It prioritizes political theater over substantive inquiry and invites testimony from individuals who confirm the members’ hawkish assumptions about China rather than offering nuanced assessments, Anatol Klass, doctoral candidate in the history department at UC Berkeley, wrote in the article published Monday.

“Many pundits and researchers who support a strategy of engagement with China have expressed concern that policy initiatives like the China select committee, given its explicitly hawkish agenda, may accelerate the deterioration of U.S.-China relations, antagonize Beijing, and push Washington toward increasingly confrontational stances,” Klass wrote.

Others have warned that the committee’s activities may contribute to the wave of anti-Asian hate that has endangered Asian American communities across the country, he wrote.

“Today’s congressional China select committee is also asking a misguided question — namely: ‘Who helped China rise?’ But if the committee’s hearings are spent looking for domestic culprits, they will necessarily ignore the fact that those culprits took their cues from several decades of Washington policy that supported China’s growth,” he wrote.

The primary concern here is that the political climate in Washington will alienate the people whose expertise and connections might help Congress understand the Chinese government and its posture toward the United States, he added.  

The post U.S. Congressional Select Committee Wrong in Countering China: Foreign Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

President Joe Biden’s immigration problem isn’t just about policy. It’s that he’s not talking about the issue enough, voters say in a new survey from a Democratic polling firm.

Fifty-eight percent of voters in seven key Electoral College battleground states disapprove of how the president is handling immigration, compared with 32 percent who approve, according to a new swing-state poll from Global Strategy Group first shared with POLITICO. And a majority of voters surveyed, at 52 percent, believe Biden is ignoring problems at the border, while 50 percent said the president is ignoring the situation around undocumented immigrants.

Republicans talk more about immigration than Democrats, and they are trusted more to handle the issue, according to the poll. Both parties get low marks for how they are handling immigration, but Democrats face greater criticism because voters don’t know where the party falls on the issue. Thirty-nine percent of voters trust Biden and Democrats in Congress more on the immigration issue, while 47 percent said they trust Republican lawmakers more.

The new poll — conducted on behalf of immigrant advocacy group Immigration Hub and Voto Latino, a political organization focused on Latino voter turnout — comes three weeks before the administration plans to end Title 42, the Trump-era policy that has allowed border agents to immediately expel millions of migrants on public health grounds for the past three years. Biden administration officials fear a surge at the border upon the policy’s expiration next month and have turned to more restrictive measures to tamp down a record number of migrants fleeing political and economic turmoil.

The White House should seize on the opportunity to get ahead of Republicans’ growing chatter leading up to the May 11 end date, said Beatriz Lopez, Immigration Hub’s chief political and communications officer.

“It’s comms 101. Get ahead of the narrative. Talk about what you’re doing. Talk about what you plan to do,” Lopez said. “But it’s talking about both — not just the border but also what they’re planning to do to protect Dreamers and others who are every bit a part of the American community. That balanced approach is what works with voters.”

The shift in border policy is expected to be a major political test for the Biden White House, which has rolled out a patchwork of solutions to combat a growing humanitarian crisis at the southern border. The Biden administration is also dealing with a gridlocked Congress, although lawmakers have long been unable to compromise on how to fix an outdated immigration system.

“The fact is that in the 820 days since he sent Congress a comprehensive immigration reform bill, President Biden has taken unprecedented action to expand lawful immigration pathways, limit unlawful immigration, protect Dreamers and farmworkers, and increase border security. Because of this administration’s work, unlawful immigration is down, legal immigration is up, we’ve got record funds for border security, and thousands of smugglers are now off the streets,” White House spokesperson Abdullah Hasan said in a statement.

“Meanwhile, all that House Republicans have managed to ‘accomplish’ since taking their (slim) majority is voting to abruptly lift Title 42 overnight with no plan in place for what comes next, proposing draconian funding cuts to border security, and playing partisan political games that do nothing to actually fix our long-broken immigration system.”

