On March 31, 2026, NIH issued this policy Update of NIH Late Application Submission Policy and End of Continuous Submission .
While the notice ends the Continuous Submission policy, it also announces updated reasons for late submission.

NIH’s Continuous Submission policy ends after August 10, 2026.

The Late Submission Policy will include concessions for PD/PIs who have participated in recent review or advisory group meetings.

• On or after May 25, 2026: Late Submission Policy update is effective for applications due on or after May 25, 2026.
• Named PD/PIs on applications may submit during the late application period if “within four calendar weeks before or after the due date they have participated in:
  • An NIH peer review study section or special emphasis panel
  • An NIH Board of Scientific Counselors, Program Advisory Committee, or an NIH Advisory Board or Council”
• Per the notice, “This specific review service is the only pre-authorized reason for a late submission (i.e., automatically accepted once review service information provided in the cover letter is confirmed). Other types of NIH activities and services for other federal agencies or private organizations are not acceptable reasons for late submission.”

The post NIH – Update Late & Continuous Submissions appeared first on 91̽��Research.

• New Electronic Consent Options Now Available for 91̽��Researchers
• Consultation Service to Support Community Engaged Research
• Expansion of 91̽��Medicine Security Review Requirement for Research involving Artificial Intelligence
• New 1099 MISC Reporting Thresholds for Participant Payments
• Revised Cooperative Agreement with Public Health Seattle & King County (PHSKC)
• Upcoming JEDI Research Retreat
• Diversity in Clinical Trials Town Hall

New Electronic Consent Options Now Available for 91̽��Researchers

Both Support Compliance with FDA 21 CFR 11 Requirements

91̽��researchers now have access to two new electronic consent (e-consent) solutions designed to support compliant, participant friendly consent processes – , which is now live, and  91̽��Florence eConsent, launching April 15, 2026. Both tools support compliance with  for electronic records and signatures required for FDA-regulated research.

These tools also help advance the  by offering more flexible, accessible consent options that can reduce participation barriers and better support diverse study populations.

Key Features & Requirements – REDCap Part 11

• Enables both electronic consent and electronic data capture within the same validated REDCap environment—ideal for studies needing integrated data and consent workflows.
• Signed consent forms are automatically retained within the REDCap system for required retention periods.
• ����ܾ��������REDCap Part 11 training, including user management and record locking procedures essential for compliance.
• Project specific service fee�������������.

More information, including instructions for requesting access, is available at .

Key Features – 91̽��Florence eConsent

• Maintained and supported by the  and integrated with Florence eBinders.
• Participants authenticate their identity via an email-based account, with study teams helping as needed.
• Signed consent forms can be saved directly to the study’s regulatory binder or downloaded.
• ����ܾ��������Florence-provided training for all study team users.
• Includes a one-time fee for industry sponsored and initiated studies.

More information will be available on the 91̽��Clinical Trials Office website at launch or shortly thereafter. Study teams may contact the 91̽��Clinical Trials Office at uwcto@uw.edu with “ 91̽��Florence eConsent” in the subject line.

Reminder – As with all electronic consent methods, using any e-consent tool requires 91̽��IRB approval (for 91̽��reviewed studies), or External IRB approval and HSD review (for externally reviewed studies). All applicable requirements for electronic consent documentation must be met. Please review HSD’s Consent Guidance for more information or contact hsdinfo@uw.edu with questions.

Consultation Service to Support Community Engaged Research

Now Available!

Community partners from 16 organizations, together with the , are collaborating to deepen partnerships between researchers and marginalized communities—ensuring that research is shaped by community priorities and contributes to eliminating health disparities across Washington State.

�ճ���� consultation service supports researchers by:

• ���ܾ����徱�Բ���bidirectional communication between community and research teams
• ���ڴڱ�����Բ���education and guidance on best practices for community engagement
• ���ܱ��ǰ��پ��Բ���community leadership within research processes
• Helping create equitable recruitment pathways for participation in clinical trials

This service supports compliance with the 91̽��specific RCW 28B.20.540 requirement to enroll traditionally underserved populations in clinical trials as outlined in HSD’s Diversity in Clinical Trials Guidance. The guidance describes how these statutory and ethical requirements are incorporated into study design and recruitment planning, including expectations for community engagement.

