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

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Miller et al. find benefits of Medicaid for pregnant mothers in 1980s carry over two generations

Starr's findings account for some of the 19% black-white gap in federal sentencing

Frey says suburbs are aging, cities draw millennials

More News

Highlights

Bailey et al. find higher income among children whose parents had access to federal family planning programs in the 1960s and 70s

U-M's campus climate survey results discussed in CHE story

U-M honors James Jackson's groundbreaking work on how race impacts the health of black Americans

U-M is the only public and non-coastal university on Forbes' top-10 list for billionaire production

More Highlights

Next Brown Bag

Mon, Jan 22, 2018, noon: Narayan Sastry

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