House Republicans unveiled immigration legislation this week, with plans to further restrict asylum, expand family detention and crack down on the employment of undocumented workers. The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up the bill Wednesday, though the measure has little chance of making it through the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) also unveiled a plan on Tuesday that relies on the White House taking executive action to address immigration. He shared his plan with the White House and other federal agencies, with ideas for creating new pathways to citizenship, increasing humanitarian aid for certain countries, increasing border security funding and expanding efforts to target human traffickers.

Menendez’s suggestions come as the Biden administration prepares for a spike in border crossings come May, already the busiest time of year for migration. In addition to relying on more stringent immigration proposals to restrict entry to asylum-seeking migrants, the administration has discussed reinstating the detention of migrant families — drawing great backlash from immigration advocates, lawyers and Democrats.

More than eight-in-10 voters in the poll — 82 percent — believe the immigration system is broken, and they want to see both enhanced border security and policies that provide a pathway to citizenship, such as work permits for Dreamers, undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, and Temporary Protected Status for other migrants.

Sixty-five percent of respondents have a positive view of “modernizing and improving the physical infrastructure at high-volume ports of entry to enhance screening and processing,” while 76 percent want Dreamers and other undocumented immigrants residing in the U.S. to gain legal status if certain requirements are met, including background checks. Sixty-four percent of voters back the Biden administration using its TPS authority.

“Voters disapprove of the job both parties are doing on immigration because they see the system as deeply broken and in desperate need of a fix,” said Nick Gourevitch, partner and managing director at Global Strategy Group. “Recent polling shows voters clearly want Washington to act with solutions that are balanced — that include both border security and pathways to citizenship and legal status for Dreamers and other immigrants.”

The Biden administration announced plans last week to expand health care coverage to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, but great concern remains about the fate of the popular Obama-era program, which has allowed hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children to receive work permits and deportation relief. After a flurry of court challenges, advocates and legal experts warn the program is headed to the Supreme Court, where the conservative bench seems likely to rule it illegal.

The online poll surveyed 1,201 likely 2024 general election voters in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin between April 4-11. The margin of error was plus or minus 2.8 points.

Source: Politico

The post Biden is ignoring immigration issues, voters say in poll appeared first on Policy Print.

The retirement industry received some welcome news late last year when lawmakers passed another major bipartisan retirement security package, but industry sources aren’t expecting 2023 to yield many more legislative victories when it comes to retirement issues.

“Everything that they could find where there was bipartisan agreement made it into this bill,” said Michael P. Kreps, Washington-based principal and co-chairman of the retirement services practice at Groom Law Group, about SECURE 2.0, a retirement security bill attached to a $1.7 trillion year-end spending bill and signed into law Dec. 29.

“They didn’t leave a lot on the table. People always come up with new ideas and there will be new priorities, but with a new Republican leadership in the House with their own priorities, without Chairman (Richard) Neal driving a retirement agenda, it’s likely that retirement isn’t a front-burner issue, at least for a while.”

SECURE 2.0, which builds off the original SECURE Act that Congress passed in 2019, includes dozens of provisions, including expanding automatic enrollment for employees joining 401(k) and 403(b) plans, lowering the eligibility requirement for part-time workers to join 401(k) plans from three years of consecutive work to two, and allowing employers to make matching contributions to a 401(k) plan, 403(b) plan or SIMPLE IRA based on qualified student loan payments.

The SECURE 2.0 package was made up of three bills introduced during the last Congress, including one from Rep. Richard Neal, D-Mass., a longtime retirement security advocate and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee last Congress, and the committee’s now-retired Ranking Member Kevin Brady, R-Texas.

Retirement-related bills will likely still get introduced in the new session that began Jan. 3 and continues through 2024, but the issue won’t rank high on the priority list in a divided Congress, sources said.

One bill that was introduced in December and is likely to be reintroduced in this Congress would grant workers without an employer-sponsored retirement plan access to a federal program similar to the $748.1 billion Thrift Savings Plan, the retirement system for 6.7 million federal employees and members of the uniformed services.

The bipartisan Retirement Savings for Americans Act, introduced in both the House and Senate, closely follows a March 2021 paper published by the Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan public policy organization, that argued the TSP could be a model to build wealth for low-income workers.

John Lettieri, president and CEO of the Washington-based Economic Innovation Group, said the bill’s introduction late last year was more of a messaging vehicle. “This is a way of planting the marker … to generate interest and attention and to generate feedback from a variety of stakeholders,” he said in December. “Think of this as a dress rehearsal for a more substantial effort in the new Congress.”

Mr. Neal has his own automatic enrollment bill that could also be reintroduced at some point. Originally floated in late 2017, the Automatic Retirement Plan Act would require employers that don’t offer retirement plans to automatically enroll their workers in individual retirement accounts or 401(k)-type plans. Mr. Neal attempted to include the measure in Democrats’ Build Back Better Act, but it was stripped from the package during negotiations before it passed in 2021.

Bradford P. Campbell, a Washington-based partner at law firm Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP and former assistant secretary of labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration during President George W. Bush’s administration, said bills that attempt to improve the retirement system moderately have a better chance of passing in Congress.

“We’re going to see a number of different bills that run the spectrum from trying to tweak the current system to those that would fundamentally change the current system,” Mr. Campbell said. “I think the reality is the tweaking bills, so to speak, have a much better chance of success.”

Oversight

While another retirement bill passing Congress is a long shot, added oversight of the Department of Labor and Securities and Exchange Commission is not.

Republicans won control of the House in November and now have the ability to hold hearings and issue subpoenas and document requests from the Biden administration.

Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., the new chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in a statement last month that the committee will focus its efforts on “conducting appropriate and aggressive oversight of the Biden administration.”

The SEC in particular was “not subject to particularly aggressive oversight under Chair (Maxine) Waters’ (D-Calif., who previously led the committee) leadership,” said Jamie D. McGinnis, Washington-based counsel in the corporate department and member of Ropes & Gray LLP’s asset management group who previously worked for Mr. McHenry as senior policy adviser and lead securities counsel at the House Financial Services Committee. “I think the aggressiveness of oversight will increase significantly.”

Much of the oversight at the SEC and Labor Department will focus on climate and environmental, social and governance-related issues, congressional Republicans have indicated.

Several rule-making initiatives at both agencies have drawn Republican ire in recent months.

At the Labor Department, the agency finalized a rule in November that takes effect Jan. 30 and permits retirement plan fiduciaries to consider climate change and other ESG factors when selecting investments and exercising shareholder rights. It also reverses two Trump-era rules that the Biden administration said had a chilling effect on ESG investing but maintains the department’s position that fiduciaries may not sacrifice investment returns or assume greater investment risks as a means of promoting collateral social policy goals.

DOL rule

Republicans last year introduced bills and joint resolutions to nullify the DOL rule.

Rep. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., who co-sponsored one such bill in October, said in a news release that the Biden administration’s changes to ERISA “abandon fiduciary responsibility by allowing ‘woke’ ESG factors to dictate investment returns — putting Americans’ retirement savings at risk.”

At the SEC, the most discussed proposal is one that would require public companies to disclose a host of climate-related information in their registration statements and periodic reports. The proposal, released in March, has broad backing from institutional investors and asset managers, but will likely be challenged in court by the business community.

Under the proposal, public companies would be required to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions they generate or purchase, and the indirect emissions generated from a company’s supply chain, if material, though smaller companies would be exempt from the latter requirement, referred to as Scope 3. Some stakeholders in the business community and Republicans in Washington said the proposal exceeds the SEC’s authority.

Republicans in both the House and Senate introduced bills last year that would limit the SEC’s ability to establish additional disclosure requirements on public companies, including the proposed Scope 3 requirements.

“For whatever reason, Republicans have decided that (opposition to ESG and climate regulation) is going to be an issue for them and they’re going to make it an issue so I suspect it will be a recurring theme throughout the next few years,” Mr. Kreps said.

Republicans could also introduce “policy riders” on must-pass appropriations bills this Congress to try to stop the agencies from implementing certain rules, like the SEC’s climate disclosure rule and Labor Department’s ESG rule, sources said.

Source : Pion Line

The post Retirement legislation to cool off after SECURE 2.0 appeared first on Policy Print.

In a break with past precedent, last year’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) user fee reauthorization legislation did not contain significant FDA policy changes.

Although the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee (but not the Senate) and the House of Representatives advanced significant FDA-related legislative changes, the ultimate user fee reauthorization signed into law ended up being a relatively “clean” reauthorization of the applicable user fee programs. Congress nevertheless included many FDA-related legislative changes in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (“Omnibus” or “Act”), which President Biden signed into law on December 29, 2022.¹

This client alert highlights FDA-related provisions in the Omnibus, including but not limited to those in the FDA-specific title, the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act (FDORA). This legislation represents the culmination of the user fee reauthorization legislative process for the prescription drug, medical device, generic drug and biosimilar user fee programs. The stage is now set for FDA to implement these provisions, some of which require rulemaking, guidance or other agency actions. Despite the scope of this legislation, numerous significant policy issues were not addressed, and will potentially be considered by Congress in 2023 and beyond.

Key Takeaways

• The Omnibus, including FDORA, makes important changes to several aspects of device and drug premarket review, and drug marketing exclusivity, while also enhancing or clarifying important aspects of agency enforcement authority; many of these provisions will require FDA implementation in 2023.
• Regulation of cosmetics is significantly revamped, and will also require agency implementation beginning in 2023.
• The Omnibus reauthorizes a variety of important FDA programs, such as funding incentives for orphan drugs and rare disease products.
• Numerous policy reforms under consideration in the 117th Congress were not included, notably the VALID Act (reform of in vitro diagnostics regulation), changes to the regulation of dietary supplements and revisions to device shortage reporting; the new Congress may continue to consider these and other areas of FDA.

1. Appropriations

After months of negotiations between House and Senate Appropriations leadership, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) passed the Senate by a vote of 68-29 on December 22. The House passed the Omnibus on December 23 by a 225-201 vote and President Biden signed the bill into law on December 29. The Omnibus provides the FDA a total of $3.5 billion in discretionary funding, a $226 million increase above the fiscal year 2022 funding level. With user fees, total FDA funding for fiscal year 2023 is $6.6 billion. Along with program reauthorizations, the Omnibus directs FDA to use $35.8 million for medical safety, $41 million for food safety activities, $122 million for cross-cutting initiatives and $50 million for accelerating medical development as authorized by the 21st Century Cures Act.

2. Preparedness

The Omnibus includes the Prepare for and Respond to Existing Viruses, Emerging New Threats and Pandemics Act (PREVENT Pandemics Act).² The enactment of the PREVENT Pandemics Act reflects the culmination of a multiyear, bipartisan legislative process with the goal of strengthening our nation’s medical and public health preparedness and response framework. The timing of the enactment of these reforms and the ongoing COVID-19 response efforts raise questions about how Congress may approach reauthorization of the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA), provisions of which are set to expire at the end of the current fiscal year (September 30, 2023). Key themes of the PREVENT Pandemics Act include structural leadership changes, increasing accountability and transparency around preparedness and response activities through more rigorous and frequent reporting requirements, and the importance of partnerships and innovation as part of a nimble, all-hazards preparedness framework. The PREVENT Pandemics Act also includes new funding opportunities. Additional information regarding the PREVENT Pandemics Act and PAHPA Reauthorization is available here.

3. Drugs and Biologics

The provisions of FDORA include some, but not all, of the drug policy riders that were initially considered as part of the FDA reauthorizing legislation impacting pharmaceutical products, which we noted in our previous client alerts here and here. The following is an assessment of select provisions of FDORA that may be of the greatest interest to drug and biologic sponsors and other stakeholders:

a. Exclusivity, Orphan and Rare Disease Issues

Several FDORA provisions impact the scope and qualifications for various FDA market exclusivities.

• Interchangeable Biosimilar Exclusivity: Under section 351(k)(6) of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 262(k)(6), the first FDA-approved interchangeable biosimilar to a reference product receives exclusivity blocking the approval of any other interchangeability designations for the earlier of 12 months after the interchangeable product is marketed (or 18 months after its approval even if it is not marketed), 18 months after the conclusion of litigation by final court decision or settlement or 42 months after approval of the interchangeable if litigation is ongoing. Section 3206 of FDORA now allows for multiple “first” interchangeable biosimilars to qualify for those periods of exclusivity, if they are approved on the same day. This change will significantly alter the competitive landscape for interchangeable biosimilars, providing a considerable incentive for companies to have an approvable product on the first possible day permitted under the Act (which is 12 years from the date of approval of the reference product).³ Presumably, this would tend to significantly drive down market prices for interchangeable biosimilars (and further drive up rebates for the reference drug) where multiple sponsors have approved products in the market simultaneously. In addition to this weakening of the value of a first interchangeability designation, the industry will be closely watching for other legislative proposals that would weaken the interchangeability designation altogether.
• Enantiomer Exclusivity: Section 3105 of FDORA amends section 505(u) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FD&C Act”) to clarify that sponsors of section 505(b)(2) applications for an enantiomer may rely on bioavailability studies of an already approved racemic drug, and still be entitled to the five years of market exclusivity available under section 505(j) of the Act. Prior to this change, the statute was more broadly worded to disallow the five-year exclusivity if the application relied on “any clinical investigations” of the already approved drug.
• Therapeutic Equivalence Determinations: FDA is required to make “therapeutic equivalence” (i.e., “A” rated) determinations based on sponsors’ data submissions, including for filings under section 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act. Section 3222 now requires FDA to make those determinations, if requested by the sponsor in the application, either at the time of approval or not later than 180 days afterward.  FDA must make the determination for already approved applications 180 days after receipt of a request by the sponsor, or for applications submitted but not approved as of the effective date of the Omnibus bill, 180 days after the approval.
• Orphan Drugs: FDORA did not include a provision included in the Senate HELP Committee mark up of FDA user fee legislation last year, which would have applied orphan drug exclusivity only to the same approved use or indication within a rare disease or condition by allowing FDA to approve the same drug from different manufacturers if the products are intended to treat different patient populations. It remains to be seen whether the orphan drug exclusivity issues will be revisited in the new Congress, and how and whether FDA will address pending orphan drug exclusivity applications. However, FDORA includes a reauthorization of FDA’s Orphan Products Grants Program,⁴ increasing the scope of the program and its budget and requires FDA to create a Rare Disease Endpoint Advancement Pilot Program (RDEA) to facilitate work between the agency and sponsors to develop new rare disease endpoints “including surrogate and intermediate endpoints.”⁵

b. Accelerated Approvals

Section 3210 contains several detailed reforms to the current FDA approach to accelerated approvals under FD&C Act section 506(c). Although FDA has taken the position that it has authority to revoke a drug’s approval based on new safety or efficacy data (or certain other reasons), and has requested that sponsors voluntarily remove their accelerated approval drugs from the market in several cases, section 3210 clarifies FDA’s authority to do so with new specific procedures and processes that must be followed in such cases. These include notice to the sponsor, meetings with the agency, an opportunity for the sponsor and public to formally comment and for FDA to respond, as well as holding an advisory committee at the request of the sponsor.

Post-approval studies for accelerated approval drugs now must be specified by FDA (which may include enrollment targets, a study protocol and milestones including a target date for study completion). FDA also may require that certain of those studies already be underway at the time of accelerated approval. Section 3210 further amends section 506(c) to specifically indicate that in certain cases only one post approval study could be required by FDA (vs. the current statute’s requirement for “studies”). Under the new provisions of section 3210, if FDA does not require post-approval studies as part of an accelerated approval, it must give the public notice of why they are not being required. Sponsors now must update FDA on the progress of such studies every 180 days, starting with 180 days after the initial accelerated approval is granted. The law also now explicitly makes failure to conduct the required studies a violation of the FD&C Act, by amending section 331 with new section “(ggg),” which requires sponsors to conduct such post-accelerated approval studies “with due diligence” and to “submit timely reports.” As such, the law leaves open the question of whether a violation can occur where the sponsor is in fact conducting the study.

