《处方药使用者收费法案》的法律挑战。

Journal of law and health Pub Date : 2015-01-01
Jimmy J Zhuang
{"title":"《处方药使用者收费法案》的法律挑战。","authors":"Jimmy J Zhuang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In Part II, I present a legal challenge to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) from an administrative law perspective. While I share sympathies with those who believe PDUFA represents an unacceptable conflict of interest for the FDA, I posit arguments purely from the framework of permissible administrative agency discretion so as to avoid ambivalent analytical and empirical arguments. My argument is that given the statutory and case law determinations of permissible federal agency discretion, the FDA cannot assess a flat user fee for widely variable types of services it renders during the drug approval process. Thus, the current implementation of PDUFA is legally impermissible. Subsequently, in Part III, I compare PDUFA to three other agency user-fee mechanisms and propose specific improvements to PDFUA to minimize its conflict of interest while maintaining its revenue efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":73804,"journal":{"name":"Journal of law and health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Legal Challenge of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.\",\"authors\":\"Jimmy J Zhuang\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In Part II, I present a legal challenge to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) from an administrative law perspective. While I share sympathies with those who believe PDUFA represents an unacceptable conflict of interest for the FDA, I posit arguments purely from the framework of permissible administrative agency discretion so as to avoid ambivalent analytical and empirical arguments. My argument is that given the statutory and case law determinations of permissible federal agency discretion, the FDA cannot assess a flat user fee for widely variable types of services it renders during the drug approval process. Thus, the current implementation of PDUFA is legally impermissible. Subsequently, in Part III, I compare PDUFA to three other agency user-fee mechanisms and propose specific improvements to PDFUA to minimize its conflict of interest while maintaining its revenue efficiency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73804,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of law and health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-01-01\",\"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

在第二部分中,笔者从行政法的角度对《处方药用户收费法》提出了法律挑战。虽然我对那些认为PDUFA代表FDA不可接受的利益冲突的人表示同情,但我纯粹从允许的行政机构自由裁量权的框架中提出论点,以避免矛盾的分析和经验论点。我的论点是,鉴于法定和判例法对允许的联邦机构自由裁量权的决定,FDA不能对其在药物批准过程中提供的各种各样的服务收取统一的用户费用。因此,目前PDUFA的实施在法律上是不允许的。随后,在第三部分中,我将PDUFA与其他三种机构用户收费机制进行了比较,并对PDFUA提出了具体的改进建议,以尽量减少其利益冲突,同时保持其收入效率。
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
A Legal Challenge of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.

In Part II, I present a legal challenge to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) from an administrative law perspective. While I share sympathies with those who believe PDUFA represents an unacceptable conflict of interest for the FDA, I posit arguments purely from the framework of permissible administrative agency discretion so as to avoid ambivalent analytical and empirical arguments. My argument is that given the statutory and case law determinations of permissible federal agency discretion, the FDA cannot assess a flat user fee for widely variable types of services it renders during the drug approval process. Thus, the current implementation of PDUFA is legally impermissible. Subsequently, in Part III, I compare PDUFA to three other agency user-fee mechanisms and propose specific improvements to PDFUA to minimize its conflict of interest while maintaining its revenue efficiency.

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