What’s New in Health Disparities?

By: Jovonni Spinner, MPH, CHES

In June 2015, I presented at the Health Disparities, Education, Awareness, Research, and Training (HDEART) workshop at Prairie View A&M University, near Houston. This annual workshop brought together nationally recognized leaders to discuss genomics, communications, bioethics, and other minority health issues, as well as disease-specific health programs, such as cancer, maternal health, and smoking cessation.

Jovonni SpinnerWe know health disparities exist and minorities fare worse for many health outcomes. That is old news. The workshop promoted an open discussion and offered fresh ideas on bio-psychosocial approaches to address health disparities that will improve health equity.

The FDA’s George Strait moderated my panel, “Health Inequities, Health Communication, and the Media.” I spoke with three other public health experts and researchers about how to use communication strategies and collaborative models to reduce health disparities.

We focused on implicit and explicit bias among physicians, developing and implementing public health programs, and building a diverse health care workforce. We also discussed how changes in the private-practice model affect African-American physicians and their efforts to reduce health disparities.

I specifically talked about how the FDA Office of Minority Health (OMH) is building a robust outreach and communications program. OMH partners with minority-serving institutions to better engage minority groups, raise awareness around specific diseases, and develop linguistically and culturally appropriate health educational materials.

The HDEART panel was an excellent platform to raise the visibility of FDA’s role in improving minority health because the audience was filled with health care practitioners, researchers, and social workers who are engaged in these issues and did not know about us.

Here are some salient action items that emerged from the workshop:

  • Support and increase funding for health disparities research;
  • Implement strategies to remove communication and structural barriers;
  • Improve literacy skills by investing in early childhood education;
  • Recognize that multiple factors influence health equity and access to health care, including individual health behaviors, and social and environmental factors;
  • Scale up innovative public health programs that have a positive effect on health outcomes in minority communities; and
  • Find creative ways to reach the underserved; for example, use telemedicine to reach vulnerable and rural populations who do not have medical providers easily accessible.

During the lectures, I thought about how to apply this newfound knowledge to the work we do in OMH. Two areas came to mind: we can work to remove communication barriers and we can support health disparities research.

Moving forward, we can come up with strategies to:

  • Build and strengthen our partnerships to reach a wider audience;
  • Support our extramural and intramural research programs and facilitate scaling up successful projects; and
  • Use innovative communication strategies to reach our audience.

We live in a global society where disease knows no borders. It is our job as a public health agency to employ a holistic approach to improving health equity. Diverse populations are not one dimensional, so one-dimensional solutions will not be enough. We need to identify factors that influence health and tackle the problem from all angles. Only then can we make progress in closing the disparity gap and improve health equity for all!

More information about FDA’s OMH can be found here: www.fda.gov/minorityhealth

Follow us on Twitter @FDAOMH

More information about the HDEART Workshop can be found here: http://www.pvamu.edu/nursing/hdeart/

Jovonni Spinner, M.P.H., C.H.E.S., is a Public Health Advisor in FDA’s Office of Minority Health

The Times They Are a Changin’ – And So is FDA

By: Luciana Borio, M.D.

Today, at a public meeting of the FDA Science Board, the agency is releasing our progress report, FDA Science Moving Forward, highlighting advances that FDA has made since the Science Board’s 2007 report FDA Science and Mission at Risk. Also at this meeting, a Science Board subcommittee will present its recommendations on FDA’s regulatory science programs, scientific workforce, and collaborations.

Dr. Lu BorioAs our report FDA Science Moving Forward illustrates, FDA regulatory science programs have made dramatic advances in the last eight years. These advances are critical because, as I’m always reminded, regulatory science underpins virtually every decision we make at FDA.

Some of our early efforts focused on establishing an organizational framework to foster FDA’s vibrant scientific culture, with increasing opportunities for scientific collaborations and training of our staff.

FDA created the Office of the Chief Scientist and appointed a Chief Scientist, who was charged with working internally and externally to provide strategic leadership and advocacy for regulatory science and FDA scientists. Today that office, which I currently lead, has grown to also encompass offices dedicated to scientific professional development, counterterrorism and emerging threats, scientific integrity, toxicological research, women and minority health, as well as regulatory science and innovation.

In October of 2010, we outlined our broad vision for advancing regulatory science, followed by a more specific strategic plan in 2011 for our work within eight regulatory science priorities. Guided by these changes, we have successfully recruited additional top scientific talent to FDA, while strengthening our training programs and professional development opportunities for current staff. Importantly, we have developed new mechanisms and programs to leverage external expertise through a number of new partnerships and collaborations with our stakeholders, including the Centers of Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation.

FDA continues to keep pace with new science and technology, found in a growing number of medical product applications submitted for our review. For example, applications involving 3-D printing, devices incorporating nanotechnology and wireless controls, targeted drug therapies, and next generation sequencing technology are now commonplace in our regulatory portfolio.

Who would have imagined more than a century ago when FDA occupied a small office in the Department of Agriculture’s Bureau of Chemistry, that it would become what it is today—a leading regulatory agency with a public health reach that extends across the globe? More inspiring still have been the extraordinary advances in science and technology that have enabled FDA researchers to continually improve our food safety systems and help bring life-saving medical products from bench to bedside.

Although many challenges lie ahead, the progress report we are releasing today shows unequivocally FDA’s strong commitment to letting science guide our work of protecting and promoting the public health.

Luciana Borio, M.D., is FDA’s Acting Chief Scientist

Talking Across International Borders About FSMA

By: Michael R. Taylor

Michael R. TaylorAll countries face the challenges presented by a food supply that is increasingly global, and consumers rightfully expect that the food they eat is safe no matter where it comes from. We all have the same goals: safe food, consumer confidence, and efficient and effective oversight to reach those goals.

With that in mind, our partnerships with foreign food producers and our regulatory counterparts in other countries are increasingly important. As we get closer to releasing the final rules that will implement the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), we are reaching across borders to ensure that our international stakeholders have the information and training they need to meet these new standards.

The need for this international outreach is a message that came through loud and clear at a public meeting this April on FSMA implementation. The feedback from agricultural attaches, overseas business owners, and representatives from governments worldwide was that they want to hear more about what to expect, and how to prepare for what’s ahead.

To address these concerns, we invited representatives of foreign embassies and other international stakeholders to attend a roundtable discussion on June 23, 2015. In the attached video, you’ll see both the optimism and concerns that surfaced during the meeting at FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition in College Park, Md.


On June 23, 2015, FDA held a meeting of representatives of foreign embassies and international stakeholders involved in implementation of the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). This is the fifth video blog in which the people who will be helping to make FSMA a reality share their insights on challenges, opportunities and next steps. (The first video is Voices of FSMA: The Road to Implementation; the second: Voices of FSMA: The Opportunities Ahead; the third: Voices of FSMA: The Challenges We Face; the fourth: Voices of FSMA: Moving Forward.)


One sentiment, expressed at the meeting, was: “The United States isn’t the only country concerned about food safety.” From FDA’s perspective, we’re counting on that as we build the partnerships we’ll need to help ensure the safety of foods all over the world. We will join forces with agriculture and public health officials in other countries, international industries and associations, multilateral organizations, and academia to address the unique needs of foreign food producers who must comply with the new FSMA regulations.

We’re operating under the premise that the vast majority of food producers, both foreign and domestic, want to ensure the safety of their foods. We will be relying on our international partners to help us find ways to provide solid verification that the FSMA standards are being met.

The earliest compliance dates will be a year after we publish the first final rules this summer. In the meantime, we are working with our public and private partners to develop training for domestic and international food producers. These partners include the U.S. Department of Agriculture, grower and local food system groups, and the Food Safety Preventive Controls and Produce Safety alliances, whose members include the FDA, local and state regulatory agencies, the food industry, and academia.

