My understanding is that the FDA gets paid either way and have a monopoly on approval. It's not like the users will go somewhere else if they received an unfavorable ruling.
This is broken down on the FDA's website[1].
[1]: https://www.fda.gov/industry/fda-user-fee-programs/fda-user-...
I did some contracting for a federal agency, the area I was meeting with was a hot area… Aeron chairs, nice office spaces, new computers.
One time we had to cut through an office area on the other side of the floor that was being starved. 1970s orange carpets, DOS computers, people who looked like they worked in a coal mine.
Same agency, different budgets. IRS is the famous example, Republicans when they control the house always starve the enforcement division as much as possible.
When I worked for an agency, there was always a mad rush at the end of the year spending millions on useless crap. The rationale was that any budget surplus would be reallocated and cut from next years budget, putting future programs at risk.
doesn't seem like it based on the FDA Fact Sheets. where are you seeing the annual increases?
"The FY 2025 Budget provides a $7.2 billion total program funding level for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. This includes an overall increase of 7.4 percent or $495 million over the FY 2023 funding level" [1]
"The FY 2024 budget provides a $7.2 billion total program level for FDA. " [2]
"The FY 2023 budget provides an $8.4 billion total program level for FDA." [3]
[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/176923/download
Actually, this is mostly an issue with process. Covid shutdowns caused a huge backlog. Offshore manufacturing gets notifications of planned visits versus unannounced visits for onshore facilities. Sure, every org will say it can do more with a bigger budget. But more money for inspectors will do little to retain them when some of the biggest complaints are the travel requirements leading to reduced work-life balance.
Yes.