The sweeping reorganization of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), announced by newly appointed Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is unlike anything we've seen in modern federal health policy. With plans to eliminate 20,000 jobs and consolidate multiple agencies under a new agency called the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA). This isn’t just restructuring. It’s a full-scale reset. 

While the White House Fact Sheet outlines the headline numbers, the implications go far deeper. This level of disruption introduces profound uncertainty into an already complex and heavily regulated industry. Longstanding assumptions about roles, funding, and oversight are now up for debate. 

Some have drawn comparisons to prior efforts to shrink government, like the Clinton-era initiative that cut hundreds of thousands of federal jobs. But the differences are stark. That effort emphasized empowering civil servants and protecting core functions. This reorg? It’s top-down, fast-moving, and leaves impactful implementation details murky at best. 

In this blog, we’ll walk through what we know so far, spotlight the big unanswered questions, and begin to unpack what this seismic shift could mean for health information technology (health IT), policy, and innovation going forward—with a focus on implications for health plans, health tech vendors, life sciences manufacturers, and health systems. 

What We Know So Far 

Since the March 27 announcement, the industry has been working to make sense of how these changes will affect day-to-day operations. The details we do have are both sweeping and sobering. 

Secretary Kennedy framed the reorganization as a modernization effort aimed at reducing redundancy and improving efficiency. On the ground, it is confusing. HHS is set to shrink its workforce from roughly 82,000 employees to 62,000, through a combination of buyouts, early retirements, and layoffs. 

Reports have surfaced of staffers arriving at work only to find their badge access revoked—with no prior notice. Some departments, such as the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) offices in several HHS agencies, haven’t been downsized—they’ve been eliminated entirely. Transparency and continuity appear to be collateral damage in this rapid-fire approach. 

The cuts are not distributed evenly. According to Politico and CNN: 

• Food and Drug Administration (FDA): 3,500 positions eliminated   
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): 2,400   
• National Institutes of Health (NIH): 1,200   
• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS): 300   

Perhaps most striking is the creation of the AHA, which merges: 

• Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH)   
• Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)   
• Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)   
• Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)   
• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)   

According to the fact sheet, AHA will focus on primary care, maternal and child health, mental health, environmental health, HIV/AIDS, and workforce development. Notably absent is any mention of health IT, cybersecurity, technology infrastructure or artificial intelligence. This raises concerns about whether modernization efforts will support the systems that underpin modern public health and care delivery. 

Also absent is any reference to the Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy (ASTP), formerly the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). This suggests ASTP could remain a distinct entity within HHS, despite prior rumors of consolidation with CMS or AHA. 

However, this does not mean ASTP will be spared from layoffs. Speculation persists that the agency, currently staffed with between 130 and 180 employees, could be reduced to as few as 30. 

These changes could impact policy, regulatory, enforcement, and educational resource development work for foundational infrastructure many stakeholders rely on—from real-time data exchange for health plans and providers to research coordination for life sciences manufacturers. 

Public Sentiment Around the HHS Reorganization 

The initial reaction to the HHS restructuring, as seen in comments on the Department’s LinkedIn post, was overwhelmingly negative. Roughly 80 to 85 percent of responses expressed concern or opposition. Common worries included the weakening of public health infrastructure, disruption of ongoing programs, and a lack of transparency or clear planning. While some supported reducing bureaucracy, many responses reflected unease and distrust. 

Comments from well-known public health leaders underscored those concerns. Dr. Richard Besser of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation warned that the layoffs jeopardize national health and safety. Gregorio Millett of amfAR cautioned that gains in HIV prevention could be reversed. These sentiments were echoed broadly across LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and Facebook throughout the week following the announcement. 

Traditional media coverage followed a similar pattern. Outlets like Politico and Reuters presented the administration’s efficiency-focused framing but highlighted strong pushback from health experts, lawmakers, and advocacy groups. The prevailing tone across platforms was critical, with only scattered support from conservative commentators. 

Sentiment by Stakeholder Group: 

• Health IT Leaders: Cautious concern. Support for streamlining exists, but many fear disruption to interoperability and data initiatives. 

• Health Plans: Guardedly neutral. Reassurances that CMS programs would remain intact eased some concerns. 

• Health Tech Vendors: Largely negative. Concerns center on regulatory delays and reduced NIH collaboration. 

• Health Systems and Hospitals: Strongly negative. Many see risks to care coordination and public health support. 

• Professional Associations: Broadly critical. Transparency and continuity of key programs were top concerns. 

• Public Health Advocates and Researchers: Overwhelmingly negative. Warnings focused on preparedness, equity, and long-term health impacts. 

Across the board, most stakeholders agreed that efficiency is a valid goal, but questioned whether this reorganization was too fast, too disruptive, and too poorly communicated to succeed. It remains to be seen whether this is true.  

Big Questions: What We’ll Be Monitoring 

As the dust settles from the HHS reorganization, POCP is keeping a close eye on several key questions that will shape the future of health IT policy and implementation: 

• What happens to the scope and mission of the Assistant Secretary for Technology and Policy (ASTP)? If staff is drastically reduced will ASTP focus on supporting enforcement over creating new policy? Will the office revert back to ONC with a more limited scope?  

• How much influence will the newly created Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) have across its merged domains, and how will that impact long-standing health IT-related programs and partnerships? 

• What is the trajectory of active rulemaking efforts and federal interoperability roadmaps already underway? 

• Will state-level policy fragmentation get worse without strong federal coordination, or will states step up to stabilize and align? 

• Who will lead multi-stakeholder health IT standards alignment if federal leadership becomes less active? 

• How will national data exchange for clinical information be enabled? Will we continue our current efforts? 

Disruption, Realignment, and a Call to Keep Moving 

This reorganization will no doubt reshape how health IT policy is created and enforced in the United States for years to come. While the scope of change happening at the federal level is broad and the outcomes uncertain, there is still critical work we all can agree still must be done. The industry can continue to move forward by focusing on solutions that support public health, strengthen cybersecurity, improve chronic disease management, and ensure equitable access to care. Whether it is developing technologies to assist during emergencies, collaborating on AI best practices, or advancing secure data exchange, there are still countless opportunities to make meaningful progress. 

If your organization is navigating this uncertain environment and trying to make sense of shifting federal priorities, POCP can help. Whether you're reassessing strategic direction, planning for regulatory scenarios, or identifying where to focus limited resources, we work with clients to make sense of uncertainty and create a plan with clear next steps. We bring deep expertise in interoperability, prior authorization, data management, burden reduction, consent management, compliance, and standards implementation—and we’re ready to collaborate. Contact us to set up a time to talk through your challenges and evaluate how to realign priorities for the road ahead.