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. Liberals do not understand that marriage is not about a law or a right ... it is a rite of religous faith. Liberals want "legal" recognition of their homosexual relationship ... which is OK by me ... but it will never be classified as a marriage because marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. You can gain / obtain legal recognition / status ... but most people will not acknowledge that 2 people of the same sex are married. It's not really possible as long as marriage is defined as one man and one woman.

  2. That second phrase, "...nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens..." is the one. If you can't understand that you lack a fundamental understanding of the Constitution and I can't help you. You're blind with prejudice.

  3. Why do you conservatives always go to the marrying father/daughter, man/animal thing? And why should I keep my sexuality to myself? I see straights kissy facing in public all the time.

  4. I just read the XIV Amendment ... I read where no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property ... nor make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunitites of citizens ... I didn't see anything in it regarding the re-definition of marriage.

  5. I worked for Community Health Network and the reason that senior leadership left is because they were not in agreement with the way the hospital was being ran, how employees were being treated, and most of all how the focus on patient care was nothing more than a poster to stand behind. Hiring these analyst to come out and tell people who have done the job for years that it is all being done wrong now...hint, hint, get rid of employees by calling it "restructuring" is a cheap and easy way out of taking ownership. Indiana is an "at-will" state, so there doesn't have to be a "reason" for dismissal of employment. I have seen former employees that went through this process lose their homes, cars, faith...it is very disturbing. The patient's as well have seen less than disireable care. It all comes full circle.

ADVERTISEMENT