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

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Kruger says reports of phantom mobile phone ringing/vibrating more common among anxious

Stafford says too early to say whether stock market declines will curtail Americans' spending

Eisenberg says many colleges now train campus personnel to spot and refer troubled college students

Highlights

Call for papers: Conference on Integrating Genetics and the Social Sciences, Oct 21-22, 2016, CU-Boulder

PRB training program in policy communication for pre-docs. Application deadline, 2.28.2016

Call for proposals: PSID small grants for research on life course impacts on later life wellbeing

PSC News, fall 2015 now available

Next Brown Bag

Monday, Feb 1 at noon, 6050 ISR-Thompson
Sarah Miller

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