PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Amendments of 2007

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4695-4699)

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 18, 2007

Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Amendments of 2007 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to make changes to provisions in regard to market exclusivity for pediatric drug studies on new drugs or already approved drugs, including to: (1) require that appropriate labeling changes are timely made; and (2) prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services from extending the period of market exclusivity later than nine months prior to the expiration of such period.

Requires an applicant or holder who does not agree with a request to conduct pediatric studies to submit to the Secretary the reasons such pediatric formulation cannot be developed.

Directs the Secretary to: (1) publish a notice identifying any drug for which a pediatric formulation was developed, studied, and found to be safe and effective that is not introduced onto the market within one year; and (2) create an internal review committee to review all written requests issued and all reports submitted.

Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.

Read full official summaryShow less

Reduces market exclusivity for pediatric studies from six months to three months for drugs for which combined annual gross sales exceed $1 billion.

Requires the Secretary to order the labeling of a drug to include information about the result of a pediatric study whether such study does or does not demonstrate that the drug is safe and effective.

Requires the Comptroller General to submit a report to Congress that addresses the effectiveness of providing market exclusivity for pediatric studies in ensuring that medicines used by children are tested and properly labeled.

Includes pediatric pharmacological research within the pediatric research loan repayment program.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Dodd, Christopher J. [D-CT] · D–CT

Committees

  • Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee
7 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

Actions

A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

  1. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. (text of measure as introduced: CR S4695-4699)

  2. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S4694-4695)

  3. Introduced in Senate

Bill text & related measures

Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

Related bills identified by Congress.gov

No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.

Source last updated: Aug 14, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

Explore the bill from different angles

Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.

Neutral evidence review

Objective

Analyze S.1156 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.

View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact

Progressive lens

Examine S.1156 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.

View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope

Conservative lens

Examine S.1156 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.

View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power

Liberty lens

Examine S.1156 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.

View full prompt & sources