"Free" healthcare?

[ImWithStupid]

I think the FDA can be more lenient with drugs that could help life threading aliments though. If you are gonna die anyway you could just sign a waver for experimental drugs that could possibly save or prolong your life. I think they did that for some drugs for AIDS but it took a big pushed to get it approved. And in the mean time a lot of peopled died waiting for these drugs.

 

I agree. I think that if I have a disease or condition that is guaranteed to be terminal, I should have access to any form of possible treatment that exists.

[hugo]

My steps might mildly reduce the population of the totally stupid, the ones who burden the rest of us anyways.

[ImWithStupid]

My steps might mildly reduce the population of the totally stupid, the ones who burden the rest of us anyways.

 

Unfortunately some of them won't die, and we'll end up paying medical bills on the brain dead losers.

[hugo]

Even with FDA control, bad meds make it to market. Remember the Phen/Fen issues of the 90's. Nothing like having your meds destroy healthy heart valves. In the FDA's defense, the combo wasn't being used as it was designed, it was an off scrip usage that caused the problems, but it would be worse without some sort of regulations on safety. If there wasn't regulations we would end up with more of this...

 

[attach=full]1605[/attach]

 

 

The FDA, by preventing or delaying good drugs from entering the market has killed many times more people than it has saved. The FDA blocked beta-blockers in the 60's resulting in thousands of extra deaths yearly from heart attacks. In the 1980's the FDA restricted AIDS drugs when without then AIDS was a death sentence. The FDA also limits competition and vastly increases drug prices. Limiting competition results in less available drugs and higher costs.

[hugo]

Economists Against the FDA

September 1, 2000

Daniel B. Klein

A sulfa drug called Elixir Sulfanilamide released in 1937 killed over 100 Americans, mostly children. A sedative called Thalidomide released in Europe in 1957 and taken by pregnant women caused deformities in 10,000 children. These famous episodes strike us as horrible injustices that must be prevented.

 

But more deadly are quack platitudes that guide public policy. Platitudes such as ?safety,? ?consumer protection,? and ?imperfect information? have paved the way for a government stranglehold on the pharmaceutical industry. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decides whether to permit a company to manufacture and sell a drug or medical device and what the company may say about it.

 

In medical matters, expertise and good sense should decide. In policy matters, expertise and good sense also should decide?but they do not. The issue here is one of economic policy, not medicine. The true ?doctors? for drug policy are the political economists. But as economist John Calfee says, ?the FDA has never sought to accumulate expertise in economics.?1 Quacks make policy against the doctors? orders.

 

Many economists have studied the FDA. Their diagnosis is well expressed by Nobel-winning economist Milton Friedman: ?The FDA has done enormous harm to the health of the American public by greatly increasing the costs of pharmaceutical research, thereby reducing the supply of new and effective drugs, and by delaying the approval of such drugs as survive the tortuous FDA process.?2 Other economists? prescriptions regarding the FDA are uniformly libertarian, ranging from gradual decontrol to outright abolition of the agency (as Friedman recommends). Although one can occasionally find remarks by economists vaguely favoring government restrictions on health products, those are not the economists who have written on the FDA or provided serious argumentation.3 I have tried to survey all economists? writings on the FDA and have not been able to find a single instance of an economist defending the contemporary FDA or advocating tighter restrictions. Contrary to the joke about laying all the economists end to end, those who study the issue do reach a conclusion: Relax restrictions on drugs and devices.

 

But the good policy doctors are largely ignored. The result has been like a plague. Yet the journalists and educators have not explained it or its FDA origins. Economists and libertarians are up against a Goliath?the country?s entire quack political culture.

 

Today men with risk of heart trouble know to take half an aspirin a day. By 1988 it was well established that aspirin greatly reduces the risk of myocardial occlusion. But for years the FDA forbade aspirin makers from advertising that fact (the FDA still significantly restricts advertising about it). The FDA surely killed tens, and quite possibly hundreds, of thousands of Americans by this restriction alone.4

 

The FDA delays, stifles, and suppresses life-saving drugs and devices. Such drugs and devices as Practolol, Interleukin-2, Taxotere, Vasoseal, Ancrod, Glucophage, Navelbine, Lamictal, Ethyol, Photofrin, Rilutek, Citicoline, Panorex, Femara, Prostar, Omnicath, and Transform have been subject to long delays, killing tens of thousands and causing awful suffering.5

 

The drug delays we can list, taken together, are just the tip of the iceberg. A 1987 study catalogued 192 generic and 1,535 brand-name tested drugs available abroad but not approved in the United States. Of the drugs approved by the FDA between 1987 and 1993, fully 73 percent had already been approved abroad.6 And because the FDA process is so expensive, so protracted, and so uncertain, thousands of untold drugs are never discovered or developed. It is impossible to estimate the suffering and death caused, but surely it greatly exceeds 50,000 premature deaths annually.

 

Quality and Safety Assurance Without the FDA: Four Proofs

 

Although some might tell you otherwise, voluntary society (plus the tort system) can provide assurance at least as well as government intervention can. Here are four empirical proofs of the claim.

 

Assurance in Other Industries. How is safety assured in other industries? In electronics, manufacturers submit products to Underwriters? Laboratories, a private organization that grants its safety mark to products that pass its inspection. The process is voluntary: manufacturers may sell without the UL mark. But retailers and distributors usually prefer the products with it.

 

Suppose someone proposed a new government agency that forbade manufacturers from making any electronic product until approved by the agency. We would think the proposal to be totalitarianand crazy. But that is the system we have in drugs. It is inconsistent to favor the free-enterprise approach to assurance in electronics but the totalitarian approach in drugs. Sometimes people rejoin: ?You can?t compare drugs to a toaster! Drugs have much larger effects on our physical well-being.? The point, however, cuts both ways. Because drugs are so important, the downside of government restrictions is enormous?as we have seen.

 

Calamity Before 1962? The FDA was much less powerful before 1962. The historical record-decades of a relatively free market up to 1962?shows that free-market institutions and the tort system succeeded in keeping unsafe drugs to a minimum. The Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy (107 killed) was the worst in those decades.9 (Thalidomide was never approved for sale in the United States.) The economists Sam Peltzman and Dale Gieringer have made the grisly comparison: the victims of Sulfanilamide and other small tragedies prior to 1962 are insignificant compared to the death toll of the post-1962 FDA.10

Even without government approval, voluntary institutions and the tort system would use scientific testing and professional certification to screen out unsafe drugs. The government approval process here and abroad is a set of bureaucratic hoops and hurdles often inappropriate or unnecessary for the drugs in question.

 

The Hidden Lesson in Off-Label Prescribing: Proof that we don?t need FDA approval of drugs can even be found in America today. A drug?s FDA-approved uses are called its ?on-label? uses. Once a drug is approved for any use, it may be used in any way doctors and users see fit. Approved drugs are often found to have other benefits, and doctors learn to prescribe those drugs for such ?off-label? uses. Although off-label uses have absolutely no standing with or approval by the FDA, they are perfectly legal. Do patients and doctors shrink in fear from uses not certified by the FDA?

 

Absolutely not! Off-label prescribing is pervasive and vital to the health of millions of Americans. As economist Alexander Tabarrok says, ?most hospital patients are given drugs which are not FDA-approved for the prescribed use.?14 Off-label prescriptions are especially common for AIDS, cancer, and pediatric patients, but are standard practice throughout medicine.

 

Doctors learn of off-label uses from extensive medical research, testing, newsletters, conferences, seminars, Internet sources, and trusted colleagues. Scientists and doctors, working through professional associations and organizations, make official determinations of ?best practice? and certify off-label uses in standard reference compendia such as AMA Drug Evaluations, American Hospital Formulary Service Drug Information, and US Pharmacopoeia Drug Information?all without FDA meddling or restriction. Economist J. Howard Beales finds that off-label uses that later got FDA recognition appeared in the Pharmacopoeia on average 2.5 years earlier.15 Where voluntary society finds room to stand, its practices lead, not follow, government determinations.

 

No one would be foolish enough to suggest that the FDA prohibit off-label prescribing. But as Tabarrok astutely points out, there is a logical inconsistency in allowing off-label prescribing and requiring proof of efficacy for the drug?s initial use. Logical consistency would require that one either oppose off-label uses and favor initial proof of efficacy, or favor off-label prescribing and oppose initial proof-of-efficacy. Experience recommends the second option. Efficacy requirements should be dropped altogether!

 

Quackery Often Prevails

 

A drug may be developed, tested, and found to save lives. But the FDA will prevent Eli Lilly, Rite Aid, and Kaiser Permanente from making the drug available until it has gone through the tortuous and expensive approval process. That might take ten years. It might take forever if the drug is for a rare disease (and hence a small market). Because voluntary society would accomplish anything that the FDA accomplishes, the harms of the FDA are unredeemed.

 

Economists from Adam Smith to Milton Friedman have had the unenviable task of pointing out that popular, well-intentioned cures are often worse than the disease. Economists seem nasty when they report that the FDA is bad medicine. People don?t like to hear that they have bought into quackery. In collective decision-making, quackery often prevails over sense.