|
Final Report of the Task Force on NRSA Tuition
Table of Contents
Report of the Task Force on Tuition Reimbursement for National Research Service Awards
June, 1995
Background
There is considerable disparity in tuition policies across the NIH
Institutes and Centers (ICs). Although the NIH has made several attempts to
develop a uniform tuition policy, none has been endorsed by the academic
community, and none has been adopted as formal policy by the NIH.
In an attempt to resolve this issue, a Task Force was assembled to consider
the tuition reimbursement policy on NRSA institutional research training awards.
The Task Force officiated at a one-day public meeting, to which all interested
parties were invited. The Task Force prepared a summation of the testimony from
the Public Forum and developed recommendations for a uniform NRSA tuition policy
at the National Institutes of Health.
[Return To Table of Contents]
Executive Summary
The members of the Task Force recommend:
- that NIH establish a uniform tuition policy across all Institutes.
- that tuition payment policy be a simple marginal rate mechanism which pays
100% of the education cost up to $2,000/trainee/yr and 60% of costs above the
$2,000 base.
- that institutions be allowed to carry over funds from one year to the
next.
- that there be complete fungibility between the three budget categories
within an Institutional NRSA Award, stipends, tuition and trainee expenses.
- that the current prohibition of supplementing NRSA awardees from other
federal sources, including NIH R01 awards, be lifted.
- that institutions be allowed to pay the entire NRSA predoctoral stipend
allowance, currently $10,008, over a 9-month academic year appointment.
[Return To Table of Contents]
Report of the Task Force
The members of the Task Force on NIH Tuition Policy on NRSA Awards solicited
written comments from interested parties and extended invitations to participate
in an open forum convened on June 5, 1995, at the NIH. We received over 80
letters and over 80 guests attended the forum. The views expressed in writing
and orally provide the foundation for the Task Force recommendations. The
Notice of Invitation, the Task Force Roster, the NIH Public Forum Planning
Committee Roster, the List of Invited Speakers and the Forum Agenda are included
as appendices.
The members of the Task Force reaffirm that the enormous success of U.S.
biomedical science and technology is, in large part, due to the inextricable
link between research and training as conducted in a partnership with Federal
and State governments and our research universities. A critical component of
this research-training partnership has been the support of predoctoral and
medical scientist trainees with institutional NRSA awards from the NIH.
In order to insure the long term viability of the NRSA program, the members
of the Task Force reaffirm the importance of these NIH institutional awards.
Considering the erosion of the number of trainees supported on Institutional
NRSA Awards over the past two decades and the uncertainties about future
support for graduate training from other sources, we urge that the NIH
vigorously renew efforts at the appropriations level for increased support for
training the biomedical scientists critical to the nation's future. In addition
to vigorous efforts at the appropriations level, we also recommend that research
training be ranked among the highest priorities when considering reallocations
within the overall mission of the NIH. We are sensitive to the concerns,
expressed orally and in writing by the respondents, that if we ignore the real
costs of graduate education or continue to expect increased cost-sharing by
universities, we will jeopardize the NIH-university partnership responsible for
our national research success.
For the short term, however, pragmatic considerations constrain our
recommendations. These factors include a fixed NIH training budget, growing
inability of universities, and associated medical schools, to share increasing
costs of education, and a desire to train as many future scientists as is
consistent with demand. Accordingly, the members of the Task Force recommend:
- that NIH establish a uniform policy across all
Institutes.
Note: Tuition, throughout this report, refers to the combined cost of
tuition, fees and health insurance.
- that tuition payment policy be a simple marginal rate mechanism which pays
100% of the education cost up to $2,000/trainee/yr and 60% of costs above the
$2,000 base. This policy largely preserves the current training level,
resulting in about a 5% reduction in the number of trainees at NIGMS, our model
for projections. This recommendation will provide partial cost of education
reimbursement equitably across all institutions recognizing that all
institutions have essentially the same real costs of education, but they vary
enormously in the mechanism(s) and capacity for meeting the increasing cost
sharing component for the cost of education. We believe that this
recommendation will largely preserve both the quality and the diversity of the
current NIH programs. Further, maintenance of a stable marginal rate will
enable the participating educational institutions to carry out reliable long
range planning and should guarantee their continuance in the NRSA programs.
The members of the Task Force also strongly recommend that given the severe
financial constraints of current circumstances, training institutions be allowed
maximal flexibility in the administration of their awards. Specifically we
recommend:
- that institutions be allowed to carry over funds from one year to the
next.
- that there be complete fungibility among the three budget categories
within an Institutional NRSA Award ( stipends, tuition and trainee expenses).
This flexibility will provide strong incentives for training faculty to recover
tuition savings within their institutions and thus support more students.
Alternatively institutions may find it advantageous to sacrifice one or more
training positions to help cover the cost of education and thereby preserve the
program. This flexibility is critical and will be adequately constrained by
peer review and the necessity for training programs to operate within the
Institute's mission. Most importantly, it allows the institutions to make the
decisions, since they are best able to set priorities.
- that the current prohibition of supplementing NRSA awardee from other
federal sources, including NIH R01 awards, be lifted. We note in this regard
that apparently NSF predoctoral fellows can now be supplemented from research
assistant appointments on NIH R01 grants.
- that institutions be allowed to pay the entire NRSA stipend allowance,
currently $10,008, over a 9-month academic year appointment. Recognizing that
the NRSA stipend allowance represents only a fraction of the total yearly
stipend, currently between $15-16,000/yr., a 9-month "academic" year
NRSA appointment will allow the necessary supplement to be paid during the
summer from other sources, including NIH R01 grants, without violating the
prohibition of cross supplementation from federal sources. Furthermore, the
NRSA cost of education allowance is most logically paid during the academic year
when the major costs of education, such as course work, are incurred, and R01
funds most appropriately used for the summer when even 1st year graduate
students' work is assigned to a specific sponsored project.
While the members of the Task Force are discouraged that the NRSA program,
long a cornerstone of the nation's research and training mission, is under such
severe strain, we feel that our short term recommendations of a simple
allocation algorithm coupled to substantially increased flexibility in award
administration will preserve the overall NRSA mission with minimal risk of
irreversible damage. We urge that our recommendations be implemented.
While outside the charge to this Task Force, we want to express our concern,
and the concern of participants in the public forum, about the new NIH policy to
limit graduate student support on R01 grants to the amount paid to 1st year
postdoctoral employees. We feel that the new guidelines have been hastily
implemented and are ill defined, given that salaries for post-docs can vary
enormously even within one institution. We feel that a process like the public
forum on NRSA tuition reimbursement should be initiated, and the new policy held
until there is thorough discussion by the biomedical community. Moreover, we
not only feel that there should be uniform NRSA tuition policy across all NIH
Institutes, as we have recommended, we also feel it would be highly desirable
that tuition policy be uniform across all NIH graduate funding mechanisms. In
fact, we think it is reasonable that the NRSA tuition policy we have recommended
above be used to determine tuition costs on R01 grants as well.
The members of the Task Force, along with the many institutional
respondents, appreciate the opportunity to participate in this critical process.
We especially appreciate the energetic, excellent support and guidance provided
by NIH staff Vince Cairoli, Ernie Márquez, John Norvell, and Wally
Schaffer.
[Return To Table of Contents]
Additional Individual Task Force Member Comments and Recommendations
Number One
NRSA training in the biomedical sciences is a key program that should
receive strong support. A strong effort should be mounted to convince congress
and the executive branch of the federal government of the critical importance of
NRSA supported graduate education and that tuition payments are a legitimate and
necessary portion of the associated costs.
There should be a uniform tuition reimbursement policy. All NIH institutes
should implement a uniform tuition reimbursement policy for their PhD program
NRSA awards.
Establishment of base 100% reimbursement followed by 60% reimbursement
should be implemented. I recommend that NRSA tuition reimbursement be separated
into two components. The first $2,000 of claimed tuition costs per year should
be reimbursed in full. The remaining annual reimbursement costs should be
reimburses at a rate of approximately 60%.
In devising a schedule for partial reimbursement, an attempt was made to
accommodate three considerations. The resources available for trainee stipends
should not be reduced dramatically, hopefully substantially less than 10%, in
order to ensure that it is possible to continue the support of excellent
students in a diverse array of qualified programs. Programs that manifest
efficient use of tuition resources should not be penalized. Programs that need
high tuition payments in order to finance excellent graduate training, should
receive sufficient support under NRSA to allow them to continue participating in
the NRSA program.
Institutions should be given maximum flexibility in supplementing NRSA
support. Institutions are usually faced with two shortfalls in NRSA support of
graduate education; stipend levels and tuition costs. Current practices
restrict institutions to using non-federal sources for the needed
supplementation. This unnecessarily restrictive and arbitrary. The general
recommendation is that institutions be allowed to use other federal funds,
specifically funds from NIH sponsored research grants, to supplement NRSA
awards. A specific suggested mechanism that would facilitate such a policy is
to allow institutions to use the entire yearly stipend (currently $10,008) for a
9-month period. During the remaining 3 months (typically during the summer) the
trainees could be appointed 100% on research or program project grants. Other
mechanisms that would allow research grant supplementation of NRSA awards should
also be studied and implemented if possible.
