Breakthroughs Blog: DoD

On Tuesday, the Trump Administration released its full fiscal year 2018 (FY18) budget proposal, “A New Foundation for American Greatness.” As foretold by the “skinny budget” proposal released in March, this budget proposes dramatic increases in defense spending and border security, offset by cuts to discretionary spending—including significant cuts to programs that support global health and medical research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Dramatic cuts to global health programs at the State Department & USAID At a high-level, President Trump proposed roughly a 25 percent cut to global health programs at the State Department and USAID, when compared to final fiscal year 2017 (FY17) funding levels. Looking just at USAID global health programs, funding levels were reduced over 50 percent from FY17 levels, from US$3.05 billion to $1.5 billion. The Administration also used the budget proposal to advance goals of streamlining USAID and State Department operations to find cost savings and efficiencies. Despite strong bipartisan support for the United States’ flagship global HIV and AIDS program, the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), HIV and AIDS programs across State and USAID were targeted for cuts and consolidation. Direct funding for PEPFAR through the State Department received a $477 million cut, dropping to $3.85 billion from $4.32 billion, and USAID funding for complementary HIV and AIDS programs was zeroed—reflecting a funding cut of $330 million. The zeroing of HIV and AIDS programs at USAID also means associated research and development (R&D) funding for HIV vaccines and microbicides was eliminated. Man and woman standing in front of a sign that reads "USAID." (PATH/Felix Masi)Other funding cuts include a $62 million cut to global tuberculosis (TB) programs—including cuts to the TB drug facility and multidrug-resistant TB financing—a $65 million cut to maternal and child health programs, a $47 million cut to nutrition programs, and a $25 million cut to programs for neglected tropical diseases. USAID malaria programs (the President’s Malaria Initiative) received an $81 million cut, after factoring in a proposed $250 million transfer of remaining Ebola funds. USAID family planning programs were eliminated.Slashed funding for medical research at NIH and public health protection at CDC Biomedical research also saw significant cuts, with a proposed $7 billion or 21 percent cut to NIH. Of particular importance to global health R&D, the Administration proposed a $1.1 billion cut to the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases—which leads research in infectious diseases like HIV and AIDS, Ebola, and Zika—and elimination of the $70 million Fogarty International Center, which builds partnerships and trains researchers around the world. Instead, the Administration allocated $25 million to the Office of the NIH Director to coordinate global health research. At the CDC—our lead agency for preventing, detecting, and responding to public health threats at home and abroad—overall budgets were cut by $1.3 billion, over 15 percent. This included a $70 million cut to CDC’s National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases and an $85 million cut to the Center for Global Health.What happens next for global health R&D?These broad and wide-ranging cuts proposed for global health and medical research programs are deeply concerning, and threaten to reverse gains achieved through our landmark global health programs, stall progress in promising research, and ultimately jeopardize lives at home and abroad. They also are in stark contrast to stated goals of the Trump Administration to honor our commitments to global health, bolster global health security, and support high-priority biomedical science.Fortunately, Congress has ultimate control over government spending, and leadership on both sides of the aisle has asserted that dramatic cuts to foreign aid, global health, and medical research will not pass muster. As FY18 negotiations continue in Congress, GHTC will continue to stress the importance of global health R&D programs across the US government and highlight the critical role US-supported research plays in saving lives at home and around the world.

