Archive for February, 2009

FY09 Budget Bill

You may or may not recall that the federal government is still operating under a continuing resolution, which ends next Friday (March 6). On Wed, the House passed an omnibus bill to finish out fiscal year 2009 (ends Sept 30th). The AAMC has a nice summary of the health and biomedical research allocations. The biggies, of course, are NIH and NSF:

National Institutes of Health: The bill includes $30.317 billion for NIH, an increase of $937.5 million (3.2%) over the FY 2008 comparable. An accompanying explanatory statement notes the bill “provides funding for a 2% increase in the average cost of new and competing as well as non-competing grants.” The extramural salary cap is retained at Executive Level I, which is $196,700 for 2009. The explanatory statement also states, “NIH is encouraged to take steps to accelerate implementation of its conflict of interest policy for contract staff.”

In other portions, the omnibus increases funding for the FDA to $2.1 billion (a $335 million or 19.4% increase), and the NSF to $6.5 billion (a $363 million or 5.9% increase over funding provided in FY 2008). The NSF total includes $5.2 billion for research and related activities, a $339 million (7%) increase.

Looking ahead to 2010 and 2011, AAMC notes:

The budget overview assumes $675 billion in non-defense discretionary spending, including $78.7 billion for HHS, a $1.4 billion (1.7%) decrease below the FY 2009 comparable estimate. The overview notes that ARRA provides an additional $22.4 billion in FY 2009 and FY 2010 spending for HHS.

Within the HHS total, the budget overview highlights a number of health initiatives, including $6 billion for cancer research at the NIH, “as part of the Administration’s multi-year commitment to double cancer research funding.” The budget overview also “expands research comparing the effectiveness of medical treatments,” to build upon comparative effectiveness research supported through ARRA, though no specific recommendation is included.

Comments (1)

NSF vs NIH Handling of Stimulus Money

The Chronicle of Higher Education offers a nice contrast on how the NSF and NIH differ in their planned distribution of ARRA funding.

While the NIH plans to “tweak its science-based distribution guidelines to ensure the largess some measure of geographic parity”, the NSF will not. Similarly, the NSF will not rush to spend its wad in the 2 years but will consider longer term projects. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (3)

Findings of Scientific/Research Misconduct

A three-fer … these have been sitting in the Federal Register for a while (Jan 29 & Feb 10) but finally got noticed in the NIH Guide. Note that Dr. Afshar was cited for Research Misconduct, while Drs. Nguyen and Tanaka were cited for Scientific Misconduct. The different terms used reflect the timing of the misconduct (scientific if the misconduct occurred before June 2005, research if after June 2005) due to a change in regulatory definitions.

Notice is hereby given that ORI and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case: Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (2)

NIH Stimulus Summary

Update: Kington himself has weighed in (also a memo distributed), with the mechanisms to be used in paying out awards summarized below. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (18)

NIH Appropriation in H.R. 1 Conference Report

Full conference report available via the GPO (NIH discussed in 3 of 5):

National Institutes of Health

The conference agreement provides $10,000,000,000 for the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) as proposed by the Senate
instead of $3,500,000,000 as proposed by the House. The
components of this total are as follows: Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (3)

NIH Appropriation Text in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R.1)

Update: Please read the more recent conference report language. National Institutes of Health Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (4)

Stimulating Administrative Supplements

What a coincidence. NEI has just announced the availability of administrative supplements for one-time payments of up to $500,000 for infrastructure support on currently funded NEI R01 awards (parent grant must have at least 2 years of active funding). Applications due July 1, 2009.

Watch for similar administrative supplement offers from other ICs looking to spend their stimulus wad (NIH appropriation remains at $10B, with $7.85B available for research funding).

Comments (6)

Specter-Durbin Amendment Ups NIH Stimulus to $10B

Update: See more recent post for update on how the NIH portion will be disbursed. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 keeps full $10B for the NIH, to be distributed as noted in the more recent conference report post. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (7)

Circular A-21 Strikes Again … & Hits Duke

The HHS Inspector General has released a “Review of Administrative and Clerical Costs at Duke University for the Period October 1, 2002, Through September 30, 2004.” Sounds scintillating, eh?

The bottom line is that the IG recommends that Duke “refund $1,661,011 to the Federal Government” in compensation for administrative and clerical salaries and other administrative costs that were “unallowable charges as direct costs to grants, contracts, and other agreements with HHS components.”

This is actually the revised amount (was originally $2.4M) based on Duke’s 19-page response to the initial IG findings. Duke was particularly upset that the IG estimated the amount owed based on a statistical sample: “Based on our two samples, consisting of 114 charges for administrative and clerical salaries and 120 charges for other administrative costs, we estimate that the University claimed approximately $1.7 million in unallowable charges as direct costs to grants, contracts, and other agreements with HHS components during fiscal years 2003 and 2004.”

I’m sure sponsored programs officers throughout the country are thrilled.

For those of you not familiar with the inadvisability of charging administrative and clerical costs as direct (versus indirect or Facilities & Administrative/F&A costs), the report background actually sums it up nicely: Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (5)