UPMC-Pitt group chases federal dollars
University of Pittsburgh and UPMC officials hope a collaboration forged last year serves as a blueprint for getting more of the $3.5 billion that will be available through 2019 as a result of the Affordable Care Act.
“These are very competitive grants, so the fact that we were able to come up with projects that received funding tells us it's worth continuing to work together,” said Donna Keyser, senior director of the UPMC Center for High-Value Health Care.
On Tuesday, members of the UPMC-Pitt Collaborative Work Group met with researchers and medical personnel from both institutions to pitch for projects to submit for funding through the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, which was established under the act.
Keyser said the collaboration was developed to help navigate changes in how medical research will be funded under the act.
“We do a ton of medical research in the United States, but there has been a problem with quickly translating the research in practice,” she said. “The new approach to funding research focuses on working in a real-world setting.”
The UPMC-Pitt collaboration helped win two grants in December.
A $1.7 million grant went to Dr. James Schuster, chief medical officer for UPMC's Community Care Behavioral Health. He will study mentally ill patients who receive care in rural community mental-health centers and are at risk for chronic medical conditions.
A second $1.7 million grant went to Dr. Michael Schneider, an assistant professor of physical therapy at Pitt's School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences. He will compare the effectiveness of non-surgical treatments for senior citizens who have pinched nerves in their lower backs.
Tony LaRussa is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.