Archive for the ‘NIH appropriation’ 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

2013 Year In Review at NIH

Here is a link to a useful blog post written by NH Deputy Director Sally Rockey. It summarizes some of the main activities at NIH during the course of 2013. While it begins with a depressing recap of the far-reaching effects of the budget situation, it goes on to highlight some of the main goals and programs of the year. Major themes continue to include data science and efforts to diversify the scientific workforce. The blog is chock-full of hyperlinks to more information on numerous topics. If you plan to develop a long-term relationship with a federal funding agency, it is important to know its mission and funding priorities, and to familiarize yourself each year with the goals identified in the director’s appropriation report, and the suggestions made by the advisory council to the director. Read the full blog post here.

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.

How Will The FY11 Appropriation Affect NIH Funding?

The NIH has issued a notice stating how the FY11 appropriation will affect funding. The Appropriation Act for FY11 allocates $30.9 billion to NIH, which is nearly 1% less than the amount NIH received in FY10 ($31.2B).  As a result, “Modular and non-modular research grants, from all ICs, with the single exception of NCI, will be reduced to 1 percent below the FY 2010 award level.  Inflationary adjustments for recurring costs on non-competing research grants in FY 2012 and beyond will be set at the 2 percent level, calculated based on the adjusted FY 2011 level.”  The policy does not apply to K awards, SBIR/STTRs, and NRSAs. However, “Awards that have already been made in FY 2011 which are impacted by this policy may be revised.”

As for NCI, research grants will be reduced to 3% below FY10 levels. “Inflationary adjustments for recurring costs on non-competing research grants in FY 2012 and beyond will be set at the 2 percent level, calculated based on the adjusted FY 2011 level.” (Does not apply to Ks, SBIR/STTRs, nor NRSAs.)  Again, awards made in FY11 may be revised based on this policy.

NIH anticipates that its ICs will award 9,050 new and competing Research Project Grants (RPGs). It will be up to each IC to apportion its extramural grant money in accordance with their funding priorities. (Future inflationary adjustments for recurring costs on competing grants will be 2%, and awards made in FY11 may be revised.)

New Investigators submitting R01 equivalent awards will be funded at rates comparable to those for established investigators submitting new R01 equivalent awards. NRSAs will get a 2% increase on stipends.

What Does the NIH FY12 Appropriations Report Actually Say?

Why should we follow the Appropriations process? Aside from the obvious reason—to know how big the pot of extramural money will be next year and to understand the government’s commitment (or lack thereof) to science funding—there is another important reason: If you know the language worked into Appropriations testimony you can strategically design your research and incorporate key language and ideas into your NIH proposal in order to improve your odds of funding. (In these competitive funding times, every little advantage helps.) So without further ado, here are some key concepts from the NIH FY12 Appropriation report:

NIH has requested $31.987B for FY12. In the cover letter for the report from the Office of the Budget, Francis Collins states: “The requested funding will enhance NIH’s ability to support research that prolongs life, reduces disability, and strengthens the economy. NIH-funded research contributes to economic growth, produces well-paying jobs, and helps to keep the United States competitive on the global stage.” He continues: “For the FY 2012 budget request, NIH has identified one major area of extraordinary opportunity and three other themes that are exceptionally ripe for investment and integral to improving the health of the American people.” The one major area of opportunity of course is the proposed highly-controversial National Center For Advancing Translational Science (NCAT), which Collins refers to as “a new paradigm for turning lab discoveries into cures and treatments through targeted investments in translational science and medicine.” The three themes that NIH has deemed “instrumental in paving the way for more rapid scientific advances across all areas of human health and disease, including global applications”:

 1) Technologies to Accelerate DiscoveryThis area focuses on genes and the environment (I guess we will see more of those FOAs), and directly lists advanced technologies such as DNA sequencing, microarray technology, nanotechnology, new imaging modalities, and computational biology.

2) Enhancing the Evidence Base For Health Care Decisions. Language here includes “comparative effectiveness” and “personalized medicine.” He also cites the new HMO Research Network, which “will bring together HMOs caring for more than13 million patients for the purpose of accelerating research in the high priority areas of epidemiological studies, clinical trials, and electronic-health-record-enabled health care delivery.”

