Senate Bill on ‘Mandatory’ FDA Funding a Mistake: Researchers
A Senate bill to move FDA funding from a discretionary to mandatory status would be a mistake, according to researchers from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. The researchers oppose a Democrat-sponsored bill called the National Biomedical Research Act that would increase funding for targeted biomedical initiatives through a new, reliable funding stream supporting FDA and the National Institutes of Health (see earlier story).
Putting FDA’s budget in a mandatory category would free it from the annual budgetary review by Congressional appropriators, they note, but this would unnecessarily limit the role of Congress. “With its unique ‘power of the purse,’ Congress can set priorities for government by appropriating spending across the vast array of problems and activities that this country faces every year,” they say.
The researchers also contend that instead on throwing more money at the agency, the better solution is decreasing the amount of information that it requires and reviews for drug development. “Two authors suggested changes in the New England Journal of Medicine by redesigning trials to include fewer patients, providing conditional approval of drugs, and requiring postmarketing surveillance,” they say. “The FDA needs more oversight, not less. While mandatory funding may seem like a lifeline, it’s putting the agency at risk by codifying outdated practices. Let’s first review the activity being funded and then determine the best way to pay for it.”