and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
Department of Health and Human Services
Participating Organizations
National Institutes of
Health (NIH) (http://www.nih.gov/)
Components of Participating Organizations
National Institute on Aging
(NIA) (http://www.nih.gov/nia/)
Title:
Developing Integrated Economic Models of Health and
Retirement (R01)
Announcement Type
New
Request For Applications (RFA) Number:
RFA-AG-07-007
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(s)
93.866
Key Dates
Release Date: October
10, 2006
Letters of Intent
Receipt Date(s): November 17,
2006
Application
Receipt Date(s): December 14,
2006
Peer Review Date(s): February-March 2007
Council Review
Date(s): May 2007
Earliest
Anticipated Start Date: July 1, 2007
Expiration Date: December 15, 2006
Due Dates for E.O. 12372
Not Applicable
Additional Overview
Content
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Part I
Overview Information
Part II Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity
Description
1. Research Objectives
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism(s) of Support
2. Funds Available
Section III. Eligibility
Information
1. Eligible Applicants
A. Eligible Institutions
B. Eligible Individuals
2.Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria
Section IV. Application and Submission
Information
1. Address to Request Application
Information
2. Content and Form of Application
Submission
3. Submission Dates and Times
A. Receipt and Review and
Anticipated Start Dates
1. Letter of
Intent
B. Sending an Application to
the NIH
C. Application Processing
4. Intergovernmental Review
5. Funding Restrictions
6. Other Submission Requirements
Section V. Application Review
Information
1. Criteria
2. Review and Selection Process
A. Additional Review Criteria
B. Additional Review
Considerations
C. Sharing Research Data
D. Sharing Research Resources
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award
Dates
Section VI. Award Administration
Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and National Policy
Requirements
3. Reporting
Section VII. Agency Contact(s)
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
2. Peer Review Contact(s)
3. Financial/ Grants Management Contact(s)
Section VIII. Other Information
- Required Federal Citations
Part II
- Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity Description
1. Research Objectives
Purpose
The purpose of this RFA is to stimulate studies to develop comprehensive econometric models of retirement from the labor force. This RFA invites applications for research projects (R01) to comprehensively integrate health and disability, wealth, and family factors into a single retirement modeling framework. Though adding other factors that influence retirement into the modeling approach is encouraged, a viable application must present plans for the development of a unified retirement model featuring health and disability, wealth, and family factors.
Background
An important part of NIA’s mission is to improve the well-being of older Americans through the support of research on the special problems of the aged. The decision to retire has lasting effect on the well-being of the elderly. With the population over 65 growing due to improvements in longevity, retirement has emerged as an extended phase of the life course. The approaching retirement of the baby boom generation of Americans along with the future demographic realities of population aging are placing financial pressure on two key programs for the elderly: Social Security and Medicare. For example, a recent report from the OASDI Board of Trustees projects Social Security program insolvency by 2040 (SSA 2006). Though research has shown that pension systems can influence the timing of retirement, the ability to understand the impact of many possible policy changes is still incomplete. Indeed, understanding the retirement decision requires an understanding of both the direct effects of retirement wealth from Social Security, employer pensions, non-pension wealth, health, disability, and family structure, as well of the interaction and dynamic development of these factors. Developing the modeling capability to inform policy options for programs that provide a substantial amount of support for older populations is critical. Thus, the determinants of work and retirement decisions in later life have become a high priority research area.
Retirement research has evolved a great deal over the course of the last twenty years, with improvement in retirement research infrastructure and a number of substantive analyses examining key factors related to the retirement decision. Early analyses of retirement were limited by imperfect data and technology inadequate to approach the complexities of the retirement decision. Data on individual lifetime earnings, pensions, health and disability status, insurance, wealth and family structure were incomplete, unavailable, cross-sectional, and not available in a single study. The 1988 Ad Hoc Advisory Panel to the Behavioral and Social Research Program noted in their recommendations to the NIA that existing data on health and retirement was a “constraint” on the quality of retirement research (NIA 1998). Further, the complex econometric methodologies required to model the factors that determine the retirement decision were limited by available technology. Improvements in computer technology coupled with successful long-term investments by NIA in longitudinal data files have greatly improved retirement research possibilities. The Health and Retirement Study, the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, and internationally comparable retirement and health studies have greatly improved access to comprehensive longitudinal data (see NIA Supported Data Resources, below). However, along with new data opportunities, an improved computing environment, and a growing interdisciplinary focus in aging research, complexity has also increased.
