{shortcode-2affb451c56bf45c767cb522c65fb65845e6e5e0}
Former Acting Secretary for the United States Department of Health and Human Services Eric D. Hargan ’90 said the National Institute of Health funding slash would have little impact on long term research during an Institute of Politics event on Thursday.
The forum comes two weeks after a maximum indirect cost cap of 15 percent on NIH funding was introduced in an NIH order, prompting criticism from health professionals and Harvard officials. The cut was temporarily halted after 22 state attorney generals filed a lawsuit, with the court hearing to begin proceedings Feb. 21.
At the event, which was moderated by Harvard Medical School professor Michael E. Chernew, former Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Dawn M. O’Connell discussed health policy and emergency preparedness with Hargan.
Hargan, who served during the first Trump administration, said he didn’t think the NIH would be affected in the long term by budget changes, as “people never look to it for major cutting.” He did, however, acknowledge the insecurity that faced ongoing research.
“Current projects are probably a little bit of a checkerboard,” he said.
Hargan added that the cuts would mostly impact existing institutions that rely on government funding.
O’Connell, who served under the Biden administration, pointed out the negative impact of cuts to NIH funding that “keeps lights on at research institutions.”
“Keeping the lights on so research can happen continues to advance the innovations that we all need,” O’Connell said, noting that many are concerned with the impact of the proposed cuts.
Chernew, who is personal friends with new NIH leader Jay Bhattacharya, suggested that the 15 percent cut was simply an opening offer from the government. He added that the NIH were looking at ways to reshape research processes, which “has the potential for disruption.”
“There is a tension on how to do it better,” He said. “The concern is that in a way to make it more efficient, you break it in a way that’s irreparable.”
Despite serving across partisan lines, both speakers felt the U.S. government responded well to the Covid-19 pandemic.
O’Connell praised the distribution of vaccines as “the closest experience in my lifetime to Universal healthcare,” whereas Hargan commended the response from both private and public healthcare systems.
“For me, it was the power of public-private partnership,” he said.
The former secretary, who is a resident IOP fellow this semester, saw value in splitting the role of production and distribution down private and public sector lines.
Neither speaker, however, could give a confident answer to whether the country was well prepared for any future health crises.
O’Connell emphasised the importance of staying “vigilant” while being unable to predict what crises could arise, given the breadth of emergencies that her department covers — chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, epidemic, and natural disasters.
“We can’t, without having a crystal ball, know what’s coming for us,” Hargan said.
“Are we doing the best we could do?” he said. “I don’t know.”
—Staff writer Will P. Cottiss can be reached at will.cottiss@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X at @WillPCottiss.
