Pink Sheet is part of the Business Intelligence Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

FDA DRUG USER FEE PROGRAM APPARENTLY PRESERVED

Executive Summary

FDA DRUG USER FEE PROGRAM APPARENTLY PRESERVED from an overhaul proposed by the Clinton Administration that would have raised fee amounts, expanded the types of products subject to fees and shunted all revenues to the general Treasury for deficit reduction. Late in the week of March 8, legislators including Reps. Dingell (D-Mich.) and Waxman (D-Calif.) and Sen. Kennedy (D- Mass.) are understood to have convinced the Office of Management & Budget that the FDA user fee law should not be altered from the form stipulated in the authorization bill enacted by Congress last year ("The Pink Sheet" Oct. 12, 1992, p. 3). Under the law, FDA is authorized to charge brandname drug makers fees for NDA reviews and for annual product and establishment registrations, and nonprescription drug manufacturers for the review of NDAs for Rx-to-OTC switches. NDA review fees are set at $150,000 each in fiscal 1994 and grow to $233,000 in 1997 under the legislation. Total program revenues are projected to be $54 mil. in 1994 and grow to $84 mil. by 1997. The Clinton Administration proposed in its budget request to expand the program so that it would cover all drugs and all medical device products. Although the proposal contains few specifics, it also would have raised the fees considerably in order to collect a total of $167 mil. in fiscal 1994 and a projected $336 mil. by FY 1997, for a four-year total of $1.05 bil. The most significant difference in the Clinton proposal, however, is that it would earmark all revenues for deficit reduction rather than for enhancement of FDA resources ("The Pink Sheet" Feb. 22, p. 9). FDA and the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, in addition to the congressional authors of the user fee law, opposed the plan to overhaul the program. The agency needs the resources, and the association wants to receive the benefit of expedited reviews from the fees its member companies will pay. Although the law has been protected from an OMB attack for now, it has yet to be implemented. FDA cannot begin collecting drug user fees until Congress enacts a supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal 1993 setting out the $36 mil. ceiling for cumulative fees the agency is authorized to collect this year. (In subsequent years, the limits will be stipulated in standard appropriations bills.) FDA had hoped that a supplemental bill would be enacted by Congress by April 1 ("The Pink Sheet" Feb. 8, p. 17). However, because of the current emphasis in Washington for cutting government programs, no supplemental spending bills are in sight. The House recently passed President Clinton's stimulus package, but, eager to show its restraint, passed it without any add-ons. Because there may be significant pressure for the Senate to do the same, it could prove difficult for FDA's friends on Capitol Hill to use the stimulus package as the vehicle for the supplemental appropriations. Kennedy and Waxman reportedly are contemplating a bill authorizing FDA collection of user fees for medical devices. The proceeds would be split between the Treasury and the Center for Devices and Radiological Health both to reduce the deficit and to improve the center's premarket review program. The Health Industry Manufacturers Association opposed inclusion in last year's user fee legislation of provisions for medical device fees, even though all revenues would have been earmarked for enhancing CDRH resources. Therefore, the device industry could be expected to oppose this year's proposal vehemently. However, as one Hill staffer said, "the choice is simply ours or OMB's" bill, in which all revenues go to Treasury.
Advertisement
Advertisement
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

PS022289

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel