Close

BIO Submits Comments Re: USP Drug Classification System, Second Round of Public Comments

BIO submitted comments to the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USP) Healthcare Quality and Safety Expert Committee (Expert Committee) in response to the second round of public comment on the USP Drug Classification System (USP DC), released September 25, 2017.

In response to the USP DC, BIO offers comments consistent with our comprehensive comments on the draft Version 7.0 Medicare Model Guidelines (MMG) and comments on last year’s draft USP DC, both of which are included as appendices for the Expert Committee’s reference. Our comments, as follows, also correspond to the call for additional feedback on how to make the USP DC more user friendly as expressed on the open-mic web meeting.

Dear USP Healthcare Quality & Safety Expert Committee,

The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) appreciates the opportunity to submit the following comments to the U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USP) Healthcare Quality and Safety Expert Committee (Expert Committee) in response to the second round of public comment on the USP Drug Classification System (USP DC), released September 25, 2017. BIO is the world's largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, academic institutions, state biotechnology centers, and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 other nations. BIO’s members develop medical products and technologies to treat patients afflicted with serious diseases, to delay the onset of these diseases, or to prevent them in the first place. In that way, our members’ novel therapeutics, vaccines, and diagnostics not only have improved health outcomes, but also have reduced healthcare expenditures due to fewer physician office visits, hospitalizations, and surgical interventions.

In response to the USP DC, BIO offers comments consistent with our comprehensive comments on the draft Version 7.0 Medicare Model Guidelines (MMG) and comments on last year’s draft USP DC, both of which are included as appendices for the Expert Committee’s reference. Our comments, as follows, also correspond to the call for additional feedback on how to make the USP DC more user friendly as expressed on the open-mic web meeting.