End The FDA Monopoly

As I have mentioned here here and here about much of the FDA does not only stifle innovation but more people die because the FDA does not allow drugs on the market that could save lives. What is interesting is today there is even more drug regulation than ever before despite we now know more than ever about the human body and how it operates.

Writer Doug Bandow echoes this same message. The FDA nor politicians pay no price if a drug fails to get passed that may save lives. There might be outrage from people who could benefit from the drug like in the case of Avastin where people were outraged when the FDA panel ruled that the drug was not effective for breast cancer. I wonder how many individuals on the FDA panel currently have a family member, friend, or loved one with breast cancer. Perspective of course matters. People who often have serious illnesses are not only informed about their particular illness but have more knowledge than politicians and in some cases more knowledge than individual doctors. The time people and family members have to wait to get approves comes at a cost. The length of time to approve drugs has increased from 7 months in 1962 to 10 years by 1970. Now it takes between 10 to 20 years. Waiting a decade or so for a drug that could help people with life threatening and chronic illnesses is undue pain that no one should go through. By the FDA waiting to approve drugs people not only suffer in pain but some die. The Competitive Enterprise Institute found that when the FDA waited to approve beta-blockers cost 100,000 lives. This was because the drug was already approved in other countries yet the FDA waited three years to approve the drug.

Getting rid of the underlying monopoly would do a wonder of good. I think there might be an analogy to the FDA and financial services industry. If the FDA were in the financial services industry it would like something like this...An investor wants to purchase a new security, however  first the individual has to go to an individual certified by the state to practice financial advising (parallel to AMA). Once with the financial advisor the financial advisor can only recommend products that the (FPA-Financial Products Agency or FDA equal) approves. However, not only does the security have to be approved, but the security has to be related to the risk tolerance of the individual client. Clearly, as you can see people would be up in arms if this process were true. More choices, means more freedom, which means better outcomes whether it is in medicine or financial services.

It would be best to abolish the FDA all together and allow the underwriting laboratories or third parties to independently test the drugs. There would even be competition because drug companies could use more than one lab to test whether or not their drug was effective and to run the experiments. By the FDA limiting how many drugs are on the market limits the choices. Not only does it limit choices it leads to few drug companies since so much money is required to create just one drug. Drug companies have so many failures that the only drugs people talk about are the blockbuster ones. This is why drug prices are so high because consumers pay for the drugs that the FDA doesn’t approve (company passes along costs to consumer). More drugs will lead to more experimentation which is a good thing because no two people are alike. Not even the greatest scientist possesses 1/10^th of 1% of the total knowledge of the human body.  What makes us believe politicians will do any better?