Who We Are

The New Jersey Life Sciences Vendors Alliance (NJLSVA) is a coalition of businesses, individuals and academia who provide goods and services to New Jersey’s life sciences companies.

The NJLSVA was founded to educate suppliers on trends in industry procurement and public policy that affects the life sciences industry.

FDA vs. Pentagon: U.S. House Passes Fix to Defense Bill’s Drug Approval Provision

Washington, DC, November 17, 2017 — Rebecca Kheel reports in The Hill that the U.S. House on Wednesday, November 15 passed by voice vote a bill to speed up Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of medical devices and drugs to be used on the battlefield.

The bill is meant to address a controversial provision of the annual defense policy bill passed by the House on Tuesday that would allow the Pentagon to sign off on unapproved devices and drugs.

“Our men and women in uniform have put their lives on the line for this country, and they deserve to have the earliest possible access to medical products that could save their lives on the battlefield,” Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) said on the House floor Wednesday. “We found a good balance with our friends on the Armed Services Committee, and in working with the FDA and the leadership of the Pentagon.”

The Pentagon and its advocates in Congress have been frustrated by the FDA’s slow approval of certain treatments they say could save lives on the battlefield.

In particular, there has been a decade-long impasse between the Pentagon and the FDA over freeze-dried plasma, which the military says will help it save troops from bleeding out since it does not need refrigeration.

Because of that frustration, this year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) would allow the Pentagon to approve the use of freeze-dried plasma and other medical products to be used on the battlefield.

But the FDA and its advocates in Congress argued the language in the NDAA could open troops up to more danger because the approval process was not as rigorous as the FDA’s. They also argued the language was too broad and could allow the Pentagon to approve a range of treatments not directly related to battle.