Transparency at the FDA

Leveling Up Agency Disclosures

I fully agree with this excellent post and its closing line “The public should therefore not need to request such materials from the agency, but should have easy, online access to them at any time.”

All 483s, complete response letters (CRL), and other FDA decisions should be easily accessible. This would be a net positive gain for our profession. I know I’ve reached out to my congress critters about this as the FDA is going through budgeting (and Congress continues to not fund the agency enough).

Well this was a dizzy ride – thanks SCOTUS for everything (not)

The 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decisions have had significant impacts on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal agencies. I don’t think we will truly understand the impact for years as matters move through the courts. This increased uncertainty has led to new questions arising as we assess risk.

Overturning the Chevron Doctrine

A significant decision was made to overturn the Chevron doctrine, a longstanding precedent that mandated courts to defer to federal agencies’ expertise when interpreting unclear statutes. This doctrine has played a crucial role in enabling agencies such as the FDA to establish and enforce regulations based on their specialized knowledge.

Reduced Authority: With the Chevron doctrine overturned, the FDA’s ability to interpret and enforce regulations without judicial interference is significantly curtailed. This change makes it easier for regulations to be challenged in court, potentially leading to increased litigation and uncertainty in regulatory enforcement.

Challenges to Regulatory Actions

The decisions made by the Supreme Court have made it harder for federal agencies to effectively carry out their regulatory functions. The court’s rulings have extended the time frames for challenging agency actions, leading to delays in implementing new regulations and enforcement actions. This could particularly affect the FDA’s ability to respond promptly to emerging public health issues.

Specific Cases Affecting the FDA

Several other cases have also directly impacted the scope of FDA regulations:

Environmental and Safety Regulations: Recent court decisions have impacted the FDA’s ability to enforce regulations concerning food safety and environmental protection. For example, the decision to block certain EPA regulations on cross-state pollution indirectly affects the FDA’s responsibility to ensure the safety of food and drugs that might be affected by environmental factors. It’s still uncertain how significant this impact will be, but I am more concerned about this issue than I am about the weakening of the Chevron defense.
The Supreme Court’s decision to protect access to the abortion medication mifepristone is an important exception. The court upheld the FDA’s regulatory decision, which ensures that the FDA can continue to regulate and approve medications important to public health. However, it’s worth noting that this ruling was specifically about the legal standing of the case, so it’s not an entirely straightforward situation.

Broader Implications

The recent decisions signal a change in the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies. The Supreme Court’s decision to limit the deference typically given to agencies such as the FDA has altered the federal regulatory landscape. This change could result in a more restricted and litigious regulatory environment.

Laboratory diagnostic testing regulations

The recent Supreme Court rulings, especially the overturning of the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, will first impact the FDA’s new laboratory diagnostic testing regulations.

Increased Legal Challenges: The removal of Chevron deference means that courts will no longer automatically defer to the FDA’s interpretation of ambiguous statutes. This change might result in more legal disputes regarding the FDA’s power to regulate laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) as medical devices. The American Clinical Laboratory Association (ACLA) has already filed a lawsuit against the FDA over the new LDT rule, and this Supreme Court decision could strengthen their case.
Uncertainty in Regulatory Framework: The FDA’s final rule, published on May 6, 2024, regulates Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs) as medical devices, similar to in vitro diagnostics. However, due to a new Supreme Court ruling, the FDA’s authority to regulate LDTs may face greater scrutiny by the courts. This could lead to uncertainty in the regulatory framework for clinical laboratories.
Potential Delays in Implementation: The Supreme Court’s decision in Corner Post v. Board of Governors extends the timeframe for challenging agency rules. This could lead to delays in the implementation of the FDA’s LDT regulations because stakeholders may now have more time to challenge the rules in court.
Stricter Scrutiny of FDA Decisions: The new ruling emphasizes that courts should exercise independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. This could lead to stricter scrutiny of FDA decisions regarding LDT approvals and regulations.

Keep in mind that although these potential impacts are meaningful, the complete effects of the Supreme Court’s rulings on FDA regulations will likely become more apparent over time as cases are presented in court and as the agency adjusts its approach. The situation is still evolving, and those of us involved in FDA regulated industries should be prepared for significant changes ahead.

Guidances in Administrative Law

Edward Rubin over on the Administrative Law JOTWELL, in the post “Uncovering the Hidden World of Administrative Guidance” exposed me to the 2019 article by Nicholas R. Parrillo “Federal Agency Guidance and the Power to Bind: An Empirical Study of Agencies and Industries” which I just find fascinating.

Guidances are an interesting part of our job. As a best practice, they show one way to get to the desired end result, but there can be other ways but the presence of guidance can obscure those possibilities. Often times if an agency goes to the level of detail to show you what good looks like you’d be foolish not to try to meet them there. Other times guidance can be a real head scratcher.

Good article, and of interest to the non-lawyers like myself who have to live within the boundaries.

FDA Foreign Drug Establishment Inspections – Congressional Testimony

Subcommittees of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce heard testimony last week from the Government Accountability Office’s Mary Denigan-Macauley and from Janet Woodcock, Director of FDA’s Center of Drug Evaluation and Research, about the state of FDA’s foreign drug establishment inspection program.
Deborah L. Livornese “Testimony About FDA’s Foreign Drug Establishment Inspection Program: GAO and FDA See Things Differently but Both Would Like to See a Fuller Glass.” FDA Law Blog. 16-Dec-2019

Good summary of recent testimony on FDA inspections outside the USA, especially China and India.

Data Integrity and the Role of Guidances

Interesting piece over at FDALawBlog on the new data integrity guidance “New Data Integrity Guidance Imposes Significant Burdens, Yet FDA Claims It Does Not Regulate by Guidance.”

I find it interesting to read a different perspective. I tend to be a big fan of guidances (they always need work) as they help lay down how we can get better and improve. Being on the front line of regulatory inspections probably more than a group of lawyers, I recognize the differences in how guidances are treated differently than regulations, and how the agencies apply very long lead times on how inspections treat this material. And frankly, the 483s and Warning Letters we are seeing coming out of data integrity scare the beejeezus out of me. There is also a need for the FDA to ensure it’s thinking on matters is aligned with our European and rest-of-world counterparts, especially in this day of mutual recognition agreements.

Regulatory and administrative law is definitely continually evolving. It is important to be aware of a variety of perspectives on the subject.