Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA)
Excerpted from Congressional Research Services Report RL33914
Updated July 12, 2007
Susan Thaul
Specialist in Prescription Drugs and Biologics
Domestic Social Policy Division
Read the full report.
The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), first enacted in 1992 and reauthorized twice (referred to as PDUFA II and PDUFA III), gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) a revenue source — fees paid by the pharmaceutical manufacturers — to supplement, not replace, direct appropriations. The impetus behind the 1992 law was the length of time from a manufacturer’s submission of a New Drug Application (NDA) or a Biologics License Application (BLA) to FDA and the agency’s issuing its decision on approval or licensure, which FDA attributed to constrained review-staff time. This delay affected patients and manufacturers.
PDUFA I goals were to diminish the backlog of applications at FDA and to increasingly shorten the time from submission to decision. PDUFA II expanded the goals to include activities related to the investigational phases of a new drug’s development; it also added the goal of increasing FDA communications with industry and consumer groups. PDUFA III authorized activities both at earlier (preclinical development) and at later (up to three years after drug approval) stages of drug research and development. FDA set these performance goals in conjunction with the drug manufacturers, and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) submitted them in letters to the chairs of the relevant congressional authorizing committees. The Secretary also submits annual performance and financial reports.
Based on its stated goals, PDUFA has generally been viewed as a success. FDA has added review staff and reduced its review times. It has also standardized the information required for applications and developed computer tools to use electronically submitted data.
Criticism of PDUFA fits into three categories. First, the fees have not fully covered FDA’s increased costs, despite the provisions that Congress implemented. Second, because PDUFA has directed a majority of the collected fees toward premarket review of applications, some people see PDUFA as responsible for what they view as the agency’s increasing focus on premarket activities in contrast to the relatively slower increase in postmarket surveillance and safety studies and enforcement. They point to the fees’ funding 20% of the salaries and expenses in FDA overall and 30% within the human drug program (with a yet higher proportion among the premarket drug review staff). Finally, some critics think that, through its provision of fees, the industry has too much influence over FDA actions.
The 110th Congress is moving legislation to reauthorize PDUFA as part of a broad compilation of FDA-related provisions. S. 1082 (as passed by the Senate on May 9, 2007) and H.R. 2900 (as passed by the House on July 11, 2007) each contain broadly similar versions of the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments of 2007. These were based on FDA’s proposal for PDUFA IV, developed in consultation with Congress, industry, and health-care consumers and professionals, and include goals that focus on securing FDA’s sound financial footing and enhancing premarket review and the postmarket safety system.
Pages: 1 2
Login/Register to EditWIKI:
Our issue pages are taken from Congressional Research Service reports to guarantee objectivity and accuracy. You can help us by expanding the discussion on this issue.
