E N D
1. Research Funding Trends:Surviving an NIH Recession February 14, 2007
AMSPC Annual Meeting
Tony Mazzaschi
2. New England Temperature Conversion Chart 50º F
Residents of the Galapagos shiver uncontrollably
People in New England sunbathe
3. New England Temperature Conversion Chart 32º F
Floridians don coats, thermal underwear, gloves, wool hats
People in New England throw on a flannel shirt
4. New England Temperature Conversion Chart 0º F
Hawaiians escape en masse to Tahiti
5. New England Temperature Conversion Chart 0º F
Hawaiians escape en masse to Tahiti
Girl Scouts in New England sell cookies door to door
6. New England Temperature Conversion Chart - 25º F
The few people left in Miami die
7. New England Temperature Conversion Chart - 25º F
The few people left in Miami die
New Englanders close the windows
8. New England Temperature Conversion Chart - 40º F
Washington DC runs out of hot air
9. New England Temperature Conversion Chart - 40º F
Washington DC runs out of hot air
People in New England let the dogs sleep indoors
10. New England Temperature Conversion Chart - 460º F
Politicians start putting their hands in their own pockets
11. New England Temperature Conversion Chart - 460º F
Politicians start putting their hands in their own pockets
People in New England start saying . . . "Cold 'nuff for ya?"
12. New England Temperature Conversion Chart - 500º F
Hell freezes over
13. New England Temperature Conversion Chart - 500º F
Hell freezes over
Red Sox win World Series
14. New England Temperature Conversion Chart - 500º F
Hell freezes over
Texas becomes a “Blue State”
15. Presentation Outline The Political Landscape
NIH Funding – The Present and Future
Strife, Squabbles, and Opportunities
Research Capacity
16. Election Summary Impact No Democratic Incumbent Lost In The General Election
17. Congressional Line-Up
18. Medical Schools By Party Affiliation(U.S. House of Representatives)
19. Election Summary Impact No Democratic Incumbent Lost In The General Election
Urban States and Districts Have Gained Strength
20. Election Summary Impact No Democratic Incumbent Lost In The General Election
Urban States and Districts Have Gained Strength
New York, Massachusetts, Maryland and Michigan Are Back
21. New York Senate
Chuck Schumer – Conference Vice Chair (3rd in Leadership), DSCC Chair, Finance Cmte.
Hillary Rodham Clinton – H.E.L.P. Cmte.
House
Charles Rangel – Chair, Ways and Means Cmte.
22. Massachusetts Senate
Edward Kennedy – Chair, H.E.L.P. Cmte.
John Kerry – Finance Cmte.
House
Edward Markey – 3rd Ranking on Energy and Commerce Cmte.
Barney Frank – Chair, Financial Services Cmte.
23. Maryland Senate
Barbara Mikulski – Appropriations Cmte. and H.E.L.P. Cmte.
Benjamin Cardin – Will be more active in health arena than Sarbanes
House
Steny Hoyer – Majority Leader, 2nd Ranking on Labor-HHS-Education Approps. Subcmte.
24. Michigan Senate
Debbie Stabenow – 4th in Party Leadership; Finance Cmte. Member
House
John Dingell – Chair, Energy and Commerce Cmte.
John Conyers – Chair, Judiciary Cmte.
25. Election Summary Impact No Democratic Incumbent Lost In The General Election
Urban States and Districts Have Gained Strength
New York, Massachusetts, Maryland and Michigan Are Back
Illinois and California Remain Important
26. Illinois Senate
Dick Durbin – Assistant Majority Leader, H.E.L.P. Cmte.
Barack Obama – H.E.L.P. Cmte.
House
Rahm Emanuel – DCCC Chair, Caucus Chairman, and Ways and Means Cmte.
27. California Senate
Barbara Boxer – Chief Deputy Whip
Dianne Feinstein – Approps. Cmte., Chair, Rules Cmte.
House
Nancy Pelosi – Speaker of the House
Pete Stark – Chair, Ways and Means Subcmte. on Health
Henry Waxman – Chair, Government Reform Cmte.
George Miller – Chair, Education and Workforce Cmte.
28. AAMC Members
30. Election Summary Impact No Democratic Incumbent Lost In The General Election
Urban States and Districts Have Gained Strength
New York, Massachusetts, Maryland and Michigan Are Back
Illinois and California Remain Important
Blue Dog Democrats and Members of the GOP’s Main Street Partnership Will Be Major Factors
