November 28, 2006
On September 19, the House Energy and Commerce committee held a hearing on the NIH Reform Act of 2006, otherwise known as the NIH reauthorization bill. Testifying were:
Edward D. Miller M.D., CEO, Johns Hopkins Medicine; Darrell G. Kirch MD, President, Association of American Medical Colleges; Dr. Leo T. Furcht MD, President, Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB); Robert H. Eckel MD, Immediate Past President, American Heart Association; Elias A. Zerhouni MD, Director, NIH. The testifying organizations all endorsed the legislation.
Chairman Barton, in his opening remarks, reiterated that it is time to reauthorize and that it has been his priority to do so since he took the chairmanship 3 yrs ago. He believes that NIH is in need of being reorganized and revitalized. Many of the changes he proposes in the bill, were put forth in the Institute of Medicine’s 2003 Report: Enhancing the Vitality of the National Institutes of Health: Organizational Change to Meet New Challenges. Rep. Barton and other committee members in attendance voiced their support for the overall mission of the NIH, repeatedly calling it the “crown jewel” of government spending/agencies. Rep. Barton however insisted that NIH operate better and more transparently. Click here for a summary of the bill's provisions.
Rep. Waxman (D-CA), along with his Democratic colleagues, expressed concern about the authorization for yearly funding increases of 5% being too low, and not accounting for the funding of the common fund. Ranking Committee Member Rep. Dingell (D-MI) agreed with the legislation, but was concerned that the final version of the bill was getting pushed through too quickly, with mark-up of the bill following only a day later. Despite stakeholder support for this bill, he was also concerned with the adequacy of the proposed funding level.
On September 20, the Energy and Commerce Committee marked up the bill and passed it 42-1 with Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) voting against the measure. The committee members reiterated the same comments and concerns, as voiced during the hearing, and along party lines. Democrats lamented that the 5% funding increase would not be adequate to offset inflation. The committee rejected two measures proposed by Rep. Markey (D-MA). The first would have increased the authorizations levels in the bill to 5 percent plus the Biomedical Research and Development Price Index (BRDPI). The second would have prevented any increase in the Common Fund unless the overall NIH budget increased by at least the BRDPI.
The entire House on September passed the bill on September 26, by a vote of 414-2. Reps. Markey (D-MA) and Jackson (D-IL) voted against the bill. Only fifty-one stakeholder groups had endorsed the bill, including the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association.
The bill version that passed the House had incorporated changes in response to concerns raised by the NIH stakeholder community, based on the circulated drafts of the bill in 2005. Amongst the initial concerns were:
1) The authorization of appropriations, the amount and how much flexibility the Office of the Director would have in distributing the $.
2) The number of line-items in the appropriations provisions and the use of “clusters”, groupings of institutes, for purposes of appropriations.
3) The process for funding the common fund.
The version of the bill that passed made the following changes:
1) The authorization for appropriations would be a 5% increase over the next 3 yrs, starting with a baseline of FY ’06.
2) The clusters for appropriations have been eliminated and the only line-items for appropriations would be for the Office of the Director and for the common fund.
3) The common fund would be grown to 5% of the overall budget over the next three years and includes the 1.5% the Director has already allocated for the NIH Roadmap initiative. To fund the common fund, half of any $ appropriated over the FY ’06 baseline would go into the common fund, until the common fund reaches 5% of the total NIH budget. The money for the common fund would be allocated before the $ is allocated to individual institutes.
There currently is no companion bill in the Senate on this matter, so it is highly unlikely that this bill will be passed by Congress this year. The Heart Rhythm Society however submitted comments to the Senate committee charged with consideration of this bill, expressing its concern about the following two provisions:
1) 50% of Future NIH Budget Increases to be Transferred to the “Common Fund”
2) Appropriations Authorization of 5%, Above the Previous Fiscal Year, starting in FY 2007
For more information, or if you have any questions, please contact Nevena Minor, Coordinator, Health Policy at 202-464-3431 or nminor@hrsonline.org.
