Some Skin Diseases Get More Research Money Than Others—And It Might Not Match the Problem

When it comes to funding skin disease research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) isn't always putting money where the problem is biggest. A new analysis comparing disease burden with research funding reveals surprising gaps—some skin conditions are getting far more resources than their impact on patients would suggest, while others are starved for research dollars despite affecting millions of Americans.

Which Skin Diseases Are Getting Too Much—or Too Little—Funding?

Researchers from multiple institutions conducted a cross-sectional analysis comparing 15 different skin conditions, measuring both their actual burden on Americans using disability-adjusted life years (a metric that accounts for years lost to illness or disability) and the NIH funding allocated to each condition in fiscal years 2021-2022. The findings revealed a partial correlation between disease burden and research funding, but with notable outliers that suggest funding decisions are driven by factors beyond just how many people suffer from a condition.

The study identified specific conditions that appear to be receiving disproportionate resources:

• Overfunded Conditions: Malignant skin melanoma and pruritus (severe itching) received significantly more NIH funding relative to their disease burden compared to other skin conditions.
• Underfunded Conditions: Psoriasis and urticaria (hives) were identified as relatively underfunded despite their substantial impact on patient health and quality of life.
• The Middle Ground: Many other skin diseases fell somewhere between these extremes, suggesting a complex landscape where funding allocation doesn't always align neatly with disease prevalence or severity.

Why Does This Funding Gap Matter for Patients?

The implications of this research funding mismatch extend far beyond academic interest. When certain skin diseases receive less research attention relative to their burden, it can slow the development of new treatments, limit clinical trial opportunities, and ultimately delay breakthroughs that could improve patient outcomes. Conversely, overfunding in some areas may represent resources that could be redirected to conditions affecting larger populations or causing greater disability.

Psoriasis, for example, affects millions of Americans and significantly impacts quality of life through chronic inflammation, pain, and psychological distress. Yet the research found it receives less funding than its disease burden would justify. Similarly, urticaria—a condition characterized by sudden, often severe itching and hives—appears underfunded relative to how much it affects patients' daily functioning and wellbeing.

What Factors Beyond Disease Burden Influence Research Funding?

The researchers emphasize an important point: disease burden is just one factor among many that should guide funding decisions. Other considerations include the potential for research breakthroughs, the availability of existing treatments, the cost of illness to the healthcare system, and strategic priorities set by funding agencies. Some conditions may receive more attention because they're more visible to the public, have stronger advocacy groups, or represent areas where research progress seems more achievable in the near term.

This study builds on earlier research from 2015 that first identified correlations between disease burden and NIH funding. By using the most recent Global Burden of Disease data from 2021 and current NIH funding information from 2021-2022, the new analysis provides an updated picture of how research dollars are allocated across the dermatology landscape. The findings suggest that while funding decisions are complex and multifactorial, there may be room to better align resources with patient need.

For patients living with underfunded skin conditions like psoriasis or urticaria, these findings highlight the importance of supporting dermatological research through advocacy, participation in clinical trials, and engagement with organizations dedicated to specific skin diseases. For policymakers and funding agencies, the research suggests an opportunity to reassess allocation strategies to ensure that research investments are optimized for maximum public health impact across all skin disease categories.