Advertisement

May 18, 2013

Sequestration: The Ripple Effect on the Life Sciences Industry

With sequestration scheduled to take effect today, the looming cuts to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are concerning for the whole of the life sciences industry.  The budget sequestration will cut 8.2% from the federal budget, resulting in about $320 million less in spending for the FDA in FY 13 than it had in FY 12.  This will put pressure on the FDA to furlough or lay-off employees.  The concern is that these effects will result in slower drug and device approvals, and substantially hamper product development.

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) law, passed by Congress in 1992, allows the FDA to collect fees from drug manufacturers to fund the new drug approval process.  This added funding source allowed the FDA to increase the number of new drug reviewers by 77% in the first eight years of the act, which substantially decreased approval time.  This year, new, increased user fee rates have gone into effect.  In its current, renewed version, PDUFA V collects about $41 million from prescription drug and biosimilar fees.  FDAs access to these fees is capped, though.  In an attempt to avoid a move backward in the pharma industry that could be caused by sequestration, the Obama administration is asking Congress to lift the cap on user fees, to help the FDA’s continued efforts to speed up the review process.  If the cap is not lifted, the increased user fee rates will continue, requiring life sciences companies to pay, without proportionate benefit to the FDA review process.

If the cuts significantly affect staffing at the FDA, concerns about the period of time required for approval in the review process will be exacerbated.  Lay-offs would not only slow the approval process, but also negatively affect the research process.  In medical device development, during the clinical trial phases, the FDA is statutorily required to let manufacturers know, within 30 days, if they need to stop the trials to fix an issue.  With limited personnel resources at the FDA due to lay-offs, it is possible that the 30-day time frame will come and go.  This means that the manufacturer will be allowed to proceed with trials, but will ultimately hit a road block when reaching the point of final approval from the FDA.

With significant pressure on life sciences companies to bring new products to market, sequestration is a serious worry.

This article was written by Michael Shapiro-Bar, Health Group Analyst.

©2013 Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved

About the Author

The Health Care Practice Group has represented the health care industry for more than 90 years, and we currently maintain one of the largest national practices in the representation of health care organizations.

Our practice serves clients nationwide and our health care lawyers have in-depth knowledge of this complex, highly regulated industry and the rapidly changing issues that impact the various sectors of the health care industry (including providers, health care vendors, health professional associations, provider-sponsored managed care organizations, group purchasing...

312-569-1270

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.