1 / 18

Research Funding in an Era of Austerity

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

tolla
Download Presentation

Research Funding in an Era of Austerity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Research Fundingin an Era of Austerity Emily Holubowich, MPPSenior Vice President, CRD AssociatesExecutive Director, Coalition for Health Funding @healthfunding

  2. 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

  3. Federal Spending, FY 2014

  4. Federal Spending, FY 2022 Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities based on CBO data

  5. NDD Lowest Level Since Eisenhower Source: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities based on CBO data

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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)

  9. 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

  10. 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)

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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)

  15. 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

  16. 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?

  17. Contact Emily J. Holubowich, MPP Senior Vice President Cavarocchi ∙ Ruscio ∙ Dennis Associates 202.484.1100 eholubowich@dc-crd.com Follow Me! @healthfunding

More Related