ARPA-H is the newest and most ambitious health funding agency in the US government, with $1.5 billion in FY2026 funding, average project awards of $26 million, and SBIR Phase I awards up to $600K (roughly double most agencies). It funds health breakthroughs at a scale NIH, NSF, and DoD SBIR programs simply don't match. But the bar is different -- ARPA-H doesn't fund incremental improvements. It funds the technologies that can't be achieved through conventional approaches.
If your startup is building something that could transform how we prevent, detect, or treat disease at a fundamental level, ARPA-H might be the most valuable funding source you've never applied to. Here's how the process actually works.
What ARPA-H is (and why it's not NIH)
ARPA-H -- the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health -- was established in 2022 and modeled on DARPA's approach to defense technology. The core idea: fund high-risk, high-reward health research that traditional agencies won't touch. Too ambitious, too unconventional, too far from guaranteed results -- that's where ARPA-H steps in.
The practical differences from NIH matter for how you write your application:
| Dimension | ARPA-H | NIH |
|---|---|---|
| Innovation bar | Non-incremental (10x, not 10%) | Incremental improvements acceptable |
| Review process | Single Program Manager decides | Peer review panel (study section) |
| Evaluation framework | Heilmeier Catechism (10 questions) | 5 scored criteria (1-9 scale) |
| Funding vehicle | Other Transactions (not grants) | Grants and cooperative agreements |
| First step | 3-6 page Solution Summary | R21/R01 application (6-12 pages) |
| Preliminary data | Helpful but not required | Often critical for competitive score |
| SBIR Phase I | Up to $600,000 | Up to $314,363 |
| IP terms | Negotiable (Bayh-Dole doesn't apply) | Bayh-Dole applies |
| Average project size | $26 million | Varies ($250K-$500K for R21/SBIR) |
The biggest mental shift: NIH asks "is this good science?" ARPA-H asks "if this works, does it change everything?" Your Solution Summary needs to answer the second question convincingly. At Cada, we see most first-time ARPA-H applicants default to NIH-style incremental framing -- that's the single biggest fixable mistake.
The four mission offices and what they fund
Every ARPA-H submission goes to one of four mission offices. Each has its own Innovation Solicitation for Solutions (ISO), and picking the right one matters -- a misaligned submission gets rejected regardless of quality.
| Mission Office | Abbreviation | Focus | Example Technologies |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health Science Futures | HSF | Foundational biotech tools | AI for biological discovery, cellular engineering, novel molecular tools, regenerative medicine |
| Proactive Health | PHO | Prevention and early detection | Wearables for pre-symptomatic detection, cancer screening, health monitoring, exposure tracking |
| Resilient Systems | RSO | Health infrastructure | Health IT interoperability, supply chain resilience, cybersecurity, rural access, emergency response |
| Scalable Solutions | SSO | Population-scale delivery | Biomanufacturing, last-mile delivery, community health, care coordination, health literacy |
How to choose: Ask yourself where the primary bottleneck your technology solves lives. A diagnostic device could be HSF (novel sensing mechanism) or PHO (enabling earlier detection) -- the distinction is whether the innovation is in the tool itself or in what the tool enables for patients.
When it's genuinely ambiguous, target the mission office with the most active programs matching your technology. Check arpa-h.gov/explore-funding for current program-specific opportunities.
How ARPA-H funding works: ISOs and Other Transactions
ARPA-H has two primary entry points:
Mission Office ISOs (rolling submissions): Each of the four mission offices maintains an open Innovation Solicitation for Solutions. You submit a Solution Summary anytime -- there's no fixed deadline. The PM reviews it and decides whether to invite a full proposal. All four ISOs are currently open as of April 2026.
Program-specific solicitations: When ARPA-H launches a new program (like STOMP for microplastics or 1-CURE for radiotherapy), they issue a targeted solicitation with specific technical requirements. These have defined review periods and are more competitive because the scope is narrower.
ARPA-H SBIR: Separate from ISOs. SBIR Phase I awards up to $600K, Phase II up to $3.5M. Solicitations open on a rolling basis -- check arpa-h.gov/explore-funding/sbir for current openings.
The Solution Summary format: 6 pages that decide everything
A Solution Summary is your first and most important submission. It's a 3-6 page concept document (depending on the solicitation) that a Program Manager reads to decide one thing: is this worth a full proposal?
The standard structure for Mission Office ISOs:
Section 1: Concept Summary (~1 page) What you're trying to do, stated without jargon. The health problem, your proposed solution, and why it matters. This section must answer the Heilmeier questions "What are you trying to do?" and "Who cares?"