31. Physicians in Congress (109th) Bill Frist (R-TN) - transplant surgeon
Tom Coburn (R-OK) – family medicine
Michael Burgess (R-TX) – ob-gyn
Donna Christian-Christensen (D-VI) – family medicine
Phil Gingrey (R-GA) – ob-gyn
Jim McDermott (D-WA) - psychiatrist
Ron Paul (R-TX) - ob-gyn
Tom Price (R-GA) – surgeon
Joe Schwarz (R-MI) – ENT
Vic Snyder (D-AR) – family medicine
Dave Weldon (R-FL) - internist
32. Physicians in Congress (110th) Tom Coburn (R-OK) – family medicine
Michael Burgess (R-TX) – ob-gyn
Donna Christian-Christensen (D-VI) – family medicine
Phil Gingrey (R-GA) – ob-gyn
Jim McDermott (D-WA) - psychiatrist
Ron Paul (R-TX) - ob-gyn
Tom Price (R-GA) – surgeon
Vic Snyder (D-AR) – family medicine
Dave Weldon (R-FL) - internist
Steve Kagen (D-WI) – allergist
33. Researchers in Congress (110th) Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) – Ph.D. in Human Physiology
Vern Ehlers (R-MI) – Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics
Rush Holt (D-NJ) – Ph.D. in Physics
124 Masters
22 Doctorates
178 Law Degrees
34. Political Control Of The Congress Has Changed . . . But The Nation’s Budget Situation Has Not!
35. Baseline Deficit Projections[in billions of dollars]
36. Baseline Deficit Projections[in billions of dollars]
37. FY 2006 Spending [outlays]
38. Medicare and Medicaid[as a % of total mandatory spending]
41. FY 2007 President’s Budget Total Discretionary Spending = $870.7 billion (+3.2%)
46% for “Domestic” Spending = $398.3 billion (-0.5%)
35% for Labor-HHS-Education = $137.8 billion (-2.8%)
18% for NIH = $24.8 billion (0%)
42. Three Questions That Democrats Must Answer in 110th Congress 1. How large is the pot of discretionary money?
2. How to divide this money among defense, homeland security, and domestic programs?
3. How to divide domestic money among programs (e.g., NIH versus education versus VA healthcare)?
43. Growth in Discretionary Budget Authority by Major Agency Agency FY07 Cumul. Growth Request 2001-7
Defense $439.3 B 45.2%
Education $54.4 B 35.7%
HHS $67.6 B 25.2%
Homeland Security $30.9 B 121.0%
Veterans Affairs $35.7 B 59.5%
44. Historical NIH Doubling Intervals
45. NIH Funding, FY 1995-2007 [in billions]
46. NIH Funding History FYs 1995-2006 [in billions]
47. NIH Research Project Grants FYs 1996-2006
48. Success Rates for RPGs FYs 1996-2006
50. NIH Competing RPGsApplications Per Applicant
51. FY 2007
52. FY 2007 – Joint Resolution
53. FY 2007 – Joint Resolution
54. FY 2007 – Power Shift
55. FY 2008
56. Total RPGs
57. Training Slots
58. FY 2008 Advocacy Get NIH “Back on Track”:
Bush proposal = 13% cut in inflation adjusted dollars since FY 2003
Three year plan to restore NIH funding:
+6.7 percent in FY 2008, 2009, and 2010 to restore NIH to FY 2003 level
Endorsed by: AAMC, Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research Funding, FASEB, National Health Council, Research!America, and the Campaign for Medical Research
59. BIRDPI
60. Community Infighting Size and Quality of the Intramural Program (currently 9.7% of NIH budget)
The Common Fund/Power of OPASI Head
RO1s vs. “The Rest” of the NIH Budget
Basic vs. Translational & Clinical Research? CTSAs
The “Haves” vs. the “Have-Nots”
Priority-setting and disease focus
When will IDCs rear its ugly head?
61. OPASI Office of Portfolio Analysis and Strategic Initiatives
?
Division of Program Coordination, Planning and Strategic Initiatives
Resource development
Program evaluation
Strategic coordination
62. Research Survey Questions
63.
84 Schools Participated in the study.
20 schools in the sample were among the top 25 in terms of their FY 2005 direct federal grants and contracts.
Fixing: E.g.,
Where debt service started in 2003 at $13M, then $14M, then $150M, then $16M – I changed $150M to $15M.
Research Faculty went from “0” in 2003 & 2004, to 100+ in each of following years, I made the earlier years equal to 100+
The transition between the Actual & Projected values – between 2005 and 2006, sometimes resulted in wildly different values for a handful of schools. When this occurred and I could not come up with a reasonable estimate, I deleted them for a particular analysis for the years in question.
4 Public schools reported “0” F&A recoveries because they remitted to state – even though instructions said not to do this. When this happened, I substituted the Off-the-books values for 2003 - 2005, and then used the rate to estimate for 2006-08.
5) FYI: Schools were classified as “research intensive” if they had $120M+ in direct federal G&C research in FY 2005.Fixing: E.g.,
Where debt service started in 2003 at $13M, then $14M, then $150M, then $16M – I changed $150M to $15M.
Research Faculty went from “0” in 2003 & 2004, to 100+ in each of following years, I made the earlier years equal to 100+
The transition between the Actual & Projected values – between 2005 and 2006, sometimes resulted in wildly different values for a handful of schools. When this occurred and I could not come up with a reasonable estimate, I deleted them for a particular analysis for the years in question.
4 Public schools reported “0” F&A recoveries because they remitted to state – even though instructions said not to do this. When this happened, I substituted the Off-the-books values for 2003 - 2005, and then used the rate to estimate for 2006-08.
5) FYI: Schools were classified as “research intensive” if they had $120M+ in direct federal G&C research in FY 2005.
