IBJNews

FDA deal with drugmakers raises user fees 6 percent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Drugmakers such as Pfizer Inc. and Eli Lilly an Co. have agreed with regulators on a 6-percent increase in review fees as part of reauthorizing the drug-approval process through fiscal 2017.

The deal, disclosed in part Thursday, would renew for five years a federal law funding Food and Drug Administration evaluations of brand-name drugs. Congress must approve the accord before the law expires on Sept. 30, 2012.

The increase is expected to add $40.4 million to user-fee revenue in fiscal 2012, bringing the fiscal 2013 total to $712.8 million, Karen Riley, a spokeswoman for the FDA, said in an e-mail. The agency in turn will have to meet with companies in the midst of reviews to raise concerns and ensure that evaluations are carried out in a timely way.

The agreement “should allow more timely access to safe and effective new medicines,” said David Wheadon, senior vice president for scientific and regulatory affairs at lobbying group the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, in a written statement.

Drugmakers fund about 60 percent of the cost of agency reviews, according to the FDA. The agreement includes additional review time for the agency to fit in extra meetings, extending the window for reviews after submitting applications to eight months from six months, and 10-month periods to 12 months.

The FDA and the industry also agreed to meet 12 days before the agency convenes advisory panels that evaluate drugmaker applications, giving companies time to gather needed data, according to the draft.

The agreement includes a third-party review of whether the FDA is meeting drug-review goals, according to the draft.

Drug safety also will be strengthened through standardization of the requirements for risk strategies the FDA mandates of some medicines and support for the use of an online drug safety tracking system to assess post-market risks, Wheadon said.

The last time user fees were reauthorized in 2007, Congress gave the FDA new responsibilities to promote drug safety including requiring risk strategies for some drugs, which caused the agency to slow its review process.

Jim Greenwood, president of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, a lobbying group in Washington for biologic drugmakers, said in a statement the agreement “would restore FDA’s review performance.”

Companies such as New York-based Pfizer and Eli Lilly of Indianapolis have been discussing with the FDA a user-fee renewal since July 2010. Medical-device companies such as New Brunswick, N.J.-based Johnson & Johnson are in separate talks on fees they pay the agency for product reviews.

The device industry rejected the agency’s proposal to more than double fees to $770 million across five years from $295 million, according to meeting minutes. Manufacturers are insisting on a safeguard against 11th-hour requests from regulators that the industry says delay approvals, according to Steve Ubl, president of the Advanced Medical Technology Association in Washington, D.C.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT