This article is more than 5 years old. Information may no longer be current.
AHA panel: Cardiac research funding not keeping pace with need
Research on heart disease provides significant returns on investment, yet government and private funding has slowed in the past decade, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.
“Although [CV] mortality has declined, the devastating impact of chronic heart disease and comorbidities on quality of life and health care resources continues unabated,” Joseph A. Hill, MD, PhD, FAHA, chair of cardiovascular disease and heart research at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, and colleagues wrote. “Future strides, extending those made in recent decades, will require continued research into mechanisms underlying disease prevention, pathogenesis, progression and therapeutic intervention. However, severe financial constraints currently jeopardize these efforts.”
Contributing to the problem is the growing rates of HF, due to an aging population, who survive heart disease but still live with an injured heart, confounded with worsening lifestyle behaviors and the rising rates of obesity. One projection estimates that by 2030, more than 40% of the U.S. population will have HF or other forms of CVD, with costs, both direct and indirect, exceeding $1 trillion.
Funding
CV-related research has historically been primarily funded by the NIH with supplementation from private foundations, yet funding has declined in the past decade, according to Hill and colleagues.
Current levels of NIH funding represent about a 25% decrease in purchasing power compared with 13 years ago.
“Lack of awareness of the benefits of research investment, coupled with an inadequate sense of the urgency of the problems we face among lawmakers, policymakers and the public, likely contributes to this attrition of societal support for fundamental research,” the researchers wrote.
In the statement, Hill and colleagues recommended the medical field effectively convey the societal benefits and the ultimate return on investment cost-benefit of research.
“We must do a better job of quantifying and articulating the robust benefits afforded to individuals, society and the economy by research in [CVD],” Hill and colleagues wrote.
Benefits from biomedical research range from new drugs and treatment strategies to job creation and reduced health care costs, yet quantifying the benefit remains a challenge. Among the difficulty is attaching a value to lives saved.
One example of return on investment for research is the Women’s Health Initiative, which was funded by the NIH. Of the $260 million spent on the program, the economic return was estimated to be about $37 billion in health care costs and work productivity, for a savings of $142 for every dollar spent.
Look ing to the future
In the statement, the researchers recommend several novel advances that are worth investing in to produce new insights, including big data or precision medicine, technological advances and advances in myocardial regeneration. In addition, they recommended investing in researchers, rather than projects, as a way to think more long term about the benefits.
“Reaping the [return on investment] in basic research requires a longer perspective. An NIH peer review group should certainly not assume the mentality of venture capital investing, seeking to support work with the greatest immediate return. Rather, fundamental research must occur in the context in which clinical or commercial benefit may not provide immediate tangible return,” the researchers wrote.
Additionally, after research is funded and conducted, it is important for researchers to share the societal and economic benefits to not only the community, but to lay society and government as well, according to the statement.
“Many in the research community may assume that these benefits are self-evident and that the dramatic declines in [CV] mortality speak for themselves. We argue here that we cannot rest on our laurel of success; rather, we must focus time, thought and energy on explaining the continuing need for new advances,” the researchers concluded. – by Cassie Homer
Disclosures: Hill reports receiving grants from the AHA and NIH. Please see the statement for the other authors’ relevant financial disclosures.