Section 2: Innovation and Impact (~1.5 pages) How this problem is solved today, the limits of current approaches, what's new in your approach, and why you believe it will succeed. Must demonstrate the "non-incremental" bar -- 10x improvement, not 10%.
Section 3: Proposed Work (~2 pages) Your technical approach, milestones, timeline, risks, and how you'll measure success. Include Go/No-Go decision points. This is where you address the Heilmeier questions about risk, timeline, and success metrics.
Section 4: Team and Capabilities (~0.5 page) Key personnel, relevant expertise, and organizational capabilities. ARPA-H cares about execution credibility -- can this team actually deliver?
Section 5: Basis of Estimate (~0.5 page) Budget summary with major cost categories. Not a full budget -- just enough to show you've thought through what it will cost and the numbers are reasonable.
The Heilmeier Catechism: the 10 questions every PM asks
Every ARPA-H Program Manager evaluates your Solution Summary against the Heilmeier Catechism -- 10 questions developed by George Heilmeier, a former DARPA director. If your submission doesn't address all 10, it won't advance.
| # | Question | Where to Address It |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | What are you trying to do? (No jargon.) | Section 1: Concept Summary |
| 2 | How is it done today, and what are the limits? | Section 2: Innovation and Impact |
| 3 | What is new in your approach and why will it succeed? | Section 2 + Section 3 |
| 4 | Who cares? If successful, what difference will it make? | Section 1 + Section 2 |
| 5 | What are the risks? | Section 3: Risk mitigation |
| 6 | How much will it cost? | Section 5: Basis of Estimate |
| 7 | How long will it take? | Section 3: Milestone table |
| 8 | What are the mid-term and final exams to check success? | Section 3: Go/No-Go decisions |
| 9 | How will you address equity and access in health? | Section 2: Health equity |
| 10 | How will you mitigate potential misuse? | Section 3: Misuse considerations |
What does an ARPA-H Program Manager actually look for?
ARPA-H PMs are not peer reviewers. They're technical domain experts with the authority to fund projects based on their own judgment. Here's what moves the needle:
Non-incremental innovation. This is the single biggest filter. If your technology is a better version of what exists, ARPA-H isn't interested. They want technologies that cannot be achieved through conventional approaches. "Faster" isn't enough. "Fundamentally different mechanism" is.
Clear health impact at scale. PMs evaluate whether your technology could change outcomes for a large patient population. A treatment that helps 500 patients per year is an NIH project. A platform that could transform care for 50 million people is an ARPA-H project.
Executable milestones. ARPA-H uses Go/No-Go decision points. Your Solution Summary must show you've thought about what "works" means at each stage -- and what evidence would convince you (and the PM) to stop if it doesn't.
Portfolio differentiation. If ARPA-H already funds something similar, your submission gets rejected. Before writing, check arpa-h.gov/explore-funding/awards for the current portfolio. Active overlap is a disqualifier. Cada Partners runs a portfolio overlap check on every ARPA-H engagement before writing begins -- it saves weeks of wasted effort.
SBIR vs. ISO: two paths into ARPA-H funding
| Path | SBIR | Mission Office ISO |
|---|---|---|
| Award size | Phase I: up to $600K; Phase II: up to $3.5M | $1M-$109M (avg $26M) |
| Who it's for | Small businesses (<500 employees) | Anyone (universities, nonprofits, companies, individuals) |
| Entry document | SBIR proposal (follows ARPA-H SBIR solicitation format) | Solution Summary (3-6 pages) |
| Submission timing | When SBIR solicitations are open (rolling, periodic) | Anytime (ISOs are always open) |
| Competition | Against other small businesses | Against everyone (including universities, large companies) |
| IP terms | SBIR data rights apply | OT-negotiated (more flexible) |
For most startups, the ISO path is better. SBIR solicitations are intermittent and topically constrained. The Mission Office ISOs are always open and accept a wider range of health innovations. The award sizes are also significantly larger.
The exception: if your technology fits an active SBIR topic and you want a faster, more predictable process with guaranteed small business set-aside, the SBIR path can be more efficient.
The realistic timeline from submission to award
Here's what the process actually looks like, step by step:
| Stage | Timeline | What Happens |
|---|---|---|
| SAM.gov registration | 2-6 weeks | Required before submitting. Start this now if you haven't. |
| Solution Summary submission | Day 0 | Submit through ARPA-H Solutions Portal |
| PM review and response | 2-12 weeks | PM reads your summary. Response is "Encouraged," "Discouraged," or no response. |
| Full proposal development | 4-6 weeks | If encouraged, you develop the full proposal with detailed technical plan and budget. |
| Proposal review and selection | Variable | PM evaluates full proposals, may request modifications. |
| Contract negotiation | ~6 months | Terms, milestones, IP, and budget finalized. |
| Total realistic timeline | 9-15 months | From first submission to contract award |
What should your Budget and Basis of Estimate include?
