Posts filed under ‘Senate LHHS Subcommittee’
NIH appropriations hearings in the House and Senate
This month, for the first time in almost two years, the appropriations subcommittees on labor, health and human services and education in both the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate held hearings on the National Institutes of Health.
On March 20, members of the House subcommittee heard testimony from NIH Director Francis Collins on the fiscal 2013 budget for the NIH and the development of the new NIH center, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. In their opening statements, both Chairman Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., and Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., commented on the bipartisan support for the NIH and biomedical research. During the hearing, several other subcommittee members expressed the need for strong federal funding for the NIH, specifically providing at least $32 billion for NIH in FY13.
Rehberg did voice his concern that NIH may be focusing too much of its efforts on translational research and moving away from its core mission of basic research. In addition to Collins, three other witnesses from the extramural community testified about the function and goals of NCATS. Roy Vagelos, former Merck CEO and American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology member, was skeptical of whether or not NCATS would be able to fulfill a unique position in the translational research pipeline. However both Scott Koenig, CEO of the biotech company Macrogenetics, and Todd Scherer, CEO of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, were more supportive of the NCATS mission.
Then, on March 28, Collins testified before the Senate Appropriations LHHS subcommittee. This hearing focused almost entirely on the FY13 budget plan for NIH. Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, voiced concern over President Obama’s request for an additional $80 million to the NIH for Alzheimer’s research. Harkin emphasized that the research funding should not come from the Department of Health and Human Services fund, stating that the NIH had the flexibility to account for the additional money within its own budget. However this could force the NIH to further squeeze the amount of funding that would go to grants on other areas of research in order to carve out extra money for Alzheimer’s-specific research grants.
At both the House and Senate hearings, Collins was asked how NIH would be affected if Congress fails to agree on a plan to cut the federal deficit and if NIH is hit with a mandatory 7- to 9-percent budget cut. Collins replied that a cut of that size could result in as many as 2,300 fewer new and competing grants in the next fiscal year. Collins stated simply, “It would be devastating.”
On March 29 the House subcommittee heard from testimony from twenty witnesses representing various research, health and education organizations in a public hearing before the subcommittee members. Among the witnesses was ASBMB president Suzanne Pfeffer. Pfeffer’s testimony highlighted the many contributions basic research has made to improve the health of our nation and called for an allocation of $32 billion for the NIH in FY13, with the goal of $35 billion by FY15.
There is discussion that the House could begin marking up its appropriations bills for FY13 as early as May. Stay tuned to the ASBMB science policy blotter for updates on the appropriations process.
Appropriations – Where are we now?
Omnibus – minibus – continuing resolution – super committee … what does it all mean for the biomedical research community right now? Well, here it is in a nutshell.
EXISTING SITUATION: Currently, the government is operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR), which funds the NIH at the FY2011 level through November 18, 2011, which is $30.7 billion. FY11 ended on September 30, 2011, however Congress did not pass a single appropriation bill, which lead to the need for the CR extending FY11 funding levels through mid-November. This “stop-gap” funding is in place to offer Congress more time to resolve budget issues, and pass a budget for FY2012. Just today, House Appropriations Chair Hal Rogers all but conceded that an additional CR would be necessary to keep the government funded through Christmas 2011, to provide Congress still more time to pass a budget for FY12.
COMPETING OPTIONS: Both the House, and the Senate, have made proposals in terms of funding for NIH for FY12. (IMPORTANT NOTE: Neither of these options have been voted on and approved by their full originating chamber.) Here is a top level summary of the options:
|
REHBERG OPTION (HOUSE)
|
SENATE OPTION
|
As is the case with so many of these issues, the devil is in the details. The House “mark”, which was never voted on by the House Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee, increases the NIH budget, but defunds an overwhelming majority of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act (often referred to as “Obamacare”). Those cuts have a significant impact to our friends in the health community, and puts the research community in a spot where we want to support the NIH increase proposed by the House, but also support our partners who are facing drastic cuts.
The Senate – of course – has a cut to the NIH which is a difficult pill to swallow, and includes language establishing NCATS, an NIH proposal which concerns the basic research community as it may change the focus of NIH from basic, to translational science. We are in between the proverbial rock and a hard place. How have we straddled the line on this issue? The position we have used going forward is to “Support the House funding level for the NIH, but not the bill as written.”
WHAT’S NEXT? At some point, Congress is going to have to pass a budget for FY12, and negotiations must take place between the House and Senate to close the more than $1 billion gap between the two proposed funding levels for NIH. Most everyone involved does not feel that the final NIH appropriation with be at the level proposed by the Chairman Rehberg in the House, so the final appropriation will likely be between the high of the House and the low of the Senate.
The question is how will the FY12 budget be passed? A long-term CR, which would extend the FY11 funding level for the remainder of FY12 is highly unlikely, and the least popular option. What other options exist?
- Normal Appropriations Bill Passage. In this scenario, the House and Senate would pass all 12 appropriations bills one-by-one, determining the funding level for FY12 on a series of 12 separate bills. This is not a reality.
- Omnibus Passage. From the Latin omnibus meaning “for everything,” this would be one bill which includes the appropriations for all agencies. This would bundle up all 12 individual appropriation bills into one vote. This is not the likely outcome.
