Reduce drug prices by reducing FDA’s authority
July 14th, 2009 | by Brian Schwartz |
David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper have an excellent column in Forbes. An excerpt:
Do you need a government agency to tell you which TV has a vivid picture? Do you need a government agency to tell you which car is reliable? How about which coffee tastes yummy or which MP3 player is attractive and easy to use? No, you don’t. And that’s because through your experiences and the experiences of those around you, including consumer groups and enthusiasts, efficacy is discovered in a decentralized, efficient way. …
What is the harm in giving the FDA the power to exclude new drugs until they have proved effective? Plenty. Approximately 35% of drug development costs are for safety testing, while 65% are for efficacy testing. Because of this, good drugs are being delayed or not developed at all. One of us (Hooper) has helped kill drugs for brain cancer, ovarian cancer, melanoma, hemophilia and other important conditions–not because they weren’t good drugs, but because the anticipated clinical development costs were greater than the anticipated financial returns.
Read the whole piece here. Comment on it at David’s EconLog blog post here.
tags: FDA, medications, regulation
