Policy Impact Analysis - 117/S/5123

Bill Overview

Title: Breakthrough Therapies Act

Description: This bill provides for the classification of drugs or other substances that are part of approved breakthrough therapies as schedule II controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act. It also provides for expedited controlled substance registrations through the Drug Enforcement Administration for researchers whose work involves investigational drugs.

Sponsors: Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]

Target Audience

Population: individuals involved with or affected by breakthrough therapies

Estimated Size: 157681600

Reasoning

Simulated Interviews

Pharmaceutical Researcher (Boston, MA)

Age: 45 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The new classification provides a clear pathway for drug development, reducing some regulatory ambiguities.
  • However, the schedule II classification adds layers of scrutiny and security requirements that could slow down parts of our work.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 9 7
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 8 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 9 8

Oncologist (San Diego, CA)

Age: 68 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Scheduling as Schedule II could complicate trial access for patients, which is a downside.
  • But expedited processes might help us move promising therapies through the pipeline faster—this would be beneficial.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Clinical Trial Participant (Austin, TX)

Age: 30 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful the policy will make it easier for researchers to conduct trials more efficiently, which might help me and others in similar situations sooner.
  • However, I'm concerned about the possible increased regulation which could limit access to treatment during trials.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 6 5
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 7 6
Year 10 8 7
Year 20 9 7

DEA Administrative Officer (Chicago, IL)

Age: 54 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • The policy will introduce more work initially as we adjust the scheduling, but should lead to clearer guidelines moving forward.
  • Facilitated registrations will be useful for compliance and efficiency of operations.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Pharmaceutical Regulations Consultant (New York, NY)

Age: 37 | Gender: other

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 7.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A significant portion of my work involves helping companies align with regulations; this will streamline some processes and open new challenges, given the DEA's expediting clauses.
  • Long-term, I see this as a net positive for innovative drug access in the U.S.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cancer Patient (Houston, TX)

Age: 64 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 4

Duration of Impact: 10.0 years

Commonness: 4/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • I'm hopeful that increased classifications and easier access for researchers will mean I get the cutting-edge treatments I need more quickly.
  • On the downside, security and access issues could hinder some accessibility aspects.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 5 4
Year 2 6 5
Year 3 7 6
Year 5 8 6
Year 10 8 6
Year 20 9 7

Biotech Company Executive (Seattle, WA)

Age: 42 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 7

Duration of Impact: 8.0 years

Commonness: 2/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • We expect streamlined DEA registrations will benefit our research timelines.
  • However, reclassification as schedule II means higher obligations in security and monitoring, potentially increasing overhead costs.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

Year With Policy Without Policy
Year 1 8 7
Year 2 8 7
Year 3 9 8
Year 5 9 8
Year 10 9 8
Year 20 8 8

PhD Student in Biomedical Sciences (Denver, CO)

Age: 28 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 5.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • Quicker access to controlled substances for research will accelerate my studies.
  • There is potential worry about future career implications if further regulatory burdens become entrenched post changes.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Medical Journal Editor (Miami, FL)

Age: 55 | Gender: female

Wellbeing Before Policy: 6

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • A more structured classification helps define the space within which articles can be written and understood by the public.
  • New policies may inspire a range of ethical discussions that will need careful navigation and coverage.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Hospital Pharmacist (Raleigh, NC)

Age: 39 | Gender: male

Wellbeing Before Policy: 5

Duration of Impact: 6.0 years

Commonness: 3/20

Statement of Opinion:

  • More oversight on distribution will help ensure that potentially dangerous substances are monitored closely.
  • However, scheduling as a schedule II could introduce delays in accessing these drugs for patient needs in acute cases.

Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)

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

Cost Estimates

Year 1: $8000000 (Low: $5000000, High: $12000000)

Year 2: $8500000 (Low: $5500000, High: $12500000)

Year 3: $9000000 (Low: $6000000, High: $13000000)

Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $7000000, High: $14000000)

Year 10: $12000000 (Low: $9000000, High: $16000000)

Year 100: $80000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $95000000)

Key Considerations