Breakthroughs Blog: Congress

As the DC summer kicks into full swing, Congress has had a busy month moving forward fiscal year (FY) 2015 funding legislation for a variety of government programs including global health research and development (R&D). Global health R&D at USAID: Yesterday, both the House and Senate State and Foreign Operations (SFOPs) appropriations subcommittees held mark-ups of their draft bills. The House draft provides only topline spending numbers, with the addition of family planning/reproductive health, polio, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), and the Global Fund funding levels. The House funded the overall account above the White House request, but below what was appropriated in FY 2014. Including the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) numbers, funding was $132 million below the numbers Congress appropriated in FY 2014, but a welcome $257 million more than what the White House had requested. For a quick comparison of numbers, check out the Kaiser Family Foundation’s SFOPs policy analysis. The other accounts called out in the House bill were $59 million for polio (the same as FY 2014, but 18 percent higher than the President’s request) and family planning at $461 million. Funding for family planning was a significant but not unexpected cut from both the FY 2014 number (24 percent cut) and the White House request (28 percent cut). As the full House appropriations committee has not yet marked up the bill (and it’s not clear that they will), details on the contents of the bill report’s priorities and other policy riders are not yet known. We do know the House bill reinstates the Mexico City Policy—which prevents nongovernmental organizations who receive federal dollars from promoting abortion services as part of family planning­—or prohibits any funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). The full committee may take the bill up for consideration sometime next week. The Senate summary provides considerably more specific account figures for global health than the House bill. The Senate bill flat-funds the Global Fund and PEPFAR compared with FY 2014 and is even with the White House request—it’s interesting to note that for this overall account, the House bill appears to provide a higher funding level, even though we don’t yet know the exact funding distribution. Most other accounts were funded at levels either matching or slightly above FY 2014 funding. One exception is the tuberculosis (TB) account, which faces an $11 million cut from FY 2014 levels, although it is not as dire as the proposed White House funding level, which would have cut an additional $23 million. There is better news to be found for family planning and reproductive health, neglected tropical diseases, polio, and vaccine access. There’s no explicit word in either the House or Senate bills regarding the overall Maternal and Child Health account. NIH, CDC, and FDA Last week the Senate held its Labor, Health, and Human Services (LHHS) subcommittee mark-up and released a summary of their draft bill. A full Senate committee mark-up has yet to be scheduled, and the House has yet to move forward with its own draft bill. This account remains one of the most contentious, both because of ongoing efforts to alter the health care reform programs and because of a Senate plan to use the Overseas Contingency Operations account as a complicated and likely unsustainable mechanism to boost up funding for domestic priorities. The committee requested $30.459 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an increase to both the White House and FY 2014 levels by $324.0 million and $605.7 million, respectively, but still far less than the $32 billion needed. Global health programs within both NIH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also did quite well in the Senate bill—the CDC’s Centers for Global Health and Emerging Zoonotic and Infectious Diseases, the NIH’s National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the Fogarty International Centers were nearly all funded at levels above both FY 2014 and the White House request. Both the House and Senate have also marked-up their legislation to fund the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The House bill funds the FDA at $2.583 billion (this number represents budget authority and does not include user fees), which is a $23 million increase over FY 2014 and is about level with the White House request. The Senate bill funds the FDA at $2.588 billion, an increase of $36 million over FY 2014. The Senate is taking up this bill as part of a “minibus” along with the bills from the Commerce, Justice, and Science subcommittee, the Transportation subcommittee, and the Housing and Urban Development subcommittees. The Senate version of the bill also included some interesting report language around FDA’s international leadership to combat threats to global health and the global drug supply chain.  Defense The House Appropriations Committee approved their FY 2015 bill which essentially flat funds Department of Defense (DoD) R&D—which includes all research at DoD, not just neglected disease R&D—from FY 2014 levels. The American Association for the Advancement of Science provides a helpful summary of R&D funding within the draft bill which can be found here. The Senate Appropriations Committee has yet to mark-up a bill. In both the House and Senate, we see policymakers diverging from the priorities emphasized by the White House in its original budget request: there is little mention of any implementation of the infamous Opportunity, Growth, and Security account suggestions for global health or health research, although the Senate Appropriations Committee has developed its own plan for handling the declining budget caps while still supporting accounts they view as important to US health research programs. While the progress we’ve seen so far is commendable, Congress must speed its efforts to enact smart, evidence-based appropriations for global health R&D programs and their overarching accounts. As the end of the current fiscal year looms closer, policymakers must work together to avoid the stalemate that caused the government shutdown of the fall of 2013 and should support strong funding levels for global health R&D.

