Global health R&D gamified!

Science expands our understanding, makes the impossible possible, and helps us build the future we want for all people. Science drives the work of our Global Health Technologies Coalition, so we wanted to take a step back to reflect on five ways science is transforming global health:1. Science is generating treatments, cures, and vaccines to tackle the world’s most devastating diseases.  From a vaccine that has put us at the brink of eradicating polio to antiretroviral treatments that have dramatically extended the lives of people living with HIV and AIDS, science has generated new health technologies that have driven tremendous progress in global health. Thanks to investments in science and research, 82 new vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, and other lifesaving global health tools have been developed and introduced since 2000. These tools include a new meningitis A vaccine—which has already saved 378,000 lives and prevented 673,000 new infections since 2010—and new child-friendly malaria drugs that have helped cut childhood malaria deaths by 65 percent since 2000. Science has also fueled a robust pipeline of over 670 global health technologies now in development poised to further build upon these gains.2. Science is helping us understand the unique needs of users and communities so we can design the right tools for impact. A scientist assembles a point-of-care diagnostic test. Photo: PATH/Dan ChangDriving progress in global health is not just about developing tools that work; it’s about developing tools that work for the communities and contexts in which they are used. A diagnostic test won’t help us identify and control an emerging epidemic unless it can be administered on the spot in remote communities and deliver results quickly. Likewise, a woman is not likely to adopt a new contraceptive or HIV and AIDS prevention method unless it’s easy-to-use, comfortable, affordable, and fits in with her lifestyle and culture. Through surveys, data analysis, diagnostics, and user testing, science is enabling us to study end users and the environments and social systems in which they operate. This helps us better understand the complexity of their unique needs and design and refine technologies to deliver the most effective solutions for impact.3. Science is helping us predict, detect, and track emerging health risks so we can be better prepared to confront tomorrow's challenges. From using weather patterns to forecast the risk of insect-borne disease outbreaks, to employing genomics and evolutionary theory to predict how bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics, to advancing new hybrid systems that combine crowdsourced data with traditional disease surveillance, science is helping us better predict, detect, and track infectious disease outbreaks and other emerging health challenges. Early detection can make the difference between an outbreak becoming an epidemic and is critical to mounting an effective response.4. Science is helping us understand what works and what doesn't so we can better target interventions and design health programs for maximum impact.  How often does an insecticide-treated bed net need to be replaced, and how many tears can it sustain before its stops working? In an era of limited resources, can we predict which technologies and interventions are likely to save the most lives in a country if brought to scale? How do we get people to change their handwashing habits to reduce diarrheal disease and childhood deaths? These are the questions big and small that scientists, data analysts, and other health researchers are working to answer in labs, offices, and program sites across the United States and world. The answers they get are helping us better target health solutions and refine health programming to more save lives and more dollars.5. Science is putting information and data at our fingertips to help us fight global diseases and health challenges in new and unusual ways. The revolution in mobile technology, digital health, and big data is transforming our approach to fighting global diseases and health challenges. Health care workers are using mobile devices to track immunization coverage door-to-door and monitor vaccine supplies to prevent stockouts, doctors are using SMS to remind patients to take their tuberculosis drugs and treatment adherence, and health ministries are deploying new data visualization toolsto turn a mountain of data into accessible and actionable information to guide decision on to best deploy and target resources.Science creates a foundation upon which improvements in global health are built. It unlocks discoveries and fuels innovation, informs policies and programs, breaks down barriers, and ultimately advances better, healthier lives for all people. At this moment in time, it is more vital than ever that we build a convincing case of the benefits that flow from science and the importance of strong investment in science and research.In global health, science matters because #scienceserves and science saves.

Office of Management and BudgetLast Thursday, the Trump Administration released an outline of its budget proposal for fiscal year (FY) 2018, proposing dramatic cuts to US agencies involved in global health research and development (R&D) including the State Department (State) and US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the National Institutes of Health (NIH). If enacted, these cuts would have significant impact on programs that advance global health innovation and protect the world and Americans from global disease threats. As an introduction to the Trump Administration’s budget priorities, this short and “skinny” budget outline lays out only high-level issues and proposes spending levels for top-line accounts. A more detailed funding proposal is expected in May that will include funding levels for individual agencies and programs. Still, while short on detail, the proposal is clear on targets for proposed reductions: the budget calls for nearly a one-third reduction in funding to State and USAID (cuts of $10.1 billion) and an 18 percent reduction in overall funding for HHS (cuts of $15.1 billion). Within HHS, a one-fifth reduction in funding (cuts of $5.8 billion) is proposed for NIH. The only US agency involved in global health R&D to receive a proposed increase in funding is the Department of Defense (DoD)—which is proposed to receive a 9 percent ($54 billion) boost. It remains unclear whether any of this increased funding would be directed to medical and infectious disease research. Reading between the lines, the President’s “skinny” budget foretells a challenging funding climate for global health R&D at State, USAID, and HHS: State Department and US Agency for International DevelopmentFunding for State and USAID was among the hardest hit in the President’s proposed budget. The blueprint calls for a 28 percent cut to State and USAID base funding, which grows to 30 percent when reductions to overseas contingency funds are included. USAID is a critical component of the US government’s support for global health R&D: In 2015, USAID provided nearly US$80 million in funding to support global health R&D. Cuts to USAID funding could stall promising innovations under development and halt efforts to roll out new technologies in USAID programs. While the President’s proposal does express support for US global health initiatives