Advertisement

The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act and the Food and Drug Administration: Metamorphosis or Makeover?

  • 2 Citations

Abstract

The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA) is the first legislation to bring about significant and widespread modifications to the regulatory environment for drugs and biologicals in more than 35 years. The expectations of what FDAMA is to accomplish are high. This article reviews the results from the first two years of implementation of the major FDAMA provisions for drugs and biologicals. First, however, the elements of the adversarial culture that brought about the impetus to modernize FDA are discussed. Next the article focuses on FDA’s more “modernized” approach to the process of governing, through the use of such mechanisms as governance by guidance, direct final rules, national videoconferences, and stakeholders meetings. In addition, the process for implementing FDAMA and what the products of that process have been, both the rules themselves and the outcomes for the regulated community, are discussed. Lastly, the article considers whether FDA is capable of change and what the real message of FDAMA is.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 189

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

References

  1. 1.

    Food and Drug Administration Modernization and Accountability Act of 1997. Senate Report 105–43, to accompany S 830, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, 105th Congress, 1st Session.

  2. 2.

    Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997, Summary prepared by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. November 21, 1997. http://www.bio.org/laws/modernization.dgw.

  3. 3.

    Prepared statement of Alan Holmer, President of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), before the House Commerce Committee, October 7, 1998.

  4. 4.

    Loose cannons. BioCentury. 1998;6(21):A4–A5.

  5. 5.

    Robinson ML. FDA and industry embark on new collaborative era. Reg Aff Focus. 1998:3(1):18–21.

  6. 6.

    Woodcock J. An FDA perspective on the drug development process. Food & Drug Law J. 1997;52(2):145–150.

  7. 7.

    Versteegh LR. Science and regulatory rituals associated with the drug development process. Food & Drug Law J. 1997;52(2):155–161.

  8. 8.

    Opening Statement of Chairman James M. Jeffords, Hearing on FDA Modernization Act: implementation of the law, Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions Committee, October 21,1999. http://www.senate.gov/~gregg/body_index.htm.

  9. 9.

    Investigational New Drug Applications; clinical holds. Federal Register. 1998 Dec. 14;63(239): 68676.

  10. 10.

    Prepared statement of Alan Holmer, President of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension, October 21, 1999.

  11. 11.

    USFDA “Converting to regulation by guidance.” Pharma Marketletter. 1998 Oct. 26:25(42): 15.

  12. 12.

    Guidance for industry: qualifying for pediatric exclusivity under section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; September 1999.

  13. 13.

    Guidance for industry: qualifying for pediatric exclusivity under section 505A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; June 1998.

  14. 14.

    Industry active role in guidance development urged by Wyeth’s Burlington. Pink Sheet. 1999 Oct. 4; 61(40):24.

  15. 15.

    Prepared Statement by Jane E. Henney, MD, Commissioner of Food & Drugs, Food and Drug Administration, before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, October 21, 1999. http://www.senate.gov/~labor/heari...

  16. 16.

    Food and Drug Administration, Summary of FDA Public Meeting on Section 406(b) of FDA Modernization Act of 1997, September 14, 1998. http://www.fda.gov/oc/fdama/comm/mtg 91498.html.

  17. 17.

    CBER Stakeholders Meeting, Summary of Proceedings. Aug. 14, 1998. http://www.fda.gov/cber/minutes/cber814.htm

  18. 18.

    Opening Statement of Edward M. Kennedy, Hearing on FDA Modernization Act: Implementation of the Law, October 21, 1999. http://www.senate.gov/~gregg/body_index.htm.

  19. 19.

    Suydam LA, Elder DK. FDAMA update. Food & Drug Law J. 1999;54(1):21–33.

  20. 20.

    Federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §551 et seq., §sec. 551 (4), 1991.

  21. 21.

    Koch CH. Administrative Practice and Procedure. Second Edition. Charlottesville VA; Michie; 1991:627–628,19.

  22. 22.

    Gellhorn E, Levin RM. Administrative Law and Process. 3rd Edition. St. Paul, MN: West; 1991:310.

  23. 23.

    Testimony of Ms. Janice Bourque, Massachusetts Biotechnology Council, Hearing on the Modernization of the Food and Drug Administration, before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, October 21, 1999. http://web.lexis-nexis.com/congcomp/docu.

  24. 24.

    Merrill RA. Modernizing the FDA: an incremental revolution. Health Aff. 1999;18(2):96–111.

