Calling it a $2 billion tax on Massachusetts, US Representative Jake Auchincloss said on Monday that he will try building congressional support this week to exert pressure on the National Institutes of Health to halt its new policy of sharply curtailing subsidies for overhead costs associated with research projects.
The National Institutes of Health sparked an uproar late on Friday by announcing it would pare back its reimbursement rate for indirect costs, such as equipment and facilities, for NIH-funded research to 15 percent. Many institutions get reimbursement rates for indirect costs that exceed 50 percent, through negotiated rates set with the NIH; Harvard University, for example, has a reimbursement rate of 69 percent.
“Research infrastructure is expensive, it costs a lot of money,” Auchincloss said in an interview on Monday. “It certainly costs a lot more than 15 percent of any given experiment.”
Auchincloss posted a rebuttal to the NIH policy on LinkedIn on Sunday, writing that the cut to 15 percent would cause tremendous disruption in Massachusetts and calling it a tax on the local “Eds & Meds enterprise” to the tune of around $2 billion. He noted that some universities and hospitals may be able to pick up the slack by turning to other cuts, or through more generous unrestricted philanthropy. But the disruption would still be significant.
“It’s a $2 billion chainsaw to the Massachusetts economy,” Auchincloss said. “I would argue [there’s] no state more sensitive to this than Massachusetts.”
Auchincloss, who sits on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (which oversees NIH), said he spent much of the weekend talking to leaders at local research institutions about the potential impact. He is among several members of the state’s congressional delegation who quickly released statements repudiating the formula change. Others include Senator Ed Markey and Representative Ayanna Pressley, whose district includes the Longwood Medical Area and Kendall Square — two places in the state that would see the most disruption.
The policy, like a number of other Trump administration policies, is already being challenged in court. On Monday, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell announced she is leading a coalition of more than 20 states that has filed a lawsuit in Boston federal court to thwart the funding change. Massachusetts is the third-largest recipient of NIH funds of any state — with $3.5 billion reported in the most recent fiscal year — and the largest on a per capita basis.
Current federal law, Auchincloss noted, prevents NIH from deviating from previously negotiated rates.
Meanwhile, Auchincloss said he’ll work with his colleagues in Congress — Democrats and Republicans — to push back at the NIH policy, starting this week. He noted some Trump supporters, including Senator Katie Britt of Alabama, have expressed concerns.
“I want to talk to the NIH directly about this [and] they’re also going to be hearing from Republicans,” Auchincloss said. “You’ve got to do the ‘cooperation approach.’ You’ve also got to do litigation. You’ve also got to threaten appropriations. It’s a full contact sport.”
Jon Chesto can be reached at jon.chesto@globe.com. Follow him @jonchesto.
