'We need to come together as a nation': Why science, not politics, should guide healthcare policies
In a pointed appeal to federal leadership, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) sent a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., expressing deep concerns about abrupt funding reductions, mass staff layoffs at federal healthcare agencies and the growing politicization of policy decisions.
ACC Immediate Past President Cathie Biga, MSN, the president and CEO of Cardiovascular Management of Illinois, is urging the U.S. government to place science at the forefront of healthcare policy as the Trump administration implements sweeping cuts to federal health agencies and medical research. She spoke with Cardiovascular Business about the ACC's concerns during the ACC.25 meeting.
"Cardiovascular disease remains the number one killer in the U.S.," said Biga. "The reality is that we need research, ongoing research, to really help us, much like we heard of late breaking trials here at ACC, because without science, we really can't stop this global epidemic of heart disease. The ACC, like many of our colleagues in other professional societies, is very worried about the dramatic cuts that we continue to see."
Biga warned that critical federal institutions such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are being undermined at a time when their work is more vital than ever. She emphasized that while the U.S. healthcare system does require reform, those changes must be targeted, deliberate and data-driven.
"We don't necessarily want to use a grenade, but maybe a scalpel to really look at exactly what we're doing, because NIH funding is so critical, and the ACC works very closely with all of our entities in Washington. The science has to lead us," Biga explained.
Research programs slashed, clinical studies in jeopardy
Hospitals and universities across the country have started laying off researchers mid-study due to sudden funding withdrawals. Biga noted that this disrupts long-term cardiovascular research and undermines discoveries in areas like precision medicine and emerging pharmacological treatments. Research on gender and ethnic differences is vital to understanding the different disease presentations and developments in these groups, but that is now being hindered or eliminated due to political agendas.
"As we really peel back that onion as we understand the disease process so much better as we need to ensure we have inclusivity in our research, making sure we have women and that we have different cultures. We know our Asian population reacts to cardiovascular disease very differently than many others. Obviously women react differently, so research is important. Maybe research has become too large from an expense perspective, but I think arbitrarily slashing things is not going to help us. I think if we keep our vision clearly in sight, our vision of trying to reduce that global burden of heart disease to understand, for instance, the impact of the GLP-1 drugs on the vascular system, all those things that will keep our patients healthier," Biga said.
The situation is further complicated by new federal directives ordering agencies to remove content related to diversity, equity, and inclusion—changes that have resulted in the deletion of data on how heart disease affects women, racial minorities and LGBTQ+ populations.
"I think that is a shame that that's happening. I think it's why it's important to keep our data registries as pure as we can ... it's going to be based on those social determinants of health no matter what we want to think. It's going to be where patients live, what their income is, what their education is, what their gender is, what their culture and nationality is. We're all made a little bit differently and therefore healthcare's got to be delivered a little bit differently. Not having that data specificity is really not the best idea, and I think the college is strongly behind making sure that we keep our data as clean as we can," Biga said
ACC calls for leadership and advocacy led by science
Biga acknowledged a climate of political volatility, where medical societies hesitate to speak out as regulations and priorities shift rapidly.
"Our vision and our mission of equitable healthcare for everyone is so critical," Biga explained.
She highlighted the value of clinical registries like the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry) in tracking outcomes to help improving care, as trust in federal data sources erodes.
As Washington continues to reshape the healthcare landscape, Biga said the ACC and its partners are doubling down on advocacy, urging policymakers to collaborate with the scientific community to build a stronger, more equitable health system.
"We need to stay very vigilant as to what's going on, and we have to trust in this democracy that we have created and hope that that pendulum modulates. I think we've swung pendulums throughout our many years as a country. We need to come together as a nation and as a scientific community, as the house of cardiology. We need to make sure that our voices remain heard up on the hill and with HHS and with CMS and all those other entities that really do impact what we do every day," Biga concluded.
Dave Fornell has covered healthcare for more than 17 years, with a focus in cardiology and radiology. Fornell is a 5-time winner of a Jesse H. Neal Award, the most prestigious editorial honors in the field of specialized journalism. The wins included best technical content, best use of social media and best COVID-19 coverage. Fornell was also a three-time Neal finalist for best range of work by a single author. He produces more than 100 editorial videos each year, most of them interviews with key opinion leaders in medicine. He also writes technical articles, covers key trends, conducts video hospital site visits, and is very involved with social media. E-mail: [email protected]