During this developmental period for research infrastructure, a number of important studies began to map out the factors that influenced the retirement decision. Exploratory analyses that examined the influence of wealth (i.e., pensions, Social Security, etc.), health and disability, and family factors on the retirement decision have provided a basis for understanding the complexities of modeling retirement. Structural and reduced form approaches to examining retirement demonstrated the challenge of comprehensively modeling the retirement process. Though structural models can often replicate observed patterns of behavior in data, the complexity of the models may not reflect the actual decision-making process of retirement for typical workers (NRC, 1996). Further, structural models require many simplifying assumptions and limited analysis samples that are often not required in more flexible reduced form approaches. However, structural models have the benefit of providing behavioral parameters that are often unobservable in reduced form frameworks. Both approaches have provided valuable insights into the retirement process. Developing the next generation of retirement models may require a balancing of these issues to move the science forward. Applicants will determine appropriate structural or reduced form methodological approaches in their response to this RFA.
Now, the field is uniquely positioned to unify work relating the components of wealth, health, and family structure into a single model of the retirement decision. The model would advance the field of retirement and provide policymakers with comprehensive research support to address the key policy concerns. The purpose of this RFA is to encourage the development of several factors that influence the retirement decision into a more integrated framework to provide a comprehensive understanding of the retirement process. Though innovative applications to the RFA will incorporate many relevant factors, responsive applications will include comprehensive treatments of health and disability, wealth, and family factors.
Health and Disability: Health and disability status can influence the decision to retire in many ways. In the most basic sense, poor health can make work unattractive or even unfeasible, particularly if a job has requirements that are limited by health problems. Health can also influence the returns to continued work. If health maintenance costs are high, than the availability of health insurance to cover costs and the relationship between coverage and continued work can either increase (coverage tied to continued employment) or reduce (retiree health or Medicare eligibility) the cost of retirement. Severe health problems can actually provide unique opportunities to exit the labor force. The Social Security Disability Insurance program (SSDI) provides benefits for eligible disabled workers as well as Medicare within 24 months of acceptance. The Supplemental Security Income Program (SSI) provides means-tested support and typically provides health insurance coverage under Medicaid for elderly and disabled beneficiaries. Further, some employer pensions have special disability provisions that are often tied to acceptance to SSDI. As these factors suggest, the inclusion of health and disability in retirement models is crucial because there appear to be very important relationships between health and financial incentives to retire. These are further complicated by joint retirement decisions. The measurement of health in surveys is another challenge to integrating health into retirement models (Bound, 1991). Innovative research is needed to incorporate health/disability and the interaction of health/disability with other important factors in the retirement decision into a longitudinal framework. Responsive applications to this RFA will integrate health and disability as well as the dynamic and interactive aspects of health in the retirement process. Innovative applications will also consider the impact of public and private health insurance on retirement.
Wealth: Today’s workers have access to several forms of retirement assets, including defined benefit style pensions from Social Security or an employer, defined contribution pensions, as well as other non-pension wealth. The accumulation of retirement assets over time is related to health, work, and family factors. A great deal of research has contributed to our knowledge of the financial incentives to retire and save for retirement. Early empirical work focused on the impact of Social Security on retirement and then began to integrate the impact of employer pensions (examples include Gustman and Steinmeier, 1986; Mitchell and Fields, 1982; Burkhauser, 1979; and Stock and Wise, 1990). Defined benefit style pensions offer strong financial incentives to retire at specific ages. Retiring prior to the “target” age denies the worker the option of claiming potentially higher benefits at the future date – a feature captured in the most innovative of these analyses. These “forward-looking” retirement frameworks carefully integrated employer pensions, earnings, and Social Security but could not consider health, disability, and family factors due to data constraints. Further, since many used firm data in order to get detailed employer pension records, they were not nationally representative. More recent research has compared retirement with institutional incentives to work in a cross-national setting to demonstrate the power of these institutional arrangements on retirement (Gruber and Wise, 2004). Though it is clear that pensions and wealth can make retirement appealing, the interactions between wealth and non-wealth factors are complicated and failing to consider these other factors can attribute too much significance to wealth. Social Security Disability Insurance, a benefit rarely included in retirement models, provides an example. A typical worker can exit the labor force at age 62 and claim Social Security retirement benefits, though claiming at the early eligibility age reduces the benefit. If the same worker is also insured for SSDI, he could apply for unreduced disability benefits and have the added advantage of providing early access to Medicare. However, there is uncertainty in the SSDI application process – a disability screen and a five month waiting period for benefits. Thus, workers who have access to other forms of income or have support from a spouse may be more inclined to risk the SSDI application process. An increase in the normal retirement age would further reduce the value of early retirement benefits and increase the value of disability benefits even though acceptance is uncertain and would undermine the potential solvency gains of the policy. Modeling these program relationships is important, because many potential reforms could create strong incentives to shift claiming across Social Security program benefits. Responsive applications to this RFA will consider the complete wealth and program benefit options available to workers, including Social Security retirement and disability benefits; employer defined contribution and defined benefit pensions, as well as other private non-pension wealth.
Family Factors: Research examining the retirements of couples implies that couples coordinate their retirement decisions (Hurd, 1990). The growth in labor force participation of women coupled with the financial factors previously mentioned imply a far more complex budget constraint than in the single worker case. The influence of health becomes even more complex when joint retirement between spouses is considered: while a health shock may lead one member of a couple to leave the labor force, it may require the other member of the couple to prolong a career. Applications responsive to this RFA will consider joint retirement decisions among couples. Innovative applications may consider care and resource transfer issues between spouses and other family members.
Other Factors: Innovative applications will consider other factors related to retirement modeling that are not required for an application to be deemed responsive to this RFA. Subjects including but not limited to phased retirement, job satisfaction, non-financial workplace incentives, expectations, and financial knowledge are all encouraged but not required under this RFA. Further, comparison of U.S. data to foreign countries is also encouraged (see NIA Supported Data Resources below).
General Characteristics of Responsive Applications
Applications using the NIH Research Project (R01) grant mechanism requesting support to develop models of retirement from the labor force that comprehensively integrate health and disability, wealth, and family factors. Research teams must include extensive research expertise in economics.
NIA Supported Data Resources
The following is a list of relevant data resources for applicants to this RFA. Though applicants are encouraged to make use of these resources, a responsive application is not required to make use of any of these resources.
References
Bound, John (1991), "Self-reported Versus Objective Measures of Health in Retirement Models," Journal of Human Resources 26:106-138.
Burkhauser, Richard V. (1979), “The Pension Acceptance Decision of Older Workers,” Journal of Human Resources 14: 63-75.
Gruber, Jonathan and David A. Wise (2004), “Social Security Programs and Retirement Around the World: Micro-Estimation,” University of Chicago Press.
Gustman, Alan L. and Thomas L. Steinmeier (1986). "A Structural Retirement Model," Econometrica 54(3): 555-584.
Hurd, Michael D. (1990), "The Joint Retirement Decision of Husbands and Wives". In Issues in the Economics of Aging, edited by David A. Wise, University of Chicago Press: 231-254.
Mitchell, Olivia S. and Gary S. Fields (1984), “The Economics of Retirement Behavior,” Journal of Labor Economics 2(1): 84-105.
National Research Council (1996), “Assessing Knowledge of Retirement Behavior,” National Academy Press, Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/5367.html
NIA Behavioral and Social Research Program (1998), “Recommendations to the NIA Extramural Program on Priorities for Data Collection in Health and Retirement Economics,” National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, MD (May).
The Social Security Administration (2006), “The 2006 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds.” http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee06-pr.htm
Stock, James H. and David A. Wise (1990), “Pensions, the Option Value of Work, and Retirement,” Econometrica 58(5): 1151-1180.
See Section VIII, Other Information - Required Federal
Citations, for policies related to this announcement.
Section
II. Award Information
1. Mechanism(s) of Support
This funding opportunity
will use the R01 award mechanism(s). The Research Project
(R01) grant is an award made to support a discrete, specified, circumscribed
project to be performed by the named investigator(s) in an area representing
the investigator's specific interest and competencies, based on the mission of
the NIH. More information on the R01 mechanism can be found at http://grants2.nih.gov/grants/funding/r01.htm.
