Geographic inequality in funding by National Institutes of Health negatively impacts almost one-half of the states in the United States.

Autor:	Caulder E; School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States., Zhang J; School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States., Nagarkatti M; School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States., Nagarkatti P; School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, United States.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Frontiers in public health [Front Public Health] 2024 Sep 25; Vol. 12, pp. 1452494. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 25 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI:	10.3389/fpubh.2024.1452494
Abstrakt:	Introduction: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the primary federal agency in the United States (US) that supports biomedical research, training, and clinical trials. NIH funding creates patents and jobs and thus helps the regional and national economy grow. Therefore, NIH funding would be expected to flow equitably to all 50 US states. However, there is a significant geographic disparity in the level of NIH funding received by various states. To that end, in 1993, authorized by Congress, NIH initiated a funding program called the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) to support states, called IDeA states, which received low levels of NIH funding. However, whether this approach has helped reduce the geographic disparity in NIH funding is unclear. Methods: In the current study, we analyzed data on various NIH funding mechanisms awarded to 23 IDeA states vs. 27 non-IDeA states, as identified by NIH. We compared these data to the population size, federal taxes paid, and the number of PhDs and Post-doctoral Fellows(PDFs) trained in IDeA vs. non-IDeA states. Results: The non-IDeA states received 93.6% of the total NIH funding, whereas IDeA states received only 6.4%. On average, one Institutional Training Grant was received for every 24 PhDs trained in non-IDeA states, while IDeA states received one such grant for every 46 PhDs trained. The non-IDeA states comprised 84.3% of the US population, whereas IDeA states comprised 15.7%. Thus, on a per capita basis, non-IDeA states received $120 from NIH, whereas IDeA states received $45 per person. For every million dollars contributed by the non-IDeA states toward federal taxes, they received $7,903 in NIH funding, while the IDeA States received only $4,617. For FY 2022, the NIH funding created an economic activity of $90.6 Billion in non-IDeA states and only $6.3 billion in IDeA states. When total NIH funding to the states was analyzed for the years 1992, 2002, 2012, and 2022, IDeA states received 4.7% of the total NIH funding in 1992, which increased to 7.2% in 2002 but dropped to 6.8% in 2012 and 6.5% in 2022. This demonstrated that IDeA states' share of NIH funding remained relatively unchanged for the past 20 years. Discussion: Eliminating the geographic disparity in NIH funding is crucial for achieving equitable health outcomes across the US, and for the IDeA states to successfully train future generations of physicians and scientists, as well as grow the regional economy. Although the NIH IDeA programs have helped enhance the research capacity in IDeA states, the funding currently constitutes less than 1% of the total NIH budget. Thus, it is critical to increase NIH funding to IDeA states to improve health outcomes for all Americans. Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. (Copyright © 2024 Caulder, Zhang, Nagarkatti and Nagarkatti.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu