Federal Funding for Health Security in FY2016.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Boddie C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4486714 | biostudies-literature | 2015 May-Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Federal Funding for Health Security in FY2016.
Boddie Crystal C Sell Tara Kirk TK Watson Matthew M
Health security 20150501 3
This article assesses US government funding in 5 domains critical to strengthening health security: biodefense programs, radiological and nuclear programs, chemical programs, pandemic influenza and emerging infectious disease programs, and multiple-hazard and preparedness programs. This year's article also highlights the emergency funding appropriated in FY2015 to enable the international and domestic response to the Ebola outbreak in West Africa. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The extent to which federal investment in research crowds out or decreases incentives for investment from other funding sources remains an open question. Scholarship on research funding has focused on the relationship between federal and industry or, more comprehensively, non-federal funding without disentangling the other sources of research support that include nonprofit organizations and state and local governments. This paper extends our understanding of academic research support by considering the relationships between federal and non-federal funding sources provided by the National Science Foundation Higher Education Research and Development Survey. We examine whether federal research investment serves as a complement or substitute for state and local government, nonprofit, and industry research investment using the population of research-active academic science fields at U.S. doctoral granting institutions. We use a system of two equations that instruments with prior levels of both federal and non-federal funding sources and accounts for time-invariant academic institution-field effects through first differencing. We estimate that a 1% increase in federal research funding is associated with a 0.411% increase in nonprofit research funding, a 0.217% increase in state and local research funding, and a 0.468% increase in industry research funding, respectively. Results indicate that federal funding plays a fundamental role in inducing complementary investments from other funding sources, with impacts varying across academic division, research capacity, and institutional control.
| S-EPMC4915724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify the impact of the Health Center Growth Initiative on access to care for low-income adults.Data sourcesData on federal funding for health centers are from the Bureau of Primary Health Care's Uniform Data System (2000-2007), and individual-level measures of access and use are derived from the National Health Interview Survey (2001-2008).Study designWe estimate person-level models of access and use as a function of individual- and market-level characteristics. By using market-level fixed effects, we identify the effects of health center funding on access using changes within markets over time. We explore effects on low-income adults and further examine how those effects vary by insurance coverage.Data collectionWe calculate health center funding per poor person in a health care market and attach this information to individual observations on the National Health Interview Survey. Health care markets are defined as hospital referral regions.Principal findingsLow-income adults in markets with larger funding increases were more likely to have an office visit and to have a general doctor visit. These results were stronger for uninsured and publicly insured adults.ConclusionsExpansions in federal health center funding had some mitigating effects on the access declines that were generally experienced by low-income adults over this time period.
| S-EPMC4231582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionEmergency physicians face multiple challenges to obtaining federal funding. The objective of this investigation was to describe the demographics of federally-funded emergency physicians and identify key challenges in obtaining funding.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective database search of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (NIH RePORTER) to collect data regarding the distribution and characteristics of federally-funded grants awarded to emergency medicine (EM) principal investigators between 2010-2017. An electronic survey was then administered to the identified investigators to obtain additional demographic data, and information regarding their career paths, research environment, and perceived barriers to obtaining federal funding.ResultsWe identified 219, corresponding to 51 unique, mentored career development awardees and 105 independent investigators. Sixty-two percent of investigators responded to the electronic survey. Awardees were predominantly White males, although a larger portion of the mentored awardee group was female. Greater than half of respondents reported their mentor to be outside of the field of EM. The most common awarding institution was the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Respondents identified barriers in finding adequate mentorship, time to gather preliminary data, and the quality of administrative support.ConclusionThe last five years have showed a trend toward increasing grants awarded to EM investigators; however, we identified several barriers to funding. Initiatives geared toward support and mentorship of junior faculty, particularly to females, minorities, and those in less heavily funded areas of the country are warranted.
| S-EPMC7081857 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC1240000 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe US leads the world in the raw number of incarcerated persons as well as the rate of incarceration, with detrimental effects on individual-, family-, community-, and population-level health; as such, federal research has a critical role in documenting and addressing the health-related impacts of the US criminal legal system. How often incarceration-related research is funded at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), and US Department of Justice (DOJ) levels has a direct association with the public attention given to mass incarceration as well as the efficacy of strategies to mitigate negative effects and poor health related to incarceration.ObjectiveTo understand how many incarceration-related projects have been funded at the NIH, NSF, and DOJ.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used public historical project archives to search for relevant incarceration-related keywords (eg, incarceration, prison, parole) since January 1, 1985 (NIH and NSF), and since January 1, 2008 (DOJ). Quotations and Boolean operator logic were used. All searches and counts were conducted and double verified by 2 coauthors between December 12 and 17, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresNumber and prevalence of funded projects related to incarceration and prison keywords.ResultsThe term incarceration resulted in 3540 of 3 234 159 total project awards (0.11%) and prisoner-related terms resulted in 11 455 total project awards (0.35%) across the 3 federal agencies since 1985. Nearly a tenth of all projects funded at NIH since 1985 related to education (256 584 [9.62%]) compared with only 3373 projects (0.13%) that related to criminal legal or criminal justice or correctional system and 18 projects (0.0007%) that related to incarcerated parents. Only 1857 (0.07%) of all NIH-funded projects have been funded related to racism since 1985.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that a very low number of projects about incarceration have historically been funded at the NIH, DOJ, and NSF. These findings reflect a dearth of federally funded studies investigating the effects of mass incarceration or intervention strategies to mitigate adverse effects. Given the consequences of the criminal legal system, it is undoubtedly time for researchers, and our nation, to invest more resources into studying whether this system should be maintained, the intergenerational effects of mass incarceration, and strategies to best mitigate its impact on public health.
