Subscribe to Blog via Email
Pages
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Deborah Holcomb on #SaveOurScience
- Jennie Spotila on #SaveOurScience
- Jennie Spotila on #SaveOurScience
- Nancy Wood on #SaveOurScience
- Katherine Reynolds on #SaveOurScience
Archives
- May 2025
- January 2025
- October 2024
- September 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- June 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- August 2022
- May 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- August 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
Meta
Tags
- accountability
- action
- activism
- biomarkers
- case definition
- CBT
- CDC
- CFIDS Association
- CFSAC
- coping
- covid-19
- CPET
- DHHS
- disability
- drugs
- exercise
- family
- FDA
- funding
- GET
- government
- grants
- IOM
- living with
- Millions Missing
- NIH
- occupy
- orthostatic intolerance
- P2P
- pacing
- pain
- politics
- post-exertional malaise
- priorities
- psychosocial
- recommendations
- researchers
- RFA
- RFA Ticker
- speaking out
- spending
- stress
- suffering
- testimony
- treatment
#MillionsMissing 2017
Posted in Advocacy
Tagged disability, living with, May 12th blog bomb, Millions Missing, occupy, protest
Comments Off on #MillionsMissing 2017
The Halfway Point
We are halfway through fiscal year 2017. How much money has NIH spent on ME/CFS research so far this year, and where will we end up? The short version is: based on current spending, we are unlikely to hit the $15 million that people were hoping for. Hang on, because it’s a bit twisty turny.
To date, NIH has spent $2,861,839 on ME/CFS research in 2017.
That sounds terrible. But let’s dig into that number. So far, NIH has disbursed funding for the following eight grants:
- Dr. Fred Friedberg for ME/CFS: Activity Patterns and Autonomic Dysfunction
- Dr. Ben Katz for a Prospective Study of CFS Following Mononucelosis in College Students
- Dr. Jarred Younger for Daily Immune Monitoring in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
- Dr. Marshall Williams for Stress Effects on Virus Protein Induced Inflammation and Sickness Behavior
- Dr. Armin Alaedini for Intestinal Immune Response in ME/CFS
- Dr. Marvin Medow for Reducing Orthostatic Intolerance With Oral Rehydration in Patients With ME/CFS
- Dr. Lubov Nathanson for Sex-specific Genomic Mechanisms of Transcriptional Regulation in ME/CFS/SEID
- Dr. Kathleen Light for Novel Gene Variants in ME/CFS and Fibromyalgia
However, there are six additional active grants that have not received money yet this year. I looked at the project start and end date, and when funding was issued in FY 2016. Based on that, I think these six grants are still due for money this year:
- Dr. Jim Baraniuk for Exertional Exhaustion in CFS
- Dr. Mary Ann Fletcher for Gender Differences in ME/CFS
- Dr. Maureen Hanson for Cellular Metabolism in Lymphocytes in ME/CFS
- Dr. Leonard Jason for Pediatric CFS in a Community-Based Sample
- Dr. Derya Unutmaz for Decoding Immunological Perturbations During CFS
- Dr. Eleanor Riley for Droplet Digital PCR for Evaluation of Associations Between Human Herpesvirus Infection and ME/CFS
If those grants get the same amount of money this year as they did in FY 2016, then we can expect a further $2,202,000, bringing the 2017 total to $5,063,839.
This is a problem. Why? Because this would be a 33% decrease from NIH funding in 2016 ($7,637, 591). In fact, it would be the lowest funding number since 2012.
There’s another problem buried in these data. Last year, NIH funded five new projects. This year, only one new project has been funded. New grants would help salvage the funding total from the basement, but will there be new grants?
There are the RFAs to look forward to. The Collaborative Research Center and Data Management Center RFAs should total $6,750,000 this year. Competition is going to be fierce, and it is inevitable that some applying groups will be disappointed.
But there is a hidden opportunity cost here. I am co-PI for one of the applying groups, and I have watched the effort it takes to put an application together, up close. It is an extraordinary amount of work. I think it is unlikely that any group applying for an RFA grant has also submitted other grant proposals this year. What about after the RFA applications are submitted? I think most researchers will wait for their application reviews (projected to be done in August) before writing new applications, because the reviewer feedback can shape new applications.
In other words, while the RFAs offer dedicated funding, there may be a drop in new investigator-initiated grants outside the RFA mechanism. The groups that do not get funded under the RFA will not have new funding in 2017 because they were not able to submit those non-RFA applications.
