ENTtoday
  • Home
  • COVID-19
  • Practice Focus
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Departments
    • Issue Archive
    • TRIO Best Practices
      • Allergy
      • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
      • Head and Neck
      • Laryngology
      • Otology/Neurotology
      • Pediatric
      • Rhinology
      • Sleep Medicine
    • Career Development
    • Case of the Month
    • Everyday Ethics
    • Health Policy
    • Legal Matters
    • Letter From the Editor
    • Medical Education
    • Online Exclusives
    • Practice Management
    • Resident Focus
    • Rx: Wellness
    • Special Reports
    • Tech Talk
    • Viewpoint
    • What’s Your O.R. Playlist?
  • Literature Reviews
    • Allergy
    • Facial Plastic/Reconstructive
    • Head and Neck
    • Laryngology
    • Otology/Neurotology
    • Pediatric
    • Rhinology
    • Sleep Medicine
  • Events
    • Featured Events
    • TRIO Meetings
  • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
    • Triological Society
    • Advertising Staff
    • Subscribe
  • Advertise
    • Place an Ad
    • Classifieds
    • Rate Card
  • Search

The 21st Century Cures Act

by Karen Appold • August 15, 2017

  • Tweet
  • Email
Print-Friendly Version

Karen Appold is a freelance medical writer based in New Jersey.

You Might Also Like

No related posts.

Explore This Issue
August 2017

Key Points

  • The Cures Act provides the NIH with $4.8 billion in funding to advance biomedical research.
  • Programs funded under the act focus on cancer research, regenerative medicine, opioid use, behavioral health, and access to healthcare.
  • Some physicians are concerned that provisions in the act could actually harm the drug and device marketplace by encouraging the FDA to emphasize speed over science.

What to Look for in a Disability Policy

Another component of the 21st Century Cures Act is to build on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ongoing efforts to advance medical product innovation and ensure that patients get access to treatments as quickly as possible, with continued assurance from high-quality evidence that they are safe and effective, stated Robert M. Califf, MD, commissioner of the FDA.

“The FDA’s approval process for pharmacologic agents and devices is designed to protect patients and ensure quality and safety,” said Joseph E. Kerschner, MD, dean of the School of Medicine and executive vice president of Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee, and chair-elect of the Council of Deans for the Association of American Medical Colleges, based in Washington, D.C. “However, the process is expensive and time consuming, which can delay the ability for patients to access cutting-edge therapies. The Cures Act admirably attempts to continue to safeguard FDA approvals appropriately, but will also look at ways that enhance efficacy and efficiency in bringing new therapies to market without lessening patient safety. The act may provide some beneficial changes to regulations, which will help streamline processes and deliver new technologies more effectively.”

But Michael S. Sinha, MD, JD, MPH, a postdoctoral fellow in the Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL) at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital/Harvard Medical School, and some of his colleagues are concerned that some of the act’s provisions could actually harm the drug and device marketplace by encouraging the FDA to emphasize speed over science and rely on less rigorous data for approving new products and indications.

While the FDA was slow to give approvals 30 years ago, that is not true today, Dr. Sinha said. Currently, the FDA is among the fastest drug regulatory agencies in the world. A Yale study showed that between 2011 and 2015, FDA approvals were, on average, 60 days shorter than approvals from the European Medicines Agency (N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:1386-1387). This is consistent with results from a previous study by the same author group that looked at approvals from 2001 to 2010. One reason for the increase in speed is that the FDA has several expedited development and approval pathways, and approximately three-quarters of the drugs approved in 2016 qualified for one or more of these pathways. In addition, 95% of all new drug approvals are now approved on the first cycle of review. Increased review speed has been associated with problematic safety outcomes, however. One study published in JAMA found an increase in post-approval safety events from 2001 to 2010, with higher events noted among accelerated approvals and near-deadline decisions (JAMA. 2017;317:1854-1863).

Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Single Page

Filed Under: Departments, Health Policy Tagged With: 21st century cures act, biomedical research, national institutes of health, NIH, otolaryngologyIssue: August 2017

You Might Also Like:

The Triological SocietyENTtoday is a publication of The Triological Society.

The Laryngoscope
Ensure you have all the latest research at your fingertips; Subscribe to The Laryngoscope today!

Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
Open access journal in otolaryngology – head and neck surgery is currently accepting submissions.

Classifieds

View the classified ads »

TRIO Best Practices

View the TRIO Best Practices »

Top Articles for Residents

  • Do Training Programs Give Otolaryngology Residents the Necessary Tools to Do Productive Research?
  • Why More MDs, Medical Residents Are Choosing to Pursue Additional Academic Degrees
  • What Physicians Need to Know about Investing Before Hiring a Financial Advisor
  • Tips to Help You Regain Your Sense of Self
  • Should USMLE Step 1 Change from Numeric Score to Pass/Fail?
  • Popular this Week
  • Most Popular
  • Most Recent
    • What Happens to Medical Students Who Don’t Match?
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • Why We Get Colds
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • Some Challenges Remain to Having a Universal Resident Leave Policy, But Otolaryngology Programs Are Getting Closer
    • The Dramatic Rise in Tongue Tie and Lip Tie Treatment
    • What Happens to Medical Students Who Don’t Match?
    • Rating Laryngopharyngeal Reflux Severity: How Do Two Common Instruments Compare?
    • Vertigo in the Elderly: What Does It Mean?
    • Neurogenic Cough Is Often a Diagnosis of Exclusion
    • Why We Get Colds
    • Are the Jobs in Healthcare Good Jobs?
    • What Really Works in Functional Rhinoplasty?
    • Is the Best Modality to Assess Vocal Fold Mobility in Children Flexible Fiberoptic Laryngoscopy or Ultrasound?
    • Three Primary Treatment Strategies Show No Differences in Swallow Outcome for Patients with Low- to Intermediate-Risk Tonsil Cancer

Polls

Do you have physician assistants in your otolaryngology practice?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
  • Polls Archive
  • Home
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences

Visit: The Triological Society • The Laryngoscope • Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology

Wiley
© 2023 The Triological Society. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN 1559-4939