The newly announced budget for fiscal year 2018 presented by President Trump calls for huge disruptions in government-funded medical and scientific research, the extent of which go well beyond what was expected for federal health-related agencies that usually receive broad support from both Republicans and Democrats. The cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) would fund the agency at a 15-year low—NIH would see its budget cut by approximately 20% (nearly $6 billion) and the Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, would be cut by $15.1 billion, slashing spending by NIH on agencies including the FDA, CMS, and Indian Health Service.
Trump’s budget blueprint, “America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make American Great Again,” calls for a major NIH reorganization to focus on “highest priority research” but fails to explain all the changes involved in reorganizing it, except for abolishing 1 program dedicated to building partnerships between health research institutions in the United States and other countries, and consolidating the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality into NIH. The cuts to HHS, NIH, and other health agencies comes on the heels of a pledge made during Trump’s first joint address to Congress on February 28, 2017, to help fight and stop more diseases.
The budget document also states that FDA user fees will rise as pharma and biopharma should “pay for their share” in a constrained budget environment, calling for FDA medical product user fees to nearly double to “over $2 billion in 2018, approximately $1 billion over the 2017 annualized continuing resolution level.” According to the Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society (RAPS), the administration is “presumably looking to renegotiate the user fee programs, which expire in September 2017, forcing companies to fork over an additional $600 million.” The drug and device industries had, in fact, recently completed user fee agreements negotiations with FDA, agreeing upon an appropriate amount of industry fees to support needed FDA improvements.
Researchers and medical experts are alarmed about the potentially disastrous effects a $6 billion budget cut to NIH would have on biomedical and other research. Investment in research and development has been widely regarded since World War II as critical to national prosperity and security. Scientific and medical research in the United States depends heavily on grants from federal agencies that would face dramatic budget cuts. NIH uses only approximately 10% of its $30 billion budget for NIH’s own in-house studies; more than 80% goes to 300,000 outside researchers. “President Donald Trump’s fiscal year 2018 spending plan erases years’ worth of bipartisan support for NIH, and the American biomedical research enterprise, which has long been the global leader for biomedical innovation,” said Benjamin Corb, of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, in an interview with Science. “Cuts this deep threaten American’s ability to remain a leader.”
UsAgainstAlzheimer’s chairman George Vradenburg said the cuts to NIH and medical research threaten to undo years of gains made in the fight against Alzheimer’s disease. He pointed out that the most direct path to healthcare cost savings is investing in research to achieve treatments and cures. The group reminded Trump that Alzheimer’s researchers have stated that the minimum level of annual funding to achieve the national goal of stopping Alzheimer’s by 2025 is $2 billion a year at NIH.
The budget eliminates $403 million in funding to train health professionals and nurses, calling the program ineffective. The budget does not provide specifics for the CDC beyond the creation of a $500 million block grant fund to help states respond to their specific public health challenges, but the source of the funds is not clear—whether this would be new funding or a reallocation.
Mention is also made of unspecified investment in mental health activities such as suicide prevention and a $500 million increase in substance abuse services funding aimed at addressing the opioid addiction epidemic.
The 2018 budget must be negotiated and approved by Congress.
Health Canada Approves First Omalizumab Biosimilar
December 16th 2024Health Canada has approved Omlyclo, the first omalizumab biosimilar in Canada, for the treatment of chronic idiopathic urticaria, allergic asthma, and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps, based on a phase 3 study confirming its bioequivalence to the reference product.
A New Chapter: How 2023 Will Shape the US Biosimilar Space for 2024 and Beyond
December 31st 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Cencora's Brian Biehn and Corey Ford take a look back at major policy and regulatory advancements in 2023 and how these changes will alter the space going forward.
Denosumab Biosimilars Earn Positive CHMP Opinion for Bone Loss and Giant Cell Tumor of Bone
November 26th 2024The European Medicines Agency Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has issued a positive opinion for the denosumab biosimilars SB16 for all indications referencing Prolia and Xgeva.
The Subcutaneous Revolution: Zymfentra and the Future of IBD Care With Dr Andres Yarur
December 17th 2023On this episode of Not So Different, Andres Yarur, MD, a researcher and associate professor of medicine at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, discusses the significance of the FDA approval for Zymfentra, the world's first subcutaneous infliximab product, for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).
Eye on Pharma: EU Aflibercept Approvals; Biosimilars Canada Campaign; Celltrion Data
November 19th 2024The European Commission grants marketing authorization to 2 aflibercept biosimilars; Biosimilars Canada launches new campaign to provide sustainable solutions to employers; Celltrion shares positive data for 2 biosimilars.
Can Global Policies to Boost Biosimilar Adoption Work in the US?
November 17th 2024On this special episode of Not So Different honoring Global Biosimilars Week, Craig Burton, executive director of the Biosimilars Council, explores how global policies—from incentives to health equity strategies—could boost biosimilar adoption in the US.