On Monday, Congress struck a deal finalizing government spending legislation for the remainder of fiscal year (FY) 2017. Since October 1, 2016, the government has been operating on a series of continuing resolutions (CR)—maintaining government spending at FY16 levels until a full deal for FY17 could be negotiated. With the omnibus legislation in place, we expect both houses of Congress to pass the final FY17 bill this week.  There was strong bipartisan, bicameral support for advancing FY17 omnibus legislation that reflected priorities, compromises, and negotiations reached during the regular FY17 appropriations process. This means that strong congressional support for protecting medical research and global health in individual FY17 appropriations bills was carried through in the final legislation. While we know there will be more challenges in the FY18 budget and appropriations process, the FY17 omnibus was an encouraging sign that Congress understands the vital role of US global health and medical research programs. US Agency for International Development and State Department While the Trump Administration proposed rescissions for the US Agency for International Development’s (USAID) global health funding for FY17—including cuts to the President’s Emergency Plans for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), polio, tuberculosis (TB), neglected tropical diseases (NTDs), and eliminating global health security funding—in the final FY17 omnibus, global health programs at USAID saw an 8 percent boost in funding, totaling just over US$3 billion versus $2.83 billion in FY16. Notable increases included $5 million for TB, $81 million for malaria, $40 million for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and $70 million for global health security to create a new Emergency Reserve Fund to respond rapidly to emerging health threats. Other global health accounts within USAID and the State Department received level funding.USAID continues to play a leading role in the US government’s action on global health research and development (R&D), and it is critical that global health programs receive appropriate funding so that investments in R&D will continue to be prioritized among other activities. The combination of increased funding for some key programs and level funding for others in FY17 is a positive sign that Congress shares our priorities and will work to protect these accounts in more challenging budget and appropriations conversations for FY18.National Institutes of Health Strong bipartisan support for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) continued in the FY17 bill. Overall, NIH received a $2 billion increase, raising total funding for FY17 to $34 billion. However, it’s important to note that little of this increase will likely support global health programming. Much of this increase was to fund enactment of the 21st Century Cures Act, but notable increases that could benefit global health R&D included a 6 percent or $277 million increase for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a $1.76 million increase for the Fogarty International Center, and additional funding for the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences.While NIH has long enjoyed bipartisan support—and thus it is not surprising to see a funding boost in FY17—it was notable that the Trump Administration proposed over $1.2 billion in rescissions for NIH for FY17 and a 19 percent cut to NIH funding for FY18, including eliminating the Fogarty International Center. NIH leads the world in global health R&D, and its work in basic research is vital to advancing new drugs, vaccines, therapeutics, and other tools for neglected diseases and conditions. It is encouraging to see Congress maintain and increase NIH funding overall and prioritize US leadership in medical research for FY17; however, greater support is needed for NIH programs that advance research for neglected diseases and conditionsCenters for Disease Control and Prevention A laboratory worker wearing a surgical mask works with samples. (Photo: PATH/Mike Wang) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) funding for global health was also protected in the final FY17 omnibus. Overall, the CDC Center for Global Health saw an $8 million increase from FY16 funding levels, including targeted increases for global public health protection and global disease protection activities.Funding for polio and measles was increased, while parasitic diseases, malaria, and global HIV and AIDS funding remained level. In addition, the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases received a $5 million increase. CDC plays an important role in detecting, preventing, and responding to infectious disease threats at home and around the world. This work is critical to developing new prevention and diagnosis technologies, particularly those to address endemic and emerging global health threats. Robust funding for CDC’s global health programs is vital to advancing global health R&D and promoting global health security. Department of Defense The Department of Defense’s (DoD) work in infectious disease R&D was also strengthened in the final FY17 omnibus. DoD’s Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program—which conducts research on antimicrobial resistance, diarrheal diseases, emerging infectious diseases, malaria, TB, and vaccine development for infectious diseases—received $300 million in funding. In addition, the bill included strong report language supporting DoD’s critical work in global health R&D and supporting continued and robust investments. The final FY17 spending bill is encouraging news for global health R&D as it protected funding for critical global health and medical research accounts across USAID, NIH, CDC, and DoD. However, this victory may be only temporary, as we know that many of these same accounts will face intense pressures in FY18 budget negotiations, given aggressive action by the Trump Administration to downsize activities and reduce government spending. GHTC will continue to champion strong US leadership in global health R&D and stress the impacts of these important programs in protecting health at home and around the world.  