As an applicant, you
will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and executing the proposed
project.
This funding opportunity
uses just-in-time concepts. It also uses the modular as well as the non-modular
budget formats (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm).
Specifically, if you are submitting an application with direct costs in each
year of $250,000 or less, use the modular budget format described in the PHS
398 application instructions. Otherwise follow the instructions for non-modular
research grant applications.
2. Funds Available
NIA intends to commit
approximately $1,000,000 dollars in FY 2007 to fund 2-3 new grants in response to this
RFA. An applicant may request a project period of up to five years and a budget for direct
costs up to $500,000 dollars per year.
Because the nature and
scope of the proposed research will vary from application to application, it is
anticipated that the size and duration of each award will also vary. Although
the financial plans of the National Institute on Aging provide support for this
program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the
receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
Facilities and
administrative costs requested by consortium participants are not included in
the direct cost limitation; see NOT-OD-05-004.
Section
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants
1.A. Eligible Institutions
You may submit (an)
application(s) if your organization has any of the following characteristics:
1.B. Eligible Individuals
Any
individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the
proposed research is invited to work with their institution to develop an
application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic
groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply
for NIH support.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
This announcement does not
require cost sharing as defined in current NIH Grants Policy Statement: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/nihgps_Part2.htm#matching_or_cost_sharing
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
A principal investigator may
submit only one application to this RFA.
Section
IV. Application and Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application Information
The PHS 398 application
instructions are available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive format. Applicants must use the currently approved version of
the PHS 398. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301) 710-0267, Email: GrantsInfo@nih.gov.
Telecommunications for
the hearing impaired: TTY 301-451-5936.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Applications must be
prepared using the most current PHS 398 research grant application instructions
and forms. Applications must have a D&B Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS) number as the universal identifier when applying for Federal grants or
cooperative agreements. The D&B number can be obtained by calling (866) 705-5711 or through the web site at http://www.dnb.com/us/.
The D&B number should be entered on line 11 of the face page of the PHS 398
form.
The title and number of this funding opportunity must
be typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form and the YES box
must be checked.
Foreign
Organizations
Several special provisions apply to applications
submitted by foreign organizations:
Proposed research should provide special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions in other countries that are not readily available in the United States or that augment existing U.S. resources
3. Submission Dates and Times
Applications must be
received on or before the receipt date described below (Section
IV.3.A). Submission times N/A.
3.A. Receipt, Review and Anticipated
Start Dates
Letters of Intent
Receipt Date(s): November 17, 2006
Application Receipt
Date(s): December
14, 2006
Peer Review Date(s): February-March 2007
Council Review Date(s): May 2007
Earliest Anticipated
Start Date: July
1, 2007
3.A.1.
Letter of Intent
Prospective applicants
are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
The letter of intent
is to be sent by the date listed at the beginning of this document.
The letter of intent
should be sent to:
John W. R. Phillips, Ph.D.
Behavioral and Social Research Program
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Avenue
Gateway Building, 533
Bethesda, MD 20892-9205
Telephone: (301) 496-3138
FAX: (301) 402-0051
Email: phillipj@mail.nih.gov
3.B. Sending an
Application to the NIH
Applications must be
prepared using the research grant applications found in the PHS 398 instructions
for preparing a research grant application and must be complete at the time of
submission. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application, including
the checklist, and three signed photocopies in one package to:
Center for Scientific Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express
or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service;
non-USPS service)
Personal deliveries of
applications are no longer permitted (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-040.html).
At the time of
submission, two additional copies of the application and all copies of the
appendix material must be sent to:
Dr. Mary Nekola, Chief
Scientific Review Office
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, #2C/212
Bethesda, MD 20814
Telephone: (301) 402-7702
FAX: (301) 402-0066
Email: nekolam@nia.nih.gov
Using the RFA Label: The RFA label available in
the PHS 398 application instructions must be affixed to the bottom of the face
page of the application. Type the RFA number on the label. Failure to use this
label could result in delayed processing of the application such that it may
not reach the review committee in time for review. In addition, the RFA title
and number must be typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form and
the YES box must be marked. The RFA label is also available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/labels.pdf.
3.C. Application
Processing
Applications must be received on or before the
application receipt date(s) described above (Section IV.3.A.).
If an application is received after that date, it will be returned to the
applicant without review. Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for
completeness by the CSR and responsiveness by the National Institute on Aging. Incomplete and
non-responsive applications will not be reviewed. If the application is not
responsive to the RFA, NIH staff may contact the applicant to determine whether
to return the application to the applicant or submit it for review in
competition with unsolicited applications at the next appropriate NIH review
cycle.
The NIH will not accept
any application in response to this funding opportunity that is essentially the
same as one currently pending initial review, unless the applicant withdraws
the pending application. However, when a previously unfunded application,
originally submitted as an investigator-initiated application, is to be
submitted in response to a funding opportunity, it is to be prepared as a NEW application. That is, the application for the funding opportunity must not include an
Introduction describing the changes and improvements made, and the text must
not be marked to indicate the changes from the previous unfunded version of the
application.
Information on the status of an application should be
checked by the Principal Investigator in the eRA Commons at: https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/.
4. Intergovernmental Review
This initiative is not
subject to intergovernmental
review.
5. Funding Restrictions
All NIH awards are
subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations
described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The Grants Policy Statement can
be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm.
Pre-Award Costs are
allowable. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior approval, incur
obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days before the beginning
date of the initial budget period of a new or competing continuation award if
such costs: are necessary to conduct the project, and would be allowable under
the grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval. If specific expenditures
would otherwise require prior approval, the grantee must obtain NIH approval
before incurring the cost. NIH prior approval is required for any costs to be incurred
more than 90 days before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a
new or competing continuation award.
The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a
competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make
the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made
for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award
costs incurred. NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs
result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not
impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the
approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project.
See NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part6.htm.
6. Other Submission Requirements
Specific
Instructions for Modular Grant applications.
Applications requesting
up to $250,000 per year in direct costs must be submitted in a modular budget
format. The modular budget format simplifies the preparation of the budget in
these applications by limiting the level of budgetary detail. Applicants
request direct costs in $25,000 modules. Section C of the research grant
application instructions for the PHS 398 at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html includes step-by-step guidance for preparing modular budgets. Applicants must
use the currently approved version of the PHS 398. Additional information on
modular budgets is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm.
Domestic
institutions submitting applications for grant mechanisms that use the modular
budget (R01, R03, R15, R21, and R34) that request $250,000 in direct costs or
less for all years must continue to use the modular format even if the application
includes a subaward with a foreign (non-U.S.) institution.
Plan for Sharing
Research Data
All applicants must
include a plan for sharing research data in their application. The data sharing
policy is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing.
All investigators responding to this funding opportunity should include a
description of how final research data will be shared, or explain why data
sharing is not possible.
The reasonableness of
the data sharing plan or the rationale for not sharing research data will be
assessed by the reviewers. However, reviewers will not factor the proposed data
sharing plan into the determination of scientific merit or the priority score.
Sharing Research Resources
Not Applicable.
Section
V. Application Review Information
1. Criteria
Only the review criteria
described below will be considered in the review process.
The following will be
considered in making funding decisions:
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications that are
complete and responsive to the RFA will be evaluated for scientific and
technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by the National Institute on Aging in accordance with the review
criteria stated below.
As part of the initial
merit review, all applications will:
The
goals of NIH supported research are to advance our understanding of biological
systems, to improve the control of disease, and to enhance health. In their
written critiques, reviewers will be asked to comment on each of the following
criteria in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have
a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will
be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as
appropriate for each application. Note that an application does not need to be
strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact
and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may
propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is
essential to move a field forward.
Significance: Does this study address an
important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will
scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect
of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services,
or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Approach: Are the conceptual or
clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well
integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the
applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
Innovation: Is the project original and
innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or
clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to
progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts,
approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?
Investigators: Are the investigators
appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work
proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and
other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and
integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)?
Environment: Does the scientific
environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of
success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific
environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative
arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
2.A. Additional Review
Criteria
In addition to the above
criteria, the following items will continue to be considered in the
determination of scientific merit and the priority score:
Protection
of Human Subjects from Research Risk: The involvement of human subjects and protections from
research risk relating to their participation in the proposed research will be
assessed (see the Research Plan, Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS Form
398).
Inclusion
of Women and Minorities in Research: The adequacy of plans to include subjects from both
genders and all racial and ethnic groups (and subgroups) as appropriate for the
scientific goals of the research will be assessed. Plans for the recruitment
and retention of subjects will also be evaluated (see the Research Plan,
Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS Form 398).
2.B. Additional Review
Considerations
Budget: The reasonableness of the
proposed budget and the requested period of support in relation to the proposed
research. The priority score should not be affected by the evaluation of the
budget.
2.C. Sharing Research Data
Data Sharing Plan: The reasonableness of the
data sharing plan or the rationale for not sharing research data will be
assessed by the reviewers. However, reviewers will not factor the proposed data
sharing plan into the determination of scientific merit or the priority score.
The presence of a data sharing plan will be part of the terms and conditions of
the award. The funding organization will be responsible for monitoring the data
sharing policy.
2.D. Sharing Research
Resources
Not Applicable.
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Not Applicable.
Section
VI. Award Administration Information
1. Award Notices
After the peer review of
the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her
Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons.
If the application is under consideration for funding,
NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant. For
details, applicants may refer to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms
and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_part4.htm).
A formal notification in the form of a Notice
of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization. The NoA
signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document. Once all
administrative and programmatic issues have been resolved, the NoA will be
generated via email notification from the awarding component to the grantee
business official (designated in item 12 on the Application Face Page). If a
grantee is not email enabled, a hard copy of the NoA will be mailed to the
business official.
Selection of an application for award is not an
authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the
NoA are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the
extent considered allowable pre-award costs. See Also Section
IV.5. Funding Restrictions.
2. Administrative and National
Policy Requirements
All NIH grant and
cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of
the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II:
Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part4.htm)
and Part II Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and
Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_part9.htm).
3. Reporting
Awardees will be
required to submit the PHS Non-Competing Grant Progress Report, Form 2590
annually (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/2590.htm)
and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Section
VII. Agency Contacts
We
encourage your inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the
opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall
into three areas: scientific/research, peer review, and financial or grants
management issues:
1. Scientific/Research Contacts:
John W. R. Phillips.
Ph.D.
Behavioral and Social Research Program
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Avenue
Gateway Building, 533
Bethesda, MD 20892-9205
Telephone: (301) 496-3138
FAX: (301) 402-0051
Email: phillipj@mail.nih.gov
2. Peer Review Contacts:
Dr. Mary Nekola, Chief
Scientific Review Office
National Institute on Aging
7201 Wisconsin Avenue, #2C/212
Bethesda, MD 20814
Telephone: (301) 402-4156
FAX: (301) 402-0066
Email: nekolam@nia.nih.gov
3. Financial or Grants Management Contacts:
Mr. John Bladen,
Grants Management Specialist
Grants
and Contracts Management Office
National
Institute on Aging
7201
Wisconsin Ave., #2N/212
Bethesda, MD 20892-9205
Telephone:
(301) 402-7730
Fax (301)
402-3672
Email: BladenJ@nia.nih.gov
Section VIII. Other Information
Required Federal Citations
Human Subjects
Protection:
Federal regulations
(45CFR46) require that applications and proposals involving human subjects must
be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of
protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the
subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained
(http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Sharing Research
Data:
Investigators are
expected to include a plan for data sharing or state why this is not possible (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing).
Investigators should seek guidance from their
institutions, on issues related to institutional policies and local IRB rules,
as well as local, State and Federal laws and regulations, including the Privacy
Rule. Reviewers will consider the data sharing plan but will not factor the plan
into the determination of the scientific merit or the priority score.
Access to Research
Data through the Freedom of Information Act:
The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide access to research
data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances.
Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in
part with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal
agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a
regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is important for applicants to
understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm.
Applicants may wish to place data collected under this funding opportunity in a
public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the
distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should
include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include
information about this in the budget justification section of the application.
In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent
statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider
use of data collected under this award.
