Funding

Why is the FDA funded in part by the companies it regulates?

C. Michael White
By C. Michael White
July 4, 2021

The Food and Drug Administration has moved from an entirely taxpayer-funded entity to one increasingly funded by user fees paid by manufacturers that are being regulated. Today, close to 45% of its budget comes from these user fees that companies pay when they apply for approval of a medical device or drug.

As a pharmacist and medication and dietary supplement safety researcher, I understand the vital role that the FDA plays in ensuring the safety of medications and medical devices.

But I, along with many others, now wonder: Was this move a clever win-win for the manufacturers and the public, or did it place patient safety second to corporate profitability? It is critical that the U.S. public understand the positive and negative ramifications so the nation can strike the right balance.

Pfizer-890x487.jpg
Exterior of the Pfizer World headquarters building. Pfizer produced the first COVID-19 vaccine to gain emergency use authorization.

The FDA blocks thalidomide

Americans in the early 20th century were outraged when they found out that manufacturers used poor-quality methods for producing food and medication, and used unsafe, ineffective and undisclosed addictive ingredients in medications. The resulting Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 gave the taxpayer-funded Food and Drug Administration new authority to protect the U.S. consumer.

One of the FDA’s most shining successes occurred in the late 1950s when the agency refused to approve thalidomide. By 1960, 46 countries allowed pregnant women to use thalidomide to treat morning sickness, but the FDA refused on the grounds that the studies were insufficient to demonstrate safety. Debilitating birth defects resulting from thalidomide arose in Europe and elsewhere in 1961. President John F. Kennedy heralded the FDA in 1962 for its stance. An FDA driven by the data – and not corporate pressure – prevented a major tragedy.

Presidential-signing-751x600.jpg
FDA/Wikimedia Commons
Following the 1961 thalidomide tragedy in the U.S., President John F. Kennedy signed the 1962 Drug Amendments to the 1938 Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act requiring that new drugs be approved on the basis of evidence submitted to FDA from pre-marketing clinical studies
demonstrating both safety and efficacy.

How AIDS changed how the FDA is funded

The FDA continued its work fully funded by U.S. taxpayers for many years until this model was upended by a new infectious disease. The first U.S. case of HIV-induced AIDS occurred in 1981. It was rapidly spreading, with devastating complications like blindness, dementia, severe respiratory diseases and rare cancers. Well-known sports stars and celebrities died of AIDS-related complications. AIDS activists were incensed about long delays in getting experimental HIV drugs studied and approved by the FDA.

In 1992, in response to intense pressure, Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. It was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.

With the act, the FDA moved from a fully taxpayer-funded entity to one funded through tax dollars and new prescription drug user fees. Manufacturers pay these fees when submitting applications to the FDA for drug review and annual user fees based on the number of approved drugs they have on the market. However, it is a complex formula with waivers, refunds and exemptions based on the category of drugs being approved and the total number of drugs in the manufacturers portfolio.

Over time, other user fees for generic, over-the-counter, biosimilar, animal and animal generic drugs, as well as for medical devices, were created. As time passed, the FDA’s funding has increasingly come from the industries that it regulates. Of the FDA’s total US$5.9 billion budget, 45% comes from user fees, but 65% of the funding for human drug regulatory activities are derived from user fees. These user fee programs must be reauthorized every five years by Congress, and the current agreement remains in effect through September 2022.

Protest-890x642.jpg
FDA/Wikimedia Commons
In 1988 the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power, or ACT-UP, organized a demonstration at FDA headquarters in Rockville, Maryland, to protest for greater access to investigational drugs to help treat AIDS patients.

Have user fees worked?

The FDA and the drug or device manufacturers negotiate the user fees. They also negotiate performance measures that the FDA has to meet to collect them, and proposed changes in FDA processes. Performance measures include things such as how quickly the FDA responds to meeting requests, how quickly it generates correspondence, and how long it takes from submission of a new drug application until the FDA approves or refuses to approve a drug or product.

