New Webinar: “Mistakes Commonly Made on NIH Grant Applications”

In an effort to provide cost-effective training to the broadest group possible, I am launching a series of webinars in the upcoming months. The first of these will be in early February, and the goal will be to help grantees recognize and correct common submission mistakes.

Unlike many who conduct NIH submission training programs, I myself work on NIH submissions full time. I see clients make the same types of mistakes repeatedly– mistakes that are easily avoided.

Each year I am fortunate to have dozens of clients share their Summary Statements with me. Because I regularly read reviewer comments from a multitude of study sections, I can easily identify trends in pink sheets. I also keep track of evolving trends at NIH based on information I find in FOAs, Notices, and Appropriations Testimony. Study sections change, funding priorities evolve. It is important to understand NIH’s priorities right now.

I have helped clients land over $200 million in federal funds in the past five years. Your NIH submission will entail several hundred hours of work by you and others. Why not learn strategies to optimize your success on this and future submissions?

What: Webinar entitled “Mistakes Commonly Made on NIH Grant Applications

Who: Ideal for faculty preparing to submit a K, R21, R03, or R01 in an upcoming cycle, and the senior faculty and administrators who advise them.

When:Wednesday 4 February 2015, 11am-12:30pm EST or
Thursday 12 February 2015, 11am-12:30pm EST
Cost: $149
Takeaways: At the end of this 90-minute session, participants will be able to:
1) Predict some key criticisms reviewers may make
2) Identify problems in their or their colleague’s draft applications
3) Utilize that information to write stronger drafts

Supreme Court Review of the Health Care Reform Law

From the February 29 NEJM:

“Later this month, the U.S. Supreme Court will examine the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), potentially producing a landmark decision. For most cases, the Supreme Court allocates 1 hour for oral argument — 30 minutes for each side. For the health care reform case, the Court has scheduled 6 hours for oral argument — the most time devoted to a case in more than 45 years. These arguments will take place on March 26, 27, and 28, and the Court’s ruling will probably be announced in June.”

CLICK HERE for full article.

CLICK HERE for an interesting commentary.

What does the FY13 NIH Congressional Justification Say?

Now that I have recovered (more or less) from some particularly hellish Cycle I submissions, I can turn my attention to other matters until the Cycle II crunch begins. February is the time that the Appropriation process begins at NIH. On February 13, the Administration released their Congressional Justification for FY13, which runs from October 1, 2012 – September 30, 2013. Click here for the full report.

President Obama is requesting $30.86 billion for FY13, essentially freezing the budget at FY12 levels. There is a great deal of language in the report concerning the economy—specifically, NIH’s efforts to reduce health care costs and disease burden on society, as well as the economic growth associated with the research enterprise supported by NIH. From the cover letter:

“With continued support, NIH investigators will help to revolutionize patient care, reduce the growth of health care costs, and generate significant national economic growth… NIH must continue to seek innovative solutions to ensure rapid advances in science even in these uncertain economic times. Strategic investments will support research with the highest potential for improving public health and to preserve the scientific workforce… Investment in the future of public health has never been more important. In addition to the health benefits to all Americans in the future, such investment can play a key role in reinvigorating the economy now. Numerous economic analyses have illustrated the role that NIH research plays in creating jobs and spurring economic growth. In the face of growing global competition investment in biomedical and behavioral research and the scientific workforce will propel scientific discovery for the benefit of human health and the U.S. economy, both now and in the future.”

A call-out box early in the report states:

Every dollar of NIH funding generates about $2.21 in economic output.” (In Your Own Backyard, Families USA, June 2008.) 

AND

In fiscal year 2010, NIH extramural research funding generated $68.035 billion in new economic activity nationwide and supported more than 487,900 jobs.” (An Economic Engine, United for Medical Research, Spring 2011.)

In a budget briefing on Feb 15, NIH Director Francis Collins stated that despite the budget freeze, the President’s budget proposal would allow a 7% increase in new and competing RPGs in FY13. He stated that this increase would be made possible because there was an increased turnover in grants (i.e., decrease in the duration of grants because “science is moving more quickly” than it has in the past), together with a 1% reduction to noncompeting grants.

Other items of interest in the report:

  • Funds are sought from the Public Health Prevention Fund (part of the Affordable Care Act) to make a significant increase in Alzheimer’s research.
  • The ratio of funding between basic and applied research (54% basic, 46% applied) remains constant -as has been the case for several years.
  • The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) would receive an 11% increase to $639 million, which includes significant funding ($50 million) for the Cures Acceleration Network.
  • The overall Health and Human Services budget request is 8.5% lower than last year.
  • The request for the National Science Foundation is up 5% to $7.373 billion.
  • The request for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is up by roughly 1% to $408.8 million. However, the proposal cuts investigator-initiated research grants by more than 31%, and comparative effectiveness research grants by 41%.

The Administration’s Congressional Justification is drawing criticism from the research community, who are quick to point out that when adjust for inflation, NIH funding has been in decline since 2003. Yet up until now, NIH has been spared the devastating budget cuts seen in many agencies in the past few years. It is likely that their luck has run out, given that virtually all discretionary spending, and in particular all aspects of the Affordable Care Act, risk being slashed dramatically when the budget request reaches the Hill.

Click here for more coverage provided by the American Association for Dental Research.