Trump Administration Policy Statement Calls for FDA Premarketing Activities to be Funded Entirely by Industry Fees

The Trump White House released a Statement of Administration Policy on Wednesday in response to the House of Representatives’ passage of H.R. 2430, a bill that would reauthorize the use of four FDA user fee programs: the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the Medical Device User Fee Amendments, the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments, and the Biosimilar User Fee Act.

 

The Trump Administration’s Statement includes the following recommendation:

 

“The Administration urges the Congress to provide for 100 percent user fee funding within the reauthorized programs.  In an era of renewed fiscal restraint, industries that benefit directly from FDA’s work should pay for it.”

 

This call for the FDA to be fully funded by user fees paid by medical-device and pharmaceutical companies echoes previous statements from the Trump White House.  In May, the Trump Administration released its budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2018, which called for the elimination of federal funding of premarketing review programs at FDA.  Trump’s budget proposed that FDA user fees should be recalibrated from approximately $1.2 billion in 2017 to over $2.4 billion in 2018.  The FDA currently receives about 60% of its funding for premarketing review from user fees.

 

Scott Gottlieb, the newly confirmed FDA commissioner, has expressed his support for increasing user fees as a way for funding FDA activities.  FDA’s budget request for 2018 seeks $3.2 billion in user fees—a reported increase of 68 percent from 2017 levels.

 

Some industry experts have expressed concern that a large increase in FDA user fees could discourage innovation and keep smaller companies such as digital startups from entering the market. Increasing FDA user fees would also complicate existing user fee agreements that FDA negotiated with the medical device industry last summer.

 

While the future of user fees remains uncertain, the Trump Administration and FDA’s persistence in calling for higher user fees suggests that fee hikes could be looming—a development that could have major effects on the medical device industry.

Neil Anderson

Neil Anderson’s practice emphasizes patent litigation and prosecution in the chemical, biochemical, and pharmaceutical fields.

As an undergraduate, Neil collaborated in designing and developing microfluidic tools to aid physicians in quantifying biochemical markers that are indicative of disease. He also aided in synthesizing small RNA-binding molecules as a potential new method of treating HIV and bacterial infections.

He received his Juris Doctor from Cornell Law School, where he was a Managing Editor of the Cornell Law Review.

Neil worked as a summer associate at the firm in 2014 and joined the firm in 2015.

Click here to read full bio
View all posts published by Neil Anderson »

Leave a Reply

By using this blog, you agree and understand that no information is being provided in the context of any attorney-client relationship. You further agree and understand that nothing herein is intended to be legal advice. This blog is solely informational in nature, and is not intended as, and should not be used as, a substitute for competent legal advice from a retained and licensed attorney in your state. Knobbe Martens LLP makes no representations or warranties as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness or availability of the information in this blog. Knobbe Martens LLP will not be liable for any injury or damages relating to your use of, or access to, any such information. Knobbe Martens LLP undertakes no obligation to correct or update information on this blog, which may be incorrect or become incorrect or out of date over time. Knobbe Martens LLP reserves the right to alter or delete content or information on the blog at any time. This blog contains links and references to other websites and publications that you may find of interest. Knobbe Martens LLP does not control, promote, endorse or otherwise have any affiliation with any other websites or publications unless those websites or publications expressly state such an affiliation. Knobbe Martens LLP further has no responsibility for, and makes no representations regarding, the content, accuracy or any other aspect of the information in such websites or publications.