催化剂制药。, Inc.诉Becerra:当食品和药物管理局一再忽视孤儿药法案(ODA)的简单语言时。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2023-01-01
Yifan Wang
{"title":"催化剂制药。, Inc.诉Becerra:当食品和药物管理局一再忽视孤儿药法案(ODA)的简单语言时。","authors":"Yifan Wang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra, the court held that the scope of orphan drug exclusivity applies to the disease or conditions for which the drug is designated because the plain language of the 21 U.S.C. § 360cc(a) is clear. The decision is in contrast to the practice of the FDA to narrowly construe the exclusivity to apply only to the uses or indications for which the drug is approved. The court correctly reached its holding using a plain language approach and rejected the FDA's argument based on legislative history and purpose. The FDA has repeatedly ignored courts interpretations of the orphan drug exclusivity provision, persisting on an interpretation that is an overreach of its statutory authority. The FDA does not have the institutional competence to address complex issues such as orphan drug pricing and affordability. The FDA should not depend on a fractured Congress to codify its overreaching interpretations. Instead, the FDA should implement regulations within its statutory authority and limit the scope of the orphan drug designation based on preliminary evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra: When the Food and Drug Administration Repeatedly Ignores the Plain Language of the Orphan Drug Act (ODA).\",\"authors\":\"Yifan Wang\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra, the court held that the scope of orphan drug exclusivity applies to the disease or conditions for which the drug is designated because the plain language of the 21 U.S.C. § 360cc(a) is clear. The decision is in contrast to the practice of the FDA to narrowly construe the exclusivity to apply only to the uses or indications for which the drug is approved. The court correctly reached its holding using a plain language approach and rejected the FDA's argument based on legislative history and purpose. The FDA has repeatedly ignored courts interpretations of the orphan drug exclusivity provision, persisting on an interpretation that is an overreach of its statutory authority. The FDA does not have the institutional competence to address complex issues such as orphan drug pricing and affordability. The FDA should not depend on a fractured Congress to codify its overreaching interpretations. Instead, the FDA should implement regulations within its statutory authority and limit the scope of the orphan drug designation based on preliminary evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of law and health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of law and health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of law and health","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

摘要

在Catalyst Pharms。, Inc.诉Becerra案中,法院认为孤儿药专有权的范围适用于该药物被指定治疗的疾病或病症,因为21 U.S.C.§360cc(a)的明文规定是明确的。这一决定与FDA的做法形成对比,FDA将专有权狭义地解释为仅适用于药物批准的用途或适应症。法院正确地用通俗易懂的语言达成了裁决,并基于立法历史和目的驳回了FDA的论点。FDA一再无视法院对孤儿药专有权条款的解释,坚持一种超越其法定权力的解释。FDA不具备解决诸如孤儿药定价和可负担性等复杂问题的机构能力。FDA不应该依赖分裂的国会来编纂其过度的解释。相反,FDA应该在其法定权力范围内实施法规,并根据初步证据限制孤儿药指定的范围。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra: When the Food and Drug Administration Repeatedly Ignores the Plain Language of the Orphan Drug Act (ODA).

In Catalyst Pharms., Inc. v. Becerra, the court held that the scope of orphan drug exclusivity applies to the disease or conditions for which the drug is designated because the plain language of the 21 U.S.C. § 360cc(a) is clear. The decision is in contrast to the practice of the FDA to narrowly construe the exclusivity to apply only to the uses or indications for which the drug is approved. The court correctly reached its holding using a plain language approach and rejected the FDA's argument based on legislative history and purpose. The FDA has repeatedly ignored courts interpretations of the orphan drug exclusivity provision, persisting on an interpretation that is an overreach of its statutory authority. The FDA does not have the institutional competence to address complex issues such as orphan drug pricing and affordability. The FDA should not depend on a fractured Congress to codify its overreaching interpretations. Instead, the FDA should implement regulations within its statutory authority and limit the scope of the orphan drug designation based on preliminary evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Ninth Amendment: An Underutilized Protection for Reproductive Choice. Distorted Burden Shifting and Barred Mitigation: Being a Stubborn 234 Years Old Ironically Hasn't Helped the Supreme Court Mature. How Bodily Autonomy Can Fail Against Vaccination Mandates: The Few vs. the Many. When Governors Prioritize Individual Freedom over Public Health: Tort Liability for Government Failures. Without Due Process of Law: The Dobbs Decision and Its Cataclysmic Impact on the Substantive Due Process and Privacy Rights of Ohio Women.
×
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