Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/4340

Bill Overview

Title: EFFECTIVE Act

Description: This bill specifies that the Food and Drug Administration may deny an application for a new opioid analgesic drug upon a determination that the drug does not provide a significant advantage or clinical superiority compared to other drugs.

Sponsors: Sen. Manchin, Joe, III [D-WV]

Target Audience

Population: People using or potentially using opioid analgesics for pain management

Estimated Size: 10000000

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

retired teacher (West Virginia)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm worried that this policy might limit options for pain relief and could make it harder for people like me to manage pain.
  • I understand the intent to curb opioid misuse, but there are people who genuinely need effective pain medication.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 5
Year 2 5 5
Year 3 5 5
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 3

software engineer (California)

Age: 30 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 8

Duration of Impact: 0.0 years

Commonness: 15/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Limiting ineffective opioids makes sense. As someone who uses these occasionally, knowing they're only approved if they work better than existing options is reassuring.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 8
Year 2 8 8
Year 3 8 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 8 8
Year 20 8 8

pharmacy technician (Kentucky)

Age: 40 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 2.0 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This could be really good if it reduces opioid abuse in my community.
  • But, I worry about patients who genuinely need pain relief and if they’ll be affected.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 6
Year 2 7 6
Year 3 7 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 6 5
Year 20 6 4

opioid recovery counselor (Texas)

Age: 28 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 7/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This act could prevent a new wave of opioid dependences by only approving truly superior medications.
  • It aligns with the work I do, which often highlights the need for better regulation.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 8 7
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 7 5
Year 20 7 4

retired nurse (Florida)

Age: 65 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 1.0 years

Commonness: 12/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • If the policy leads to safer and more effective drugs, it's beneficial.
  • My pain management needs existing drugs, so unless old ones are rescinded, my daily life isn't affected.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 6
Year 2 6 6
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 5
Year 10 5 5
Year 20 5 4

research scientist in pharmaceuticals (New York)

Age: 45 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 5/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This policy might slow down innovation by adding more regulatory challenges, but it could also push for truly innovative solutions.
  • We absolutely need more effective regulations to tackle opioid misuse.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 6
Year 2 5 6
Year 3 6 6
Year 5 6 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

chronic pain patient advocate (Ohio)

Age: 50 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 1.5 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm concerned about the limitations this could place on pain management options available for chronic pain sufferers.
  • While well-intentioned, I hope the policy considers cases where new drugs are genuinely needed.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 4 4
Year 2 4 4
Year 3 4 4
Year 5 4 3
Year 10 4 3
Year 20 4 3

small business owner (Oregon)

Age: 34 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 1.5 years

Commonness: 10/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Fewer but more effective medications could reduce confusion and side effects for users.
  • I hope this policy means any costs associated with new drugs are justified by their effectiveness.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 7 7
Year 2 7 7
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 7 6
Year 20 7 6

retired factory worker (Maine)

Age: 60 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 3.0 years

Commonness: 9/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I’ve seen too many friends get hooked on these drugs. Anything that makes it harder for unnecessary opioids to hit the market is positive.
  • I worry though if this will mean less pain relief for genuine cases.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 4
Year 5 5 4
Year 10 5 4
Year 20 5 3

ER nurse (Illinois)

Age: 38 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 2.5 years

Commonness: 8/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • This can be a vital step towards reducing the number of opioids in circulation and the potential for misuse.
  • I'm optimistic, but it's critical the policy doesn't inadvertently neglect those who need controlled, effective access to pain relief.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 6 5
Year 5 6 4
Year 10 6 4
Year 20 5 3

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)

Year 2: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)

Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)

Year 5: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)

Year 10: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)

Year 100: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $30000000)

Key Considerations