Researchers interested in receiving CBRC consultation for an upcoming or existing study are encouraged to complete the .

Capacity Note: As the Office of Health Care Equity begins integrating these consultations into existing meeting structures over the coming months, our availability is limited.

Expansion of 91̽��Medicine Security Review Requirement for Research involving Artificial Intelligence

Effective Immediately!

To help ensure the appropriate protection of patient information in light of the increased privacy and reidentification risks introduced by AI technologies, 91̽��Medicine has expanded its security review requirement. This requirement was previously limited to School of Medicine research. It now applies to all 91̽��research using AI outside of a  when the research:

1. ���������,��or
2. Targets enrollment of  91̽��Medicine patients

For studies reviewed by the 91̽��IRB:

• HSD’s IRB Protocol forms now include a question prompting researchers to obtain the required security review.
• IRB approval will not be issued until documentation is provided that the 91̽��Medicine security review has been completed.

For studies reviewed by a Non- 91̽��IRB:

• HSD has updated its external IRB request form to alert researchers to this requirement.
• HSD will not hold its reliance authorization while the researcher completes this review, and researchers do not need to submit documentation of the security review outcome to HSD.

For questions and additional information:
For information about how to obtain a security review, refer to the  website. For questions about this process, contact uwmed-security@uw.edu.

New 1099 MISC Reporting Thresholds for Participant Payments

Updates

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has increased the threshold for reporting research participant payments as miscellaneous income on Form 1099 MISC from $600 to $2,000 and indicated the threshold is expected to adjust annually for inflation. In response,�� 91̽��Finance has raised the University’s internal threshold for collecting tax reportable payee information (including SSNs) from $600 to $1,500.

HSD has updated our consent�����Ի���subject payment guidance and revised our consent template language to reflect this change.

Consent forms utilizing the prior $600 threshold language do not require revision. However, researchers are welcome to submit a modification in Zipline to revise or remove the language if total payments are below the new 91̽��internal reporting threshold of $1500 and SSN will no longer be collected.

For questions about the change in 91̽��internal reporting requirements, contact 91̽��Procurement Services at pcshelp@uw.edu. For questions about consent form template language or HSD guidance changes, email hsdinfo@uw.edu.

Revised Cooperative Agreement with Public Health Seattle & King County (PHSKC)

Enhanced Clarity and New Process

91̽��and Public Health – Seattle & King County (PHSKC) have completed negotiations and have reached agreement on a revised cooperative IRB agreement. This cooperative agreement establishes the policies and processes under which the 91̽��will review research projects that involve both institutions. The longstanding cooperative agreement between 91̽��and PHSKC was last updated in 2003. Since then, many changes have taken place in the regulatory landscape surrounding multi-institutional research including the NIH single IRB policy and the Common Rule single IRB requirement. Features of the new agreement:

• Reiterates that 91̽��provides IRB review and oversight for both institutions for research led by 91̽��investigators in which Public Health Seattle King County (PHSKC) is engaged. 91̽��does not provide review for PHSKC research in which 91̽��is not engaged or for PHSKC led research in which 91̽��does not have a leadership role. There is no change from the previous agreement, however shifting institutional practices have led to a lack of clarity in recent years about which studies 91̽��provides review for.
• Researchers may use the UW/Fred Hutch HIPAA Authorization Form to obtain authorization from study participants for research use of PHSKC held Protected Health Information (PHI), eliminating the need for different forms and allowing researchers access to an authorization form in 25+ different languages.
• Researchers must obtain the sign-off from the PHSKC Research Administrative Review Committee (RARC) for each study in which PHSKC will rely on UW. This process will be similar to how HSD requires sign-off from most other institutions relying on the 91̽��IRB.

For more information, read HSD’s new webpage on research involving PHSKC or contact hsdrely@uw.edu.

Upcoming JEDI Research Retreat

April 24, 2026

�ճ���� 91̽��Medicine Justice, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion Center for Transformational Research (UWM JEDICTR) will host a one day retreat on April 24th to bring together researchers from across the biomedical, translational, public health, clinical, and educational spectrum. The retreat will be held in-person at the Douglas Classroom at the Center for Urban Horticulture.

