policy

How HHS and NIH fared in Congress’ latest deal

Samuel Corum/Getty Images

Congress reached a deal on several health care policies yesterday, including a crackdown on drug-industry middlemen, transparency measures for hospital billing, pediatric cancer research, and Medicare coverage of multi-cancer screening tests. The measures are part of a bill to fund HHS, which itself is part of a package of government spending bills for labor, education, defense, homeland security, transportation, and housing.

Both the Senate and the House still must pass the legislation, and details could change before then. Read more from STAT’s John Wilkerson and Daniel Payne on the major policy areas in the package and how the appropriations compare to last year.

The spending package rejects many of the most dramatic changes to the federal health care infrastructure that President Trump’s administration has proposed, including a near-total rebuke of any downsizing or reshaping of the NIH for the 2026 fiscal year.

Congress set NIH’s budget at $48.7 billion, a $415 million increase over the 2025 fiscal year, and retained language to prevent the Trump administration from slashing support for research overhead. But the measure does include a win for the White House regarding its new funding strategy for multiyear grants. Read more from STAT’s Anil Oza and Jonathan Wosen on how the medical research agency fared.

notable quotable

'It's just the cost of doing business'

That was Ralph Abraham, the CDC’s principal deputy director, who said at a press conference yesterday that he would not view the loss of the country’s measles elimination status as a significant event. Measles is currently spreading through the U.S. at levels that haven’t been seen in decades, as STAT’s Helen Branswell has reported. Abraham spoke on the one-year anniversary of the first confirmed measles case from the large West Texas outbreak that spread across multiple states and led to three deaths last year. Read more from Helen on Abraham’s comments, what they mean for the CDC’s efforts to support communities affected by measles, and when we’ll know whether the United States has lost its elimination status.  

first opinion

When a prostate screening does more harm than good

Howard Wolinsky was 55 years old when he had his first digital rectal exam, more than two decades ago. A prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test accompanied the exam, and found levels high enough to warrant a biopsy to screen for cancer. As Wolinsky writes in a new First Opinion essay, that single result placed him “at ground zero of a medical firestorm.” Over the years, multiple doctors have urged him to consider surgery that he ultimately didn’t need to undergo. 

There have long been concerns about PSA testing due to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and doctors still debate the test’s overall value. Wolinsky argues that better tools are needed so men aren’t rushed into aggressive surveillance or treatment. Read more on the costs of what he calls a “relentless treadmill of testing, scans, and biopsies.”