Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Pdufa And Initial U.S. Drug Launches, Mary K. Olson
Pdufa And Initial U.S. Drug Launches, Mary K. Olson
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
In the 1970s and 1980s, many pharmaceutical firms launched new drugs abroad prior to gaining U.S. approval. Consequently, U.S. patients often faced delays in accessing important new medicines. High regulatory barriers to entry, such as a stringent regulation and a lengthy drug review process, contributed to this problem. This Article examines the impact of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), and subsequent increases in the speed of FDA review, on the likelihood of initial U.S. drug launches. These factors are hypothesized to lower regulatory barriers to entry in the U.S. pharmaceutical market. The results show that increased drug review …
Why Fdca Section 505(U) Should Not Concern Us Greatly, Kyle Faget
Why Fdca Section 505(U) Should Not Concern Us Greatly, Kyle Faget
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Among the many amendments found in the Food and Drug Administration Amendment Act of 2007 (FDAAA) is a provision at the end of the act, Section 505(u), which grants chiral switches five years of market exclusivity under certain circumstances. Prior to Congressional enactment of the FDAAA, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refused to award new chemical entity (NCE) status to enantiomers of previously approved racemic mixtures. The FDA defines a new chemical entity ("NCE") as a drug that contains no active moiety that has been approved by the FDA in any other application submitted under Section 505(b) of the …
Generic Preemption: Applying Conflict Preemption After Wyeth V. Levine, Hannah B. Murray
Generic Preemption: Applying Conflict Preemption After Wyeth V. Levine, Hannah B. Murray
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
If a generic manufacturer does not have control over its safety warnings, can it comply with the obligations posed by state tort liability? State failure-to-warn actions evaluate whether a product manufacturer has met its obligation to warn consumers about known dangers associated with its product. In essence, if a manufacturer knows about a potentially dangerous outcome, it has a duty to warn its consumers. If the generic manufacturer can comply with a state duty to warn only by changing a label that the FDA will not allow it to change, it becomes impossible for the corporation to meet both requirements. …
When And How To Defer To The Fda: Learning From Michigan's Regulatory Compliance Defense, Jason C. Miller
When And How To Defer To The Fda: Learning From Michigan's Regulatory Compliance Defense, Jason C. Miller
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Michigan's regulatory compliance defense properly recognizes that an FDA-approved drug carrying an FDA-approved label should not be considered defective. However, the statute's absolute immunity provides no compensation for injured parties in any circumstance, including situations where the FDA process has failed. Nevertheless, it is possible to treat the FDA's approval as significant without eliminating the possibility of all state actions against drug makers by providing a litigation back-up through state attorneys general ("AGs"). This Note examines the question of FDA approval in state tort actions in Part I, discusses Michigan's answer to that question in Part II, and offers a …