The recent decision by President Donald Trump’s administration to terminate billions in funding allocated to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has sparked significant alarm among both researchers and technological developers within the healthcare sector. This funding cut, which has raised concerns about the future of medical research and innovation, is currently on hold due to ongoing legal challenges. Regardless of how these legal disputes unfold, experts in healthcare are preparing for a likely reduction in investment that could have far-reaching consequences.
According to healthcare professionals consulted for this article, the anticipated NIH funding cuts are expected to significantly disrupt the momentum of medical research across the United States. This disruption not only risks delaying the commercialization of breakthrough therapies but also jeopardizes America’s longstanding position as a pioneering nation in healthcare and technological advancements.
Experts agree that in the face of reduced federal funding, both researchers and startups may need to pivot towards alternative financial resources, primarily from private industry and nonprofit sectors. If these adjustments do not occur swiftly, the United States could fall behind other nations in the race for healthcare innovation. Interestingly, some specialists believe that the funding cuts could inadvertently lead to more streamlined grant processes and enhanced operational efficiency.
Understanding the Extent of Funding Reductions
Last month, the Trump administration revealed its plan to impose a cap on indirect costs for NIH research grants, limiting them to just 15%. This new policy does not impact direct funding, which covers essential expenses such as researchers’ salaries and laboratory supplies. Instead, it significantly reduces the financial resources available for indirect costs, which encompass necessary expenses like utilities, security, equipment, and legal compliance.
Prior to this change, institutions had negotiated indirect cost rates with the federal government, typically ranging from 50-60% of direct research expenses. Consequently, this new policy is expected to inflict substantial harm, potentially cutting billions from research aimed at finding cures and treatments for various diseases, including cancer, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, mental health disorders, and opioid addiction.
Last year alone, $9 billion of the $35 billion awarded by the NIH was allocated to indirect costs. The projected savings from these funding cuts are around $4 billion annually for the federal government.
However, the enforcement of these funding cuts is facing legal obstacles.
This month, a federal judge intervened to block the administration’s attempt to implement the funding cap after 22 states filed lawsuits to challenge the policy. Currently, the funding cuts are temporarily halted in states that have taken legal action, including California, New York, Massachusetts, and North Carolina, all of which are significant recipients of NIH funding.
In light of these legal challenges, the Trump administration is exploring alternative methods to enforce the funding cuts, one of which includes suspending NIH grant meetings, effectively halting the approval of new funding.
The Urgent Need for Innovation in Healthcare
Healthcare professionals are increasingly concerned about the implications of diminishing NIH funding on the pace of innovation within the industry. The NIH plays an indispensable role in financing early-stage research and clinical trials, providing crucial support for scientific inquiries that often lack immediate commercial prospects.
According to Jonathan Wofford, chief commercial officer of Title21—a company specializing in software solutions for cell and gene therapy laboratories—NIH funding reductions are likely to create significant research bottlenecks for various diseases and conditions. This is particularly critical in high-risk areas such as gene therapy and treatments for neurodegenerative diseases.
As funding decreases, many research institutions will struggle to invest in the necessary resources to conduct studies effectively, including lab facilities, specialized equipment, and adequate data storage solutions. The uncertainty surrounding these funding cuts can deter long-term planning and investment, causing delays in project execution and the regulatory approval process.
Consequently, promising therapies may become stalled in development, hindering the timeline for innovation and delaying access to transformative treatments for patients, Wofford emphasized.
Wofford also pointed out that receiving an NIH grant is often viewed as a strong indicator of a research project’s viability. When research initiatives evolve into startups, clinical trial sponsors and venture capitalists regard NIH grants as initial endorsements of the technology, effectively lowering the perceived risk associated with those startups.
“The grant application process is intensive, which is why academic institutions often engage deeply in securing these funds, as they possess the organizational capacity to navigate NIH processes at scale. It remains unclear how private funders can replicate the validation that NIH funding provides, especially during the translational phase,” Wofford stated.
A report published by the biotech incubator Altitude Lab last month revealed that startups receiving NIH funding are 10 to 15 times more likely to secure venture capital, with 65% of these startups managing to raise over $5 million.
Furthermore, the NIH meticulously tracks the outcomes of its funded research, particularly in relation to patents, licensing agreements, and the commercialization of technologies.
The agency’s latest data from fiscal year 2023 indicates that during this period, the FDA approved three products that originated from NIH-funded research initiatives, resulting in the issuance of 87 patents for NIH-backed technologies. The three newly approved FDA products included the inaugural RSV vaccine for individuals aged 60 and above, the first gene therapy targeting hemophilia, and an immunotherapy treatment for melanoma.
Assessing the Impact on America’s Global Competitiveness
Russ Paulsen, COO of the advocacy organization UsAgainstAlzheimer’s, highlighted that the NIH has been instrumental in facilitating research breakthroughs across nearly all significant diseases, with its funding closely linked to the advancement of treatments. “It is challenging to identify a treatment that does not have its foundations in NIH-funded research. While the specifics of the proposed cuts remain uncertain, any substantial reduction in funding could prove catastrophic. We are already witnessing how grants being suspended are delaying the development of cures, and patients simply cannot afford to wait,” Paulsen asserted.
He further emphasized that cuts to the NIH would deter many of the brightest medical professionals and researchers from coming to the U.S. to enhance scientific knowledge and treatment methodologies.
In his perspective, the nation risks losing an entire generation of talented innovators to other countries, along with their discoveries, breakthroughs, and economic contributions.
