A report from GHTC and Policy Cures Research examines how US federal funding for global health R&D is delivering impact both abroad and at home.

Search the GHTC website

Congress passes FY 2014 Omnibus package: Mixed results for global health research

Read time:
Ken Kistler

In an increasingly rare show of bipartisanship, Congress has moved forward an appropriations agreement that should finally settle the issue of fiscal year (FY) 2014 funding levels.

January 15, 2014 by Ashley Bennett

UPDATE: since this post, the Senate also approved the spending package and President Obama has signed the final 2014 omnibus bill into law.

In an increasingly rare show of bipartisanship, Congress has moved forward an appropriations agreement that should finally settle the issue of fiscal year (FY) 2014 funding levels. Yesterday, the House of Representatives approved the $1.1 trillion Omnibus spending bill, and the Senate is likely to pass the legislation later this week.

In line with budget numbers previously agreed to, the bill includes an increase in discretionary spending of $45 billion, split equally between defense and non-defense spending. For global health research, the news is mixed. Funding for many accounts that fund research for new global health tools—such as those at the US Agency for International Development (USAID)—was higher than FY 2013 sequestered levels, and a few accounts even saw further increases. However, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) remains woefully underfunded, even as Congress increased its budget by $1 billion over last year’s post-sequestration levels. Below are a few key highlights from the omnibus agreement:

State and Foreign Operations (SFOPS)—Although overall International Affairs funding saw a cut of $6.5 billion (39.7 percent) from last year’s levels, funding for global health actually increased by 4.7 percent over FY 2013 levels to $8.44 billion. Certain subaccounts that contain global health research programs within the SFOPs budget fared particularly well, including funding for the Maternal and Child Health account ($705 million) which saw a 12.4 percent increase from 2013 levels. Additionally, appropriators went above and beyond the President’s request for tuberculosis (TB) funding, allocating $236 million for bilateral TB programs, $45 million over the President’s request and an increase of 5.1 percent from 2013 enacted levels. In another positive move, the USAID Neglected Tropical Diseases program is funded at $100 million—potentially opening the door for the inclusion of research and development (R&D) programming. The bill also provides for $4.067 in funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief program—which includes key product development programs for malaria, HIV and AIDS, and TB—an overall increase of 3.9 percent. Funding for both family planning and malaria remained similar to last year’s levels. Policy language that accompanied the omnibus also contained support for the continuation of important global health research programming.

NIH—The omnibus sets overall 2014 funding for the NIH at $29.934 billion—a $1 billion increase from 2013 post-sequester levels. While this is certainly an improvement from the current situation, this number falls short of White House and Senate requests and represents a $950 million cut from 2012 levels. In more reassuring news, the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) was funded at a fairly robust $633 million, however report language included in the omnibus text requested that all funding for the Clinical and Translational Science Awards come out of NCATS funding in FY 2014, whereas in the past funding has been drawn from several centers. Other important centers such as the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the National Institute of Child Health were funded at $4.359 billion and $1.283 billion, respectively—both decreases from FY 2012 levels and the FY 2014 budget request.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—Overall funding for the CDCis set at $6.9 billion, a $567 million increase from 2013 post-sequestration levels. Within the CDC, the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases was funded at $287.3 million, $93 million below the President’s request. CDC’s Global Health account, which includes funding for HIV and AIDS was funding at $383 million, slightly below the President’s request, but a $24 million increase from 2013 post-sequestration levels. In an intriguing move, language included in the CDC section calls for increase coordination of research programming between CDC, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and NIH. You can read the full report here.

FDA—Out of the major US agencies involved in global health research, FDA fared the best in the omnibus. FDA is funded at a total of $2.552 billion in discretionary spending, an increase of $91 million from 2013 post-sequestration levels. Notably the omnibus allows FDA to get back $85 million in user fee money that was withheld as a result of the sequester.

Department of Defense (DoD)—While we’re still poring through the DoD’s appropriation package, early analysis reports that medical R&D funding saw increases, even as DoD’s overall budget was decreased. This may be a positive sign; as AAAS reports, research programs here may help lessen the impact of dire cuts at NIH.

While Congress should be applauded for protecting many of the programs that fund global health research in the omnibus package, the recent downward trend in NIH funding is troubling. NIH is the world’s leading research institution, and has funded the groundbreaking work behind the majority of global health tools available today. The role of NIH in the global health product development cannot be replaced or replicated elsewhere; if support continues to decline, urgently needed innovations will not reach those who need them. Congress and the Administration must continue to push global health progress forward by supporting robust funding for all US agencies that fund global health R&D during the FY 2015 budget and appropriations process.

Additional analyses:

Kaiser Family Foundation

AAAS

InterAction budget table

Categories: DoD, FDA, NIH, USAID, US budget

About the author

Ashley BennettGHTC

Ashley Bennett is a Policy and Advocacy Officer at GHTC.

