Bullet point (b), or “you are leaving money on the table”
[Letter](b) The plan fails to allocate commensurate resources. The CAA authorized $645 million for NIH research over five years. The plan falls short by close to $200 million. Given the urgent situation, we consider the CAA allocation to be a minimum requirement for federal agencies and feel that even greater resources are needed.
Who is going to say no to “we should apply more resources to the situation”? Certainly not I. But I’m not an MBA. I count resources in terms of how many good research groups are doing quality research in relevant areas. Counting the money, that comes second.
This is similar to the method used by the IACC. People tend to think—and this letter helps perpetuate—the idea that the CAA appropriated money and that the IACC worked from that budget to create the Plan.
Both ideas are incorrect.
First, in admittedly confusing language, the CAAauthorized the appropriations. The CAA states, “...there is authorized to be appropriated..”, not, “this amount is appropriated”. Another way to look at it is to see how often “subject to the availability of appropriations” is used in the text of the CAA. It isn’t as though there is a bank account with $645M waiting to be tapped into.
Second, the IACC did not work from a budget and then decide on a Plan. They didn’t say, “Well, we’ve got $645 million, how will we spend it?” What they did was say, “what needs to get done?”. Near the end of the process, they passed the Plan on to the implementation subcommittee to draft the budgets for the various projects.
This sounds like the much more defensible method. The IACC can go to congress and say, “this is what we need to get the job done.” Had they come up with a budget higher than the CAA allocated, they would have been in a good position to ask for more. They are (I hope) in a good position to get their budget fully funded—they can defend why they came to the total cost in their budget.
That said, of course I’d like to see more research funded. But, I’d like to stay on a friendly partnership with the NIH too. Presenting their actions inaccurately (as this letter appears to do) doesn’t accomplish that in my mind.
[Combating Autism Act] `SEC. 399EE. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. (a) Developmental Disabilities Surveillance and Research Program- To carry out section 399AA, there are authorized to be appropriated the following:
`(1) For fiscal year 2007, $15,000,000. `(2) For fiscal year 2008, $16,500,000. `(3) For fiscal year 2009, $18,000,000. `(4) For fiscal year 2010, $19,500,000. `(5) For fiscal year 2011, $21,000,000.
`(b) Autism Education, Early Detection, and Intervention- To carry out section 399BB, there are authorized to be appropriated the following:
`(1) For fiscal year 2007, $32,000,000. `(2) For fiscal year 2008, $37,000,000. `(3) For fiscal year 2009, $42,000,000. `(4) For fiscal year 2010, $47,000,000. `(5) For fiscal year 2011, $52,000,000.
`(c) Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee; Certain Other Programs- To carry out section 399CC, 409C, and section 404H, there are authorized to be appropriated the following:
`(1) For fiscal year 2007, $100,000,000. `(2) For fiscal year 2008, $114,500,000. `(3) For fiscal year 2009, $129,000,000. `(4) For fiscal year 2010, $143,500,000. `(5) For fiscal year 2011, $158,000,000.’.
So, the $645 million number comes from section c. Two things to notice. First, there are large sums in sections (a) and (b) as well. I hope they are getting appropriated. Second, notice that there is money budgeted for 2007 and 2008 in that number. Remember that the CAA hasn’t been funded yet? Has NIH been sitting on their hands, waiting for the budget before they do autism research? Hardly.
The NIH budget for autism in 2007 is estimated at $127 million ($27M more than the CAA called for all IACC sponsored research, which includes CDC and other agencies). Similarly, $128M is the estimated budget for 2008 ($14M above the IACC budget).
Perhaps I am missing something. It is quite possible. But it appears to me that the NIH is working in good faith here.
Again, given the urgent need—to identify and serve the underserved in this country—I would consider there to be a great reason to increase resources applied by the IACC. I just don’t think that is want the signators of that letter had in mind. Consider the next point they make:
Bullet point c, More environmental research, or, what happened to the “V” word?
[Letter]Research on the environment, gene-environment interaction, and treatment are underrepresented in the draft plan. The plan should apply additional resources to these areas.
As already discussed, I found this statement interesting for what it doesn’t say, far more than what it says. What it doesn’t say explicitly is “mercury” or “vaccines”. As noted in that previous blog post: if the signatories of that letter are OK with this wording, it should be OK in the Strategic Plan.
The order of these two bullet points sends a clear message: The Plan doesn’t use all the money “appropriated” and, yet, the Plan should put additional resources into environment and treatment.
Or, “why don’t you take some of the $200 million and spend it on these areas?”
It would be a good question if that was the way the process worked. (A) the money wasn’t appropriated (so there isn’t $200M sitting unused) and (b) the Plan was built on a “what needs to be done” basis, not “how much do we have to spend” basis. The push for more environment/treatment really needs to be justified in terms of “what needs to be done”.
But, again, I’d agree that more resources would be welcome. And, again, I would suggest attempting to meet the great need of serving the underserved. Research into services like the Taft Transition to Independent Living program comes to mind.