5 ms·
> 2 years ago, she received a letter from her insurance company stating that because the FDA refuses to guarantee compound (made by hand) drugs, they will no lo
by wtbob 10y ago
> 2 years ago, she received a letter from her insurance company stating that because the FDA refuses to guarantee compound (made by hand) drugs, they will no longer cover her current nasal spray and she must move to one of the alternatives.
I wondered who lobbied for the FDA to make such a refusal, and who lobbied the insurance companies not to cover such unguaranteed drugs.
- supergeek133 10y agoIf I had to guess, probably the people who make Lazanda (the pre-packaged version of what she lost that doesn't work as well).
- karmelapple 10y agoHaving a very clear version history of both the laws in place, and the bills that made those laws, would be super useful in answering this question. Are the laws / rules for that publicly accessible?
- supergeek133 10y agohttp://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/PharmacyCompounding/ucm375804.htm http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInforma...
- BurningFrog 10y agoNot all government actions are caused by lobbying. "Lobbying" is not really a meaningful term for an insurance company. They probably can't cover unguaranteed drugs due to regulation.
- metaphorm 10y agowhat influenced the regulatory legislation though? that's what we mean by "lobbying".
- BurningFrog 10y agoRegulators have their own incentives, without being influenced by outsiders. For the FDA employee, incentives are very strong to err on the side of banning something. If you ban something and 1000 people die as a result, nobody will care, but if you allow something and 10 people die as a result, heads will roll at the agency. Of course, I know nothing about this specific decision, but it is consistent with this.
- metaphorm 10y agothere are countervailing forces in the opposite direction too though. there's something of a revolving door between FDA and pharmaceutical companies. FDA bureaucrats are also implicitly incentivized (i.e. its not bribery or corruption, just systemic) to "help out" very large name brand companies where they may be offered employment in the future. they have no incentive to do this for the various local compounding pharmacists that compete with name-brand pharma products.