The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed sweeping changes to the government-wide rules for awarding, managing, and overseeing federal grants, including those supporting infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and health services research. SHEA is asking you to contact your congressional representatives and ask them to take steps to urge OMB to permanently withdraw the proposed rule. 
The proposed regulation, as published, could result in harm to patient safety goals and ultimately, patient outcomes. Some of the most concerning provisions include:
1. The proposed rule would permit the government to terminate awards for vaguely defined reasons other than financial mismanagement, without any right to appeal. Cutting off research midway wastes not just the money already spent, but also the lost work, lost data, and lost time.
2. Research funding awards would be determined by political appointees and would not require recommendations from independent expert peer review. Rather than making scientific merit the central consideration in funding decisions, it would reduce the role of scientific peer review and expand the role of political decision-making in determining which research receives federal funding.
3. Compliance with the proposed rule, if implemented, would result in researchers spending more time on administrative paperwork and less time on research. Every hour researchers spend navigating unnecessary administrative requirements is an hour they are not spending developing new treatments, conducting experiments, or caring for patients participating in clinical research. More bureaucracy rarely produces more discovery.
4. The proposed rule explicitly restricts federal funding for research related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and gender. Patients benefit when researchers can study why some people experience worse health outcomes and identify better ways to prevent, diagnose, and treat diseases, taking those differences into account.&nbsp;
5. The proposal includes additional review requirements and restrictions affecting international collaborations. Infectious diseases do not respect borders. International partnerships often accelerate discoveries that ultimately benefit American patients while strengthening U.S. scientific leadership.&nbsp;
6. The proposed rule requires approval of scientific conference attendance and scientific journal outlets well in advance of initiation of the project. This provision would limit researchers’ ability to present the results of their research and hinder flexibility if these decisions have to be made years in advance.&nbsp;
7. The proposal makes long-term research less predictable. Health services research often takes years to produce results. Collaborative research and the training of future scientists all depend on stable and predictable funding. The proposed rule would introduce new uncertainty at every stage of the research process.&nbsp;
The United States has long been a global leader in medical research because of its commitment to scientific excellence, rigorous peer review, long-term investment, and collaboration. Infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, and health services research are critical parts of that success, helping make healthcare safer, more effective, and more affordable. These fields generate the evidence needed to prevent healthcare-associated infections, combat antimicrobial resistance, improve patient outcomes, and identify more efficient ways to deliver care while reducing unnecessary costs. Regulatory changes that weaken our research infrastructure or create barriers to scientific discovery threaten progress in these areas and could ultimately put patients at greater risk.&nbsp;
Please take action today and urge Congress to oppose the OMB proposed rule and protect the research that improves healthcare quality, patient safety, and public health.

Urge Congress to oppose the OMB proposed rule 

I am writing to urge you to take immediate action to stop the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule that would significantly change how federal research grants are awarded, administered, and overseen.

If implemented, this proposal could undermine the research enterprise that supports infection prevention, antimicrobial stewardship, health services research, and other critical public health priorities. These fields help make healthcare safer, more effective, and more affordable by generating the evidence needed to prevent healthcare-associated infections, combat antimicrobial resistance, improve patient outcomes, and identify more efficient ways to deliver care.

Several provisions of the proposed rule are particularly concerning.

The proposal would allow federal research awards to be terminated for broadly defined reasons unrelated to financial mismanagement, without a meaningful opportunity for appeal. Abruptly ending research projects wastes taxpayer investments, disrupts ongoing studies, and can result in the loss of valuable data and years of scientific progress.

The rule would also reduce the role of independent expert peer review in funding decisions and increase the influence of political appointees. Federal research investments should continue to be guided primarily by scientific merit and the expertise of qualified reviewers.

In addition, the proposal would increase administrative requirements that could force researchers to spend more time on paperwork and less time conducting research. At a time when healthcare systems face growing challenges from healthcare-associated infections, antimicrobial resistance, and rising costs, researchers should be focused on generating solutions rather than navigating unnecessary bureaucratic burdens.

The proposal could also make long-term research less predictable and create barriers to scientific collaboration. Health services research often requires years of sustained investment to determine the most effective and efficient ways to deliver healthcare, improve patient outcomes, and reduce costs. Research into infection prevention and antimicrobial stewardship similarly depends on stable funding to identify strategies that prevent adverse events before patients are harmed. The proposal's restrictions on collaborations and scientific communication could slow the sharing of discoveries that improve patient care.

Researchers must also be able to study how health outcomes differ across geographic regions and patient populations so that prevention, treatment, and care delivery strategies can be tailored to the needs of different communities. Limiting research in these areas could reduce our ability to address important healthcare challenges and improve outcomes for patients nationwide.

The United States has long been a global leader in medical research because of its commitment to scientific excellence, rigorous peer review, collaboration, and long-term investment in research. Policies that weaken these foundations risk slowing progress against healthcare-associated infections, antimicrobial resistance, and other pressing healthcare challenges.

I respectfully urge you to take whatever steps are available to encourage OMB to permanently withdraw this proposed rule and preserve a federal research system that supports scientific discovery, patient safety, and high-quality healthcare.

Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.