3) New Investigators, New Ideas. Here Collins mentions two programs: “the NIH Director’s New Innovator Award, which supports new investigators with potentially high-impact projects, and the Early Independence Award, which enables our most talented young scientists to move directly from a doctoral degree to an independent research career.”

If you write NIH grants, I strongly encourage you to spend some time with the full Appropriations report put out by the NIH Office of the Budget. (click here)

The Administration requested $31.829B for NIH FY12. Here are highlights that the Administration pulled from the NIH report (and therefore deem important):

*The FY12 budget proposes to support a total of 9,158 competing Research Project Grants (RPGs), a reduction of 228 from FY10. In total, NIH projects it will support 36,582 RPGs (competing and non-competing) in FY12, an increase of 43 grants from 2010.

*The budget also proposes a 4 percent increase in stipends under the Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) program. The goal is to “improve NIH’s ability to attract high-quality research investigators to the field of biomedical research.” This will result in an increase in NRSA funding of $19 million over FY10, for a total of $794 million.

*The Cures Acceleration Network would receive $100 million in FY12; it is included in the budget of the Office of the Director.

*As in previous years, $300 million is transferred out of the budget of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and TB.

*Although the budget narrative specifically mentions implementation of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) remains a line item in the FY12 budget.

*At a briefing of NIH advocates, NIH Director Francis Collins said that within the next month, the agency expects to file a budget amendment detailing the movement of NCRR programs into NCATS or other NIH institutes and centers.

*The National Children’s Study would receive $194 million, the same level as FY10; the Common Fund would receive $557 million, an increase of $13 million.

*NIH intramural research would increase by $50 million, to a total of $3.382 billion, which is approximately a 1.4 percent increase.

*NIH estimates it will be able to save more than $15 million in administrative costs in FY12. The agency plans to do so through such means as using technology to save study section travel costs by holding virtual peer review sessions.

To illustrate the achievements of NIH, Dr. Collins used two particularly compelling examples at the budget briefing:

*A 21-year-old diagnosed today with HIV/AIDS has a life expectancy of 70 years, thanks to the anti-retroviral         therapy made possible by NIH funding.

*Gains in life expectancy supported by NIH-funded research result in $3.2 trillion in annual savings.

NIH identified in its FY12 budget justification priority areas and initiatives related to the following diseases: autism; cancer; Alzheimer’s disease; type 1 diabetes; and HIV/AIDS.

Some scientific program areas of accomplishment or special emphasis provided by NIH include: bioinformatics and computational biology; National Technology Center for Networks and Pathways programs; epigenomics; genotype-tissue expression; global health; Gulf oil spill long-term follow-up; health economics; high-risk, high-reward investigator initiated research; the HMO research collaboratory; the human microbe project; and nanomedicine.

Posted April 27, 2011 by Meg Bouvier in Biomedical research, medical grant writing, medical policy writing

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is Virtual Peer Review Coming To NIH?

If you take the time to read Appropriations reports, you can learn all kinds of things about an agency’s funding priorities and their plans for the future.  I will be blogging this week about the highlights of the NIH FY12 Appropriations report, but today I thought I would whet your appetite with a key issue:

NIH proposes to save $15 million in FY12 by holding virtual peer review sessions, thereby saving study section travel costs. I’ll be curious to see how the scientific community greets this news. On the one hand, reviewers are extremely busy people just like the rest of us, and not having to travel may come as welcome news. On the other hand, one can imagine certain qualities of the review process that might be lost by holding the session virtually. How will virtual sessions affect the way grants are reviewed? How will the group dynamic change? Will it cause a greater reliance on the written proposal than on the group dynamic? How should we change the way we write a proposal if it will be reviewed virtually? (I, for one, plan to redouble my efforts to write shorter paragraphs and sections, make liberal use of headings, and judiciously use formatting to quickly drive home the major themes for those skimming at home.) And I shudder to envision the technology SNAFUs likely to occur in the first round of virtual review–I’m happy when I attend a talk and the PowerPoint presentation goes off without a hitch.