Currently available flexibility arrangements should be clearly communicated
to program directors. An example is the use of unused stipend funds for tuition
payments.
Establish fundamental cost matrixes of biology graduate education.
Representatives from various institutions should help develop some basic cost
categories that currently are paid by tuition payments. For instance faculty
salaries related to didactic teaching, research supervision and
advisory/examination committee duties. Administrative duties related to
recruiting, etc. may also be included. Once these cost categories are developed
and accepted as legitimate (not overlapping other types of reimbursement), these
will be used in soliciting support for institutional educational allowances.
Assuming the development of an adequate funding mechanisms, the future
institution allowance for an NRSA award would be the lesser of two amounts; the
published tuition costs or the calculated fundamental cost matrixes.
Number Two
Several issues emerged from the public meeting and following discussions
which I felt were important regarding the final report of the committee. I
agree with the conclusions of the committee as outlined below:
First, it is important that there be a uniform policy for tuition remission
across all Institutes. Second, it is equally important that the eventual policy
represent stability so that training grant recipients know what to expect in
their planning for future years. Third, it seems clear that there needs to be
more flexibility given to training grant directors regarding the use of funds.
Such flexibility would include the ability to move funds between tuition and
stipend categories, the ability to carry over funds from one year to another,
and the ability to use other Federal funds to supplement stipends.
With respect to the last point, it is currently possible to move funds from
one category to another, but it is probable that PI's don't do this because it
would be looked upon negatively by the NIH or review committees. That
perception should be changed.
The second point would allow training grants to be put into the same
category as research grants and allow for some fluctuation in the system.
The third point is common sense since it is clear that all trainees are
supplemented in some way.
Finally, it is important to maintain MST programs since these have been the
most successful in providing future leaders in biomedical research. If one had
to make a choice between graduate and MST programs, I would choose the latter
because the quality of these students, in general, is higher. This is not to
say that there are not excellent graduate students, but merely to point out that
the pools from which medical students and graduate students are drawn are quite
different.
The final formula for tuition remission and the available funds over the
next few years will certainly lead to a decrease in trainee positions. In
general, the private universities took the position that this was a satisfactory
outcome. It was not clear, however, what this actually means. Thus, will
marginal schools now receiving funds (or new programs requesting start-up funds)
be denied funding, or will the larger program actually cut slots? The latter
seems unlikely to me and a consequence of our deliberations will probably be
that the larger programs will stay pretty much the same while the smaller ones
will disappear. We all recognize that there is some inertia in the system so
that schools that have long-standing programs will continue, in general, to be
successful in obtaining funds. The consequences of the decrease in available
slots therefore will adversely affect emerging and/or smaller programs. This
could have serious consequences with respect to life sciences training in this
country. Every effort should be made therefore, to not allow funds for graduate
training to decrease. Although NIH training grants support only 8% (at any
given time) of graduate students, decreases in funding reverberate throughout
the educational system. It would seem appropriate, therefore, to have
reductions weighted towards the larger programs.
Number Three
The written and verbal material reviewed by the Task Force on Tuition
Reimbursement was strongly supportive of a uniform policy on tuition
reimbursement. Unfortunately, there was no consensus on what the formula should
be. Over time universities have evolved a number of
different methods for calculating the cost of graduate education. While
there may not be major differences in the actual cost of graduate education,
there are significant differences in the calculation of cost. Thus, it will not
be easy to achieve a fair and balanced policy for tuition
reimbursement which does not compromise quality. The proposal on tuition
reimbursement set forth by the Task Force was a compromise which does not solve
the problem of a gradual loss of training positions that will result from
tuition continuing to increase in a flat funding environment. Thus, I would
encourage NIH to create a committee empowered to do an in-depth study of
training grants and their funding mechanisms. The objective would be to
formulate a plan which will insure the longer term survival and viability of
training programs.
The community clearly believes that training grants are an important part of
the overall method by which high quality scientists are trained for our national
biomedical enterprise. Therefore, further work on survival plans for training
programs has merit.
Number Four
I am a strong advocate for continuation of the current number of trainees
with NRSA awards. However, in the face of reality, I support the uniform
tuition policy for the NRSA Awards for predoctoral trainees with institutional
NRSA Awards as recommended by the Task Force.
a. The consensus statement developed by the Task Force on NIH Tuition Policy
on NRSA Awards focused on the research-training partnership for predoctoral
trainees with institutional NRSA awards for NIH. However, some of the same
factors that have caused us to recommend a uniform policy for these programs is
likely to be applied to other NIH training programs such as postdoctoral
training programs and new and yet to be conceived predoctoral programs to assure
their long term stability. A uniform tuition policy should not be applied to
such programs without a consideration of the critical nature of these programs
to the research enterprise for which they have been or will be developed. A
carefully articulated waiver statement should be included that will allow for an
exemption of new and experimental training programs that represent critical
training needs. Such a waiver will be essential to the viability of
experimental programs such as the Dentist Scientist training program and other
such programs with a small but critical number of trainees.
b. There is an existing unknown which will certainly influence the nation's
capacity to sustain the current research training enterprise. That is, we
expect institutions to continue to share the cost of research training but we do
not know the extent to which this is currently happening or what factors
contribute to the existing wide disparity in tuition rates. The published
rates, which serve as the basis for calculating training grant support,
represent only a portion of the real cost of educating a student (about 30% or
less). As we are expecting institutions to bear a greater share of the cost of
research training, there is a need to examine the capacity of institutions to
sustain this effort. This is especially true for minority and smaller
institutions with limited endowments that are tuition driven.
c. NIH is challenged to sustain its efforts to assure the participation of
women and minorities in NIH sponsored research training programs. Support for
and a careful monitoring of programs such as MARC are necessary to prevent an
erosion of trainees and to assure access to research careers for an increasingly
diverse population.
d. The extent to which managed care will influence the ability of patient
care resources to be transferred to support research and research training is
critical to institutional support for research. This mechanism is being rapidly
eroded which presents a serious threat to the university's ability to support
research training from this income stream.
Lastly, I wish to express strong support for continuance of the
research-training partnership that exists with Federal and State governments and
our research universities. NIH should continue to play a leadership role in
sustaining these partnerships in the future.
Number Five
I endorse the consensus statement of the Task Force, but with significant
reservations. The proportion of training funds going to tuition remission at
each institution will remain irrational even if all Task Force recommendations
should be adopted. However, any consensus statement is clearly useful at this
time, even a highly imperfect one.
Flexibility is desirable. Primarily because of the enormous financial
crisis that medical schools face (due to the loss of clinical incomes which have
been used to subsidize training programs), public testimony indicated that
changing tuition policy too radically at the present time would cause
unacceptable dislocations. The consensus statement is a political compromise,
but NIH's permanent policy should be rational, and if possible, one that relies
on the peer-review system as much as it can without putting the onus on NIH
administrators to make ad hoc decisions. Obvious inequities need to be analyzed
more carefully.
One problem for the Task Force was that the NRSA programs are strikingly
diverse, with respect to purpose, as well as institutional setting. Programs
which require tuition remissions can be divided into general training programs
(Cellular and Molecular Biology, Genetics, etc.) versus specialty programs (many
smaller programs from institutes other than the National Institute of General
Medical Sciences, the MARC program, etc.). In some settings, training grants
support a large fraction of pre-doctoral trainees at the institution. At the
other extreme, there are institutions where a training grant is used as a focus,
but other mechanisms of support for graduate students predominate. The latter
institutions have probably tended to decrease tuition (to make it possible for
more research grants to support graduate students) while many of the former
institutions have had historically high graduate student tuition. Given this
diversity, I fully support the principle that maximum flexibility should be
allowed program administrators once an award is made.
Tuition for trainees not taking classes. If the suggestion of the Task
Force is adopted to make it possible to have an academic year traineeship, with
a summer internship (during which tuition would presumably be minimal), the NIH
should make an effort for some uniformity in tuition remission for trainees not
taking any classes. Most institutions decrease tuition charges after students
have finished their courses, but a few institutions keep a high tuition in later
years. In my opinion, there is no justification for a tuition charge of over
$20,000 per year for a student spending time doing research in the mentor's
laboratory, and taking no courses whatsoever. The vast difference in tuition
costs while students are taking classes are bad enough The NIH would be
justified in insisting on some consistency in tuition charges for students not
taking any classes.
Feasible long term solutions. I endorse the suggestion of Task Force Member
1 that fundamental cost matrices of graduate education should be determined to
set institutional educational allowances in training grants. However, if an
institution or program feels it necessary to raise this allowance ( and support
fewer trainees), it should have the flexibility to do so, but will need to
justify the increased allowance through peer review.
Number Six
The scientific eminence of the United States relies on the tradition of
providing new scientists with intellectual independence to nurture innovative
and productive ideas. In a time when there are fewer job opportunities for
young researchers and more constrained research budgets, we may all be quick to
reduce the number of trainees. We should guard against this "quick fix".
While for the short term this would seem to be the most rational solution, we
face the prospect of losing a generation of researchers and their potential
productivity if we do not continue to support their training. Unwillingness to
invest in their training would have repercussions that could last for decades.
This short sightedness could cost this country the position of world leader in
science upon which our economic future depends.
The molecular and technological advances over the next decade promise to be
the greatest ever. Advances, even if paid for by other countries, cannot be
acted upon in this country without trained personnel and an infrastructure
through which to respond.
I would strongly encourage the NIH to continue to assess and evaluate
mechanisms of training (i.e. training in NRSA programs versus the R01
environment). An important issue is how much money from R01s is currently spent
for graduate education during the first year or two when little time is spent
in the laboratory? While quality of training is difficult to assess, our
changing environment and new career options for individuals trained in the
sciences will possibly require different measures of quality of training.
Numbers of publications and ability to win grant support can be misleading and
false indicators of "quality of education."
While I support the recommendations of the Task Force, I remain concerned
that the consequences of their implementation will adversely impact emerging or
smaller programs. I remain concerned that individual NIH institutes are not
monitoring the needs for training in specific areas. I also remain concerned
about the recruitment of not only underrepresented minorities but the fact that
we continue to attract fewer and fewer of the brightest U.S. citizens into
graduate education in the biomedical sciences.
While I am aware that the NRC has recently conducted an evaluation of the
overall NRSA program, I would favor the proposal by one other member of the Task
Force who suggested that NIH create a committee empowered to do an in-depth
study of NIH training programs to address some of these questions and to
formulate a plan which will ensure the longer term survival and viability of
training programs.
Number Seven
The NIH program of National Research Service Awards represents one of the
fundamental underpinnings of graduate education in the biomedical sciences for
the United States. Further, it serves as a paradigm for the partnership between
the Federal government, universities and, for public institutions, the State
government in advancing our national research and educational goals in the life
sciences. Unfortunately, because of unprecedented budget pressures for all
participating sectors, this symbiotic partnership has entered a period of severe
strain Ideally, the NIH traineeships should cover the real costs of education
(supplemented by State support where appropriate) as well as providing a
liveable stipend for the trainee. However, because the cost of education over
the last decade has risen much faster than the available funds for the trainee
programs, the above goal cannot be achieved without a significant diminution in
the number of trainees. The latter would clearly have serious consequences for
biomedical education and research.
It is therefore, necessary to construct a realistic algorithm for NIH
traineeship reimbursements which will enable our leading biomedical academic
institutions to continue to participate for the indefinite future in the NRSA
programs and at the same time will maximize the number of trainees. I support
the compromise which was arrived at by the Task Force. First, for balance and
fairness, it is clearly important that there be a uniform tuition policy across
all NIH Institutes. Second, there should be a floor in tuition reimbursement so
that public universities with exceptional State support would not have to cover
very small tuition shortfalls. The proposed number of $2,000 seems to meet this
goal. Third, for institutions with high costs of education which are not shared
by their respective State governments, it is necessary that a substantial
fraction of the real costs be met by NIH. Many of our nation's leading
universities are currently operating under severe financial stress due to a
number of unfortunate, but inexorable forces. This situation may be ameliorated
somewhat by increased efficiencies, but is unlikely that there will be any
fundamental change for the better in the near future. Thus, the universities
abilities to "cost-share" are quite finite. My own view is that cost
sharing at the level of 1/3 is possible for most institutions by using available
mechanisms such as teaching assistantships. However, a policy which leads to
tuition reimbursement much below 67% will inevitably cause some of our premier
academic institutions to withdraw from the NRSA programs. The suggested
algorithm of $2,000 + 0.6 times the excess in tuition falls slightly short of
my desired 67%, but is sufficiently close that it should be viable. Most
importantly, by stabilizing the marginal reimbursement rate at a realistic
level, this plan will enable the participating institutions to carry out
meaningful long range planning and should enable our leading institutions,
including especially our premier private universities, to participate in the NIH
traineeship programs for the indefinite future.
Concomitant with the above, it is also important that NIH provide the
participating institutions maximum flexibility. This would include the ability
to award fewer than the allotted number of trainees, the freedom to bridge funds
between fiscal years, the ability to use research funds (NIH or otherwise) to
supplement both stipends and tuition and lastly flexibility in the period
covered by the stipend.
Finally, the Federal government must be made to understand that for every
institution there is an absolute floor in the Federal government's required
share in the cost of graduate education in the biomedical sciences. Thus, if
the available funds continue to fall behind the real costs of education, then
the number of trainees must inevitably decrease. At the same time for the US to
compete effectively in the 21st century, we will need more, not fewer, well
educated citizens-most especially in the biomedical sciences. Thus, funding for
graduate education in this area must be increased.
Number Eight
NRSA training in Ph.D., medical scientist and postdoctoral programs in the
past has supported the nations most qualified and creative trainees. A program
of this quality should be maintained at current levels of trainees, if not
expanded. The trainees should be regarded as a national resource which impacts
on improvements in health care and economic leadership in the United States.
A uniform tuition policy should be instituted in the National Institutes of
Health. Differences in how the individual institutes view training versus
research programs should be reflected in the number of trainees supported and
the types of training programs offered rather than different stipend levels
provided to trainees.
Diversity in training programs provides strength to the national research
enterprise. Public and private institutions have very different sources of
support and State support at some public institutions has diminished to the
point where distinctions between public and private institutions have blurred.
A tuition reimbursement policy should allow both types of institutions to
participate in training and those that have formulated the best academic
programs are the ones likely to receive support. Certainly, the cost to the
taxpayer is one criterion for consideration. A base allocation plus a
percentage of total tuition would be the most equitable means of recognizing
institutional diversity plus state tax payer contributions to graduate
education.
Cost sharing between NIH and the training institution is essential in times
of limitations in the federal budget. In recent times, tuition has captured
increasing proportions of training budgets forcing the dilemma of decisions
between decreases in number of slots versus stipend payments insufficient even
for nine month periods. the more intensive and formalized training of graduate
students occurs in years 1 and 2. In the remaining thesis years, the student
contributes substantially to the institutional research enterprise.
Institutions need to evaluate the costs of graduate study in the biomedical
sciences over the period of enrollment for a typical student. This should be
examined in relation to graduate student contributions to research and the
academic milieu of the institution. The paucity of information on costs
provided by institutions in the forum and the widely variant numbers from those
who attempted to estimate such costs suggest institutions and NIH need more
information in this area.
Limited budgets can be most efficiently utilized when program directions
have flexibility. Where possible, specific recommendations on fungibility of
stipend and tuition categories and carry over of limited funds should be
encouraged. Often academic calendars don't interface well with fiscal calendars.
Appendixes - Final Report of the Task Force on NRSA Tuition
[Return To Table of Contents]
Appendix 1
NOTICE OF INVITATION
April 24, 1995
To: All Parties Interested in a Public Forum on NRSA Tuition Reimbursements
at the National Institutes of Health
From:Chairman, Task Force on Tuition Reimbursement
Re: Public Forum on Tuition Policy
Under a relatively fixed budget, it has been very difficult for the NIH to
continue its policy of paying the full costs of tuition, fees, and health
insurance (hereafter called tuition) for predoctoral trainees supported by
National Research Service Award (NRSA) institutional research training grants.
At the current time, tuition accounts for about half of the cost of supporting a
predoctoral trainee, and costs the NIH more than $70 million out of a total NIH
NRSA predoctoral training budget of $155 million. At some institutions,
graduate tuition costs exceed $25,000 per year.
As a cost saving measure, the NIH froze tuition in 1989 for all ICs
(Institutes and Centers). After fiscal year 1989, some Institutes returned to a
full reimbursement policy while others kept tuition reimbursements frozen. As a
consequence, there is considerable disparity in tuition policies across the NIH
ICs. Although the NIH has made several attempts to develop a uniform tuition
policy, none has been endorsed by the academic community, and none has been
adopted as formal policy by the NIH.
In an attempt to resolve this issue, a Task Force has been assembled to
consider the tuition reimbursement policy on NRSA institutional research
training awards. The Task Force will officiate at a one-day public meeting, to
which all interested parties are invited. Immediately following the Public
Forum, the Task Force will prepare a summation of the testimony from the Public
Forum, and the members will develop recommendations for a uniform NRSA tuition
policy.
PUBLIC FORUM ON TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
The Public Forum will be convened on June 5, 1995, in the Natcher Conference
Center, 45 Center Drive, National Institutes of Health campus, Bethesda,
Maryland. The one-day meeting will begin at 8:30 am and conclude at
approximately 5:30 p.m.
During the Public Forum, individuals will provide brief testimony on tuition
reimbursement concerns and issues at the invitation of the Task Force. There
will be opportunities for other audience members to offer comments during
periods of "Open Discussion" scheduled throughout the day.
We would like to invite all interested parties to submit a two page
response, no later than May 25, to the questions below. Individuals
interested in responding should mail their responses to the address shown below,
or FAX (301-480-8256) their responses to Dr. Ernest Marquez by May 25, 1995.
The Task Force will review the responses and select the individuals who
will be invited to address the Task Force at its June 5 Public Forum. Be
assured that the Task Force will review all responses generated by this
solicitation:
- Should there be a uniform policy for tuition reimbursement on all NRSA
institutional training grants made by the NIH?
- What is the relationship of tuition to the overall cost of training a
predoctoral student at your institution, i.e., What specific costs are covered
by tuition?
a. Is the tuition charged for graduate students the same as that for
undergraduate students?
b. Is the tuition charged the same amount for each year of graduate school,
i.e., during course work and full-time research?
- Assuming an NIH policy to pay less than the full cost of tuition, which of
the following reimbursement proposals would you prefer for your institution, and
why?
a. The NIH would pay a fixed percentage of published tuition charges
for all predoctoral trainees regardless of the actual cost.
b. The NIH would pay a fixed tuition amount for all predoctoral
trainees regardless of actual cost (The NSF model).
c. The NIH would pay a fixed amount of tuition for all trainees in public
institutions and a higher, but fixed amount of tuition for all trainees in
private institutions. The amounts would be based on average tuition costs for
public institutions and for private institutions, and in no case would NIH pay
more than 100% of tuition costs. This is sometimes called the Capped
Two-Tiered Cost of Education Allowance.
d. The NIH would pay 100% of tuition costs below $6,000 and lesser amounts of
any costs above this amount in what is sometimes called a Marginal Rate
Model. For example, one model proposes the following reimbursement rates:
- If tuition costs are 0-$6000, 100% of this amount is paid
- If tuition costs are $6000-10,000, the amount paid would be $6,000 plus 65% of the amount over $6,000
- If tuition costs are $10,000-14,000, the amount paid would be $8,600 plus 45% of the amount over $10,000
- If tuition costs are $14,000-18,000, the amount paid would be $10,400 plus 30% of the amount over $14,000
- If tuition costs are in excess of $18,000, the amount paid would be $11,600 plus 20% of the amount over $18,000
e. None of the above four models necessarily involves a direct relationship
between the tuition payment and the quality of training. Can you suggest a
workable algorithm which would include quality of education as one of the
determining factors in the tuition reimbursement?
- Assuming constant federal dollars for training, what do you see as a
proper balance between number of trainees and tuition reimbursements? Would you
favor paying full tuition even at the expense of training positions? What is a
rational way to achieve this balance?
If you have further questions about the Public Forum, please telephone Dr.
Walter Schaffer at (301) 435-2770 or E-Mail at schaffew@od.nih.gov
We hope that you will take the opportunity to assist in our effort to gather
the views of people interested in the tuition reimbursement policies of the NIH
by sending us a letter no later than May 25 to:
Task Force on Tuition Reimbursement
c/o Walter Schaffer, Ph.D.
National Institutes of Health
Office of the Director
6701 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7910
Bethesda, MD 20892-7910
We know you share our interest in providing an equitable and fair discussion
on the issue of tuition reimbursement by the National Institutes of Health.
