FY 2004 MDUFMA Financial Report: Appendices
|<< Return to FY 2004 MDUFMA Financial Report: Table of Contents||View the Main Report >>|
- Appendix A: Conditions for Collection and Use of Fees
- Appendix B: Summary of Application Fees Paid in FY 2004
- Appendix C: Waivers, Reductions, and Exemptions
- Appendix D: Allowable and Excluded Costs for the Process for the Review of Device Applications
- Appendix E: Development of Costs for the Process for the Review of Device Applications
Conditions for Collection and Use of Fees
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), as amended by MDUFMA, Public Law 107-250, specifies three major conditions that must be met to some extent for medical device user fees to be collected and spent. A summary of these conditions and the extent to which they were met was provided earlier on pages 2 and 3. Each of these conditions is described in more detail below, with an explanation of the extent to which the condition was met in FY 2004.
For making the comparisons to determine if statutory conditions are met, an adjustment factor, which is defined in section 737(7) of the Act, must be calculated and applied each year. The statute defines the term "adjustment factor" as follows:
The term 'adjustment factor' applicable to a fiscal year is the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (all items; United States city average) for April of the preceding fiscal year divided by such Index for April 2002.
The April preceding FY 2004, which began on October 1, 2003 , was April 2003. The consumer price index (CPI) for April 2003 was 183.8. The CPI for April 2002 was 179.8. Dividing the CPI of April 2003 by the CPI of April 2002 yields a MDUFMA adjustment factor of 1.02225 for FY 2004.
The first condition is a funding trigger which affects the collection of fees in FY 2006. MDUFMA set funding targets for FY 2003 – 2006 equaling $205,720,000 for FY 2003, and that level adjusted for inflation in subsequent years. The appropriation of those specific funding levels was not required to collect fees in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Instead, MDU FMA set a trigger that must be met before fees can be collected in FY 2006.
To collect fees in FY 2006, the sum of appropriations for FY 2003 – 2006 for the devices and radiological product program must equal the sum of the funding targets set by MDUFMA for those years. Given current projections of the April 2005 CPI -U, this amount is anticipated to equal $851,942,000.
In FY 2003, the final appropriation was $$193,350,000, $12,370,000 below the MDUFMA target. The FY 2004 appropriation was $191,144,000, $19,154,000 below the MDUFMA target. Under current law, additional funds must be appropriated in FY 2005 or FY 2006, over and above the MDU FMA targets for those years, or FDA loses its ability to collect fees on October 1, 2005.
In a letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget dated October 29, 2003 , the Administration proposed that the statutory requirement to make up appropriation shortfalls for FY 2003 and FY 2004 be eliminated, and draft legislation to implement this proposal was sent informally to Congress in May 2004. The Administration's FY 2005 budget authority request for the Medical Devices program was $216,699,000, exceeding the minimum level specified in MDUFMA. The administration has committed that FY 2006 and 2007 requests will each meet the MDUFMA specified level, and FDA has committed to achieving the original MDUFMA performance goals with the levels appropriated in FY 2003 and FY 2004, as long as appropriations in FY 2005 and subsequent fiscal years satisfy the MDUFMA specified levels.
The second condition comes from section 738(h)(2)(A)(i). It states that fees "shall be retained in each fiscal year in an amount not to exceed the amount specified in appropriation acts, or otherwise made available for obligation, for such fiscal year...." Without an appropriation, no fees may be collected.
The President signed the Appropriation Act (Public Law 108-199) specifying amounts collectable from fees during FY 2004 on January 23, 2004. It provided $31,654,000 to come from fees collected. Thus, the second condition was met.
The third condition of MDUFMA requires an annual minimum amount of spending from appropriations, exclusive of user fees, on the process for device review as defined in MDUFMA. This condition in section 738(h)(2)(A)(ii), states:
(Fees) shall only be collected and available to defray increases in the costs of the resources allocated for the process for the review of device applications (including increases in such costs for an additional number of full-time equivalent positions in the Department of Health and Human Services to be engaged in such process) over such costs, excluding costs paid from fees collected under this section, for fiscal year 2002 multiplied by the adjustment factor.
In FY 2002, FDA's actual obligations for the process for the review of device applications totaled $119,673,026. The adjustment factor for FY 2004 is 1.02225, as stated above. Multiplying by this adjustment factor, the minimum amount of spending from appropriations for the device review process in FY 2004 is $122,335,751.
