PROPOSAL PUSHBACK — Patient and scientific research groups are sounding the alarm on a White House proposal they say would politicize the grant funding process at the National Institutes of Health and undermine the nation’s standing as the global leader in biomedical research.
The proposed rule so far has received more than 275,000 comments — which are due today — many of which include pharmaceutical companies, scientists and patient groups cautioning the White House’s Office of Management and Budget against finalizing the rule, which it proposed in May.
The rule, if finalized, would require a pre-issuance review of discretionary grants by senior political appointees to ensure they align with the president’s policy priorities. The rule would also give federal agencies more discretion over terminating grants — if they find they don’t align with policy priorities — and restrict international research collaboration.
“We’re just on the cusp of making breakthroughs in cancers that are universally terminal today for children,” said Lisa Ward, the president of the Tough2gether Foundation, a nonprofit organization focused on fighting childhood brain cancer. “This just isn’t the time to lose [funding] to something that can be more politically influenced.”
In Congress: Today, 57 patient groups, led by patient advocacy network United for Cures, urged congressional leadership to push for the rule to be withdrawn, arguing the regulation would have “grave” impacts on biomedical research, including allowing research grants to be terminated at any time with little recourse.
“This would leave patients participating in clinical trials without further treatment, potentially wasting millions of dollars in federal funding and taking hope away from individuals who are benefitting from cutting-edge treatments,” the groups, including the American Heart Association and Friends of Cancer Research, wrote in a letter.
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), a proponent of strengthening biomedical research in the U.S., urged OMB last week to extend the comment period for the proposed rule and withdraw portions of the rule that “would unduly burden scientific and biomedical research and small communities.”
Senate Democrats also sent a letter to OMB Director Russ Vought on July 1 urging him to rescind the proposal, saying it exceeds OMB’s authority and would “turn federal grants into a new cudgel for the President to unilaterally advance his partisan agenda and punish political rivals.” And the Governors Public Health Alliance, a coalition of 15 Democratic governors, submitted a comment letter on the proposal saying it would lead to “devastating financial setbacks and uncertainty” for state public health infrastructure.
OMB did not return a request for comment. The proposal states that the regulations are intended to “improve transparency, accountability, and oversight” of federal awards. During a hearing last month, Vought defended the proposal, saying its goal is to ensure funding is awarded to research “aligned with the president’s agenda.”
WELCOME TO MONDAY PULSE. A shortage of doctors who provide anesthesia in the U.K. is preventing about 1.5 million operations from occurring a year, according to a new report.
Abortion
FIRST IN PULSE: NEW BILL — Today, a group of House Democrats are unveiling a resolution they hope will serve as the party’s response to the Trump administration’s rollbacks of access to reproductive health care and the social safety net, Alice reports.
The “For All Our Futures” Act would assert the right of all Americans to maternal health services, including fertility treatments, contraception, prenatal and postpartum care and abortion, as well as government support for those who decide to become parents, including paid family and medical leave and child care. The lawmakers hope the bill will send a signal to voters about what the party could do if they flip control of Congress in November.
“It’s not about messaging; it’s about putting a stick in the sand and drawing a line,” said California freshman Rep. Lateefah Simon, who is introducing the resolution along with Reps. Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.). “It’s not just about birth. It’s not just about abortion. It’s about reclaiming what we believe we all deserve: the full spectrum of reproductive health care.”
As they lobby their colleagues to join as cosponsors, the members also hope the bill serves as a counter to Republicans’ ongoing attempts to pass a third reconciliation bill that strips Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funding.
“We have an obligation to be very vocal about how women have been treated under this administration, what we won’t stand for, and what we can vision for ourselves and this country for the future,” Kamlager-Dove told POLITICO. “We need to call out the old white men who still want to control the minds, the bodies, the votes, the futures of women, and this black woman who has had her own reproductive health care journey is not standing for that anymore.”
In Congress
FIRST IN PULSE: SURPRISE BILLING CAMPAIGN — A group representing insurers, employer groups and unions launched a six-figure ad campaign today urging lawmakers to oppose a bipartisan bill that would tighten enforcement of a surprise medical billing law.
The Coalition Against Surprise Medical Billing will run the TV and digital ads in the Washington area, building on a seven-figure ad campaign the group launched in May targeting private equity-backed providers who they argue have abused the No Surprises Act to secure higher payments from health plans, employers and consumers.
Why it matters: The new campaign comes as the House Ways and Means Committee is expected to soon mark up the No Surprises Act Enforcement Act, a bipartisan bill that would penalize insurers failing to meet the required payment timelines when a billing dispute is resolved through the No Surprises Act’s arbitration process.
The new bill has been lauded by providers, who claim insurers are slow to pay out-of-network providers who prevail in the law’s independent dispute-resolution process.
But insurers and employers have long argued providers are misusing the dispute resolution process to secure payments above market rates, flooding the system with surprise billing disputes and winning most of them. The No Surprises Act Enforcement Act would “result in more abuse of an increasingly broken system,” more than 50 employers and employer groups wrote to Ways and Means leadership on Friday.
IN THE COURTS
GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE SUITS — On Friday, a federal judge refused to halt the Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement case against a leading transgender health care advocacy group — marking the latest development in a messy legal saga, Simon reports.
In June, the FTC filed a suit against the World Professional Association for Transgender Health in the Northern District of Texas, arguing the provider group deceived parents and patients by misleading them about the efficacy and necessity of gender-affirming care for children. Gender-affirming care refers to medical and psychological interventions aligning a person’s body with their gender identity.
WPATH has denied the FTC’s claims. In a separate federal court suit, WPATH asked a Washington judge to insulate the group from the FTC’s Texas action based on a previous ruling. On Friday, that judge, James Boasberg, denied that request — allowing the Texas case to move forward — saying that the previous ruling was limited.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee, largely blocked a separate FTC investigation into provider groups that craft recommendations for transgender care, including WPATH. In that case, the FTC argued that the group’s guidance could expose consumers to false or unsupported claims.
But WPATH and other provider groups filed separate suits in February that argued the agency was acting in retaliation and violating their First Amendment rights. One of those suits, brought by the American Academy of Pediatrics, has yet to be decided, though FTC pulled its probe last month.
Names in the News
The American Hospital Association board of trustees has elected Laura Kaiser, president and CEO of SSM Health, as its chair-elect designate. Kaiser will be chair-elect in 2027 and become chair of the AHA in 2028.
WHAT WE’RE READING
POLITICO’s Alec Hernández reports on how Sen. Lindsey Graham‘s sudden, unexpected death will kick off a rapid campaign to pick the next likely senator from South Carolina.