Breakthroughs Blog: DoD

GHTC held a Game changers in global health game night on Capitol Hill to educate Congressional staffers about the impact of US leadership in global health research and development (R&D). Our guests ate, drank, played games, and learned how US investments in global health R&D not only saves lives around the world, but also generates benefits here at home in the United States. Here are some of our favorite photos from the night: Playing "ROI: Return on Innovation" claw game to see the impressive return generated by US investments in global health R&D. These investments save lives around the world, spur US economic growth, generate cost savings, and protect Americans from disease threats.  Pulling a block from the "Agency Jenga" game to learn a fun fact about the important and unique contributions made by each US government agency involved in global health R&D. Playing "Heads Up: Puzzling Pathogens" to test whether their neglected disease knowledge is heads above the rest. In the battle to outsmart infectious diseases, pathogens may puzzle us, but R&D is the best resource we have to knock out dangerous diseases. Testing her global health research knowledge to determine whether an innovation described is a "Trick or Treatment?" We still don't have the tools needed to combat many global health challenges, but every day brings new, exciting breakthoughs. Some seem simple but others seem like science fiction. Players try to determine whether tools described are on the market or make believe. A guest spins the "Wheel of Progress" to receive a trivia question about a US agency involved in global health R&D. GHTC Director Jamie Bay Nishi talks about GHTC's mission and the critical role of global health R&D in addressing the world's most pressing health challenges. Playing "Striking out Disease" bowling to experience how changing funding levels for global health R&D impacts our ability to strike out the world's deadliest diseases. This player experienced a funding increase and was able to bowl with our jumbo ball. Playing "Race for a Cure" to learn about the global health R&D process. It takes an average of 12-15 years to develop a vaccine. This player is racing to see if she can get her vaccine through all the stages of the product development process before the clock runs out. Developing treatments, cures, and vaccines for the world’s most devastating diseases is not easy. Many challenges arise along the path from scientific discovery to lifesaving technology. A staffer from USAID shows off the agency's improved Ebola personal protective suit designed as part of the agency's Ebola Grand Challenge. Attendees visit the "Gallery of Game Changers" booth to see, touch, and taste how American investment is generating game-changing global health technologies. Guests chat with Dr. Marston, Prinicpal Deputy Director for CDC Center for Global Health's Division of Parasitic Diseases and Malaria to learn about the agency's work in global health research. A staffer talks with a scientist from the Naval Medical Research Center to learn how bateriophages could one day be used to heal wounds on the battlefield and in low-resource communities around the world. USAID staff show off innovations from the agency's grand challenges programs including the Odon device for obstructed birth, mosquito-repellent sandals to prevent Zika and other threats, and an improved Ebola personal protective suit. Staffers check out cookies made with naturally biofortified Vitamin A corn developed by GHTC member HarvestPlus as a sustainable way to combat Vitamin A deficiency worldwide. 

The Trump administration’s budget request for fiscal year 2020 (FY20) includes cuts that—if enacted—would hamstring the research and development (R&D) of new global health technologies funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), US Agency for International Development (USAID), and Department of Defense (DoD). Since the release of the budget request in early March, however, lawmakers from both parties have expressed their commitment to shielding these critical funding strings from the president’s scissors.Among the proposed cuts is a 12 percent reduction for NIH. On April 11, the Senate Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee (LHHS) held a hearing to review the budget request for NIH. From the beginning, it was clear the administration’s proposal would face bipartisan pushback. Subcommittee Chairman Roy Blunt (R-MO), in his opening remarks, said, “I'm disappointed, of course, that the 2020 budget request would cut the agency by 13 percent. I'm confident that this committee will not do that, but we'll talk to you today about the reasons that we should continue in the direction we're in rather than head in another way.”Chairman Blunt was followed by Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA), who delivered an even stronger rebuke: “At a time of remarkable possibility in medical research, a time where we can and should continue leading the world in medical discovery, the Trump administration wants to cut funding for NIH… President Trump's damage -- damaging budget is wildly out of step with the sentiments of Congress, thankfully, and the American people. And I feel confident, working with our Chairman, that we will once again reject it.”Later in the hearing, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), who serves as Chairman of the full Senate Appropriations Committee, also voiced his support for an NIH funding increase:“What you do is more important than most [of] what we do in America. I'm not interested in cutting your budget. I'm interested in increasing it…I think this is a great investment for America, for the world, for humanity, what you do… it's not only a financial investment, which is good for the economy. It is the leading scientists, the cutting edge of scientific research that you add. And we all benefit from it immensely.”The week prior, the House Appropriations LHHS Subcommittee had held their hearing on the NIH budget. Subcommittee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) said