- Minibus Passage. Congress can bundle up appropriations bills into groupings of bills, essentially the compromise between normal appropriations passage and an omnibus. The Senate is currently exploring this option and may vote on a minibus include appropriations for the departments of Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and science related agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
WHAT’S THE SUPER COMMITTEE? Over the summer, during the debt-ceiling crisis we all experienced, the President established a Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka the super committee), a bicameral group of 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans. The committee is charged with issuing a recommendation by November 23, 2011 for at least $1.5 trillion in additional deficit reduction steps to be undertaken over a ten‐year period starting in FY2013. The activities of the super committee will not directly impact the FY12 negotiations, except to add pressure to Congress to begin making spending cuts in the future.
NCATS Budget Details Finally Released
Months after recommending the creation of the National Center for the Advancement of Translational Science, the National Institutes of Health have finally outlined the expected budget for the new entity. On Monday, Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies (which funds the NIH) detailing the expected budgetary outlays for NCATS in FY12. Importantly, though the letter will likely allay some concerns by clarifying the agency’s expectations, it does not represent an official budget request to congressional appropriations committees, leaving the fate of NCATS unresolved.
According to the draft, the budget for NCATS in FY12 would be $722 million, with over $553 million coming from programs currently located in the National Center for Research Resources, the bulk of which would be provided by the Clinical and Translational Science Awards program. The Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Diseases program, currently housed in the National Human Genome Research Institute, will receive $50 million, up from its current allocation of $24 million. $100 million will be provided for the Cures Acceleration Network, which was congressionally authorized (but not appropriated) in 2010.
The letter also details how the various components of NCRR will be re-allocated within NIH, with program placements essentially matching the proposed model released by NIH in February. The big budgetary “winner” will be the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which will see an increase of nearly $350 million in its budget as it inherits the Institutional Development Awards program. The Office of the Director, which will subsume several educational and resource programs from NCRR, will receive an additional $184 million in FY12.
The letter is intended to mollify growing concerns over the NIH’s intentions surrounding NCATS that had lingered since the proposal for reorganizing the agency first surfaced last December. Despite a including a thorough description of NCATS in their FY12 budget request, the NIH conspicuously omitted any fiduciary details, leading to speculation that the agency was unprepared to go forward with the plan by the start of FY12 on October 1 of this year. In a hearing last month, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., also expressed concern about the lack of a budget for the planned center. Though NIH has now provided the first glimpse of these details, unless Congress is able to pass appropriations bills this year, NCATS will remain a pipe dream.
NIH Leadership Testifies Before Congress
On Wednesday morning, the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education heard testimony from NIH leadership in regards to their agency’s FY12 budget request. In addition to Chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Ranking Member Richard Shelby, R-Ala., subcommittee stalwarts Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., and Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., were joined during the hearing by new members Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill., and Sen. Jerry Moran, D-Kan.
Sen. Harkin opened the hearing by welcoming the panelists: Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Health; Anthony Facui, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Griffin Rodgers, Director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; Susan Shurin, Director of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; and Harold Varmus, Director of the National Cancer Institute.
Sen. Harkin described his long-standing support for the NIH, and pointed to both its health-related and economic benefits as justification for his backing. Sen. Shelby followed Sen. Harkin in praising the institute, but raised concerns about the ability of the NIH to partake in translational research, in particular mentioning questions he had on the proposed National Center for the Advancement of Translational Sciences.
During the question period, Sen. Shelby returned to the theme of translational research. He directly asked Dr. Collins why the FY12 NIH budget request lacked a line-item budget for NCATS, and whether the issue was being rushed. Collins responded that, despite feelings that the center opening should be delayed until FY13, he felt that waiting an extra year would cause the NIH to miss out on opportunities that could be taken advantage of presently. He added that the budget request was being finalized and reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget, and that he hoped to have it submitted to the subcommittee within “a few weeks.” Shelby also asked several questions concerning the ability of the NIH to pass off its translational discoveries to private industry, which Dr. Collins admitted was an issue that had to be considered prior to approval of projects.
Both Sens. Harkin and Shelby posited questions about reducing childhood obesity. Drs. Rogers replied by describing several programs at the NIH that are studying the issue, and referred the senators to the NIH Obesity Research Task Force. Dr. Shurin added that the NIH was collaborating with the Center for Disease Control and the United States Department of Agriculture on the topic. Meanwhile, Dr. Varmus talked extensively about various cancer programs, including, in response to a question from Sen. Reed, ones explicitly focused on pediatric cancers.
After giving an enthusiastic statement in support of biomedical research, Sen. Moran asked if the NIH faced any barriers other than financial ones. Dr. Collins replied that the pipeline of new researchers was drying up, due to what he called the “sad state of science education,” and also referred to the rigid structure of scientific disciplines, though he felt these structures were loosening.
Overall, the committee came off as quite receptive to the NIH and its mission. As Dr. Collins noted, the entire biomedical research community was grateful to the subcommittee for its work in ensuring that the budget cuts to the NIH in the FY11 be as minimal as possible. This amiable relationship will need to be cultivated and maintained moving forward, as scientists fight to sustain the gains they have made in the lab in the face of expected budget crunches.
