On May 11, 2017, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension (HELP) Committee voted in support of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, or FDARA, now formally moving through the legislative process as S. 934. The committee voted almost unanimously to move the bipartisan bill forward, with only Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) voting against it. And in an interesting overlap of FDA-related news, the Agency’s brand-new Commissioner, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, was also sworn in on May 11th following a speedy (albeit politically controversial and party-line) confirmation process and Senate vote. With less than a week on the job, Dr. Gottlieb is already receiving pressure from varied stakeholders to ensure the user fee legislation is enacted in a timely manner in order to avoid disrupting the Agency’s work. Continue Reading FDA User Fee Legislation Moves Forward in Senate with Multiple Policy Riders On-Board
Just as the public comment period for the bicameral, bipartisan discussion draft of the “FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017” ended on Friday, what we have been calling the User Fee Games got even more interesting and engaging. As we previously reported, a discussion draft of the FDA Reauthorization Act was released jointly by leaders of the Senate HELP Committee and the House Energy & Commerce Committee two weeks prior to that comment deadline. It now seems that the late start to the 2017 user fee legislative process – along with the rapid approach of summer and the risk of Agency layoffs if this five-year reauthorization cycle is not completed before August – has gotten everyone pushing on the accelerator a bit. Continue Reading More Bipartisan Bills Hope to Catch a Ride on the UFA Reauthorization Legislation
On April 14, 2017, leaders from the Senate HELP Committee and the House Energy & Commerce Committee released the first discussion draft of the 2017 FDA user fee reauthorization bill. As we’ve been reporting (see here and here for our past coverage), these two committees have held numerous public hearings since the beginning of March to learn more about FDA’s “big 4” user fee programs – for prescription drugs, medical devices, generic drugs, and biosimilars. Continue Reading Congressional Leaders Seek Input in UFA Reauthorization Draft Bill by April 28, 2017
As we noted previously in our introductory blog post on the 2017 User Fee Act (UFA) reauthorization process, the first UFA hearing on Capitol Hill was convened on March 2, 2017 by the House Energy & Commerce Committee’s (E&C) Subcommittee on Health. That hearing focused on the UFAs specific to generic drugs and biosimilar biological products. Since then, Congress has held several more UFA hearings, and multiple FDA-related bipartisan bills that could become important to this process have been introduced. So it’s time for an update on how things are going with the UFA reauthorizations. Continue Reading FDA User Fee Hearings Picking Up Steam on Capitol Hill
In the alphabet soup that is health and FDA law and policy (if you don’t know what we mean, are you sure you should be reading this blog?), one acronym that doesn’t get a lot of respect is “UFA.” This is the first is a series of blog posts that aim to educate and inform our readers about why the UFA acronym matters and how the UFA legislative process may be particularly significant in 2017.
UFA stands for “User Fee Act,” of which there are many flavors in this modern era – from the old-timer Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), born in 1992, to the more toddler-ish Biosimilar User Fee Act (BsUFA) that joined us in 2012. Other important UFAs for the U.S. health care system and stakeholders are the Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA), which were enacted first in 2002, and the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA) that launched at the same time as their biosimilar companion. Continue Reading Let the 2017 “UFA” Games Begin!
As we enter a new era in which executive agencies are headed by President Trump, we are also faced with many other transformative changes that will affect FDA-regulated entities in a significant and lasting way. This post will outline some of our thoughts related to what could face FDA and its various stakeholders as we go forward into the great unknown.
First, since being signed into law by former President Obama on December 13th, we’ve been writing and speaking about the myriad provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act. This wide-ranging law has many mandates for agency actions and new guidance documents, which FDA will be working on beginning this year, but far beyond 2017 as well. Drug, biologic, and medical device stakeholders are also awaiting the outcome of the upcoming reauthorization of all the major User Fee Acts that are “must-pass” legislation before the end of the current fiscal year (FY17 ends on September 30th), in order to ensure FDA’s continuing operations. Many other policy changes that are expected to result from the switch from a Democratic-led to a Republican-led Executive Branch, the latter also being supported by a GOP-controlled Congress, will likely have major impacts on medical product developers. Continue Reading FDA’s Enforcement Priorities Likely to Change in 2017 and Other “Unknowable Knowns”
Since congressional enactment and presidential signing of the Cures Act into law earlier this month, we have been blogging on discrete regulatory and clinical areas affected by its provisions (see here and here). One small, but by no means insignificant, change is the Cures Act’s explicit recognition that drug and biologic manufacturers should have the ability to promote their products to payors and health plans through well-developed “health care economic information.” Continue Reading Cures Act Affirms Drug Companies’ Ability to Discuss Certain Information with Payors
As we noted in our December 9th post, the 21st Century Cures Act (the “Cures Act”) requires FDA to develop a framework and guidance for evaluating real world evidence (“RWE”) in the context of drug regulation to support approvals of new indications for previously approved drugs, and to support or fulfill post-approval study requirements. This directive to apply RWE in the drug sphere is particularly interesting because FDA has issued a draft policy on the use of RWE in the context of medical devices, but has generally remained silent about applying RWE to pharmaceutical and biologic regulatory considerations. In this post, we briefly review the Cures Act’s RWE provision, as well as FDA’s recent public remarks about the use of RWE, and we provide some predictions on how FDA will implement the RWE evaluation program.