In This Section

Cancer Policy Monitor: August 11, 2026

AACR Urges action to oppose proposed changes to federal grant rules

–David Zahavi, PhD

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released its proposed rule, “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” on May 29, 2026, which would significantly change how federal grants are awarded and managed across the government. The proposal immediately raised concerns across the scientific and medical research communities because it would expand the role of political appointees in reviewing and approving grants, diminish the role of merit review, make it easier for agencies to terminate grants after awards have been made, and impose burdensome new restrictions on federally funded research and international collaborations. If finalized, the rule would affect federal grantmaking across dozens of agencies and more than $1 trillion in annual federal funding.

Despite the breadth of the proposed changes, OMB provided only a 45-day public comment period. AACR and other organizations urged OMB to extend the comment period, but the agency declined, and the comment period closed on July 13. Despite the limited timeframe, nearly 500,000 comments were submitted. An analysis of more than 52,000 publicly available comments found that approximately 95% opposed the proposal. OMB must now review and respond to substantive comments before issuing a final rule. The agency has indicated that it intends to finalize the rule by October 1, 2026, leaving limited time to consider the extensive feedback received. OMB could withdraw the proposal, revise some or all of its provisions, or finalize the rule as proposed. If finalized, the rule is expected to face legal challenges, with opponents questioning whether OMB has the statutory authority to impose certain requirements and arguing that the agency must adequately address substantive concerns raised during the public comment period.

AACR has been actively engaged in opposing the proposed rule. On June 30, AACR issued a statement and call to action urging the cancer research community to submit comments and warning that the proposal could threaten NIH’s mission to accelerate progress against cancer. AACR subsequently submitted comprehensive comments urging OMB not to finalize the proposed rule and detailing the potential harms of its provisions to the cancer research community. AACR’s comments highlighted concerns that the proposal would increase administrative burdens, create uncertainty for grant recipients, reduce transparency in funding decisions, and undermine merit-based research funding processes. AACR also called on OMB to conduct additional analysis, carefully consider stakeholder feedback, and engage further with recipients of federal financial assistance.

As OMB reviews the public comments and considers whether to finalize the rule, AACR and the broader medical research community will continue advocating to protect the integrity of scientific merit review and ensure that federal research funding remains focused on advancing scientific discovery and improving outcomes for patients with cancer. AACR will also continue urging Congress to act through legislation or appropriations measures to prevent or limit implementation of the proposed rule. AACR asks its members and the broader cancer community to contact their members of Congress and urge them to oppose the proposed rule and protect the federal research enterprise.

Congress advances stopgap funding as research grant protections enter debate

–Matt Gontarchick

Before departing Washington for the annual August recess, the House and Senate passed continuing resolutions (CRs) that would generally maintain federal funding at fiscal year (FY) 2026 levels through December 4, 2026. The temporary extension would give Congress until after the November elections to negotiate full-year FY 2027 spending legislation while preventing a government shutdown when current funding expires on September 30. 

On July 21, the House passed its CR, H.R. 9770, by a vote of 220-205, with support from several Democratic members. The measure extends current funding without contentious policy provisions or significant changes to existing spending levels. 

The Senate passed its version of the CR on August 8 by a vote of 90-6-1. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Washington) negotiated the bipartisan measure with congressional leaders and House appropriators. Unlike the House bill, which was drafted before the White House submitted its requested funding adjustments, the Senate measure includes several special funding exceptions, commonly known as “anomalies.”  

Federal grant policy also became part of the Senate negotiations. The discussions followed the Department of Energy’s acknowledgment in federal court that $7.6 billion in grants for hundreds of clean-energy projects were selected for cancellation based solely on the political identity of the recipient’s state. They also occurred as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) considers proposed changes to government-wide grantmaking rules that would give political appointees greater authority over grant approvals. This CR would push back this proposal to December 11. AACR’s comment on this proposal can be read online.  

