I recently commented on some astounding numbers showing that each regulatory bureaucrat destroys 100 jobs in the productive sector of the economy.
That’s obviously terrible news. Heck, it would be awful if each bureaucrat caused the destruction of 2 private-sector jobs.
But here are some excerpts from a John Stossel column about how the bureaucrats at the Food and Drug Administration cause people to suffer and needlessly die.
Recently, there have been shortages of some medicines. Cancer patients can’t get drugs they need. Why not? One reason is that a big drugmaker shut down for a year in part to meet Food and Drug Administration rules. The FDA makes it so expensive and difficult to sell drugs that there isn’t an eager pack of companies rushing to the fill the gap. …Does the FDA say it’s sorry for its part and back off? Of course not. Regulators almost never do that. In fact, the FDA wants more power. It wants to regulate how your doctor uses his smartphone. I’m not kidding! The FDA wants the power to approve mobile medical apps that let doctors monitor patients’ vital signs over their phones. As one doctor put it, “Even though I’m away from the hospital, I can still look at … real-time wave form data just as if I were at the patient’s bedside.” Sounds great. It makes doctors more efficient. But the FDA basically says, “No, you just can’t put something on your phone if it’s a medical device. What if it doesn’t work right? We have to approve it first.” …what’s the harm in running apps past the regulators? …There’s a big cost to the public when companies submit applications and then wait years for FDA approval. “We’re losing time, precious time that lives are dependent upon,” Emord said. “MIM Software developed a simple mobile device that would combine MRI images, PET scans, CAT scans all together and produce a super image that was better for diagnosis … right on your phone. To get that through the agency, it took two and a half years and cost some hundreds of thousands of dollars. All the while it could have been in use, and ultimately it was approved.” Lawyers and reporters encourage bureaucrats to move slowly. If something goes wrong, the media make a huge fuss about it, and the class-action parasites pounce. But when the FDA delays a device for years and people die, we don’t report that. We don’t even know who the victims are. Useful HIV drugs were available in Europe for years before the FDA approved them for use here. A doctor at the Cleveland Clinic invented a medical app that helped physicians calibrate the amount of radiation to give to women with breast cancer. The FDA demanded so much extra and expensive proof of its safety that he abandoned it. The FDA’s caution leads many companies to just give up on potentially lifesaving ideas. Yet I don’t hear companies complaining. “If you raise your head above the parapet and you become vocal in your criticism, the FDA remembers like an elephant and will stamp you out of existence. They’ll punish you. It’s so much discretion in their hands. They sit like emperors reigning over this stuff.”
I used to think it was bad news that politicians wanted to force us to use inferior light bulbs, substandard washing machines, and toilets that don’t flush properly.
But now that they’re regulating us to death, maybe people will get upset.
P.S. The prize for the craziest bit of red tape still belongs to Japan, where the government actually regulates providers of coffee enemas.
December 3 Addendum:
This Mark Perry Venn Diagram is a welcome addition to this column.
You can enjoy other Mark Perry Venn Diagrams here, here, here, and here.
[…] on the number of lives lost, the bureaucracy’s foot-dragging on drug approval would be at the top of the […]
[…] to have disdain for the Food and Drug Administration (pandemic failures, baby formula shortage, delayed drug approval, human cruelty, etc) and this video gives you […]
[…] To learn more about the harmful policies of the FDA, click here and […]
[…] By Dan Mitchell […]
[…] I agree. […]
[…] Mark Perry is also famous for his Venn diagrams that expose hypocrisy (see here, here, here, here, and here). He even motivated me to create my own […]
[…] a fight between those who want the Food and Drug Administration to use its self-anointed regulatory authority to ban e-cigarettes (because vaping is worse than not […]
[…] The bad news shared above doesn’t even count the deadly impact of the FDA’s lengthy and expensive process for approving new […]
[…] that the the CDC has a long track record of waste when it does get more money. And the FDA also is infamous for undermining health with excessive bureaucracy, as well as silly – and even dangerous – […]
[…] clever hypocrisy-exposing Venn Diagrams (taxation and incentives, the War on Drugs, minimum wage, Food and Drug Administration, and consenting […]
[…] Food and Drug Administration […]
[…] it’s teaching us that risk-averse bureaucrats are putting millions of lives at risk by delaying the approval of new drugs. Not just at risk. Don’t forget the research I cited […]
[…] You can enjoy other Mark Perry Venn Diagrams here, here, here, and here (newly […]
[…] the FDA routinely does really foolish things that undermine public health. The likely reason is that the bureaucracy has a bad incentive […]
[…] is correct, but it would be nice to see specific […]
[…] lists additional items, such as the approval process at the FDA for new drugs and all the Byzantine red tape required by the Sarbanes-Oxley law, and he also makes […]
[…] I’ve written before about how the Food and Drug Administration’s risk-averse policies lead to needless deaths. […]
Not so fast.
