Breakthroughs Blog: Congress

Today, the Senate appropriations committee approved a fiscal year (FY) 2014 appropriations bill that outlines funding levels for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (Labor-HHS) Appropriations Bill would take the positive step of restoring sequestration cuts to CDC and NIH, although there is mixed news for global health programs at the agencies. NIH The bill would fund the NIH at a total of $30.9 billion in FY 2014, restoring this year’s five percent sequestration cut and providing a small increase over last year’s budget. Science Insider reports that the NIH had “strong support” from Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who recently said that she is determined to reverse "reckless cuts to American biomedical research." In her opening remarks earlier today, Sen. Mikulski said, “Because of the investments we have made in NIH over the past decades, … HIV and AIDS is no longer a death sentence, and polio and small pox are essentially eradicated in this country. These medical breakthroughs didn’t just happen, they occurred because this Committee supported NIH, and the NIH supported dedicated scientists who sought knowledge and medical breakthroughs. We must keep up this support.” The bill includes $50 million, five times the FY 2013 level, for NIH’s Cures Acceleration Network, which aims to speed the translation of medical research discoveries in the laboratory that have not advanced far enough to attract significant investments from the private sector. According to Nature, in order to approve a new NIH budget—as opposed to passing yet another continuing resolution for FY 2014—the House and Senate must agree on a common figure for the agency. As a comparison, the House FY 2014 Labor-HHS bill would provide $8 million less for NIH compared with the Senate version. The Senate Labor-HHS appropriations bill for FY2014 would fund the NIH at $30.9 billion and the CDC at $7.022 billion. Credit: PATH/Evelyn Hockstein CDC The Senate bill would provide CDC with $7.022 billion in funding for FY 2014. The bill would restore the $800 million cut from CDC’s budget by sequestration and add a $22 million funding increase. The bill would provide $391.9 million for CDC’s Center for Global Health. This would include $116.9 million for CDC’s Global AIDS Program, which is equivalent to the FY 2013 level, but $15 million below President Obama’s FY 2014 request. The bill would provide $19.3 million for CDC’s Parasitic Diseases and Malaria program, which is comparable to FY 2013 levels, but less than the $22.2 million requested by Obama. CDC’s Division of Tuberculosis Elimination would receive flat funding at the FY 2013 funding level of $140 million. No additional funding for the division’s research programs was allocated. Finally, the bill also contains a total of $19.2 million for Global Public Health Capacity Development. These funds are for a new initiative to support public health capacity building in at least five developing countries over a two-year period to be overseen by CDC. The fate of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill is unclear from this point on. There is a $91 billion funding gap between the House and Senate overall budgets for FY 2014. And while the House Labor-HHS subcommittee has its overall budget, the subcommittee has not announced a date for consideration of a bill. Whatever happens, both the House and Senate must work to protect funding levels at the NIH, CDC, and all federal agencies that support global health and research programs.

  “A small, modest investment from the US government could truly transform the lives of people around the world and make a serious public health impact,” Rachel Cohen from the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative said yesterday at a congressional briefing focused on neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). NTDs are a group of 17 diseases that infect more than one billion people around the world, most of whom live on less than $1.25 per day. The briefing focused on how the US government has played a significant role in combatting NTDs globally through programs like those at the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which has helped deliver more than half a billion treatments in six years to more than 250 million people. At the same time, Cohen and other panelists stressed that significant changes are needed to make US NTD programs even more successful. For instance, several speakers argued that while USAID’s NTD program has been remarkable in its efforts to provide NTD patients with access to existing therapies, the agency must expand the program to include funding for research into new NTD drugs, vaccines, and diagnostics. The fact that USAID does not currently support NTD product development “is a serious gap in USAID’s efforts against NTDs, as most NTDs do not have adequate prevention, diagnostic, or treatment options,” moderator Kaitlin Christenson, GHTC’s coalition director, pointed out. She added that “many existing NTD drugs are toxic, expensive, and difficult to administer in resource-poor settings.” Christenson and other panelists added that congressional support is critical for USAID to expand its mandate into NTD research and product development. Panelists at a Congressional briefing on Monday discuss the US response to neglected tropical diseases. From left: Kaitlin Christenson, Brian D'Cruz, Rachel Cohen, and Larry Buxbaum. Credit: Research!America Panelists also highlighted that USAID’s program—which currently addresses only seven NTDs—should expand to include research and control efforts for all 17 diseases. Dr. Brian D’Cruz, an emergency physician who has served with Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), discussed his experience providing treatment for sleeping sickness in the Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of the Congo to illustrate the need for expanded US support. D’Cruz told the story of Natasha, a 12-year-old girl in the Congo who died of sleeping sickness before his MSF team could provide adequate diagnosis and treatment. He added that MSF physicians are hindered in their efforts to treat patients like Natasha by cumbersome diagnostics and outdated, lengthy treatment regimens. Dr. Larry Buxbaum with the Philadelphia Research and Educational Foundation also highlighted that many NTDs, such as Chagas, are increasingly affecting populations in the United States. “Climate change is moving many tropical diseases north,” he said, adding “So while research is needed to help people with NTDs in Africa and South America, this research will be useful right here in the US as well.” D’Cruz also said that he has treated patients with Chagas disease in his capacity as a physician in Northern Virginia: “These NTDs exist just a few metro stops away.” Finally, all the panelists urged US policymakers to become increasingly involved in an ongoing global discussion about how to redefine NTD research and product development efforts. All three of these changes—investing in NTD product development, expanded support for all 17 NTDs, and engaging in global discussions about NTD research—will help ensure that the US makes the greatest impact possible against NTDs worldwide. “We need breakthrough, completely modern therapies and diagnostics for these diseases,” Cohen said, adding, “They are literally in the pipeline. US support could help us get closer and closer to elimination.”

Last week, Reps. Gerry Connolly (D-VA), Karen Bass (D-CA), and Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced the Global Partnerships Act of 2013. The bill is a welcome step to reform the US government’s foreign assistance programs, including strengthening important aspects of US global health research and development (R&D) efforts. Throughout the bill, research and innovation to improve health worldwide are highlighted as central components of US foreign assistance programs. For instance: Harnessing research, innovation and technology is included as one of the key elements of a new global health sector strategy required by the legislation. In addition to a new overarching Global Development Strategy, the bill would require strategies for all of the major foreign assistance sectors, such as global health, every four years. R&D for new health technologies and solutions is prioritized in the legislation as one of four programmatic health areas the bill would support. The others are: maternal health and child survival; family planning and reproductive health; and combating disease. Research for new technologies is also highlighted as essential to the overall success of US foreign assistance programs. The bill includes strong support for public-private partnerships, such as nonprofit groups that develop global health vaccines, drugs, diagnostics, and other products. Finally, the bill would establish a $50 million per year Innovation Fund at the US Agency for International Development. The fund would support “innovative projects and evidence-based solutions that may be tested, replicated, and scaled up in partner countries to significantly improve development outcomes,” including global public health. The bill provides a promising future for US foreign assistance programs—an effort that reflects former Rep. Howard Berman’s (D-CA) legacy in foreign aid policy (Rep. Berman introduced the same bill before he departed Congress at the end of 2012). The bill rightly places research and innovation at the crux of the global health sector, and provides guidance for needed reforms to the US foreign assistance system. As Rep. Connolly said when releasing the bill, “It is time for a complete overhaul of the way we administer foreign aid. The 21st century requires a foreign aid program that recognizes today’s priorities and streamlines the process in the post-Cold War era.” Congress should unquestionably move this legislation forward and introduce a Senate companion bill. However, given that Congress hasn’t made much traction on most pieces of legislation in the past few years, the Partnership Act’s fate isn’t clear. It’s also possible that sections of this legislation may spin off into their own separate bills and see success. The important thing is to keep the congressional dialogue around foreign aid reform going, and not to lose momentum for urgently needed reforms and improvements. You can read a press release from Rep. Connolly here, and a statement from the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network here.

Earlier this week, both the House and Senate passed a budget package to fund the government through the remainder of fiscal year (FY) 2013, thereby averting a government shutdown when current funding expires on March 27. The new compromise funds most accounts roughly at FY2012 levels, with an across the board cut of 0.092 percent. As a reference, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Center for Global Health budget was $349 million in FY2012, while the National Institutes of Health was funded at $30.69 billion. In addition, global health programs at the State Department and US Agency for International Development (USAID) were funded at $8.167 billion. The budget package also makes some key changes to certain programs. For instance, global health programs at the State Department and at USAID, including those that fund global health research and development (R&D) initiatives, are increased over FY2012 levels by roughly 5 percent—potentially to counteract the effects of sequestration. The bill also gives greater flexibility to the Department of Defense to manage sequester cuts to its budget. It also leaves the sequester largely in place, instead of replacing it with balanced budget cuts, as many advocates in the global health community were hoping lawmakers would do. The bill now goes to President Obama’s desk, and he is expected to sign it. Budget negotiations in Congress will have far-reaching effects on global health R&D efforts at agencies such as CDC, DoD, NIH, and USAID. Photo credit: PATH/Evelyn Hockstein. If and when Obama signs the final FY2013 budget package into law, the funding levels will still be subject to sequestration—meaning that the final levels are really anywhere from 5 percent to 9 percent lower. For instance, USAID’s global health programs would see an overall cut of $193 million. While this is better than the $428 million cut it was facing before the Senate stepped in, it could still have a large impact on global health and R&D programs that fall under USAID. The House also passed its version of an FY 2014 budget resolution, which would replace sequestration with budget caps for the next decade. The House resolution would move most of the budget cuts away from the Department of Defense and onto non-defense accounts, including most global health R&D programs, and would balance the budget over the long term. The Senate has introduced its own budget resolution, which could pass today or tomorrow. The Senate version is very different from the House version, as it would make balanced cuts to both defense and non-defense programs and protect non-defense programs from the drastic cuts seen in the House budget. The Senate version does not include a plan to balance the budget in the short- or long-term, but contains a significant reduction in spending over the next decade. Although replacing sequestration with an actual budget plan is widely approved of, advocates for both domestic and global health programs believe that the House budget resolution would be devastating for key health and humanitarian programs. Therefore, as Congress makes decisions on FY2014 spending bills, lawmakers should use a balanced approach when allocating budget cuts (as seen in the Senate version), and increase support for global health and R&D when possible. Additionally, as agencies receive their final FY2013 budgets, they should ensure that global health and R&D programs are protected.