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

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Geronimus says black-white differences in mortality "help silence black voices in the electorate"

Do universities need more conservative thinkers?

Starr critical of risk assessment scores for sentencing

Highlights

Presentation on multilevel modeling using Stata, July 26th, noon, 6050 ISR

Frey's new report explores how the changing US electorate could shape the next 5 presidential elections, 2016 to 2032

U-M's Data Science Initiative offers expanded consulting services via CSCAR

Elizabeth Bruch promoted to Associate Professor

Next Brown Bag

PSC Brown Bags
will resume fall 2016

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