All Clarivate websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.

More information on our cookie policy.

BioWorld. Link to homepage.

Clarivate
  • BioWorld
  • BioWorld MedTech
  • BioWorld Asia
  • BioWorld Science
  • Data Snapshots
    • BioWorld
    • BioWorld MedTech
  • Special reports
    • Aging
    • Artificial intelligence
    • Coronavirus
    • IVDs on the rise
    • Top Biopharma Trends of 2021
    • Top Med-tech Trends of 2021
    • Premium reports
      • BioWorld Financings Reports
      • Disease Incidence & Prevalence Summaries

BioWorld. Link to homepage.

  • Sign In
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Subscribe
BioWorld - Friday, August 12, 2022
Home » Blogs » BioWorld MedTech Perspectives » FDA user fees: A necessary evil?

BioWorld MedTech Perspectives
BioWorld MedTech Perspectives RSS FeedRSS

BioWorld MedTech / FDA

FDA user fees: A necessary evil?

March 9, 2012
By Mark McCarty
No Comments

The FDA medical device review mechanism has come under fire from many quarters for some time now, but one of the criticisms of the 510(k) and PMA programs is that the reviews are funded by user fees, a claim that can be made of pharmaceuticals, biotech and now even FDA’s overview of food production. Opponents can complain all they want about user fees, but what can they do about them?

As has been widely reported, the Obama administration has proposed that FDA’s total budget for FY 2013 would rise by double-digit percentages, but 98% of that increase comes from user fees. Call me a cynic, but I have a tough time believing that Congress will be able to keep its hands off that last 2% – or more – of appropriated monies in an effort to get a handle on the amazingly large U.S. federal budget deficit. That’s an understandable move in the current climate, but past congresses and presidents don’t have that fig leaf to explain their lassitude where the FDA budget is concerned.

So opponents of user fees currently face a fairly immovable budgetary object, but it won’t always be that way (we hope). This raises the question, however, of why the expression of these adversarial views has had no effect. After all, it's not just outside groups who don’t like user fees. Industry doesn’t rant about them but device makers can’t be fond of them, especially the smaller firms with limited financial resources.

One way of looking at this is that nothing gets the attention of the folks on Capitol Hill like a call from a constituent. And nothing lights a fire under their behinds faster than multiple calls from constituents on a particular matter. Would that work for user fees?

I’m not claiming that outrage from the heartland would necessarily put an end to user fees, but it’s tough to see how they could be eliminated without such an outcry. And the thing I find most conspicuous about this discussion is how it always involves the same message delivered by the same faces living in the same zip codes. The conversation is all inside the Beltway.

Like it or not, Congress won’t end user fees unless someone tries to get the citizenry involved, but ask yourself this: When was the last time you heard someone with the necessary credibility (or bankroll) propose “taking it to the people”? The Alliance for a Stronger FDA is probably the best hope for such an undertaking, but I doubt seriously its member organizations are prepared to fork over the cash needed for such an effort, and the Alliance might not be interested in fighting that fight in the first place.

Ergo, we can only conclude that the effort will not be undertaken, and therefore FDA user fees are the necessary evil with which we must all live. So get over it already.

You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Report Abusive Comment

Popular Stories

  • Free access to BioWorld coronavirus articles

    BioWorld
    The articles in this collection are from BioWorld’s ongoing coverage of the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic. They are available for free with registration. Note...
  • Today's news in brief

    BioWorld
    BioWorld briefs for Aug. 11, 2022.
  • Today's news in brief

    BioWorld MedTech
    BioWorld MedTech briefs for Aug. 11, 2022.
  • Amvuttra

    Alnylam’s Amvuttra rare disease drug among positive recommendations from Europe’s CHMP

    BioWorld
    Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Amvuttra (vutrisiran), a treatment for the rare disease hereditary transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis, was among medicines...
  • Pig organ cells

    Whole body cellular function recovery in pigs after death

    Science
    A new system for restoring cell function and tissues in mammals after death could expand the availability of organs for transplantation. The research also opens...
black cortellis ad

BioWorld Premium

Enjoy extended coverage for the most complete market view with BioWorld, BioWorld MedTech, and BioWorld Asia in a single, easy to access subscription.

Subscribe
  • BioWorld
    • Today's news
    • Analysis and data insight
    • Clinical
    • Data Snapshots
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Opinion
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • BioWorld MedTech
    • Today's news
    • Clinical
    • Data Snapshots
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Opinion
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • BioWorld Asia
    • Today's news
    • Analysis and data insight
    • Australia
    • China
    • Clinical
    • Deals and M&A
    • Financings
    • Newco news
    • Regulatory
    • Science
  • BioWorld Science
    • Archives
    • Today's news
    • Search BioWorld Science
    • About
  • More
    • About
    • Archives
    • Article reprints and permissions
    • Contact us
    • Cookie policy
    • Copyright notice
    • Data methodology
    • Podcasts
    • Privacy policy
    • Share your news with BioWorld
    • Staff
    • Terms of use
Follow Us

Copyright ©2022. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing