RETHINKING INNOVATION AT FDA.

In several controversial drug approval decisions in recent years, the Food & Drug Administration ("FDA") has publicly justified its decision partly on the ground that approving the drugs in question would support innovation in those fields going forward. To some observers, these arguments were surprising, as the Agency's determination whether a drug is "safe" and "effective" does not seem to depend on whether its approval also supports innovation. But FDA'suse of these innovation arguments in drug approval decisions is just one example of the ways in which the Agency has come to make many innovation-related judgments as part of its regulation of drugs. In this Article, we investigate the broad set of innovation-related judgments that FDA has been making and argue that there are serious concerns with the major innovation role FDA has been playing, at least as the Agency is currently constituted. We conclude that FDA should not separately weigh innovation in decisions about a product's safety and effectiveness. In other areas, health policymakers could reasonably decide that FDA should have either a larger or a smaller role than it currently does in shaping the development of novel drugs. But policymakers should do so while thoughtfully considering both the opportunities and challenges of FDA actively considering innovation incentives in its decisions; those challenges have been rarely considered in the literature and policy discourse. Further, we argue that whether policymakers aim to bolster or limit the ways that FDA considers innovation in its regulatory decisions, changes are needed to the Agency's structure to support its ability to make reasoned judgments based on relevant expertise. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]