that Congress would reject proposed funding cuts to the NIH. In her opening statement she emphasized the value of scientists’ work: "Funding [biomedical] research has the power to do more good for more people than almost anything else within the purview of this subcommittee.”Referring to the administration’s newly launched effort to end the transission of HIV and AIDS in the United States, Chairwoman DeLauro continued: “Decades of research supported by NIH led to the development of the very treatment and prevention approaches that have put achieving this goal within reach, specifically antiretroviral therapy and PrEP. The NIH must be involved, if we are to continue to make progress in reducing HIV and AIDS, domestically and abroad.”In other budget hearings, lawmakers focused on important funding sources for global health R&D outside of NIH—including the DoD. In the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on the US Army budget on April 9, Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), Vice Chair of the Subcommittee and Co-chair of the House Global Health Caucus, pressed the Secretary of the Army and Army Chief of Staff about proposals to divert funding from malaria vaccine research funded by the US Army: “Given that malaria remains the number one infectious disease threat for troops deployed in these regions, and we know that we have issues with [treatment] compliance, whether it’s State Department, military, even Peace Corps volunteers because of the side of effects from these diseases, it remains critically important that the Army’s research on malaria vaccines continue. I’m concerned in the FY20 budget that the justification appears that the funding for the project that conducts malaria vaccine research is being realigned into other projects. Given nearly all the most effective widely-used anti-malarials were developed in part by the US military research team, I find the possibility of losing momentum in research extremely alarming.” With the ongoing outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ebola is another infectious disease high on lawmakers’ radar. On March 14, the Senate Appropriations LHHS Subcommittee held a hearing on the Ebola outbreak in DRC and other emerging health threats. Subcommittee Chairman Blunt’s (R-MO) opening statement emphasized, “It is clear that our investments to improve global health have a direct impact on the wellbeing of every American.” He highlighted recent funding increases he has championed for the NIH National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the CDC, and the Global Health Security Agenda. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) also expressed his support for global health research: “If you wanted to look at the most important room in Washington, DC, when it comes to medical research over the last few years, it would be this room, this subcommittee. Under the leadership of Chairman Blunt and Senator Murray, we have seen for four straight years a 5 percent increase and real growth at the NIH. I think an overall 30 percent over that period of time, the 5 percent real growth each year. Increases to the CDC I wish were equal, but they had been good. We hope they'll get better in the future. I reject the President's budget out of hand. This notion of 12 percent cut to the NIH is just unacceptable and I think most Democrats and Republicans would agree.”In addition to defending investments in biomedical R&D, lawmakers have expressed support for funding for international aid and development—which would be cut by 24 percent under the President’s budget proposal. On February 27, the House Appropriations State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee held an oversight hearing on USAID Programs and Policies. In her opening statement, Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) emphasized the value of USAID, stating, “Failing to maintain our position as the leader in global development and humanitarian assistance will cost lives, risk the spread of infectious diseases, and reduce American influence around the world.” Included in the budget proposal is a US$1.35 billion reduction to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). In response, several lawmakers vigorously defended the United States’ role in addressing the international HIV and AIDS epidemic. On March 6, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said, “I'm particularly opposed to cuts in funding for global AIDS programs. There's a 22 percent cut in PEPFAR used to treat millions internationally, mostly in Africa.” Later that month, Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA) also defended PEPFAR: “The administration has maintained most Africa focused aid initiatives launched by previous Congresses, and in some cases have sought to fund them, however at far lower levels. These include the global President's Emergency Plan for AIDS or PEPFAR…and I'm glad that those initiatives have continued but concerned about the cuts in funding. I will conclude by stressing…that US relations with Africa has always enjoyed bipartisan support here in Congress, and we expect to continue to work together. Each time the administration has sought to reduce funding, the State Department or USAID, especially those that would impact African countries, we have worked together in a bipartisan manner to restore that funding.”In early April, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) again affirmed his belief “in development as a way to advance American interest and security that’s rooted firmly in our values.” In reaction to the President’s budget proposal, he noted that, “Tuberculosis and malaria and AIDS patients all around the world” would be pushed aside by the “heartless and harmful approach to foreign policy.” The Trump administration’s budget request, if enacted, would slash funding for lifesaving research, development, and implementation of new global health technologies. Fortunately, lawmakers, with support from advocates, have diligently opposed these cuts. It’s our job to ensure this continues.