| S-EPMC9972190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceBoth citation and funding metrics converge in shaping current perceptions of academic success.ObjectiveTo evaluate what proportion of the most-cited US-based scientists are funded by biomedical federal agencies and whether funded scientists are more cited than nonfunded ones.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used linkage of a Scopus-based database on top-cited US researchers (according to a composite citation metric) and the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database of federal funding (33 biomedical federal agencies). Matching was based on name and institution. US-based top-cited scientists who were allocated to any of 69 scientific subfields highly related to biomedicine were considered in the main analysis. Data were downloaded on June 11, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists who had any (1996-2022), recent (2015-2022), and current (2021-2022) funding. Comparisons of funded and nonfunded scientists assessed total citations and a composite citation index.ResultsThere were 204 603 records in RePORTER (1996-2022) and 75 316 US-based top-cited scientists in the career-long citation database; 40 887 scientists were included in the main analysis. The proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists (according to career-long citation impact) who had received any federal funding from biomedical research agencies was 62.7% (25 650 of 40 887) for any funding (1996-2022), 23.1% (9427 of 40 887) for recent funding (2015-2022), and 14.1% (5778 of 40 887) for current funding (2021-2022). Respective proportions were 64.8%, 31.4%, and 20.9%, for top-cited scientists according to recent single-year citation impact. There was large variability across scientific subfields (eg, current funding: 31% of career-long impact top-cited scientists in geriatrics, 30% in bioinformatics and 29% in developmental biology, but 0% in legal and forensic medicine, general psychology and cognitive sciences, and gender studies). Funded top-cited researchers were overall more cited than nonfunded top-cited scientists (median [IQR], 9594 [5650-1703] vs 5352 [3057-9890] citations; P < .001) and substantial difference remained after adjusting for subfield and years since first publication. Differences were more prominent in some specific biomedical subfields.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, biomedical federal funding had offered support to approximately two-thirds of the top-cited biomedical scientists at some point during the last quarter century, but only a small minority of top-cited scientists had current federal biomedical funding. The large unevenness across subfields needs to be addressed with ways that improve equity, efficiency, excellence, and translational potential.
| S-EPMC9856501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Firearm injuries are the second-leading cause of death for US children and adolescents (ages 1-18). This analysis quantified the federal dollars granted to research for the leading US causes of death for this age group in 2008-17. Several federal data sources were queried. On average, in the study period, $88 million per year was granted to research motor vehicle crashes, the leading cause of death in this age group. Cancer, the third-leading cause of mortality, received $335 million per year. In contrast, $12 million-only thirty-two grants, averaging $597 in research dollars per death-went to firearm injury prevention research among children and adolescents. According to a regression analysis, funding for pediatric firearm injury prevention was only 3.3 percent of what would be predicted by mortality burden, and that level of funding resulted in fewer scientific articles than predicted. A thirtyfold increase in firearm injury research funding focused on this age group, or at least $37 million per year, is needed for research funding to be commensurate with the mortality burden.
| S-EPMC7039655 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Every year since 2000, Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM) has presented a one-day consensus conference to generate a research agenda for advancement of a scientific topic. One of the 12 annual issues of AEM is reserved for the proceedings of these conferences. The purpose of this study was to measure academic productivity of these conferences by evaluating subsequent federal research funding received by authors of conference manuscripts and calculating citation counts of conference papers.This was a cross-sectional study. In 2012, the NIH RePORTER system was searched to identify subsequent federal funding obtained by authors of the consensus conference issues from 2000 to 2010. Funded projects were coded as related or unrelated to conference topic. Citation counts for all conference manuscripts were quantified using Scopus and Google Scholar. Simple descriptive statistics were reported.Eight hundred fifty-two individual authors contributed to 280 papers published in the 11 consensus conference issues. One hundred thirty-seven authors (16%) obtained funding for 318 projects. A median of 22 topic-related projects per conference (range 10-97) accounted for a median of $20,488,331 per conference (range $7,779,512 to $122,918,205). The average (± SD) number of citations per paper was 15.7 ± 20.5 in Scopus and 23.7 ± 32.6 in Google Scholar.The authors of consensus conference manuscripts obtained significant federal grant support for follow-up research related to conference themes. In addition, the manuscripts generated by these conferences were frequently cited. Conferences devoted to research agenda development appear to be an academically worthwhile endeavor.