The global health research community has a reason to celebrate this weekend. Yesterday, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced in the US Senate a significant piece of global health legislation that would strengthen global health research programming within the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and improve coordination of global health research and development (R&D) across the US government. The legislation—known as the 21st Century Global Health Technology Act—is companion legislation to the House version of the bill, HR 1515, which was introduced by Representatives Albio Sires (D-NJ) and Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) in April 2013 and is now awaiting consideration in the House Foreign Affairs Committee. The House and now Senate introduction of the bill shows a growing recognition among US policymakers of the critical role investments in research and innovation play in improving public health worldwide.The 21st Century Global Health Technology Act would strengthen global health research programming within the USAID and improve coordination of global health R&D across the US government.Senator Murray and the House authors set out to create legislation that would (1) encourage the development of health products that are affordable, culturally appropriate, and easy to use in low-resource health systems, and (2) would—importantly in these fiscally-constrained times—cost taxpayers nothing. Thus, this legislation doesn’t mandate new funding. Instead it focuses on improving efficiency, coordination and cooperation across agencies and existing programs.The bill focuses on three main areas. The legislation: Establishes USAID’s mandate to conduct global health R&D and calls on the agency to create an overarching strategy which would help fill current gaps. Asks USAID to coordinate and collaborate with other agencies to create a cross-government strategy for global health research. Codifies into law USAID’s Health Tech program—which focuses on developing medicines and health products for use in low-resource settings. Let’s break down the significance of each of the bill’s three main impact areas:Strengthening USAID global health R&D mandate While recognizing the historic work of USAID in developing new products for use in the developing world, the bill gives an official mandate for USAID to conduct R&D across its portfolio by telling the agency that it should include research as part of each type of global health work it undertakes. This ensures health R&D remains a central focus of USAID’s work and makes sure current gaps across the agency’s portfolio are filled.Coordinating/collaborating with other agencies The US government is currently involved in 200 of the 365 global health products in the R&D pipeline, with work spread across many agencies including USAID, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Defense and the Food and Drug Administration. That means there are a lot of cooks in the global health R&D kitchen. This bill calls on USAID to coordinate and collaborate with the other US agencies involved in global health to develop a “whole-of-government” approach to global health research and improve outcomes, leveraging US funding and ensuring US tax dollars are well spent. While the bill doesn’t mandate how that coordination should occur, it does require USAID to report to Congress progress made on this objective.Codifying US Health Tech program The Health Tech program has existed at USAID for over 25 years. It forges collaborations between the public and private sector—known as public-private partnerships—to develop health technology solutions for people in the developing world. It has produced many innovative products, such as the vaccine vial monitor—which changes color to indicate whether a vaccine has been stored at a proper temperature and remains effective. So if the program already exists and works, than why does “codifying” it matter? This legislation would make the Health Tech program an official part of US law. That’s important because in a difficult fiscal climate in which cuts are occurring, the program’s inclusion in US law helps protect it from elimination and assure it can continue to carry out its work.So what’s next for the bill? As we all know from the singing Bill on Capitol Hill, Senator Murray’s introduction of this legislation in the Senate represents one of the first steps in the long process it must go through to become US law. The bill will now be referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for further consideration.While the path ahead for the legislation is still uncertain, it’s worth pausing to celebrate this initial victory. The fact that this legislation has been championed by Senator Murray and such significant advocates in the House indicates recognition by US policymakers that global health R&D is both critical to US health and foreign policy goals and a smart economic investment. After all, sixty-four cents of every US dollar invested in global health research goes directly to US-based researchers.So this weekend when you are out with friends and family, raise a glass to Senator Murray for being a steadfast advocate and tirelessly working to advance US leadership in global health R&D.

In this regular feature on Breakthroughs, we highlight some of the most interesting reads in global health research from the past week. Two recent announcements occurred regarding US international collaboration on global health research and development (R&D). Earlier this week, the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Office of AIDS Research at the National Institutes of Health announced a collaborative project with the Indian Ministry of Science and Technology and Department of Biotechnology to fight tuberculosis in India as part of the Indo-US Vaccine Action Program. On Tuesday, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the European Commission released the first report of the Transatlantic Taskforce on Antimicrobial Resistance (TATFAR), which is a joint commitment by the US and EU to fight antimicrobial resistance. Dr. Lucas Otieno Tina—a physician and researcher at the Kenya Medical Research Institute/US Army Medical Research Unit-Kenya collaboration program—writes in AllAfrica.com about why he has spent his career working to develop a malaria vaccine. He also discusses the promise of the RTS,S malaria vaccine and his involvement in the clinical trials for the vaccine supported by PATH’s Malaria Vaccine Initiative. Last week, the NTD Roundtable—a group of global health partners committed to fighting neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) —hosted briefings in the US House of Representatives and Senate to discuss America’s leadership in the fight against NTDs and the need for greater NTD R&D. The briefings were attended by representatives from key House and Senate committees, the NGO community, and the African diplomatic corps. Among other topics, participants discussed the need for the development of new diagnostic tools and treatments for NTDs. TechCrunch reports about a grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to Sure Chill Company in Wales, which has developed a way to store vaccines at a proper temperature without the need for an electrified or gas-powered refrigeration source. The technology reduces problems with vaccine distribution caused by vaccines that lose their efficacy without proper refrigeration.

