IBJNews

FDA deal with drugmakers raises user fees 6 percent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

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. Well, we could blame ABC because they haven't advertised the INDY 500....not during the HUGE TV rating shows like Dancing with the Stars (of which IICS driver Helio Castroneves is a former champion). He never won a CART championship, did he?

    We could blame the new car...because it's ugly and has a V6 that has less horsepower than the pace car. CART (to my knowledge) never had that problem with cars they presented at the speedway years 1979 through 1995.

    We could blame the fencepost, but that would be crass. Or maybe Danica? Or maybe Jean Alesi....or boost increases from constant rules tampering. Maybe we could blame Penske who still is winning everything as usual.

    Maybe we can blame the world for not understanding the the great Indy gods who regularly twist things in such ways that we mere mortals must only accept, but never question.

    So, it does beg the question....who is responsible if the series and Indy continues to flounder? Are the responsibilities so diffuse and complicated that no one really is to blame for it's fall from grace?

    I urge the speedway to sign on for 7 more years of ABC coverage and 7 more years of NBC Sports Network coverage. It been win-win so far....*cough* *cough*

  2. "They're problem was thinking they were bigger than the institution that made their existence possible. That turned out to be a mistake."

    The above quote made by Disciple shows his continued inability to grasp a simple concept: CART is dead. Twice. It provided a brilliant stage for some of the best open wheel racing in all the past century of racing. It's gone DOOD, get over it.

    PLEASE explain, Mr. Disciple of INDYCAR, why you continually hammer home, even on the eve of the 2012 Indy 500, this same point...over and over? Seriously, why does the legacy of CART haunt you so much?

    The same problems that affected the sport for over a century of AOW racing STILL affect it now. Your answers (or lack thereof) belittle the very sport you claim to love. Indy rots in your hands yet you request status quo. You negate salient points with drivel...always.

    Indy is not going to die. But, it is dying...are you willing to accept that? "Indy is a hot mess"....it's true. Yet you want it that way? What is wrong with you?

  3. I just want to make sure I am reading this right - Wellpoint is eliminating 112 employees. Wellpoint is a customer of Repucare. Repucare is creating 82 jobs. I sure hope they are hiring Wellpoint employees. Does not make sense!

  4. Triscuts...love um!

  5. Of course the fair will go on. Don't you big city reporters understand county fairs? Get outside the beltway and see what life is really like!

ADVERTISEMENT