AMA Needs to Be More Aggressive in Fighting Trump’s Health Funding Cuts

—
“Where are the doctors? Why aren’t they expressing concern?”

by
Cheryl Clark, Contributing Writer, MedPage Today
June 8, 2025 • 5 min read

CHICAGO — Several American Medical Association (AMA) members Saturday impatiently protested what they see as the lack of aggressive AMA pushback to many Trump administration budget cuts and other actions, specifically cuts to Medicaid and NIH.

They also said at the AMA House of Delegates annual meeting that the AMA needs to be more vocal about how trade tariffs will increase the cost of drugs and other health services.

“Quiet advocacy is insufficient as we stare down the barrel of one of the greatest upheavals of healthcare in a generation — when we know eligible patients will lose Medicaid by the millions, when we know Medicaid cuts will lead to more physicians going unpaid or underpaid, when we see patients being intentionally misinformed by politicians — it is of existential importance that we speak,” said Laurie Lapp, of Madison, Wisconsin, an MD/MPH candidate, speaking on behalf of the AMA Women Physicians Section.

Zarah Iqbal, MD, MPH, of San Francisco, speaking for the American Academy of Pediatrics, predicted children’s hospitals “will not be able to sustain themselves, which will jeopardize care, not just for the 37 million children on Medicaid, but all those on private insurance as well.”

Iqbal added, “the AMA has not only been silent, but woefully inactive.” She acknowledged that “not all advocacy is screaming from the rooftops, and that the political dynamics of the current administration and Congress are unprecedented, but we also know that coordinated backlash and public pressure works.”

‘Watching From the Sidelines’

Iqbal spoke during a 4-hour session of a reference committee on legislation, one of several policy sessions held over the weekend during the annual meeting. The session was among the longest of this meeting, with more than 40 proposals, dozens of amendments, and seven reports under discussion.

She noted that the AMA seems be “watching from the sidelines begging for crumbs for Medicare payment,” and relying on specialty societies to do the pushing back against the administration. “If these state [medical] societies and specialty societies are forced to work outside of the AMA, then what is the purpose of the AMA?” Iqbal asked. “If we won’t stand up to such a fundamental threat to our healthcare system and to our patients, then why do we exist at all?”

On the massive cuts to NIH — which at least one speaker warned would be announced Monday — several speakers spoke about the personal impacts of the administration’s cuts.

Karthik Sarma, MD, PhD, a psychiatrist at the University of California San Francisco, spoke on behalf of the AMA Resident and Fellows section. “I too have had to curtail some of my research activities. Many of you probably have seen…on Monday, the NIH will cancel all of our grants at our institution, a topic of a lot of fear.” He added that these actions are “putting politics in front of expertise.”

Kavita Arora, MD, MBE, of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, speaking for the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists section, said that “as of August 2025, after a decade of continuous NIH funding, I will no longer be able to say that I’m an NIH-funded researcher because my funding was cut due to reorganization.”

Christopher Worsham, MD, MPH, of Charlestown, Massachusetts, speaking for the American Thoracic Society, urged colleagues to make sure the resolution calls for the AMA to “immediately issue a public statement expressing concern. …A lot of people are seeing what’s currently being proposed out there and wondering, ‘Where are the doctors? And why aren’t we saying enough and expressing concern?”

Worsham then disclosed a conflict of interest to make his point. He said “I am funded by the [U.S.] Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ] which is set to not exist.”

Kristina Novick, MD, of West Chester, Pennsylvania, speaking for the Association for Clinical Oncology , proposed alternate resolution language that urged the AMA to:

• Oppose reorganization of the NIH when such action is conducted without transparency or input from relevant stakeholders
• Results in a reduction of total NIH funding
• Disrupts ongoing and long-term research efforts through discontinuation of contracts

Tariffs and More

Another resolution focused on encouraging the AMA to draw attention to the impact of the Trump administration’s new tariffs on the cost of medical equipment and supplies, which could force healthcare providers to “administer services at a financial loss.” The resolution seeks to have the AMA study short- and long-term impacts on supply chains, patient outcomes, and healthcare disparities, “given the urgency associated with the issue.”

The delegates also want the AMA to do more to fight back against federal cuts in funding for epilepsy services and research.

Speaking as a delegate from the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, Jason Schwalb, MD, of West Bloomfield, Michigan, said that with 3 million people in the nation living with epilepsy “there is evidence that fundamental investment in programs like the CDC Epilepsy Program result in cost savings over the long term.”

But his resolution was opposed by Tani Malhotra, MD, of Parma, Ohio and a delegate from the Ohio State Medical Association speaking on behalf of the Great Lakes State Coalition.

While Malhotra said she supports restoring funding to the CDC for epilepsy, “I do not believe that we can at this juncture, where so many things are being defunded, take a position on which programs need to be prioritized,” she said. Several other resolutions, she said, “better protect and support the funding of research and healthcare programs that should be supported.”

The delegates also discussed ways the AMA could advocate for a separate pathway for international medical graduates to practice in the U.S., and how the AMA should push to allow the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) cover over-the-counter medications, which it now does not.

Many patients can’t take Tylenol or laxatives because their families are below the poverty line, said Lavanya Easwaran, MD, MPH, of Aurora, Colorado and a member of the Colorado delegation who was speaking for herself. “Even a couple of vitamins for 2 weeks can really stress a salary and income,” she said.

But the CHIP resolution wasn’t embraced by everyone. Jordan Warchol, MD, MPH, of Omaha, a member of the Nebraska delegation who spoke for herself, said she isn’t advocating against CHIP, but cautioned that CHIP is a block grant program. “Any money that we spend on over-the-counter medications is less money that we can spend to cover more children,” she said. She urged that the resolution be sent back for more study.