Last Friday, President Donald Trump signed into law a US$1.3 trillion spending bill to fund the US government through the rest of fiscal year (FY) 2018. Reluctantly signed by the President among a flurry of “will he, won’t he” tweets, the legislation represents a forceful rebuke by Congress of the Administration’s proposal to drastically slash funding for global health and medical research programs. Key US agencies and programs that advance global health research and development (R&D) not only saw their funding protected in the spending bill, but many also saw increases. This outcome demonstrates that our community’s appeals and messages have not fallen on deaf ears and that Congressional policymakers on both sides of the aisle want to see the United States continue its leadership in advancing innovation to improve the health of those in need around the world. Here are some of the key takeaways from the 2,000+-page bill: US Agency for International Development & State Department While the Trump Administration proposed slashing funding for global health programs at the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department by 25 percent, Congress stood firm in protecting these programs. The bill ultimately sustained overall funding for these programs at FY17 enacted levels. A few programs received increases including a boost of $15 million for GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance; $20 million for tuberculosis (TB); and $15 million for maternal and child health. Funding for USAID HIV and AIDS programming and family planning at State and USAID, which the President proposed eliminating fully, was protected at FY17 levels. Congress also directed $135 million from repurposed Ebola emergency supplemental funding to support USAID’s global health security programs.   USAID plays a leading role in developing health technologies for low-resource settings through its various global health programs, so it is critical that these programs receive adequate funding, so they can continue to prioritize R&D among their other activities. In light of the President’s proposal for deep cuts to these programs, a combination of level funding for some programs and increases for others is a positive sign in the midst of a challenging budget environment. National Institutes of Health   Strong bipartisan support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) continued for FY18. While the President proposed a 21 percent cut to NIH funding, the final spending bill instead provided the agency with an increase of $3 billion—8.8 percent—over FY17 levels. This represents a historic funding high for NIH in actual dollars with increases spread across various NIH institutes and programs. Notably, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases received a 7.2 percent increase—39 percent above the President’s FY17 request—while the Fogarty International Center, which was targeted by the Administration for elimination, received a boost of 5.2 percent compared to FY17.   NIH is the world’s leading funder of R&D for neglected diseases, providing approximately 40 percent of total global funding, so any changes to its funding produce a ripple effect felt by global health research institutes and people around the world. It is encouraging to see Congress continue its record of bipartisan support for NIH and take action to strengthen our nation’s leadership in medical research. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention   The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also received a plus up in the FY18 omnibus. The agency saw its funding increased by $1.1 billion—nearly 15 percent—over FY17 levels. This was in sharp contrast to the 16 percent cuts proposed by the Administration. The CDC Center for Global Health (CGH) received a 12 percent increase, compared to a 21 percent proposed cut. This included a $1.5 million boost for parasitic disease and malaria and a substantial increase of $50 million for global health security programming, which supports implementation of the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA). Funding for global immunization and AIDS programming within CGH remained level. The National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases also received a more modest 5 percent increase over FY17 funding.   CDC plays a critical role in advancing technologies and improving health systems to better detect, prevent, and respond to infectious disease threats worldwide. There was much concern surrounding the FY18 budget for CDC as the agency is facing a funding cliff. CDC and USAID received $1 billion from the Ebola emergency supplement to fund GHSA, but this money is set to run out in 2019. As a result, the agency has already announced plans to scale back its GHSA work in 39 of 49 countries. While more funding is still needed to sustain these programs, and the agency has yet to clarify how it will adjust programming in light of its FY18 appropriations; it is promising to see Congressional appropriators recognize the value of CDC’s engagement in improving global health security. Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority   The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), which develops medical countermeasures against health threats including emerging infectious diseases and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), also received a boost in the FY18 spending bill. The agency saw its funding increased by $25 million—about 5 percent—over FY17 levels.   BARDA has played an increasing role in R&D for naturally occurring threats and emerging infectious diseases in response to the Ebola and Zika epidemics. With its focus on bridging the “valley of death” in product development and its ability to use unique contracting mechanisms to forge innovative and long-term private-sector partnerships, BARDA is well positioned to make an impact in this space. However, the agency has been constrained by a lack of dedicated funding for its emerging infectious disease portfolio. While it is promising to see appropriators increase the agency’s overall funding for FY18, GHTC will be pushing for more dedicated funding for emerging infectious diseases in FY19. Department of Defense   The Department of Defense’s (DoD) activities in infectious disease research also saw increases in the omnibus. DoD’s Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program—a program that conducts research on AMR, diarrheal diseases, emerging infectious diseases, malaria, TB, and vaccine development for infectious diseases—received $330 million in funding, which is an increase of $30 million over FY17 levels.   The FY18 spending bill is a big win for global health R&D stakeholders and advocates, but this victory may only be temporary. The legislation funds the government through the end of September, and the Trump Administration has once against proposed drastic cuts to global health and medical-research programs for FY19. So while the ink dries on this year’s spending bill and we take a moment to celebrate, GHTC is already gearing up for another difficult battle ahead on next year’s budget.

