AcademyHealth Launches New Tracker on the Impact of AHRQ Grant Cancellations

In this edition of AcademyHealth’s Situation Report, we launch Research Interrupted, our new public tracker documenting the scope and impact of AHRQ grant cancellations. We also examine the administration’s proposed changes to federal research funding, the ongoing debate over research overhead costs, the human cost of scientific workforce reductions, and growing concerns about federal public health leadership and food safety.

In today’s issue:

• Putting the Full Cost of AHRQ Grant Cancellations on the Record

• The Courts Stopped the 15 Percent Cap. The Fight Over Research Overhead Is Just Beginning.

• Voices from the Field: The Human Cost of Workforce Reductions

• The Administration Proposes Major Shift in Federal Research Funding Priorities

• Health Care Faces Congressional Oversight Heading into 2026 Midterms

• Former FDA Official Calls for Review of Federal Response to Cyclospora Outbreak

• Senate Health Panel Delays Vote on Erica Schwartz to Run CDC

Putting the Full Cost of AHRQ Grant Cancellations on the Record

This week, AcademyHealth launched Research Interrupted, a public tracker documenting the AHRQ research grants that have been canceled, the people and communities those projects were intended to serve, and the potential health care improvements now at risk.

Since July 15, AHRQ has canceled funding for more than 100 health services research grants across 28 states, representing more than $200 million in research. Until now, there hasn’t been a single public source showing the scope of what has been lost. AcademyHealth’s Research Interrupted resource brings that information together in one place.

The tracker documents verified grant cancellations, what each project was working to accomplish, and who stood to benefit. It gives researchers, policymakers, reporters, and the public a way to see the full picture and the collective impact of dismantling the nation’s only federal agency dedicated to health services research. AcademyHealth is offering a clear, public record of what’s happening to the field and the research enterprise. If your work has been interrupted, please email us at advocacy@academyhealth.org

Explore and share the tracker: researchinterrupted.academyhealth.org

The Courts Stopped the 15 Percent Cap. The Fight Over Research Overhead Is Just Beginning.

A year after the administration’s proposed 15 percent cap on research overhead triggered lawsuits across the country, the courts have weighed in, but the policy debate is only getting started. Congress, OMB, and the research community are now advancing competing visions for how the federal government should pay for the infrastructure behind scientific research. While the administration has pushed for tighter limits on indirect costs, many research organizations have rallied around the FAIR (Financial Accountability in Research) model, an alternative framework that seeks to increase transparency and accountability in research infrastructure funding while preserving the capacity universities need to conduct federally funded research.

In the latest edition of A Decisionmaker’s Guide to Competing Health Evidence, AcademyHealth examines the evidence behind the debate, explains why stakeholders are often arguing about different problems entirely, and offers a framework for evaluating the administration’s proposals alongside the research community’s FAIR model. If you’re trying to understand what comes next for federal research funding, this guide is a useful place to start.

A Decisionmaker’s Guide to Competing Health Evidence is a monthly series from AcademyHealth. Each edition takes a live policy debate, explains the structure of the disagreement, and gives readers the tools to evaluate the evidence themselves. Please note, each edition reflects the evidence as it existed at the time of publication. Feedback submitted within 30 days of publication will be reviewed and, when warranted, we may update the decisionmakers guide while clearly noting what changed and why.

Voices from the Field: The Human Cost of Workforce Reductions

In the latest reflection for Work Interrupted: Voices from the Field, Karen Yao shares a deeply personal account of navigating job loss, postpartum depression, financial uncertainty, and the loss of professional identity following a major reduction in force. As a viral immunology researcher, she had spent years building a career in science, only to find herself unexpectedly starting over while caring for a newborn and rebuilding a future she thought was secure.

Karen’s story is a powerful reminder that workforce reductions are never just organizational decisions. Behind every eliminated position is a person, a family, and years of expertise. At a time when public health and scientific institutions continue to face disruption, her reflection challenges us to look beyond budgets and staffing numbers and consider the human cost of these changes. Read her reflection here.

The Administration Proposes Major Shift in Federal Research Funding Priorities

The administration has outlined a proposed overhaul of the federal research enterprise, signaling a shift in funding priorities toward artificial intelligence, robotics, nuclear energy, and other emerging technologies. Speaking before the House Science Committee, White House science adviser Michael Kratsios described the current research system as overdue for reform, arguing that federal investments should be more closely tied to measurable outcomes and national priorities. The proposal would reduce reliance on the long-standing model in which universities conduct federally funded research and instead place greater emphasis on funding individual investigators and private sector organizations.

