The FDA Office of Women’s Health (OWH) may have $1.2 million of its $4 million annual budget cut this year. The cut would take place in the middle of the year and force the office to stop all programmatic operations for the rest of 2007. We are already almost half way into the fiscal year and OWH has spent or committed more money than it will have for the entire year.
OWH was created in 1994, when women’s health received little or no attention from the FDA. It is a vital and necessary focal point for women’s health at FDA. It performs an important role by taking a comprehensive view of women’s health, helping set priorities in this area at FDA, and working to fill gaps in research, address areas that are being neglected, and respond to urgent health and safety concerns.
The cut represents roughly half of the OWH program budget, which goes toward research grants and outreach activities, both of which are tasks Congress specifically asks OWH to perform. The cut goes against presidential and congressional requests, as both intend for OWH to be funded at $4 million annually. This was the amount approved for 2006 and was in the budget for 2007.
The mission of OWH is not complete and its duties cannot be successfully turned back over to the FDA’s other centers. The FDA centers, such as the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, do not have enough funding to perform their own duties, much less take on additional responsibilities related to women’s health.
Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D., commissioner of the FDA, testified before the Senate on Tuesday, Feb. 27, and Wednesday, Feb. 28. When asked by Sen. Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., and Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Sanford Bishop, D-Ga., to address the potential cut, Eschenbach said no final decisions on 2007 funding have been made.
The Society for Women's Health Research is working to ensure that OWH is fully funded in 2007 as intended by the president and Congress.
###
Additional Resources:
FDA Office of Women’s Health
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 2
Yesterday, Senators Clinton, Mikulski, Murray and Snowe fired a letter up to FDA head Andrew von Eschenbach demanding an explanation and vowing to restore the OWH funding. Here's an excerpt from the letter:
"Congress has made its intention clear. As Congress moves forward with the budget and appropriations process, we will pursue every course to make certain that this funding is restored. We intend to use every tool at our disposal to make sure that the OWH has the resources it needs to safeguard women's health."
In addition, the OWH helps to secure funding for research which elucidates gender differences in the development, progression, and treatment of disease. Such research is necessary for medical science to move in the direction of providing individualized treatment for all patients.
While it's encouraging that several Senators are fighting to restore the OWH's funding, I am disheartened by the tepid response to these cuts from women online. Their complacency may be due to the public's lack of understanding concerning the OWH's role (and how these cuts affect women in their daily lives).
My own attempts to enlighten women on this matter have fallen on deaf ears. The few women who expressed an interest didn't understand that, until recently, all biomedical research was conducted using the male model (or why this was significant). They were also unaware that until about fifteen years ago women were under-represented in federally funded clinical trials. Including women in clinical trials is just the first step. We still have a great deal to learn before women can expect to receive more effective medical treatments.
Many illnesses, which primarily affect women, don't receive much attention or research dollars. The result is years of suffering for millions of women who endure chronic illnesses, with no hope of relief. Without a comprehensive approach to studying and treating all women's illnesses, the health of American women is more likely to decline than improve.
In the absence of hard data to explain why more women aren't expressing outrage about women's health cuts, I can only surmise that it is due to the lack of understanding of science, which is so prevalent in American society. Too many Americans don't recognize the importance of scientific research in creating a future which holds a better quality of life for all of humankind.
I, for one, support scientific research and wish that our government would allocate more funds for it.