“NIH funding is not merely a scientific investment; it serves as an economic engine. It drives innovation, supports high-quality jobs, and stimulates growth through research and development. For each dollar invested, the economic return exceeds double. In an era of economic uncertainty, slashing this reliable and proven investment would be profoundly short-sighted and detrimental,” Paulsen remarked.
Orr Inbar, CEO of QuantHealth, an Israeli AI firm specializing in clinical trial simulation platforms, echoed these sentiments, asserting that cuts to NIH funding could potentially weaken the global competitiveness of the U.S. in healthcare and technology sectors.
Historically, NIH funding has been crucial in establishing the U.S. as a leader in health research. However, decreased investment could allow other nations to seize the lead in healthcare innovations, Inbar warned.
“From a technological standpoint, this could hinder progress in areas such as AI-driven drug development and precision medicine innovations. As funding declines, U.S. companies and research institutions may find it increasingly challenging to maintain their competitive edge, limiting opportunities for early-stage discoveries that are essential for subsequent commercial and technological advancements,” he asserted.
Identifying Possible Positive Outcomes of Funding Cuts
While the NIH funding cuts are likely to trigger delays in research initiatives, some experts believe they could also lead to efficiency improvements. Andreas Forsland, CEO of Cognixion, a startup focused on developing a noninvasive brain-computer interface, noted that the primary impact of these funding cuts has largely been associated with delays in grant approvals rather than outright cancellations.
His company is currently awaiting responses regarding grant applications submitted to the NIH and the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H). Cognixion has successfully raised over $25 million in venture capital funding, making NIH grant delays manageable for them. However, Forsland cautioned that such delays could be catastrophic for smaller startups and university labs that depend heavily on timely grants for their survival.
In the long run, he believes that the funding cuts might serve to eliminate inefficiencies, compelling academic researchers to adopt a more outcome-focused approach.
“Organizations need to become more entrepreneurial and mindful of their contributions. There are institutions that have become ‘grant factories’—focusing solely on applying for grants without producing any valuable output that benefits the world,” Forsland stated.
Similarly, Hernan Bazan, a professor of surgery and cardiovascular innovation at Ochsner Health and CEO of South Rampart Pharma, expressed the view that these funding cuts could foster greater efficiency.
South Rampart Pharma, which is in the process of developing non-opioid pain management solutions, has received nearly $2 million from the NIH. Bazan pointed out that the NIH grant application process tends to be slow and bureaucratic, often requiring 9-12 months for funding approval, even for highly rated proposals.
The cap on indirect costs at 15% could potentially streamline this process and lead to more timely support for innovative projects, he contended.
He also highlighted that some companies have received multiple NIH grants over the years without making significant progress toward clinical trials, indicating inefficiencies in the broader NIH funding framework.
Ultimately, Bazan believes that healthcare startups require a balanced mix of non-dilutive government funding and private investments. While NIH funding is invaluable for allowing emerging companies to develop innovative solutions without relinquishing equity, those that overly depend on this funding may be perceived as research-centric rather than commercially viable.
Exploring Future Directions for Healthcare Funding
For the U.S. to maintain strong healthcare innovation, the void left by NIH funding cuts must be addressed, as highlighted by Anshul Mangal, a biotech entrepreneur and investor, as well as CEO of life sciences consultancy Project Farma.
Potential alternative funding streams might include nonprofit grants, philanthropic contributions, state-level financing, or reallocated budgets within research institutions, Mangal noted.
“In the short term, this could result in a slowdown or reduction in the scope of various research projects, particularly at institutions that heavily depend on NIH funding and lack substantial endowments or backup financing,” he explained.
Over time, Mangal indicated that the pressing issue will be whether these institutions can secure dependable alternatives.
While all healthcare research organizations face the same funding reductions, larger, well-resourced institutions are better positioned to navigate the changes. In contrast, smaller universities and state schools may struggle significantly, leading to a decline in research output, Mangal observed.
In essence, the NIH cuts are accelerating an existing trend toward increased reliance on private industry funding.
Industry-sponsored research, particularly in fields such as rare diseases and oncology, is increasingly becoming the main driver of innovation, according to Mitesh Rao, CEO of OMNY Health, a national data ecosystem that facilitates medical research.
He pointed out that OMNY Health fosters collaborations between healthcare providers and industries for patient-centered research without depending on NIH funding, and his company’s platform is witnessing a surge in demand as research institutions look for new funding avenues and study methodologies.
Looking ahead, Rao urged researchers and startups to concentrate on discovering diverse and sustainable funding models. He expressed confidence that partnerships between industry and nonprofit organizations can effectively fill the funding gap created by NIH cuts.
“There are abundant opportunities for organizations to adapt and pivot their strategies to support ongoing research efforts,” Rao remarked.
In conclusion, the experts consulted for this article agree that the NIH funding cuts signify a significant shift within the healthcare research landscape. While some specialists predict potential gains in efficiency, others are alarmed about the likely delays in the pace of innovation and the deterioration of the nation’s stature as a global leader in healthcare. To safeguard the future of healthcare discoveries in the U.S., research institutions and startups must actively seek out alternative funding sources, raising the critical question of whether these new funding models can sustain the level of innovation that NIH funding has historically provided.
To stay updated on the latest trends in litigation, regulation, financial services, and deals, subscribe to Finance Docket, a collaboration between Breaking Media publications Above the Law and Dealbreaker.