Sincerely,
Dr. Paul Anderson
Chairman,
Task Force on Tuition Reimbursement
[Return To Table of Contents]
Appendix 2
TASK FORCE ROSTER
Dr. Paul S. Anderson (Chair)
E.I. Dupont-Merck Pharmaceuticals Co
Wilmington, DE 19880-0353
|
Dr. Robert Birgeneau
Dean of Science
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge, MA 02139
|
Dr. Gail Cassell
University of Alabama at Birmingham
UAB Station
Birmingham, AL 35294
|
Dr. Carl Frieden
Washington University
School of Medicine
St Louis, MO 63110
|
Dr. Manuel Navia
Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Cambridge, MA 02139
|
Dr. Baldomero Olivera
University of Utah
Dept of Biology
Salt Lake City, UT 84112
|
Dr. John Perkins
Dean
University of Texas
SW Med CTR/Dallas
Dallas, TX 75235
|
Dr. William Reznikoff
University of Wisconsin
420 Henry Mall
Madison, WI 53706
|
Dr. Robert Simoni
Stanford University
Dept of Biological Sciences
Stanford, CA 94305-5020
|
Dr. Jeanne Sinkford, DDS
Director, Office of Women and Minority Affairs
American Association of Dental Schools
Dean Emeritus, Howard University College of Dentistry
Washington, D.C. 20036-2212
|
Dr. James Staros
Professor and Chair
Department of Molecular Biology
Vanderbilt University
College of Arts and Sciences
Nashville, TN 37232-0146
|
Dr. Palmer Taylor
Department of Pharmacology
School of Medicine
University of California San Diego
La Jolla, CA 92093-0636
|
[Return To Table of Contents]
Appendix 3
NIH PUBLIC FORUM PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE TRAINING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Dr. Vincent Cairoli
Division of Cancer Prevention and Control
National Cancer Institute
National Institutes of Health
|
Dr. John Fakunding
Research Training and Development
National Heart and Lung and Blood Institute
National Institutes of Health
|
Dr. Maria Giovanni
Retinal Diseases Branch
National Eye Institute
National Institutes of Health
|
Ernest D. Márquez, Ph.D. (Chair)
Chief, Office of Review
National Institute of Nursing Research
National Institutes of Health
|
Dr. John Norvell
Assistant Director
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
National Institutes of Health
|
Dr. Walter Schaffer
Chairman, Training Advisory Committee
Research Training and Special Programs Office
Office of Extramural Programs
National Institutes of Health
|
[Return To Table of Contents]
Appendix 4
LIST OF INVITED SPEAKERS
Dr. Frederick Neidhardt
Office of Vice President for Research
The University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
|
Dr. Bruce Johnson
Medical and Health Research Association
of New York City, Inc.
New York, NY
|
Dr. Jann P. Primus
Associate Director of AUC MARC-HURT Program
Atlanta University Center
Atlanta, GA
|
Dr. Cornelius J. Pings
Association of American Universities
Washington, D.C.
|
Dr. Frank Solomon
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of Biology
Cambridge, MA
|
Dr. Gerard Burrow
Dean of the Medical School
Yale University
New Haven, CT
|
Dr. Nancy B. Schwartz
University of Chicago
Chicago, IL
|
Dr. Robin Fisher
Associate Dean, Graduate Division
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA
|
Dr. Kathy Rasmussen
Associate Director for Graduate Affairs
Division of Nutritional Sciences
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY
|
Dr. Harvey Waterman
Vice Dean
Rutgers, State University of New Jersey
New Brunswick, NJ
|
Dr. S. James Adelstein
Office of Executive Dean for Academic Programs
Harvard Medical School
Boston, MA
|
Dr. Edward Shortliffe
Stanford University
School of Medicine
Stanford, CA
|
Dr. Lawrence D. Smith
The Bowman Gray School of Medicine
Winston-Salem, NC
|
Dr. Robert E. Fellows
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
The University of Iowa
Iowa City, IA
|
Mr. David Morse
Office of Government Relations
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA
|
Dr. Carol Simpson Stern
Dean, The Graduate School
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL
|
Dr. Mark Brenner
Acting Dean, Graduate School
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN
|
Dr. Dale E. Johnson
Acting Dean
University of Washington
Seattle, WA
|
[Return To Table of Contents]
Appendix 5
AGENDA
PUBLIC FORUM ON TUITION REIMBURSEMENT ON NATIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE AWARDS
National Institutes of Health
Natcher Conference Center Auditorium
June 5, 1995
Time |
Event |
Participant(s) |
8:00 a.m. |
Registration in Conference Center Lobby |
|
8:30 a.m. |
Introductory Remarks
Introduction of Task Force
NIH Research Training and the NRSA Programs
Tuition Background and Alternate Reimbursement Schemes
Welcoming Remarks
Public Testimony (10 minutes/speaker)
|
Dr. Ernest Marquez
Dr. Paul Anderson
Dr. Walter Schaffer
Dr. John Norvell
Dr. Harold Varmus
participants |
10:00 a.m. |
Break |
|
10:15 a.m. |
Public Testimony (10 minutes/speaker) |
Participants |
11:30 a.m. |
Open Mike period |
Participants |
12:00 p.m. |
Lunch |
|
1:00 p.m. |
Public Testimony (10 minutes/speaker) |
Participants |
2:30 p.m. |
Open Mike Period |
Participants |
3:00 p.m. |
Break |
|
3:15 p.m. |
Public Testimony (10 minutes/speaker) |
Participants |
4:30 p.m. |
Open Mike Period |
Participants |
5:00 p.m. |
Closing Remarks and Adjournment |
Dr. Paul Anderson |
Return to NRSA Page
|