The amount FDA obligated from appropriations for the process for the review of device applications for FY 2004 was $123,521,871. Since this is greater than the adjusted FY 2002 amount ($122,335,751) the third condition was met.
The table below shows amounts FDA spent on the process for the review of device applications in FY 2002, FY 2003, and FY 2004. It also shows the amount of these costs that was charged to appropriations and the amount spent from user fee revenues.
|FY 2002||FY 2003||FY 2004|
|From User Fee Revenues||NA||$14,837,600||$23,875,200|
In addition to the above conditions, MDUFMA imposes a fourth condition that must be met if FDA is to be able to continue to have accredited third parties conduct device establishment inspections in FY 2005 and beyond. That condition is that FDA obligations for inspections of device establishments may not fall below the amount FDA obligated for this purpose in FY 2002, increased by 5 percent each year, for at least one of the two immediately preceding fiscal years. Should obligations for device establishment inspections fall below this minimum spending level for two consecutive years, FDA would be prohibited from allowing accredited third parties to conduct such inspections. This fourth condition is in section 704(g)(10) of the Act. As the table below shows, the amount FDA obligated for device establishment inspections in both FY 2003 and FY 2004 exceeded the minimum specified. Since FDA spending meets this level for both of the two fiscal years immediately preceding FY 2005 and for one of the two fiscal years immediately preceding FY 2006, FDA has meet the MDUFMA financial requirement necessary to permit the Agency to continue to allow accredited third parties to conduct some inspections through FY 2006.
|FY 2002 Base||FY 2003||FY 2004|
|2002 obligations, increased by 5 percent a year||$19,425,000||$20,396,000||$21,416,000|
Summary of Application Fees Paid in FY 2004
MDUFMA sets fees for a number of different categories of applications. The highest fees are paid by premarket applications, premarket reports, panel track supplements, and efficacy supplements, all of which were required to pay $206,811 each in FY 2004. These are referred to collectively as full fee applications, even though those that were submitted by qualifying small businesses paid only 38 percent of the full fee rate, or $75,588, in FY 2004. There are two kinds of fee-paying supplements to these applications under MDUFMA, 180-day supplements and real time supplements. The 180-day supplements were assessed a fee of $44,464 each in FY 2004, except that those from qualifying small businesses paid only $16,896. The real time supplements were assessed a fee of $14,890 in FY 2004, except that those from qualifying small businesses paid $5,658. 510(k) notifications submitted in FY 2004 were assessed a fee of $3,480, except that those from qualifying small businesses paid a fee of $2,784.
The Table below summarizes the number and type of application fees received in FY 2004.
|Application Type||Number Paying
|Number Paying Reduced
Small Business Fee
|Full Fee Applications||40.5||4|
The Table below summarizes the number and type of application fees that FDA assumed it would receive in FY 2003 when MDUFMA was enacted.
|Application Type||Number Paying
|Number Paying Reduced
Small Business Fee
|Full Fee Applications||58||10|
FDA revised its estimates of numbers of fee-paying applications in FY 2005 when fees for FY 2005 were set in August 2004.
Waivers, Reductions, and Exemptions
MDUFMA directs FDA to waive the first premarket application fee from a qualified small business and any fees for applications submitted solely for pediatric indications. It also directs FDA to reduce premarket application and supplement fees for subsequent applications from qualified small businesses. Beginning in FY 2004, FDA also charged a reduced rate for premarket notifications (510(k)s) from qualified small businesses. In addition, MDUFMA fees are not to be collected for the following:
- applications for humanitarian device exemptions submitted under section 520(m);
- applications submitted under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act for a product licensed for further manufacturing use only;
- applications submitted by a State or Federal government entity for devices that are not intended for commercial distribution; and,
- 510(k)s submitted to certified 3 rd party reviewers, rather than to FDA.
This appendix provides a summary of the MDUFMA fee waivers, reductions, and exemptions allowed in FY 2004.
FDA responded to thousands of e-mails and phone calls from firms asking for information regarding the small business waiver for MDUFMA fees. FDA granted 570 of the 626 written requests for small business status received in FY 2004. A total of 573 applications received in FY 2004 had fees either waived (if the application was their first PMA) or reduced because the submitter was a qualified small business. The following table summarizes the value of the small business reductions or waivers granted in FY 2004. Some qualifying small businesses submitted more than one application that had a fee reduced, and some did not submit an application in FY 2004.
|Number||Value for Each||Total Value|
Full Fees Waived
Full Fees Reduced
180-Day Supplements Reduced
Real-Time Supplements Reduced
510(k) Fees Reduced
Total Value of Small Business Waivers and Reductions:
FDA received fees totaling $27,169,321 in FY 2004. Had there been no small business waivers and reductions, FDA would have collected an additional $4,985,325. (The value of the 510(k) waivers is not included in this amount, since under MDUFMA the fees for 510(k)s from large firms is increased slightly to offset the reduction in 510(k) fees charged to qualifying small businesses.) The total with no small business waivers or reductions would have been $32,154,646. The small business waivers and reductions resulted in FDA's collecting about 15.5 percent less revenue than would have otherwise been the case.
FDA received 9 Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) applications and 29 supplements in FY 2004. None of these are subject to MDUFMA fees. It is assumed that none of them would have been submitted had they been subject to a fee, so this exemption probably did not result in any loss of revenue.
FDA received no exemption requests in FY 2004 for applications submitted under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act for a product licensed for further manufacturing use only.
FDA received and granted only one request from a State or Federal government entity for exemptions for an application (in this case a 510(k)) or a device that was not intended for commercial distribution . Total cost of this exemption in FY 2004 was $3,480.
Pediatric Exemptions were granted in FY 2004 for one full fee application, one 180-day supplement, one real-time supplement, and 21 510(k)s. Total value of these exemptions in FY 2004 was $339,245.
In FY 2004, FDA received 255 510(k)s that were subject to third party review and therefore did not pay MDUFMA fees. This is a 34% increase over the 190 510(k)s that were submitted for third party review in FY 2003, and a 100% increase over the 127 510(k)s that were submitted for third party review in FY 2002. Total value of these exemptions in FY 2004 was $887,400.
|Reasons for Waiver||FY 2003||FY 2004|
Govt. Sponsored application not for Commercial Distribution
510(k)s Reviewed by 3 rd Parties
Allowable and Excluded Costs for the Process for the Review of Device Applications
The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act), as amended by MDUFMA, defines the process for the review of medical device applications and the costs that may be included in that process. Using these definitions (and further refinements identified below) and the methodologies described in this report, the Agency identified those activities that were applicable to the "process for the review of device applications."
Over 96 percent of amounts obligated are expended within two years. Therefore, obligations represent an accurate measure of costs.
MDUFMA Related Costs
[Section 737(5)(A)] The activities necessary for or in anticipation of the review of premarket applications, premarket reports, supplements, and premarket notification submissions, including, but not limited to, the following:
- 510(k)s — Traditional/ Supplements/Abbreviated/Specials (third party and non-third party)
- Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designations
- Traditional and Expedited PMAs (includes amendments, supplements, and annual reports)
- Modular PMAs (shell, modules, amendments, supplements, and annual reports)
- PDPs (including amendments, supplements, and annual reports)
- Premarket Reports (amendments, supplements, annual reports)
- Reclassification Petitions
- Class II Exemption Petitions
- BLAs and BLA Supplements (Applications subject to 351 of the PHS Act)
- Recruitment and use of outside experts during the review process
- Obtaining advisory committee input (e.g., convened meetings, homework assignments)
- Resolution of product jurisdictional issues
- Dispute resolution/appeals
- Information Technology (IT) support for review activities
- Recruitment of review staff
[Section 737(5)(B)] The issuance of action letters that allow marketing of devices or which set forth in detail the specific deficiencies in such applications, reports, supplements, or submissions and, where appropriate, the actions necessary to place them in condition for approval. This includes activities such as the issuance of deficiency letters, meetings with applicants to discuss such letters, and review of the responses.
[Section 737(5)(C)] The inspection of manufacturing establishments and facilities undertaken as part of the review of pending premarket applications, premarket reports, and supplements to include activities such as the review of manufacturing information submitted in premarket applications, pre-approval GMP inspections, and resolution of any identified GMP issues.
[Section 737(5)(D)] Monitoring of research conducted in connection with the review of such applications, reports, supplements, and submissions. For the types of applications identified above, this would include monitoring activities such as:
- Conduct of bioresearch monitoring inspections (both "for cause" and pre-approval) of sponsors, institutional review boards, and clinical investigators
- Adverse event and complaint investigations related to on-going clinical trials
- GLP inspections (21 CFR Part 58)
[Section 737(5)(E)] Review of device applications subject to section 351 of the Public Health Service Act for an investigational new drug application (IND) under section 505(i) or for an investigational device exemption (IDE) under section 520(g) and activities conducted in anticipation of the submission of such applications under section 505(i) and 520(g). This would include the review of the IDEs (original, amendments, and supplements) and INDs (amendments, supplements, and safety reports). Also included are pre-IDEs (review of the submission and any meetings or correspondence), significant/non-significant risk determinations, and Determination/Agreement meetings.
[Section 737(5)(F)] The development of guidance, policy documents, or regulations to improve the process for the review of premarket applications, premarket reports, supplements, and premarket notification submissions to include activities such as the development of device-specific, cross-cutting, special control, and program-related guidances as well as "Blue Book Memoranda" and Standard Operating Procedures.
[Section 737(5)(G)] The development of voluntary test methods, consensus standards, or mandatory performance standards under section 514 in connection with the review of applications listed above . This would include national and international standards development and coordination related to the review of premarket applications.
[Section 737(5)(H)] The provision of technical assistance to device manufacturers in connection with the submission of such applications, reports, supplements, or submissions to include activities such as:
- Informal consultation via phone, meetings, e-mail, and facsimile
- Meetings between FDA and applicants, such as pre-submission meetings, Determination/Agreement meetings, and meetings to discuss deficiencies in premarket applications
- Use of outside experts in the review of premarket applications
- Review of labeling prior to approval of a premarket application or supplement
- FDA sponsored conferences/workshops related to premarket submissions
- Staff participation at non-FDA meetings related to such applications
[Section 737(5)(I)]Any a ctivity undertaken under section 513 or 515(i) in connection with the initial classification or reclassification of a device or under section 515 (b) in connection with any requirement for approval of a device to include activities such as the review of requests for information submitted under section 513(g) and the "call" for PMAs for pre-amendment devices.
[Section 737(5)(J)] Evaluation of post-market studies required as a condition of approval of a premarket application or premarket report under section 515 or section 351 of the PHS Act. This would include activities such as the review of:
- Protocols for the post-market studies
- Modifications to such protocols
- Data collected under the protocol
- Labeling changes (instructions for use, warnings, precautions, etc.), if needed as a result of the review of the data.
[Section 737(5)(K)] Compiling, developing, and reviewing information on relevant devices to identify safety and effectiveness issues for devices subject to premarket applications, premarket reports, supplements, or premarket notification submissions to include activities such as:
- Epidemiology studies
- Post-marketing problem identification/resolution , including reports filed under the Medical Device Report regulation
Training related to premarket and post-market approval activities . This would include the following types of training:
- Scientific, clinical, and statistical training
- Managerial or other administrative training
- Policy/regulatory training
- Professional development (coursework, attendance at professional meetings, library resources)
- "Vendor Days"
- Site Visit Program for premarket reviewers
User Fee Act implementation to include activities such as:
- Guidance/regulation development
- Stakeholder outreach for educational and comment purposes
- Training of agency staff
- IT support for implementation
*All user fee related costs represented by the above activities are collectively referred to in this report as costs for the process for the review of medical device applications.
Section 737(6) of the Act defines the "costs of resources allocated for the process for the review of medical device applications" as the expenses incurred in connection with this process for:
(A) Officers and employees of the FDA, contractors of the FDA, advisory committees, and costs related to such officers, employees, committees and contracts;
(B) Management of information, and the acquisition, maintenance, and repair of computer resources;
(C) Leasing, maintenance, renovation, and repair of facilities and acquisition, maintenance, and repair of fixtures, furniture, scientific equipment, and other necessary materials and supplies; and
(D) Collecting user fees and accounting for resources allocated for the review of premarket applications, premarket reports, supplements, and submissions.
- Enforcement policy and regulation development
- Third-party inspection program
- Post-approval compliance actions and activities unrelated to PMA Conditions of Approval and investigations of safety and effectiveness issues for devices subject to FDA regulation
- Post-approval activities relating to:
- Promotion and advertising
- International coordination/Mutual Recognition Agreement work
- International standard development
- Liaison/outreach and manufacturing assistance
- Device tracking
- Inspections unrelated to the review of covered applications
- Export/Import activities unrelated to the conduct of a clinical trial
- Research related to future products
- All activities conducted under the Mammography Quality Standards Act, radiation safety authorities of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (Sections 531 et. seq.), and the Clinical Laboratories Improvement Act.