We are committed to making FSMA implementation as open and transparent a process as possible. The April public meeting and the June roundtable discussion were just two steps in that process. But they were important steps because both provided open and frank conversations.

We’ve got a long road ahead. We’ve long worked with other countries as trading and regulatory partners. Now, we aspire to be food safety partners, working together and supporting each other when problems arise. These partnerships ultimately will benefit consumers all over the world.

Michael R. Taylor is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Foods and Veterinary Medicine.

‘Quality Metrics’: FDA’s plan for a key set of measurements to help ensure manufacturers are producing quality medications

By: Ashley Boam, MSBE and Mary Malarkey

Yesterday, we took an important step in advancing the quality of medications with the release of draft guidance for the pharmaceutical industry called, “Request for Quality Metrics.”

Ashley Boam

Ashley Boam, FDA’s acting Director, Office of Policy for Pharmaceutical Quality, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

In these technical terms, that may not sound like much. But – in plain language – this document describes a set of measurements to help the agency evaluate the quality of the facilities and the processes that manufacturers use to make FDA-regulated drugs and biologics. These include prescription drugs and certain biological products. The guidance also encourages these manufacturers to conduct robust quality measurements on their own products.

It’s critically important for patients, health care professionals, caregivers, payers, and others to have confidence in how medications are made. “Quality metrics,” or the measures used to assess the quality of drug and biologic manufacturing, can help us achieve this goal.

We expect that these measurements will strengthen our efforts to ensure that FDA-regulated medications are not only demonstrated to be safe and effective, but also continually manufactured under strict quality standards.

We believe a careful analysis of quality metrics can help FDA better identify which facilities are at the highest risk for quality problems. This will help us use our inspection resources most efficiently and effectively.

Mary Malarkey

Mary Malarkey, FDA’s Director, Office of Compliance and Biologics Quality, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

Quality is also directly connected to a consistent supply of needed medications. Over the years, there have been disruptions in the availability of some drug and biological products due to manufacturing production flaws. We believe that a company’s own robust quality measurement system, along with our quality measurements, can help manufacturers better identify factors that may predict manufacturing problems – and move us a step closer toward reducing and controlling these disruptions.

FDA has been working for many years on solutions to encourage and support the modernization of pharmaceutical manufacturing, such as the use of risk-based regulatory strategies for oversight. Our quality metrics initiative is one of several approaches we believe will further support this effort.

We encourage patients, prescribers, industry and others to submit comments regarding our Quality Metrics draft guidance. We’ll also be hosting a public meeting on August 24, 2015. We’ll use this input to help create a final guidance to support the reporting and calculation of quality measurements.

Yesterday’s draft guidance is an important step on a shared path toward improved drug quality throughout the pharmaceutical industry. We look forward to receiving comments, finalizing the guidance, and receiving the first set of reports.

In the meantime, we’ll be working with others to support industry’s use of robust quality metrics programs and to understand the best way to use quality metrics to improve manufacturing quality and FDA’s regulatory decision making.

We also will continue to emphasize the importance of quality in the pharmaceutical industry for companies that make medications and for the patients who receive them.

Ashley Boam is FDA’s acting Director, Office of Policy for Pharmaceutical Quality, Office of Pharmaceutical Quality, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Mary Malarkey is FDA’s Director, Office of Compliance and Biologics Quality, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research

Improving Access to Medical Devices: FDA Uses Existing Clinical Data to Reduce Premarket Data Needs

By: Ben Fisher, Ph.D.

At the FDA, we recognize the value of encouraging medical device innovation. We recently have acted to reduce the time and cost of clinical trials while maintaining patient protections. By doing so, FDA is helping to ensure that manufacturers will be more likely to conduct their clinical studies in the U.S., and patients in this country will have earlier access to innovation.

Ben FisherOne way the FDA can reduce the time and cost of a clinical trial is to determine if publicly available clinical data for medical devices with which we have considerable experience can be leveraged to develop a less burdensome clinical trial design. For example, take the case of global endometrial ablation (GEA) devices, used to treat heavy menstrual bleeding by applying heat or extreme cold to the inner lining of the uterus.

Since 1997, the FDA has approved five GEA devices based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of 250-350 women in each trial. The participants were assigned to a group that received treatment with a new GEA investigational device or to a control group treated with rollerball ablation, an older, well-known technology for treating heavy menstrual bleeding.

Each of the RCTs shared similar study and control populations, study design, and endpoints. Those characteristics, combined with the consistent performance of the roller ball ablation device (the control device) across the RCTs, prompted the FDA to assess whether we could leverage the RCT data to help support a less burdensome clinical trial design for future premarket approval applications for GEA devices.

With input from industry and members of the FDA Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Advisory Panel, the FDA was able to apply a statistical analysis model, called an objective performance criterion (OPC), to determine the minimum acceptable success rate for demonstrating device effectiveness. The FDA will post detailed information on how we developed this OPC on our website soon.

The FDA’s development of an OPC means that less burdensome clinical trial designs without a control group may be appropriate for clinical studies of GEA devices, resulting in studies that require fewer subjects, thereby reducing the length and cost of such clinical trials compared with RCTs.

In addition, development of an OPC may help encourage subjects to enroll in these clinical trials since all study subjects would undergo treatment with the investigational device.

The FDA has established a strategic priority of strengthening the clinical trial enterprise. This includes finding ways to streamline clinical trials so that fewer resources are required to bring a new device to the market.

Through strengthening the clinical trial enterprise, we hope to encourage manufacturers to study new and important medical devices in the U.S., helping us fulfill our vision of providing patients with high-quality, safe and effective medical devices of public health importance first in the world.

Ben Fisher, Ph.D., is FDA’s Director, Division of Reproductive, Gastro-Renal, and Urological Devices, in the Office of Device Evaluation at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health

Putting Added Sugars Into Context for Consumers

By: Susan Mayne, Ph.D.

For two decades, consumers have been able to check the Nutrition Facts label to understand not only how much saturated fat, dietary fiber and sodium is in any given food, but how that amount fits in the context of their daily diet. Today, FDA proposes a supplemental rule that would provide consumers with access to that same information for added sugars. This would fill a gap by providing the same valuable content already available to consumers for other nutrients.

Susan MayneIn March 2014, FDA proposed to include the amount of added sugars in grams on the Nutrition Facts label but without the percent Daily Value, and we continue to review comments on this proposed rule. Now, in addition, we are proposing to include on the Nutrition Facts label the percent Daily Value (% DV) for added sugars and are accepting comments on this additional provision.

Why propose providing this additional information to consumers? Scientific data shows that it is difficult to meet nutrient needs while staying within calorie requirements if you consume more than 10 percent of your total daily calories from added sugar. The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), whose recommendations inform the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the foundation for national nutrition programs, standards and education, used the same data in the analysis for their recommendations earlier this year.

FDA considered the evidence and determined that it supports setting a Daily Value for added sugars. The Daily Value, which is used to calculate the percent Daily Value that consumers see on the Nutrition Facts label, would be 50 grams of added sugars for adults and children 4 years of age and older and 25 grams for children 1 through 3 years.

FDA’s initial proposal to include the amount of added sugars on the Nutrition Facts label is now further supported by newly reviewed studies suggesting healthy dietary patterns, including lower amounts of sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, are strongly associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease.

Consumers can still choose foods that have added sugars as part of a healthy diet, but the proposed Daily Value would provide a benchmark for intake. Without information like this about a nutrient, it’s hard to know if you’re eating too much or too little in a given day. For example, a consumer who drinks a 20-ounce sugared beverage may be surprised to know it contains about 66 grams of added sugar, which would be listed on the label as 132 percent of the Daily Value.

We know that consumers may need some help getting used to this new information. Coming to FDA from outside of government with a background in public health nutrition, I have a great appreciation for the need to educate people to use the information we provide to them. I look forward to working with the nutrition community in this effort.

