Archive for the ‘Affordable Care Act’ Tag

New Webinar: “Mistakes Commonly Made on NIH Grant Applications”

In an effort to provide cost-effective training to the broadest group possible, I am launching a series of webinars in the upcoming months. The first of these will be in early February, and the goal will be to help grantees recognize and correct common submission mistakes.

Unlike many who conduct NIH submission training programs, I myself work on NIH submissions full time. I see clients make the same types of mistakes repeatedly– mistakes that are easily avoided.

Each year I am fortunate to have dozens of clients share their Summary Statements with me. Because I regularly read reviewer comments from a multitude of study sections, I can easily identify trends in pink sheets. I also keep track of evolving trends at NIH based on information I find in FOAs, Notices, and Appropriations Testimony. Study sections change, funding priorities evolve. It is important to understand NIH’s priorities right now.

I have helped clients land over $200 million in federal funds in the past five years. Your NIH submission will entail several hundred hours of work by you and others. Why not learn strategies to optimize your success on this and future submissions?

What: Webinar entitled “Mistakes Commonly Made on NIH Grant Applications

Who: Ideal for faculty preparing to submit a K, R21, R03, or R01 in an upcoming cycle, and the senior faculty and administrators who advise them.

When:Wednesday 4 February 2015, 11am-12:30pm EST or
Thursday 12 February 2015, 11am-12:30pm EST
Cost: $149
Takeaways: At the end of this 90-minute session, participants will be able to:
1) Predict some key criticisms reviewers may make
2) Identify problems in their or their colleague’s draft applications
3) Utilize that information to write stronger drafts

Supreme Court Review of the Health Care Reform Law

From the February 29 NEJM:

“Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), potentially producing a landmark decision. For most cases, the Supreme Court allocates 1 hour for oral argument — 30 minutes for each side. For the health care reform case, the Court has scheduled 6 hours for oral argument — the most time devoted to a case in more than 45 years. These arguments will take place on March 26, 27, and 28, and the Court’s ruling will probably be announced in June.”

CLICK HERE for full article.

CLICK HERE for an interesting commentary.

What does the FY13 NIH Congressional Justification Say?

Now that I have recovered (more or less) from some particularly hellish Cycle I submissions, I can turn my attention to other matters until the Cycle II crunch begins. February is the time that the Appropriation process begins at NIH. On February 13, the Administration released their Congressional Justification for FY13, which runs from October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013. Click here for the full report.

President Obama is requesting $30.86 billion for FY13, essentially freezing the budget at FY12 levels. There is a great deal of language in the report concerning the economy—specifically, NIH’s efforts to reduce health care costs and disease burden on society, as well as the economic growth associated with the research enterprise supported by NIH. From the cover letter:

“With continued support, NIH investigators will help to revolutionize patient care, reduce the growth of health care costs, and generate significant national economic growth… NIH must continue to seek innovative solutions to ensure rapid advances in science even in these uncertain economic times. Strategic investments will support research with the highest potential for improving public health and to preserve the scientific workforce… Investment in the future of public health has never been more important. In addition to the health benefits to all Americans in the future, such investment can play a key role in reinvigorating the economy now. Numerous economic analyses have illustrated the role that NIH research plays in creating jobs and spurring economic growth. In the face of growing global competition investment in biomedical and behavioral research and the scientific workforce will propel scientific discovery for the benefit of human health and the U.S. economy, both now and in the future.”

A call-out box early in the report states:

Every dollar of NIH funding generates about $2.21 in economic output.” (In Your Own Backyard, Families USA, June 2008.) 

AND

In fiscal year 2010, NIH extramural research funding generated $68.035 billion in new economic activity nationwide and supported more than 487,900 jobs.” (An Economic Engine, United for Medical Research, Spring 2011.)

In a budget briefing on Feb 15, NIH Director Francis Collins stated that despite the budget freeze, the President’s budget proposal would allow a 7% increase in new and competing RPGs in FY13. He stated that this increase would be made possible because there was an increased turnover in grants (i.e., decrease in the duration of grants because “science is moving more quickly” than it has in the past), together with a 1% reduction to noncompeting grants.

Other items of interest in the report:

  • Funds are sought from the Public Health Prevention Fund (part of the Affordable Care Act) to make a significant increase in Alzheimer’s research.
  • The ratio of funding between basic and applied research (54% basic, 46% applied) remains constant -as has been the case for several years.
  • The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) would receive an 11% increase to $639 million, which includes significant funding ($50 million) for the Cures Acceleration Network.
  • The overall Health and Human Services budget request is 8.5% lower than last year.
  • The request for the National Science Foundation is up 5% to $7.373 billion.
  • The request for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is up by roughly 1% to $408.8 million. However, the proposal cuts investigator-initiated research grants by more than 31%, and comparative effectiveness research grants by 41%.