As more detailed information about the President’s fiscal year (FY) 2015 budget requests to Congress is released, the results continue to be a mixed bag for global health research and development (R&D). The Congressional Budget Justifications—annual presentations to Congress to justify requests for funding—help shed a light into the administration’s priorities for FY 2015. National Institutes of Health (NIH) While the President made a modest request for overall NIH funding, the release of the NIH congressional budget justifications gives us a better sense of how the President hopes to fund specific institutes and programs at the agency. The National Institute of Infectious Diseases (NIAID) did include increases of $5.76 million for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases, $6.95 million for infectious and immunologic diseases, and $23.4 million for HIV and AIDS research compared with funding for FY 2014. The President’s request for the Office of AIDS Research—which covers all HIV and AIDS activities within all of the centers at NIH—was $3.004 billion. While this is nearly a $20 million increase from 2014 enacted levels, this number is still below enacted numbers for 2011 and 2012. Within this request was a decrease of 0.4 percent from 2014 funding for microbicides, an increase of 0.8 percent for vaccine research and a decrease of 1.4 percent for therapeutics research. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Historically, research at the CDC has led to major advances against devastating diseases, including the eradication of smallpox and advances in AIDS research. With a disappointing funding request for NIH, we were glad to see a much stronger request for the global health budget within the CDC. The President’s request included $445.29 million for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious diseases, a $54.85 million increase from FY 2014 levels. Included in this was the $30 million requested for the Advanced Molecular Detection Initiative. The $30 million will go towards investments in advanced molecular detection technologies to help speed up outbreak detection and increase response efficacy. We’re glad to see the Administration acknowledging the need for the CDC to be cutting-edge in an increasingly global arena. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amongst the government agencies involved in various stages of the development pipeline, the FDA has a vital role to play in accelerating the review of new global health products and strengthening the global regulatory system. Despite the tough budgetary times we currently face, Congress has been asking the FDA to do more with less. That said, we were pleased to see the President acknowledge that increased authority should also mean increased funding, with a robust request of $4.7 billion for the FDA, an 8.1 percent increase from Congress’ appropriation for 2014. The FDA’s Congressional Budget Justification acknowledged the unique role of the agency as an important international collaborator for global health through research and information sharing. The language specifically highlights the Biologics Program and its work to promote research and information sharing to facilitate access to vaccines and other products, harmonize regulatory standards, and establish and maintain standards for biologics. Another highlight is the news that FDA is in the process of drafting a proposed rule to add to their current list of neglected diseases for which they can allow accelerated reviews, and is specifically considering adding Chagas disease. US Agency for International Development (USAID) As we reported in our first blog post, while funding for global health at USAID and the Department of State was fairly disappointing, we were pleased to see an increase in the President’s request for malaria. Notable in this request was acknowledgement of the need for continued funding for R&D to support “the development of new malaria vaccine candidates, antimalarial drugs, new insecticides, and other malaria related research with multilateral donors.” Also in the USAID request was $153 million in central funding to accelerate science, technology innovation, and partnership. USAID describes this aim to “develop and scale breakthrough solutions and accelerate the transformation of the United States’ development enterprise by leveraging outside resources and improving the sustainability of development programs by attracting private-sector, market driven resources.” Department of Defense (DoD) DoD is the only US agency that funds global health research and product development from discovery to introduction. While we’re still sifting through all of the details in the Defense budget justifications, R&D at the agency—including health R&D—increased overall by 1.7 percent over FY 2014 enacted levels. Much of the global health research at DoD is funded through the Army’s Research, Development Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E) division as well as the Defense Health Program—including research on HIV and AIDS, malaria, and leishmaniasis. While we’re grateful the administration is continuing to recognize the need for sustained, robust support for global health R&D across several agencies, the decline of global health research funding in some key accounts remains concerning. We’ll look to Congress to equip these agencies with the necessary resources to carry out their essential role in developing new global health tools.