c. Animal Testing

Section 3209 amends section 505 of the FD&C Act to enable sponsors to support their drug approval packages with pre-clinical testing that is in vitro, in silico or in chemico, or a nonhuman in vivo test. Thus, for the first time, sponsors may deploy non-animal testing such as computer modeling to fully support the FD&C Act’s required demonstrations of efficacy and/or safety. This section also specifically amends the Public Health Service Act to allow for non-animal biosimilar toxicity testing.

4. Cross-Cutting Issues

a. Clinical Trials

The Omnibus requires sponsors to submit diversity action plans for certain studies for drugs and devices, and requires FDA to issue or update its guidance regarding these plans.⁶ FDA is also required to take steps to modernize clinical trials through issuing a variety of guidance documents and convening workshops, including relating to historically underrepresented populations in clinical studies;⁷ flexibilities afforded during the COVID-19 pandemic;⁸ digital health technologies in clinical trials; decentralized clinical trials; and use of seamless, concurrent and other innovative clinical trial designs to support expedited development and review applications for drugs.⁹ FDA is also instructed to work with foreign regulators to facilitate international harmonization of regulation of decentralized clinical trials, digital health technologies in clinical trials and use of innovative clinical trial designs.¹⁰

b. Exchange of Product Information Prior to Approval

Section 3630 is a legislative adoption of the main themes already contained in FDA’s existing 2018 final guidance on Drug and Device Manufacturer Communications With Payors, Formulary Committees, and Similar Entities (the “Payor Guidance”). Under that guidance, FDA invoked its enforcement discretion as to certain off-label and pre-approval communications about drugs or devices to “entities with knowledge and expertise in the areas of health care economic analysis.” Technically, section 3630 amends section 502 of the FD&C Act’s “adequate directions for use” exception to misbranding violations by adding to the exception the “provision of truthful and not misleading product information to a payor, formulary committee or other similar entity with knowledge and expertise in the areas of health care economic analysis” as to both investigational drugs and devices (meaning off-label uses), and pre-approval and pre-clearance products. The exception is, as was the case in the Payor Guidance, limited to circumstances where the entity is “carrying out its responsibilities for the selection of drugs or devices…,” which may mean that communication of the same information in a different context is not protected by the exception. The statute also similarly requires affirmative disclosure that the safety and efficacy of the product or use being discussed has not yet been established, as well as other important data disclosures. In addition, section 3630 requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to do a study of the kinds of information provided by sponsors to payors under these new provisions, although it does not specify how GAO will collect such information since these payor materials are not necessarily required to be filed with FDA on a Form 2253.

5. Medical Devices

The Omnibus legislation adopts a number of substantive changes to medical device law that had been contemplated during deliberations on the user fee reauthorization, and made a number of clarifications to FDA’s authority:

• Predetermined Change Control Plans: Sponsors of devices may now include with their section 510(k) and premarket approval (PMA) submissions proposed change control plans pursuant to which the sponsor could make certain changes to the approved or cleared device without requiring a new marketing submission.¹¹
• Cybersecurity: Devices that could be vulnerable to cybersecurity threats are required to include in their marketing submissions information relating to device security, identification of cybersecurity vulnerabilities and a software bill of materials.¹²
• De Novo/CLIA Waiver Dual Submissions: Sponsors of in vitro diagnostics authorized under emergency use authorizations (EUAs) may submit a single submission for de novo classification and Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) waiver designation.¹³
• Data Transparency: The agency shall seek access to data funded by FDA that may be used in regulatory decision-making for devices, provide it to the implicated manufacturers to the extent possible, and report to Congress every two years on device emerging signal communications and their resolution.¹⁴
• Real World Evidence: FDA shall issue guidance addressing the use of real world data and real world evidence to support device submissions, including the use of evidence obtained as a result of the use of devices under EUAs.¹⁵
• CFGs: Congress clarified that Certificates to Foreign Governments (CFGs) are available for device establishments located outside the United States for cleared or approved devices that are offered for import into the United States.¹⁶
• Enforcement Authorities: The Omnibus made numerous changes or clarifications to FDA enforcement and oversight tools, including authorizing FDA to ban a device for a particular intended use (rather than necessarily banning the device for all uses);¹⁷ strengthening enforcement tools relating to counterfeit devices;¹⁸ and clarifying FDA’s inspectional authority relating to non-restricted devices¹⁹ and registration requirements for foreign device (and drug) establishments.²⁰

