and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
NIAMS CLINICAL TRIAL OUTCOMES INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENT GRANT PROGRAM
RELEASE DATE: October 27, 2003
RFA Number: RFA-AR-04-005
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS:
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
(http://www.nih.gov)
COMPONENTS OF PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS:
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
(http://www.niams.nih.gov/)
CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER (S): 93.846
LETTER OF INTENT RECEIPT DATE: December 13, 2003
APPLICATION RECEIPT DATE: January 13, 2004
THIS RFA CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
o Purpose of this RFA
o Research Objectives
o Mechanism(s) of Support
o Funds Available
o Eligible Institutions
o Individuals Eligible to Become Principal Investigators
o Where to Send Inquiries
o Letter of Intent
o Submitting an Application
o Peer Review Process
o Review Criteria
o Receipt and Review Schedule
o Award Criteria
o Required Federal Citations
PURPOSE OF THIS RFA
This announcement solicits research applications to develop, apply and
evaluate new clinical trial outcomes measures of safety, efficacy and
effectiveness of therapies for diseases, illnesses and injuries of
interest to the NIAMS. Clinical trials in rheumatic, skin, bone and
muscle diseases are often hampered by the lack of validated outcome
measures or by outcome measures that are cumbersome, time-consuming and
costly. Increasing availability of computer modeling and statistical
approaches, along with better understanding of disease natural history,
have yielded new concepts and new models that may be relevant to the
development of new and refined outcomes for clinical trials in diseases,
illnesses and injuries of interest to the NIAMS. This RFA is intended
to accelerate the development and testing of new outcomes measures and
instruments that could lead to improved trial designs or to the
development of consensus about new instruments based on new or existing
measures.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Background
The ability to conduct well-designed clinical studies to assess efficacy
of new therapies depends on the identification of clinically relevant
endpoints and development of sensitive and specific instruments that
accurately reflect the course and stage of disease. Except for the most
common diseases (i.e., rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis), outcomes
measures and benchmarks for comparison of clinical outcomes are sorely
lacking in most areas of clinical research interest to NIAMS. For some
diseases, a number of outcome instruments exist but they are not used
consistently. For example, in lupus, there are more than 20
instruments that can be used in clinical trials to measure outcomes.
Some measure disease activity, some measure organ damage, some are
composite or index instruments that capture some, but not all,
components/responses in disease. Often, lupus clinical trials are
conducted using similar therapeutics but different outcomes instruments.
This makes the comparison of results and the potential efficacy,
toxicity, and complications of new therapeutic approaches very
difficult. In addition, it hampers efforts by organizations, such as the
FDA, to develop guidance documents for industry with benchmarks for
approval of new agents. The same applies to many other diseases,
illnesses and injuries of interest to the NIAMS.
In spite of the diversity of potential therapeutic approaches, trials in
diseases, illnesses and injuries of interest to the NIAMS are difficult
because many of the diseases are rare; the clinical manifestations are
heterogeneous, requiring long-term follow-up; and the outcomes are often
measured with "disease index/activity" measure instruments, which are a
combination of many clinical parameters. The lack of proven therapies
for other diseases of interest to the NIAMS such as muscular dystrophy,
inflammatory myopathies, and other muscle and skin diseases is due in
part to the rarity and heterogeneity of these diseases and in part to
the lack of standardized and validated approaches for assessing disease
activity and damage in patients. Skeletal muscle specific outcome
measures or validated surrogate markers are not adequate for studies of
treatments or systematic longitudinal assessments. Common, chronic
diseases such as lupus, rheumatoid arthritis or osteoarthritis, require
long term follow up, and there may be no consensus about the best
outcomes measures for trials aimed at structural change (i.e.,
prevention of erosion, delayed joint space narrowing, etc), single organ
damage prevention (i.e., lung fibrosis in scleroderma), or surgical
treatments. These factors contribute to clinical trial designs that
frequently involve a large number of patients and are very costly. In a
recent NIAMS-sponsored lupus conference, the private sector identified
the lack of understandable, universal outcomes measures as the primary
impediment to embarking more vigorously in clinical trials for this
disease. (http://www.niams.nih.gov/ne/reports/sci_wrk/2002/summary.htm).
In addition to established therapies, new agents and approaches are
being developed in laboratories and tested in experimental animals for
repair/replacement and preventive interventions of diseases, illnesses
and injuries of interest to the NIAMS. Trials for these
agents/technologies are also difficult because the primary outcome
measure may be distant to the therapeutic target. For example, the
prevention of lupus nephritis with a tolerogenic dose of a very specific
agent is difficult to evaluate when the outcome is changes in a disease
activity index that combines indicators of many organ systems and
overall disease activity.
New technologies are being applied rapidly to the development of
biomarkers of disease for identification of patient subsets, evaluation
of disease outcomes, evaluation of response to therapies and the
identification of predictors of outcomes. However, it is unclear how
these potentially valuable biomarkers (i.e., array data) can be
incorporated into disease outcome measure instruments in a meaningful
way. Thus, there is a great need to refine existing instruments to
incorporate biomarkers and to test biomarkers together with other
outcomes in large cohorts. New techniques in the areas of clinimetrics,
statistical analysis, computer simulation, etc. may help improve the
design of relevant outcome variables that include biomarkers to be used
in smaller, more cost-effective trials.
Scope
This RFA encourages projects that propose to design, evaluate, validate,
and test new and/or improved outcome measures for clinical trials in
diseases, illnesses and injuries of interest to the NIAMS (see
http://www.niams.nih.gov/rtac/funding/faq.htm). The experimental design
of a project may include, for example, consensus development approaches,
meetings of experts, collection of data, beta testing of new
instruments, mathematical and computer modeling, validation studies. The
proposal should include plans to disseminate information and have input
from relevant scientific communities and professional organizations on
the scientific merit and applicability of new and improved outcomes.
Approaches that take advantage of bioinformatics to speed up data
collection, analysis, dissemination and updates are encouraged.
Suggested topics may include, but are not limited to:
o The use of the preliminary definitions of improvement for adult and
juvenile disease as primary or secondary endpoints.
o New outcomes to evaluate disease damage and their
interaction/combination with other disease outcomes.
o New outcomes (i.e., biomarkers, imaging modalities) to functionally
assess the early progress/success of interventions such as tissue-
engineered repairs.
o Outcomes tools that includes biomarkers, new imaging and other
technologies in the evaluation of responses to diagnostic procedures and
non-operative and operative treatments.
o Uses of health-related quality of life measures in the context of
chronic rheumatic, musculoskeletal, muscle and skin diseases, illnesses
and injuries in adult and pediatric patients.
o Development of new methods for collection of a common core set of
measures that could be used in different trials that would ensure more
uniform reporting of outcome measures.
o Approaches that allow the combination of the data from trials in which
all measures have been collected to confirm the validity of the
preliminary definition of improvement (DOI) and attempt to derive
improved DOIs.
o Approaches to facilitate the updating, sharing and disseminating of
trial data, current core set measure forms, and uniform data collection
procedures.
o Identification, access and use of existing databases to analyze and
test new or combined outcomes measures.
MECHANISM OF SUPPORT
This RFA will use the National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01
(investigator-initiated research project grant). Responsibility for the
planning, direction, and execution of the proposed project will be
solely that of the applicant. Before making an award for an
investigator-initiated clinical trial outcomes instrument development
project, the NIAMS will consider the desirability of substantial
continued staff involvement in an assistance mode. If such involvement
is deemed appropriate by the Institute, the award mechanism will be a
cooperative agreement. Regardless of the mechanism of support, NIAMS
staff will closely monitor progress during the award. This monitoring
may include regular communications with the principal investigator and
staff, the request to develop mutually agreeable milestones for the work
to be done, and attendance at the steering committee and other project-
related meetings. The Terms and Conditions for an award will include
milestones expected to be met by projects at specific time periods, any
requirements regarding minimum effort of specific investigators, and any
other identified requirements for completion of the approved research.
As with any award, continuation, even during the period recommended for
support, is conditional upon satisfactory progress. Applicants may
request up to $150,000 (direct costs) per year for up to three years.
These awards are not renewable.
This RFA uses just-in-time concepts. It also uses the modular budgeting
format. (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. This
program does not require cost sharing as defined in the current NIH
Grants Policy Statement at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2001/part_i_1.htm.
Specifically, when an application is submitted with direct costs in each
year of $250,000 or less, the modular format should be used. The
anticipated award date is December 2004. Applications that are not
funded in the competition described in this RFA may be resubmitted as
NEW investigator-initiated applications using the standard receipt dates
for NEW applications described in the instructions to the PHS 398
application. This program does not require cost sharing as defined in
the current NIH Grants Policy Statement at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2001/part_i_1.htm.
FUNDS AVAILABLE
The NIAMS intends to commit approximately $1.0 million in FY 2004 to
fund four or five new grants in response to this RFA. An applicant may
request a project period of up to three years and a budget for direct
costs of up to $150,000 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 NIAMS provide support for this
program, awards pursuant to this RFA are contingent upon the
availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of
meritorious applications.
ELIGIBLE INSTITUTIONS
You may submit (an) application(s) if your institution has any of the
following characteristics:
o For-profit or non-profit organizations
o Public or private institutions, such as universities, colleges,
hospitals, and laboratories
o Units of State and local governments
o Eligible agencies of the Federal government
o Faith-based or community based organizations
o Domestic or foreign institutions/organizations
INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE TO BECOME PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
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 programs.
WHERE TO SEND INQUIRIES
We encourage inquiries concerning this RFA 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:
o Direct your questions about scientific/research issues to:
Susana Serrate-Sztein, M.D.
Director, Genetics and Clinical Studies Program, NIAMS, NIH
One Democracy Plaza
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, MSC 4872
Bethesda, MD 20872-4872
Telephone: (301) 594-5032
FAX: (301) 480-4543
Email: [email protected]
Alan Moshell, M.D.
Director, Skin Diseases Program, NIAMS, NIH
One Democracy Plaza
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, MSC 4872
Bethesda, MD 20872-4872
Telephone: (301) 594-5017
FAX: (301) 480-4543
Email: [email protected]
Joan McGowan, Ph.D.
Director, Bone Diseases Program, NIAMS, NIH
One Democracy Plaza
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, MSC 4872
Bethesda, MD 20872-4872
Telephone: (301) 594-5055
FAX: (301) 480-4543
Email: [email protected]
James S. Panagis, M.D.
Director, Orthopaedics Program, NIAMS, NIH
One Democracy Plaza
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, MSC 4872
Bethesda, MD 20872-4872
Telephone: (301) 594-5055
FAX: (301) 480-4543
Email: [email protected]
Gayle E. Lester, Ph.D.
Program Director, Osteoarthritis Initiative & Diagnostic Imaging, NIAMS,
NIH
One Democracy Plaza
6701 Democracy Boulevard Suite 800, MSC 4872
Bethesda, Maryland 20892-4872
Telephone: (301) 594-3511
FAX: (301) 480-4543
Email: [email protected]
o Direct your questions about peer review issues to:
Teresa Nesbitt, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Chief, Review Branch, NIAMS, NIH
One Democracy Plaza
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, MSC 4872
Bethesda, MD 20872-5032
Telephone: (301) 594-4953
FAX: (301) 480-4543
Email: [email protected]
o Direct your questions about financial or grants management matters to:
Mr. Michael G. Morse
Deputy Chief, Grants Management Branch, NIAMS, NIH
One Democracy Plaza
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, MSC 4872
Bethesda, MD 20872-4872
Telephone: (301) 594-3535
FAX: (301) 480-5450
Email: [email protected]
LETTER OF INTENT
Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that
includes the following information:
o Descriptive title of the proposed research
o Name, address, and telephone number of the Principal Investigator
o Names of other key personnel
o Participating institutions
o Number and title of this RFA
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:
Susana Serrate-Sztein, M.D.
Director, Genetics and Clinical Studies Program, NIAMS, NIH
One Democracy Plaza
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, MSC 4872
Bethesda, MD 20872-4872
Telephone: (301) 594-5032
FAX: (301) 480-4543
Email: [email protected]
SUBMITTING AN APPLICATION
Applications must be prepared using the PHS 398 research grant
application instructions and forms (rev. 5/2001). Applications must have
a DUN and Bradstreet (D&B) Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number
as the Universal Identifier when applying for Federal grants or
cooperative agreements. The DUNS number can be obtained by calling (866)
705-5711 or through the web site at http://www.dunandbradstreet.com/.
The DUNS number should be entered on line 11 of the face page of the PHS
398 form. The PHS 398 document is available at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an
interactive format. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo,
Telephone (301) 710-0267, Email: [email protected].
SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR MODULAR GRANT APPLICATIONS: Applications
requesting up to $250,000 per year in direct costs must be submitted in
a modular grant format. The modular grant 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
(rev. 5/2001) at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html
includes step-by-step guidance for preparing modular grants. Additional
information on modular grants is available at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm.
USING THE RFA LABEL: The RFA label available in the PHS 398 (rev.
5/2001) application form 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.
SENDING AN APPLICATION TO THE NIH: 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
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service)
At the time of submission, two additional copies of the application and
all copies of the appendix material must be sent to:
Teresa Nesbitt, D.V.M., Ph.D.
Chief, Review Branch
NIAMS
One Democracy Plaza
6701 Democracy Boulevard, Suite 800, MSC 4872
Bethesda, MD 20872-5032
Telephone: (301) 594-4953
FAX: (301) 480-4543
Email: [email protected]
APPLICATION PROCESSING: Applications must be received on or before the
application receipt date listed in the heading of this RFA. If an
application is received after that date, it will be returned to the
applicant without review.
Although there is no immediate acknowledgement of the receipt of an
application, applicants are generally notified of the review and funding
assignment within 8 weeks.
The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) will not accept any application
in response to this RFA 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 an RFA, it is to be prepared as a NEW
application. That is, the application for the RFA 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.
PEER REVIEW PROCESS
Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness and
responsiveness by the CSR and the NIAMS. Incomplete and/or nonresponsive
applications will not be reviewed.
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 NIAMS in accordance with the review
criteria stated below. As part of the initial merit review, all
applications will:
o Undergo a process in which only those applications deemed to have the
highest scientific merit, generally the top half of the applications
under review, will be discussed and assigned a priority score
o Receive a written critique
o Receive a second level review by the National Arthritis and
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Advisory Council
REVIEW CRITERIA
The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance our understanding of
biological systems, improve the control of disease, and enhance health.
In the written comments, reviewers will be asked to evaluate the
application in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research
will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. The
scientific review group will address and consider each of the following
criteria in assigning the application’s overall score, weighting them as
appropriate for each application.
o Significance
o Approach
o Innovation
o Investigator
o Environment
The 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 clinical trials be advanced?
What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that
drive this field?
APPROACH: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses
adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of
the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and
consider alternative tactics?
INNOVATION: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or
methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project
challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or
technologies?
INVESTIGATOR: Is the investigator 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 (if
any)?
ENVIRONMENT: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be
done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed
experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific
environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there
evidence of institutional support?
ADDITIONAL REVIEW CRITERIA: In addition to the above criteria, the
following items will 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 criteria
included in the section on Federal Citations, below).
INCLUSION OF WOMEN, MINORITIES AND CHILDREN IN RESEARCH: The adequacy of
plans to include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic
groups (and subgroups), and children as appropriate for the scientific
goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of
subjects will also be evaluated. (See Inclusion Criteria in the sections
on Federal Citations, below).
CARE AND USE OF VERTEBRATE ANIMALS IN RESEARCH: If vertebrate animals
are to be used in the project, the five items described under Section f
of the PHS 398 research grant application instructions (rev. 5/2001)
will be assessed.
ADDITIONAL REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS
SHARING RESEARCH DATA: 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 priority score.
BUDGET: The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested
period of support in relation to the proposed research.
RECEIPT AND REVIEW SCHEDULE
Letter of Intent Receipt Date: December 13, 2003
Application Receipt Date: January 13, 2004
Peer Review Date: July 2004
Council Review: December 2004
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: December 2004
AWARD CRITERIA
Award criteria that will be used to make award decisions include:
o Scientific merit (as determined by peer review)
o Availability of funds
o Programmatic priorities.
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
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 - Amended, October, 2001," published in the NIH Guide
for Grants and Contracts on October 9, 2001
(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.
INCLUSION OF CHILDREN AS PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN
SUBJECTS: The NIH maintains a policy that children (i.e., individuals
under the age of 21) must be included in all human subjects research,
conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are scientific and
ethical reasons not to include them. This policy applies to all initial
(Type 1) applications submitted for receipt dates after October 1, 1998.
All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should
read the "NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion of children as
participants in research involving human subjects that is available at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm
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 proposals for research
involving human subjects. You will find this policy announcement in the
NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts Announcement, dated June 5, 2000, at
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
PUBLIC 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 public 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 RFA 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.
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).
Those who must comply with the Privacy Rule (classified under the Rule
as covered entities ) must do so by April 14, 2003 (with the exception
of small health plans which have an extra year to comply).
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. Unless otherwise specified in an NIH solicitation, Internet
addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide information necessary to
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 RFA 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.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
|
|||
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® |
||||||