em {
display: contents !important;
}
label em {
display: none !important;
}
.photo {
width: 100%;
max-width: 50rem
}
a.fr-file {
color: #0274b7 !important;
}
WASHINGTON — A University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences official participated in a forum last week at the U.S. Capitol focused on National Institutes of Health funding and its importance in supporting health research in rural states.
Pearl McElfish, the director of community health and research, participated in a panel discussion focused on the federal agency’s funding in Arkansas and six other states, as well as the impact on medical research and each state’s economy.
United for Medical Research — a coalition of multiple health care organizations, advocacy groups and universities — hosted the event. The body tied last Wednesday’s forum to a report concerning NIH funding and rural states. The group’s findings indicate a correlation between increased funding for the agency and gains involving research awards and economic activity.
“If we’re counting on interventions to be developed in California or New York and then be implemented in Arkansas, they may not be the right intervention,” McElfish explained to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. “If we can conduct that research in rural communities and rural states, the likelihood it will be widely adopted and effective is greatly increased.”
United for Medical Research considered Arkansas alongside Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Maine. The states share similarities: The states have an average rural population of 45.5% of all residents and receive less than one-fifth of the average award amounts of the remaining states.
“Rural states get less [funding] per capita,” McElfish said.
“One of the reasons is that there are probably fewer grants submitted. There are fewer medical schools and health science universities,” she added. “But I also think it is a bias to think that innovation is going to come from the larger states.”
The report notes each state’s poor health rankings. Arkansas has the seventh lowest life expectancy and third highest infant mortality rate nationally, in addition to high levels of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity.
McElfish’s current work focuses on disparities in nutrition, health services, maternal care and child health outcomes. Her office has received NIH funding for research on diabetes self-management education, healthy food access in rural communities and school meal nutrition.
Regarding maternal care in Arkansas, McElfish said, “We look more like a third-world country than a first-world country,” but researchers and health care professionals are committed to improving services.
“This is absolutely a labor of love and a commitment to a state that has poor health outcomes and also has the most resilient, loving and compassionate people I know,” she said.
Before McElfish and other panelists began their discussion, U.S. Rep. Steve Womack, R-Ark., and Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., addressed attendees on the importance of NIH awards in rural states.
“Some of the real answers are in rural America in the rural universities and colleges,” Capito said.
“One of the things that excites me about doing the research in rural America is we identify the problems in rural America,” the senator added. “How great to have the research close by the people that are actually living and breathing and can be the most impacted and [have] impactful research opportunities.”
According to United for Medical Research, Arkansas has benefited from $542 million in NIH research awards from fiscal year 2016 to fiscal year 2022, including $104 million in fiscal year 2022. The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences is among the top recipients of this funding.
One of McElfish’s grant-supported efforts focuses on healthy foods and diabetes self-management. Rural residents face additional barriers with accessing healthy foods and medical services. The research involves delivering healthy foods and providing educational materials to rural residents so they can conduct better glycemic control.
“So far, the results are very encouraging,” McElfish mentioned. “We’ll have the final results in about a year.”
The report additionally mentioned the impact of NIH funding on Arkansas’ economy; the coalition tied nearly $1.2 billion in new economic activity and more than 8,200 jobs to research awards over the six fiscal years.
“As NIH-funded innovations become new products, the companies that are spun out of those new innovations often start where the research is done,” McElfish said. “We want any of the innovations that are funded through research to become small businesses and mid-sized businesses.”
McElfish is thankful for NIH’s support, but the agency needs to boost its investment in rural health research. She argued the current pace hinders innovation and furthers a bias discounting rural state research efforts.
“That creates a systematic disadvantage and one we should be solving,” she said.
Womack, of Rogers, contended Congress cannot “lose sight” of the importance of supporting medical research in rural states. The senior House Appropriations Committee member understands pushback to rising government spending — recognizing the country’s climb to $34 trillion in national debt — but legislators should prioritize funding for efforts fostering “better outcomes in the future.”
“Congress can’t create cures. Congress will never develop a medical breakthrough. Hell, we can’t even elect a speaker,” Womack said, referencing House Republicans’ quagmire after ousting California Republican Kevin McCarthy from the post earlier this month.
“It can put its big boy pants on and come to the realization that if you don’t invest in this research, you have no chance.”