| S-EPMC4018650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvaluating outcomes of the clinical and translational research (CTR) training of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub (eg, the KL2 program) requires the selection of reliable, accessible, and standardized measures. As measures of scholarly success usually focus on publication output and extramural funding, CTSA hubs have started to use bibliometrics to evaluate the impact of their supported scholarly activities. However, the evaluation of KL2 programs across CTSAs is limited, and the use of bibliometrics and follow-on funding is minimal.ObjectiveThis study seeks to evaluate scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA hubs and to define and assess CTR training success indicators.MethodsThe sample included KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA institutions (A-C). Bibliometric data for each scholar in the sample were collected from both SciVal and iCite, including scholarly productivity, citation impact, and research collaboration. Three federal follow-on funding measures (at the 5-year, 8-year, and overall time points) were collected internally and confirmed by examining a federal funding database. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were computed using SPSS to assess the bibliometric and federal follow-on funding results.ResultsA total of 143 KL2 scholars were included in the sample with relatively equal groups across the 3 CTSA institutions. The included KL2 scholars produced more publications and citation counts per year on average at the 8-year time point (3.75 publications and 26.44 citation counts) than the 5-year time point (3.4 publications vs 26.16 citation counts). Overall, the KL2 publications from all 3 institutions were cited twice as much as others in their fields based on the relative citation ratio. KL2 scholars published work with researchers from other US institutions over 2 times (5-year time point) or 3.5 times (8-year time point) more than others in their research fields. Within 5 years and 8 years postmatriculation, 44.1% (63/143) and 51.7% (74/143) of KL2 scholars achieved federal funding, respectively. The KL2-scholars of Institution C had a significantly higher citation rate per publication than the other institutions (P<.001). Institution A had a significantly lower rate of nationally field-weighted collaboration than did the other institutions (P<.001). Institution B scholars were more likely to have received federal funding than scholars at Institution A or C (P<.001).ConclusionsMulti-institutional data showed a high level of scholarly productivity, impact, collaboration, and federal follow-on funding achieved by KL2 scholars. This study provides insights on the use of bibliometric and federal follow-on funding data to evaluate CTR training success across institutions. CTSA KL2 programs and other CTR career training programs can benefit from these findings in terms of understanding metrics of career success and using that knowledge to develop highly targeted strategies to support early-stage career development of CTR investigators.
| S-EPMC8515229 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Policy Points In the preexpansion period, federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Medicaid expansion states were significantly different from those in nonexpansion states. This gap widened as revenues in expansion states continued to grow at a faster rate after the expansion. If Medicaid expansion had occurred nationwide, FQHCs' revenue and capacity could have increased substantially. Over time, Medicaid could play a bigger role as it becomes a more stable funding source to allow for capital investments. Section 330 grants appear to have a larger impact on access to care. Given the varying levels of reliance on Medicaid, investing through federal grants might be more effective and equitable.ContextThe Health Resources and Services Administration's Health Center Program (HCP) plays a critical role as the national ambulatory safety net, delivering services to patients in medically underserved areas, regardless of their ability to pay. As the program has grown, health policy initiatives may have altered access to care for the underserved population. Understanding how federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) have been affected by past policies is important for anticipating the effects of future policies.MethodsBy analyzing a national data set from the Uniform Data System, we examined, using two sets of random effects regressions, the potential impact of alternative policy actions affecting FQHCs. Our primary equation models the number of full-time equivalent staff, of patients served, and of visits provided in the subsequent year as a function of Medicaid revenues, Section 330 grants, and other revenues. Our secondary equation is a difference-in-differences analysis that models Medicaid revenues as a function of the states' status of Medicaid expansion.FindingsThe expansion of Medicaid in nonexpansion states could have increased Medicaid revenues by 138%, staffing by 25%, and patients' visits by 24% in 2017. Compared to the impact of a "repeal" of Medicaid expansion, the percentage of reductions in staffing would be similar to those predicted by a 50% cut in Medicaid revenues or in Section 330 grants. On a dollar-for-dollar basis, the effects of one dollar of Section 330 grants were more than double that of one dollar of Medicaid revenue.ConclusionsBoth Medicaid eligibility and Section 330 funding support are important to the HCP, and Section 330 grants are particularly closely related to staffing and the provision of services. States' decisions not to participate in or to repeal Medicaid expansion, to reduce Medicaid payment rates, and federal funding cuts all could have a negative impact on FQHCs, resulting in thousands of low-income patients losing access to primary care.
| S-EPMC9205668 | biostudies-literature