The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

Does anyone know what percentage of UAB's medical school, hospital, and other medical programs are funded by federal grants and programs as opposed to state funding?

The reason I ask is because I have heard people in leadership roles state multiple times that UAB needs to focus on the medical research and aspects of the campus as opposed to athletics. This implies that the athletic department and all of the medical programs are paid for and funded out of the same general fund. I suspect this implication is blatantly false.

I found this article from December, which states that the NIH gave UAB $225 million in funding. None of that money would have gone to athletics. If it had, then it would constitute misappropriation. The long of the short of it is, it is dishonest to say they're spending money on medicine instead of athletics when the money their spending on medicine isn't coming from the same source that money spent on athletics would come from.

http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/ne...rcent.html

UAB is in the top 25 for the amount of federal money it receives, and all of that is tied into the medical aspects of the campus. Does the state actually give ANY money to UAB for its medical aspects, or do they just falsely insinuate that they do (when it reality it is all federal grants and funding), and that's why they cannot afford to fund athletics??

Thanks to anyone who can help.

IN 2013-14. UAB received $226.2 million from the state education trust fund. Additionally, UAB Hospital received $32.2 million from the same fund. ($258.4 million total)

The same year UAB received $399.2 million in grants and contract work.

http://uasystem.ua.edu/wp-content/upload...Report.pdf

(02-09-2015 06:46 PM)blazerjay Wrote:  IN 2013-14. UAB received $226.2 million from the state education trust fund. Additionally, UAB Hospital received $32.2 million from the same fund. ($258.4 million total)

The same year UAB received $399.2 million in grants and contract work.

http://uasystem.ua.edu/wp-content/upload...Report.pdf

Okay, thanks. I guess they are giving money to the medical programs after all.

I think money is given by the state to the UA System and the BOT decides how its disbursed among UAT, UAB, and UAH presumably based on some sort of submitted request...

00

(02-09-2015 06:26 PM)David HD Wrote:  The reason I ask is because I have heard people in leadership roles state multiple times that UAB needs to focus on the medical research and aspects of the campus as opposed to athletics. This implies that the athletic department and all of the medical programs are paid for and funded out of the same general fund. I suspect this implication is blatantly false.

I found this article from December, which states that the NIH gave UAB $225 million in funding. None of that money would have gone to athletics. If it had, then it would constitute misappropriation. The long of the short of it is, it is dishonest to say they're spending money on medicine instead of athletics when the money their spending on medicine isn't coming from the same source that money spent on athletics would come from.

This is a complicated subject. Yes, none of the NIH money would have gone *directly* to athletics. Also, some of the state appropriations are earmarked for specific projects/departments/uses, but a very, very big chunk is divided up however UAB wants to.

The complication comes in when you factor in "IER" which is "indirect expense recovery". It's essentially a tax that is levied on any extramural funding that comes into UAB. I don't know what UAB's current rate is, but let's just say it's 30%. That means that if a lab on campus gets a $1 million grant, UAB takes $300,000 out before the money makes it to the researcher.

This money goes to various places. Some goes to the department in which the lab is housed to pay for administrative support, some goes to pay for the facilities upkeep, electric bill, water bills, etc., and some goes to the UAB general fund to be spent however the administration sees fit.

Now, this money is not the only money that the administration has to spend freely. Tuition also goes into this bucket. So do just about all of the fees that students pay (most aren't earmarked, even if they are on your bill). For every dollar of tuition generated, only a percentage of that dollar makes it back to the department actually teaching the class. The rest gets held by the administration to be spent on whatever they want. This is a really big pool of money and goes to things like athletics, new buildings, administrative staff, etc.

It's not fair at all to claim that athletics takes money away from research, but it's also not fair to claim that athletics money doesn't come from research. It's really complicated, but athletics is a drop in the UAB bucket. In the end, the administration said they aren't taking football money out of the athletics department so the whole exercise is stupid and a misdirection.

I'm sure uabbean can chime in with numbers and better details, too.

(02-09-2015 08:03 PM)WesternBlazer Wrote:  I think money is given by the state to the UA System and the BOT decides how its disbursed among UAT, UAB, and UAH presumably based on some sort of submitted request...

No State appropriations are a separate line item by schools.
Many urban legends retold as facts

(02-09-2015 09:38 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  00

(02-09-2015 06:26 PM)David HD Wrote:  The reason I ask is because I have heard people in leadership roles state multiple times that UAB needs to focus on the medical research and aspects of the campus as opposed to athletics. This implies that the athletic department and all of the medical programs are paid for and funded out of the same general fund. I suspect this implication is blatantly false.

I found this article from December, which states that the NIH gave UAB $225 million in funding. None of that money would have gone to athletics. If it had, then it would constitute misappropriation. The long of the short of it is, it is dishonest to say they're spending money on medicine instead of athletics when the money their spending on medicine isn't coming from the same source that money spent on athletics would come from.

This is a complicated subject. Yes, none of the NIH money would have gone *directly* to athletics. Also, some of the state appropriations are earmarked for specific projects/departments/uses, but a very, very big chunk is divided up however UAB wants to.

The complication comes in when you factor in "IER" which is "indirect expense recovery". It's essentially a tax that is levied on any extramural funding that comes into UAB. I don't know what UAB's current rate is, but let's just say it's 30%. That means that if a lab on campus gets a $1 million grant, UAB takes $300,000 out before the money makes it to the researcher.

This money goes to various places. Some goes to the department in which the lab is housed to pay for administrative support, some goes to pay for the facilities upkeep, electric bill, water bills, etc., and some goes to the UAB general fund to be spent however the administration sees fit.

Now, this money is not the only money that the administration has to spend freely. Tuition also goes into this bucket. So do just about all of the fees that students pay (most aren't earmarked, even if they are on your bill). For every dollar of tuition generated, only a percentage of that dollar makes it back to the department actually teaching the class. The rest gets held by the administration to be spent on whatever they want. This is a really big pool of money and goes to things like athletics, new buildings, administrative staff, etc.

It's not fair at all to claim that athletics takes money away from research, but it's also not fair to claim that athletics money doesn't come from research. It's really complicated, but athletics is a drop in the UAB bucket. In the end, the administration said they aren't taking football money out of the athletics department so the whole exercise is stupid and a misdirection.

I'm sure uabbean can chime in with numbers and better details, too.

Actually a pretty good explanation. One small concept off. Say UAB gets a million dollar grant from NIH - the federal government also gives an indirect cost subsidy of $ 460,000 foryour overhead (building, utilities, janitors) a negotiated (fought over) percentage. At Harvard they lose money with $ 60K janitors and UAB makes money with our almost minimum wage one.

There is very complicated - very internal political budget process to allocate the funding to departments. Unfortunately for our present circumstances central administration/ the president controls the process. The surplus indirect money goes to the president discretionary fund for buildings or athletics or seed money for researchers So, federal grants lead to play money for our dear current administration

Nih is welfare of medicine
Those researchers() spend their life working on unsignificant research which will never get the next step aka human level but the paper will eventually be published in an obscure medical journal. everybody will be happy for it .the researchers can get another grant .the big guys aka chairman barely involved in the study put his name on it and pad his resume for future advencement inside the food chain aka president.
Fyi
The Nih money went down went watts was on charge of it
Now watt is the president of uab a the Nih money went up because of doctor vickers not Dr watts is reppnsible

for some obscures reason major university are ranked with the level of Nih money they can get ?

(02-09-2015 10:22 PM)UABFRENCHY Wrote:  Nih is welfare of medicine
Those research spend their life working on unsignificant research which will never get the next step aka human level but the paper will be published in an obscure medical journal
Fyi
The Nih money went down went on charge of it
Now watt is the president of uab and the Nih money went up because of doctor vickers
for some obscures reason major university are ranked with the level of Nih money they can get ?

Everybody likes handouts, especially federally-funded ones... We run the same rat race at USU, and We ARE the "West Point" of Medicine (can't get anymore federally funded than us).

You do realize that a lot of "pointless" research is really research we don't know how to apply yet?

Don't get me wrong, we have to be careful about where and to whom we apply our research dollars; and research with envision-able application (and the technical know-how to do it) should be funded first, but just because research gets put into an obscure journal doesn't mean it isn't valid or doesn't have an application.

Loss of tuition from decreased enrollment and fewer undergrads with science interest will hurt our research funding. Even if increasing research funding is Watts' goal, he is short-sighted and not very strategic (but we knew that already).

(02-09-2015 06:55 PM)David HD Wrote:  

(02-09-2015 06:46 PM)blazerjay Wrote:  IN 2013-14. UAB received $226.2 million from the state education trust fund. Additionally, UAB Hospital received $32.2 million from the same fund. ($258.4 million total)

The same year UAB received $399.2 million in grants and contract work.

http://uasystem.ua.edu/wp-content/upload...Report.pdf

Okay, thanks. I guess they are giving money to the medical programs after all.

All public schools from K to grad school - including Alabama's two medical schools -get funding from the SETF. The overall budget and the percentage split between K-12 and Post Secondary is worked out by the legislature each year. It is usually about 70% to K-12 and 30% to all Post Secondary (JUCO, 4 year and grad schools). K-12 gets a larger percentage because it doesn't have income from tuition/fees or federal or state grant money to supplement SETF funds. EX: UAB last year got a $1 million grant from the legislature paid out of the SETF to fund research on an oil from marijuana under "Carly's Law".

As I recall, the UA System gets their part of the money and allots it out to Bama, UAB and UAH according to the annual budget for each school in the system. It might be that the legislature doles the money out to each school itself, but I don't think so.