Audrey Blewer, PhD, MPH

Associate Professor @DukeMedSchool | Epidemiologist & Resuscitation Scientist, @UPennDBEI alum

[Audrey Blewer, PhD, MPH @AudreyBlewer]

Exciting work! Looking forward to next steps 🙏

[Duke University School of Medicine @DukeMedSchool]

A study led by Duke's Audrey Blewer, PhD, MPH, finds women are 14% less likely than men to receive #CPR from a bystander while suffering cardiac arrest in public, a phenomena experienced in white, Black & Hispanic neighborhoods.
#StartsInAcademicMedicine @DukeGovRel @Duke_FamMed

[Audrey Blewer, PhD, MPH @AudreyBlewer]

Excited to speak about women and cardiac arrest at #apha2025

[AJKD @AJKDonline]

Cardiac Arrest in Outpatient Hemodialysis Units: A National Cross-Sectional Survey of Dialysis Technicians

https://t.co/u2GAllOKH0 (FREE temporarily)

@Ben_Catanese @GraceJRim @AudreyBlewer @virtualpun @DukeKidney #VisualAbstract

[AJKD @AJKDonline]

Cardiac Arrest in Outpatient Hemodialysis Units: A National Cross-Sectional Survey of Dialysis Technicians

https://t.co/u2GAllOKH0 (FREE temporarily)

@Ben_Catanese @GraceJRim @AudreyBlewer @virtualpun @DukeKidney #VisualAbstract

[JAHA @JAHA_AHA]

ECPR shows promise but needs clarity on optimal patient characteristics and logistics. Read more in this NHLBI workshop report. #AHAJournals #Review @BetsyHuntMD @JoeTonnaMD @AudreyBlewer @DYannopoulos @RainaMerchant https://t.co/EbyMdHN0Xb

[AJKD @AJKDonline]

Cardiac Arrest in Outpatient Hemodialysis Units: A National Cross-Sectional Survey of Dialysis Technicians

https://t.co/e539jHueZf

@Ben_Catanese @GraceJRim @AudreyBlewer @virtualpun @DukeKidney #VisualAbstract

[Samantha Fernandez, MD @DrSamanthaF]

This is a game changer for cardiac arrest! 🙌🏼

[Jeffrey Millman @JeffreyRMillman]

Penn to reduce graduate admissions, rescind acceptances amid federal research funding cuts https://t.co/FZKeSmB6bu

[Adam Grant @AdamMGrant]

Remote work doesn't thwart productivity. It boosts focus.

Data: Government workers are 12% more productive when randomly assigned to work from home. They're more efficient where it's quiet.

Most people aren't shirking from home. They're escaping distractions and long commutes.

[Duke Family Medicine & Community Health @Duke_FamMed]

.@AudreyBlewer, PhD, MPH, provided insights about Texas' efforts to improve cardiac arrest survival rates, noting the differences between a heart attack and cardiac arrest and how CPR and AED use can double survival rates.
https://t.co/9uYLJ6xf41

[News from Science @NewsfromScience]

The National Institutes of Health plans to severely cut the percentage of its grant money that can be used for overhead costs rather than research. https://t.co/MnEJBjh0dO

[Phil Metzger @DrPhiltill]

Hmm. There are two errors in this, and also the new 15% limit is way too low. And finally this is an unintentional call for communism.

(1) First error. This charge isn’t for “overhead”. It does include overhead, but it also includes “General & Administrative” costs. For example, there are two types of people who work on government contracts. (A) Those who do the technical part of the work. Their labor is counted as a “direct cost”. (B) Those who do all the other types of work for the contract, including management, safety, security, contracts management, accounting, project management, etc. It is all real work that has to be done for the contract to be successful, and the people who do that work all need to get paid or the university/company would lose money on the contract and therefore would choose to stop doing any work for the government. It is such a high rate because a lot of people do real work on contracts.

(2) Second error. A 60% indirect rate does not mean that 60% of the money is being siphoned off for indirect costs, but only 37.5%. That’s because 100% of the direct costs get charged, plus another 60% to cover the indirect costs, so the total charge is 160% of the direct costs. 60% divided by 160% is 37.5%. So 37.5% of the total payment is being siphoned off to cover the indirect costs, or about 1/3.

