FDA and Life Sciences Industry Relationship Is Complicated By New Science and Changing Expectations, Finds PWC Survey
New York, November 30, 2010 – Growing public demand for increased medical device and drug safety, as well as the need to develop medical products faster, is complicating the current regulatory approval process and relationship between the life sciences industry and its chief regulator, the US Food and Drug Administration, according to a new PwC report published today entitled Improving America’s Health V— A survey of the working relationship between the life sciences industry and FDA.
The latest in a series of PwC reports over the past 15 years on the working relationship between the life sciences industry and FDA, Improving America’s Health V provides feedback from 50 life sciences companies, including the makers of biologics, drugs, medical devices and diagnostics. The study found that life sciences companies feel communication with FDA has improved steadily since passage of the FDA Modernization Act of 1997, but new expectations are fueling frustration with the regulatory review process.
Thirty-eight percent of life sciences companies in the study
said they feel that the overall working relationship with FDA has
improved over the past two years, and 80% said that FDA is
providing better guidance about its expectations. Sixty-eight of
companies said they are incorporating this feedback into product
development.
Sixty-four percent of companies said that meeting with FDA before
submitting review materials improved the quality of their
applications, and 87% said it expedited their applications, but
industry did not always take advantage of the meetings and only
about half (53%) said FDA consistently encouraged these
meetings.
Six in ten companies expressed frustration that FDA had changed its
position during a review, and four in ten feel that some products
were denied because of FDA’s inadequate review
resources.
The industry feels that FDA is not keeping up with rapidly
advancing technology. Only 8% of drug and device makers think FDA
is doing enough to advance personalized medicine.
More than half (56%) of respondents who are familiar with the
FDA’s Critical Path Initiative to bring innovative, high
priority therapies to market quickly think that FDA currently lacks
the capability to implement the initiative.
Bringing a new drug to market can take up to 12 years in research
and development and costs well in excess of $1 billion. However,
the time, cost and complexity of the process are not well
understood by most Americans, according to a separate PwC survey of
1,000 US adults. PwC conducted the survey to gauge public
perceptions of the FDA and how they compare to the industry's views
and in recognition of the growing influence of consumers
preferences and expectations in healthcare. The findings of this
research, which is supplemental information and does not appear in
the Improving America’s Health report, indicate that consumer
expectations may be changing.
Ninety-three percent of US consumers are confident about the
safety and effectiveness of drugs and medical devices approved for
use in the United States, and two-thirds agree that the US has the
highest standards in the world for drug safety and
effectiveness.
Yet, more than half (56%) said they would be willing to use drugs
and devices approved outside the US, before they are approved by
FDA.
Fifty-four percent of respondents think it takes only five years or
less to develop a new drug or medical device.
“Consumers want safer, more effective drugs and devices and
access to the latest medical innovation. Industry wants fast and
efficient product approvals. And Congress wants better quality,
lower cost healthcare that demonstrates enhanced economic and
clinical value” said Michael Mentesana, PwC’s US
Pharmaceutical and Life Sciences Research and Development Advisory
Services Leader. “Hope lies in accelerating scientific and
technological advancement as we learn more about genetic
differences and individual responses to treatments. But the promise
of faster product development has yet to be realized and the
quality and productivity of the FDA-industry relationship would be
better on both sides if there was more collaboration and clarity
around expectations.”
User fees in question
According to the Improving America's Health V report, two post-2006 developments could account for the less positive industry feedback about FDA: The 2007 FDA reauthorization (FDAAA), which expanded the responsibilities of the already resource-constrained FDA, and the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which authorizes FDA to collect fees from companies that make certain drugs and biologic products to help fund an accelerated review process of new, innovative medicines.
PDUFA requires companies that make the drugs pay user fees, which range up to $1.25 million per drug application. FDA maintains that this is a crucial funding source and has helped to expedite the drug approval process. Current authorization for collection of user fees will expire in September 2012, unless Congress renews it.
PwC’s surveys found mixed responses from both the life sciences industry and the American public regarding the topic of user fees.
Nearly half (46%) of industry respondents do not see that user
fees paid to FDA by industry have accelerated the review
process.
Forty-eight percent of companies in the study feel that FDA has not
been clear about the intended purpose of user fees or transparent
about the way they are applied.
Thirty-percent of industry respondents feel that user fees are
excessive compared with the time that FDA staff spends on
reviews.
Twenty-two percent of industry respondents feel that user fees
create a potential conflict of interest, though half (50%) disagree
that it creates a conflict of interest.
While most consumers surveyed (68%) understand that FDA is largely
taxpayer funded, only 36% know that industry also helps to fund its
activities. This lack of visibility may explain why 70% of
consumers do not agree that fees from industry should be used to
accelerate the regulatory review process, an indication that, in
principle, Americans may view user fees as a conflict of
interest.
“Clearly there is a need for better communication between FDA
and the industry over the intended use and effectiveness of user
fees,” said Joseph D. Panetta, president and CEO of BIOCOM,
the world’s largest regional life sciences association, which
helped to develop and distribute the industry survey among its
members. As PDUFA reauthorization is considered, and certainly
before any fee increase, the FDA needs to meet the performance
standards for timeliness and clarity that PDUFA is meant to
ensure.”
PwC’s consumer survey of 1,000 American adults found:
Seventy-two percent of respondents have confidence that the FDA
monitors product safety after products are approved and being sold
to the public, though 28% are not confident.
Approximately one-half (51%) of respondents say they think FDA does
a good job, but more than one-third (36%) of US consumers say they
have lost confidence in the FDA over the past two years as a result
of high profile safety concerns and product recalls.
Court of public opinion shows some signs of doubt
88% of consumers say that the benefits of medicine and medical
technology outweigh the risks.
97% of consumers said that the reputation of the company that makes
the drug or device is important to them when deciding whether or
not to use it, with half (49%) saying it is “very
important.”
The complete findings of the study and a podcast on the report are
available for download at: www.pwc.com/us/fdasurvey.
Methodology
The Improving America’s Health V survey continues a series of surveys conducted by PwC in 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2006 in an attempt to show the evolution of the relationship between life sciences companies and FDA. The 2010 survey was distributed electronically to potential respondents across the life sciences industry, including companies that develop biologic, drug and medical device products, and findings represent respondents from 50 companies. The survey was completed in the summer of 2010. The PwC consumer survey was conducted online among a cross-section of 1,000 US adults and was completed in October 2010.
About BIOCOM
BIOCOM ( www.biocom.org) is the largest regional life sciences association in the world, representing 550 member companies in Southern California and almost 50 medical device firms. The association focuses on initiatives that positively influence the growth of the life sciences industry and the development and delivery of products that improve global health and quality of life. This includes initiatives in capital formation, public policy, workforce development and scientific discovery and development.
About PwC’s Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences Industry Group
PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Pharmaceuticals and Life Sciences Industry Group (www.pwc.com/pharma and www.pwc.com/medtech) is dedicated to delivering effective industry-focused solutions to the complex strategic, operational and financial challenges facing pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies.
About the PwC Network
PwC firms provide industry-focused assurance, tax and advisory services to enhance value for their clients. More than 161,000 people in 154 countries in firms across the PwC network share their thinking, experience and solutions to develop fresh perspectives and practical advice. See www.pwc.com for more information.
© 2010 PwC. All rights reserved. "PwC" and "PwC US" refers
to PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, a Delaware limited liability
partnership, which is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers
International Limited, each member firm of which is a separate
legal entity. This document is for general information purposes
only, and should not be used as a substitute for consultation with
professional advisors.
Posted: December 2010
