180 likes | 279 Views
Research Funding in an Era of Austerity. Emily Holubowich, MPP Senior Vice President, CRD Associates Executive Director, Coalition for Health Funding @ healthfunding. Budget Control Act Changes Game. Enacted August 2011 to avoid national default, reduce deficits over decade
E N D
Research Fundingin an Era of Austerity Emily Holubowich, MPPSenior Vice President, CRD AssociatesExecutive Director, Coalition for Health Funding @healthfunding
Budget Control ActChanges Game • Enacted August 2011 to avoid national default, reduce deficits over decade • Cut $900 billion from discretionary spending starting FY 2012 • Sequestration triggered March 2013 • Cut additional $1 trillion between FY 2013 - FY 2021 • Social Security, Pell Grants, Medicaid exempt • Bipartisan Budget Act enacts short-term changes
Federal Spending, FY 2022 Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities based on CBO data
NDD Lowest Level Since Eisenhower Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities based on CBO data
Health in the Crosshairs • Federal discretionary health cuts 11% to date • Wide variation across HHS • Sequestration in FY 2013 alone… • Cut $2.5 billion from discretionary health • Cut $1.5 billion from NIH • Most cuts restored in FY 2014 • $1 billion restored at NIH • FY 2015 level provides no room for growth
The Lost Decade (?) • The levels are too low • Zero sum gain going forward • Levels don’t keep pace with inflation, growth • Conflicting priorities create additional strain • Fierce competition for limited resources • Must do vs. nice to do • Cannibalization of health
Funding Is Out There • NAEVR estimates that in 2013, United States spent $2.8 billion on vision research • Federal government: $717 million • NEI: $637 million (intramural/extramural) • Other NIH: $30 million • DoD: $20 million • VA: $20 million (intramural) • Other (NSF, DoE): $10 million • Foundations: $50 million (est) • Industry: $2 billion (est)
Thinking Strategically to Survive • Remain vigilant to break the cycle of austerity • Educate about impact of cuts, both real and opportunity costs • Visit www.cutshurt.org for examples! • Adjust to the “new normal” • Explore creative funding models amid declining federal funds • #IceBucketChallenge, walks, rallies aren’t enough Vision Research Funding Partnership: Imagining the Possibilities Sept. 17, 2014
Supplementing Federal Funding • Many models for supplementing federal research investments in the private, philanthropic sector • Research (e.g., American Heart Association) • Career development (e.g., universities) • Young investigators (e.g., research societies)
ASH: “Bridging” the Gaps • American Society of Hematology established “bridge” program to enhance competitiveness of its members in NIH applications • Developed by Board in direct response to declining federal funding (pre-sequestration) • Society is principal funder, with additional support from corporate, individual donors • Meant to be temporary solution
ASH: “Bridging” the Gaps • Goal: Sustain research and contribute to retention in hematology investigation • Baseline commitment: $9 million over three years (2013-2015) • Awards: 30, one-year awards of $150,000 each year • Match: Institution must commit $50K • Ensures institution is vested in investigator success
ASH: “Bridging” the Gaps • Eligibility: ASH members who applied for NIH R01 or equivalent but were denied funding • Investigators with $250K in resources ineligible • Purpose: To address critiques from NIH application, strengthen for resubmission, and ultimately obtain NIH funding • NOT a new R01
ASH: “Bridging” the Gaps • Research: basic, translational, patient-oriented clinical, outcomes-based • Process: Synchronized with NIH cycle; study sections review bridge applications • Demographics: Wide spectrum of researchers and disciplines (PhD, MD, MD/PhDs)
Success to Date • Early wins show program’s promise • Positive feedback from awardees • 11 awardees have received R01s • NIH “loves it!” • ASAE 2013 Summit Award for “excellence in working to create a stronger America and world” • Full evaluation planned • Continuation to be considered
Lessons from ASH • Governance: Who oversees the program? • Administration: Who manages the program? • Funding: Who funds, at what level? Where does money go? Match or no match? • Eligibility: Who’s eligible, for what research? • Promotion: How do you get the word out? • Evaluation: How do you define “success?” What metrics?
Contact Emily J. Holubowich, MPP Senior Vice President Cavarocchi ∙ Ruscio ∙ Dennis Associates 202.484.1100 eholubowich@dc-crd.com Follow Me! @healthfunding