THE FALLOUT OF NIH’S GRANT CAP — The National Institutes of Health’s announcement that it would slash grants to research institutions by limiting the amount of money guaranteed for administrative and overhead costs could ripple through the pharma world if the Trump administration’s goal of shrinking the federal grant footprint can be realized. A federal judge in Boston late Monday granted a temporary restraining order halting part of the decision, barring the administration from imposing the cuts in 22 states. But early Tuesday morning, the judge broadened the order to apply to all research institutions nationwide. Universities argued the funding reductions would be devastating and force them to lay off staff and cut back on research programs. But the impact on the drug industry wouldn’t be immediate if the agency identified a legal path to capping those so-called indirect costs to 15 percent as it suggested late Friday. Pharma impact: It could still be significant in the coming years, one researcher told Prescription Pulse. Major drug companies rely on foundational research conducted at universities and other institutions “to feed the beginning…of their drug pipelines,” said John Streicher, who studies how to make nonaddictive opioids at the University of Arizona. Whether industry would take on that burden is unclear. One industry source granted anonymity to discuss the impact said drugmakers would feel it more than medical device manufacturers. Another industry source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the biggest implication for drug manufacturers is its future workforce. Even if the 15 percent ceiling were limited to one year — or the remaining time of the Trump administration — “that’s a generation of researchers” who could lose out on valuable training in U.S. biomedical labs, the second person said. View from Congress: Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, slammed the move, describing the cap on indirect costs as a “poorly conceived directive” that could lead to “the loss of jobs” and the stoppage of “vital biomedical research.” The veteran lawmaker said she spoke to HHS secretary nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday morning about her opposition to the move — and tacitly signaled where her support lies. “He has promised that as soon as he is confirmed, he will re-examine this initiative that was implemented prior to his confirmation,” Collins said in a statement. Medical colleges weigh in: Dr. Elena Fuentes-Afflick, chief scientific officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges, said the decision could spur layoffs leading to disrupted medical product research. “Immediate implications … might include suspending clinical trials, so people receiving some sort of intervention in the clinical trial may not have access,” Fuentes-Afflick said. While top-tier universities might be able to mitigate the loss of dollars, others could face challenges if the cut to overhead dollars were to remain in effect. “It's going to be the public universities and the mid-tiers where this could have a significant impact on their standing as research universities,” the industry source said. “If you have facilities that are out-of-date … it will have an impact on your ability to recruit top faculty.” IT’S TUESDAY. WELCOME BACK TO PRESCRIPTION PULSE. Go Birds! Send your tips to David Lim (dlim@politico.com or @davidalim) and Lauren Gardner (lgardner@politico.com or @Gardner_LM).
| 