The retreat will feature reflections on JEDI principles in research and working sessions focused on values, mission, vision, and strategic priorities. Breakfast and lunch will be provided.

Space is limited to 45 participants.

.
A waitlist will open if capacity is reached. Please feel free to share the invitation with colleagues.

Questions may be directed to Keenan Dowers at keenand@uw.edu.

Diversity in Clinical Trials Town Hall

Save the Date

Save the date for the upcoming virtual Diversity in Clinical Trials Town Hall on Wednesday, May 27, 2026 from 1:00-2:30pm PT.

This session will provide important policy updates following the January 1, 2026 go-live date and highlight resources available to support compliance across the 91̽��research community.

A live Q&A will be included. Zoom registration information will be shared soon. Visit the  for updates.

The post For the Record- April 7, 2026: E-Consent Tools, CBRC Consultation Service, More appeared first on 91̽��Research.

On March 25 2026, the NIH published : Prior Approval Requirement for Changes to Domestic Subawards.

Effective June 1, 2026, all prime recipients are required to obtain NIH prior approval when adding a new domestic subaward to a project post-award, when the arrangement was not originally a part of the peer-reviewed and approved application.

OSP must submit these requests to NIH in the eRA Commons Prior Approval Module.

As of June 1st, when a subaward needs to be added to an NIH award after it has been awarded to the 91̽��and is set up in Workday, please follow these steps:

1. Prepare an Award Modification in SAGE to Add a Subaward – request Prior Approval
2. Include a subaward package with the documentation required by GIM 7, as if the subrecipient was being included in an original proposal
3. Attach the documents needed for the Prior Approval Module in PDF format, including:
   • A justification document explaining the rationale for the request
   • A budget document, preferably in the form of a Subaward R&R Budget
   • The budget and the subrecipient’s letter of intent should reflect the proposed effective date, which is required information in the Prior Approval Module

NIH approval is required before moving forward with the SAGE subaward request. Please plan ahead and get these Award Modification requests routed to OSP in SAGE as early as possible.

The post NIH – Domestic subawards to require prior approval appeared first on 91̽��Research.

As of February 2026, there is one Parent NOFO that supports International Collaborations: – NIH Collaborative International Research Project (Parent PF5 Clinical Trial Optional).

We understand that there are questions about preparing NIH proposals with international components and have some resources to share with you. We will continue to monitor sponsor guidance and update 91̽��resources as we learn more.

Resources

• UW: NIH Projects with International Components: How do I prepare these proposals?
• NIH : New Application Structure for NIH-Funded International Collaborators
• NIH Collaborative International Research Project (Parent PF5 Clinical Trial Optional)

The post NIH Proposals & Awards with International Components appeared first on 91̽��Research.

Within a week or so following every MRAM, an email like this one typically goes out with Q&A from the session and a link to the meeting materials.

• Post Award Fiscal Compliance – Hot Topics
• Non-Federal Clinical Trials Transition
• Recharge Center Updates
• SAGE Update
• Sponsor Reminders & Updates – Foreign Activity Documentation
• OSP Director Announced

Post Award Fiscal Compliance – Hot Topics

Q1: Is there a training resource for PIs? If not, can you create a short video to support them?
A1: Yes, there is a short video and associated job aid for PIs (and faculty) on how to certify statements within ECC. The email notification to the PI/faculty contains a link to the ‘How to certify’ training.

Q2: Can you share what the language might look like if F&A is not allowed as cost share? Or is it usually obvious/straightforward in the Request for Proposal (RFP)?

A2: F&A and cost share can be a tricky area to navigate but there are essentially two separate, but common, scenarios which give rise to this question:

1. If the sponsor uses an actual F&A rate which is lower than the University’s negotiated F&A rate, then there is what is called “Unrecovered Indirect Costs” (“UIDC”) on the award. UIDC can be used to meet a cost share commitment only with the prior written approval from the sponsor; the ability to use UIDC to meet cost share can usually be found in either the sponsor’s policy guide, terms and conditions, or the request for proposal.
2. The other scenario occurs if the sponsor does not allow any F&A costs on the award, either directly charged or used to determine the value of the cost share contribution. In these instances, the award F&A rate and cost share F&A rate in Workday would be set to 0%. This information would also be provided in any associated policy guide, terms and conditions or the RFP.

