The end of the year will be the end of an era at the FDA, as Bob Temple shuts his door at CDER for the last time Dec. 31. After more than half a century at the FDA’s drug center, Temple has become the backbone of CDER’s new drug program, providing expertise and stability as other personnel have come and gone.
With no time to spare, the U.S. Congress is coming together on a continuing resolution (CR) to keep the federal government running beyond Dec. 20. Intended to fund the government at current levels through March 14, the CR itself is temporary. But of the 1,500-plus pages in the package House leadership released late Dec. 17, only about 100 pages pertain to the actual CR. More than a third of the package is devoted to the health-care sector.
If a bipartisan group of U.S. House members has its way, at least some of the legislation congressional committees have passed to target pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) practices could yet make it into law this year. That is if congressional leaders listen to the rank-and-file members.
The Biosecure Act missed its expected ride through the U.S. Congress via the National Defense Authorization Act, but it may not be the end of the road for the bill that would prohibit direct or indirect U.S. government contracts with listed “biotechnology companies of concern.”
With the U.S. Congress sitting on its hands on reforms to the 340B drug discount program, states are stepping into the gap. While most state efforts have been aimed at forcing biopharma companies to give the federally mandated drug discounts to an increasing number of contract pharmacies, California is looking in a different direction. According to unofficial election results, a slim majority of the state’s voters said yes to Proposition 34, which would require certain providers that benefit from the drug discounts to spend at least 98% of their 340B revenues on direct patient care.
The drug and device industries have a lot hinging on the results of the Nov. 5 U.S. presidential and congressional elections. Tax policies. The reach of the FTC. Legislation aimed at drug prices, competition, pharmacy benefit managers and lab-developed tests. Cabinet and agency appointments that could reshape Medicare drug negotiations, the 340B program, FDA Orange Book device patent listings, regulatory flexibility and Bayh-Dole march-ins. And that’s just the top of the list.
Although more and more gene therapies are getting the FDA stamp of approval, concerns persist about their potential long-term risks. U.S. lawmakers have proposed several pieces of legislation over the past few years to address some of the uncertainties. Now the Congressional Research Service (CRS) is suggesting other requirements Congress may want to consider to improve the regulatory landscape for gene therapies, especially those intended to treat blood disorders.
If the maximum fair prices the U.S. CMS announced after the first round of drug price negotiations are any indication, advocates of the government price setting may be settling for short-term wins at the cost of long-term, more sustainable price reductions driven by competition.
Legislation that would give the U.S. government a cut of some big pharma profits has once again surfaced in Congress. First introduced in the 114th Congress and every Congress since, the Medical Innovation Act was reintroduced Oct. 18 as a way to tap into the profits of some large biopharma companies to augment research dollars at the FDA and NIH for future drugs and diagnostics, as well as for regulatory science and to support early career scientists.
With confidence dropping in doing business with China-affiliated life sciences companies due to the Biosecure Act, one of the companies explicitly named in the U.S. legislation is fighting back. Raising the possibility of a constitutional challenge to the bill, Rade Drmanac, co-founder and chief scientific officer of Complete Genomics Inc., wrote to congressional leaders to urge them to remove the California-based subsidiary of MGI from the bill.
RSS