64. Year-to-Year Percent Change in Average Direct - Federal Research Grants & Contracts Even though doubling stopped in 2003, schools still reported substantial growth – 10 -12% between 2003-04, and 6-8% between 2004-05. Frankly, I don’t entirely understand this.
However, what’s of interest and concern are schools’ expectations regarding the growth in funding over the next three years.
That is, schools projected growth of 5-6% between 2005-06, in the 2-3% range between 2006-07, and 2-4% range between 2007-08!
Even though doubling stopped in 2003, schools still reported substantial growth – 10 -12% between 2003-04, and 6-8% between 2004-05. Frankly, I don’t entirely understand this.
However, what’s of interest and concern are schools’ expectations regarding the growth in funding over the next three years.
That is, schools projected growth of 5-6% between 2005-06, in the 2-3% range between 2006-07, and 2-4% range between 2007-08!
65. Year-to-Year Percent Change in F&A Cost Expenditures- Federal Research Grants & Contracts Again, this shows average year-to-year changes in actual and projected F&A recoveries.
So, between 2003 & 04’, both cohorts reported increases of around 12%! Between 2004-05, between 4-6%.
Projected changes between 2006-07 and 2007-08 are in the 2-4% range. No clear data glitch explaining the average predicted change for the research intensives between 2005 and 2006 – approximately 6%
Again, this shows average year-to-year changes in actual and projected F&A recoveries.
So, between 2003 & 04’, both cohorts reported increases of around 12%! Between 2004-05, between 4-6%.
Projected changes between 2006-07 and 2007-08 are in the 2-4% range. No clear data glitch explaining the average predicted change for the research intensives between 2005 and 2006 – approximately 6%
66. Change in Average NASF Research Space – FY 2003 Base Year (n=82) This slide depicts actual and proposed changes relative to a 2003 base year, the year in which the NIH doubling ended.
The data indicate that, on average, the research intensive schools have and/or plan to increase their NASF by a little more than 30% relative to 2003.
The comparable number for the Other schools’ cohort is a little more than 20%This slide depicts actual and proposed changes relative to a 2003 base year, the year in which the NIH doubling ended.
The data indicate that, on average, the research intensive schools have and/or plan to increase their NASF by a little more than 30% relative to 2003.
The comparable number for the Other schools’ cohort is a little more than 20%
67. Change in Average Debt Service - FY 2003 Base Year This slides shows the change in average debt service related to the 2003 base year.
So, for the research intensives, the increase from $7M in 2003 to $13M in 2008, represents an 88% increase.
Perhaps of greater concern, the increase for the Other Schools’ cohort from $2.1M in 2003 to $5.4M in 2008, represents about a 250% increase!This slides shows the change in average debt service related to the 2003 base year.
So, for the research intensives, the increase from $7M in 2003 to $13M in 2008, represents an 88% increase.
Perhaps of greater concern, the increase for the Other Schools’ cohort from $2.1M in 2003 to $5.4M in 2008, represents about a 250% increase!
68. Change in Average Research Faculty Headcount – FY 2003 Base Year So, between 2003 and 2008, the research intensive schools projected that, on average, they planned to increase their research faculty by about 16%.
The Other schools’ cohort projected an estimated growth of about 14%.So, between 2003 and 2008, the research intensive schools projected that, on average, they planned to increase their research faculty by about 16%.
The Other schools’ cohort projected an estimated growth of about 14%.
69. Change in Average Grad Students & Post Docs-FY 2003 Base Year For the research intensives, the schools estimated an overall increase of about 8%.
However, the Other schools’ cohort reflects a projected growth of more than 35%!For the research intensives, the schools estimated an overall increase of about 8%.
However, the Other schools’ cohort reflects a projected growth of more than 35%!
70. NIH Funding, FY 1995-2007 [in billions]
72. Medical School Objectives Project The MSOP is an initiative designed to reach general consensus within the medical education community on the skills, attitudes, and knowledge that graduating medical students should possess.
73. Medical School Objectives Project Expert Panel on Education in Safe and Effective Prescribing Practices: What should medical students learn in order to become knowledgeable, safe, and effective prescribers of medications (learning objectives)?
What is the ideal educational environment for learning about the optimal prescribing of medications?
What kind of educational experiences would allow students to achieve those learning objectives?
75. New Resources for Chairs
76. New Resources for Chairs
77. AAMC Data Book Statistical Information
Accredited Schools
Applicants and Students
Faculty
Financing Medical Schools
Student Financing
Graduate Medical Education
Teaching Hospitals
Health Care Financing
Biomedical Research
Physician Services
Faculty & Physician Compensation
78. AAMC Salary Survey By Degree
By Rank
By Region
By Department
Mean, Median, 25th and 75th Percentiles
80. Choose from the report selections to create your own report.Choose from the report selections to create your own report.
85. Log-In Procedures
86. Log-In Procedures
87. Log-In Procedures
88. Chairs Portal
89. Other AAMC Information Products AAMC STAT:
http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/aamcstat/
Washington Headlines:
http://www.aamc.org/advocacy/washhigh/
CASMail, BasicMail & ClinicalMail:
CAS@aamc.org