Cutting Medical Research Funding: Bad Idea, Even If You Don’t Care About Politics

Saving Pennies, Losing Progress

by Laura Oden, CEO Founder of Pandere Shoes

Here’s a topic you probably won’t hear about on Joe Rogan’s podcast or Fox News: the disastrous cutting of medical research funding. It may not be as sensational as the new Pope or Justin Timberlake's DWI, but it is a topic that has far-reaching consequences.

As the founder of Pandere, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about shoes—probably more than most people care to know. But shoes are just one part of the equation. If you’re living with lymphedema, diabetes, or any chronic condition that makes walking feel like an extreme sport, you know that the real challenge goes far beyond what’s on your feet.

People need to move to be healthy. That’s the first piece of the puzzle. Whether you're able to walk or not—whether you're using a wheelchair or walking with assistive devices—the ability to move is crucial to health. And in that equation, shoes are essential for many people, especially for those dealing with conditions that affect mobility. Comfortable shoes aren’t just about style; they’re about helping you get where you need to go with dignity and without pain.

Explore our collection of shoes designed for mobility and comfort here.

But here’s where the second piece of the puzzle comes in: medical research. Research is what funds the treatments and advancements for chronic conditions affecting millions of Americans—conditions like lymphedema, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. It’s research that equips us with the tools to manage these conditions, and it’s research that helps people maintain an active, independent life.Cutting research funding may sound like an easy way to trim the fat, but it does more than balance the budget—it creates setbacks for thos who need progress. When funding is cut, advancements in treatments slow, and conditions like lymphedema, which causes serious foot swelling, risk losing vital treatment options. It’s not just about making shoes—it’s about ensuring there are solutions for people to move toward.

Find the perfect pair of shoes designed for comfort and support.

Today’s Seniors Are Living Longer Thanks to Research—Cutting It Hurts Future Generations

It’s easy to think that cutting government funding for research is a quick and simple solution to bloated government spending. For many, it’s a logical response—particularly when you believe that government is inefficient and wasteful. Cutting research funding, at first glance, might seem like an easy fix to trim the fat and redirect money elsewhere. However, what often gets lost in this approach is the long-term damage that such cuts can cause—particularly when it comes to the population that I serve.

When we talk about cutting research funding, we’re not just talking about government grants for big pharmaceutical companies or obscure science projects. We're talking about funding for the very research that leads to advancements in treatments for chronic conditions, like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. It’s the research that has already helped millions of seniors live longer, healthier lives—and without continued funding, our children will miss out on these life-changing advancements.

Take diabetes research, for example. Research has led to significant improvements in treatment. The development of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors has transformed the way people manage their blood sugar. These innovations alone have made managing diabetes a bit less of a nightmare for millions of people. Research has also advanced the understanding of diabetic neuropathy, a condition that causes nerve damage in the feet, and has contributed to the development of treatments that reduce pain and improve mobility.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) technology, in particular, has played a critical role in improving diabetes management. Studies have demonstrated that CGM devices offer significant benefits, improving the ability of patients to control their blood sugar and avoid complications (Rodolfo J. Galindo, Grazia Aleppo, "Continuous Glucose Monitoring: The Achievement of 100 Years of Innovation in Diabetes Technology," PMC7736459). Innovations like CGM would not be possible without continued research funding. Imagine if we stopped funding this research—these advancements wouldn’t just halt—they’d regress. And suddenly, you’re back to relying on outdated methods and hoping for the best.

In the realm of cancer research, government-funded initiatives have played a crucial role in advancing treatments like immunotherapy, which harnesses the body’s immune system to fight cancer. Immunotherapy has already helped countless patients with previously untreatable cancers. However, these breakthroughs were only made possible through sustained research funding. If we cut funding, it’s not just research that stalls—it’s the future of potential treatments for those with chronic illnesses. A prime example is the success of pembrolizumab in the treatment of advanced melanoma, underscoring the transformative impact of these therapies (Next-Generation Immunotherapy).

The same goes for chronic heart failure (CHF) and venous insufficiency. Research has improved the understanding of how these conditions develop and has led to treatments that help manage symptoms and improve patients' quality of life. SGLT2 inhibitors, for example, have shown promise in treating heart failure and chronic kidney disease—two conditions that often overlap. These types of advancements are only possible with consistent funding for research. One study highlights how SGLT2 inhibitors have become essential in managing both Type 2 diabetes and heart failure, with significant improvements in patient outcomes (Inderbir S. Padda, Arun U. Mahtani, Mayur Parmar, "Sodium-Glucose Transport Protein 2 (SGLT2) Inhibitors," PMC7736459).

The Hidden Price Tag: How Research Cuts Show Up in Your Bill

While it’s easy to focus on the immediate financial savings from cutting research funding, the reality is that the cost of inaction is much higher in the long run. Without research, healthcare treatments stagnate, chronic diseases become harder to manage, and millions of people lose the potential for better health outcomes.

