Advocacy Interest Group Inaugural Meeting


Published on

The inaugural meeting of AcademyHealth's newest Interest Group (IG), the Advocacy IG, was hosted on June 25, 2012 at the AcademyHealth Annual Research Meeting. Unique to AcademyHealth, this IG cultivates grassroots efforts to communicate the value of health services research to those in both the public and private sectors.

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Advocacy Interest Group Inaugural Meeting

  1. 1. Inaugural Advocacy InterestGroup Meeting J une 25, 2012
  2. 2. We Can’t Do It Alone AcademyHealth promotes HSR in the nation’s capital Advocacy is a team sport The users and producers of HSR are the best advocates AcademyHealth will provide the tools you need to be an effective advocate
  3. 3. Goal: Advocates and Ambassadors By the end of today’s meeting, you will know: – How AcademyHealth engages in advocacy – How the Advocacy Interest Group will bolster these efforts – What we’re facing in Washington You will be prepared to share your knowledge and recruit other advocates
  4. 4. Workshop Overview Advocacy at AcademyHealth –The Role of the Interest Group The Current Policy Environment – A Time of Uncertainty Discussion & Next Steps
  5. 5. Recent History Advocacy previously through separate Coalition for Health Services Research October 2011 AcademyHealth Board conducted assessment of relationship December 2012 voted to consolidate advocacy into AcademyHealth – Established Committee on Advocacy and Public Policy (CAPP)
  6. 6. Our Advocacy Principles Advocate for science policy Monitor the environment for trends important to members, stand to shape field through policy change Engage our members, affiliates, partners Collaborate to inform priorities and respond to community’s needs
  7. 7. Our Advocacy Priorities Increasing federal funding for HSR – Balance in what is funded, who is funded, and how its funded Building a robust environment to produce HSR – Preserve scientific integrity, protect human subjects, enhance data availability Enhancing HSR dissemination, use
  8. 8. Interest Group’s Goals AcademyHealth’s IGs provide forum for interaction around shared interests Advocacy IG will cultivate “grassroots” community by: – Planning and facilitating annual “advocacy institute” at ARM – Hosting 1-2 advocacy webinars per year – Participating in annual “Hill Day” Lou Rossiter to serve as first chair
  9. 9. Workshop Overview Advocacy at AcademyHealth – The Role of the Interest Group The Current Policy Environment – A Time of Uncertainty Discussion & Next Steps
  10. 10. HSR Funding: Survival Mode HHS funding reduced by 5% since FY10, on average – AHRQ base cut 8%since FY10 – AHRQ cut 40% accounting for lost Recovery Act capacity – NIH roughly flat funded; 25% accounting for Recovery Act
  11. 11. HSR Funding: Survival Mode Affordable Care Act funding helps backfill AHRQ cuts – Patient –Centered Outcomes Research Transfer • $24 million in FY12; $62 million in FY13 to AHRQ – Prevention and Public Health Fund • $12 million to AHRQ annually since FY10 • $35 million to NCHS annually since FY 11
  12. 12. HSR Funding: FY13 Outlook Senate spending bill preserves public health, research funding – AHRQ base cut 1.5%...but… • President requested 9.5% cut • PCOR Fund used to supplement, not supplant • $43 mil for grants; President cut by $20 mil • All AcademyHealth report language included NCHS flat funded NIH increased $100 million
  13. 13. HSR Funding: FY13 Outlook House spending bill expected to gut public health, research funding House FY12 proposal… – Increased NIH by $1 billion but – Rescinded all Affordable Care Act funding – Cut AHRQ by 13 percent House FY13 allocation $8 billion less than Senate
  14. 14. Other Threats SCOTUS ruling June 28ish – Could impact PCORI, Prevention Fund, Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation Election – Republican trifecta would repeal (and replace?) Affordable Care Act Sequestration!
  15. 15. Budget Control Act Two-phase debt ceiling increase – Phase 1: $900 billion through end of 2011 – Phase 2: $1.2-$1.5 trillion through November 2012 Increases contingent upon offsets – Phase 1 offset: discretionary caps over decade • FY 2013 capped at $1.047 trillion – Phase 2 offset: determined by “supercommittee”
  16. 16. Budget Control Act Bicameral, bipartisan committee to identify $1.5 trillion in savings If Congress does not enact, sequester takes effect January 2013 – Across the board spending cuts of 8 – 12 percent – Social Security, Medicaid, and low-income support programs exempt
  17. 17. The Price of Failure Across-the-board cuts in 2013 $984 billion cut over 10 years, or $109 billion annually Cuts equally divided between defense and non-defense
  18. 18. The Fiscal Cliff Continuing resolution(s)/omnibus – House lowers nondefense discretionary by $27 billion, despite bipartisan Budget Control Act Sequester – Is threat to defense spending enough to force meaningful deficit reduction plan? Bush tax cuts expire “Extenders” package expires – Unemployment benefits, payroll tax holiday, Medicare physician payment fix Debt ceiling
  19. 19. We Need Your Voice AcademyHealth working with community to avert sequestration Members of Congress need to hear from you: – Sequester is unacceptable – Research is important, core gov’t function – Balanced approach to deficit reduction AcademyHealth will share tools to help you