We have plenty of licensing and government regulation of high colonic hydrotherapy here too.
Not just anyone that can blow water up your butt.
Now if it were smoke, then the experts in that reside in DC and have no limits.
Sure,
And the problem is enormous in terms of the people affected (unbeknownst to them) and even worse than the article describes if the compounding effects of slower medical development are also taken into account.
But like many things, while bureaucrats have inherently pernicious incentives, the issue lies primarily with voters.
Let’s assume a hypothetical example from a lesser FDA world:
Suppose you had the misfortune of being diagnosed with cancer and that your chance of cure were 55% (a typical number). Now suppose you go to a hospital and the physician presents you with two options:
You can either be treated with this device X, where the statistical chance of cure is 55%, OR you can be treated with this newer device X’( which we just got from some greedy manufacturer) which has an ever so slightly higher cure rate of 56%, that is, just a mere 1% better than the standard device. However, warns the doctor, the greedy manufacturers, in order to get the device out the door sooner (since they have limited human resources for development and testing – yes there is gravity) have not fully and exhaustively tested the equipment and so it appears that some mysterious malfunction causes this device to kill one of every 100,000 patients it treats.
Which device would you choose for your treatment?
If you tend to be rational, you would choose the new device hands down. An additional 1% = 1/100 chance of cure/survival in exchange for a 1/100,000 chance of being killed by an accidental defect. The benefit outweighs the risk by a factor of x1000.
Yet collectively we always make the first choice. Not only that, but have also made it illegal to make a different choice ! We have essentially forbidden the use of device X’
But the actual problem is much deeper and worse than that, since, like many things, the pernicious effects compound over time.
If development of new drugs and medical devices is slowed down by a modest 10% due to FDA regulation (finite human and capital resources have to be devoted to address the regulatory overhead – which is huge these days and increasing) the slowdown in the overall pace of medical development keeps compounding. In practical terms, what that means is that if, for example, the cure for cancer were to be found in 2060, it would now have to wait until 2065 under a 10% development slowdown. Incremental improvements to survival before 2060 would also be slowed down by a proportional number of years on average. That will obviously represent a truly huge and cruel number of lives lost, akin to a massacre, and that does not even account for the slowdown effects already experienced until now. Next time you encounter someone with a life threatening illness, ask yourself: “This person would have probably had a better chance of cure had the FDA allowed more resources to be devoted to faster pace of medical development.
In other words, whether the FDA regulates as it does today will have a very real and substantial impact on whether a person who develops cancer 50 years from now will be cured or not, or whether he or she will develop cancer at all in the first place, since a preventive drug or treatment – well… besides aromatherapy – is much more likely to have been developed by then, absent the substantial overhead we ourselves ask the FDA to impose on us, our children and future generations.
As the article mentions, not only the medical companies themselves but their employees too are terrified of even mentioning the subject. If an accident ever happens, any emails and even verbal communications amongst employees indicative of non-total submission and worshiping of the FDA would be construed as punishable risky behavior. So the employes of these companies keep working day in day out claiming the emperor is nicely dressed when it comes focusing on activities and research that may be ultimately beneficial to patients but risks running afoul of FDA regulations.
Worse, many of the employees hired by manufacturers to oversee regulatory compliance become FDA advocates, shadow bureaucrats, further gumming up the works and slowing down research. Furthermore, these employees tend to become untouchable regardless of performance or impediment they pose. No company wants to risk having the misfortune of a medical accident coincide in time with the recent firing of an incompetent internal regulatory auditor employee.
So we, the public get what we asked for. Forfeiture of increased chances to survival.
Don’t expect the bureaucrats to understand. Their livelihood depends on not understanding…