Assessing the Impacts of the Prescription Drug User Fee Acts (PDUFA) on the FDA Approval Process
Congress enacted and renewed the Prescription Drug User Fee Acts (PDUFA) in 1992, and renewed it in 1997 and 2002, mandating FDA performance goals in reviewing and acting on drug applications within specified time periods. In turn, the FDA was permitted to levy user fees on drug sponsors submitting applications to the FDA. While PDUFA mandated action or review times, its ultimate impacts on actual final drug approval times are unknown. We model and quantify the impact of PDUFA-I and II on drug approval times, since these approval dates are the ones most directly related to new medicines becoming available to benefit patients.In assessing the impacts of PDUFA on drug approval times, it is noteworthy that approval times were trending downwards at 1.7% percent per year prior to implementation of PDUFA. Assuming continuation of that time trend, approval times post-PDUFA would have fallen even in the absence of PDUFA. Our principal finding is that PDUFA accelerated this downward trend so that instead of a counterfactual 6% reduction in approval times from 24.2 to 20.4 months in absence of these acts between 1991 and 2002, there was an observed decline of about 42%, from 24.2 to 14.2 months, following implementation of PDUFA. Thus, of the total observed decline in approval times between 1991 and 2002, approximately two-thirds can be attributed to PDUFA. However, much of this impact occurred in the initial years between 1992 and 1997 (PDUFA-I) rather than during the subsequent 1997-2002 time frame (PDUFA-II). We discuss implications of these findings and how future research might quantify the social value of the observed acceleration in the FDA drug approvals.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 8 (2005)
Issue (Month): 1 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: https://www.degruyter.com|
|Order Information:||Web: https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/fhep|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bpj:fhecpo:v:8:y:2005:n:2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Peter Golla)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.