Collins has publicly opposed politically motivated grant terminations and, in a July 6 letter to OMB, called for portions of the proposed rule to be withdrawn and the public comment period to be extended by at least 90 days. She warned that the proposal would undermine scientific merit review and expand agencies’ authority to terminate grants, creating uncertainty for multiyear research and clinical trials. 

The House will consider the Senate-passed measure when lawmakers return to Washington in late August. Because House appropriators participated in the negotiations, lawmakers appear to have made progress toward an agreement capable of passing both chambers. Congress must enact a final CR by September 30 to prevent a government shutdown. 

The CR would preserve current funding while Congress continues to work on the full-year FY 2027 appropriations bills. Under the enacted FY 2026 funding levels, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has a base program budget of $47.2 billion, including $7.344 billion for the National Cancer Institute (NCI). 

Although Congress may continue advancing individual appropriations bills, final FY 2027 funding decisions are expected after the November 3 midterm elections. The House Appropriations Committee has approved an FY 2027 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill that would provide $47.316 billion in base program funding for NIH, including $7.462 billion for NCI. These numbers would serve as a increase from NIH’s FY 2026 $47,493.1 billion and NCI’s FY 2026 $7,352.2 billion. 

AACR will continue urging Congress to complete the FY2027 appropriations process and provide robust, sustained investment in medical research. The medical research community is calling for at least $51.303 billion in base program funding for NIH, including $7.999 billion for NCI.  

cms proposal to restrict remote patient monitoring will affect cancer care

–David Zahavi, PhD

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed new restrictions on Medicare reimbursement for remote patient monitoring (RPM) and remote therapeutic monitoring (RTM) services in the Medicare Part B payment policy changes for physicians under the calendar year 2027 Physician Fee Schedule draft rule released on July 14, 2026. The proposed changes could limit the ability of healthcare providers to use third-party vendors to monitor patients remotely. Under the new rule, practitioners would only be able to bill Medicare for RPM and RTM services when they are provided directly by clinical staff employed by the practice. CMS is also proposing other changes to RPM and RTM payment policies, including requiring an initiating visit when monitoring begins and restricting certain services to established patients.

The proposed changes come amid growing scrutiny of Medicare spending on remote monitoring. Medicare spending on RPM increased substantially in recent years, prompting concerns about potential overuse, improper billing, and the role of third-party companies in providing these services. CMS said the changes are intended in part to address concerns about fraud and improper billing and to strengthen oversight of rapidly growing remote monitoring services.

Remote patient monitoring allows healthcare providers to collect and monitor patients’ health data remotely through connected devices and other digital health technologies, allowing clinicians to identify concerning changes in a patient’s condition before they require an emergency department visit or hospitalization. For people with cancer, remote monitoring can be particularly valuable during and after treatment, when patients may experience rapidly changing symptoms and side effects. Monitoring vital signs and other health information from home can help oncology teams identify complications, support symptom management, and reduce the burden of frequent in-person visits for patients who may be immunocompromised or live far from their cancer care providers.

The proposed restrictions could disrupt access to these services for cancer patients if oncology practices are unable to maintain or afford in-house staff to provide remote monitoring. Third-party vendors have played a significant role in the expansion of RPM by providing the technology, staffing, and infrastructure needed to monitor patients on behalf of physicians. Limiting Medicare reimbursement to services provided only by clinical staff employed directly by a practice could make it more difficult for smaller oncology practices and other providers to offer RPM, particularly those that rely on vendors to provide around-the-clock monitoring and clinical support.

Major remote monitoring companies and industry groups have pushed back strongly against the proposal, warning that eliminating third-party vendors from Medicare-reimbursed RPM and RTM would be potentially catastrophic for the sector and disrupt service delivery as well as investment in digital health technologies. For the cancer community, the proposed restrictions underscore the need to balance program integrity with maintaining access to innovative models of care. Remote monitoring has become an integral part of in-person oncology care by allowing clinicians to track patients between visits and potentially intervene earlier when complications arise. The CMS proposal is open for public comment through September 14. Patient advocates can comment to help ensure that efforts to address improper billing do not inadvertently limit access to remote monitoring services that can improve the quality and convenience of cancer care.

register now: 14th Annual rally for medical research

The 14th Annual Rally for Medical Research will be held September 16-17, 2026, in Washington, D.C., bringing together patients, advocates, researchers, clinicians, and partner organizations from across the country to urge Congress to make funding for NIH a national priority.