Office of Management and BudgetLast Thursday, the Trump Administration released an outline of its budget proposal for fiscal year (FY) 2018, proposing dramatic cuts to US agencies involved in global health research and development (R&D) including the State Department (State) and US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), including the National Institutes of Health (NIH). If enacted, these cuts would have significant impact on programs that advance global health innovation and protect the world and Americans from global disease threats. As an introduction to the Trump Administration’s budget priorities, this short and “skinny” budget outline lays out only high-level issues and proposes spending levels for top-line accounts. A more detailed funding proposal is expected in May that will include funding levels for individual agencies and programs. Still, while short on detail, the proposal is clear on targets for proposed reductions: the budget calls for nearly a one-third reduction in funding to State and USAID (cuts of $10.1 billion) and an 18 percent reduction in overall funding for HHS (cuts of $15.1 billion). Within HHS, a one-fifth reduction in funding (cuts of $5.8 billion) is proposed for NIH. The only US agency involved in global health R&D to receive a proposed increase in funding is the Department of Defense (DoD)—which is proposed to receive a 9 percent ($54 billion) boost. It remains unclear whether any of this increased funding would be directed to medical and infectious disease research. Reading between the lines, the President’s “skinny” budget foretells a challenging funding climate for global health R&D at State, USAID, and HHS: State Department and US Agency for International DevelopmentFunding for State and USAID was among the hardest hit in the President’s proposed budget. The blueprint calls for a 28 percent cut to State and USAID base funding, which grows to 30 percent when reductions to overseas contingency funds are included. USAID is a critical component of the US government’s support for global health R&D: In 2015, USAID provided nearly US$80 million in funding to support global health R&D. Cuts to USAID funding could stall promising innovations under development and halt efforts to roll out new technologies in USAID programs. While the President’s proposal does express support for US global health initiatives including the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEFPAR); the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance; and US malaria programs; the level of support proposed for these programs remains unclear. Language in the blueprint does not indicate if these programs would continue robust or expanded activities, or indicate whether these programs would be supported at current funding levels. It is also important to note that not all global health programs were called out in the budget, leaving uncertainties about how critical programs supporting maternal and child health, nutrition, tuberculosis, and neglected tropical diseases will be prioritized by the Administration. The budget also articulates a dramatic overall shift in America’s approach to diplomacy and development assistance with specific proposals calling for consolidation of State and USAID activities, linking aid and assistance to strategic interests, and reducing funding for the United Nations and affiliated agencies. It will be important to continue to monitor the impact of these proposals. Department of Health and Human Services The Administration’s budget proposes an 18 percent reduction to HHS funding across the board—cuts that if enacted would bring HHS to its lowest level of funding in nearly two decades. This would significantly reduce funding for HHS agencies engaged in global health R&D, including NIH, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Not only would cuts of this level have real impact on ongoing and future research needs, they could also undermine America’s leadership in global health R&D and diminish our ability to prevent, detect, and respond to emerging health threats. A full picture of the President’s proposal for HHS is not yet available, but limited details follow below: National Institutes of Health The President’s budget proposes a 19 percent cut to the NIH budget. NIH leads the world in financial support and technical expertise for global health R&D—so cuts of this magnitude would have a detrimental and lasting global impact on ongoing and future research projects. The budget also proposes a reorganization of NIH Institutes and Centers and calls for the elimination of the Fogarty International Center. Fogarty plays an important role in global health R&D. Its programs build partnerships between US and international researchers and strengthen the capacity of scientists in low-income countries to address critical global threats like HIV and AIDS, Ebola, and other emerging infectious diseases. Calls to eliminate this center are concerning. Cutting the Fogarty Center—a small center with a $70 million budget—would save little in the overall federal budget, while increasing our vulnerability to global disease threats. The President’s blueprint also calls for a “rebalance” of federal contributions to NIH research funding, which warrants careful consideration and further monitoring. If NIH research priorities are shifted to align only with disease burden in the United States—as is sometimes proposed—important research on neglected diseases and conditions will be jeopardized, ceding US leadership in this arena and potentially leaving Americans more vulnerable to infectious and emerging disease threats. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and health preparedness The President’s budget proposal does not include overall funding levels for CDC, nor does it call out specific CDC programs for support or reductions. However, given the magnitude of cuts in the overall HHS budget, it is clear CDC funding is also at risk. The only CDC mention in the blueprint is a proposal to shift $500 million in CDC funding to block grants to be administered by the states. While details on this proposal are scarce, it’s likely these funds would be repurposed from within CDC’s budget, rather than represent new funding. CDC leads the United States’ public health defense system against infectious diseases, so robust funding for the agency is a global health and national security imperative. The agency plays a unique and important role in global health R&D by developing new tools and techniques for disease surveillance, training researchers and health workers overseas, and developing new health tools to advance disease detection, prevention, and response efforts. The budget also proposes the creation of a new Federal Emergency Respond Fund to enable rapid response to public health threats like Zika or Ebola. Such a dedicated fund has been championed by many public health leaders, including former CDC Director Tom Frieden. However, in the President’s request, there are few details regarding the fund’s approach or operations. It remains unclear how large the fund would be, whether it would support preventative R&D, or whether funding for the program would come at the expense of current US government emergency response and preparedness initiatives. As the budget proposal also call for reforms to “key public health, emergency preparedness, and prevention programs” under HHS—which could include CDC and other global health security programs—there remains more questions than answers. Food and Drug Administration The FDA also plays an important role in global health R&D by facilitating the review of new global health products to ensure they are safe and effective before entering the market. While the President acknowledged the need to direct more funding to the FDA, the budget blueprint does not propose increased government support for the agency, but rather calls for doubling user fees paid by healthcare companies for the regulatory review of their products—from $1 billion to $2 billion. Noting the constrained budget environment, the proposal says that companies benefiting from FDA approval “can and should pay for their share.” In addition to user fee increases, the Administration also proposes to take new, unspecified actions to speed the development and approval process for drugs and other medical products. Patient advocate groups and the private sector alike have stressed their belief that current review procedures appropriately balance thorough review of safety and efficacy with efforts to expedite products through the review process. Department of Defense The Presidential budget proposes a 9 percent ($54 billion) increase to discretionary funding for DoD. DoD plays a critical role in R&D for infectious diseases; however, the budget blueprint does not address DoD’s medical research activities and provides little information about what increased defense funding may be targeted. Congressional response and next steps The President’s budget proposal is the first official declaration of policy and spending priorities for the Administration and marks the beginning of months of discussions within Congress and the Administration on how best to allocate funds. Congress ultimately controls government spending, and many members on both sides of the aisle have expressed skepticism or criticism about the Administration’s budget blueprint, including its proposed cuts to foreign assistance and medical research. While there are calls in Congress to reduce government spending, and we may see cuts to US agencies engaged in global health R&D, the spending bills passed by Congress will likely look much different than the President’s proposal. GHTC will continue to monitor the FY18 budget and appropriations process and advocate for robust funding for all programs that support global health R&D.

Surgical masks are a popular accessory worn in public spaces during outbreaks of airborne diseases, however, in reality, they provide limited protection against pathogens; they may trap viruses, but they can’t kill them. Consequently, even just the act of removing the mask can expose the wearer to a virus. A team of scientists at University of Alberta are hoping to change that. They have adapted the standard surgical mask so that it can both trap and deactivate viruses. The inspiration for the mask came from a challenge faced by lead researcher Dr. Hyo-Jick Choi in his work adapting vaccines for oral administration: when liquids (i.e., vaccines) turn into solids (i.e., pills), they crystallize, damaging the viral components that make the vaccine effective. Dr. Choi realized he could turn this challenge into an advantage to target viruses that come in contact with surgical mask. He and his team developed and applied a safe, salt-based solution to the masks. As predicted, when a virus—in this case, influenza—came in contact with the mask, it was destroyed, as the droplet carrying it crystallized. Dr. Choi has received a provisional patent and plans to further advance the innovation. Advocates are calling for greater inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials, a necessary step to address critical knowledge gaps and improve health care for pregnant women and their fetuses. In the United States, nearly two-thirds of women receive at least one prescription during pregnancy, yet more than 90 percent of drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration over the past three decades have not been proven safe for use in pregnancy. The hesitancy to include pregnant women in clinical trials is well-founded: drugs and vaccines can cross the placental barrier, resulting in complications or birth defects. However, pregnant women need safe, effective medicines, and clinical trials ensure that negative side effects are caught early, limiting the number of patients impacted. Further, pregnant women are more susceptible to certain pathogens, and as illustrated by the ongoing Zika outbreak, pathogens can cross the placental barrier too, making treatment during pregnancy all the more imperative. Additionally, women may process drugs at higher rates during pregnancy, consequently requiring higher doses. Advocates argue that while testing experimental drugs in pregnant women is risky, it is much safer than allowing a medicine to enter the market, leaving the decision to physicians and patients. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), an entity within the US Department of Defense, invests in high-risk, high-reward research, developing innovative technologies to advance US national security, with its health portfolio spanning research from neural and psychiatric health to infectious diseases. Through its Biological Technologies Office, DARPA scientists are taking an innovative approach to drug development. Rather than relying on chemicals to generate novel drug compounds, researchers are genetically modifying yeast, bacteria, and other microbes to do the job. Already, BARDA’s work with yeast has resulted in nearly 100 new molecules, and officials hope to reach 1,000 over the next three years. DARPA is also devising new platform technologies to expedite the development and improve the efficacy of vaccines against emerging infections. One method uses nucleic acids (i.e., RNA and DNA) to signal to the immune system how to respond to a pathogen, rather than introducing a pathogen and allowing the immune system to learn how to respond on its own. If successful, this technology could be adapted for different diseases and would provide instantaneous protection—a significant advantage as most vaccines take at least two weeks to provide protection.