FDA User Fee Programs: Congress Contemplates a Clean Reauthorization in the Continuing Resolution

22 September 2022 Health Care Law Today Blog
Author(s): Jennifer F. Walsh Kate M. Kros

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) user fee programs, which pay the salaries of agency staff who review drug and medical device applications, are set to expire on October 1, 2022. These include the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA), Biosimilar User Fee Act (BsUFA), and Medical Device User Fee Amendments (MDUFA).

The House Energy and Commerce Committee (E&C) and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) are the two committees of jurisdiction that have now missed two self-imposed deadlines for reauthorization. It looks likely that a “clean” user fee reauthorization will be included in the stop-gap spending bill that Congress is expected to pass by the end of the fiscal year, September 30. Reasons for not yet passing the critical user fee reauthorization include differences between the House and Senate legislation that have yet to be reconciled, and notably, HELP Ranking Member Richard Burr’s (R-NC) disapproval of several policy riders added to the HELP Committee’s bill during mark-up. 

In May, the House passed the Food and Drug Amendments of 2022 (FDA22) by a vote of 392-28. This bipartisan bill was introduced by House E&C Health Subcommittee Chair Anna Eshoo (D-CA) and Ranking Member Brett Guthrie (R-KY). HELP advanced their version of the legislation, the FDA Safety and Landmark Advancements (FDASLA), by a vote of 13-9 in June. This legislation was introduced by Committee Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) and Ranking Member Richard Burr (R-NC). Key differences between the two bills include:

  • The House bill would expand the FDA’s inspection authorities domestically and abroad;
  • The House bill would authorize $100 million annually through 2027 for the National Centers of Excellence in drug manufacturing;
  • The House bill would require diversity action plans for clinical trials and would also require drug makers to conduct pediatric studies of adult cancer drugs;
  • The House bill would create a manufacturing technology pilot program at the FDA;
  • The Senate bill would require the FDA to publish justifications of accelerated approvals and would require baby formula makers to notify the FDA of supply disruptions within a week;
  • The Senate bill would allow imports of prescription drugs from Canada; and
  • The Senate bill would provide the FDA with additional oversight and regulatory requirements for cosmetics, dietary supplements, and clinical laboratory developed tests.

In mid-July, Ranking Member Burr introduced his own “clean” reauthorization bill, the Food and Drug Administration Simple Reauthorization Act, free of any policy riders. User fee reauthorization legislation has historically been used as a vehicle for additional policy riders, as it is considered a “must-pass bill”. However, Burr was conflicted about what he considered “anti-innovation policies,” which were adopted during the committee markup. Provisions he opposes in FDASLA include limiting orphan drug exclusivity to approved indications, allowing the FDA to share brand drug information with generic drug makers, and allowing the FDA to ban certain uses for medical devices.

FDA Commissioner Robert Califf previously announced that, should the user fees fail to be reauthorized by the deadline, there would be enough funds for at least a full month before he has to begin laying off FDA staff. Without reasonable assurance that a user fee reauthorization will get passed, the agency is required to issue 60-day pink slips giving notice to those employees that they will be laid off.

Foley is here to help you address the short- and long-term impacts in the wake of regulatory changes. We have the resources to help you navigate these and other important legal considerations related to business operations and industry-specific issues. Please reach out to the authors, your Foley relationship partner, or to our Health Care Practice Group or Federal Public Affairs Group with any questions.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.


Jennifer F. Walsh

Director, Public Affairs

Kate M. Kros

Public Affairs Advisor

Related Services


What’s Next for Blockchain and Crypto?
01 December 2022
Innovative Technology Insights
Case Law Update: Disputes Relating to Supply Chain Disruptions Hit the Courts
01 December 2022
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Foley Partner André Thiollier Moderates Global Venture Market Session at BayBrazil Conference
01 December 2022
Foley Ignite
Podcast Episode 96: Eric Williams, Associate
01 December 2022
Foley Career Perspectives
What You Should Know About Payor/Provider Convergence
25-26 January 2023
Los Angeles, CA
ATA EDGE2022 Policy Conference | American Telemedicine Association
7-9 December 2022
Washington, D.C.
CLE Weeks
5-16 December 2022
Milwaukee, WI
Foley Sponsors Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year® Program
1 December 2021 - 30 November 2022
Michigan and Northwest Ohio Region