including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEFPAR); the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and US malaria programs; the level of support proposed for these programs remains unclear. Language in the blueprint does not indicate if these programs would continue robust or expanded activities, or indicate whether these programs would be supported at current funding levels. It is also important to note that not all global health programs were called out in the budget, leaving uncertainties about how critical programs supporting maternal and child health, nutrition, tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases will be prioritized by the Administration. The budget also articulates a dramatic overall shift in America’s approach to diplomacy and development assistance with specific proposals calling for consolidation of State and USAID activities, linking aid and assistance to strategic interests, and reducing funding for the United Nations and affiliated agencies. It will be important to continue to monitor the impact of these proposals. Department of Health and Human Services The Administration’s budget proposes an 18 percent reduction to HHS funding across the board—cuts that if enacted would bring HHS to its lowest level of funding in nearly two decades. This would significantly reduce funding for HHS agencies engaged in global health R&D, including NIH, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Not only would cuts of this level have real impact on ongoing and future research needs, they could also undermine America’s leadership in global health R&D and diminish our ability to prevent, detect, and respond to emerging health threats. A full picture of the President’s proposal for HHS is not yet available, but limited details follow below: National Institutes of Health The President’s budget proposes a 19 percent cut to the NIH budget. NIH leads the world in financial support and technical expertise for global health R&D—so cuts of this magnitude would have a detrimental and lasting global impact on ongoing and future research projects. The budget also proposes a reorganization of NIH Institutes and Centers and calls for the elimination of the Fogarty International Center. Fogarty plays an important role in global health R&D. Its programs build partnerships between US and international researchers and strengthen the capacity of scientists in low-income countries to address critical global threats like HIV and AIDS, Ebola, and other emerging infectious diseases. Calls to eliminate this center are concerning. Cutting the Fogarty Center—a small center with a $70 million budget—would save little in the overall federal budget, while increasing our vulnerability to global disease threats. The President’s blueprint also calls for a “rebalance” of federal contributions to NIH research funding, which warrants careful consideration and further monitoring. If NIH research priorities are shifted to align only with disease burden in the United States—as is sometimes proposed—important research on neglected diseases and conditions will be jeopardized, ceding US leadership in this arena and potentially leaving Americans more vulnerable to infectious and emerging disease threats. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and health preparedness The President’s budget proposal does not include overall funding levels for CDC, nor does it call out specific CDC programs for support or reductions. However, given the magnitude of cuts in the overall HHS budget, it is clear CDC funding is also at risk. The only CDC mention in the blueprint is a proposal to shift $500 million in CDC funding to block grants to be administered by the states. While details on this proposal are scarce, it’s likely these funds would be repurposed from within CDC’s budget, rather than represent new funding. CDC leads the United States’ public health defense system against infectious diseases, so robust funding for the agency is a global health and national security imperative. The agency plays a unique and important role in global health R&D by developing new tools and techniques for disease surveillance, training researchers and health workers overseas, and developing new health tools to advance disease detection, prevention, and response efforts. The budget also proposes the creation of a new Federal Emergency Respond Fund to enable rapid response to public health threats like Zika or Ebola. Such a dedicated fund has been championed by many public health leaders, including former CDC Director Tom Frieden. However, in the President’s request, there are few details regarding the fund’s approach or operations. It remains unclear how large the fund would be, whether it would support preventative R&D, or whether funding for the program would come at the expense of current US government emergency response and preparedness initiatives. As the budget proposal also call for reforms to “key public health, emergency preparedness, and prevention programs” under HHS—which could include CDC and other global health security programs—there remains more questions than answers. Food and Drug Administration The FDA also plays an important role in global health R&D by facilitating the review of new global health products to ensure they are safe and effective before entering the market. While the President acknowledged the need to direct more funding to the FDA, the budget blueprint does not propose increased government support for the agency, but rather calls for doubling user fees paid by healthcare companies for the regulatory review of their products—from $1 billion to $2 billion. Noting the constrained budget environment, the proposal says that companies benefiting from FDA approval “can and should pay for their share.” In addition to user fee increases, the Administration also proposes to take new, unspecified actions to speed the development and approval process for drugs and other medical products. Patient advocate groups and the private sector alike have stressed their belief that current review procedures appropriately balance thorough review of safety and efficacy with efforts to expedite products through the review process. Department of Defense The Presidential budget proposes a 9 percent ($54 billion) increase to discretionary funding for DoD. DoD plays a critical role in R&D for infectious diseases; however, the budget blueprint does not address DoD’s medical research activities and provides little information about what increased defense funding may be targeted. Congressional response and next steps The President’s budget proposal is the first official declaration of policy and spending priorities for the Administration and marks the beginning of months of discussions within Congress and the Administration on how best to allocate funds. Congress ultimately controls government spending, and many members on both sides of the aisle have expressed skepticism or criticism about the Administration’s budget blueprint, including its proposed cuts to foreign assistance and medical research. While there are calls in Congress to reduce government spending, and we may see cuts to US agencies engaged in global health R&D, the spending bills passed by Congress will likely look much different than the President’s proposal. GHTC will continue to monitor the FY18 budget and appropriations process and advocate for robust funding for all programs that support global health R&D.