In this edition of AcademyHealth’s Situation Report, federal actions and policy shifts underscore both opportunities and challenges for health services researchers. Congress is pushing back against deep proposed cuts to science funding, signaling renewed support for foundational research, while abrupt administrative decisions—such as temporary cancellations of mental health grants and staffing changes at federal safety agencies—demonstrate how quickly policy can disrupt programs and public trust. Meanwhile, the reshaping of vaccine advisory panels and delays at the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force highlight ongoing threats to evidence-based decision-making and access to care. In this edition, we break down these developments, their implications for research and policy, and how AcademyHealth members are contributing to the response.
In this issue:
- Congress Pushes Back on Proposed Science Cuts
- Federal Mental Health and Addiction Grants Terminated and Reinstated
- HHS Reverses Staffing Cuts to Safety Research Agency
- Senate Struggles to Finalize ACA Subsidy Compromise to Avoid Shutdown
- Remaking Vaccine Advisory Panels: Appointments, Dismissals, and the Challenge to Evidence-Based Policy
- AcademyHealth in the News: Healthcare Coverage, Affordability, and the USPSTF
- AcademyHealth Town Hall: Understanding Policy Shifts and What They Mean for the Field
Congress Pushes Back on Proposed Science Cuts
A recent Senate appropriations package signals Congress’s move to reverse President Trump’s proposed deep cuts to federal science funding. Whereas the President’s proposal would cut by 22 percent, the bipartisan appropriations package would reduce scientific research spending by only 4 percent. Notably, Congress is even modestly increasing funding for basic science research that underlies the nation’s scientific infrastructure and long-term innovation. If these proposals pass through the final vote are enacted, these measures would represent welcome news for the research community that has faced significant uncertainty over the past year. While the budget stabilization cannot undo the disruption caused by shifting administration priorities and abrupt funding cuts, it would signal renewed congressional commitment to sustaining the essential scientific enterprise and foundational investments that produce the data and methods for evidence generation that the field of health services research depends on.
Federal Mental Health and Addiction Grants Terminated and Reinstated
On Tuesday, the Administration sent termination letters to hundreds of organizations receiving federal addiction and mental health grants, signaling an abrupt cancellation of programs totaling more than $2 billion. The letters created uncertainty for providers delivering critical behavioral health services, including treatment for substance use disorders and support for people with mental illness.
Following widespread concern and national reporting, the administration has reversed the decision and confirmed that the grants will continue. While the reversal averts an immediate funding crisis, it underscores how sudden administrative actions can disrupt behavioral health systems. For health services researchers, this moment offers a real-time example on how policy can change service continuity, provider capacity, and access to evidence-based care.
HHS Reverses Staffing Cuts to Safety Research Agency
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced it is reversing prior staffing cuts at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), reinstating employees whose departures had threatened research and safety programs for coal miners, firefighters, and other high-risk occupations. NIOSH researches and makes recommendations around preventing work-related injuries or illnesses, including setting exposure limits for toxic chemicals, approving respiratory masks like N95s and overseeing support programs for first responders to disasters like 9/11. This move was part of a broader, ongoing pattern of this administration disregarding evidence-based recommendations and disbanding the HHS workforce to the detriment of public health, and some legal experts say the RIFs may be illegal.
This decision underscores the critical role federal health research agencies play in protecting worker safety and public health. For health services researchers, it highlights how workforce and policy changes can directly affect moving evidence into practice—impacting both the research workforce and the communities their work serves. This shows how dismantling agency funding and staff continue to have downstream effects.
Senate Struggles to Finalize ACA Subsidy Compromise to Avoid Shutdown
Senate negotiations to extend enhanced ACA premium subsidies are facing renewed uncertainty as the end of January deadline to avoid another government shutdown approaches. While both sides are grappling with the reality that the lapse of these subsidies leaves Americans with higher premiums, negotiators have been unable to agree on the issue of abortion. Republican negotiators are seeking to attach language that would further codify restrictions on abortion in ACA marketplace plans. Meanwhile, Democrats have resisted these proposals, arguing the language goes beyond what is required by the Hyde Amendment that bans federal funding from being used to pay for abortion. For health services researchers, the timing of this impasse is critical because enrollment decisions are already being shaped by the subsidy lapse. While some states have extended the deadline given ongoing legislative uncertainty, preliminary ACA marketplace enrollment numbers have dropped significantly. The field will be able to witness in real time how legislative uncertainty can functionally act as a barrier to health coverage as well understand the impact of lapsed subsidies. including decreases enrollment, increased churn, and altered risk.
Remaking Vaccine Advisory Panels: Appointments, Dismissals, and the Challenge to Evidence-Based Policy
Advisors serving on vaccine panels continue to change under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s direction of the Health and Human Services (HHS). Indeed, Veronica McNally and Wendy Lane— two members of the vaccine injury advisory panel— were abruptly dismissed from the Advisory Commission on Childhood Vaccines in the middle of their three-year term. Such dismissals were not reflective of performance but rather of the Secretary’s decision to remake the committee at any time, according to the HHS director of the division of injury compensation programs Commander George Reed Grimes. At the same time, Secretary Kennedy has appointed Adam Urato and Kimberly Biss to the federal vaccine advisory panel. Both Urato and Biss are OB/GYNs who are openly skeptical of vaccines and have heavily criticized coronavirus vaccines for pregnant women. These changes follow the replacement of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), who advise the federal government on recommended vaccines, and are part of a larger effort by Secretary Kennedy to make significant changes to vaccine related programs and panels, including but not limited to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation program. According to Kennedy and his supporters, vaccine safety is disincentivized by programs with vaccine liability protections. In decreasing the quantity of recommended pediatric vaccines, these groups hope to eliminate liability protections for vaccines that are no longer recommended. In doing so, these changes would result in a rise in lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers, potentially disincentivizing the production of vaccines that are no longer recommended under the new vaccine advisory panel.
