Breakthroughs Blog: State Department

Nearly six months into fiscal year 2024 (FY24), the US government has finally agreed upon a budget for the remaining six months. Nevertheless, March brings with it a new appropriations cycle forcibly run in parallel with the last. With the release of the President’s Budget Request (PBR) for fiscal year 2025 (FY25) and ongoing meetings with appropriations staff, the prospects for future US spending on global health research and development (R&D) are coming into focus, with both good and bad on the horizon.FY24 spending package: A mixed bag for global health R&D This year’s appropriations process was certainly one for the history books in that it was historically difficult—largely due to partisan divisions and threats to the House speakership. But on March 22, moments before a partial government shutdown was set to go into effect, a six-bill “minibus” was voted through by the House of Representatives and the Senate and later signed into law, which will keep the government operational until September 30. This second spending package included funding bills for Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS); State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS); and Defense, which are a mixed bag for funding for global health R&D.LHHSThe LHHS bill, which covers funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), included some welcome increases to agencies and programs that support global health research alongside overall stagnant funding.Out of the three agencies, BARDA, which focuses on the R&D of countermeasures against emerging health threats, received the largest increase in funding with a $65 million (6.8 percent) boost over fiscal year 2023 (FY23) levels, bringing its total budget to $1.015 billion. The CDC, America’s lead public health agency, and NIH, the primary agency responsible for biomedical health research, witnessed marginal adjustments, with their budget lines most relevant to global health R&D remaining largely static. Notably, CDC's National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID) received a $9.5 million (1.27 percent) boost, which will help bolster crucial surveillance initiatives such as the Advanced Molecular Detection program.  Additionally, the minibus also included complimentary directives, known as report language, which were championed by GHTC, that reinforce the importance of global health and neglected disease research taking place at CDC and NIH. It also included important language encouraging BARDA to consider the needs of people living in low-resource settings in its R&D funding decisions and directing the agency to provide more transparent and regular reporting on its investments and allocate at least $10 million of its budget to create a new Disease X medical countermeasures program to develop tools against viral families with pandemic potential.SFOPSThe SFOPS bill covers global health work undertaken by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the US Department of State (State). Unfortunately, the FY24 spending package included a significant cut of $530.95 million (5.3 percent) to State and USAID global health programs.Much of this reduction is due to a decrease in funding by $350 million for the US contribution to The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which fell from $2 billion in FY23 to $1.65 billion in FY24. While this is a large cut, it was both expected and supported by advocates, given that US law caps the maximum contribution that the United States can make to the fund relative to the contributions of other donors. Thus, the “cut” was implemented in line with the cap to avoid a harsh drop-off in US funding in the coming years. Accordingly, many advocates are not viewing it as an actual cut. The remaining decrease in funding comes from a significant $200 million (22 percent) cut to USAID Global Health Security (GHS). The FY24 funding for GHS of $700 million retains a $100 million carve-out for a US contribution to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, or CEPI, but advocates are still piecing together what the $200 million slash could mean for other GHS programming. This picture is further complicated by the opaque nature of how the US government intends to fund a contribution to the World Bank Pandemic Fund, which is neither specified in the bill in terms of a funding number nor in the programmatic budget line. The Biden Administration announced last year its intent to contribute $250 million to the fund, but this contribution is not actually detailed in the spending package, so it remains unclear how this commitment will be realized. Slightly cushioning the overall cut to State and USAID global health programs are some modest increases to the budget lines for the maternal and child health (through an increase in funding to GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance), nutrition, and other public health threats programs.In a key win for global health research advocates, Congress also included accompanying report language for SFOPS directing USAID to increase its spending for health R&D over the prior fiscal year and to publish an annual report on its health R&D activities and investments. Notably, the reauthorization of the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, was also included in the SFOPS bill but only for one year, so authorization will expire next March. This one-year reauthorization tees up another battle, which will certainly be shaped by the political climate and controlling parties following the presidential and congressional elections this fall.DefenseWhile few may think of the US Department of Defense (DoD) as a key global health player, the agency’s spending supports R&D against epidemic-prone