Senate Labor-HHS Funding Bill a Rebuke to Trump’s Budget Proposal, Experts Say
Read the full article in MedPage
One of the big items on Congress’s plate when it comes back in September will be passing appropriations bills to keep federal funds flowing, including money for health agencies and healthcare. And while the Senate has made a start on appropriating health funds, the House has yet to act.
The Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), approved an appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS, Education, and related agencies on July 31 by a vote of 26-3. “To address Maine’s shortage of healthcare professionals, we must invest in workforce development programs, provide support for students in lower-income communities seeking higher education, and increase access to affordable child care,” Collins said in a press releaseopens in a new tab or window. “This bill would provide support in each of these areas, as well as make targeted investments into life-saving research on Alzheimer’s, cancer, diabetes, and tick-borne diseases.”
…
Overall, the Appropriations Committee bill was good news, according to Ellie Dehoney, senior vice president of policy and advocacy at Research!America, which advocates for research funding. In contrast to the president’s budget, in which a few agencies, such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, were completely eliminated, “the Senate bill really was a statement that Congress has a view not to dismantle our nation’s ability to advance medical progress or hamstring it to the extent that the president’s budget would do so,” she said in an online interview at which a press person was present.
No “Forward Funding” in the Senate Proposal
One thing not in the Senate measure is “forward funding” of health research grants — an arrangement under which money for multiple-year grants is given all at once, not a year at a time, Dehoney explained. “The president is proposing forward funding of about half of the grants. And so when you do that, without increasing the total [funds allocated], you get this drop in grant success rates. And so it’s already started at NIH, and actually right now, 4% of the grants at the National Cancer Institute that make it through to the peer review process can be approved,” whereas previously the figure was around 10%.
…
As to what the House’s version of the bill might look like, “I have faith in [House Appropriations Committee] chair [Rep.] Tom Cole [R-Okla.] and [ranking member Rep.] Rosa DeLauro [D-Conn.],” said Dehoney of Research!America. “These members are among the most steadfast champions of medical progress in this country you could find. Year in and year out, they have made it a priority to strengthen NIH and grow NIH.”
One thing Dehoney said she’ll be watching carefully is whether the House will eliminate or defund any NIH centers or institutes, as President Trump has indicated he wants to do. One of the institutes that has come under administration scrutiny is the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. “Health disparities are not just minority health disparities — although those are very, very pronounced — it’s also rural [health disparities],” she said. While NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, has said that research will continue, the president’s budget would eliminate that institute.
Other institutes in the spotlight include the National Institute of Nursing Research, “where a lot of implementation research and clinical research takes place,” and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, “which you would think [HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] would want to keep,” she said, as well as the Fogarty International Center, which specializes in reducing global health disparities.
…