Changes made by these panels, ranging from vaccine recommendations to liability for manufacturers, have profound impacts on public health outcomes and public trust in scientific institutions. Beyond influencing clinical decisions and the uptake of vaccinations, they can also shift research priorities and funding. Health services researchers can analyze the impact of the recommendations set forth by the administration on public health outcomes, trust, and misinformation. Moreover, they can examine the effects of said governance changes and continue to support the use of evidence-based decision-making, emphasizing its importance to policymakers and collaborating with relevant organizations to create safeguards where necessary.
AcademyHealth in the News: Healthcare Coverage, Affordability, and the USPSTF
AcademyHealth Research Champion and Member Miranda Yaver on CBS News
“All of us are vulnerable to being denied,” Miranda Yaver said in a CBS News segment on how insurance companies impact health care coverage and access. “Insurance companies know that only a small percentage of people will actually appeal the denials,” Yaver said, calling it ‘rationing by inconvenience. “A lot of people don’t even know they can appeal. Fewer than 1 percent of claim denials result in an appeal even if people do win about half of the time.” Watch the full segment here.
This showcases the value of health services researchers communicating their work with the media, policymakers, and everyday people—a key aspect of moving evidence into action. AcademyHealth is committed to making sure your work can reach the right people to have impact. Learn more about our flexible, self-paced Communicating for Impact course here.
AcademyHealth Continues to Champion the USPSTF
A new MedPage Today article reports growing concern among public health experts as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) faces cancelled meetings, delayed guidelines, and unfilled member vacancies—disruptions that threaten the evidence-based foundation of preventive care coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
AcademyHealth member and research champion Dr. Miranda Yaver warned that a stalled task force could directly undermine access to preventive services, particularly for marginalized populations. Because USPSTF recommendations trigger no-cost coverage, Yaver emphasized that delays or elimination of the task force would create “fundamental issues of access to care,” calling the current trajectory “a recipe for disaster” if the panel is constrained or deprived of resources.
AcademyHealth President and CEO Dr. Aaron Carroll highlighted why the ACA is explicitly tied to the USPSTF, noting that “no one else has the rigorous transparency in process that the USPSTF has.” He emphasized that the task force’s consistent, open, and methodologically rigorous approach to evaluating evidence is precisely what makes its recommendations trusted—and why political interference or prolonged inaction poses such a serious risk.
For health services researchers, this moment is critical. Weakening the task force not only threatens patient access to preventive care but also undermines the role of transparent, independent evidence in federal health policy. AcademyHealth will continue to highlight the real-world impact and encourage the field to do the same.
AcademyHealth CEO Aaron Carroll Examines the Trade-Offs Driving U.S. Healthcare Costs on Analyzing Healthcare
AcademyHealth President and CEO Dr. Aaron Carroll was featured on the Analyzing Healthcare podcast, where he offered a candid assessment of why U.S. healthcare costs remain stubbornly high—and why meaningful reform is politically difficult. Drawing on decades of health services research, Carroll emphasized that rising costs are driven less by insurance design than by prices, delivery systems, and structural trade-offs policymakers often avoid. He underscored that expanding coverage is politically easier than confronting prices across hospitals, pharmaceuticals, labor, and specialty care.
Throughout the episode, Carroll contrasted the U.S. system with international models in Switzerland, Singapore, Canada, and the U.K., highlighting how other countries manage costs through different delivery structures, public-private balance, and explicit trade-offs—particularly in tertiary and hospital-based care. He also challenged common narratives that blame a single actor, stressing instead that overspending is systemic and that weakening prevention, public health, and primary care only worsens long-term outcomes.
For health services researchers, the conversation reinforces a central lesson of the field: evidence consistently shows that cost, access, quality, and equity are interconnected, and policy debates that ignore trade-offs—or focus narrowly on insurance—miss the core drivers of spending. Research and evidence is critical when informing honest policy discussions and guiding reforms that move beyond rhetoric toward sustainable system-wide change.
AcademyHealth Town Hall: Understanding Policy Shifts and What They Mean for the Field
AcademyHealth will host the first Town Hall of the year, an exclusive members-only session designed to help researchers and institutions understand and navigate the rapidly changing policy environment. Led by President and CEO Aaron Carroll and Director of Advocacy Josh Caplan, the session will focus on pressing challenges affecting the health services and health policy research field, including proposed Medicaid cuts, federal appropriations, funding freezes, and federal workforce reductions. Members will gain insight into how these developments may impact research, institutions, and the broader health policy community, as well as hear about advocacy strategies and resources available to support members during this period of uncertainty. The Town Hall also provides an opportunity for members to ask questions, share experiences, and engage directly with AcademyHealth leadership in a timely and candid discussion about where the field is headed. Learn more and register here.
Previous Editions
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!