From Research to Real-Lives: How Funding Cuts Hurt Patients

Research funding underpins the medical breakthroughs that transform patient care, from novel cutting-edge therapies for cancer, rare diseases and autoimmune conditions to advanced diagnostics, preventive interventions and health-system innovations. Yet major reductions or freezes in funding for institutions such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the Food and Drug Administration threaten the foundation of this progress. Over the past several months, the federal government has terminated roughly 2,100 National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants worth around $9.5 billion [1]. For patients, the ramifications of such cuts go beyond academic laboratories, leading to delayed treatments, limited therapeutic  options, slower medical progress, and rising  healthcare costs. Could tightening research funding be justified, or do the economic and human costs outweigh any perceived benefit?

The impact of deep funding cuts is undeniable. Freezes or major reductions in biomedical research funding jeopardizes innovation that directly benefits patients. A 33% reduction in NIH funding could lead to a 15% drop in new drug therapies, which in turn could shorten average life expectancy by almost a quarter of a year per person over 25 years [1]. With a population of 340 million, this leads to 82 million fewer years of life. With years of life valued between $100,000 and $200,000 dollars, the lost health from the NIH cuts translates into at least $8.2 trillion dollars in economic loss[2]. Furthermore, clinical trials already underway may be paused or cancelled, leaving participants without access to promising interventions and treatments that may grow obsolete. Researchers report that funding instability forces the abandonment of  long-standing projects, downsizing of labs, shrinking of postdoctoral programmes and neglect of institutional infrastructure. For patients in fields such as paediatric oncology, rare diseases and long-COVID, where commercial incentives are weak and public funding is crucial, the consequences  are especially severe. The ripple effect will shrink or destroy the future pipeline for treatments, threatening patients in the long run.

Moreover, cuts to research funding will exacerbate existing biomedical research constraints, such as increased administrative burdens, inflation in lab costs, and competition for talent, which will amplify risk and strain. As institutional budgets tighten, labs may reduce exploratory “high‐risk/high‐reward” research in favor of safe, incremental projects which stifles innovation. For patients, this means fewer game-changing therapies. This is especially harmful for underrepresented and underserved populations, for whom federal funding cuts can severely exacerbate existing access-to-care issues [4].

Proponents of cuts or reallocations might argue that research investment must yield value: funds should go to projects with clear patient benefit, reduce duplication, avoid waste, and ensure accountability. Some believe that redirecting funds from low‐yield research, administrative excess or marginal interventions allows dollars to flow towards higher-impact areas or patient care directly. In this view, funding cuts can be justifiable if they force prioritisation and more selective investment in research that is likely to deliver the greatest benefit for patients. Thus, tightening research funding could cause institutions receiving government funding to carefully evaluate whether funds are translating to timely patient care and whether some research domains are underperforming.

Nevertheless, abrupt and deep cuts to research funding creates immediate and lasting harm for patients. Pausing a clinical trial means the enrolled participants lose access, potential benefit is lost and contributions to knowledge vanish. For example, mothers enrolled in a postpartum depression intervention study lost vital mental health  support when the program was halted due to funding cuts. This exemplifies how research funding cuts not only suspend support and resources for patients but erode their trust in the scientific research system, damaging the relationship between communities and medical research [5].

Research infrastructure are long-term investments, and what is cost-saving now can convert into cost increases later. Whether it is fewer preventative interventions, slower uptake of cheaper effective treatment, or higher bills for patients and systems, saving a couple billion from research funding cuts pales in comparison to the trillions lost from delayed innovation. While it is understandable that research funding should be efficient, accountable and aligned with patient benefit, the scale, abruptness and scope of cuts have profound implications for patients. For healthcare to deliver on its promise, research must be sustained and protected, not just as an academic exercise but as a lifeline for patients awaiting tomorrow’s breakthroughs.

Reviewed by: Radhika Subramani

Designed by: Claire Hong

References:

[1] Feldscher, K. (2025, May 29). Documenting grant cancellations that represent “a life’s worth of work.” Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/documenting-grant-cancellations-that-represent-a-lifes-worth-of-work/ 

[2] Cutler, D. M., & Glaeser, E. (2025). Cutting the NIH—The $8 Trillion Health Care Catastrophe. JAMA Health Forum, 6(5), e252791–e252791. 

https://doi.org/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2025.2791 

[3] Ibid.

[4] Faiman, B. (2025). The Impact of Federal Funding Cuts on Research, Practice, and Patient Care. Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology, 16(4), 124–125.     https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2025.16.4.1 

[5] Boyle, P. (2025, April 25). What’s at stake when clinical trials research gets cut. Association of American Medical Colleges. https://www.aamc.org/news/whats-stake-when-clinical-trials-research-gets-cut