The report, Science: A New Golden Age, also suggests that federal agencies prioritize what it calls “foundational research” while placing less emphasis on portions of the life sciences research enterprise. Supporters argue the changes could accelerate innovation and strengthen U.S. competitiveness in rapidly evolving fields such as artificial intelligence and advanced computing. Critics, however, have raised concerns that shifting resources away from universities and biomedical research could weaken the research infrastructure responsible for many of the nation’s scientific and medical breakthroughs. Lawmakers also questioned how the proposal aligns with recent grant cancellations, staffing reductions at federal science agencies, and broader efforts to increase political oversight of federal research funding.

For the health services research community, this proposal comes amid ongoing disruptions to federal research funding and growing concerns about the future of agencies like AHRQ. AcademyHealth has been tracking AHRQ funding delays, grant cancellations, staffing reductions, and their effects on the nation’s evidence infrastructure. Together, these developments suggest a broader shift away from longstanding federal investments in health services and biomedical research and toward a new model centered on technological priorities and private-sector innovation.

Health Care Faces Congressional Oversight Heading into 2026 Midterms

With the midterm elections gradually approaching and Democrats hoping to win majorities in the 120^th Congress, many congressional staff members have already started preparing oversight agendas into major health care topics. Congressional oversight efforts are expected to focus heavily on private sector entities, meaning companies, consultants, and trade associations that interact with the Trump administration could face congressional inquiries in the coming months.

While affordability, health care costs, consolidation, and fraud will remain a priority, investigations are expected to expand to include private equity and financialization of healthcare, artificial intelligence and health care data, perceived conflicts of interest and ethics concerns, and federal contracts and health care funding. These investigations may include matters such as medical debt, hospital acquisitions and closures, AI-assisted prior authorization, data protection practices, and federal contracting decisions. Additionally, Democrats may investigate negotiations between health care companies and the Trump administration on matters such as drug pricing negotiations, Medicare pricing models, and pharmaceutical trade and tariff policies.

As Congress considers investigations into major health care topics, the demand for rigorous, policy-relevant evidence is likely to grow. Congressional investigations may rely on empirical research addressing key oversight topics to assess how these issues impact costs, quality, and access to care. This emphasizes the critical role of health services research in influencing policy change and shaping public debate. However, ongoing funding cuts threaten the capacity of health services researchers to generate timely evidence to inform policymaking. Continued investment in health services research is essential to ensure health care policy decisions are informed by sound evidence.

Former FDA Official Calls for Review of Federal Response to Cyclospora Outbreak

A former senior Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official is calling for an independent review of the federal government’s response to the ongoing Cyclospora outbreak, which has sickened thousands of people across the country. Frank Yiannas, who served as FDA Deputy Commissioner under both the Trump and Biden administrations, criticized what he described as a lack of federal leadership and coordination as public health agencies continue investigating multiple outbreaks linked to contaminated food products.

Cyclospora is a foodborne parasite that causes an intestinal illness known as cyclosporiasis, which can lead to prolonged diarrhea, nausea, fatigue, and other gastrointestinal symptoms. As of July, more than 4,000 laboratory-confirmed cases and hundreds of hospitalizations have been reported, with thousands of additional suspected cases under review. Investigations have focused on several potential sources, including a multistate outbreak associated with iceberg lettuce, though questions remain about how public agencies communicated findings and managed recalls.

Yiannas’s comments come amid scrutiny of federal food safety systems and growing concern about whether public health agencies have the staffing, resources, and coordination mechanisms needed to respond effectively to large-scale outbreaks. Foodborne disease outbreaks offer important opportunities to evaluate how public health surveillance systems identify threats, communicate risks, and coordinate responses across agencies and states.

Senate Health Panel Delays Vote on Erica Schwartz to run CDC

The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) delayed its vote on Erica Schwartz’s nomination to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after attendance issues prevented the committee from reaching a vote. The committee also postponed consideration of Sean Kaufman, the nominee for assistant secretary for preparedness and response, leaving two key federal public health leadership positions unfilled as the administration continues to fill senior health roles.

For the health services research community, these delays extend uncertainty around the leadership that will guide the nation’s public health priorities, emergency preparedness strategy, and implementation of CDC initiatives. While procedural rather than policy driven, prolonged vacancies in senior public health positions can slow decision making, delay strategic planning, and create uncertainty for agencies, researchers, and public health partners that rely on consistent federal leadership to advance evidence-based public health programs and preparedness efforts.