diseases and other health issues that pose a risk to US national security and service members stationed abroad—so its investments contribute to combating diseases endemic in many of the world’s poorest places. Encouragingly, language supporting DoD's research on infectious diseases and the development of medical countermeasures was included in the accompanying Defense bill report.Unfortunately, however, Congress did not include tuberculosis among the diseases eligible to be funded via the DoD-led Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program’s (CDMRP’s) Peer Reviewed Medical Research Program (PRMRP), as has been the case in years past. This is a point of future advocacy since the CDMRP PRMRP funds other neglected and emerging diseases in line with the list of eligible diseases defined in the Senate’s Defense bill each year.FY25 President’s Budget: A story of lowered ambitionOn March 11, President Joe Biden released his FY25 budget request, outlining his administration's recommendations to Congress for spending for the next fiscal year. The FY25 PBR is more moderate than Biden’s FY24 proposal, which can be largely attributed to the administration upholding their end of the debt ceiling bargain to keep overall spending levels capped at roughly FY23 levels. But even still, the lack of boldness for global health activities across the board was felt by advocates.With respect to global health programs at State and USAID, the budget proposes an overall decrease of approximately $733 million (7 percent) compared to FY23 enacted levels. This includes a $175 million (4.2 percent) cut to USAID and a $558 million (8.9 percent) cut to State global health programs. Concerning the latter, the cut comes from the PBR proposing a $1.19 billion contribution to the Global Fund, which would be an $810 million reduction from FY23 levels. As previously noted, this drastic cut is due in large part to the cap imposed on maximum US contributions; however, advocates are still pushing for $1.65 billion in FY25, citing projections that the US contribution can be set higher without violating the cap. The proposed USAID cut is more nuanced and comes from an accounting choice by the administration to transfer funding for the US contribution to the Pandemic Fund ($250 million) from under the Global Health Security line at USAID to the budget for State’s new Bureau of Global Health Security and Diplomacy, which will now manage US engagement with the fund. In conversations with the agency, the movement of this funding is not being perceived as a cut—leaving USAID’s global health programs largely untouched in the PBR. Most programs are flat funded, though the budget proposes a modest $30 million (3.3 percent) boost to USAID’s maternal and child health programs and a reduction of $26 million (4.5 percent) to USAID’s family planning account.On the LHHS side, the budget proposal is slightly rosier, though far from ambitious. The PBR proposes increases of $20 million (2.1 percent) for BARDA and $1.4 billion (2.3 percent) for NIH overall, with the latter including a modest boost of $18.72 million (0.3 percent) for NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases but flat funding for NIH’s Fogarty International Center, which supports global health research and training. CDC received a proposed increase of $465.4 million (5 percent) in the PBR, with NCEZID receiving a $30 million (4 percent) increase and the Center for Global Health flat funded.Notably, CDC’s congressional budget justification proposes that $20 million of this funding for NCEZID be put towards wastewater surveillance, which is programming that is currently being supported unsustainably via emergency funding for the COVID-19 response. Additionally, in the BARDA congressional budget justification, the administration suggests a $20 million boost “to increase BARDA’s Broad Spectrum Antimicrobials and Combatting Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria portfolio" through engagement with the Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator, or CARB-X, an international partnership focused on accelerating the development of new antibacterial innovations.While GHTC understands the administration’s fiscal situation and negotiating position with Congress, the discrepancy between the administration’s ambitions from the FY24 PBR to the FY25 PBR are stark, with some agencies seeing decreases of over $1 billion between the two presidential requests.FY25 outlook: Not great, but not badWhile it may feel cruel for advocates, there is no breathing room between the FY24 and FY25 appropriations processes. Additionally, the constraints the global health community felt in 2024 in the wake of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023—also known as the Biden-McCarthy Debt Ceiling Deal that capped spending growth—are still with us. Even though the outcomes of the FY24 spending package were discouraging for global health advocates—it went better than many expected. For FY25, while a robust and bold global and public health budget is the goal—holding off any cuts and returning to FY23 topline budgets for global health programs will be critical. GHTC will be working to communicate that message clearly while keeping in mind the uphill battle caused by the parameters forced upon appropriators by last June’s debt ceiling deal.Other obstacles like election-year politicking and a remarkable loss in global health champions in Congress will make future negotiations harder and will require advocates to go more on the offense. Pushing for stronger toplines and no cuts will be vital in FY25 to get the gains the community needs to get the world back on track toward eradicating neglected diseases and better preparing for emerging threats.

