Studies of US Department of Health and Human Services Agency Advisory Committees
6 affiliations
- 1Yale Collaboration for Regulatory Rigor, Integrity, and Transparency, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
- 2Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
- 3Washington University School of Medicine in St Louis, St Louis, Missouri
- 4Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
- 5Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
- 6Yale-New Haven Hospital Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, New Haven, Connecticut
Abstract
Importance: Federal advisory committees provide external expertise and public input to inform regulatory and policy decision-making across agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Concerns persist about their use, composition, conflicts of interest (COIs), deliberation, transparency, and influence on agency decisions.
Objective: To identify and characterize original research studies evaluating the implementation and impact of advisory committees convened by HHS agencies since enactment of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Evidence Review: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, HeinOnline, EconLit, SSRN, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the HHS Office of Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, and Google were searched for English-language original studies published from October 6, 1972, through April 10, 2025. Eligible studies characterized the implementation and impact of advisory committees advising agencies within HHS. Studies were categorized by agency and topic domains: meeting use and management, composition, deliberation content and voting, and regulatory impact and performance. Findings within each topic domain were extracted.
Findings: Among 146 included studies published between 1974 and 2025, 91 (62.3%) were peer-reviewed research articles and 55 (37.7%) were non–peer-reviewed studies. Most studies examined advisory committees convened by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA; 132 studies [90.4%]), with fewer studies focusing on those convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (5 studies [3.4%]), National Institutes of Health (5 studies [3.4%]), and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2 studies [1.4%]). Meeting use and management was the most commonly examined topic domain (98 studies [67.1%]). Five of the 13 secondary topic domains (38.5%) included only FDA studies, and no secondary topic domain included more than 2 studies (1.4%) on any single non-FDA HHS agency. Key findings included continued use of FDA advisory committees over time despite wide variation across product types and a decline after 2010, a recent increase in FDA advisory committee members’ COIs after a substantial decline following the FDA Amendments Act, and generally high concordance between advisory committee recommendations and agency decisions.
Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of original research studies, evidence on HHS advisory committees was concentrated largely on those convened by FDA. Variation in advisory committee use and management, ongoing COI concerns, and limited evidence on advisory committees convened by HHS agencies other than FDA suggest opportunities for reform and the need for more studies evaluating advisory committee implementation and impact across HHS.
Related
- Prevalence of ties to industry-funded organizations among patient and consumer representatives on FDA advisory committees.
- The Patient Perspectives of Clinical Pharmacist Services in Hospitals and Clinics: A Focused Narrative Review of Qualitative Studies.
- Trends in emergency department visits for mental health disorders in France, 2017–2024: a nationwide observational study
- Life course social mobility, race and tooth loss in adulthood: The role of dental health services
- Editorial: Clinical, health services and legal dimensions in older adult care: a focus on the Middle Eastern and Northern African region
BibTeX
@article{taherifard2026studies,
title = {{Studies of US Department of Health and Human Services Agency Advisory Committees}},
author = {Erfan Taherifard and Sahil R. Mane and Ngoc-Trang Adrienne Nguyen and Joshua D. Wallach and Jason L. Schwartz and Reshma Ramachandran and Joseph S. Ross},
journal = {JAMA Network Open},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.41134},
url = {https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2855941},
note = {CC BY-NC-ND},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Studies of US Department of Health and Human Services Agency Advisory Committees
AU - Erfan Taherifard
AU - Sahil R. Mane
AU - Ngoc-Trang Adrienne Nguyen
AU - Joshua D. Wallach
AU - Jason L. Schwartz
AU - Reshma Ramachandran
AU - Joseph S. Ross
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/01
JO - JAMA Network Open
DO - 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2026.41134
UR - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2855941
AB - Importance: Federal advisory committees provide external expertise and public input to inform regulatory and policy decision-making across agencies within the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Concerns persist about their use, composition, conflicts of interest (COIs), deliberation, transparency, and influence on agency decisions. Objective: To identify and characterize original research studies evaluating the implementation and impact of advisory committees convened by HHS agencies since enactment of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Evidence Review: MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, HeinOnline, EconLit, SSRN, the National Bureau of Economic Research, the HHS Office of Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office, and Google were searched for English-language original studies published from October 6, 1972, through April 10, 2025. Eligible studies characterized the implementation and impact of advisory committees advising agencies within HHS. Studies were categorized by agency and topic domains: meeting use and management, composition, deliberation content and voting, and regulatory impact and performance. Findings within each topic domain were extracted. Findings: Among 146 included studies published between 1974 and 2025, 91 (62.3%) were peer-reviewed research articles and 55 (37.7%) were non–peer-reviewed studies. Most studies examined advisory committees convened by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA; 132 studies [90.4%]), with fewer studies focusing on those convened by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (5 studies [3.4%]), National Institutes of Health (5 studies [3.4%]), and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (2 studies [1.4%]). Meeting use and management was the most commonly examined topic domain (98 studies [67.1%]). Five of the 13 secondary topic domains (38.5%) included only FDA studies, and no secondary topic domain included more than 2 studies (1.4%) on any single non-FDA HHS agency. Key findings included continued use of FDA advisory committees over time despite wide variation across product types and a decline after 2010, a recent increase in FDA advisory committee members’ COIs after a substantial decline following the FDA Amendments Act, and generally high concordance between advisory committee recommendations and agency decisions. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of original research studies, evidence on HHS advisory committees was concentrated largely on those convened by FDA. Variation in advisory committee use and management, ongoing COI concerns, and limited evidence on advisory committees convened by HHS agencies other than FDA suggest opportunities for reform and the need for more studies evaluating advisory committee implementation and impact across HHS.
SN - 2574-3805
ER -