The U.S. FDA’s draft device user fee agreement was months late in arriving on Capitol Hill, a fact which also delayed the public meeting on the draft, an event that finally took place April 19. The meeting kicked off with an acknowledgement by second-time FDA commissioner Robert Califf of the growing role of user fees in FDA finances, but Mark Leahey, president and CEO of the Medical Device Manufacturers Association (MDMA), said that the quality of FDA reviews was at least as important as the timeliness of those reviews even though the user fee deals include many deadline-based metrics.
The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee met April 5 to review the user fee agreements for the drug and device centers, but one member of the committee was quite vocal about the ever-growing volume of user fees. Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) said the pace with which user fees are increasing suggests that the FDA is growing increasingly independent of Congress.
Negotiations between the U.S. FDA and industry over device user fees were a protracted struggle, but the agency was demonstrably loathe to post the minutes from meetings between the agency and industry representatives. Jeff Shuren, director of the FDA’s device center, said in a congressional hearing that those minutes were not posted because of a need to wrap up the negotiations rather than allow outsiders – including members of Congress – to see how difficult the negotiations had become.
The U.S. FDA has finally unveiled the fifth edition of the device user fee program (MDUFA V), and some of the performance measures remain unchanged from MDUFA IV, such as that the FDA will process 95% of 510(k) filings within 90 days.
The FDA and device makers have finally wrapped up what may be the most contentious set of negotiations in the history of the device user fee program. Despite industrial antipathy to a recurrent doubling of user fee volumes, the fifth device user fee deal will provide the FDA with as much as $1.9 billion in user fees, roughly double the fees collected under the current agreement.
The process of reauthorizing critical U.S. FDA user fee agreements (UFAs) for drugs, generics and biosimilars took its first step forward in Congress Feb. 3 as the House Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Health dipped its feet into the new enhancements included in the agreements the FDA negotiated with stakeholders over the past two years.
The quinquennial user fee process for medical devices has always proven controversial, but the FDA and industry have missed a Jan. 15 deadline for an agreement to be presented to Congress. Recently, several members of the House and Senate inked a letter to the FDA about the missed deadline, a signal that the agency’s aspirations for a $2.5 billion user fee deal are in jeopardy.
Cardiologist Robert Califf has been nominated a second time to lead the FDA, and drug pricing was again high on the agenda at the Dec. 14 Senate hearing for his nomination.
Negotiations between the FDA’s device center and the med-tech industry over the next device user fee schedule are dragging on, but the gap between the two sides may have narrowed. The FDA had previously proposed a package that ran more than double the current total user fee volume, and industry has responded with a proposal that would provide the agency with $1.65 billion in user fees over five years, leaving the two sides with a gap of more than $800 million to bridge.
The least burdensome principle is a critical component in industry’s understanding of the proper role of government regulation, but this principle is the subject of considerable tension between the two sides. The latest report on the FDA’s performance under the fourth device user fee agreement noted that device makers raised the least burdensome flag in less than 0.5% of 510(k) submissions filed between February 2019 and April 2021, but the report gives the agency passing grades on its handling of those potentially controversial regulatory encounters.