If this plays out as I have projected, here are the total numbers:
FY 2016 | FY 2017 | % Change | |
---|---|---|---|
Regular Grants | $7,637,591 | $5,063,839 | -34% |
RFA Awards | $0 | $6,750,000 promised | 100% |
Total | $7,637,591 | $11,813,839 | 55% |
We come out ahead. And the RFAs represent a long term strategy. It’s not just about that influx of $6.75 million this year. It’s about increasing collaboration and data sharing, and spinning off new grants. Hopefully, the $6.75 million to the Research and Data Centers will bring a greater return on investment than if that $6.75 million went into regular investigator-initiated grants.
There is one more speed bump looming on the road ahead: the federal budget. First, there is a (decreasing) chance that the government will shut down this Friday if Congress cannot pass a spending bill. That would bring everything to a screeching halt, including putting together the grant review panels for the RFA applications.
But beyond the shut down, NIH is facing the possibility of deep spending cuts. Nobody knows what is going to happen, and NIH is hedging its bets now. The RFAs include this qualifying language: “Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations.” In RFAs issued over the last couple weeks, NIH has started saying:
Although the financial plans of NIMH and NINDS provide support for this program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the availability of funds. Funding beyond the first year will be contingent upon satisfactory progress during the preceding years and availability of funds.
It’s not over yet.
Note: I edited the first paragraph a couple hours after publishing in order to clarify where we can expect to end up by the end of the year.
Posted in Research
Tagged accountability, action, budget, funding, government, grants, NIH, politics, priorities, recommendations, researchers, RFA, speaking out, spending
6 Comments
Best Practices
How can people with ME be more engaged in research? I mean really, meaningfully engaged from the design phase all the way through to the dissemination phase?
I have an answer! With the help of #MEAction, I led a group of volunteers to develop best practices for researchers to use as they partner with people with ME. Earlier this week, we published our report and sent it to as many researchers as we could.
This was a terrific project that allowed me to combine lessons I’ve learned in a variety of contexts. I have had the opportunity to serve as a member of FDA’s Patient Representative Program, and I recently qualified as an Ambassador for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. I am also a volunteer member of the CFS Advisory Committee’s Working Group on Patient Engagement. It’s been a steep learning curve, but this project gave me a chance to apply what I’ve learned in a way that will specifically help ME researchers.
Every volunteer brought important perspectives to the table, and they dove in to the patient engagement literature. To be honest, I probably tossed them in the deep end. We reviewed some of the articles I’ve acquired, and then discussed how to apply these patient engagement methods in the context of ME research, particularly the new Collaborative Research Centers.
There was a lot to talk about. How should researchers engage people with ME in their projects in a meaningful and substantive way? When should we be brought in (hint: as early as possible) so that our input is not treated as a cherry on top of the dessert? What accommodations will people with ME (and caregivers) need in order to fully participate? How should researchers budget for patient engagement, and how much should people be paid? How can people with ME add value to each stage of the research?
We wanted to get some guidance out to researchers as soon as possible, since the NIH grant applications are due on May 2nd. I was hoping we could write three pages or so. These volunteers hit a home run, and we put out nine pages including references.
Our report: Engaging People With ME as Partners in the Collaborative Research Centers offers the best practices we gleaned from the literature, and applies them to the context of ME research. We hope that researchers will adapt these best practices to their study designs in the ways that make the most sense.
And we intend this to be an evolving document. There is certainly more we could include, and more literature we could review. As people with ME are brought in to the research centers as partners, we will all learn more. I hope that we can update this document in a collaborative way. As we say in the report:
While the RFAs may be the current impetus for engaging with stakeholders, we hope that this will catalyze something more. People with ME can offer so much more than feedback. We can make your research more applicable, more efficient, and more successful. Let’s establish partnerships, because we will make more progress together.
Posted in Advocacy, Research
Tagged action, funding, government, grants, NIH, participation, partnership, patients, priorities, recommendations, researchers
11 Comments
The Cut
Trump’s proposed budget is out. Among all the cuts – because you have to cut in order to increase defense spending while simultaneously giving the rich a tax cut – among all these cuts is one that people with ME should take very personally. NIH’s budget will be cut by 18% or $6 billion in fiscal year 2018, if Trump’s budgets passes as is. The proposed budget also calls for a reorganization of NIH’s Institutes, but offers little detail. Here’s how I feel about that:
https://twitter.com/infinite_scream/status/842728318910828548
Hang on. That wasn’t enough.
