Will the incoming Trump Administration affect the meetings industry? Experts say impacts could be significant, although their precise dimensions will not be known until Trump’s executive team is in place and his policy and legislative changes are actually implemented. That said, medical meetings may be among the meetings most likely to be impacted.
Why? If two of the President-elect’s controversial picks—Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as head of the Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) and Dr. Mehmet Oz as head of Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)—are confirmed by the Senate, major changes could be ahead for the medical sector—and these could easily cascade down to medical meetings.
CMS is part of HHS, and it manages not only Medicare and Medicaid, but also the Affordable Care Act marketplaces for individual insurance that provide health coverage for 155 million Americans. In announcing his choice of Dr. Oz, Trump said the celebrity doctor would work closely with RFK Jr. “to take on the illness industrial complex.”
Among those peering into a crystal ball to attempt to pinpoint the future for medical meetings is Pat Schaumann, CMP, CSEP, DMCP, HMCC. As president of Schaumann Consulting Group, she also serves as a director of MPI. What does she see? For one thing, how the bottom lines of big medical-related corporations and pharmaceutical companies trend as a result of economic policies under Trump could easily translate to less—or greater—investment in medical education, sponsorships, events and conferences.
Another area to watch: Trump has promised lower drug prices. If profits also lower as a result, so might budgets for medical meetings and congresses.
If tensions rise with trading partners and other nations, “some foreign entities might choose non-U.S. destinations for medical congresses, especially in Europe or Asia.” Similarly, tightened policies on visas and immigration could trim attendance at U.S. meetings. And if tariffs or tensions strain cooperation with specific countries, this could imperil sponsorships of medical events and partnerships with international organizations.
On the other hand, the future might not be all bad. If Trump’s America First tilt incentivizes domestic innovation, that could mean “a rise in U.S.-based medical research and meetings showcasing advancements.”
Schaumann concludes, “As the global director of meetings, you might want to prepare for these potential shifts by focusing on flexible planning strategies, monitoring regulatory updates and staying aligned with corporate priorities. Engaging with key stakeholders to assess their perspectives on the political climate will also help in forecasting the potential impacts.”
But Wait, There’s More
Other potential impacts are less obvious but no less important. Take, for instance, any Trump Administration modifications to programs like Open Payments, a transparency initiative under the Affordable Care Act that is managed by CMS. It requires pharma and medical device companies to report financial relationships with physicians and teaching hospitals.
If Trump weakened reporting requirements for Open Payments in the name of reduced bureaucratic oversight, Schaumann notes, this could “influence how pharmaceutical and device companies approach sponsorship and education at medical meetings. Companies may feel less constrained in supporting events or covering expenses like speaker fees, travel and meals.” Conversely, she says, stricter rules could lead to more conservative spending, impacting funding for educational initiatives and collaborations.
Learn more: How to Plan Better Medical Meetings By the Numbers
“The future of Open Payments under Trump would depend on the administration’s prioritization of healthcare reform versus deregulation. It’s a dynamic area to watch closely as shifts could significantly affect compliance, industry behaviors and funding within the medical meeting sector,” Schaumann says. She notes that a less transparent process “could face criticism, potentially affecting trust in the healthcare system and increasing scrutiny at medical meetings.”
The Possible RFK Jr. Affect
Schaumann also weighs in on the potential influence Robert F. Kennedy Jr. could have on the medical meetings industry.
Kennedy’s stance against many vaccines, for one. This, Schaumann says, could trickle down to meeting topics related to immunology, vaccine development and public health. Conferences might feel the need to include debates on vaccine mandates, safety protocols and alternative approaches to public health. The controversial nature of these subjects could well increase polarization through “more dynamic, and possibly contentious, dialogue at medical meetings.” Kennedy’s policies might also create challenges for organizers in maintaining neutrality and inclusivity at events.
Schaumann points to these other possible RFK Jr. impacts:
- Increased scrutiny of pharma in the form of stricter regulations could affect budgets for sponsorships for events and medical education.
- Research funding priorities could change to emphasize Kennedy’s priorities of environmental health or alternative medical approaches, which might be reflected in research showcased at meetings.
- Industry preparedness could dictate that medical meeting planners need to be ready for increased scrutiny and ensure that content is fact-based.
“For planners, the focus should be on fostering balanced, evidence-driven conversations, anticipating audience sensitivities, and staying aligned with emerging trends in public health under Kennedy’s influence,” Schaumann says.
The Possible Dr. Oz Affect
If Dr. Mehmet Oz heads up CMM, his impact on medical meetings could be shaped by his unique background as a physician, media personality and advocate for alternative health practices, Schaumann says.
Working with Kennedy, Dr. Oz’s public health focus on lifestyle medicine, nutrition and alternative therapies could “shift meeting agendas toward wellness, preventive medicine and complementary therapies,” as well as broader public health topics like obesity, mental health and chronic disease prevention. His emphasis on integrative medicine and emerging technologies like AI might lead to “expanded tracks on these topics, potentially attracting new audiences and sparking debate.”
On the other hand, Dr. Oz’s endorsement of some controversial health products and practices could lead to “heightened scrutiny of the content and speakers at meetings, especially on evidence-based medicine” and debates or panels “addressing scientific rigor and misinformation.”
In summary, Schaumann says, if Dr. Oz teams with RFK Jr. at HHS, their influence “could introduce both opportunities and challenges, reshaping medical meetings to emphasize holistic health, innovation, and public engagement while sparking discussions on scientific rigor and public trust in health information.”
