12 ms·

> Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers c

by throwaway2016a 10y ago

> Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster. I'd go one step further. Give the FDA competition. Have private companies (similar to UL for electronics) that can endorse and test drugs.

Scirra_Tom 10y ago
Private companies have profit incentives. If a horrible substance comes to market they can be paid off to endorse it. You can argue that no rational company that cares about its reputation would do such a thing, but history has shown time and time again - yes corporations do waive all consideration for public safety in lieu for money. The government is the perfect institution to endorse safety of substances/drugs/whatever for use by it's citizens. That doesn't mean they are perfect though, but I would trust them a thousand times more than a corporation. It's extremely wreckless to apply free market economic theories to things like this. In the real world, consumers and businesses are irrational.
- ams6110 10y ago
  Because government officials are never paid off?
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    No, because government officials are paid off much less often because it's harder. Outright bribery in the US is rare, difficult, and if caught, will land you in federal prison for a long time. Remember Blagojevich? Government officials are under much more scrutiny than a private sector executive. There are independent investigators general that have broad latitude to look for malfeasance. The FOIA exists to bring government records to light; there is no equivalent in the private sector. Heck, we spent ~$80mm investigating Clinton over the Lewinsky affair. The government isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight more transparent and directly accountable to the public than private companies are.
alistairSH 10y ago
That worked out really well for the banking industry. You really want a similar scheme for medical care?
- r00fus 10y ago
  Hey why wouldn't a CDS on someone's health be a good thing? /snark
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  That's a false analogy. I was not proposing self-regulation. I was proposing something like UL which is independent from the companies being overseen.
  - beering 10y ago
    There is pressure to be favorable towards the customer (the company being inspected). Something similar happened in finance, where issuers were shopping around the big 3 ratings agencies for the best rating.
  - alistairSH 10y ago
    How is it independent? UL is for-profit and relies on revenue from the companies seeking certidication. That's the same, or similar, conflict that exists with the credit agencies and the finance industry.
mikepurvis 10y ago
Do not want. See the role of Moodys and S&P in the 2009 meltdown for what a profit motive does to the ability to "endorse" anything that has the potential to harm.
- jedmeyers 10y ago
  Why aren't you blaming the SEC (FDA counterpart in this analogy) for 2009 events as well?
  - afterburner 10y ago
    Do you support vastly expanding SEC powers and making sure it doesn't get "captured" by the financial industry? Do you support massively higher penalties, and far more control over the industry, than it has now, to bring it in line with the power the FDA has? Do you also only blame the police for not catching a criminal, and not care about the criminal at all?
  - generj 10y ago
    The SEC failed to enforce some of it's regulations and didn't see the upcoming crisis. Multiple other federal agencies did the same thing. Not a single government official from any country (remember that a similar housing boom unfolded in multiple other countries) foresaw the upcoming trauma. Note that it it was likely politically infeasible for them to have more rigorously enforced much of their regulation during most of the time period it could have helped. The new securities which caused the crisis were very complex and partially were structured specifically to dodge government oversight. The ratings agencies actively marked bonds as AA which they knew darn well were in reality B or worse. They committed fraud at the behest of the banks. There is a massive difference between inaction and fraud. That's why the SEC doesn't get a lot of blame.
BurningFrog 10y ago
Or have competition in the form of foreign FDA counterparts. If the European/Japanese/Other Reputable Country authorities have approved a drug, it could be allowed it in the US, with a clear label, of course. Foreign physiology and science is the same as American.
- throwaway2016a 10y ago
  True. That is a good idea. Why shouldn't I be able to buy drugs that are approved by Canada for instance?
- woofyman 10y ago
  Thalidomide is the poster child for dangerous drugs approved elsewhere but not by the FDA. Experts estimate that the drug thalidomide led to the death of approximately 2,000 children and serious birth defects in more than 10,000 children, about 5,000 of them in West Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide http://www.thalidomide.ca/the-canadian-tragedy/ http://www.thalidomide.ca/the-canadian-tragedy/
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- SapphireSun 10y ago
  There are some merits to this idea, but there's a major flaw. It's kind of like tax havens. If you have two countries with different tax rates, all else being equal, a multinational will set up HQ in the lower tax county. Likewise, for pharmaceuticals, the company will pick the country that has the lowest barrier to entry and then sell to both. While within a country a given barrier may be too high or low, it will probably be somewhat randomly too high or low around some appropriate level of safety. With the multi-country scheme, the bias will be towards too low on nearly every drug.
afterburner 10y ago
Private corporations aren't magic either. And they don't even have to pretend to give a shit about society.
naasking 10y ago
> I'd go one step further. Give the FDA competition. Have private companies (similar to UL for electronics) that can endorse and test drugs. Because that worked so well with risk analysis in finance. 2008 is calling.

Scirra_Tom 10y ago

Private companies have profit incentives. If a horrible substance comes to market they can be paid off to endorse it. You can argue that no rational company that cares about its reputation would do such a thing, but history has shown time and time again - yes corporations do waive all consideration for public safety in lieu for money. The government is the perfect institution to endorse safety of substances/drugs/whatever for use by it's citizens. That doesn't mean they are perfect though, but I would trust them a thousand times more than a corporation. It's extremely wreckless to apply free market economic theories to things like this. In the real world, consumers and businesses are irrational.

ams6110 10y ago
Because government officials are never paid off?
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  No, because government officials are paid off much less often because it's harder. Outright bribery in the US is rare, difficult, and if caught, will land you in federal prison for a long time. Remember Blagojevich? Government officials are under much more scrutiny than a private sector executive. There are independent investigators general that have broad latitude to look for malfeasance. The FOIA exists to bring government records to light; there is no equivalent in the private sector. Heck, we spent ~$80mm investigating Clinton over the Lewinsky affair. The government isn't perfect, but it's a damn sight more transparent and directly accountable to the public than private companies are.

alistairSH 10y ago

That worked out really well for the banking industry. You really want a similar scheme for medical care?

r00fus 10y ago
Hey why wouldn't a CDS on someone's health be a good thing? /snark
throwaway2016a 10y ago
That's a false analogy. I was not proposing self-regulation. I was proposing something like UL which is independent from the companies being overseen.
- beering 10y ago
  There is pressure to be favorable towards the customer (the company being inspected). Something similar happened in finance, where issuers were shopping around the big 3 ratings agencies for the best rating.
- alistairSH 10y ago
  How is it independent? UL is for-profit and relies on revenue from the companies seeking certidication. That's the same, or similar, conflict that exists with the credit agencies and the finance industry.

mikepurvis 10y ago

Do not want. See the role of Moodys and S&P in the 2009 meltdown for what a profit motive does to the ability to "endorse" anything that has the potential to harm.

jedmeyers 10y ago
Why aren't you blaming the SEC (FDA counterpart in this analogy) for 2009 events as well?
- afterburner 10y ago
  Do you support vastly expanding SEC powers and making sure it doesn't get "captured" by the financial industry? Do you support massively higher penalties, and far more control over the industry, than it has now, to bring it in line with the power the FDA has? Do you also only blame the police for not catching a criminal, and not care about the criminal at all?
- generj 10y ago
  The SEC failed to enforce some of it's regulations and didn't see the upcoming crisis. Multiple other federal agencies did the same thing. Not a single government official from any country (remember that a similar housing boom unfolded in multiple other countries) foresaw the upcoming trauma. Note that it it was likely politically infeasible for them to have more rigorously enforced much of their regulation during most of the time period it could have helped. The new securities which caused the crisis were very complex and partially were structured specifically to dodge government oversight. The ratings agencies actively marked bonds as AA which they knew darn well were in reality B or worse. They committed fraud at the behest of the banks. There is a massive difference between inaction and fraud. That's why the SEC doesn't get a lot of blame.

BurningFrog 10y ago

Or have competition in the form of foreign FDA counterparts. If the European/Japanese/Other Reputable Country authorities have approved a drug, it could be allowed it in the US, with a clear label, of course. Foreign physiology and science is the same as American.

throwaway2016a 10y ago
True. That is a good idea. Why shouldn't I be able to buy drugs that are approved by Canada for instance?
woofyman 10y ago
Thalidomide is the poster child for dangerous drugs approved elsewhere but not by the FDA. Experts estimate that the drug thalidomide led to the death of approximately 2,000 children and serious birth defects in more than 10,000 children, about 5,000 of them in West Germany. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide http://www.thalidomide.ca/the-canadian-tragedy/ http://www.thalidomide.ca/the-canadian-tragedy/
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
SapphireSun 10y ago
There are some merits to this idea, but there's a major flaw. It's kind of like tax havens. If you have two countries with different tax rates, all else being equal, a multinational will set up HQ in the lower tax county. Likewise, for pharmaceuticals, the company will pick the country that has the lowest barrier to entry and then sell to both. While within a country a given barrier may be too high or low, it will probably be somewhat randomly too high or low around some appropriate level of safety. With the multi-country scheme, the bias will be towards too low on nearly every drug.

afterburner 10y ago

Private corporations aren't magic either. And they don't even have to pretend to give a shit about society.

naasking 10y ago

> I'd go one step further. Give the FDA competition. Have private companies (similar to UL for electronics) that can endorse and test drugs. Because that worked so well with risk analysis in finance. 2008 is calling.