Susan Mayne, Ph.D., is FDA’s Director of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition

FDA Science Forum 2015: Views of FDA

FDA’s 2015 Science Forum attracted more than 800 people from the scientific community. Here’s what some attendees said about the innovative research going on at the agency and why FDA can be a valuable collaborator in research aimed at transforming food safety and medical product development. If you couldn’t attend the FDA science forum, you can still see all the presentations on our web site.

More Collaboration, Research Needed to Develop Cures

By: Robert Califf, M.D.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s drug approval process—the final stage of drug development—is the fastest in the world, which means Americans typically have first access to new drugs when they are demonstrated to be safe and effective. But even as our agency has transformed the approval process—approving 51 new molecular entities and biological products last year alone, including more new orphan drugs for rare diseases than in any previous year—drug discovery and development is not keeping pace for many diseases.

Robert CaliffIn many cases, what’s holding back progress is a lack of understanding of the biology of disease, as we outline in a new report we are releasing today that compares diseases where there is a robust pipeline of new therapies with certain diseases that have few known treatments or cures.

For instance, when it comes to cancer, HIV/AIDS, and other viral infections, decades of intense research have given the scientific community and the FDA critical insight on how to develop effective treatments. Ongoing research has led to the discovery of biomarkers, which are characteristics that are objectively measured and evaluated as indicators of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes or response to a therapeutic intervention. Some types of biomarkers give insight on the genetic and metabolic characteristics that alter patients’ responsiveness to particular drugs, and others give insight into whether drugs in development are likely to work. This deep knowledge has resulted in important breakthroughs, rapid drug development and speedy FDA approvals.

While additional research is needed for all diseases, the paucity of reliable biomarkers in some diseases highlights the critical need for more research if we are to make much needed progress. Examples include Alzheimer’s and many rare diseases, as we outline in the new report released today. In these cases, the scientific community still lacks basic information about what causes these diseases and how they can be slowed and treated. When research does not offer answers to important scientific questions, cures cannot be developed. And when viable cures are not in the pipeline, focusing on regulation will not improve the situation, since FDA can only approve therapies with evidence for safety and effectiveness.

Once key scientific questions are answered, we can use a variety of tools to reduce the length and cost of initial clinical trials for drug approval for these disease areas, and we can provide guidance to industry including advice on how to develop additional reliable biomarkers. For instance, we’ve improved the efficiency and predictability of clinical drug development by developing tools such as biomarkers and surrogate endpoints—markers of drug effect that do not directly represent an improvement in how a patient feels or functions, but are reasonably likely to predict a clinical benefit. Thus, for example, lowering a patient’s blood pressure can be used as a surrogate for the clinical benefit of preventing heart attack. Such tools have modernized clinical trial designs and may dramatically reduce the length and cost of drug development. They also can help target drugs to specific patients who can benefit most, thereby limiting the number and size of clinical trials.

These are exciting times as we experience simultaneous revolutions in the biological and information sciences. We expect that the astounding increase in knowledge of biological systems enabled by whole genome sequencing, cloud computing, social media, and wearable devices to monitor physiology will create challenges to traditional thinking. And we are confident that this increased knowledge will continue to expand the pipeline of new therapies. This report emphasizes that we are prepared to deal with the product of this scientific investment by using regulatory paradigms that match the state of the science and by supporting dissemination of the latest knowledge applied to drug development.

In this paradigm that takes advantage of the depth of this new biomedical information, it will be critical to continue to support ongoing clinical trials and observational studies to ensure sufficient knowledge of the benefit-risk profile of therapies as they evolve into broad use. Even the best of the current surrogates such as systolic blood pressure cannot substitute for the entire cumulative effects of a drug on the intended biological target and for off-target effects.

We will continue to work to speed patient access to therapies shown to be safe and effective through our existing programs that allow for expedited review, development, and approval of certain medical products. To encourage innovation, we also will continue to work with other government agencies and the healthcare community, including members of patient groups, academia, and industry. It will take a collaborative effort to improve our nation’s understanding of certain diseases and to translate any resulting scientific discoveries into cures.

Robert Califf, M.D., is FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco.

More information can be found at: Innovation at FDA.

Celebrating the 3rd Anniversary of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act

By: Stephen M. Ostroff, M.D.

Anniversaries are celebrated for many different reasons. Sometimes it is to recognize the enduring strength of an institution. Other times it offers an opportunity to gauge success or progress.

Acting FDA Commissioner, Stephen Ostroff, M.D.One commemoration that falls into the latter category is today’s third anniversary of the signing of the landmark Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act or, as it is known in the world of Washington acronyms, FDASIA.

FDASIA gave FDA authority to collect user fees from industry over five years, beginning in 2012, to fund reviews of innovator drugs, medical devices, generic drugs, and biosimilar biological products.

It also promotes innovation to speed patient access to safe and effective products, increases stakeholder involvement in FDA processes, and enhances the safety of the drug supply chain. Just as important, FDASIA improves the agency’s ability to help prevent drug shortages.

FDA has made great strides to implement this important law since President Obama signed it, issuing more than 35 draft and final guidances, more than 10 proposed and final rules, three strategic plans, 14 reports to Congress, 18 public reports, and 13 public meetings designed to solicit input from a vast assortment of stakeholders.

All told, we have completed more than 70% of the law’s deliverables and we continue to maintain our commitment to a transparent and accessible implementation plan that allows the public to follow our progress.

Our work on additional action items continues.

Just two days ago we completed another task – issuing a final rule that requires all manufacturers of certain medically important drug and biologic products to give FDA early notification of potential drug shortages and to report the reasons for that potential shortage.

This step is the latest in a series of changes FDA has made to significantly reduce drug shortages. Those efforts have helped to prevent 282 shortages in 2012, 170 in 2013, and 101 in 2014.

This progress is but one example of how FDA’s work under FDASIA is making an important difference for patients and health care professionals who depend on these products.

One of the most significant provisions of FDASIA was the creation of a new Breakthrough Therapy designation for drugs and biologics intended for serious or life-threatening illnesses where preliminary clinical evidence indicates that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies.

As of last month, 315 requests for this special designation have been received and 93 drugs and biologics have been granted breakthrough status. Expedited development is underway for the majority of these breakthrough designated products, while 26 breakthrough therapy drug/indication combinations have already been approved and are now on the market for use by patients. This program, which, along with fast track, accelerated approval, and priority review, was the topic of FDA’s final guidance on our expedited review programs, also has helped facilitate earlier and continuing consultation and advice by FDA for industry researchers and product developers.

In large part, as a result of these expedited programs, we saw the approval of a record number of new drugs in 2014 for the treatment of both rare diseases and more common conditions like various forms of cancer and hepatitis C. We also saw the approval of a record number of biologics, including new vaccines for meningococcus type B.

Innovation is being promoted under FDASIA through greater patient engagement, including a five-year Patient Focused Drug Development program to learn from patients about the impact of their disease on their daily lives. Since its creation, we have held 14 meetings with patients on subjects such as chronic fatigue syndrome, lung cancer, HIV, and narcolepsy.

As this strategy makes clear, knowledge and understanding of a patient’s perspective on disease are critical. But equally significant is the importance of ensuring adequate data quality and transparency in research to develop new treatments. That brings up another area of great progress under FDASIA: addressing the longstanding concern about representation of women and minorities in clinical trials that support marketing applications for medical products.

In 2014, in response to Congress’s request in Section 907 of FDASIA, we produced an Action Plan to help close gaps in data quality, clinical trial participation, and data access. We have issued a guidance document on the “Evaluation of Sex-Specific Data in Medical Device Clinical Studies,” and we’re working to promote clinical trial participation by women and minorities. We also are posting on our website easy-to-understand Drug Trials Snapshots which provide the breakdown of clinical trial participants by age, race, and sex for newly-approved drugs and biologics. Snapshots also summarize whether there were differences in efficacy and safety among different subgroups.

