4 ms·

We shouldn't tie approval to effectiveness, it should only be about harm. Effectiveness claims can be verified through other approaches.

Tostino 5y ago
Why should my insurance premiums go up to pay for people getting ineffective treatments? These drugs aren't exactly charity, at $56k/year that's a good chunk of change for something not proven to work.
- wallacoloo 5y ago
  Excellent point: why should your insurance have to cover every FDA-approved drug, and regardless of cost? My guess is your insurance doesn’t cover every approved treatment. But if it does, is that a problem with the FDA (which regulates drugs), or with your insurance policy (which decides how to pay for them)? I’d suggest your complaints about insurance costs are more closely tied to the latter.
  - HWR_14 5y ago
    > why should your insurance have to cover every FDA-approved drug, and regardless of cost? If only there was some group of experts that decided that some drugs were safe and effective vs. not. We could even make it a nonprofit group to avoid conflicts. Heck, we could get the federal government to fund and and even pass a law that gave their recommendations teeth.
    - dantheman 5y ago
      Just remember the FDA denies people who are dying the ability to choose their treatment.
      - HWR_14 5y ago
        No, the FDA doesn't deny people who are dying the ability to choose their treatment. What nonsense is this? There used to be requirements to document the treatment, but even that went away. Or do you mean in the cases where there are already treatments? Because, yes, then take medicine not Dr. Mike's Magic Tonic.
mcguire 5y ago
You have scabies? Asthma? Cancer? Well, now, have I got something for you! Just right here, in this bottle, I have a medication that is not only federally guaranteed not to hurt you, but also will fix your problem right up! And it's just $10,000 per bottle! Step right up!

Tostino 5y ago

Why should my insurance premiums go up to pay for people getting ineffective treatments? These drugs aren't exactly charity, at $56k/year that's a good chunk of change for something not proven to work.

wallacoloo 5y ago
Excellent point: why should your insurance have to cover every FDA-approved drug, and regardless of cost? My guess is your insurance doesn’t cover every approved treatment. But if it does, is that a problem with the FDA (which regulates drugs), or with your insurance policy (which decides how to pay for them)? I’d suggest your complaints about insurance costs are more closely tied to the latter.
- HWR_14 5y ago
  > why should your insurance have to cover every FDA-approved drug, and regardless of cost? If only there was some group of experts that decided that some drugs were safe and effective vs. not. We could even make it a nonprofit group to avoid conflicts. Heck, we could get the federal government to fund and and even pass a law that gave their recommendations teeth.
  - dantheman 5y ago
    Just remember the FDA denies people who are dying the ability to choose their treatment.
    - HWR_14 5y ago
      No, the FDA doesn't deny people who are dying the ability to choose their treatment. What nonsense is this? There used to be requirements to document the treatment, but even that went away. Or do you mean in the cases where there are already treatments? Because, yes, then take medicine not Dr. Mike's Magic Tonic.

mcguire 5y ago

You have scabies? Asthma? Cancer? Well, now, have I got something for you! Just right here, in this bottle, I have a medication that is not only federally guaranteed not to hurt you, but also will fix your problem right up! And it's just $10,000 per bottle! Step right up!