Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Making Drugs Safe and Available without the FDA (Long)
NATIONAL CENTER FOR POLICY ANALYSIS ^ | January, 1997 | Noel D. Campbell

Posted on 03/13/2002 8:46:37 PM PST by PA Engineer

Making Drugs Safe and Available without the FDA

January 1997

Executive Summary

There is widespread agreement that the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) needs reforming. The drug approval process in the United States is too slow, too expensive and too restrictive. The FDA delays the introduction of new drugs for up to 12 years and does not publish standards of safety or effectiveness that any drug can meet to ensure its approval. As a result:

Thousands of patients die because lifesaving drugs and medical devices available elsewhere are not yet approved for use in the United States.

Surgery, in some cases the only alternative to drug therapy, adds to the pain and suffering.

Pharmaceutical companies are moving drug testing and development facilities out of the U.S. to reduce the costs imposed on them by the FDA approval process.

Contrary to its recent claims of improved efficiency, the FDA still delays drug development and approval, while rejecting more applications for approval of new drugs.

Congress is considering substantial reforms that include elements of the European drug and medical device approval system: self-certification by manufacturers, certification by public or private third parties and independent review committees. However, these reforms would leave FDA bureaucrats in control of drug approvals or increase political influence over the process.

The best way to make the process more efficient while preserving the safety and effectiveness of drugs is to adopt a market-based system. In such a system, the FDA would have little or no role, and private, independent third parties would certify all drugs and devices.

The model for a market-based drug certification system is Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. (UL), an independent, not- for-profit safety certification and standards-writing organization. For more than 100 years, UL has certified the safety of products on which millions of Americans rely. It shows how the marketplace can preserve third-party independence, since UL, consumers and manufacturers all have incentives to support high standards as well as fast, efficient certifications.

Manufacturers are not legally required to seek UL approval, but tens of thousands do. Product makers want to meet recognized standards in order to satisfy consumers and because they are legally liable for unsafe products. Competition between UL and other organizations ensures the integrity of the certification process. Even government agencies use UL standards:

More than 40,000 local jurisdictions across the U.S. accept the UL mark and work with UL to develop electrical, building and safety codes.

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration uses UL to independently test and certify products for hazardous locations, works with UL to revise and implement product standards and in some cases even uses UL's standards.

Private certification would allow people in different circumstances to balance the risks they choose to accept. Under such a system, a drug might be available without third-party certification, but doctors would be very reluctant to prescribe it. The only consumers who would use such drugs might be those willing to take great risks, such as terminally ill AIDS and cancer patients, but no one would be denied access to lifesaving drugs.

Private certification would be faster, less expensive and just as safe as the current FDA system.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: drugapproval; drugcosts; fda; libertarians; socializedmedicine
The full report is about 27 pages long. It is a long read, but worth the time and effort.

I received this report from a news list server. This caught my attention because I have recently been involved as a board member for a national non-profit group that advocates improved care and continuing research for Parkinson’s patients.

In particular I have watched for years the approval process for a device that is known as a deep brain stimulator (DBS). This implant has many medical applications beyond that of Parkinson’s and the results of medical trials for numerous debilitating conditions has been phenomenal. In some cases patients have left nursing homes and returned to live independent lives while holding down employment.

In some neurological disorders there are limited treatment windows before disease progression is irreparable including the implantation of the DBS. Sadly, the FDA approval process for this device was over fourteen (14) years and was only recently approved this year.

I’m am deeply troubled by the lives destroyed by the FDA process as well as the cost inflation of new therapies and drugs passed on by this broken approval process to consumers. I strongly agree with the approach taken by the NCPA and see it as the only workable solution. I think many Conservatives that read this policy study will agree.

I welcome your comments and will bump this thread over the next couple days.
1 posted on 03/13/2002 8:46:37 PM PST by PA Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *Socialized Medicine;*libertarians
I am indexing this under "Socialized Medicine" because that seem to be the closest bump list we have and this is a good counter argument to Government FDA control.
2 posted on 03/13/2002 8:54:53 PM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water
Thanks.
3 posted on 03/13/2002 9:06:58 PM PST by PA Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer
Demonstrating drug safety to the FDA or to anyone else is relatively quick, easy, and cheap. But the FDA should never have been permitted to have any voice in determining drug efficacy. That is where the years and hundreds of millions of dollars come in.

Furthermore, new drugs which are more effective when combined can't get past the FDA's pigheaded approach. In this regard, FDA is hopelessly out of date

4 posted on 03/13/2002 9:16:57 PM PST by edger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: edger
Furthermore, new drugs which are more effective when combined can't get past the FDA's pigheaded approach. In this regard, FDA is hopelessly out of date

I could not agree more. My wife is a Neurologist whose specialty is Movements Disorders. There is a process going on at this moment to combine Levodopa (the gold standard drug treatment begun in the late 60's) with neuro-protective drugs to extend both the treatment period for L-Dopa as well as to arrest the progression of certain movement disorders. At this very moment the only impediment to the implementation of this combined treatment is the FDA. They require the effectiveness process be complete before rubber stamping what many Neurologist already know ( and some privately practice). This could take a decade. Sadly, many patients will lose what remaining L-Dopa neuro-receptors they have before final approval for dual treatment is granted. The entire process stinks.
5 posted on 03/13/2002 9:29:32 PM PST by PA Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer
Check the links on my profile page. The FDA has been stonewalling Aptosyn for several years, even though it is nothing more than the metabolite of a common NSAID painkiller that has been approved for decades.

The problem IMO is that an inexpensive drug with little if any side-effects that kills every cancer cell line it's tested against -- while leaving noncancerous cells alone -- is just too disruptive a technology to "allow" on the market. While millions of lives would be saved, millions of dollars would be lost.

The fact that the FDA has routinely allowed people to take the drug via their compassionate use exemption is itself quite telling.

6 posted on 03/13/2002 10:55:39 PM PST by Don Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer
I thank you for posting this. IMO the FDA is mainly good for inhibiting progress.
7 posted on 03/14/2002 12:36:26 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer
bttt
8 posted on 03/14/2002 7:50:03 AM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water
btttt
9 posted on 03/14/2002 8:42:28 AM PST by PA Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer
bttt
10 posted on 03/14/2002 1:27:20 PM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water
bttt
11 posted on 03/14/2002 10:05:46 PM PST by PA Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: PA Engineer
We can keep playing the bump, I think this thread deserves a little more attention.
12 posted on 03/15/2002 9:39:38 AM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Fish out of Water
Ditto.
13 posted on 03/15/2002 11:12:23 AM PST by PA Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: *Socialized Medicine
Bump List
14 posted on 06/16/2002 12:19:56 PM PDT by PA Engineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson