More details

1. The early-career problem and the “age of ideas”

Dr. Bhattacharya opened by describing how much harder the path to independent research has become. He noted that the median age for a first R01 has drifted from the mid-30s in the 1980s to the mid-40s today, with researchers sometimes taking multiple postdocs before they are competitive for a faculty position. He tied this to his own research on scientific novelty, which tracked the introduction of new ideas across decades of biomedical publications. [1] The finding he emphasized: early-career researchers are the most likely to bring new ideas into their work, and the “age” of the ideas in a typical paper rises roughly one year for every year of a researcher’s chronological age. The implication, he argued, is that getting independent R-level funding into the hands of younger scientists is not a courtesy but a core way for NIH to advance its mission.

2. Three rules: Actionable, In-scope, Rigorous (AIR)

Dr. Bhattacharya described a set of neutral rules that apply across all of biomedicine, not just economics. He framed it as three simple tests for NIH research:

• Actionable: the work should generate hypotheses that empower someone to act, whether that is a scientist designing the next experiment, a patient making a health decision, or a clinician managing care. This rule is meant to exclude evaluations of questions general in nature wherein no actionable conclusions are drawn.
• In scope: the research should inform decision-makers within the NIH mission, such as patients, clinicians, hospitals, scientists, and public health stakeholders (including federal stakeholders such as CMS and FDA). While NIH-funded research may indirectly provide evidence relevant to legislative policy, research whose primary function is informing legislators is considered out of scope for NIH funding. He stressed that essentially all rigorous health economics informs in-scope decision-makers as a matter of course.
• Rigorous: he pointed to the health economics field’s long discipline around separating correlation from causation as one of the reasons why health economics is valued in the NIH portfolio.

At the time of this writing (September 8, 2026), no formal guidance has been posted and these rules may change before they become final; it is important to reach out to a program officer for further clarification prior to submitting an application.

3. Reintegrating health economics at NIH

A recurring theme was that health economics has been treated as a secondary activity at NIH for over a decade, something Dr. Bhattacharya described as a mistake he wants to correct. He acknowledged the political backdrop, recalling how health economics was unfairly associated with “death panels” during the Affordable Care Act debate and how that reaction marginalized the field. He stated that fixing this is a substantial culture change that will take experimentation from NIH and patience from researchers. He and Dr. Phillips both pointed to active efforts to engage institutes across NIH, including a Health Economics Special Interest Group with representatives from institutes, offices across the agency, and the economics community.

4. Practical advice from the panel: grants, mentorship, and communication

Leading up to the conference, Dr. Slusky had solicited questions for the panel from attendees. Dr. Nicholas and Dr. Polyakova offered grounded advice to these questions from their own careers, and several themes lined up closely.

• The awards buy time and access, not just salary and resources. Nicholas described how an NIA postdoc and a career development award gave her dedicated time to sit in on clinical care, which reshaped the questions she asked and the methods she used. She noted that NIA and NIH also fund career development opportunities for mid-career researchers.
• Program officers are on your side. Nicholas and Polyakova recounted learning that a program officer’s job is to help you get funded, including telling you when an idea is not yet fundable, which saves time. One mentor’s advice stuck with them: the best thing you can do for a grant is sometimes not submit it yet, and spend a few more months improving it.
• Economists are well positioned but often get in their own way. Polyakova argued that one of the main barriers for economists is economists themselves, specifically the habit of writing in jargon for a study section that includes many non-economists. She framed grant writing as a useful discipline that forces you to communicate to a broader audience, imposes deadlines that fight procrastination, and ultimately funds people, data, and time.
• Seek mentorship, including from outside your institution. Both panelists stressed finding mentors with NIH grant experience, asking to see example applications, and being persistent. Dr. Polyakova noted with some surprise how rarely early researchers take up mentorship opportunities when they are offered; this could reflect perhaps that they are not aware that junior researchers are actively encouraged to engage with NIH.

5. Funding strategy and predictability

Dr. Slusky pressed the NIH representatives on a real concern: for economists in hard-money departments where grants are not always rewarded in promotion and tenure, and amid uncertainty about paylines and program officer discretion, applying can feel like a negative expected-value proposition. Dr. Bhattacharya responded by explaining the unified funding strategy, which gives institutes leeway to look beyond overall scores, which correlate heavily with methods, and to weigh innovation when constructing their portfolios. He framed NIH’s challenge as a portfolio problem aimed at improving health and longevity rather than maximizing publications, and said he would rather fund bold ideas where many fail than a risk-averse portfolio where everything succeeds. His advice for applicants seeking predictability was to propose their best and most novel ideas, rather than safe extensions of work already done. Dr. Phillips added that NIH is moving away from narrow Notices of Funding Opportunities toward broader “highlighted topics,” reinforcing the value of contacting a program officer early.

6. Engage with NIH as a reviewer

While serving on an NIH study panel as a reviewer is a time commitment, Drs. Bhattacharya and Phillips emphasized that it is an immense learning opportunity – how proposals are evaluated, how to write a stronger application, forming a professional network – especially valuable for junior investigators. Though study sections have transitioned to online in recent years, Dr. Bhattacharya announced that NIH will hold at least one in-person review meeting per year, which he sees as valuable for the networking and learning that remote meetings cannot fully replace. He was candid that continuous submission has been scaled back because of the operational burden it placed on program staff and the difficulty it created for getting funds out the door on schedule.

7. Where to start

The panel repeatedly pointed researchers toward the NIH program staff and across institutes: those represented in the session included OBSSR, NIA, NIMH, NCI, NEI, and NICHD. Dr. Phillips shared a single-entry point for health economics researchers who have an idea but are unsure where it fits: the health economics mailbox at health_economics@nih.gov, where staff will help connect a project to appropriate program officers. The through-line from every panelist was the same: program officers are reachable, and early-career economists should seek them out.

What this means for ASHEcon researchers

1. NIH is signaling that health economics belongs across its portfolio, not only at NIA Proposals should make economic relevance to the health topic explicit, satisfy the actionable, in-scope and rigorous (AIR) tests, and frame their contribution for a multidisciplinary study section rather than an audience of economists.
2. The funding strategy rewards novelty. Researchers may have a better chance proposing new, higher-risk ideas than safe extensions of completed work, and should engage a program officer early to align with NIH priorities.
3. Mentorship and service are part of the path. Seeking out mentors with NIH grant experience, reviewing example applications, and serving on study sections build the skills and networks that make applications more competitive, especially for early-career investigators.

The panelists remarks ended with a 45 minute session for early career researchers to talk with the Program Officers present in the room.

[1] Packalen, M., & Bhattacharya, J. (2019). Age and the Trying Out of New Ideas. Journal of Human Capital, 13(2), 341–373. doi: 10.1086/703160