A federal judge has temporarily blocked a move by the Trump administration to cut federal research funding in those states that joined a lawsuit challenging the move — Arizona is among them.
The National Institutes of Health issued a memo last week saying it would cap grants for what’s known as "indirect costs" at 15%, which would be nearly halving of that funding. Indirect costs pay for things like staffing, facilities and administration. More arguments in the case are expected later this month.
It is into this environment that Dr. Corey Casper begins his new role as chief research officer at Banner Health. Casper joined The Show to discuss what interested him about this job.
Full conversation
DR. COREY CASPER: Yeah, so you know I've worked for more than 25 years on biomedical research in a number of different research environments. What I think is particularly compelling about working for Banner Health is it sort of flips the traditional model of biomedical research that we use in this country.
So at many academic centers, you have a very large enterprise that's trying to both deliver health care but also trying to conduct biomedical research and, I think it's very hard to do both well. Many academic medical centers across the country right now are losing a tremendous amount of money, and struggling to provide top quality care only because both of those things, you know, sitting side by side are so challenging. What's really unique about Banner Health is it's really widely regarded as, you know, one of a model of nonprofit health care delivery, and they really have that down pat.
MARK BRODIE: So what kinds of research are you most interested in pursuing here at Banner?
CASPER: Yeah, so obviously for many, many years, Banner, I would say has the preeminent program anywhere in the world in its research for Alzheimer's disease. So we really need to continue that work and make sure that Banner continues to be at the forefront of both the early detection and prevention of Alzheimer's disease. I think that's critical.
At the same time, I think that based on the patient population that Banner deals with in its six different states, I think we have a real opportunity to broaden the research portfolio of Banner along with our academic partners at the University of Arizona and the MD Anderson Cancer Center and to that what I'm really interested in looking at is the intersection between acute infectious diseases and chronic diseases like cardiovascular disease, cancer and neurologic diseases.
And I think that what we're finding right now is that the past 20 years of progress in cancer research coupled with the past five to 10 years of research in infectious diseases that have been, accelerated by the pandemic, the COVID pandemic, those two things have intersected in a way to give us incredibly unique tools to interrogate and to modulate the human immune system to prevent and to treat disease, and that's where I'd like to see our focus over the next several years.
BRODIE: I'm wondering how all of that might be impacted by what we've been hearing about coming from D.C. in terms of NIH grants and other federal funding potentially getting reduced or or or removed altogether, what kind of impact might that have on the research you're doing at Banner?
CASPER: Yeah, so all of the, you know, recent discussions around changes in federal funding for research and changes in the priority of the federal research agenda, clearly have an enormous potential impact on this country's biomedical research and, you know, complex. That being said, I think that most of us who have been doing this for a while are trying to take a long view. I think that, you know, improving the health of patients in this country, through biomedical research and again there's proven gains.
I mean we've dropped the death rate due to cancer dramatically due to biomedical research in the past 20 years. We've dropped the death rate due to cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, you know, significantly over the last 20 years, and all of that is attributable to research.
So when we take the long view that I think regardless of what your political beliefs are, you probably are in favor of better health outcomes for all of us. I have to believe that while there'll be changes in prioritization and changes in mechanism, in the long view, I'd have to believe that this will continue to be a strong country for the conduct of impactful biomedical research.
BRODIE: In the short term though, I mean, are there potentially studies going on or research going on that could be impacted or could be delayed maybe beyond repair if funding doesn't come through?
CASPER: Absolutely. So, I mean taking a step back, I think it's important to think a little bit about how the federal government funds research. So first and foremost, I mean, I think that while in a perfect world, there might be a direct relationship between the amount of federal funding and the burden of a disease, that's probably not the case. I mean, one of the most common diseases that we see in our population is diabetes. It certainly is not the greatest source of funding from our federal government.
So you know, the reality is there's always been a disconnect between how common a disease is and how much funding goes towards it. If that's not the beacon by which we figure out the prioritization of our funding for medical research, that means that other things influence that and politics is certainly one of them.
So, you know, in this particular political climate, I think what we have heard is that there are some people in government right now who believe that there's an over prioritization on vaccines, infectious diseases, research involving, you know, vulnerable populations, and I think that, you know, to the extent that the current administration can change that prioritization, I think they will. And so I think that that's something that in the short term will clearly affect how biomedical research is conducted in the United States.
It's hard for me to tell whether that's irreparable or whether those changes are permanent, but what I would say is that for right now it will have to change the way that work is funded. Maybe it will be picked up for funding by philanthropy or by the private sector, but for right now I think there's no doubt that there will be a change in the type of research that is being conducted.
BRODIE: Yeah, I was going to ask you if not, you know, the federal government and not NIH, are there other places where funding could be acquired to do some of this research? Sounds like maybe is the answer.
CASPER: Yeah, so again, another reason that I think that, I, I was so excited to come to Banner is Banner, you know, much like your own financial portfolio, I hope is very blended and mixed, so you know, you don't want to put 100% of your investments in one particular, you know, financial vehicle.
Much like that, I think a healthy approach to the funding of biomedical research is to have a diversified portfolio. So at Banner, we take that very seriously, federal funding, you know, is hard fought in one. It's what's called peer reviewed, so you know that that work that's being done is at a very high level, and you know it's very special to get that federal funding. At the same time we've worked very closely with the private sector, so working with the pharmaceutical industry, to assure that we have access to the latest drugs that are being developed for conditions that our patients are suffering from.
And that they have access to that they wouldn't have access to in the course of regular medical care that's very important and philanthropic funding has been incredibly important for let's say our Alzheimer's research, and we can do things that are catalytic and are high risk, high reward that you couldn't do with other types of funding.
BRODIE: Is it safe to assume that that helps inform the kind of research that you do or that you're able to do depending on where the funding is coming from?
CASPER: Yeah, that's a great question. And what I would say is that yes, so the nice thing about federal funds is that generally an investigator comes up with an idea, they write a proposal to study that idea, they submit it to the federal government, it gets rigorously reviewed, and then it gets funded.
When you're looking at philanthropic or private commercial funding, it typically is something that is within the funder's priorities and within the funder's interests. So I would say that both industry supported and philanthropic research come with more of an agenda than the pure sort of academic exercise of putting in a federal grant.
