Advisory committees at FDA: the Hinchey Amendment and "conflict of interest" waivers.

Journal of health law Pub Date : 2006-01-01
Erika Lietzan
{"title":"Advisory committees at FDA: the Hinchey Amendment and \"conflict of interest\" waivers.","authors":"Erika Lietzan","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In approving the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Fiscal Year 2007 budget, the House approved an amendment that would prevent the agency from using appropriated funds to waive certain conflicts of interest identified by members of its advisory committees. The amendment, introduced by Representative Hinchey and known as the Hinchey Amendment, provides that no funds may be used to: waive a conflict of interest under Section 505(n)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for any voting member of an FDA advisory committee or panel; or make a certification under Section 208(b)(3) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code for any such voting member. This creates a problem, as ties to industry create the very expertise that FDA values in its outside advisors-under the Hinchey Amendment, these very ties would prevent them from serving as advisors to FDA during the drug approval process. The author opposes this change in the law and argues that the Hinchey Amendment would undermine congressional efforts in 1962 and 1989 to carefully balance the goals of attracting qualified experts and protecting agency decisionmaking. Further, the author argues, this change is unnecessary at FDA, because experts on FDA advisory committees divulge their connections to the industry, because the committees offer only advice and do not make agency decisions, and because the agency is under the watchful eye of Congress, the public, and public interest groups. The Article concludes that although FDA's advisory committee conflict-of-interest process can be improved, congressional action is unnecessary, and a change in the law through amendment to an appropriations bill that does not go through the ordinary legislative process (as an amendment to the FDCA or Title 18 would) is inappropriate. Instead, recommendations from organizations studying FDA practice, such as the OIG, GAO, and IOM, should be used to carefully and reflectively amend the process at the agency level, within the existing statutory framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":80027,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In approving the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Fiscal Year 2007 budget, the House approved an amendment that would prevent the agency from using appropriated funds to waive certain conflicts of interest identified by members of its advisory committees. The amendment, introduced by Representative Hinchey and known as the Hinchey Amendment, provides that no funds may be used to: waive a conflict of interest under Section 505(n)(4) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) for any voting member of an FDA advisory committee or panel; or make a certification under Section 208(b)(3) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code for any such voting member. This creates a problem, as ties to industry create the very expertise that FDA values in its outside advisors-under the Hinchey Amendment, these very ties would prevent them from serving as advisors to FDA during the drug approval process. The author opposes this change in the law and argues that the Hinchey Amendment would undermine congressional efforts in 1962 and 1989 to carefully balance the goals of attracting qualified experts and protecting agency decisionmaking. Further, the author argues, this change is unnecessary at FDA, because experts on FDA advisory committees divulge their connections to the industry, because the committees offer only advice and do not make agency decisions, and because the agency is under the watchful eye of Congress, the public, and public interest groups. The Article concludes that although FDA's advisory committee conflict-of-interest process can be improved, congressional action is unnecessary, and a change in the law through amendment to an appropriations bill that does not go through the ordinary legislative process (as an amendment to the FDCA or Title 18 would) is inappropriate. Instead, recommendations from organizations studying FDA practice, such as the OIG, GAO, and IOM, should be used to carefully and reflectively amend the process at the agency level, within the existing statutory framework.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
FDA的咨询委员会:欣奇修正案和“利益冲突”豁免。
在批准美国食品和药物管理局(FDA) 2007财政年度预算时,众议院批准了一项修正案,该修正案将阻止该机构使用拨款来放弃其咨询委员会成员确定的某些利益冲突。该修正案由众议员Hinchey提出,被称为Hinchey修正案,规定不得将任何资金用于:根据《联邦食品、药品和化妆品法》(FDCA)第505(n)(4)条,为FDA咨询委员会或小组的任何有投票权的成员放弃利益冲突;或根据美国法典第18篇第208(b)(3)条为任何该等投票成员出具证明。这就产生了一个问题,因为与行业的联系创造了FDA重视的外部顾问的专业知识——根据欣奇修正案,这些联系将阻止他们在药物批准过程中担任FDA的顾问。作者反对法律的这一改变,并认为辛奇修正案将破坏国会在1962年和1989年谨慎平衡吸引合格专家和保护机构决策目标的努力。此外,作者认为,这种变化在FDA是不必要的,因为FDA咨询委员会的专家透露了他们与行业的关系,因为委员会只提供建议而不做机构决定,因为该机构处于国会、公众和公共利益团体的监督之下。文章的结论是,尽管FDA的咨询委员会的利益冲突程序可以改进,但国会的行动是不必要的,通过修改拨款法案来改变法律,而不经过普通的立法程序(如对FDCA或Title 18的修正案)是不合适的。相反,来自研究FDA实践的组织的建议,如OIG、GAO和IOM,应该在现有的法定框架内,在机构层面仔细和反思地修改流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Necessity of Establishing a ROK Armed Forces Institutional Review Board Ethical and Legal Issues on Human Brain Organoid Introduction of the National R&D Innovation Act and Research Ethics in Korea Examination of the Principle of Proportionality for the COVID-19 Contact Tracing Suggestions on Revision Regarding Abortion Laws in Korea: an Empirical Study Using Qualitative Research Method
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1