Is 37.5% more reasonable than 60%? Yes, and it is all audited by the government for every university and every company line-by-line to make sure all the indirect cost charges are real work being done and are all justified. Could the government run a much tighter ship during these audits and demand that indirect costs come way down? Maybe so, but 15% seems way, way too low. Which is the third point.

(3) According to Grok, this isn’t just universities. Large companies also charge 40% to 60% for their indirect rate. I don’t know what SpaceX charges for its indirect costs, but it isn’t building rockets for the government as charity, so they aren’t going to give away the indirect labor to the government for free.

Since indirect costs are real costs, they have to be built into the price or the universities/companies would lose money doing research for the government so they would choose to stop doing research for the government. Does the United States want universities and companies to do research or not? If yes, then we have to pay the total of the real costs, both direct and indirect. I think 15% is way too low. Maybe 40% is a good number to make universities try to shoot for instead of 60%. The goal here is to get the most research we can out of the tax money. Offering to pay much less than the real costs will result in less research from US universities, not more. Which brings us to the fourth point.

(4) Final point: whether universities have big endowments or not is irrelevant. That’s like saying the government shouldn’t pay SpaceX the full cost on its contracts because Elon already has a lot of money. We don’t pay based on what people have, but on the value of their work. Pay is the motive to do the work in capitalism. By saying pay should scale with what you already have, Elon is unintentionally calling for communism: “from each according to their ability; to each according to their need.” The problem is that communism doesn’t work. If we want good research, we have to pay for it regardless whether the universities are rich or poor.

[Jason Abaluck @Jabaluck]

The best study I know estimates that each dollar of NIH spending generates $1.40-$2.80 in value counting *only the private return from drugs*, ignoring consumer surplus, med devices, public health, behavioral science, etc...

[Jeffrey Millman @JeffreyRMillman]

This kills biomedical research

[Jeremy Day @DayLabUAB]

I am not normally an alarmist, but these are not normal times. This change would cripple research infrastructure at hundreds of US institutions, and threatens to end our global superiority in scientific research.
https://t.co/sa1GFM2YgP

[Prof. Akiko Iwasaki @VirusesImmunity]

NIH indirect costs fund the backbone of research: maintaining labs, ensuring safety, and supporting admin work. These are essential for groundbreaking discoveries. Drastic cuts to NIH indirect rates are detrimental to academic biomedical research.

[C. Michael Gibson MD @CMichaelGibson]

What are “indirects costs” and why are they so high ?

These are the institutional costs that allow the research to be conducted across all studies like:

Utilities like heat, AC, water, electricity, phone & internet costs

Facilities costs like rent, costs of the building and its upkeep, remodeling, painting, new carpet, desks, furniture, lab equipment, IT costs or cloud services

Personnel costs like finance, legal, support staff, housekeeping, administrative costs, IT services, data security, security officers, front desk, quality assurance, compliance, and human resources

Service contracts on stuff like xerox machines

We are self-insured and faced a 27% increase in premiums this year, we put away money for our employees for their 401K plan, we reimburse for their tuition expenses, there are very very large cybersecurity expenses, there are liability costs, there are expenses related to ensuring privacy law compliance by outside entities

It’s an expensive enterprise and differs from other businesses in the costs of equipment and IT cybersecurity costs

[Audrey Blewer, PhD, MPH @AudreyBlewer]

Congratulations @JenniferPlichta 👏

[Jennifer Plichta MD (she/her) @JenniferPlichta]

So excited for the incredible honor!! My sincerest gratitude 🙏 to the Brylawski family, @DukeCancer, @DukeSurgery, and @DukeSurgOnc!! Hope to make all proud! Thank you to my friends and colleagues for the kind words here as well!!☺️🙌

[Aus-ROC @aus_roc]

Thinking of doing a PhD in resuscitation or OHCA? The first Aus-ROC PhD Scholarship is now open -this one is at Curtin University under Prof Judith Finn.
Apply here https://t.co/JF28e9Zncy
@judith_finn @precru @ARC_resus

[Omar Dewidar @okdewidar]

Delighted to promote health equity in resuscitation sciences @Rescudoc @AudreyBlewer Marina Del Rios https://t.co/Q6F8oPwaII
We use a validated approach to develop evidence-based health equity considerations and propose updates to the AHA recommendations