Non-Federal Clinical Trials Transition

Please stay tuned, Q&A from this presentation along with more information will be shared closer to the transition date of 4/02.

Recharge Center Updates

Q1: What is MAA?
A1: Management Accounting & Analysis

Q2: For Dean’s Office approvals of the F-tasks, where can we look up and/or update which contact at the Dean’s Office will receive the approval requests?
A2: When you fill out the form, you will be prompted to enter the NetID of the dean’s office approver.

SAGE Update

Q: Would it be possible to prioritize an auto email for when grants are shifted to approved by OSP? It seems like most updates are post award focused.
A: This is on the list for SAGE Prioritization.

Sponsor Reminders & Updates – Foreign Activity Documentation

Q1: For this additional foreign documentation review process, how much additional time should grant managers/PIs allow prior to an eGC1 submission?
A1: This is difficult to assess until we have been through this process a few times. The Research Security Office is sensitive to OSP and sponsor submission deadlines: documentation of foreign activities should be submitted for review as early as possible in the pre-award process to facilitate the most timely response. We anticipate being able provide a more definitive timeline later in the year.

Q2: Would OSP like us to provide these documents at submission for review, or will they be reviewed in time for JIT submission, which can be a very short turnaround?
A2: As with other compliance items that are be required at the Just in Time (JIT) stage, it’s recommended that the covered individual compile the documents so that they can be provided to the sponsor in a timely manner. Please note that OSP will not be reviewing the content of these materials.

Q3: Is that one attachment per certification, or can all MFTRP certs for a proposal/RPPR/etc be combined into a single file for NIH?
A3: The foreign contract documentation has a separate field in the eRA Commons for upload and is different from the MFTRP certification. For the foreign contract documentation, the field accepts only one PDF file with a maximum file size of 6MB.

For MFTRP certification NIH has posted a new FAQ since this question was answered after the February MRAM meeting. Senior/Key Personnel who provide a Common Form Biosketch or Current and Pending (Other) Support form as part of an RPPR do not need to also provide the annual certification statement in section G.1 of the RPPR. The digital certification on the Biosketch or CPOS Common form will fulfill the annual certification requirement.

Q4: For NIH JIT requests, is a pre-review needed of the foreign contract documentation single PDF by researchsecurity@uw.edu?
A4: NIH does not currently require institutional review of this documentation. As of 3/17/2026 the additional review requirement only applies to NSF at the time of proposal. In all cases, be sure to maintain the documentation in your department files.

OSP Director Announced

Please join us in congratulating the new OSP Director as of 3/16/2026:

Amanda Snyder!

We appreciate your patience as we update sponsor & federal systems and the Office of Research website.

The post MRAM: March 2026 Q&A appeared first on 91̽��Research.

SAGE Budget

Updated 91̽��F&A & APL Fixed Fee Calculation for Subawards: SAGE Budget F&A now rounds the same way as in ASRs and MODs, preventing some instances of $1 differences between budgets and award amounts. SAGE Budgets that include a subaward and use the APL Fixed Fee setting have also been updated so that budgets and ASRs calculate totals using the same logic.

Miscellaneous Maintenance

FCOI Training Moved to TalentLMS: To align with other training offered by the Office of Research, Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI) & Other Support training is now hosted on TalentLMS. The user experience throughout SAGE has not changed; SAGE users can still view FCOI training status.

If you have any questions or encounter issues, please reach out to sagehelp@uw.edu.

The post March 18, 2026 SAGE Release Notes appeared first on 91̽��Research.

The Office of Research is pleased to announce that Amanda Snyder has accepted the OSP Director position, starting March 16th.  Amanda has been serving as Interim Director since January 1st.

The post Amanda Snyder named Director of Office of Sponsored Programs appeared first on 91̽��Research.

Review

The post MRAM: March 2026 GCA Newsletter appeared first on 91̽��Research.

• Diversity Plan for Clinical Trials Supplement
• 91̽��Medicine Honest Broker Program

Diversity Plan for Clinical Trials Supplement

Significant Revisions

�᳧��’s��Diversity in Clinical Trials policy went into effect on January 1, 2026 and applies to new clinical trials submitted to HSD where 91̽��employees or agents are responsible for or engaged in recruitment or consent activities. With some exceptions, clinical trials submitted to HSD need to submit a Diversity Plan for Clinical Trials Supplement to describe how their study is addressing enrollment of underrepresented groups within the target study population.

