US FDA device chief: More review funding needed

Thu Feb 17, 2011 5:09pm EST

* FDA's Shuren: High workload taxing reviewers

* Industry says unpredictable FDA hurting investment

* Republicans urge review process improvements

By Lisa Richwine

WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration needs more funding to help discourage staff turnover and help speed reviews, the agency's device chief said on Thursday.

FDA reviewers are stretched thin with a heavy workload and increasingly complex technologies to evaluate, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren told lawmakers at a hearing on device regulation's impact on jobs and patients.

"We need to find means to handle an ever increasing workload and reduce staff and manager turnover," Shuren told lawmakers on a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.

Budget cuts proposed by House of Representatives Republicans would cause "increased delays" and "deny patients truly safe and effective innovative technologies," he said.

Shuren told reporters the FDA needed more funding from taxpayers or higher fees paid by companies seeking approval for their products. Device makers, which include Medtronic Inc (MDT.N), Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N) and Boston Scientific (BSX.N), and the FDA are negotiating new fees that would take effect in late 2012.

House Republicans are pushing for cuts to taxpayer funding of the FDA and other agencies in a drive to reduce government spending, setting up a showdown with Democrats who are resisting major reductions.

Republican Representative John Shimkus told Shuren that increases in FDA funding from Congress were unlikely.

"You can ask all you want. There's no more money," Shimkus said. To create new jobs, "we have to ease the regulatory burden," he said.

Other lawmakers also urged Shuren to streamline the review process to help encourage investment and create jobs. Many mentioned their districts were home to device companies.

Industry witnesses said the FDA was discouraging venture capital investment in new technologies and threatening U.S. jobs with unpredictable and unreasonable demands on companies.

"Over the past few years it has been increasingly more difficult, more time consuming, more costly and less predictable to navigate the FDA approval process," said Josh Makower, an inventor who founded six medical device companies.

"As a result, investment is drying up, companies are moving overseas or closing their doors," he said.

The FDA's Shuren agreed the FDA needed to provide clarity in some areas. But he also said a "significant number" of applications to the agency are "incomplete or fail to address basic elements such as the device's proposed indications for use." That adds time to the review process, he said.

Other witnesses urged the FDA to properly balance a desire for new products with tough oversight of safety risks.

"Although we want to stimulate innovation and job creation, we cannot afford to allow deregulation to place the American public at risk," said Dr. Steven Nissen, head of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic and a critic of the FDA's safety oversight. (Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
I am an investor in a company, and I have been following the FDA in regards to the NDA for that company for the last few years. The agency missed a factory inspection in France, causing a delay in the approval, and then after three months they managed to inspect the one facility that must have been inspected several times as many pharma use that sight. Then a CRL was done..delay another 6 months..then they didnt finish on time to inspect another facility..then another CRL and never have they said anything is wrong with the drug safety or efficacy as far as what I read but now they want the new device to be clinical trialed in humans vs a simple bioequivalance to the previous device. This 12week clincial trail has the effect of a delay of another year. This drug has cost Billions and 15 years to bring to this stage and the FDA wants to compair the new disposible device that only last two weeks against one that last a year? I imagine if the company can design a device to last a year with ZERO complaints they can make one that last 2 weeks with little risk. The drug can lower hypoglycemic events significantly in a risk reward ratio with 8% of diabetics dieing from hypoglycemia..it seems to risk adverse. Surely the FDA could let the new inhaler be used but they are bean counting trying to get more money out of congress and companies with the excuse of speeding up when they have already increased their budget by over 40%! and what results came? More RED TAPE! Just my opinion but the FDA heads husband which has a hedge fund in competing companies..is questionable at a minimum imo..

Feb 17, 2011 8:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
I suggest cutting the red tape as the FDA is gaming the system by not approving devices or drugs that leads to overlaps that would not be there if they approved drugs on time and didnt miss factory inspections. They are not clear with companies, and sandbag companies at the end of the process instead of working with companies during the process. Its like a teacher that fails you at the end of the year that doesnt tell you anything is wrong on your progress reports throughout the year and then simply says you have to repeat the grade..

Feb 17, 2011 8:08pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.