Vanderbilt University Medical Center announces up to 650 layoffs
The big picture: The Trump administration is pursuing massive cuts to National Institutes of Health research grants and to the Department of Health and Human Services. The budget bill pending in Congress proposes deep cuts to Medicaid, which provides health insurance to 83 million low-income adults and their children.
Aggressive cuts have put research hospitals across the country on their heels.
VUMC president and CEO Jeff Balser previously warned that the federal cuts would lead to layoffs and hobbled research projects.
Flashback: In March, VUMC announced plans to slash its budget by $250 million because of the Trump administration's spending cuts. At the time, Balser said more cuts and layoffs could be needed as the scope of the funding fallout became clear.
The latest: In a new statement Friday, VUMC said operating costs would be cut by $300 million due to "budgetary actions in Washington, DC related to government-sponsored research and patient care."
Layoffs will hit up to 650 employees "primarily in research, administrative and other support areas." That total includes employees who were already laid off earlier this year as well as a new round of reductions that began Friday.
VUMC announced staffing reductions in a video message to employees.
What they're saying:"While this is extremely difficult, the staffing loss represents less than 2% of VUMC's total workforce," the VUMC statement read. Laid off employees will get severance and "other assistance."
"VUMC sees more than 3.5 million patient visits each year and remains committed to meeting the needs of all who depend on us for health care."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
The US fertility rate reached a new low in 2024, CDC data shows
Alarmed by recent drops, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase falling birth rates, like issuing an executive order meant to expand access to and reduce costs of in vitro fertilization and backing the idea of 'baby bonuses' that might encourage more couples to have kids. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But there's no reason to be alarmed, according to Leslie Root, a University of Colorado Boulder researcher focused on fertility and population policy. Advertisement 'We're seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay. We know that the U.S. population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase — more births than deaths,' she said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the statistic for the total fertility rate with updated birth data for 2024. In the early 1960s, the U.S. total fertility rate was around 3.5, but plummeted to 1.7 by 1976 after the Baby Boom ended. It gradually rose to 2.1 in 2007 before falling again, aside from a 2014 uptick. The rate in 2023 was 1.621, and inched down in 2024 to 1.599, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Advertisement Birth rates are generally declining for women in most age groups — and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future, said Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina. People are marrying later and also worried about their ability to have the money, health insurance and other resources needed to raise children in a stable environment. 'Worry is not a good moment to have kids,' and that's why birth rates in most age groups are not improving, she said. Asked about birth-promoting measures outlined by the Trump administration, Guzzo said they don't tackle larger needs like parental leave and affordable child care. 'The things that they are doing are really symbolic and not likely to budge things for real Americans,' she said. Increase in births in new data The CDC's new report, which is based on a more complete review of birth certificates than provisional data released earlier this year, also showed a 1% increase in births — about 33,000 more — last year compared to the prior year. That brought the yearly national total to just over 3.6 million babies born. But this is different: The provisional data indicated birth rate increases last year for women in their late 20s and 30s. However, the new report found birth rate declines for women in their 20s and early 30s, and no change for women in their late 30s. What happened? CDC officials said it was due to recalculations stemming from a change in the U.S. Census population estimates used to compute the birth rate. Advertisement That's plausible, Root said. As the total population of women of childbearing age grew due to immigration, it offset small increases in births to women in those age groups, she said.
Hamilton Spectator
an hour ago
- Hamilton Spectator
The US fertility rate reached a new low in 2024, CDC data shows
NEW YORK (AP) — The fertility rate in the U.S. dropped to an all-time low in 2024 with less than 1.6 kids per woman, new federal data released Thursday shows. The U.S. was once among only a few developed countries with a rate that ensured each generation had enough children to replace itself — about 2.1 kids per woman. But it has been sliding in America for close to two decades as more women are waiting longer to have children or never taking that step at all. The new statistic is on par with fertility rates in western European countries, according to World Bank data . Alarmed by recent drops, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase falling birth rates, like issuing an executive order meant to expand access to and reduce costs of in vitro fertilization and backing the idea of 'baby bonuses' that might encourage more couples to have kids. But there's no reason to be alarmed, according to Leslie Root, a University of Colorado Boulder researcher focused on fertility and population policy. 'We're seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay. We know that the U.S. population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase — more births than deaths,' she said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the statistic for the total fertility rate with updated birth data for 2024. In the early 1960s, the U.S. total fertility rate was around 3.5, but plummeted to 1.7 by 1976 after the Baby Boom ended. It gradually rose to 2.1 in 2007 before falling again, aside from a 2014 uptick. The rate in 2023 was 1.621, and inched down in 2024 to 1.599, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Birth rates are generally declining for women in most age groups — and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future, said Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina. People are marrying later and also worried about their ability to have the money, health insurance and other resources needed to raise children in a stable environment. 'Worry is not a good moment to have kids,' and that's why birth rates in most age groups are not improving, she said. Asked about birth-promoting measures outlined by the Trump administration, Guzzo said they don't tackle larger needs like parental leave and affordable child care. 'The things that they are doing are really symbolic and not likely to budge things for real Americans,' she said. Increase in births in new data The CDC's new report, which is based on a more complete review of birth certificates than provisional data released earlier this year, also showed a 1% increase in births — about 33,000 more — last year compared to the prior year. That brought the yearly national total to just over 3.6 million babies born. But this is different: The provisional data indicated birth rate increases last year for women in their late 20s and 30s. However, the new report found birth rate declines for women in their 20s and early 30s, and no change for women in their late 30s. What happened? CDC officials said it was due to recalculations stemming from a change in the U.S. Census population estimates used to compute the birth rate. That's plausible, Root said. As the total population of women of childbearing age grew due to immigration, it offset small increases in births to women in those age groups, she said. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Memo pushes back on bill's impact to rural hospitals
A new memo shared first with The Hill argues the law 'contains unprecedented levels of federal assistance to rural and other vulnerable hospitals' through its five-year, $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program. The administration notes that Medicaid has historically invested very little in rural hospitals. According to figures from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicaid spent just $19 billion on rural hospitals in 2024. The rural health fund will provide an additional $10 billion each year from 2026 through 2030. But it ends after 2030, with no phaseout period. The memo argues the fund is a 'flexible' source of investment because it's not tied directly to reimbursement for services. Indeed, as experts have noted, the fund will not make direct payments to rural hospitals. Instead, the money will go to states, which will need to first file detailed 'rural health transformation plans' and get approval from CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz. The law gives Oz broad discretion on what he can approve, and there is no specific requirement for states to direct funds to rural hospitals or CMS to approve only funding for rural districts. States also need to make funding decisions quickly, as the federal government can claw back unobligated money before the program ends. The new law cuts about $1 trillion from Medicaid, primarily through stringent work requirements as well as reductions to how states can fund their Medicaid programs through provider taxes and state-directed payments. Rural hospitals rely heavily on Medicaid funding because many of the patients they care for are low income. But the administration noted that rural hospitals only account for 7 percent of overall Medicaid spending. According to a KFF analysis, federal Medicaid spending in rural areas is estimated to decline by $155 billion over a decade because of the law.
