Drug company fees for FDA reviews haven't accelerated approvals, study finds

December 17, 2003

ANN ARBOR, Mich. - For the past ten years, drug companies have paid the U.S. Food and Drug Administration fees to review each new drug they want approved. But a new study shows that this program hasn't made the approval process any quicker -- its main goal -- than increased federal funding for the FDA was already doing before the industry fee program began.

The study, by a team from the University of Michigan and Harvard University, also counters critics' claims that the fee-based system might cause the FDA to give special treatment to larger, more powerful drug companies. The researchers found no evidence that those firms got faster approvals for their products. The results will be published online Dec. 17 by the journal Health Affairs.

"The bottom line is that the more staff the FDA has reviewing drug applications, the faster the approval process will be," says senior author A. Mark Fendrick, M.D., of the U-M Medical School and School of Public Health. "If you want more rapid assessment of new drugs, hire more people. And if you're still concerned about external influence or potential conflicts, fund them through additional mechanisms."

Fendrick and his colleagues compiled the new findings using a detailed analysis of 843 new drugs submitted for FDA approval between 1977 and 2000, including 320 drugs that were rejected. They looked at approval times for the drugs submitted in each year, and concurrent levels of FDA drug-review staffing. The analysis also included scrutiny of each drug's disease indications, and each drug company's sales totals, number of recent FDA submissions and lobbying budget.

The results enabled the researchers to see trends both before and after the passage of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) in 1992. PDUFA set fees that companies pay to the FDA, to offset the cost of hiring additional reviewing staff. In the 10 years since PDUFA took effect, companies have paid about $1 billion in fees.

Overall, the average time from a drug's submission to its approval decreased dramatically over the 13 years studied, from 24 to 36 months in the 1980s to roughly 14 months in the late 1990s. The researchers also report that the number of FDA staff reviewing drug applications rose steadily throughout the period from 1980 to 1998.

In fact, staffing levels were growing rapidly for about five years before PDUFA took effect, because of increased federal funding to the FDA budget. The researchers found that this prolonged, steady rise in review staff, not any particular aspect of PDUFA, was responsible for the drop in approval times.

In all, the average review time for a drug dropped by 3.3 months for every 100 additional FDA staff hired. If FDA staffing had stayed constant at 1980 levels throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the researchers show, average drug approval time would have stayed around 24 months.

Says Harvard government professor and lead author Daniel Carpenter, "The effect of enhanced staffing levels on decreasing approval times was substantial and observable several years before PDUFA was passed. Analyses designed to identify other effects of PDUFA, beyond those attributable to increased staff, was unrevealing."

Moreover, says Carpenter, "We found no evidence that larger or more politically active pharmaceutical firms fared better in the review process after PDUFA was enacted. In fact, approval times may have declined less rapidly for firms with larger sales, even as FDA staff resources grew."

While the source of the funding for additional staff doesn't appear to affect the speed of the review process, some critics have faulted the industry fee program for allegedly compromising the FDA's independence in other ways, or for speeding up approvals so much that dangerous side effects are overlooked. Effects beyond approval time, such as the quality of review or the number of recalls among the drugs that received approval, were not studied for the current report.

The study was motivated by several high-profile critiques of the PDUFA system, including allegations that the FDA had become a "servant of industry." Soon after the interdisciplinary team was assembled, the researchers realized that the effect of PDUFA on approval times -- and especially on approval times for drugs from major companies -- could be rigorously measured. They gathered data from publicly available sources, and analyzed it using several computer models.

The product is the first study that incorporates not only drug approval times and FDA staffing levels, but also rejected drugs, and characteristics of both the drugs and the companies that make them. The authors used three separate models to evaluate how approval times were changing before PDUFA took effect, to look for any shift in approval times after PDUFA, and to look at effects correlated to the submitting company's total sales, lobbying budgets, and number of previous New Drug Application submissions.

Overall, the results showed no major effect from PDUFA on top of what was already under way when PDUFA was passed, and no extra-rapid decrease in approval times for drugs from larger companies that pay the largest fees. As a result, the authors say the findings cast doubt on claims that PDUFA benefited more powerful firms disproportionately, or that the user fees directly promote industry influence on the drug approval process.

But their findings also call into question the industry's claims that PDUFA and its user fees are directly responsible for the ongoing decrease in drug approval times. "We strongly believe that nearly all of the decrease in approval times would have been achieved had the FDA been appropriated these funds directly, instead of relying on industry user fees," says co-author Michael Chernew, Ph.D., a health economist from the U-M School of Public Health. "And, such an appropriation would have avoided the suspicion of industry influence on drug approvals that has surrounded the FDA ever since."

In addition to Fendrick, Carpenter and Chernew, the study's authors include Dean G. Smith, Ph.D., of the U-M School of Public Health. The study was not supported in any way by pharmaceutical industry or FDA sources.
-end-


University of Michigan Health System

Related Public Health Articles from Brightsurf:

COVID-19 and the decolonization of Indigenous public health
Indigenous self-determination, leadership and knowledge have helped protect Indigenous communities in Canada during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, and these principles should be incorporated into public health in future, argue the authors of a commentary in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/doi/10.1503/cmaj.200852.

Public health consequences of policing homelessness
In a new study examining homelessness, researchers find that policy such a lifestyle has massive public health implications, making sleeping on the street even MORE unhealthy.

Electronic health information exchange improves public health disease reporting
Disease tracking is an important area of focus for health departments in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pandemic likely to cause long-term health problems, Yale School of Public Health finds
The coronavirus pandemic's life-altering effects are likely to result in lasting physical and mental health consequences for many people--particularly those from vulnerable populations--a new study led by the Yale School of Public Health finds.

The Lancet Public Health: US modelling study estimates impact of school closures for COVID-19 on US health-care workforce and associated mortality
US policymakers considering physical distancing measures to slow the spread of COVID-19 face a difficult trade-off between closing schools to reduce transmission and new cases, and potential health-care worker absenteeism due to additional childcare needs that could ultimately increase mortality from COVID-19, according to new modelling research published in The Lancet Public Health journal.

The Lancet Public Health: Access to identification documents reflecting gender identity may improve trans mental health
Results from a survey of over 20,000 American trans adults suggest that having access to identification documents which reflect their identified gender helps to improve their mental health and may reduce suicidal thoughts, according to a study published in The Lancet Public Health journal.

The Lancet Public Health: Study estimates mental health impact of welfare reform, Universal Credit, in Great Britain
The 2013 Universal Credit welfare reform appears to have led to an increase in the prevalence of psychological distress among unemployed recipients, according to a nationally representative study following more than 52,000 working-age individuals from England, Wales, and Scotland over nine years between 2009-2018, published as part of an issue of The Lancet Public Health journal on income and health.

BU researchers: Pornography is not a 'public health crisis'
Researchers from the Boston University School of Public Health (BUSPH) have written an editorial in the American Journal of Public Health special February issue arguing against the claim that pornography is a public health crisis, and explaining why such a claim actually endangers the health of the public.

The Lancet Public Health: Ageism linked to poorer health in older people in England
Ageism may be linked with poorer health in older people in England, according to an observational study of over 7,500 people aged over 50 published in The Lancet Public Health journal.

Study: Public transportation use linked to better public health
Promoting robust public transportation systems may come with a bonus for public health -- lower obesity rates.

Read More: Public Health News and Public Health Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.