Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 39

Thread: Decreased Funding from NIH in SCI

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Skipow View Post
    Who makes the decision on percentage distribution on research in the NIH? The President, Congress, or NIH Directors?
    Skipow,

    NIH submits a budget request to the White House every year, based on internal review and discussion of the needs and programs. The White House trims or adds to that request based on priorities set by the President. The White House budget goes to Congress in February. The House Appropriations Committee considers the budget, followed by the Senate. They each pass their respective versions of the budget and a bipartisan joint committee of the Senate and House hammers out the budget before it is passed. That is the way it is supposed to work.

    Unfortunately, for almost every year since 2008, Congress has not been able to pass a budget. So, they instead passed continuing resolutions, which approved the same budget from the previous year, adjusted by amendments through the year. The National Institutes of Health has had no increase in funding since 2003. In 2013, Congress passed a rule that says that if they do not pass a budget, the fallback budget will involve sequestration of funds to reduce the nation's debt. These sequestration rules resulted in 5% cuts of the NIH budget last year. For the first time in memory (since World War II), our Congress has actually reduced NIH funding.

    Rather than take my word for it, people should read a letter that Congressman Sandy Levin of the 9th Congressional District of Michigan wrote to John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi in November of 2014. It requests that the NIH budget be restored to pre-sequestration levels, with inflation taken into account. The letter emphasized the importance of biomedical research for health and prosperity of the nation.

    http://levin.house.gov/levin-urges-i...ackage-fy-2015
    Levin Urges for Increase Funding for NIH to be included in upcoming omnibus appropriations package for FY 2015
    Nov 18, 2014 Issues: Health Care
    The Honorable John Boehner The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
    Speaker of the House Minority Leader
    U.S. House of Representatives U.S. House of Representatives
    H-232, U.S. Capitol H-204, U.S. Capitol
    Washington, DC 20515 Washington, DC 20515

    Dear Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi:

    As the House begins crafting appropriations legislation before the current continuing resolution expires on December 12, 2014, we write to express our deep concern with the current funding level provided for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In any continuing resolution or omnibus appropriations package for FY 2015, we urge you to work with your colleagues in the Senate to fully restore NIH funding to at least the agency?s pre-sequester level, adjusted for inflation, in order to maintain America?s role as a global leader in biomedical research and ground-breaking medical discoveries.

    We are concerned that, over the last 10 years, the federal government?s contributions toward basic research at NIH have consistently failed to keep pace with inflation. By failing to at least hold NIH funding constant with other rising costs, Congress has allowed the agency?s purchasing power to diminish by more than 20 percent since 2003. Irresponsible budget cuts imposed on the agency during sequestration only further exacerbated this trend, reducing NIH?s budget by an additional 5 percent in FY 2013. As the growth in other countries? investments in medical research continues to far outpace those made here in the U.S., it is more critical than ever that we act to reverse this trend.

    Insufficient funding for NIH has a serious, wide-ranging impact on our nation?s health and our capacity for medical innovation in the 21st century. If we are serious about breaking new ground in our understanding of complex diseases like Alzheimer?s and cancer, and if we hope to accelerate the speed with which new cures, treatments and vaccines are developed ? goals that are supported by Congressional leaders of both parties ? then it?s absolutely essential that we increase funding for medical research at NIH. Particularly given our constituents? renewed focus in recent months on developing vaccines and treatments for diseases like Ebola and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), we feel strongly that now is the time to invest in our nation?s long-term health and prosperity.

    While we understand the difficult fiscal challenges you face, we urge you to prioritize the important role that NIH plays in biomedical research and economic growth by working to fully restore its funding to at least pre-sequester levels, adjusted for inflation. Thank you for your consideration.

    Sincerely,
    [Sandy Levin]
    In December 2014, Congress agreed on an omnibus bill that prevented closure of the government in January 2015 but House Republicans still wanted to play political football with the budget. They withheld approval of the Homeland Security budget in hopes of pressuring the White House in February to withdraw its controversial immigration policy. It did not work. The 2016 budget is wending its way through the committees in Congress. Nobody wants sequestration to happen again with another 5% cut of the budget. However, nothing is likely to change until the impasse between the White House and Congress is resolved. This is not likely to occur until after Obama leaves office.