Part of our efforts to implement and achieve the goals of FDASIA is helping us address the enormous global changes affecting FDA’s responsibilities.

With roughly 40 percent of finished drugs coming from outside our borders, and 80 percent of active ingredient manufacturers being located outside of the U.S., protecting the U.S. drug supply chain and making sure that patients have access to the drugs they need is a continuing priority for FDA.

FDASIA includes a set of provisions, contained in Title VII of the statute, which gave FDA new authorities to address the challenges posed by an increasingly global drug supply chain.

Given the enormity of FDA’s responsibilities, including the many new responsibilities authorized by Congress, combined with the budgetary challenges we face in this time of fiscal limitations, user fee funds play a critical role in FDA’s continued progress and excellence, including providing critical support to our staff of experts and helping maintain the high quality of their work.

Looking ahead, we have begun to plan for the next reauthorization of our user fee programs, beginning with a series of stakeholder meetings that began last month.

And, some of the themes advanced in FDASIA – encouraging antibiotic drug development, patient engagement, and the importance of biomarkers – are being considered by Congress as part of the 21st Century Cures initiative now making its way through Congress.

FDASIA provided enormous new responsibilities but also presented many promising opportunities. As we continue our progress in implementing this landmark law, we anticipate that we will continue to meet – and even exceed – the goals of the law as we strive to fulfill our mission to protect and promote the health of the American public.

Stephen M. Ostroff, M.D., is Acting Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration

FDA China Office’s Lixia Wang Wins Award for HHS Locally-Employed Staff

By: Mary Lou Valdez

The FDA’s mission to ensure that food is safe and medical products are effective for use by U.S. consumers and patients is widely recognized.

Lou Valdez

Mary Lou Valdez, FDA’s Associate Commissioner for International Programs

A lesser-known fact is that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) employs more than 1,700 locally-employed (LE) staff in 60 countries to uphold its mission across five operating divisions, including FDA. Dr. Lixia Wang, a locally-employed staff member working for FDA in China, exemplifies the contributions of our LE staff and is the recipient of the annual HHS LE Staff of the Year Award.

China is a key supplier of goods imported to the U.S. The FDA has made significant regulatory in-roads since establishing its China post in 2008 and in many ways these are due to the contributions made by Dr. Wang and other LE staff in the world’s most populous country.

For example, Dr. Wang was essential in the negotiations of bilateral agreements for the placement of additional staff in China. With Dr. Wang’s contributions, FDA finalized these important agreements, which pave the way for FDA to more than triple its staff size in China. This move will bolster FDA’s work to protect and promote the health of consumers and patients in the U.S. and around the world.

Dr. Lixia Wang

Dr. Lixia Wang in Beijing

Dr. Wang, who has served as Medical Research Scientist for FDA’s China Office since 2009, was cited for her central role in negotiations concerning the Implementing Arrangements with China’s Food and Drug Administration, and Implementing Arrangement Between the Food and Drug Administration and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine.

In addition, Dr. Wang has made significant contributions to the HHS mission in China since joining U.S. Embassy Beijing in 2006. From 2006 to 2009, she served as senior local staff in the Office of the HHS Health Attaché, and played a key role in strengthening U.S.-China collaboration on infectious disease.

During that time, she also supported the FDA response to emerging problems associated with melamine in dairy and pet products, and worked to address contaminated blood thinner sourced from China. She played a key role in the 2007 negotiations of binding agreements with the Chinese Government on the safety of FDA-regulated products, and on the opening of FDA’s first-ever overseas office in 2008.

FDA congratulates Dr. Wang, and takes pride in the recognition for excellence and commitment to global public health that she brings to FDA with this award.

Mary Lou Valdez is FDA’s Associate Commissioner for International Programs