Two Pathways for Saving FDA’s FY 25 Budget
As described in last week’s Analysis and Commentary (The Past is Prologue, But Subcommittee Bills Might Not Be), the initial mark for FDA’s FY 25 funding is for a small decrease from the FY 24 funding level. Since the agency will have to fund mandatory pay increases ($115 million) and new initiatives (TBD) from this amount, it is likely to leave the agency with at least $150 million less purchasing power in FY 25 compared to FY 24.
Needless to say, this would have a negative impact on FDA operations. However, the House Subcommittee mark is not the final word on how much funding FDA will receive in FY 25. There is still House full committee and House Floor action as well as the entire process in the Senate.
Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray had indicated an intent to use a higher spending ceiling than the House did (that’s good for FDA). She is very focused on increasing spending for nondefense discretionary (NDD) programs (even better for FDA). She has also said: “When FDA pulls an unsafe product off the shelf? That is NDD.” So, FDA’s work is clearly on her mind.
None of this assures FDA any funding above the House Subcommittee’s FY 25 mark. To receive more funding, Congress will need to follow one of two paths. Following both paths would be best for FDA.
Increased Nondefense Discretionary (NDD). This is what Senator Murray is advocating. If the Senate FY 25 NDD pot is larger than the House’s, then it is reasonable to believe FDA will be better funded.
There is plenty of precedent for keeping increases in NDD roughly parallel to the increases in defense spending. Throughout the 2010’s, under the dictates of the Budget Control Act of 2011, Congress had to renegotiate budget ceilings in most years. Fairer treatment of NDD was always a factor in determining the increase in defense funding.
However, the politics of the situation may well have changed. At the time, there was strong, nearly-universal support among Republicans for increased defense spending and they were willing to agree to increased NDD in order to achieve their goal. It is difficult to predict whether that is still the case.
FDA’s Vast and Vital Responsibilities Require Separate Evaluation of the Agency’s Funding Needs. 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.
That is exactly the threat that the FDA faces now.
Congress’ inclination is to spread the pain by cutting every agency back by a little bit. That’s both an understandable response and, in many cases, probably the fairest.
However, it is an approach that ignores that some agency’s missions are more essential to public health, public safety, and commerce than others. Similarly, the impact of underfunding and cutbacks to some agencies is more consequential than to others.
The Alliance is committed to telling the FDA’s story to policymakers, stakeholders, and the media. We are the ones explaining what FDA does…why it does it…the consequences if it can’t.
There is a level of caution in saying FDA is exceptional and its needs should be considered separately. However, it is true and necessary.
Please join the Alliance and help us make the case for FDA. 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.