FDA Funding Judged in Absolute and Relative Terms

As we described last week in FDA, Appropriations, and Chaos: The Risk of a Perfect Storm, the current FY 24 appropriations process is likely to get messier and more chaotic when Congress returns in September.  I noted: those with weak stomachs and faint hearts may need to look away. I stand by that.

The immediate focus is Congress’ work on the funding for specific programs (micro-budget). At the committee level, the House has passed ten of the twelve funding bills and the Military Construction/VA has passed on the floor.  All the bills so far have been written by the Republican majority and have drawn no Democratic votes. 

At the same time, the Senate has passed all 12 funding bills at the committee level. There is largely bipartisan agreement on funding but not on policy riders.

Unfortunately, reconciling bills will be extremely difficult because the House and Senate are working from different baselines (macro-budget). The Senate levels are near to FY 23 funding levels and consistent with the amounts specified in the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA). The House is working with about $120 billion less. (Macro- and micro-budgetary considerations are more fully explained here).

This is going to be a hard year for almost all federal programs that are not part of the DOD or VA. FDA is unlikely to be an exception.

The House Ag/FDA funding bill would level fund FDA for FY 24, while the Senate is proposing a $20 million increase. This is still more of an “apples and oranges” comparison because of the enormous difference in assumptions about total funding. For comparison, pre-FRA, the Administration asked for a $372 million increase for FDA.

Regardless, absent some crisis, FDA funding is unlikely to increase by much in FY 24. There are two ways to look at this: in absolute terms and in relative terms. 

In absolute terms, a small increase or flat funding will be a blow to the agency’s ability to meet its responsibilities and keep up with inflation. 

In the Alliance’s Congressional testimony (here), we advocated for the Administration request because it was responsive to FDA’s expanding mission and growing responsibilities. FDA’s impact on our nation was described in a recent column “FDA Brings Good Things to Life”.  Funding that strengthens the FDA is a positive investment in America’s well-being and commerce. 

In relative terms, FDA is likely to get an amount that is at or above the level other agencies are given in the appropriations process. With regard to health and science agencies, Research!America has provided a chart that provides a way to compare (note: the chart has some anomalies, but is sufficiently accurate for purposes of comparison). 

It is the Alliance’s job to continue its advocacy for the preservation and growth of FDA funding in absolute terms. Increased funding that supports FDA’s mission is needed. We can not abandon that standard. 

However, we also acknowledge macro limitations that may leave FDA without the monies it needs. So far, FDA continues to command as much or more support as other federal agencies that are not housed in DOD or VA. 

In addition to our advocacy for increased federal funding of FDA, the Alliance will continue to provide the stakeholder community with an analysis of the FY 24  appropriations process and its impact on FDA. Recent columns have discussed FDA’s situation if there is a CR (here) or a sequester (here).

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