Q&A: the President’s Budget Request and our Hill visits to advocate for more FDA funding.
Q&A on the President’s Budget Request and Our Hill visits to advocate for more FDA funding
Q: What did the Alliance tell Congressional offices about the President’s FY 23 budget request? A: The Alliance for a Stronger FDA supports the Administration’s BA request of $3.653 billion. This provides for an increase of $318 million in BA salary and expenses (S&E) and an increase of $18 million in BA buildings and facilities (B&F). We also support the proposed no-year money requests for pandemic response ($1.6 billion) and the Cancer Moonshot ($20 million).
More details on the Alliance position and understanding the President’s Budget Request can be found [here].
Q: What messages did the Alliance deliver on Capitol Hill in support of our position?
A: Our overarching message is that FDA’s mission and responsibilities are expanding. “FDA’s growing responsibilities requires a budget that grows.” We point to three sources of expanded need:
Rapid acceleration of science and technology creates new challenges/new opportunities.
The agency needs an increased budget, more scientific and technical staff, and better analytical tools that support science-based decision-making and keep up with innovation.
FDA’s Technology Modernization Action Plan and the Data Modernization Action Plan need substantial funding.
Overall, no federal agency’s mission and responsibilities are more affected by advances in science, technology, innovation, and social trends than the FDA.
Q: How did Hill staff respond to the Alliance’s presentation on FDA’s funding needs?
A: Most staffers have a general grasp of FDA’s importance and the breadth of its responsibilities. Alliance members and staff provided a lot more details and a more accurate context. This led most staff to realize that FDA is even broader than they thought (for example, encompassing 20% of all consumer spending and regulating more than $2.6 trillion in goods and services). For many staffers, this answer was sufficient to address their most frequent question: why does FDA need a large increase every year.
We also heard considerable uncertainty about how the appropriations process will play out this year. Will Congress adopt budget agreements on total spending? Will a CR take the spending bills off the table until after the election or even into next year? Within possible budget agreements, will the Ag/FDA spending bill have a total allotment high enough to support large increases for FDA.
Q: We found that a concerning number Hill staffers do not understand how FDA is funded. What did we tell Hill staffers to give them a clearer picture?
A: With BA funding and user fee reauthorization both in play this year, confusion is understandable. We offered to send staffers the Alliance presentation/primer on how FDA is funded (link). In addition, we pointed out that:
BA funding provides FDA with the broadest and most flexible means of responding to all its responsibilities; all other funding comes with restrictions
User fees are very important, but always must be spent within specified parameters. They do not support the entire agency or the full range of FDA responsibilities
Medical product user fees and tobacco user fees are fundamentally different despite both being called user fees.
OMB claimed the President’s proposal was s 34% increase in FDA funding, However, this was derived by OMB adding the new pandemic funding to the existing base as if it were all FY 23 monies.
The Alliance is pleased with the proposed 10% increase in BA funding, but it is not a one-third increase.
Editorial Note: The week’s Analysis and Commentary section was written by the Alliance’s Executive Director, Steven Grossman.