    Wise.
    Last edited by Wise Young; 03-10-2015 at 01:54 PM.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Skipow View Post
    Who makes the decision on percentage distribution on research in the NIH? The President, Congress, or NIH Directors?
    I see at W2W there is someone from the NIH:

    Spinal Cord Injury Research Support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
    Lyn Jakeman, PhD,National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke

    http://www.u2fp.org/organize/events/...2-walk/agenda/

    People should ask this questions there. Also we should find out how to restore funding at least just with 5% reduction
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  3. #13

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Skipow View Post
    Did anyone notice the $14 million decrease from the NIH recieciently posted. Can somebody explain logically or reasonably this?

    http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx

    We need to do something to change this, before we loose more good researchers in our field. What can we do to get the NIH to accelerate neuroregeneration?

    Attachment 56585
    Parkinson's orgs and patients seem to be much more active than SCI ones:

    http://californiastemcellreport.blog...smayed-at.html
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    4,993
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by JakeHalsted View Post
    Gee thanks Obama...
    You get what you ask for.

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    Parkinson's orgs and patients seem to be much more active than SCI ones...
    Of course Parkinson's groups would be more active because there's a minimum of 50,000 more of them diagnosed each year in just the USA alone! The statistics of the patient population in Parkinson vs. SCI is entirely different. If there are 60k people diagnosed with Parkinson's and 96% are over 50 years old and then only 11k-12k younger people having a SCI makes the patient populations totally opposite and incomparable in both numbers and ages. Every decade they add 500k more patients to their rolls than SCI.

    As many as one million Americans live with Parkinson's disease, which is more than the combined number of people diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and Lou Gehrig's disease. Approximately 60,000 Americans are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease each year, and this number does not reflect the thousands of cases that go undetected. An estimated seven to 10 million people worldwide are living with Parkinson's disease. Incidence of Parkinson's increases with age, but an estimated four percent of people with PD are diagnosed before the age of 50. LINK:

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by GRAMMY View Post
    Of course Parkinson's groups would be more active because there's a minimum of 50,000 more of them diagnosed each year in just the USA alone! The statistics of the patient population in Parkinson vs. SCI is entirely different. If there are 60k people diagnosed with Parkinson's and 96% are over 50 years old and then only 11k-12k younger people having a SCI makes the patient populations totally opposite and incomparable in both numbers and ages. Every decade they add 500k more patients to their rolls than SCI.

    As many as one million Americans live with Parkinson's disease, which is more than the combined number of people diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and Lou Gehrig's disease. Approximately 60,000 Americans are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease each year, and this number does not reflect the thousands of cases that go undetected. An estimated seven to 10 million people worldwide are living with Parkinson's disease. Incidence of Parkinson's increases with age, but an estimated four percent of people with PD are diagnosed before the age of 50. LINK:
    Your considerations are ok, but my question is why SCI people have been completely silent?
    In the US alone there are at least 250 000 people living with SCI, the fact that we are fewer than people with parkinson's is not a good reason to stay completely silent.
    If we keep staying silent next time they will cut even more.
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by JakeHalsted View Post
    Gee thanks Obama...
    Thanks to him north Africa is a mess after they bombed Libia and killed Gheddafi. Now ISIS is taking control of more territory every day.
    Somehow he got the nobel prize for peace.
    Not sure if in the end he has been better that GW Bush.
    In God we trust; all others bring data. - Edwards Deming

  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by paolocipolla View Post
    ...My question is why SCI people have been completely silent? If we keep staying silent next time they will cut even more.
    They'll cut it anyway if you continue to work the geopolitical rhetoric about Libia and Gheddafi.

  10. #20
    Senior Member PC720's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Memphis Tennessee
    Posts
    196
    As an MS suffer, I wonder how skewed those numbers are from that Parkinson's disease website. Americans, maybe but worldwide the numbers of MS diagnosed is not that far off from Parkinson's.

    Page 27
    http://www.who.int/mental_health/neu...report_web.pdf

    http://m.imgur.com/nvCggIX

Similar Threads

  1. Decreased Melanin
    By Wheel Travel in forum Care
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-18-2011, 11:07 PM
  2. Spasticity Decreased
    By WonderDerek in forum Care
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-31-2006, 09:29 AM
  3. Fighting Decreased Lung Capacity
    By KiranA in forum Care
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-02-2005, 05:21 PM
  4. Decreased Lung Volume?
    By smokey in forum Care
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-06-2005, 04:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •