The Costs of Sequestration

by Stuart Shapiro

We are several months into sequestration and it is tempting to say, “See it’s not that bad . . . we don’t need that government spending.”  But the consequences are slowly accumulating.  One of the agencies hit hardest is the National Institutes of Health (NIH):

According to the agency, 750 fewer patients will be admitted into the NIH Clinical Center and 700 fewer competitive research grants will be issued in FY 2013 than in FY 2012.

The consequences of fewer patients are easy to understand, what about the reduction in grants?

One year of dramatic budget cuts is possible to withstand (though funding for scientific research has been unstable for several years). But sharp reductions in the size and number of grants could set back medical research for a generation and, in turn, encourage young scientists to look to other professions or countries for work.

“NIH-funded research has led to enormous strides in the fight against heart disease, stroke and other life-threatening illnesses,” said Sue Nelson, Vice President of Federal Advocacy for the American Heart Association. “New treatments won’t be there for future generations if we continue down this path. These cuts will stall economic growth, set back innovation, and prevent us improving the health of all Americans.”

Do you think China is cutting back the money it is spending on medical and other types of scientific research?

By: Stuart Shapiro

Stuart is a professor and the Director of the Public Policy
program at the Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers
University. He teaches economics and cost-benefit analysis and studies
regulation in the United States at both the federal and state levels.
Prior to coming to Rutgers, Stuart worked for five years at the Office
of Management and Budget in Washington under Presidents Clinton and
George W. Bush.