Advocacy in Action

Proposed OMB Rule Would Severely Disrupt Research Funding

On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed to revise the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (OMB-2026-0034) to establish government-wide rules that would significantly change how all federal grants are awarded and managed across agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and other agencies that fund research. The OMB frames the proposed rule as improving transparency, oversight and accountability while also reducing administrative burden, several changes in the proposal would fundamentally change how academic medical research is conducted in the United States. In our initial review of the proposed rule, we are alarmed about provisions that would impact on the entire process of research, from how grants are selected, through administration of the award, and how results are disseminated to the public.

Pre-Award: The rule would require senior political appointees to review grants and ensure alignment with “policies and priorities set by the President.” This would effectively make scientific merit rank below political priorities when final decisions are made to fund NIH grants. 

During Grant Administration: Agencies would gain expanded authority to pause or terminate awards based on changing “agency priorities” or the “national interest,” creating uncertainty for multi-year research projects. Additionally, new requirements and restrictions would be placed on drawdowns and subawards, adding administrative burden for researchers and more complex compliance processes for institutions. 

Post-Award: Tighter rules on allowable costs and approvals for conference attendance, professional memberships, and publication would impede research progress and dissemination of new discoveries. 

The Endocrine Society is preparing to respond as an organization to the proposed rule. We have also already contacted OMB urging it to extend the short 45-day response time (July 13), so that organizations have time to provide meaningful response to the 400+ page proposal. In our comments, we plan to:

• Oppose replacing the merit-based peer review system of grant review with decisions by political appointees and the emphasis on whether the award would advance the “President’s policy priorities.”  We will recommend that OMB withdraw this provision.
• Oppose restrictions on scientific communication and professional participation – this includes proposals on conference attendance, publication costs, and professional memberships. We will recommend that OMB withdraw these provisions.
• Oppose the proposal that would authorize agencies to terminate active grants mid-award on the basis that they are “inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities.” We will call on OMB to restore the existing standard under which grants may be terminated only for cause. If a research area is no longer a funding priority, that determination should be applied prospectively to new competitions, not retroactively to active, compliant awards. At minimum, if any form of convenience termination is retained, it must include mandatory provisions for orderly wind-down, protection of human subjects, and fulfillment of existing commitments to research participants and personnel.
• Oppose the prohibition on international scientific collaboration. We will argue that international collaboration safeguards should be addressed through existing, targeted mechanisms rather than through a blanket presumption against all international research partnerships.

We also plan to share a template and step-by-step instructions for our members to respond. We believe it will be critical to have large numbers of organizations and individual researchers respond. In addition, we will launch a campaign to alert Congress about the damage the rule, as written, would do to endocrine research and urge its intervention to prevent it from being implemented. If you have concerns or suggestions that the Endocrine Society should consider in our organizational response, please reach out to [email protected].

Share Your Stories to Help the Society Protect Your Research

Without attention from Congress and legislative action to protect NIH, medical research is under threat from policy changes that affect your ability to conduct research. We are advocating to protect research from disruptive changes that will not protect public health. It is critical that Congress learn about what is happening to researchers from you. Please take a few minutes to complete this form to explain how your research is or could be disrupted by new operational or policy changes. The Government and Public Affairs (GPA) team will use these stories in our outreach to Congress. Information collected will be anonymized to protect your privacy. You may also reach out to the GPA team at [email protected].

FY 2027 Health Funding Bill Advances in House With Support for NIH - Threats to Research, Other Health Agencies Remain

On June 8, the House Appropriations Committee advanced the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education bill (L-HHS), which funds the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for Fiscal Year 2027, along party lines for consideration by the full House of Representatives. While there was overwhelming support for NIH and biomedical research, the bill contains proposed cuts to other public health-related agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and Title X. Committee members also expressed concerns about political interference in the grantmaking process in response to the recently introduced proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee also approved an amendment to protect the NIH from expanding multiyear funding awards beyond the number that were obligated during Fiscal Year 2025.

Priorities of the L-HHS Subcommittee, which wrote the bill, were explained in a report accompanying the L-HHS bill. Research on diabetes in general, and the Special Diabetes Program were highlighted as priorities, along with several other endocrine-related health areas including menopause, polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome/polycystic ovary syndrome, microplastics and nanoplastics research and their impact on health. The report also expressed strong support for the Office for Research on Women’s Health and research on sex as a biological variable.

This bill must now be passed by the full House of Representatives, and the Senate also needs to pass a bill and work out any differences with the House by October 1 to avert a government shutdown. In this election-year, it is expected that the Congress will likely not reach agreement before the deadline and instead pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded at this year’s levels through November when a “Lame Duck” Congress will determine a final bill based on the results of the elections.  It is critical that we continue to urge Congress to support NIH. We encourage all US members who receive NIH funding to join our online advocacy campaign today to keep this issue before Congress.

Opportunity to Serve as Specialty Society Advisor on Coding & Payment:

Have you ever been interested in how the services you provide are captured and billed by insurance providers? Are you keen on details and nuances associated with the coding and payment for those services? Would you like to learn more about the CPT code development process while also advocating for our specialty?

The Endocrine Society is seeking a member to serve as a Specialty Society Advisor to the American Medical Association (AMA) CPT® Editorial Panel.

The CPT Editorial Panel is responsible for maintaining and updating the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code set. The CPT code set is used to report medical procedures and services on healthcare insurance claims, when physicians and other qualified healthcare professionals perform those services. Specialty Society Advisors provide valuable clinical expertise and specialty-specific insight during the CPT code development and review process.

With the assistance of Endocrine Society staff, the advisor selected for this role would:

• Serve as a liaison between the Endocrine Society and the American Medical Association’s CPT staff and associated processes.
• Review and provide feedback on CPT code change applications relevant to endocrinology.
• Coordinate with Endocrine Society leadership and society committees on CPT coding matters.
• Help identify coding issues and opportunities impacting physicians and patients within endocrinology.
• Provide feedback or answer questions on the appropriate use of CPT codes pertinent to endocrinology.

The ideal candidate may have:

• Familiarity with CPT coding and reimbursement issues.
• Strong communication and collaboration skills.
• An interest in healthcare coding, valuation, and policy development, or the willingness to learn.
• Prior experience with CPT codes and processes, coding committees, or reimbursement policy is preferred but not required. The Endocrine Society will train and educate the right candidate.

AMA Membership & Other Benefits:

• If you are selected as our advisor, the Endocrine Society will provide you with a complimentary annual membership to the American Medical Association (AMA).
• The Society will reimburse your airfare, hotel, and other travel expenses when you attend a CPT meeting. Previous meetings have been held in Palm Springs, CA, Chicago, IL, and Boston, MA.

If you are interested in this opportunity or have questions, please e-mail Rob Goldsmith at [email protected].