Administration seeks FY23 FDA Increase of $336 Million; New Resources Support Broad Range of FDA Programs.
So Many Questions About FDA Funding. We Have Answers.
Note: all numbers have been rounded
Q: Everybody is using different numbers. How did the Alliance determine that the proposed BA increase was $336 million?
A: Traditionally, Presidents have requested increases only in “salaries and expenses (S&E),” which is the primary source of budget authority (taxpayer) support for FDA. The other, tiny component of BA funding—“buildings and facilities (B&F)—has remained about $12 million for a number of years. This year and last, the President’s Request has included increases in B&F, recognizing that FDA needs far more support for repairing and maintaining its facilities. Here is a chart: BA only, no
user fees FY 22 FINAL FY 23
PROPOSED Proposed
Change Salaries and
Expenses $ 3.304 billion $ 3.622 billion + $ 318 million Buildings and
Facilities $13 million $31 million + $ 18 million TOTAL BA $ 3.317 billion $ 3.653 billion + $ 336 million
Q: Are there programs other than user fees that are not included in this chart?
A: Yes. There are two. The $20 million to support the Cancer Moonshot, is technically BA (taxpayer) funding. However, as no-year money, it does not count against 302(b) funding allotments apportioned to each subcommittee. The annual spend rate of these funds by FDA is undefined.
There is also the $1.6 billion proposed for FDA’s pandemic work, which is similarly no-year funding with an undefined spend rate by fiscal year. Additionally, these are not budget authority dollars, but derived from changes in mandatory programs, also known as CHIMPS.
Q: You predicted that the OMB “headline number,” the ones used in summaries, would be confusing. Did it turn out that way?
A: Yes. For example, a 34% increase in FDA funding was claimed by adding the new pandemic funding to the existing base as if it were all FY 23 monies. In fact, it is no-year money and may or may not be spent in FY 23. Further, the percentage increase is over the FY 22 appropriation, unadjusted for the substantial no-year pandemic spending that is occurring now. The Alliance is very pleased with the proposed 10% increase in BA funding, but it is not a one-third increase.
Q: In the 400-page Congressional Justification, the tables are based on “FY 22 CR Annualized.” What is that and how does it affect the information provided?
A: Because there was so little time between final passage of FY 22 appropriations and the release of the FY 23 budget request, OMB had enough time to change summary documents but not enough to change the CJ text and tables. Using the FY 22 CR annualized, which is the FY 21 final with modest adjustments, the FY 22 numbers are lower and the claimed increase in FY 23 is greater. If you are looking at tables, focus on the proposed amount being asked for FY 23 and not on the stated amount of increase.
Q: Many news stories talk about the President’s budget being “dead on arrival.” Is that true?
A: No, it is not DOA. The President’s request is a blueprint for defining funding needs, especially at the program and line item levels. Further, when the subcommittees mark-up their bills, the President’s numbers are a column in every table and a point of reference as to where the committee’s priorities align or diverge from the Administration’s.
Q: I would like to do my own analysis of the President’s Budget Request. How do I get started?
A: For those inclined to DIY, you can use the key items we use for our analysis. When the President’s request and the lengthy supporting justification become available, we immediately search for the All-Purpose Table and the Summary of Changes. We then compare them to the Budget Authority Crosswalk and Budget Authority by Activity.
Editorial Note: The week’s Analysis and Commentary section was written by the Alliance’s Executive Director, Steven Grossman.