The Administration’s Congressional Justification is drawing criticism from the research community, who are quick to point out that when adjust for inflation, NIH funding has been in decline since 2003. Yet up until now, NIH has been spared the devastating budget cuts seen in many agencies in the past few years. It is likely that their luck has run out, given that virtually all discretionary spending, and in particular all aspects of the Affordable Care Act, risk being slashed dramatically when the budget request reaches the Hill.

Click here for more coverage provided by the American Association for Dental Research.

NIH FY11 Budget On The Chopping Block?

As the White House and House Republicans continue to negotiate toward a Thursday deadline for an FY11 budget to fund the final six months of the year, it appears that NIH may be on the chopping block. Rumors are all over the place and no definitive information seems to be available. An earlier Senate budget plan would have maintained NIH funding at its FY10 level. But with $38 billion to cut from the budget, any nondefense discretionary spending is at risk.

While I hesitate to link to an article from a partisan journal like The Nation without balancing it with other viewpoints, alas there is little definitive news arising from the murky depths of “budget negotiation hell” this week. So with that caveat, I encourage you to take a look at this article in The Nation.

The author states that NIH’s $31B annual budget accounts for one-third of the Department of Health and Human Services discretionary spending. She argues that cutting the budget would not make a meaningful dent in the budget deficit, as NIH only accounts for 2.9% of total discretionary spending.

Research funded through NIH extramural funds would not be supported by other sources. For-profit companies will develop promising research through R&D, but basic science funding must first get a project to the point where it shows enough promise to be developed.

The author goes on to say that if there were cuts, “The NCI will prioritize funding the same level of new grants (they currently fund 14 percent of new grant applications), but will have to cut funding from cancer centers. Others will have to choose between new and existing grants. When ongoing grants aren’t renewed, work may simply stop.” The fear is that we will lose the best and brightest scientists to industry, other fields, and/or other countries with a less draconian funding climate.

She states further, “Funding ‘basic science’ doesn’t sound appealing in lean-budget times, but cutting research in times of economic woe is counterproductive. Nearly 90 percent of the NIH research budget gets distributed across the country, employing scientists and lab technicians.”

Need I add that we as a nation spend billions of dollars each year treating preventable diseases? I recently blogged about the upcoming Community Transformation Grants, which target such diseases. It is funded through the Affordable Care Act, all aspects of which are at-risk for funding cuts– which seems economically short-sighted to me.

The author of the article concludes with the compelling statistic that each year 300,000 people die of cancer, which is the equivalent of losing 3,000 people in the Twin Towers every other day. She encourages those who support traditional defense spending to consider which enemy poses the greatest threat, and asserts that biomedical research is our best defense.

Many groups are organizing campaigns to oppose possible NIH budget cuts. For example, the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network has organized a Facebook page to “Help Oppose NIH Budget Cuts” And many biomedical research groups and foundations are encouraging members to contact their senators and representatives.

I know I posted this quote in support of basic science research recently, but given the circumstances this week I feel it bears repeating:

“None of the most important weapons transforming warfare in the 20th century- the airplane, tank, radar, jet engine, helicopter, electronic computer, not even the atomic bomb- owed its initial development to a Doctrinal Requirement or request of the military.”

John Chambers, ed. The Oxford Companion to American Military History (New York, Oxford University Press, 1999 p. 79.)

Preparing for the upcoming Community Transformation Grants

As part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (section 4201), the federal government instituted Community Transformation Grants, to be administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This innovative program is designed to “help local communities address racial and ethnic health disparities and reduce chronic diseases by promoting healthy living and tackling the social and economic causes of poor health.” State and local agencies, state or local nonprofits, national networks of community-based organizations, and Indian tribes may apply for grants. Applicants must devise a plan that lays out changes in policies, programs, environment and infrastructure. Specific activities suggested in the law include increasing access to nutritious foods, creating healthier school environments, encouraging physical activity, improving community safety, expanding worksite wellness programs and reducing health disparities. Grants are expected to fund innovative projects that involve broad coalitions of stakeholders in communities across the U.S.  Twenty percent of the grants were initially reserved for rural and frontier areas.

Although the program was supposed to run from 2010-14, it wasn’t until February 2011 that federal officials finally announced that $145 million would be distributed this year in the first of what is designed to be a multi-year initiative. This FY11 allocation is part of the $750M Prevention Fund in the Affordable Care Act. However, Republicans in Congress are proposing cuts to all aspects of the ACA. Rumors indicate that CTGs will focus only on the largest urban areas. Many organizations are attempting letter-writing campaigns to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius, encouraging people to share success stories of improved health outcomes from previous Prevention Fund investments in small, mid-sized, and rural communities. Examples of such letters abound, including an open letter from the President and CEO of the YMCA together with the heads of several other prominent national organizations.

A funding opportunity has not yet been released.

 

%d bloggers like this: