Kessler: FDA pre-emption is of no benefit to public

Share this article:
FDA pre-emption of “failure-to-warn” state lawsuits over drug risks does nothing to benefit the agency or the public and can prevent information that is helpful to the FDA, healthcare providers, and consumers from coming out, say commissioner David Kessler and Georgetown Law professor David Vladeck in the Georgetown Law Journal

While there has been a “steady stream” of such cases against drug companies brought by consumers injured by FDA-regulated drugs, the FDA has stayed on the sidelines, they report, and courts have decided them under the ordinary rules that govern state damages actions, with the question of preemption rarely, if ever, arising.

But Kessler and Vladeck say there are both legal and practical problems with the FDA's new position. They say the FDA's pro-pre-emption arguments are based on a reading of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act that, in their view, understates the ability of manufacturers to change labeling unilaterally to respond to newly discovered risks or to seek labeling changes from the FDA. 
Share this article:
You must be a registered member of MMM to post a comment.
close

Next Article in Features

Email Newsletters

More in Features

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Read the complete September 2014 Digital Edition

Click the above link to access the complete Digital Edition of the August 2014 issue of MM&M, with all text, charts and pictures.

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Medical marketing needs mainstream Mad Men

Agencies must generate emotional resonance with the target audience, not unlike Apple, Pepsi or Nike

Are discounts cutting out co-pays?

GSK's decision to cut Advair's price spurred some PBMs to put it back on formulary. Will drugmaker discounts diminish the need for loyalty programs? How can these programs stay relevant beyond giving co-pay assistance?