Because of the additional funding generated by user fees and performance measures that the FDA has to meet, the FDA is quicker and more willing to discuss what it wants to see in an application with manufacturers. It also offers clearer guidance for manufacturers. In 1987, it took 29 months from the time a new drug application was filed by the manufacturer for the FDA to decide whether to approve a medication in the U.S. In 2014, it only took 13 months and by 2018, it was down to 10 months.

Changes in more recent years have also increased the number of standard new drug applications approved the first time around by the FDA from 38% in 2005 to 61% in 2018. In diseases where there are not many medication options for patients, the FDA has a priority review process, where 89% of new drug applications were approved the first time around and the approvals were completed in eight months in 2018. All this occurred while the number of new drug applications have been increasing over time.

Tweet-BMJ-445x465.jpg

Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has seen the FDA provide emergency use authorization for potential treatments in a matter of weeks, not months. The infrastructure and capacity to review the available information so rapidly is due in large part to the funding from user fees.

While the number and speed of drug approvals have been increasing over time, so have the number of drugs that end up having serious safety issues coming to light after FDA approval. In one assessment, investigators looked at the number of newly approved medications that were subsequently removed from the market or had to include a new black box warning over 16 years from the year of approval. These black box warnings are the highest level of safety alert that the FDA can employ, warning users that a very serious adverse event could occur.

Before the user fee act was approved, 21% of medications were removed or had new black box warnings as compared to 27% afterwards.

Some potential reasons that more adverse effects are coming to light after drug approval include senior FDA officials overturning scientist recommendations, a lower burden of proof for medication approval, and more clinical data in new drug applications coming from foreign clinical trial sites that require additional time to assess in an environment where regulators are rushing to meet tight deadlines.

Lack of money limits FDA

User fees are a viable way to shift some of the financial burden to manufacturers who stand to make money from the approval and sale of drugs in the lucrative U.S. market. Successes have occurred and provided U.S. citizens with medication more quickly than before.

However, without careful consideration of what is being negotiated, the FDA can become weak and ineffective, unable to protect its citizens from the next thalidomide. There are some signs that the pendulum may be swinging too far in the direction of the manufacturers. Additionally, while drug approval functions at the FDA are well funded, the FDA is insufficiently funded to protect consumers from other issues such as counterfeit drugs and dietary supplements because they cannot collect user fees to do so. In my view, these functions need to be identified and require additional taxpayer funding.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

C. Michael White
C. Michael White

C. Michael White is a distinguished Professor and Head of the Department of Pharmacy Practice, University of Connecticut

Join the ASBMB Today mailing list

Sign up to get updates on articles, interviews and events.

Latest in Policy

Policy highlights or most popular articles

Personal chemistry: Proteomics tackles privacy concerns
Feature

Personal chemistry: Proteomics tackles privacy concerns

Sept. 9, 2021

Sharing raw data is an important norm for the proteomics community. But as clinical studies become more detailed, researchers may need to clamp down to protect patient privacy.

What does full FDA approval of a vaccine do if it’s already authorized for emergency use?
News

What does full FDA approval of a vaccine do if it’s already authorized for emergency use?

Sept. 4, 2021

While emergency use authorization gets vaccines out to the public more quickly, it doesn’t skip any steps that full approval requires.

Society news briefs
Society News

Society news briefs

Aug. 17, 2021

Find out everything that’s been going on lately with the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

Steps for getting started in science policy
How-to

Steps for getting started in science policy

Aug. 11, 2021

“Science policy is a fast-paced field. You must be able to shift quickly between priorities and projects, sometimes in response to what’s going on that week in federal policy.”

Necessary or not, COVID booster shots are probably on the horizon
News

Necessary or not, COVID booster shots are probably on the horizon

Aug. 7, 2021

In today’s pharmaceutical universe, a simple “safe and effective” determination by the FDA to approve a drug can be manipulated to sell products of questionable value. And drugmakers can profit handsomely

US travel bans: Bizarre and ruthless
Open Letters

US travel bans: Bizarre and ruthless

Aug. 4, 2021

Continuing travel restrictions have prevented the author and thousands of other international scholars from seeing their families for a year and a half.