Last Friday, President Joe Biden signed into law a $1.5 trillion spending bill that will fund the US government through the remainder of fiscal year 2022 (FY22), which began October 1, 2021, and concludes in September. The outcome followed months of tense negotiations by Congress—which had passed a series of temporary funding measures, known as continuing resolutions, to keep the government funded at FY21 levels since the start of this fiscal year—and last-minute maneuvering to try to pair annual spending with emergency aid for Ukraine and the COVID-19 response domestically and globally.While the bill ultimately included welcome boosts across key agency programs that fund global health and medical research, summarized below, in very disappointing news, emergency funding for COVID-19—including $4.5 billion for the global response—was stripped from the final package at the 11th hour due to disagreements on how to cover costs. This leaves an uncertain path ahead for the Biden administration to execute its COVID-19 plan, as previously appropriated funds for the domestic and global response are nearly depleted—raising the prospect of having to halt ongoing government-sponsored COVID-19 research trials, among other impacts. House Democrats have promised to advance a stand-alone COVID-19 emergency funding package, which could provide an influx of urgently needed funds, but it’s unclear whether such legislation could gain the 60 votes needed in the Senate since Republicans are demanding any new bill be paid for via offsets of unspent funds, a requirement many Democrats are opposed to.Below GHTC takes a detailed look at the spending bill and its impact on accounts that finance global health research and development (R&D) programming.State and Foreign OperationsThe final spending bill included $9.8 billion in funding for Global Health Programs at the State Department and US Agency for International Development (USAID), which represents an increase of $630 million, or 6.9 percent, over FY21 enacted levels. The vast majority—$510 million—of that increase is designated for global health security programming at USAID, a 268 percent increase over FY21 funding. This funding includes a $100 million allocation for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to support vaccine development for potentially epidemic threats, which is both welcome news and higher than the $50 million pledge for this fiscal year announced by USAID Administrator Samantha Power at the CEPI pledging summit just a few days prior.Beyond global health security, the remainder of the increase—$130 million—was spread across other global health accounts. The tuberculosis and maternal and child health program lines at USAID received the largest increases at $52 million (16.3 percent) and $34.5 billion (4 percent) respectively, while nutrition, malaria, and neglected tropical diseases were each increased by $5 million and vulnerable children was increased by $2.5 million. USAID’s HIV/AIDS and family planning lines received flat funding compared to last fiscal year while the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, under the State Department, was boosted by $20 million (0.5 percent). No global health-related accounts at USAID or State saw their funding cut. In other important news, in the joint explanatory statement accompanying the bill, Congress included language, for which GHTC advocated, directing USAID to develop and publicly release a new multi-year strategy on health R&D detailing its goals and how it plans to invest across health areas. USAID’s current health R&D strategy runs through 2022, so the fulfillment of this congressional directive will help ensure continuity and that research remains a priority for USAID’s global health programming.While it was positive to see Congress provide a major funding boost for health security programming and some modest increases to other global health accounts, overall, these funding increases fell short of what many advocates had hoped for, and in many cases what the House and Senate bill drafts released in 2021 had proposed. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased both the challenges and costs of operating health and research programs worldwide, so this funding package, even with increases, fails to match the scale of today’s expanding needs.Health and Human ServicesThe spending bill provided much larger, but uneven, increases across Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) subagencies and programs that support global health R&D. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) received $44.96 billion in funding, representing a $2 billion, or 4.7 percent, increase over FY21 levels. This included an increase of $253.1 million, or 4.2 percent, for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a $2.8 million, or 3.4 percent, increase for the Fogarty International Center, which works to strengthen research capacity in low- and middle-income countries.Meanwhile, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA)—an agency that supports development of medical countermeasures against health threats and a central player in COVID-19 R&D through then Operation Warp Speed—received a significant funding boost from Congress. It was appropriated $745 million in funding, a $148 million, or 24.9 percent, increase over the prior fiscal year. This funding envelope supports the agency’s entire research portfolio, which covers chemical, nuclear, radiological, and biological threats—both man-made and naturally occurring—so it is at the agency’s discretion to determine what of this funding it ultimately spends on R&D for naturally occurring health threats, including emerging infectious diseases, pandemic influenza, and antimicrobial resistance. Congress included in the bill’s accompanying joint explanatory statement language requested by GHTC expressing support for BARDA to expand its work on naturally occurring threats and provide more detailed reporting on such spending.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is a smaller but still important player in supporting global health R&D, received overall funding of $8.5 billion, a $582.4 million, or 7.4 percent, increase from the prior year. Within that, the Center for Global Health received a $54 million, or 9.1 percent, increase, with 93 percent of that increase designated for the global public health protection line focused on health security and the remainder spread across accounts funding global immunization, HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and parasitic diseases and malaria. The National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, which funds select R&D for diagnostics and vaccines against infectious diseases, received a $45 million, or 6.9 percent, increase over FY21 enacted levels. These CDC increases were seen by many advocates as disappointing compared to evident needs. Challenges faced by the agency during the COVID-19 pandemic have underscored the need for a more significant influx of funding for this historically under-resourced agency to modernize its systems and improve staff retention.In addition to providing increases for the three HHS agencies above, Congress appropriated $1 billion for HHS to set up a new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, modeled after the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, to speed development of medical breakthroughs by funding high-risk, innovative projects. This funding was far lower than the $6.5 billion requested by the Biden administration and interestingly was designated to HHS to establish the agency under the Office of the HHS Secretary, rather than within NIH as the Biden administration and some congressional leaders had proposed. GHTC has pushed for this proposed agency to focus on poverty-related and neglected diseases, as a key area of market failure by industry; however, it remains unclear what health areas this new agency will initially prioritize as it is stood up.While FY22 was a bit of a mixed bag for global health R&D, with important increases across some programs but other areas falling short, advocates are already gearing up for the budget battle ahead for FY23, with the Biden administration expected to release its FY23 budget proposal soon.

Interested in more global health innovation news? Every week GHTC scours media reports worldwide to deliver essential global health R&D news and content to your inbox. Sign-up now to receive our weekly R&D News Roundup email.  The second-largest Ebola outbreak in history—which has infected 3,500 people and killed 2,250 in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) since August 2018—is down to its last chain of transmission despite ongoing violence that has hampered response efforts. The waning of the Ebola outbreak comes as the outbreak of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, has captured global attention and potentially funding as well. According to a World Health Organization (WHO) spokeswoman, “Funding needs [for the Ebola response] have not as yet been fully met, and currently there is a risk there will not be funding for WHO activities beyond February.” Despite the waning of Ebola cases in DRC, last Wednesday, an independent committee that advises WHO unanimously agreed the Ebola outbreak continues to be a public health emergency—a designation recently extended to the COVID-19 outbreak. Though WHO and others have worked tirelessly to contain Ebola, the region’s health system remains weak and the likelihood of future outbreaks is high. The experimental antiviral drug remdesivir successfully prevented disease in rhesus macaques infected with Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), according to a study performed by the US National Institutes of Health and supported by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority. Remdesivir both prevented disease when administered before infection and improved the condition of the macaques when given after the animals already were infected. MERS-CoV is closely related to COVID-19, which emerged in Wuhan, China in December of last year and has grown to be a public health emergency. The promising results of this study support the case for additional clinical trials of remdesivir for MERS-CoV and COVID-19. Gilead Sciences developed remdesivir and collaborated in the research. On Monday, February 10, President Trump released his proposed budget for fiscal year 2021, which seeks deep cuts of US$3 billion to global health funding. The proposed cuts include a 34 percent reduction to global health programs at the State Department and US Agency for International Development (USAID) and a seven percent cut in funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s Center for Global Health. President Trump’s budget also proposed a 58 percent reduction in funding to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and a 50 percent cut in funding to WHO. Despite these widespread proposed cuts, the budget did include some boosts in funding—a $50 million increase for CDC’s global health security activities and $15 million for USAID’s Global Health Security programs. President Trump’s budget has been condemned by public health experts and many lawmakers, who have spoken out against the cuts which are unlikely to go into effect.