Yeah, that’s how I feel.
This is nothing short of disastrous. NIH is the largest source of biomedical research in the world. NIH scientists discovered the bacteria that causes Lyme disease. They demonstrated the effectiveness of the first drugs used to treat AIDS. The biomedical research enterprise in the United States is built on NIH as its foundation. Cutting that foundation by 18% will be catastrophic for human health.
In addition, more than 80% of NIH’s budget goes out the door to fund academic biomedical research, largely in the United States. How will researchers do their research? I guess they’ll have to do 18% less of it. But it won’t just affect those researchers’ salaries paid by their grants, or the purchase of equipment (I wonder what will happen to the businesses that supply that equipment?), or the training of doctoral and post doctoral students. It will affect American universities, research hospitals, and other research institutions.
The university system is dependent on indirect costs tacked on to grants. Indirect costs are a percentage added to a grant by the university. It covers the costs associated with university infrastructure, like buildings and administration and libraries. If NIH’s budget is cut by 18%, then NIH will fund substantially less academic research. And if substantially less academic research is being funded, then American universities are stuck holding the bag. Because universities will still have buildings and staff and libraries, but a big chunk of that cost will not be covered by the indirect costs normally charged to grants. Trump’s budget may cut taxes for the rich, but it’s one hell of a tax on our universities.
If the negative impacts of such a dramatic cut to NIH are that easy to identify, why is Trump proposing to do it? Apart from Trump’s desire to increase defense spending while cutting taxes, the Administration’s director of the White House Office of Management and Budget offered this explanation: “We think there’s been mission creep” at the NIH, he said. “We think they do things that are outside their core functions.”
Ok, but so what, right? After all, it’s not like NIH spends a whole lot on ME. Just $7.6 million in 2016. So who cares if NIH has a funding cut, right?
Are you prepared for an 18% reduction in ME spending?
I’m not. For one thing, the first year of funding for the new Collaborative Research Centers is set aside in this year’s budget. But all bets are off going forward. Like many other RFAs, the one for ME Centers explicitly states, “Future year amounts will depend on annual appropriations.” So it is possible that future years of funding could be cut or eliminated.
It’s common sense to conclude that if NIH’s budget is cut by 18% next year, every program and RFA and grant pool will be severely cut. NIH will make far fewer grants, and that will hit everybody hard.
But that could even be a best case scenario. After all, if I’m NIH and my choice is between an HIV/AIDS study and an ME study, there are a lot of reasons why I’m going pick HIV. Biodefense? Flu? Alzheimer’s Disease? Epilepsy? Spinal cord injury? Osteoporosis?
We’re not winning out against those diseases now. Do you really think that NIH will say, well, we should spread that 18% cut around evenly across the board. Do you expect that this cut will be applied fairly? Is any university going to support a faculty member who wants to apply for an ME grant instead of . . . basically any other disease?
ME research is stigmatized now. ME research is on a starvation diet now. What happens in any system when resources become more scarce? The weakest members of the system lose. And they lose hard.
Whatever your political views or affiliations, whatever you think of the current Administration, if you want to protect research funding then you have to make your voice heard. Call your Representative today. Make sure he/she knows that you support NIH funding and ask him/her to do the same.
Posted in Advocacy, Commentary, Research
Tagged action, biomarkers, funding, government, grants, living with, NIH, occupy, politics, priorities, researchers, resist, RFA, speaking out, spending, suffering
13 Comments
RFA Ticker, 2/20/17
Following an excellent suggestion from J.A. on last week’s post, I have added a line to the table of cumulative RFA numbers. This line will track the RFA dollars committed to ME/CFS. I don’t expect it to change this year. It might also be helpful to track regular ME/CFS funding, and I’ll look into the most efficient way to do this.
I thought it might be helpful to check in with where we were this time last year, too. The number of RFAs issued by this time in 2016 is about the same, but the overall funding commitment is lower. This time last year, NIH had already committed $1.5 billion in RFA funding. One possible explanation for the difference is that generally, RFAs are stating the specific commitment for the first year of funding only. Last year, more RFAs specified what would be offered in year two or three or four as well. I suspect this is a reflection of the uncertainty around federal spending and the priorities of this new administration.
Here are the current cumulative RFA numbers:
FY 2017 | FY 2016 | |
---|---|---|
RFAs Issued | 137 | 352 |
Dollars Committed | $784,157,563 | $2,840,680,617 |
RFAs for ME/CFS | Two | Zero |
ME/CFS RFA Dollars | $6,750,000 | $0 |
And here is the table for FY 2017 alone:
Week Beginning | RFAs Issued | Total Commitment | RFAs for ME/CFS |
---|---|---|---|
2/13/17 | 8 | $29,600,000 | Zero |
2/6/17 | 1 | $4,000,000 | Zero |
1/30/17 | 1 | $10,000,000 | Zero |
1/23/17 | 4 | $14,250,000 | TWO |
1/16/17 | 2 | $45,600,000 | Zero |
1/9/17 | 0 | 0 | Zero |
1/2/17 | 1 | $43,000,000 | Zero |
12/26/16 | 0 | 0 | Zero |
12/19/16 | 2 | $10,000,000 | Zero |
12/12/16 | 28 | $125,950,000 | Zero |
12/5/16 | 14 | $114,800,000 | Zero |
11/28/16 | 10 | $47,660,000 | Zero |
11/21/16 | 6 | $42,780,000 | Zero |
11/14/16 | 6 | $44,350,000 | Zero |
11/7/16 | 10 | $25,490,563 | Zero |
10/31/16 | 4 | $26,550,000 | Zero |
10/24/16 | 10 | $53,400,000 | Zero |
10/17/16 | 17 | $94,890,000 | Zero |
10/10/16 | 1 | $28,750,00 | Zero |
10/3/16 | 9 | $23,087,00 | Zero |
If you want more background on the RFA Ticker, read the inaugural post.
Posted in Advocacy, Research
Tagged accountability, action, funding, government, grants, NIH, politics, priorities, researchers, RFA, RFA Ticker, speaking out, spending
Comments Off on RFA Ticker, 2/20/17
Preconditions, Burdens and Ableism
About Henry Frost
Who are we, as people with ME? Are we “patients”? Are we defined by the disease and its impact on our lives? Which comes first: me or ME? This is a question of identity, and how language can bestow or limit it.
Identity is on my mind in the wake of the House of Representatives’ passage of the American Health Care Act. (Here’s a summary of why this bill is so bad for people with disabilities.) Under current US law, insurers cannot refuse coverage if you have a pre-existing condition, and they can’t jack up your premiums for it either.
But under the bill passed last week, more than 130 million non-elderly Americans with pre-existing conditions will lose the protections they have today. Within hours of the vote, Twitter and Facebook were flooded by posts with the hashtag: #IAmAPreexistingCondition. Even celebrities chimed in.
The hashtag is powerful, because it attempts to put faces to all the health problems that we have. Denying health care for pre-existing conditions is denying health care to people. But I will not say: “I am the pre-existing conditions of ME, POTS, and thyroid disease.” I have those conditions, but my health problems are not my identity.
We have to be careful and precise in choosing language. Why? Because changing one word can change the meaning of a sentence, or a protest. I
amhave a pre-existing condition means I am a person with a complex identity. I am whole and complete, and my disease has not reduced me to just my need for health care. We are not a list of medical words.We’re all prone to make mistakes with language at times, including ME allies. In describing people with ME, Llewellyn King recently wrote:
I reject this description. I understand that King was trying to convey the devastating suffering of people with ME to a non-ME audience. But that quote makes me nauseous. My life is not a massive burden to my family, and my life is not marginal.
I have ME, and I am disabled. These facts do not make me less of a person. I can’t do all the things a healthy person can, but that does not make me a burden. I can’t participate in life the way I used to, but that doesn’t make my life less worth living.
The intersection of disease and identity shifted with The Denver Principles. These principles, created by a group of AIDS activists in 1983, changed health care and how people with diseases perceive themselves. The Principles begin with a declaration:
That declaration is true for everyone with a disease. We are people with a disease or a pre-existing condition or a disability. Terri Wilder taught me this when she said:
So let’s stop saying “I Am A Pre-existing Condition.” Let’s reject descriptions of ourselves that reinforce the stereotype that we are burdens, that we are marginal, that we don’t matter, that we are not people.
Because I am a person. I am a person with ME, and I deserve the same respect and consideration as everyone else. ME is a part of me, but it is not my identity. Me comes before ME.