Development of Costs for the Process for the Review of Device Applications
The costs associated with the process for the review of device applications are based on obligations recorded within FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA), and the Office of the Commissioner (OC). These organizations correspond to the cost categories presented on the Statement of Costs for the Process for the Review of Device Applications as follows:
|Cost Category||FDA Organization|
|Costs for the Review of Premarket Applications (PMAs), Product Development Protocols (PDPs), Premarket Reports (PMRs), Modular PMAs and Supplements, and 510(k)s||CDRH, CDER|
|Costs for the Review of Biologic License Applications (BLAs) and Supplements, and 510(k)s||CBER|
|Field Inspection and Investigation Costs||ORA|
|Agency General and Administrative Costs||OC|
The costs were accumulated using a variety of methods. Using the definitions of costs and activities included in the "process for the review of device applications" in the Act, as expanded in the discussion in Appendix D, a portion of the costs within each of the four organizations listed above was identified as part of the device review process.
Costs are accumulated in CDRH and CBER in cost centers corresponding to the organizational components within the centers. Most FDA components involved in the device review process perform a mixture of activities — some included in the definition of the process for the review of device applications, and some not included. These components fall into three categories: 1) direct review and laboratory components; 2) indirect review and support components; and 3) center-wide costs. Costs are accumulated by cost centers (usually organization components at the division level). The allocation of costs for the categories is discussed below.
Direct Review and Laboratory Components:
Employees in all components of CDRH and CBER other than those noted below as center indirect review and support components reported their time in categories that could be used to differentiate between time spent on the process for the review of device applications and all other time.
Both CDRH and CBER have existing time reporting systems in place. These time reporting systems were modified after the enactment of MDUFMA, so that time could be reported in categories that could be separated into allowable and excluded activities with respect to the process for the review of device applications, as defined in MDUFMA and as further defined in Appendix D. This process is further explained below.
CDRH had a time reporting system that has been used to gather information about how employees spend their time for a two-week period one or two times each year for the past 10 years. After the definitions of allowable and excluded costs for the process for the review of device applications under MDUFMA were further refined, as presented in Appendix D, the time reporting categories in the CDRH time-reporting system were modified so that all data captured fit into either allowable or excluded costs. These modifications to the system were completed in mid-June, 2003.
Once these modifications were completed, all CDRH employees other than management and administrative personnel reported all of the time they worked against these revised categories for a period of eight consecutive weeks, from June 29 through August 23, 2003. Whether time categories were counted as allowable or excluded was not apparent to employees as they reported their time.
FDA Centers are very payroll-intensive organizations. In most years over 60 percent of all FDA funds go to pay for employee salaries and benefits. Almost all other costs directly support these employees. Thus the percent of time reported during this eight-week period as having been expended on allowable device review process activities for each cost center was then applied to all costs incurred for that cost center for the entire fiscal year, FY 2003.
Further, since these percentages of allowable costs had never been collected for earlier periods, the percentages of allowable costs reported in this eight-week period were likewise applied to each cost center's direct costs (obligations) incurred in FY 2002, to get the baseline FY 2002 device review process cost data required under MDUFMA.
For FY 2004, all CDRH employees, other than management and administrative personnel, reported all of the time they worked against these revised categories for one two-week period during each quarter of the fiscal year. The results from the eight weeks of time reporting data were then averaged and extrapolated to the entire year. This served as the basis for measuring CDRH costs for the device review process for FY 2004 for direct review and laboratory components, and the same pattern will be followed in future years.
A similar procedure was used in CBER's direct review and laboratory components to measure costs for the device review process. CBER was able to use the time reporting system it has had in place for over 10 years, and which was validated by studies done just after PDUFA was initiated. That system collects time reports from all employees other than management and administrative support personnel for a two-week period during each quarter of the fiscal year.
CBER's existing system was also modified to assure that categories against which time was reported could be clearly divided into those that were either allowable or excluded in the MDUFMA defined process for device application review. The time of the management and administrative support personnel is then assumed to follow the same pattern between process and non-process costs as the average time of those employees who reported their time. The eight weeks of time reporting data collected by CBER were collected for two weeks at a time for four different two-week periods over FY 2003 and 2004, and a similar process will take place each future fiscal year. The results from the eight weeks of time reporting data were then averaged and extrapolated to the entire year.
This process for determining allowable and excluded costs for MDUFMA direct review and laboratory costs is identical to how costs for the process for the review of human drug applications was measured by Arthur Andersen under PDUFA for 1992 and 1993.
