House Agriculture/FDA Appropriations Subcommittee Approves FY 25 Ag/FDA Funding Bill
Last week’s Analysis and Commentary (here) looked at the results of the FY 24 appropriations cycle and suggested that the FY 25 process may be similar. I made four points:
Disagreement on the macro-budget (total funds available to spend; aka 302(a) magnifies uncertainty about micro-budgets (how much is available by subcommittee jurisdiction and for individual agencies and programs).
The numbers can change quickly and dramatically. Given the relationship (and uncertainty) of the macro- and micro-budget, the FDA’s proposed FY 25 funding may change often during the appropriations cycle.
Some programs may be cut that Congress wants to preserve or expand. During our Hill days in May, we were repeatedly told that: the downward pressure on federal spending may be so great that Congress might not be able to fully fund programs that are vital and have bipartisan support.
A long appropriations cycle is more likely than a short one. In a recent Friday Update, I wrote about the “hurry up and wait” nature of the appropriations cycle (here). It explains why the House is so determined to pass its 12 funding bills by August, even though those bills have no chance of passing the Senate.
This week, the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration met and voted to adopt the Chairman’s bill and move it along for consideration by the full committee on July 10.
Under the bill, the FDA would sustain a loss of $22 million over a $3.5 billion BA (non-user fee) budget. The loss would actually be much greater, at least $140 million.
In a recent Analysis and Commentary (here), we explained how “FDA was “level-funded” in FY 24, but actually suffered a $150 million (4.5%) loss. The same calculations apply to this first FY 25 bill on FDA funding. To the $22 million loss, one has to add $115 million in mandatory salary increase and anticipate that any new initiatives will have to be paid by reducing funding to existing programs.
Not quite a year ago, I wrote about how FDA funding should be evaluated (FDA Funding Judged in Absolute and Relative Terms). In absolute terms, FY 24 was a no-growth year. This first round of the FY 25 process suggests a similar fate is possible, especially when there are embedded increases in the costs of running FDA without any additional funding to cover it.
In relative terms, FDA continues to do okay. It is a cold comfort to be cut by less than other agencies. It doesn’t pay for salary increases or keep the proverbial lights on. It doesn’t account for new responsibilities, growing industries, the need for increased scientific and technical expertise, or the ever-higher expectations of Congress and the American public of an agency that is on the frontlines every day.
There is, however, some modest good news in all this. Congress recognizes that FDA is not just another federal agency of uncertain value. If there is to be safe foods and drugs, medical progress based on innovation, and hundreds of other good things that FDA does, then FDA needs to be well-funded.
As a community, we need to build upon the fact that Congress “gets it” about FDA, even when there are other good causes competing for their attention and limited pots of money.
Join the Alliance in telling Congress about the exceptional return on investment in FDA. The more members the Alliance has, the louder our voice, and the more we are heard.
One last reason to join: If we, the stakeholder community, don’t treat a strong, well-funded FDA as a priority, why should we expect Congress to do so?
Editorial Note:
The Analysis and Commentary section is written by Steven Grossman, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.