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

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Thompson casts doubt on the rehabilitative intentions of prison labor

Inglehart says European social democracy is a victim of its own success

Bound, Khanna, and Morales find multiple effects of H1-B visas on US tech industry

More News

Highlights

Heather Ann Thompson wins Bancroft Prize for History for 'Blood in the Water'

Michigan ranks in USN&WR top-10 grad schools for sociology, public health, labor economics, social policy, social psychology

Paula Lantz to speak at Women in Health Leadership Summit, March 24, 2:30-5:30 Michigan League

New site highlights research, data, and publications of Relationship Dynamics and Social Life study

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, March 20, 2017, noon:
Dean Yang, Taken by Storm

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, Suppl(Web Exclusives): W3-618-24.

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