Center Indirect Review and Support Components
Indirect review and support components provide the infrastructure for the review process. In CDRH, these are the Office of the Center Director and the Office of Management and Operations. In CBER, these components include the Office of the Center Director, Office of Management, Office of Information Management, and the Office of Communications, Training, and Manufacturers Assistance.
In both CDRH and CBER, the allowable costs for these indirect review and support components were determined by multiplying the average percent of allowable costs for all direct review and laboratory components by the total costs of each of these indirect review and support components.
A number of center-wide expenses are paid for centrally from agency funds each year rather than from funds allocated to the centers. These costs include rent, utilities, some computer equipment, facilities repair and maintenance, and some extramural and service contracts. Many of these costs, such as building rent, can be traced back to the specific organization component that generated the cost and were assigned the user fee related percentage calculated for the division to which the expenditure related. For the costs that benefited the center as a whole and could not be traced to a specific division, a weighted average user fee percentage was calculated based on the level of user fee related costs to total costs in the center.
Field Inspection and Investigation Costs
All field inspection and investigation costs are incurred by FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). ORA costs are incurred in both district offices (the "field") and headquarters support offices. In FY 2002 the Agency began tracking accumulated ORA costs through the use of the Field Accomplishment and Compliance Tracking System (FACTS). FACTS is a time and activity tracking system which captures time in a variety of categories, including pre-approval inspections of manufacturing facilities, investigations of clinical studies, and analytical testing of samples — which are included in the process for the review of device applications.
Total direct hours reported in FACTS are used to calculate the total number of staff-years required by ORA to perform activities in the process for the review of device applications as defined in MDUFMA. In addition to the direct time, an allocation of support time is also included to represent the work done by the ORA administrative and management personnel. The Agency then applies the total number of user fee related staff years to the average salary cost in ORA to arrive at the ORA user fee related salary costs. The final step is to allocate ORA obligations for operations and rent to the device review process based upon the ratio of user fee related staff years to total ORA staff years. The following table summarizes the calculation for the FYs 2002, 2003, and 2004, respectively.
|Cost Component||FY 2002||FY 2003||FY 2004|
|Staff Years Utilized||54||59||60|
|ORA Average Salary & Benefits||$77,987||$79,696||$86,376|
|Salary and Benefits||$4,211,289||$4,702,043||$5,182,556|
|Operations and Rent||$2,567,305||$2,969,792||$2,844,744|
The ORA costs for the process for the review of device applications described above include total process costs, including costs paid from appropriations and costs paid from fee revenues.
Agency General and Administrative Costs
The Agency general and administrative costs are incurred in the FDA's Office of the Commissioner (OC). During FY 2004, OC was comprised of the following offices:
- Immediate Office of the Commissioner
- Office of the Chief Counsel
- Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management
- Office of the Administrative Law Judge
- Office of Science and Health Coordination
- Office of International Activities and Strategic Initiatives
- Office of Crisis Management
- Office of Legislation
- Office of External Relations
- Office of Policy and Planning
- Office of Management
The OC costs applicable to the process for the review of device applications were calculated using a method prescribed by the Division of Cost Determination Management, Office of Finance, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services. The method uses the percentage derived by dividing total Office of the Commissioner costs by the total salary obligations of the Agency, excluding the Office of the Commissioner. That percentage is then multiplied by the total salaries (excluding benefits) applicable to the process for the review of devices in CDRH, CBER, and ORA to arrive at the total General and Administrative Costs.
Using this process, $10,293,297 and $10,671,593 in general and administrative obligations were dedicated to the device review process in FYs 2003 and 2004, respectively. These are total costs, including funds obligated both from appropriations and from fees. T he Agency general and administrative obligations in FY 2004 accounted for about 7.2 percent of the total FY 2004 cost of the process for the review of device applications. This is down slightly from 7.3 percent in FY 2003, and down significantly from 8.6 percent in FY 2002.
At the beginning of FY 2004, FDA implemented a major reorganization and streamlining of its administrative support activities. Many functions and resources from all FDA Centers, ORA, and from components of the Office of the Commissioner were consolidated into an Office of Shared Services under the Office of Management — a component of the Office of the Commissioner. This was done in an effort to achieve greater efficiency in the provision of these services. For reporting comparability purposes, however, resources expended by the Office of Shared Services in FY 2004 supporting the device review process are shown as having been incurred by CDRH, CBER, ORA, or OC, in proportion to the resources transferred from each these components to the Office of Shared Services. This makes the figures shown for FY 2004 comparable with figures for FY 2002 and 2003.