The Macro- and Micro- Budget Processes and Their Impact on FDA Resources

In last week’s Analysis and Commentary here, we explored the “Iron Triangle of Deficit Reduction.” It could have been titled “Why slashing federal discretionary programs cannot produce enough savings to resolve our nation’s cumulative debt or our annual deficits.” 

This week we examine the difference between the macro- and micro-budget processes. Note that the current debt limit negotiations represent a macro-budget issue with important implications for FDA and other federal agencies and programs.

The macro-budget is the entirety of Federal spending. That amounts to many trillions of dollars. Consistent with the Iron Triangle, there are just three components: federal discretionary programs; entitlement programs; and federal revenue. While there are fiscal considerations at the core of the macro-budget, some of the most important decisions are driven by differing (political) views of national spending priorities. 

Unless specific entitlement or tax changes are under consideration, virtually all of the attention is paid to the amount that will be available for spending on discretionary federal programs, in accordance with section 302(a) of the Budget Control Act.  

In FY 23, federal spending on discretionary programs exceeds $1.5 trillion and pays for defense, education, human services, veterans, and so on across the entire gamut of federal activities other than entitlements. 

Once the larger allocation of resources is decided, House and Senate appropriators are responsible for the micro-budget. They have a very large, but still finite amount to fund myriad government programs, priorities, and agencies.

Working with the 302(a) allocation, appropriators start by assigning amounts of money to each subcommittee, in accordance with section 302(b) of the Budget Control Act. FDA’s budget comes from the amounts allotted to the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations.

In FY 23, FDA appropriated $3.5 billion to fulfill its expanding mission and growing responsibilities. Those monies are about 60% of all non-tobacco funding available to the agency. 

The Alliance’s advocacy and educational efforts are focused on assuring a well-informed Congress that understands: 

• the importance of  “a well-functioning, well-resourced, and visible FDA that maintains the agency’s gold standard,” and that, unlike any other federal regulatory agency, is supported by all its stakeholders 

• the opportunities for a strong, well-staffed FDA to contribute to public health and commerce by staying ahead of the wave of complex and transformational changes in science, technology, and innovation that are coming to health products and food safety. 

Congress has choices about what programs and agencies to support and at what level. So, it is of the utmost importance that Congress appreciates the FDA’s accomplishments and sees the opportunities to increase the value of the agency to the American public. 

The Alliance is the only multi-stakeholder public-facing organization whose purpose is advocacy for, and education about, FDA. The agency is complex and the need for information and outreach is enormous. 

The Alliance can only continue this work if the stakeholder community supports its aims and contributes to the cost. For more information, please contact Alliance Executive Director, Steven Grossman.

Editorial Note:
The Analysis and Commentary section is written by Steven Grossman, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.