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

PSC In The News

RSS Feed icon

Savolainen links antisocial behavior in childhood to disadvantage and poverty in adulthood

Norton et al. put dollar value on relief from chronic pain for Americans age 50+

Seefeldt says TANF restrictions may limit program's help for poor Americans

More News

Highlights

Paula Fomby to succeed Jennifer Barber as Associate Director of PSC

PSC community celebrates Violet Elder's retirement from PSC

Neal Krause wins GSA's Robert Kleemeier Award

U-M awarded $58 million to develop ideas for preventing and treating health problems

More Highlights

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