Based on HSD’s experience and feedback from researchers, we made revisions to the Diversity Plan for Clinical Trials Supplement. These revisions clarify and provide additional guidance for the information that HSD needs in order to assess the Diversity Plan. A couple of minor revisions were made at the same time to the Diversity in Clinical Trials guidance to harmonize with the Diversity Plan document.

Significant changes include:

• Tables in the Enrollment Goals section. Columns have been added to capture the demographics of the patient population at the 91̽��site(s) to make comparisons with proposed enrollment goals easier. Biological sex has been pulled out of the race and ethnicity tables and made into a separate table.
• Guidance in the Rationale section. The Rationale for Enrollment Goals section was expanded to provide researchers with more guidance on specific information that HSD needs to assess the Diversity Plan. Individual text boxes were added after guidance prompts to allow researchers to organize relevant information to facilitate HSD’s review.
• Community Engagement section. Guidance and clarifications were added to two of the Stage 2 Community Engagement requirements to better explain what activities HSD is considering for each requirement during assessment.

Please email hsdinfo@uw.edu if you have questions about the revisions or the 91̽��Diversity in Clinical Trials policy.

91̽��Medicine Honest Broker Program

Review and Updates

In our July 2025 newsletter, we announced important changes to how 91̽��Medicine clinical data may be used for research. Since July 1, 2025, all research-related data sets containing 91̽��Medicine Identified or De-Identified Clinical Data must undergo review by a  to ensure alignment with the approved IRB application and proper de-identification methods.

This month’s update provides a brief refresher and highlights several new clarifications and tools now available to support researchers.

Honest Broker Options

• Research IT: Can pull data sets and/or review data already extracted to ensure compliance with the approved IRB (fee-based service).
• Affiliated Developers/Analysts: Individuals who have completed annual Honest Broker training may pull data sets for research.
• Researchers Pulling Their Own Data: Investigators may extract data themselves,��but the data set must be reviewed by a certified Honest Broker before release.

For full governing rules, researchers should review the 91̽��Medicine compliance policies �����Ի���.

New & Expanded Tools for Researchers

Research IT continues to develop resources to streamline research data requests and support compliant workflows. Existing resources include templates for Data Use Agreements (DUAs) and procedural style guides, along with how-to’s and checklists.

Newly available or expanded tools include:

• ���� for FDA-regulated studies launching in March

Additional self-service tools will be added in the coming months to include:

• A specialized, Epic-integrated instance of REDCap to support secure research data workflows
• Registry lists (that include data owners and stewards)
• Standard new proposal (boilerplate) language

Details about the Honest Broker Program, including FAQs, are available on the  page. Questions can be directed to Research Data Services at ritdatahelp@uw.edu. For more information about Research IT, visit the .

The post For the Record- March 3, 2026: Diversity Plan Supplement, 91̽��Medicine Honest Broker Program appeared first on 91̽��Research.

• Date: Thursday, March 26,2026 (register by March 24)
• Time: 10-11:30 am Pacific Time
• Location: Online via Zoom
• – Registrants will receive a reminder email with Zoom details prior to the session.

91̽��faculty and staff are invited to register for Working With Industry, an information session designed for researchers to learn more about support and resources available at 91̽��to help them engage with industry partners. The session is hosted by the Office of Research, CoMotion, and Corporate and Foundation Relations, and features presenters from Corporate Relations, CoMotion, the Office of Sponsored Programs, and the Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Policy and Practice. Registration is open only to current 91̽��faculty and staff.

Hosts:

• Mari Ostendorf, Vice Provost for Research
• Joanna Glickler, Assistant Vice President, Corporate & Foundation Relations
• , Vice Provost for Innovation & CoMotion Director

Presenters:

• Mark Cabrales, Senior Director for Corporate Relations
• , Licensing Specialist, CoMotion & OSP
• Hogan Ricks, Senior Contract Specialist, OSP
• , Professor Mechanical Engineering, Chair, Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Policy and Practice

The post Working with Industry: Information Session for Researchers appeared first on 91̽��Research.