  2018 is shaping up to be another important year for US policy related to global health and medical research. As Congress returns for a busy work session and the White House continues to roll out policy reforms, here are the top five issues GHTC will be following in 2018: 1. US funding for global health R&D President Trump’s fiscal year 2018 (FY18) budget proposal called for dramatic cuts to global health, medical research, and public health accounts across the National Institutes of Health, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Department of State. While legislators pushed back sharply on these proposed cuts, Congress has not yet passed final FY18 spending bills. This means that we still do not have a final picture of what US government funding for global health and medical research will look like for this year. As Congress tries to navigate budget caps and other pressures that may constrain overall government spending, GHTC will continue to advocate for strong, stable public funding for critical global health and medical research programs. We’re also looking ahead to the fiscal year 2019 (FY19) budget and appropriations process, and bracing for a proposal from President Trump that may include even more significant spending cuts than those proposed in FY18. Despite verbal acknowledgement from the Trump Administration that US global health and medical research programs remain critically important, as the Administration continues plans to streamline government activities and reign-in spending, we do not expect to see prioritization of these issues reflected in Administration-driven spending proposals. GHTC will closely monitor FY19 proposals in the coming months and continue to engage with Congress, who ultimately sets government spending levels. 2. USAID and State Department reorganization As part of the Trump Administration’s plans to streamline and reshape the federal government, it has announced plans to reorganize the State Department and USAID. USAID plays an important role in global health research and development (R&D), supporting late-stage clinical research and implementation research as well as operating Grand Challenges to identify and advance promising health innovations from around the world. USAID and the State Department submitted reorganization plans to the White House Office of Management and Budget on September 15, 2017, but details of those plans have not yet been made public and further information remains scarce. GHTC will continue to monitor evolving plans and policy and strongly advocate for continued leadership of USAID in global health innovation. 3. BARDA reauthorization The Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), which authorizes the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), is due for reauthorization this year by Congress. In recent years, BARDA has played an increasingly important role in the advanced development of medical countermeasures for emerging infectious diseases, like Ebola and Zika, and antimicrobial resistance. Reauthorization presents a potential opportunity to bolster BARDA’s role in the global health R&D space. GHTC will monitor the PAHPA reauthorization process and work with Congress to support a strengthened role for BARDA in the emerging infectious disease space. 4. Global health security GHTC is also watching US efforts to promote global health security, including continued support for the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA)—an international partnership launched in 2014 to help countries strengthen their ability to respond to health threats. The United States is now funding GHSA through the one-time emergency Ebola supplemental funding, which expires in FY19, so future financing for the program remains uncertain. Without renewed commitment and financial support for global health security activities, the United States will have to pull back critical disease detection, prevention, and response operations around the world. GHTC will also work to include R&D in global health security policy decision-making. During the two most recent global disease epidemics, Ebola and Zika, a lack of proactive, sustainable funding for R&D meant that United States and the world did not have the drugs, diagnostics, and other tools needed to contain these diseases. Despite this, GHSA in its current form lacks any prioritization or commitment to R&D to detect, prevent, and respond to global epidemics. As domestic and global discussions on global health security continue, GHTC will advocate for R&D as a critical component of epidemic preparedness and response. 5. US engagement with key multilateral bodies Multilateral organizations and partnerships are vital mechanisms to help advance a healthier and more secure world. In our modern and increasingly globalized world, new, emerging, or long-standing health challenges, which do not respect borders, cannot be tackled by individual countries alone. Strong US leadership and funding for organizations like the United Nations (UN), the World Health Organization, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria are key to advancing global health and ensuring that these organizations function effectively in support of US priorities. Despite several senior Trump Administration officials expressing support for strong multilateral engagement, the United States’ role in pushing for a recent $285 million cut to the UN’s overall budget appears more indicative of how the United States can be expected to engage in the near future. While it is currently unclear exactly how these cuts will be implemented across the various UN health-related programs, GHTC anticipates significant impact on the various UN technical agencies’ ability to support global health, including R&D. GHTC is committed to leading strong, coordinated action to advance US leadership in global health R&D in 2018 and beyond. The United States has long been a leader in global health, development, and medical research, and we look forward to sustaining and bolstering this legacy in the years ahead.