Appropriations Panel Garners Kudos for Supporting NIH Funding

ARLINGTON, Va. — The Senate Appropriations Committee’s decision to protect and actually grow funding for the National Institutes of Health in key areas in the Senate’s proposed 2024 budget has garnered praise from Research!America, a nonprofit advocacy group.

The alliance of medical and health research entities, based in Arlington, Virginia, made particular note of the bipartisan support for the funding plan, which it called “an important marker for the appropriations process.”

It also singled out Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Patty Murray, D-Wash., Vice-Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, Subcommittee Chair Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis., and Ranking Member Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., for their “extraordinary leadership” during the early phases of the budget process.

Though the Senate budget proposal endorsed by the committee would only increase funding for the National Institutes of Health by 2%, the $47.8 billion increase is in line with President Joe Biden’s original budget request.

It is also far more generous than the proposal endorsed by the Republican-controlled House, which would actually cut the NIH budget by 6%.

Among the areas that the Senate panel is looking to bolster are mental health and Alzheimer’s disease research, with both program areas getting bumps of $100 million each under the chamber’s spending plan.

Meanwhile the proposal would provide an additional $60 million for cancer research.

In other areas, the committee is looking to hold the line on spending where the House is seeking significant cuts.

For example, as the Senate bill stands now, it would continue to provide about $9.2 billion to fund the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, while the House would cut that amount by about 17%.

The Senate proposal would also continue the existence of a new CDC center dedicated to forecasting disease outbreaks, where the House wants to cut the office’s funding to zero next year.

The committee takes a similar approach to the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, keeping its funding at roughly $1.5 billion, where the House is proposing to slash the agency’s budget down to $500 million.

In a press release, Research!America noted that a national public opinion survey it commissioned earlier this year showed that a majority of Americans from both sides of the aisle believe the U.S. should invest more taxpayer dollars to advance science and technology. 

In fact, the group said majorities of respondents from both parties said they would be willing to spend $1 more in taxes each week if they were sure that all of the money would be spent on medical and health research.

“We commend the committee for including funding needed to address such widespread and devastating public health challenges as the opioid and mental health crises, and for continuing to strengthen U.S. public health capacity by investing in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” the alliance said in a written statement.

“With these and other investments, including supporting the boundary-breaking, public-private projects ARPA-H is advancing, building our biosecurity capacity, and equipping the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to bridge the evidence gap between the development of new medical interventions and their integration into the health care system, the committee is clearly attuned to the strategic imperatives of our nation and the needs and expectations of the American people,” it added.

The appropriations committee has proposed one significant change for the NIH — limiting the amount of time institute and center directors can serve in those roles at the agency.

“Congress’ decision to limit ARPA–H managers to a maximum of two three-year appointments (four years for the ARPA–H director) is a break from NIH’s long-standing practice of allowing its top officials to effectively serve indefinitely,” the committee said in a report accompanying the bill.

“The committee believes that a healthy degree of turnover in leadership is critical for sustaining the vitality of NIH. It also provides the opportunity for leading scientists across the nation to leave their positions for a set period of time and come to NIH to provide effective leadership to critical elements of the nation’s biomedical enterprise,” it continued. 

“The committee supports the recommendations outlined in the 2003 Institute of Medicine report ‘Enhancing the Vitality of the National Institutes of Health: Organizational Change to Meet New Challenges.’

“Specifically, the committee supports recommendation 10, to set term limits for [institute and center director] appointments to two five-year terms,” the committee said, adding that it believes regular replacement of institute and center directors following a maximum of two terms “would be an overall benefit to medical research by ensuring the periodic introduction of fresh perspectives.”

The budget proposal it endorsed provides the NIH with $500,000 to implement the term-limit process, and directs the agency to begin the planning process for implementing the policy, with a report due to the committee within 180 days of enactment of these efforts.

Dan can be reached at [email protected] and at https://twitter.com/DanMcCue