Regardless of the response of the scientific community, if it will save $15 million, virtual peer review is very likely headed our way. It is tempting to reason that the $15 million saved could then be made available in the form of increased extramural grant money. While that sort of one-for-one exchange may not occur, at the very least one could argue that an agency that saves $15 million via virtual peer review will appear efficient and cost-conscious to Appropriations subcommittees, making it an attractive prospect for investment of federal dollars.

The NIH FY12 Appropriation: What Do We Know So Far?

Now that we finally know (more or less) what the budget situation will be for the remainder of FY11, we must turn our attention to the odious task of following the FY12 appropriation saga as it unfolds. Where do we stand so far on the FY12 Appropriation Bill?

NIH has requested $31.987B for FY12. Last February, the Administration endorsed that request, recommending $31.829B  for the agency. (For those keeping score at home, the Administration’s FY12 request for NSF was $7.424B and for DOE’s Office of Science they recommended $5.4B.) The Administration’s NIH request is 3.4% over the FY10 enacted level, though when adjusted for inflation that amount represents approximately level funding.

Earlier this month, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives released their version of the FY12 budget, which bears not even a fleeting resemblance to the one proposed by the Administration. Their budget includes drastic cuts across the board, including to the Department of Defense, as Republicans begin to craft their message of financial restraint for the 2012 Presidential election. Their goal is to cut discretionary spending to pre-2008 levels and freeze it there for five years, as they seek to tackle the alarming federal budget deficit (there are 12 zeros in $15 trillion, in case you were wondering). The Democratic Senate and the Administration are almost certain to reject the austere proposal, thus setting the stage for another budget drama in which the two chambers of Congress cannot come to agreement on the FY12 Appropriations bill. For an excellent overview of the House FY12 budget proposal, click here.

NIH To Receive $30.7B For FY11, Spared Major Budget Cuts– For Now

The NIH will receive $30.7B for FY11, which is $260M below the FY10 level. The cuts will be spread across all 27 institutes and centers, and the Office of the Director and building account. The threatened language requiring NIH to support a specified number of new grants at a minimum funding level does not appear in the bill. David Moore of the Association of American Medical Colleges is quoted in a Science magazine breaking news article: “”The final outcome for NIH has to be viewed as relatively good news. Certainly people will be disappointed research is being cut, but in the current budget climate it could have been a lot worse.” While NIH has been spared major budget cuts for now, the FY12 budgets are now before Congress, and many legislators are proposing deeper cuts.

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.)

What Do We Know About The NIH Appropriation in the FY11 Budget?

The government shutdown has been averted for now, and it looks like we may finally have a budget soon for FY11 (now that we are more than 6 months into the federal year.) So what do we know so far about the NIH appropriation?

A brief funding history: Between FY98 and FY03, the NIH budget doubled (from roughly $15 billion to about $30 billion.) Of that budget amount, about 85% is distributed as extramural grants. As a point of comparison, the NSF budget is just over $7B and the EPA grew under the current Administration from over $7B to just over $10B, but they are in line for cuts this year. After the NIH five-year doubling period (i.e., since FY03), the NIH has experienced level funding (sometimes less), when adjusted for inflation.

The FY10 NIH Appropriation was $31.3B.  The current Administration favors a budget increase for NIH in FY11—their NIH FY11 Appropriation recommendation last February was $32.25B (Click here to see the President’s FY11 NIH Budget Request, broken down by Institute). Last summer, both the House and Senate HHS Appropriation Subcommittees approved a $1B increase for NIH for FY11 (i.e., the same as the Administration’s budget request to Congress.)

Hopefully, the budget will pass soon and those funding levels will be finalized and made available to NIH. Meanwhile, those who submitted grants during Cycle II last year wait. Those with the highest scores have received their funding decisions—I have a client who was awarded an R01 competing renewal in a timely fashion. Others who were notified of the award had to wait to find out the award amount—I have another client who learned unofficially last fall from the Program Officer that her K01, which received a wonderful score, would be funded, but she only recently learned that it would be funded for four years (we were delighted with that outcome.) Yet another client with an R21 that has a borderline score still awaits her funding decision for a grant submitted last spring.

And what about FY12, which begins Oct 1? In February, the Administration recommended a 3% increase in the NIH budget, which when adjusted for inflation would represent level funding. However, that funding recommendation is extremely unlikely to clear the House this summer.

%d bloggers like this: