PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · May 11, 2022
Retaining Access and Restoring Exclusivity Act or the RARE Act
This bill specifies that the seven-year market exclusivity period for drugs for rare diseases or conditions (i.e., orphan drug exclusivity period) prohibits the approval of the same drug for the same approved use or indication with respect to the disease or condition.
Current law grants a seven-year period of market exclusivity for an approved orphan drug, during which the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may not approve an application from another manufacturer for the same drug for the same disease or condition. The FDA's regulations provide that this exclusivity is specific to the same approved use or indication of the drug, rather than all uses or indications, for the disease or condition. However, in Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Becerra, a court held that exclusivity did extend to all uses or indications for the disease or condition.
The bill provides statutory authority for the FDA's regulations.
People & committees
Sen. Baldwin, Tammy [D-WI] · D–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
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.
Analyze S.4185 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.
Examine S.4185 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.
Examine S.4185 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.
Examine S.4185 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.