How Math Errors May Have Cost US FDA Millions In PDUFA Fees

A lack of process documentation was part of the reason the FDA forgot to account for fee refunds in its estimates of incoming applications for two fiscal years, a mistake that likely cost the agency millions in revenue.

accounting
Submission volatility remains a problem for PDUFA fee calculations. • Source: Shutterstock

Staffing changes and a lack of operational knowledge caused mistakes calculating the fiscal year 2023 and 2024 prescription drug user fees, which likely saved sponsors hundreds of thousands of dollars per submission and robbed the US Food and Drug Administration of needed funding.

Key Takeaways
  • Sponsors would have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars more per application filed if the FDA had used updated FAE figures.

  • The error occurred because of employee turnover and a lack of process documentation, the agency said.

  • Continued submission volatility could spark proposals to change the fee system.

PDUFA application fees are calculated using an average number of fee-paying full application equivalents (FAEs) from previous years.

The FAE count is supposed to include applications with clinical data (1 FAE), without clinical data (0.5 FAE), and those withdrawn before filing or refused to be filed (0.25 FAE if the full fee was paid and 0.125 FAE if half the application fee was paid). Prior year FAE totals also usually are updated annually to reflect refunds and waivers processed after the fiscal year ends.

The agency admitted in the Federal Register notice announcing the FY 2025 prescription drug user fees that the rates for the previous two years were calculated using FAE counts that did not account for refunds. That omission made the total fee-paying full application equivalents higher, which meant the application fees were lower. (See sidebar below.)

The FDA told the Pink Sheet that “the error occurred due to staff turnover in the organizations involved in the process and lack of process documentation.”

“The process is now sufficiently documented to ensure the error will not occur again,” the agency added.

US FDA Corrects Errors, Limits PDUFA Application Fee Increase
The agency used a 10-year average with updated figures to calculate the FY 2025 PDUFA application fee and limit the impact of submission volatility, but still allowed GDUFA and BsUFA fees to skyrocket.
Discover the full story

Turnover is not an unusual problem for the FDA. Staff regularly depart for jobs in industry, academia or other federal agencies. (Also see "CDER, CBER Not Seeing Hiring Slowdown Despite US FDA Warnings" - Pink Sheet, 18 April, 2024.)

FDA staff discovered the error after the publication of the FY 2024 PDUFA user fee rates, the agency said.

Updated FAE counts were included in the FY 2025 user fee notice, which was released on 30 July.

If the updated figures were used in the fee calculations, the FY 2023 PDUFA fee for applications requiring clinical data would have been $404,079 higher and set at about $3.65m instead of $3.24m. The FY 2024 fee would have been $671,983 higher with the updated figures, reaching $4.72m instead of the set rate of $4.05m. (See chart below.)

The updated FY 2024 rate also would have been higher than the FY 2025 rate, $4.31m.

The story continues after the chart

Switching To 10-Year Average Lowers Fees

FDA officials also decided to use a 10-year average of FAE counts in determining the FY 2025 PDUFA application fees, a change from previous years, to address FAE volatility, as well as “the trend for FY 2024 collections,” the agency told the Pink Sheet.

Future calculations also could employ the 10-year average, the agency said.

“FDA prefers to keep fee-setting methodologies consistent year-over-year, but may change based on historical trends if needed to provide the most accurate projection,” the agency added.

The 10-year period used for the calculation, FY 2014-FY 2023, resulted in an FAE average of 68.62, which helped blunt the impact of falling submission volume more recently.

If the agency had used the traditional average of the three most recent years with complete FAE data, FY 2021-FY 2023, the average would have been 58.33, which would have resulted in a fee for applications requiring clinical data of $5.07m.

The FDA said the formula was not changed to better control the fee increase.

“It was changed to provide the best possible FAE estimate for FY 2025,” the agency said.

The fee using a three-year average would have been a 25% increase from the FY 2024 fee, the second consecutive year with an increase nearly that high. (Also see "PDUFA Fees Push Higher In FY 2024, While Biosimilar Fees Race Downward" - Pink Sheet, 27 July, 2023.)

At the same time, had the agency employed a 10-year average in FY 2023 and FY 2024, even with the updated figures, the fees those years would have been substantially lower.

The FY 2023 fee for an application requiring clinical data would have been $3.2m, nearly $44,000 less than the actual fee. The FY 2024 fee would have been $3.82m, which is nearly $230,000 less than the posted amount.

Are Volatility-Inspired Changes Needed?

The ultimate goal of the calculations is to increase the certainty and predictability of user fee revenue, a task that remains difficult.

Despite the FAE bobble, the agency recently raised its estimate for fee collections in FY 2024, suggesting it is seeing a higher number of submissions than initially estimated. (Also see "US FDA User Fee Conundrum: Collections Increase After 25% PDUFA Rate Hike" - Pink Sheet, 14 June, 2024.)

The higher than projected revenue may not address all of FDA's revenue needs, though. Application supplements, which do not warrant a fee, are expected to continue increasing, along with formal meetings and other activities. (Also see "New Workload Categories Add To FDA Staff Needs, Help Increase User Fees" - Pink Sheet, 21 August, 2023.)

The agency or industry could include system tweaks on their list of potential changes for PDUFA VIII. With PDUFA VII expiring in 2027, renewal negotiations will begin in earnest in 2025.

Some in industry already have raised questions about fee increases and the ongoing return on investment. (Also see "PDUFA VIII: Continuous Fee Increases May Be Wearing On Sponsors" - Pink Sheet, 18 June, 2024.)

More from User Fees

No Surprise Here: Foreign Drug Facilities Should Expect Surprise Inspections, US FDA Says

 
• By 

The FDA's recent announcement of plans to expand unannounced inspections at ex-US facilities should put firms on advance notice that their next foreign facility inspection may not be preannounced, Ivy Sweeney, acting head of the agency's drug inspections office said.

US FDA’s Second Half 2025 User Fee Goals Swing Toward Respiratory Disease

 

The 43 novel agents with user fee goal dates in the remainder of 2025 have fewer oncologics and infectious disease drugs than the first half of the year.

Consumer Groups Have A ‘Radical Transparency’ List For US FDA’s PDUFA VIII

 

Development of the user fee commitment letter largely takes place behind closed doors between industry and FDA. Outside groups see the upcoming negotiation cycle as a chance to change this and other agency information blocks by reminding Commissioner Makary of his commitment to transparency.

Senate Bill Would Boost Oversight Of US FDA User Fee Program Following Trump Reorganization

 

Senate appropriators also put FDA on notice regarding recent meetings and compliance with the Federal Advisory Committees Act, signal positive news on rare pediatric diseases, and offer hints of other agency areas they have close eyes on.

More from Pathways & Standards

EMA Says ‘No’ To Roche/Sarepta’s DMD Gene Therapy Elevidys

 

The European Medicines Agency has recommended against pan-EU marketing authorization of Roche/Sarpeta’s gene therapy Elevidys for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy, despite the product securing approvals in the US and other markets.

US FDA Commissioner Makary Is Learning To Appreciate His Staff

 

After three months on the job, FDA Commissioner Martin Makary is sounding much more effusive about the quality of the agency staff. Better late than never?

Complete Response Letter Trio Raises Prospect Of Tidal Shift In Regenerative Medicine Regulation

 

Replimune's RP1 oncolytic immunotherapy became the third regenerative medicine to receive an FDA complete response letter this month as the agency appears to re-visit previous agreements about accelerated approval.