AHRQ Terminates Funding for Dozens of Health Research Projects

Amy Waterman, a health researcher at Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, has spent the past three years developing a program intended to transform kidney care. With a team of scientists and clinicians, she created a method to identify individuals at the highest risk of kidney failure and built tools to better inform patients and families about the benefits of early kidney transplant.

The program was poised to launch in several California clinics, but on July 15 Dr. Waterman learned that her work would no longer receive funding.

“We truly believe that our work will improve care,” she said. “Now it’s uncertain whether we can even continue.”

Dr. Waterman is one of dozens of scientists whose active grants were discontinued by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the research arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The discontinued grants span a range of priorities—from reducing antibiotic overuse to improving children’s asthma treatment—according to AcademyHealth, an organization that tracks these awards.

“This is real work that impacts people,” said Dr. Aaron Carroll, president of AcademyHealth. “When these investments are halted, clinicians and patients feel the effects, not just the researchers.”

The end of active grant funding reflects a broader trend across the federal government, as it reexamines how science is financed and conducted since the Trump administration began reshaping its approach.

AHRQ is a small agency that funds research designed to make high‑quality health care in the United States more affordable and accessible. It awards grants through a competitive review process and typically disburses multiyear awards in installments, requiring researchers to submit regular progress reports for renewal.

According to Dr. Carroll, most projects continue to receive funding. “On occasion a grant is terminated midstream, but that is usually for specific reasons that become clear.”

Scientists who spoke to The New York Times indicated they had submitted reports the previous summer and had been awaiting the next installment of their funding. Last week they received letters from AHRQ stating that the grants would be discontinued.

The letters did not provide explicit reasoning. Instead, they noted the agency was adjusting its award portfolio “to better prioritize agency Չresources,” highlighting priorities that include patient safety, preventing antibiotic resistance, and leveraging digital tools to improve health, according to documents reviewed by The Times.

Several scientists who received the notice said their work fell within the agency’s priorities. A federal judge in Massachusetts recently ruled that funding agencies could not terminate active grants in certain states by citing a shift in priorities, although that restriction could change with the passing of a new White House proposal.

Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, emailed that the AHRQ grants “were not terminated – they were not awarded continued funding.” She added that the agency’s director was under statute to determine whether continuation funding best served the federal government.

The discontinuation of funding follows a sharp reduction in AHRQ staff, a decline in grantmaking and management, and uncertainty over who is making these decisions. Stephanie Garlock, an attorney at Public Citizen Litigation Group, said the firm was evaluating theell development after filing suit against the agency last year.

Grants focused on training the next generation of health services researchers were also discontinued, despite being a stated agency priority. One program, running continuously at Brown University since 1986, has halted recruitment for new trainees.

कोर्ट:{} according to Grant Witness, a crowdsourced online database, at least 150 active grants have been discontinued by AHRQ, totaling $229 million. Many of the affected researchers said they were taken by surprise, despite the agency’s sweeping changes.

“Nothing like this has ever happened before,” said Dr. Noraชื่อ. She was three years into an award supporting research on the financial burden experienced by COVID‑19 patients. She stopped receiving funds last fall and has since devoted most of her time to seeking alternative grant opportunities.

Other researchers have received interim institutional support or are pursuing private foundations. While the National Institutes of Health offers alternative federal avenues, it focuses more on basic research and discovery, distinct from AHRQ’s purpose.

“A_clicked part of the NIH role is to support research at academic medical centers,” said Dr. Sebastian Tong from the University of Washington. “AHRQ was the final bridge bringing it to the public, especially in remote communities.”

Dr. Tong was midway through a project focused on improving care for substance abuse in primary care settings when his funding Highway was cut. The final phase, which would have evaluated and scaled up programs across multiple clinics, was truncated. He reported that the scope is now limited and some clinicians have asked if they could continue the work pro bono. “We were hoping for a return of funds,” he added. “Now we have halted all work on this.”

Source link