The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has discontinued dozens of active research grants, disrupting ongoing projects aimed at improving health care quality and accessibility across the country. The grant terminations, announced in mid-July, have affected a wide range of studies, from improving treatments for childhood asthma to developing strategies to reduce antibiotic overuse.

One researcher impacted by the funding cuts is Amy Waterman of Houston Methodist Hospital in Texas, who had spent three years developing a program to identify individuals at high risk for kidney failure and to educate patients and families about early kidney transplants. Her initiative, poised for rollout in several California clinics, faced abrupt cessation with no guarantee of future support.

The affected grants, totaling at least 150 and amounting to approximately $229 million according to data from an independent crowdsourced database, have surprised many researchers who had been submitting progress reports and waiting for continued funding. Letters from AHRQ provided limited explanation, stating that the agency was realigning its portfolio to better prioritize resources, citing focus areas such as patient safety, combating antibiotic resistance, and the integration of digital health tools. However, several scientists noted that their work aligned with these stated priorities.

AHRQ’s grants typically involve a multiyear funding process with annual reviews. While midstream terminations are rare and generally occur for specific reasons, researchers and advocacy groups have expressed concern about the recent wave of discontinuations. Dr. Aaron Carroll, president of AcademyHealth, a health policy research organization, described the cuts as interruptions to “real work that affects people,” highlighting the downstream impact on clinicians and patients.

The agency’s recent staff reductions have coincided with the decline in grantmaking, generating uncertainty about decision-making processes. Public Citizen Litigation Group, which has previously sued AHRQ over grant issues, is assessing the recent terminations. A federal judge in Massachusetts recently limited the agency’s ability to terminate active grants in certain states due to priority shifts, although that ruling’s effect may change under new White House plans.

Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson Emily Hilliard emphasized that the agency’s director is required by statute to determine “whether continuation funding is in the best interest of the federal government,” describing the grants as not terminated but rather not awarded further funding.

The cuts have also affected longstanding programs focused on training upcoming health services researchers, including one at Brown University active since 1986, which is no longer recruiting new trainees. This is notable, given that training new researchers remains a stated agency priority.

Scientists like Dr. Nora Becker at the University of Michigan, who was studying the financial impact of COVID-19 on patients, said the funding halt has forced her to seek alternative resources, including institutional support and private foundations. Others, such as Dr. Sebastian Tong from the University of Washington, lament that termination of support has curtailed critical projects aimed at expanding substance abuse care in primary care settings. Dr. Tong described a halt to his work midway through the evaluation and potential scaling of programs, with patients and providers now questioning whether efforts can continue without funding.

While alternatives such as National Institutes of Health grants exist, they tend to focus more on basic research rather than the implementation and dissemination work that AHRQ supports. Researchers voiced concerns that the abrupt discontinuations threaten the translation of scientific findings into practical improvements in health care delivery, especially in underserved and rural communities.