In this edition of AcademyHealth's Situation Report, a class-action lawsuit alleges that HHS wrongfully terminated thousands of employees based on inaccurate internal records, raising concerns about transparency and errors in personnel records. We also examine a Senate budget bill that could dramatically restrict Medicaid access and increase costs for low-income patients, as well as troubling disruptions to AHRQ research grants. AcademyHealth continues to defend evidence-informed policymaking and protect access to essential health data and services through our lawsuit. Read on to learn what’s at stake and how you can get involved.
Scheduling Note: We're taking a brief publishing break next week as our team—and thousands of health research leaders—gather for our Annual Research Meeting in Minneapolis. It’s one of the field’s most dynamic events, and we’re excited to be a part of it. The Situation Report will return the week of June 16.
In today’s issue:
- HHS Faces Lawsuit Alleging Inaccurate Records Led to Wrongful Firings
- Researchers Should Weigh in on Federal Health Tech Policy
- Closer Look at Senate Budget Bill Highlights Health Coverage and Cost Concerns
- Help Us Track Cancelled AHRQ Grants – Your Input Is Critical
- Other News We’re Tracking
HHS Faces Lawsuit Alleging Inaccurate Records Led to Wrongful Firings
A new class-action lawsuit alleges that HHS and DOGE fired civil servants based on incorrect internal personnel records. One of many lawsuits following the HHS reduction in force (RIF) on April 1, this lawsuit is unique in that it does not focus generally on whether the decision itself was legal and complied with RIF-specific regulation. Rather, this suit alleges that the process by which HHS chose to cut the selected 10,000 workers violated its obligations under the Privacy Act. Specifically, plaintiffs assert these firings were caused by the intentional failure to maintain complete, accurate, and timely personnel records. Further, these inaccurate records were then sent to agency retention registers, which provide formal rankings of employees, that influenced whether plaintiffs were retained or offered reassignment.
Errors in these personnel records include inaccurate performance ratings, with many probationary workers receiving RIF notices citing poor performance despite some obtaining internal awards and honors of achievement. Other cases listed incorrected job locations, job descriptions, and organizational subdivisions within the agency. Plaintiffs included in this lawsuit include workers from the CDC, FDA, Administration for Children and Families, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. While the exact number of affected terminated employees is not yet clear, the lawsuit estimates it to be most of the 10,000 workers impacted by the April 1 RIF.
Researchers Should Weigh in on Federal Health Tech Policy
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is asking for public comment on how to build a more “seamless, secure, and patient-centered digital health infrastructure” for Medicare beneficiaries. While the goals are ambitious (more usable tools, better data access, stronger interoperability), the details are wide open.
Researchers have a rare opportunity to weigh in. The RFI explicitly invites feedback on barriers to interoperability, ways to reduce administrative burden, and how to ensure that digital health tools actually meet the needs of patients, providers, and caregivers. These are issues our field has studied for years.
This effort builds on previous CMS initiatives like Blue Button 2.0 and the Interoperability and Patient Access Rule. But it also signals a potential shift in digital health policy, one that could affect how data is accessed, shared, and used going forward. Indeed, CMS has announced several new tech initiatives that align with the RFI’s goals: a national provider directory, modern identity verification, digital insurance cards, and expanded patient data APIs. These efforts could significantly affect how researchers, providers, and patients access and use health data.
Read the RFI and submit comments here by June 16. When submitting comments, consider the following tips:
- Share real-world barriers and what’s needed to make digital tools actually work in practice.
- Emphasize principles our community values: transparency, evidence-based decision-making, and usability.
- Use clear, specific language—not jargon—and offer solutions where possible.
Related to health data use and access, AcademyHealth’s most recent post in a series on the value of public data access, describes the essential role federal datasets play in informing research, guiding evidence-based policymaking, and supporting public health and economic development. The post highlights the risks posed when key datasets—such as those from the CDC and Census Bureau—are removed or altered, restricting researchers’ ability to answer pressing policy questions.
For these reasons and more, AcademyHealth joined a lawsuit to restore access to critical public data and ensure its continued availability. Access to public health data affects all of us—from researchers and clinicians to patients, families, and communities. You can support this effort by helping spread the word and sharing your story:
- Spread the word: Use our Supporter Toolkit to raise awareness and show your support for restoring public health data.
- Share your story: Our legal case is grounded in clear, documented examples of harm but we are continuing to collect additional stories to raise awareness and further support the case as it progresses. If you’ve been affected by missing or altered public health data, use this form to share your experience.