You might think that slashing research budgets is a good way to balance the books, but the truth is that healthcare research is not a luxury—it’s a necessity. It’s the difference between living with a manageable condition and living with a condition that limits your ability to live a full life. It’s the difference between being able to walk comfortably every day and feeling trapped by foot pain or swelling. It’s the difference between fighting cancer with the latest treatments and being stuck with outdated, less effective options.

The costs of cutting research funding don’t just disappear—they get passed on in other ways. Take healthcare premiums, for example. As medical advancements slow, the number of people living with untreated or poorly managed conditions rises. More people will need more intensive care, which leads to higher costs for everyone. These higher healthcare costs don’t just get absorbed by the healthcare system—they show up in higher insurance premiums, including those for Medicare supplemental insurance (Medigap) policies. Research is a proven driver of cost savings, as better treatments and early interventions prevent more expensive procedures down the line.

A study on health research evaluation highlights that the economic benefits of research far outweigh the initial costs, leading to improved health outcomes and reduced long-term healthcare expenses (Kerstin Roback, Koustuv Dalal, Per Carlsson, "Evaluation of Health Research: Measuring Costs and Socioeconomic Effects," PMC3237262). Cutting research means the costs of inaction—like higher premiums and longer hospital stays—are only magnified.

Many of you, my customers, have participated in cancer treatment trials or diabetes trials, or are considering them as a way to find better treatments for your conditions. Research directly impacts these trials—trials that provide the hope of new, life-changing treatments. But when funding is cut, those trials slow or stop. The cost of this isn’t just financial; it’s emotional. It’s the loss of hope for those in need of better treatment options. Without new therapies and advancements in care, people are forced into longer hospital stays, more surgeries, and increased use of emergency care—all of which drive costs even higher.Cutting research funding might make sense in the abstract, but in practice, it’s a dangerous game to play. The real cost of cutting funding isn’t just money—it’s the future of healthcare for everyone. It’s the future of finding better treatments, reducing costs over the long term, and making sure that people like you aren’t left behind in the fight for better health.

What We Stand to Lose

The problem with cutting research funding, particularly in healthcare, is that it doesn’t just affect the people currently enrolled in clinical trials or benefiting from the latest breakthroughs. It impacts the future of health for everyone. For instance, the development of targeted therapies for cancers like breast and prostate cancer has been possible thanks to decades of research focused on understanding the specific genetic makeup of cancer cells. This type of research has led to treatments that are not only more effective but also less toxic than traditional chemotherapy. Without continued funding, progress in these critical areas will stagnate.

For those dealing with chronic conditions like lymphedema or lipedema, the consequences are just as significant. While these conditions may not always grab headlines like cancer or heart disease, they still have a profound impact on people's lives. Research has led to advancements in compression therapy, which helps manage swelling in the limbs, and ongoing studies continue to explore more effective ways to treat these conditions. Without funding, these innovations—small as they may seem—are at risk of slowing down or stopping altogether.

The cuts that might feel like a small victory in the short term actually create long-term problems for people living with chronic health issues. Reducing investment in medical research isn’t just about cutting a line item in the budget—it’s about eliminating the potential for advancements that make a real difference in people's lives. It's about taking away hope for people with diabetes, heart disease, lymphedema, and countless other conditions who rely on the progress that research brings.

What You Can Do? Take Action Now

This is not a fight that can be won by sitting back. We need your voice to make sure research funding remains a priority. The next time you attend a town hall or meet with your congressional delegation, bring up the critical importance of healthcare research. Write a letter to your representatives and urge them to continue supporting research funding—not just for cancer, but for the chronic conditions that affect millions of Americans. Every letter, every call, every conversation counts.

It’s not just about budgets; it’s about saving lives, improving treatments, and creating a future where research can continue to make a real difference for everyone. We have the power to influence the future of healthcare—let’s use it.

Summary:

Cutting medical research funding might seem like an easy solution to reduce government spending, but the long-term consequences are far-reaching and harmful. From the advancements in diabetes treatment to life-saving cancer therapies, research has led to significant improvements in managing chronic conditions. However, when funding is slashed, progress stagnates, and healthcare costs inevitably rise. This article explores the impact of cutting research funding on chronic disease treatment, the economic consequences, and what you can do to ensure continued support for research. It’s a call to action for everyone who believes that the future of healthcare depends on research and innovation.

Takeaways:

• Research Funding Drives Medical Progress: Medical research is responsible for breakthroughs in treatments for conditions like diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and lymphedema.

• The Impact of Cutting Funding: Slashing research funding doesn’t just affect the progress of treatments—it results in a stagnation of medical innovations, forcing patients to rely on outdated methods.

• The Economic Cost: Cutting research today leads to higher healthcare costs in the future, including increased hospital stays, surgeries, and higher insurance premiums (including for Medicare).

• Real-World Impact: Many patients, including those with chronic conditions like diabetes and heart failure, rely on clinical trials and ongoing research to find effective treatments. Cutting funding means fewer new treatments and higher long-term costs.

• Action You Can Take: Advocate for continued research funding by writing letters to your representatives, attending town halls, and making your voice heard in support of medical research funding.