This week, months of tense negotiation between leaders in the Democratically-controlled US House of Representatives, the Republican-held Senate, and the White House concluded with the congressional passage of two massive spending packages encompassing all federal government spending for fiscal year (FY) 2020 —nearly three months behind schedule. Two continuing resolutions, passed by Congress to allow additional time for the process to play out after the start of the new fiscal year on October 1, have kept the government operating at FY19 levels, while from week to week, it was anyone’s guess whether the stalemate over funding levels and contentious items like border wall funding could be broken to avoid another government shutdown.A long process to produce two very long billsIn November, the appropriations “cardinals”—chairs and ranking members of both chambers’ Appropriation Committees—announced they had reached a deal on overall spending for each of the 12 appropriations bills, figures known as 302(b)s. This marked a critical step in the negotiations, given that at the time the House and Senate passed a two-year budget deal over the summer, each chamber had been working off of different overall blueprint funding envelopes: The House had already passed its appropriations bills assuming much higher funding levels than were ultimately included in the deal, while the Senate was developing its bills under the more modest final caps.Once the gulf was bridged and the 302(b)s were set, the leaders and their staff worked quickly to develop final compromise appropriations bills, which they grouped into two “minibus” funding packages released on December 16: a “national security appropriations” minibus and a “domestic priorities and international assistance appropriations” minibus, which included the bills for Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) and State and Foreign Operations (SFOPS).Funding increases included for several key accounts The later minibus encompassing LHHS and SFOPS was a mixed bag for accounts that support global health research and development (R&D). In the LHHS division of the minibus, overall funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was boosted 6.7 percent from FY19 enacted levels—including increases of 6.7 percent for the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 3.3 percent for the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, 3.4 percent for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and 3.4 percent for the Fogarty International Center. The joint explanatory statement accompanying the division also notes “an increase of no less than $25,000,000 over the fiscal year 2019 level for HIV and AIDS research” at NIH.The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) saw even greater overall growth than NIH, with an increase of 8.7 percent; however, GHTC-priority accounts that finance global health R&D were mostly flat-funded. While the Center for Global Health (CGH) received a 16.8 percent bump, the entirety of the increase went to Global Public Health Protection—which funds global health security activities—and a new Global Tuberculosis line—which represents level funding of an amount previously transferred annually from a domestic tuberculosis (TB) line to support global TB activities. All other CGH lines were flat-funded. The National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases got a modest 1.6 percent bump. The final GHTC priority account in the LHHS bill, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), was flat-funded.The SFOPS division of the minibus increased overall funding for Global Health Programs at the State Department and US Agency for International Development (USAID) by 2.9 percent. This is slightly lower than what had been proposed in the Senate SFOPS bill earlier this fall and significantly lower than the House proposal to increase by 5.2 percent, but overall still a positive trend reflecting strong support for global health among appropriators, who were working under the constraints of a modest overall SFOPS allocation in the final agreement. At USAID, most health area-specific allocations were flat-funded or increased by about two to four percent—the big exception being the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, which was increased by 15.6 percent to reflect the higher pledge made by the US government at the Global Fund’s international pledging conference in October.Report language signals policy support for global health R&DGHTC successfully advocated for the inclusion of several sections of report language, included in the original House and Senate SFOPS bill reports, that will hold under the final agreement. Report language serves as guidance from Congress to US agencies on how it would like to see funding implemented. Language that will hold for FY20 includes GHTC-supported language on USAID’s important role in and reporting on health-related R&D and inter-agency collaboration and coordination on global health product development, as well as support for “CDC’s continued and enhanced work in research and development aimed at creating new tools to respond to health threats at home and abroad” and BARDA’s contributions to emerging infectious disease outbreaks and other naturally occurring threats.The “domestic priorities and international assistance minibus” not only included some positive funding increases and report language, but also advanced a bill supported by GHTC—the End Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTD) Act, which supports R&D activities by USAID to control and eliminate NTDs.The House passed both packages Tuesday afternoon, with the Senate following suit Thursday and now the bills are awaiting signature by the President. GHTC applauds Congress for their strong continued support for global health R&D evidenced by the final deal and looks forward to building on this foundation for our advocacy as we enter a new decade full of opportunities for global health innovation.