- Donate to support our mission: By donating to AcademyHealth, you help sustain our ability to advocate for transparency, innovation, and progress in health research.
Closer Look at Senate Budget Bill Highlights Health Coverage and Cost Concerns
The GOP spending bill that narrowly passed the House last month has arrived at the Senate. While changes are expected, the bill is likely to retain at least some of the far-reaching and detrimental changes to health care infrastructure and policy. Some of the greatest proposed changes impact Medicaid: the proposal includes restrictions that will make it harder to enroll in Medicaid, shortening the enrollment window, ending nearly all automatic reenrollment, increasing the frequency of eligibility checks, and adding extensive documentation requirements. This is despite real-world evidence suggesting that such bureaucratic measures lead to reduced enrollment among eligible participants and increased administrative costs, and they do not significantly increase employment. The proposal would also increase copays associated with medical care for Medicaid recipients; medical appointments usually cost less than $10 under Medicaid, but the bill would increase copays to $35 for individuals at the federal poverty level. With such restrictive public insurance policies, health systems will be left to provide nearly $50 billion worth of uncompensated care over the next decade, invariably forcing more rural and small community hospitals to close their doors and limit services.
As the bill enters the Senate, some Republican House members are expressing regret over parts of the bill they helped advance, including the limitations on states’ abilities to regulate AI and on judges’ abilities to enforce penalties for contempt of court. The Senate needs a simple majority to pass the bill, and currently, four GOP Senators have voiced their intent to vote against the bill in its current form. Republicans can afford only three dissenters if the bill is to pass. The main sticking point for most dissenters is financial—the multi-trillion dollars increases to the debt ceiling and the federal deficit, both of which are unacceptable to some staunch conservatives. The calls for further cuts to services like Social Security and Medicaid are at odds with more moderate Senators’ concerns that the proposal already harms their constituents. Elon Musk, who recently left his temporary White House position, also criticized the bill. The Senate review of the bill is underway with the goal of sending a version to the President by July fourth, and the next several weeks of negotiations will have critical implications for the future of American health care.
As the Senate decides on the fate of the reconciliation bill, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has submitted a recission package to Congress, essentially seeking to solidify funding cuts initiated by DOGE over the last several months. The package includes $9.4 billion in funding cuts to public broadcasting agencies and foreign aid, and other previously appropriated funds. Congress has 45 days to respond to the package, first in committee and then on the House or Senate floor. Given the fiscal reservations of some of the holdout Republican Senators, this recission package may influence the reconciliation bill negotiations.
Help Us Track Cancelled AHRQ Grants – Your Input Is Critical
AHRQ research grants are being delayed, changed, cut short, or cancelled altogether. These disruptions compromise careers, limit evidence that informs policy, and silence important research before it reaches the public.
AcademyHealth is gathering information on these cancellations to document the impact, advocate for the research community, and raise awareness among key stakeholders. This is not just a nice-to-have record. It’s a vital tool in pushing for accountability and change.
If your AHRQ-funded work has been affected in any way, please share what you’re able to. Even a few details make a difference. Nothing will be shared publicly without your permission.
Other News We’re Tracking
CDC Official Overseeing COVID-19 Vaccine Recommendations Resigns
Following HHS Secretary RFK Jr.’s order to change the CDC’s recommendation for COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women, one of the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) leads said she was resigning from her role. She said she is no longer able to help vulnerable members of the population in her capacity, which had been the original motivation for her career in public health and vaccinology. ACIP was planning on voting to update recommendations for COVID-19 vaccines later this month; however, JFK Jr.’s directive simultaneously disrupted the process and deviated from the Committee’s stance on recommendations for pregnant women.
Trump Administration Rescinds Biden-Era Guidance Requiring Hospitals to Perform Emergency Abortions
A 2022 HHS guidance uses federal law to require hospitals to stabilize patients in need of emergency care, including via emergency abortions, even in states where the procedure is illegal. HHS and CMS under the current administration rescinded the guidance on Tuesday noting it does not align with the administration’s policy. Abortion rights groups are criticizing the administration and President Trump for acting in contradiction to his campaign promise to not interfere with abortion access and note that this change will come at the expense of lives.
Previous Updates
This is the latest in a series of Situation Report updates from AcademyHealth. You can find prior issues here.
We’re pleased to offer this work as a free resource, and if you’d like to support our efforts to keep it going, we’d truly appreciate your donation. You can contribute here. Thank you for your support!