Launched in 2013, the Rally has grown from a single day of advocacy into an annual nationwide movement calling for robust and predictable NIH funding. This year’s Rally comes at a critical time for the medical research advocacy community, as the White House has proposed a 12% cut to NIH in its FY 2027 budget request.

A participant training and advocate reception will be held September 16, followed by the Rally Hill Day on September 17, when participants will meet with congressional offices to share why sustained NIH funding is essential to advancing medical research, supporting clinical trials, and improving health for patients and families.

Join the overwhelming majority of Americans who support federal investment in medical and cancer research. A 2025 AACR survey found that 89% of voters favor the federal government using taxpayer dollars to fund medical research, and 83% favor increasing federal funding for cancer research. The Rally is a chance to bring that support directly to Capitol Hill and urge Congress to protect and strengthen NIH funding for patients, families, and the future of medical progress.

Register for the Rally and reserve a room in the hotel block before the September 9 deadline. Please contact Rally organizers with any questions.

patient advocates at the 19th aacr conference on the science of cancer health disparities

Join us in Atlanta, Georgia, October 18-21, for the 19th AACR Conference on The Science of Cancer Health Disparities, where cutting-edge cancer research meets real-world solutions to advance health equity. This conference is dedicated to addressing the cancer health disparities that disproportionately affect underserved and vulnerable communities.

Patient advocates and cancer survivors are an integral part of this meeting, with numerous opportunities to learn, connect, and contribute. Highlights of the Patient Advocate Program include an inspiring advocate keynote presentation, advocate-led poster sessions, professional networking roundtables, an Advocacy Lounge designed to foster collaboration and community, discounted patient advocate registration rates, and much more. Whether you are a cancer survivor, caregiver, patient advocate, researcher, clinician, or community leader, this conference offers a unique opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue and help shape the future of equitable cancer care and research.

Learn more.

oncology approval recap

–Brad Davidson, PhD

Between June 26 and July 23, FDA approved two novel therapeutics, alongside six new indications for previously approved drugs:

  • Regulatory T cell-based immunotherapy with hematopoietic stem and progenitor cell and T cells-vldq were approved for use in matcher donor hematopoietic stem cell transplantation with a myeloablative preparative regimen in the treatment of adults with hematological malignancies. This application was granted priority review and received orphan drug and regenerative medicine advanced therapy designations.
  • Isatuximab-irfc was approved for subcutaneous injection for various multiple myeloma indications. The intravenous injection version of this treatment is approved for the same indications, which include:
    • In combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of adults with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior line of therapy that included lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor
    • In combination with carfilzomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of adults with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who have received one to three prior lines of therapy
    • In combination with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone for the treatment of adults with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who are not eligible for autologous stem cell transplantation.
  • A previous approval of pembrolizumab or pembrolizumab and berahyaluronidase alfa-pmph in combination with enfortumab vedotin-ejfv as a perioperative treatment for adults with muscle invasive bladder cancer was extended from only patients who are cisplatin-ineligible to all patients who are candidates for bladder removal surgery. Review was conducted under Project Orbis in collaboration with the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), Health Canada (HC), Switzerland’s Swissmedic (SMC), the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and the Israel Ministry of Health (IMOH). This application was granted priority review.
  • Selpercatinib was granted traditional approval for patients two years or older with locally advanced or metastatic solid tumors with RET gene fusion that have progressed on or following prior systemic therapy or who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options. Accelerated approvals were granted in this indication for adults in 2022 and pediatric patients older than 2 years of age in 2024. Selpercatinib received orphan drug designation.
  • Gedatolisib was approved in combination with fulvestrant and with or without palbociclib for the treatment of adults with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer without a PIK3CA mutation detected following progression on or after treatment with at least one line of endocrine therapy in the metastatic setting.