  25. 25.

    Fisher LD. One large, well-designed, multicenter study as an alternative to the usual FDA paradigm. Drug Inf J. 1999;33(1);265–271.

  26. 26.

    Guidance for industry: providing clinical evidence of effectiveness for human drug and biological products. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; May 1998.

  27. 27.

    Prescription Drug User Fee Reauthorization and Drug Regulatory Modernization Act of 1997, House Report 105–310, to accompany H.R. 1411, 105th Congress, 1st Session.

  28. 28.

    Guidance for industry: standards for the prompt review of efficacy supplements, including priority efficacy supplements. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; May 1998.

  29. 29.

    FY 1998 Performance report to Congress for the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 as amended by the FDA Modernization Act of 1997. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; January 1999. http://www.fda.gov/ope/pdufa/report98/default.htm #Outcomes.

  30. 30.

    Efficacy supplements approved in CY 99. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; 1999. http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt/escy99ap.htm.

  31. 31.

    Efficacy supplements approved in CY 98. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration; Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; 1998. http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt/eff98.htm.

  32. 32.

    Dissemination of information on unapproved/new uses for marketed drugs, biologics, and devices; final rule. Federal Register. 1998 Nov. 20;63(224):64555.

  33. 33.

    Remicade off-label RA campaign cleared with balancing statement. Pink Sheet. 1999 Jun. 7;61(23):3–4.

  34. 34.

    United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Washington Legal Foundation v. Jane E. Henney and Donna Shalala, Order Granting Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction, Civil Action No.1:94CV01306 (RCL). http://www.FDCReports.com./RULING.HTM.

  35. 35.

    Testimony of Jane Henney, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Hearing on the Modernization of the Food and Drug Administration, before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, October 21, 1999.

  36. 36.

    Wechsler J. Sailing the straits, Henney on FDA, FDAMA & marketing. Pharma Exec. Dec. 1998;18(12):42–48.

  37. 37.

    Regulations requiring manufacturers to assess the safety and effectiveness of new drugs and biological products in pediatric patients. Federal Register. 1998 Dec. 2;63(231):66632.

  38. 38.

    Remarks by Linda Suydam, Senior Associate Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, presented at Food and Drug Law Institute, Educational Conference, Washington, DC, December 17, 1999. http://www.fda.gov/oc/speeches/fdli991s.html.

  39. 39.

    Milne C-P. Pediatric research: coming of age in the new millennium. Am J Therapeutics. Sep. 1999;6(5):263–282.

  40. 40.

    Standard NDA reviews most affected by downturn in first-cycle NDA approvals Lumpkin asserts. U.S. Reg Reporter. Oct. 1999:16(4):1–3.

  41. 41.

    Cocchetto DM, Jones DR. Faster access to drugs for serious or life-threatening illnesses through use of the accelerated approval regulation in the United States. Drug Inf J. 1998,32(1):27–35.

  42. 42.

    DiMasi JA, Manocchia M. Initiatives to speed new drug development and regulatory review: the impact of FDA-sponsor conferences. Drug Inf J. 1997;31(3):771–788.

  43. 43.

    Fast track drugs may lose designation if criteria are no longer met-FDA. Pink Sheet. 1998;60(47):32.

  44. 44.

    Morrison J. Ombudsman’s corner: CDER’s pet peeves—part II. News Along the Pike. 2000;6(1):3.

  45. 45.

    An interview with Director of the Division of Cardio-Renal Drug Products Raymond Lipicky, M.D. U.S. Reg Reporter. Oct. 1999;16(4):3–7.

  46. 46.

    Patients or profits? Economist. 1998 Mar. 7:15.

  47. 47.

    Healy EM, Kaitin KI. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products’ centralized procedure for product approval: current status. Drug Inf J. 1999;33(4):969–978.

  48. 48.

    Pharma outpaced in global rankings. Scrip. 1999; #2454:9.

  49. 49.

    US retail Rx sales to rise 18%. Scrip. 1999;#2470:15.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Dr. Christopher-Paul Milne DVM, MPH, JD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Milne, C. The Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act and the Food and Drug Administration: Metamorphosis or Makeover?. Ther Innov Regul Sci 34, 681–692 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150003400304

Download citation

Key Words

  • FDA Modernization Act
  • FDAMA
  • Food and Drug Administration
  • Rule making