Other Breakthroughs Blog posts you may like:
PATH/Will Boase
January 16, 2014

Research Roundup: What we’re reading this week

Written by Nick Taylor / GHTC
Read time:
In this regular feature on Breakthroughs, we highlight some of the most interesting reads in global health research from the past week. GHTC member the International Vaccine Institute and the Institute for Translational Vaccinology have agree to collaborate on vaccine research and development and to promote capacity building in low- and middle-income countries. The partnership will focus on improving available technologies, as well as regulatory processes. The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have released a fiscal year (FY) 2014 omnibus appropriations bill . Funding for global health programs at the US Agency for International Development saw some increases, while the National Institutes of Health remains woefully underfunded—even with an increase of $1 billion over last year’s post-sequestration levels. Results of an early-stage clinical trial show that stem cells taken from patients’ own bone marrow could be used to treat multidrug-resistant and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB). More tests will be required before this treatment option is validated as a possible alternative to current TB drugs. New research from Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine has found that a form of malaria attacks red blood cells by “clamping down on cells with a pair of proteins.” This finding may aid scientists in the design of better vaccines and drugs against malaria.
January 14, 2014

The human face of global health R&D: Cynthia Gama and USAID

Written by Nick Taylor / GHTC
Read time:
The US Agency for International Development (USAID) is the nation’s lead foreign assistance agency. Throughout its 50-year history, USAID has worked with other government agencies, the private sector, and nongovernmental organizations to support the development and introduction of affordable health products appropriate for addressing the diseases and health issues in developing countries. The GHTC has launched a new blog series to highlight the impact of USAID’s commitment to global health research and development (R&D). The series will showcase stories from individuals who have benefited from the agency’s support and investment in R&D—as well as people whose lives would vastly improve if USAID were to expand its support for health R&D into new areas. Our fourth and final post in the series is by Dr. Cynthia Gama, a principal investigator with MatCH and works with the International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM) in South Africa. Based on her experiences, Cynthia writes about the need for USAID to support R&D for microbicides to protect women from HIV. Q: As a microbicide researcher working in South Africa, you witness every day the impact of HIV on women. Can you tell us about the effect of HIV on women in your community? A: It is very difficult to not see the face of HIV and AIDS every single day when working in communities such as ours. The KwaZulu Natal province in South Africa has a high incidence of HIV and while we all know that women bear the brunt of the epidemic, the resulting impact can been seen not only in the women but also in the young children who have lost their parents; the old grandmothers who care for orphans; the daughters who often drop out of school to help them; and the impact that HIV has had on all aspects of people’s lives. What gives me hope is knowing that we are working toward a product—a microbicide for women— that may help to reverse this trend in our community and give women and their families a better future. Dr. Cynthia Gama of MatCH. Photo: IPM Q: Why are microbicides and other women-controlled prevention methods so important in the fight against HIV? Are currently available prevention methods, like male condoms, realistic options for women in your community and other parts of the world? A: We know that condoms work—both male and female condoms—and we know that South Africa has one of the largest and best-established public-sector male and female condom programs worldwide. Women in our community receive HIV prevention and contraception advice from various sources. While women may have access to these prevention products, the challenge is that women may not always have the ability to negotiate their use with their partners. This could explain the disproportionately high numbers of our women being infected with HIV. As a researcher, I know that women desire more options to protect themselves, hence my commitment to making sure that collectively we can deliver more options to our communities. Our research center and community is involved in The Ring Study, which is evaluating a unique product, a long-acting microbicide ring. Women who participate are shown how to insert the ring themselves, which is designed to stay in place for a month at a time and release an antiretroviral drug to prevent HIV. Q: How has USAID support helped advance your research and the microbicide field as a whole? A: The support that our study sponsor, IPM, receives from donors such as USAID ensures that new products for women are developed, and that we can do the much needed work and research that would one day turn the hope of a microbicide product into reality. Without funding, none of what has been achieved thus far could have been possible. Q: What other benefits of clinical research for microbicide development—such as capacity building and infrastructure development—has USAID support had in your community? A: HIV prevention research has most certainly strengthened the scientific and medical research sector overall. Expertise in conducting large clinical trials is now available and well-developed, and has offered more employment opportunities. USAID support has helped to bring communities closer to science, and helped communities appreciate the need for clinical research and understand its benefits. Q: When a safe and effective microbicide becomes available, what impact are you hoping to see for women in your community and around the world? What role will USAID have played in this effort? A: On that day of jubilation we would know that our sisters, daughters, and granddaughters have much to look forward to. I hope that once a product shows efficacy, that our policy makers will ensure that it is made available as soon as possible. Organizations such as USAID and others together are making it possible for this dream to become reality.