biomedical research community and we urge all members to take action on our advocacy campaigns to protect NIH.
Society Advocates for Access to IVF Treatment
The Endocrine Society continues to advocate for access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment and recently endorsed federal legislation that would protect access to this care. Congresswoman Laura Gillen (D-NY), Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), and Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) reintroduced the bipartisan Access to Family Building Act (H.R. 2049) on March 11. This legislation would ensure people can access safe, effective IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies to start or grow their families. The legislation prohibits the limitation of access to assisted reproductive technology and all medical care surrounding such technology.
The Society will continue to advocate for our members who treat and research infertility and other hormone health conditions.
In addition to federal legislation, President Trump issued an executive order on February 18 to develop policy recommendations to expand access to in vitro fertilization. The order states that within 90 days of the date of the order, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy will submit to the President “a list of policy recommendations on protecting IVF access and aggressively reduce out-of-pocket and health plan costs for IVF treatment.” The Endocrine Society will review the policy recommendations expected to be released later this month.
The Society has been a leader in advocating for access to IVF treatment. We are encouraged to see members of Congress from both sides of the aisle considering this legislation to preserve access to IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies. Many Americans who wish to start or build their families need to have access to this medical care. The Society will continue to advocate for our members who treat and research infertility and other hormone health conditions.
White House Issues Executive Orders on Drug Pricing & Bipartisan Legislation Introduced in Senate
There have been several recent policy developments related to drug pricing that the Society is working on. The White House issued two executive orders (EO) to address lowering the cost of prescription drugs. The first EO, issued in April, directs federal agencies to implement policies to lower drug prices and improve pharmacy benefit manager transparency. The EO contains several policy ideas to lower the cost of insulin for low-income and uninsured Americans. The second EO, issued in May, asks drugmakers to voluntarily reduce the prices of their medications. This EO cites no legal authority to mandate lowering drug prices, but the administration did say they would consider possible regulatory actions including importing drugs from other countries if drugmakers did not comply with the order.
The Society continues to advocate for expanding the insulin co-pay cap to the private insurance market and supports the bipartisan INSULIN Act, which would expand the cap to the commercial market.
It remains unclear what type of impact these orders would have on lowering drug costs. It may also be difficult to implement these proposed policy changes given the reduction-in-force (RIF) that has occurred at the HHS. The Society will continue to monitor this closely to assess the impact.
Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Sens. Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Peter Welch (D-VT) introduced the Fair Prescription Drug Prices for Americans Act, bipartisan legislation aimed at lowering the cost of prescription drugs. This legislation would prohibit U.S. drug companies from charging higher prices for their medications than the international average.
The Society has led advocacy to ensure access to affordable prescription drugs including insulin. We supported the $35 co-pay cap on insulin for Medicare beneficiaries and the creation of the Medicare Price Negotiation Program in the Inflation Reduction Act. The Society continues to advocate for expanding the insulin co-pay cap to the private insurance market and supports the bipartisan INSULIN Act, which would expand the cap to the commercial market.
Loading ...