There were other device-related provisions that Congress did not include in the Omnibus. Notably, the VALID Act, which would have significantly reformed the regulation of in vitro diagnostic tests including those offered by laboratories, was not included. Nor were proposed revisions to device shortage reporting or other potential changes to device regulatory pathways.

6. Cosmetics

The Omnibus includes the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), which constitutes the most significant expansion of FDA’s authority to regulate cosmetics since passage of the FD&C Act of 1938. Of note, MoCRA establishes a regulatory framework for cosmetics more similar to that of other FDA-regulated products, including requirements with respect to:

• Adverse event reporting;
• Maintenance and inspection of adverse event records;
• Good manufacturing practices;
• Registration and product listing;
• Safety substantiation;
• Product labeling, including identifying fragrance allergens in such product labeling;
• Mandatory recall authority; and
• Records access and inspections.

MoCRA expressly preempts certain requirements under the FD&C Act, but also provides express limitations with respect to such preemption under certain circumstances.

MoCRA also directs FDA, not later than one year after enactment, to propose regulations to establish and require standardized testing methods for detecting and identifying asbestos in talc-containing cosmetic products, and issue final regulations not later than 180 days after the date on which the public comment period on the proposed regulations closes. MoCRA also directs FDA to assess and issue a report regarding use of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in cosmetics and the scientific evidence regarding the safety of such use in cosmetics products, including any risks associated with such use.

7. Infant Formula

The Omnibus includes provisions related to the safety and availability of infant formula. Most notably, the Omnibus requires the establishment of an Office of Critical Foods within FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. This new office is charged with responsibility for oversight, coordination and facilitation of activities related to critical foods, which are defined as infant formula or a medical food (as defined in section 5(b)(3) of the Orphan Drug Act). The Omnibus directs FDA to apply a 30-day premarket submission requirement—as opposed to a 90-day requirement—in the instance of a shortage of infant formula. The Omnibus also seeks to harmonize international infant formula requirements by allowing the agency to enter into agreements with other countries regarding the inspection of foreign-manufactured infant formula. Further, it requires specific actions by FDA with respect to inspections of infant formula manufacturing facilities, such as annual inspections, including unannounced inspections. The Omnibus calls for a national strategy to increase the resiliency of the infant formula supply chain.

A new section 424 of the FD&C Act sets forth requirements for manufacturers of critical foods, including:

• Notification to FDA in the event of a permanent discontinuance in the manufacture or an interruption of the manufacture of such food that is likely to lead to a meaningful disruption in the United States within five business days after such discontinuance or such interruption.
• Developing, maintaining and implementing, as appropriate, risk management plans that identify and evaluate risks to the supply of the food, as applicable, for each establishment in which such food is manufactured.

8. FDA Program Reauthorizations

A number of FDA-administered programs requiring reauthorization were only reauthorized until mid-December 2022 in the user fee reauthorization signed into law on September 30, 2022. The Omnibus reauthorized a number of these for longer periods of time, including orphan drug grants, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act incentive, the Critical Path Public-Private Partnership, third-party device review and third-party device establishment inspections, the humanitarian device exemption incentive program, the Pediatric Device Consortia Grants program, reporting requirements relating to generic drug applications and priority review applications, and a provision relating to drugs containing single enantiomers.

Source : Akingump

The post Congress’ Year-End Appropriations Package Brings FDA Legislative Changes, Leaves Unresolved Policy Issues appeared first on Policy Print.