Endocrine Society Advocacy Win: Congress Increases FY 2026 NIH Funding Last month, Congress finally passed a funding bill for the Department of Health & Human Services for fiscal year (FY) 2026. The bill includes an increase of about $415 million for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), including a $10 million increase for diabetes research, and language the Endocrine Society had advocated for to protect the NIH by limiting a budget maneuver called multi-year funding, prohibiting arbitrary caps to indirect cost rates, requiring grants be paid within five business days, and reclaiming congressional authority over spending.
This was a major victory considering that originally the administration proposed a 40% cut to NIH research, cancelled thousands of grants, and proposed restructuring the NIH in ways that would disrupt endocrine research. While the Endocrine Society was not the only group advocating for funding for the NIH, we were one of the most vocal.
We worked for a year to achieve our goals and successfully used online advocacy campaigns, Hill Days, visits to congressional offices, and briefings to influence.
Strategic Congressional Wins and Ongoing Advocacy: A Consolidated View of Endocrine Society Actions in 2026
The content presents a synthesis of legislative actions, stakeholder engagement, and organizational mobilization designed to influence budgetary and policy outcomes pertinent to endocrine science and patient care.
The narrative emphasizes outcomes achieved through coalition-building, member participation, and direct engagement with Congress, alongside forward-looking considerations for the FY 2027 cycle and ongoing NIH modernization debates.
These elements were framed as protections against disruptions that could undermine endocrine research programs.
The text indicates that the Society’s advocacy played a pivotal, though not solitary, role among multiple organizations in securing the funding safeguards and expansions.
The Society expressly notes that it convened broader professional medical societies and patient advocacy groups to harmonize messaging, culminating in a letter to congressional leadership that drew support from more than 140 organizations.
The Society signals ongoing commitment to steady, sustainable NIH funding growth and announces a virtual Hill Day for March 13 to sustain congressional prioritization of NIH funding.
There is an invitation for absent members to participate through letter-writing campaigns.
The SDP was funded at $200 million per program per year, representing a $40 million increase for each of its two components.
The legislative action also extended Medicare telehealth waivers for two years, thereby enabling beneficiaries to receive care from their physicians via telehealth from home.
The Society positions endocrinologists as the primary users of telehealth in Medicare, framing this expansion as addressing a critical access issue in endocrine care.
Lash, MD.
The telehealth extension is framed as maintaining a historically important flexiblity in care delivery for Medicare beneficiaries.
Specifically, Senator Susan Collins highlighted risks to women’s health research and health disparities, while Senators Lisa Murkowski and Tammy Baldwin raised governance concerns about IC leadership and budget-related gaps.
It mentions ongoing communication with members to keep them apprised of developments, including reiteration of a commitment by NIH leadership to restore trust in science and support early-career researchers, while recognizing that clinical trial continuity during funding disruptions is a responsibility shared with researchers.
The briefing aimed to educate congressional staff on the mechanisms of GLP-1s and the link between obesity and liver disease, positioning GLP-1–based therapies within the endocrine and metabolic disease landscape.
Post-briefing activities included additional visits to congressional leadership offices to advance obesity policy considerations and heighten the Society’s visibility as an authoritative voice in this domain.
Specific numeric details about baseline NIH funding, distribution across institutes, or the full set of policy riders beyond those enumerated are not disclosed in the provided text.
Consequently, precise policy implications and the projected impact on specific endocrine research domains remain inferred rather than explicitly quantified in the source.
The exact timing, scope, and mechanisms of future campaigns are not delineated in detail.
However, the text does not provide a post-implementation evaluation, timeliness data for fund disbursement, or measured effects on patient access metrics.
Any safety, utilization, or clinical outcome claims are not reported in this article.
The combination of increased diabetes-focused funding and preserved NIH governance structures is presented as maintaining momentum for endocrine science and associated translational programs.
The telehealth expansion is portrayed as a mechanism to sustain telemedicine access, which is particularly relevant to endocrinology practices relying on remote monitoring and patient engagement.
The Society’s emphasis on member engagement, including Hill Days and letter campaigns, indicates that grassroots and professional alliance-building are considered essential components of sustaining policy progress.
It is unclear how these changes are distributed across NIH Institutes and Centers or how they intersect with strategic research priorities in endocrinology.
The source notes concerns raised by lawmakers but does not provide a definitive policy outcome or a formal framework for assessing impact.
The article does not present data on utilization, quality metrics, or patient satisfaction associated with telemedicine in the endocrinology context.