> Because of this the pharmaceutical companies end up doing most of the funding of the FDA instead of the federal government. 45% is way too much, but it is no

> Because of this the pharmaceutical companies end up doing most of the funding of the FDA instead of the federal government. 45% is way too much, but it is not "most of the funding". IIRC that was an urban legend that got started recently. Many government agencies are funded to a significant degree based on fees from their specific constituents. The post office is funded in large measure from postage fees. Highway construction is funded in part from gasoline and automotive vehicle taxes. The USPTO is funded in part from fees. So is the SEC. The point of fees of this sort is that they are directed narrowly at the petitioners who use the service of the agency. Do you want Merck to have its (arbitrarily many) applications to the FDA paid for by you, rather than Merck, via income tax? Surely it should be shouldering the cost of its own drug submissions. That can be dangerous of course. It's true that such fees can promote regulatory capture, or even corruption, but they are not in and of themselves examples of corruption as you claimed. 45% is ridiculously high but it is not corruption. Corruption would be the FDA approving drugs in return for payment where it would not have otherwise. > Just because a drug company pays more to get their drug doesn't mean it's drug is more valuable to society than the one that it skipped in line. No, it means that the company was willing to shoulder the costs of expedited processing. Embassies do this too, you know: if you pay more money you can get your passport processed faster. I don't like the idea of expedited approval processes for drugs: it damages the safety checks in place. But I don't think that just because Merck paid gets its drug approved faster means it "skipped ahead in line" in front of J&J, just that its process is moving faster because it paid for the resources to make that happen.