Inclusion of Women
And Minorities in Clinical Research:
It is the policy of the
NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations must be
included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a clear and
compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate
with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This
policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public
Law 103-43). All investigators proposing clinical research should read the
"NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in
Clinical Research (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html);
a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm.
The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical
research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB
standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical
trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398; and updated roles and
responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy
continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all
applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans
to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender
and/or racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b)
investigators must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses,
as appropriate, by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
Required Education on
the Protection of Human Subject Participants:
NIH policy requires
education on the protection of human subject participants for all investigators
submitting NIH applications for research involving human subjects and
individuals designated as key personnel. The policy is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
NIH Public Access
Policy:
NIH-funded investigators
are requested to submit to the NIH manuscript submission (NIHMS) system (http://www.nihms.nih.gov) at PubMed Central
(PMC) an electronic version of the author's final manuscript upon acceptance
for publication, resulting from research supported in whole or in part with
direct costs from NIH. The author's final manuscript is defined as the final
version accepted for journal publication, and includes all modifications from
the publishing peer review process.
NIH is requesting that
authors submit manuscripts resulting from 1) currently funded NIH research
projects or 2) previously supported NIH research projects if they are accepted
for publication on or after May 2, 2005. The NIH Public Access Policy applies
to all research grant and career development award mechanisms, cooperative
agreements, contracts, Institutional and Individual Ruth L. Kirschstein
National Research Service Awards, as well as NIH intramural research studies.
The Policy applies to peer-reviewed, original research publications that have
been supported in whole or in part with direct costs from NIH, but it does not
apply to book chapters, editorials, reviews, or conference proceedings.
Publications resulting from non-NIH-supported research projects should not be
submitted.
For more information about
the Policy or the submission process please visit the NIH Public Access Policy
Web site at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ and
view the Policy or other Resources and Tools including the Authors' Manual (http://publicaccess.nih.gov/publicaccess_Manual.htm).
Standards for Privacy
of Individually Identifiable Health Information:
The Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) issued final modification to the "Standards for
Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information", the
"Privacy Rule", on August 14, 2002 . The Privacy Rule is a federal
regulation under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA) of 1996 that governs the protection of individually identifiable health
information, and is administered and enforced by the DHHS Office for Civil
Rights (OCR).
Decisions about applicability and implementation of
the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher and his/her institution. The OCR
website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/)
provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text
and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information
on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review,
funding, and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and
research contracts can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html.
URLs in NIH Grant
Applications or Appendices:
All applications and proposals
for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. For
publications listed in the appendix and/or Progress report, internet addresses
(URLs) must be used for publicly accessible on-line journal
articles. Unless otherwise specified in this solicitation,
Internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide any other information necessary for the review because reviewers are under no obligation
to view the Internet sites. Furthermore, we caution reviewers that their
anonymity may be compromised when they directly access an Internet site.
Healthy People 2010:
The Public Health
Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease
prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national
activity for setting priority areas. This PA is related to one or more of the
priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People
2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
Authority and
Regulations:
This program is described in
the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance at http://www.cfda.gov/ and is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive
Order 12372 or Health Systems Agency review. Awards are made under the
authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as
amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR 52 and 45 CFR
Parts 74 and 92. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost
principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy
Statement. The
NIH Grants Policy Statement can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm.
The PHS strongly
encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and
discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227,
the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in
some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education,
library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are
provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and
advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Loan Repayment
Programs:
NIH encourages
applications for educational loan repayment from qualified health professionals
who have made a commitment to pursue a research career involving clinical,
pediatric, contraception, infertility, and health disparities related areas.
The LRP is an important component of NIH's efforts to recruit and retain the
next generation of researchers by providing the means for developing a research
career unfettered by the burden of student loan debt. Note that an NIH grant is
not required for eligibility and concurrent career award and LRP applications
are encouraged. The periods of career award and LRP award may overlap providing
the LRP recipient with the required commitment of time and effort, as LRP
awardees must commit at least 50% of their time (at least 20 hours per week based
on a 40 hour week) for two years to the research. For further information,
please see: http://www.lrp.nih.gov.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
|
|||
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® |
||||||