The Basis of Estimate (BOE) in your Solution Summary isn't a full budget. It's a high-level summary showing you've thought through costs realistically. Include:
- Personnel: Key team members, percent effort, loaded rates
- Equipment: Major equipment purchases
- Materials and supplies: Lab consumables, reagents, devices
- Subcontracts: University partners, CROs, testing facilities
- Travel: Site visits, PM meetings, conferences
- Other direct costs: Patient recruitment, regulatory fees, data management
- Indirect costs: Your organization's negotiated rate (or proposed rate)
- Total: Broken down by period/phase if multi-year
The PM isn't looking for perfect numbers. They're checking whether your cost estimate is reasonable for the scope of work proposed. A $500K budget for a project that requires three clinical sites and 200 patients raises red flags. A $5M budget for a software prototype raises different red flags.
Should your startup apply to ARPA-H?
- Your technology addresses a health challenge at a fundamentally different level than current approaches
- You can articulate a 10x improvement (not just "better" or "faster")
- Your solution could impact a large patient population if it works
- You have a credible team with relevant domain expertise
- You can define clear Go/No-Go milestones
- You're comfortable with milestone-based funding (payment tied to deliverables)
- Your innovation is incremental -- a better version of existing technology
- Your technology primarily serves a small patient population (<10,000)
- You need the funding for product development or commercialization (not R&D)
- Your concept overlaps with an active ARPA-H program
- You can't explain the innovation without specialized jargon
- You need guaranteed funding on a fixed timeline (OTs have Go/No-Go risk)
What mistakes get Solution Summaries rejected?
1. Incremental framing. "20% improvement in accuracy" doesn't meet the bar. Reframe around what the technology makes possible for the first time, not how it improves what exists.
2. Jargon-heavy HQ1 answer. If the first paragraph of your Concept Summary requires a PhD to understand, the PM will stop reading. Lead with the health problem in plain language.
3. Ignoring portfolio overlap. ARPA-H PMs track what's already in their portfolio. If they fund something similar, you're out. Research current awards before writing.
4. Missing the health equity question. HQ9 asks about equity and access. Many applicants skip this or add a perfunctory sentence. Show you've actually thought about who benefits and who might be left out.
5. Vague milestones. "Develop and test the prototype" isn't a milestone. "Achieve 95% sensitivity in detecting biomarker X in 50 patient samples by Month 12" is.
6. Wrong mission office. Submitting a diagnostic device to SSO (which focuses on delivery at scale) instead of PHO (which focuses on early detection) signals you haven't done your homework.
7. No misuse consideration. HQ10 is often overlooked. For health technologies, think about: dual-use risks, data privacy, equitable access, and unintended consequences.
How does ARPA-H compare to other health funding agencies?
| Feature | ARPA-H | NIH SBIR | NSF SBIR | BARDA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBIR Phase I | Up to $600K | Up to $314K | $305K | N/A |
| SBIR Phase II | Up to $3.5M | Up to $2M | $1.25M | N/A |
| Non-SBIR awards | $1M-$109M | R01: ~$250K/yr | N/A | $10M-$500M+ |
| Review type | PM-directed | Peer review panel | Peer review panel | Government panel |
| Innovation bar | Non-incremental (10x) | Significant | Intellectual merit | Countermeasure-specific |
| Preliminary data | Helpful, not required | Often critical | Helpful | Required for most programs |
| Timeline to award | 9-15 months | 9-12 months | 6-9 months | 12-24 months typical |
| IP flexibility | High (OT, no Bayh-Dole) | Moderate (Bayh-Dole) | Moderate (Bayh-Dole) | Negotiated |
| Currently accepting | Yes (ISOs rolling) | Yes (omnibus solicitation) | Yes (quarterly) | Program-specific |
Want help with your ARPA-H submission?
ARPA-H is one of the most valuable -- and most misunderstood -- funding sources for health startups. The Solution Summary format is deceptively simple. Six pages. But those six pages need to hit every Heilmeier question, demonstrate non-incremental innovation, and convince a single PM that your technology is worth millions in investment.
We've written ARPA-H Solution Summaries, NIH SBIR proposals, and multi-agency funding strategies for health startups at every stage. If you're considering ARPA-H and want an honest assessment of your fit, our Strategy Review is the place to start.
For a side-by-side comparison of ARPA-H vs. NIH for health startups, read our ARPA-H vs NIH decision framework. For broader health funding options, see our guide to government grants for biotech and healthtech startups.