|
|
|
|
|
by mlyle
479 days ago
|
|
https://goodscience.substack.com/p/indirect-costs-at-nih This reads that argument in the exact opposite direction: > So, an HHS division like NIH can use a different rate only for a “class” of grants or a “single” grant, and only with “documented justification.” > There is nothing that says NIH could, in one fell swoop, overturn literally every negotiated rate agreement for 100% of all grants with all medical and academic institutions in the world, with the only justification being “foundations do it” rather than any costing principle whatsoever from the rest of Part 75 of 45 C.F.R. Further, this doesn't allow a blanket adjustment to existing awards. |
|
1) The “documented justification” must reflect the requirements of subsection (c)(3), but that provision imposes no real substantive requirements. It’s a litigable, but the linked article concludes there must be more justification than the statute seems to require.
Note also that, amusingly, Kisor is still the law of the land and under that decision agencies still get deference in interpreting their own regulations.
2) The article frames the Congressional rider as prohibiting changes to the indirects. But the statute only prohibits changing the regulation, which HHS hasn’t done.