Concrete Progress; Still A Long Way from Settling FDA’s FY 24 Funding
Q: Was the election of a Speaker a good thing for FDA and the appropriations process?
A: Yes. Two weeks ago, the Alliance’s Analysis and Commentary said “The most important short-term goals [are] to avoid a shutdown at midnight on November 17….[provide] a better-defined FY 24 appropriations pathway with timetables for resolution.”
Speaker Johnson has committed to both of these. That’s progress and a better place than we have been at any time in the last 3 weeks. However, it remains to be seen whether the Speaker can keep the House Republican Caucus united to accomplish them.
Q: What could go wrong with the new Speaker’s plan for the Appropriations process?
A: There may be 217 Republican votes for a new CR that avoids a shutdown on November 17, but there may not be 217 Republican votes for a CR of specific durations or formulas (e.g. at FY 23 spending levels vs some percentage cut from that level).
Similarly, the last set of non-Defense, non-VA funding bills advancing within the House have funding levels that are set at a 14% decrease from FY 23 levels. There are Republicans who support these deep cuts but some do not.
As reported by Politico, the Ag/FDA funding bill has “a bloc of rural Republicans [who] oppose the bill over steep cuts to key farm programs that GOP hard-liners demanded.” In that same bill, FDA would lose 14%, nearly $500 million from its FY 23 funding level. We cannot imagine any Member of Congress thinks this is a good idea.
In some cases, policy riders are also divisive within the Republican caucus. In that same Ag/FDA spending bill–usually one of the easier to pass–there is a stalemate among Republicans on whether the bill should restrict access to the drug mifepristone.
Q: Amidst this uncertainty, what funding level can FDA expect in FY 24?
A: For FY 24, FDA’s best case and worst case are $900 million apart. The agency would receive +11% (+$400 million) if the Administration’s Request was to be adopted. In contrast, the agency would receive -14% (-$500 million) if Congress were to adopt the funding levels in the most recent FY 24 Ag/FDA bill that failed to pass the House.
The range of possible outcomes is itself a detriment to the agency. Budget, personnel, and program planning are near-impossible when there is so much uncertainty.
Q: What is the most likely level for FY 24 FDA spending?
A: The committee-passed version of the House bill was set at the same spending level as FY 23, which was $3.5 billion. The committee-passed version of the Senate bill would have given FDA an additional $20 million over the FY 23 level.
Most likely, the final FY 24 funding level will be near what the committees initially allocated. There is probably more risk of a substantial cut than the likelihood of a substantial increase.
Q: How would level-funding affect FDA?
A: Level-funding will hurt the agency by requiring that existing program dollars be stretched to cover:
FDA’s expanding mission and growing responsibilities.
Increased complexity of science, growth in regulated industries, and the need for major initiatives in food safety, gene and cell therapy, etc.
Improved IT and infrastructures that are critical to modernizing the agency.
There is not any spare capacity or budget at the agency to do these things.
Further, the President’s Request included $105 million for mandated pay raises in FY23 and FY24. At level-funding, FDA will have to absorb that amount, which effectively reduces funds available to sustain existing programs.
Editorial Note:
The Analysis and Commentary section is written by Steven Grossman, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.