ScanGrants is a public service listing of grants and other funding types to support health research, programs and scholarship.
3 funding opportunities found in this category. Change the order of results:
Lowest Award to Highest
Highest Award to Lowest
Call for Submissions: Medical Economics Physician Writing Contest
Medical Economics is seeking writing entries from physicians on how they fought back against management challenges
Physicians and their practices are in a state of major change—from the struggle to remain economically viable under difficult economic conditions, to staying on top of new government mandates, and implementing and using electronic health records.
Medical Economics wants to help physicians compete and win against the multitude of management challenges facing physicians in 2014. That’s why we are introducing a new contest asking physicians to share their stories, strategies, and approaches to fighting a myriad of management challenges.
Entering is simple: Send us an 800- to 1,200-word essay on how your practice has fought management challenges. Up to five entrants will be notified in writing 60 days after the close of the contest and will receive $500 when accepted for publication in Medical Economics and/or on www.medicaleconomics.com (which is a part of the modernmedicine.com network). The editorial staff will judge, determine, and notify contest winners.
Some of the topics could include:
Solutions to falling revenue or innovating a workflow to save time, money, and/or see more patients
How to improve poor adherence and better engage patients in your practice.
Strategies to ease prior authorization headaches
Ancillary services that work in primary care
Team strategies that improve efficiency
Negotiating with payers
Implementing new technology
Submissions will be accepted until May 10, 2014.
How to enter
Contest details: With each submission, please include:
800-1,200 word essay
Contact e-mail, address, telephone number.
Writing guidelines: While we are asking to keep submissions from 800 to 1,200 words, please be as specific as possible with your recommendations. Remember, this contest is created to help physicians build successful practices, and the winning entries will offer enough detail to help your colleagues apply these winning principles to improve their practices.
Submissions can be sent to Medec@advanstar.com
Or by mail to:
Medical Economics Fighting Back Contest
24950 Country Club Blvd.
North Olmsted, OH 44070
Call for Applications: PhRMA Foundation Assessing the Benefits of Treating Cancer Research Starter Grant
Opening Date: March 2014
Closing Date: May 16, 2014
Anticipated Award Date: July 2014
Researchers and clinicians have made remarkable progress in the fight against cancer, and death rates are falling. However, the disease still causes enormous suffering and represents a substantial economic burden in the United States. While cancer medicines have extended millions of lives and offer trillions in societal benefits, this value often is not well understood or fully characterized. Social and economic benefits accrue across a range of direct and indirect effects (e.g., overall survival, quality of life, and productivity) and evolve over time as the body of evidence and standards of practice change. As our understanding of the basic science of cancer grows, and this understanding is translated into novel diagnostics and treatments, patients and society benefit from continual innovation in cancer care. The purpose of this RFP is to encourage research aimed at quantifying the benefits to society that have accrued from innovations in cancer treatment.
The grant will be awarded to candidates who establish a sound and innovative research project focused on developing a novel way of quantifying or describing the social, patient-centered, and economic benefits of innovation in cancer treatment. Relevant research goals may include developing new methods to define and measure the societal benefits from cancer care innovation (for example, contributing to an understanding of value across a wider range of outputs that can be more difficult to assess, capturing heterogeneity in patient values (such as quality of life, productivity, etc.) within and among populations, and accounting for variability in value over time and its relationship to long-term aggregate clinical gains against cancer). Examples of the types of research questions of interest include:
-- Developing a novel way of describing the benefits of treatments that accrue over time as clinicians develop a better understanding of the disease process and treatment protocols. Oftentimes, patients who are enrolled in clinical trials are in later stages of the disease; however, once a drug is approved, it may be used at an earlier stage. Thus, the benefits of treatment may not be fully realized for several years after approval.
-- Describing improvements in quality of life, productivity, or other patient-centered measures that can result from cancer treatment. Patients may value certain outcomes and benefits differently than other stakeholders; describing the heterogeneity of value across the range of stakeholders (including patients, caregivers, providers, etc) is an important step to developing a fuller picture of treatment gains beyond the traditionally reported 5- and 10-year survival rates.
-- Building a more complete picture of innovation in cancer research and treatment over time. Most scientific progress builds on earlier research and development. Scientific understanding of cancer has grown from viewing the condition as a single monolithic disease to a constellation of hundreds of different molecular pathways. As scientists elucidate these pathways, there are spillover benefits as this increased understanding of the molecular basis of disease can result in advances in other areas.
This award is not intended for clinical or bench research, and is focused on supporting research in the health economics and social science fields. Additionally, research results should be generalizable to the U.S. context. Proposals focused on methods are eligible; however, researchers must clearly indicate how these new methods will be used to capture patient, population, or societal outcomes and benefits.
Individuals holding a rank of instructor, assistant professor, or investigator at the doctoral level are eligible to apply for a research starter grant. The program is not intended for individuals in post-doctoral training programs.
Applicants must be sponsored by the department within which the proposed research is to be undertaken. Applicants must be based in an academic, healthcare, or other research institution (e.g., schools of medicine, public health, pharmacy, nursing, etc) and should have the skills and experience required to carry out the proposed work. Applications are to be submitted to email@example.com and received by May 16, 2014.
The award consists of $100,000 support for one year and is made to the university or institution on behalf of the recipient, with the understanding that the university or institution will administer the funds. The “starter” aspect of the program strives to assist individuals who are establishing careers as independent investigators with an interest in describing the benefits of cancer treatment, innovation, and progress. The funds are to be used to conduct the proposed research and provide the grantee financial support to promote future research efforts in this field. Applicants are highly encourage to seek other funds to continue research following termination of the starter grant.
Recommended guidelines for using the starter grant funds are listed below. The submitted line item budget must reflect how the funds will be used based on the guidelines:
1. The purchase data or equipment that will support the proposed research efforts.
2. The support technical assistance (e.g., technician/research assistant; not including fringe benefits).
3. No more than $1,000 may be used per year for travel to professional meetings by the grantee.
4. A percentage of the funds may be used for salary (not to exceed 25%), if the review panel determines this level of support is justified given the applicant’s current position, current funding level, and proposed research plan.
5. The program provides no other subsidies (tuition, fringe benefits, indirect institutional costs, etc).
The applicant should also identify other intramural support presently available for the proposed project and other research efforts by budget categories and amounts. If the institution makes available the services of a technician or assistant to the candidate, please note this support. Other principals involved in the project as collaborators and the amount of time developed to the project by the applicant and other principals should also be identified. Please also list by titles the funded research project of each principal, the percentage of time committed, and the amount and source of funds for these projects. Additional investigators are welcome to as collaborators in a multidisciplinary research team. The amount of time to be devoted to the project by the applicant and other co-investigators or co-applicants should be clearly described in the research proposal.
A progress report (approximately 2 pages) will be required at midterm, and a final report (approximately 10 pages) will be required upon completion of the work. The PhRMA Foundation project officer should be made aware of manuscripts to be published as a result of the proposed research. The funds are non-transferrable.
The application package must be submitted in the order listed below as a single PDF. The applicant’s name, institution, and project title should be provided as a header on the top right corner of each page. Any questions about the application or eligibility criteria should be directed to Clara Soh at firstname.lastname@example.org.
List of Application Components:
1. Introduction page, including applicant name, mentor name, institution, project title, and research abstract (300 word limit)
2. Applicant CV or biosketch
3. 1-page applicant cover letter describing why he/she is qualified to conduct the proposed research and how the fellowship award will provide training and education to help further his/her career. The letter should also state whether the applicant has any conflicts of interest.
4. Research plan (10 page limit, 12 point font; single spaced, with 1” margins, bibliography excluded from page limit restriction) that includes a brief abstract and comprehensive description of the research plan. Applicants are requested to include a description of the study objective(s), conceptual framework, rationale, key measures, methodology, known limitations, expected findings, and significance/potential impact of the findings. Preliminary results, if any, should also be included. The proposal should state plans for dissemination of research findings (i.e., expected peer-reviewed publications, poster, or paper presentation at research meetings).
5. Budget, with breakdown of how funds will be used and any other anticipated sources of funding
6. Reprints of relevant articles published or co-authored by applicant
7. Contact information and CV/biosketch of applicant’s mentor/dissertation chair
8. Letter of recommendation from mentor/dissertation chair (1 page limit). The proposed research should be directed under the guidance of a mentor. The mentor must provide a letter of recommendation that certifies that formal mentorship will be available to ensure adequate training of the applicant and encourage progression of the study. The letter should also describe why the applicant’s potential and experience qualifies them to conduct the proposed research. The research record of the mentor and a description of how the mentored experience will enhance the applicant’s research objective(s) should also be included. The letter should describe how often and in what setting the mentor will engage with applicant (e.g., weekly meetings). The letter should also state whether the mentor has any conflicts of interest related to the proposed research. No more than one letter of recommendation is required or permitted.
Review Process and Criteria
Applications will be judged on the scientific worthiness of the proposed research and will be evaluated by a panel of qualified reviewers selected by the PhRMA Foundation. Reviewers may offer written critiques or suggestions of the proposal; award recipients are expected to incorporate reviewer feedback into their research. The review criteria will include the following (weight included in parenthesis):
-- Potential impact of research findings (20%)
-- Study approach and methodology (20%)
-- Innovativeness (20%)
-- Potential to stimulate further downstream research (15%)
-- Research environment/mentorship (10%)
-- Generalizability (10%)
-- Feasibility (5%)
Call for Applications: Society of Interventional Radiology Foundation Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute Cost-Effectiveness and Quality Outcomes Research Grant
Application Deadline: June 1, 2014
The Cost-Effectiveness and Quality Outcomes Research Grant is designed to fund research evaluating the cost, cost-effectiveness, and quality and outcomes of interventional radiology interventions and treatment approaches in comparison to other established and emerging treatments. These grants should emphasize observational studies and secondary data analyses evaluating the use of image guided minimally invasive therapies in real-world settings. The research from these studies would provide health care providers, patients, health insurers, and policy makers with additional information upon which to base decisions concerning the incorporation of these procedures into an integrated healthcare system.
Examples of the types of projects this initiative could support but is not limited to include cost modeling studies, decision analyses, case-control studies, retrospective observational studies or secondary analyses of existing data. Prospective clinical trials and prospective hypothesis driven research would not be supported by this announcement.
Applicants should propose research that advances the field of interventional radiology and evaluates the cost, cost-effectiveness, and quality outcomes of IR interventions. Collaborations with field experts such as health economists, data analysts, population epidemiologists or other experts as appropriate for specific projects are encouraged. High quality applications that address this solicitation will be given special consideration. This is a high priority mechanism
and proposals that describe short time-lines for completion of the study and dissemination of results will be preferred.
Grant funding of up to $30,000 will be made for cost, cost-effectiveness and/or quality outcomes studies.