Home > Publications . Search All . Browse All . Country . Browse PSC Pubs . PSC Report Series

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Terry-McElrath, O'Malley and Johnston find association between school drug testing and increased use of illicit drugs other than marijuana

MTF researchers find availability of soft drinks at high schools increases consumption among black students

Geronimus discusses causes, potential solutions to racial disparities in infant mortality

Highlights

Arline Geronimus wins Excellence in Research Award from School of Public Health

Yu Xie to give DBASSE's David Lecture April 30, 2013 on "Is American Science in Decline?"

U-M grad programs do well in latest USN&WR "Best" rankings

Sheldon Danziger named president of Russell Sage Foundation

Next Brown Bag



Back in September

Twitter Follow us 
on Twitter 

Approval Times for New Drugs: Does the Funding Source for FDA Staff Matter?

Archived Abstract of Former PSC Researcher

Carpenter, D., Michael Chernew, D.G. Smith, and A. Mark Fendrick. 2003. "Approval Times for New Drugs: Does the Funding Source for FDA Staff Matter?" Health Affairs. Web-Exclusive Supplement W3, 618-624.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been criticized for injudicious and excessively rapid approval of new drugs as a result of pharmaceutical industry influence. Many critics focus on the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992, which augmented the FDA's budget through the charging of user fees. We assess the effect of FDA staffing patterns and attributes of submitting firms on approval times for 843 new drug applications (NDAs) submitted between 1977 and 2000. NDA review times shortened by 3.3 months for every 100 additional FDA staff. The amount of funding for FDA staff appears to be a much more important influence on NDA review time than the source of funding.

Browse | Search : All Pubs | Next