Over at McArdle's digs, Henke takes a look at this piece on the perverse incentives created by the FDA.

Jon—who is, BTW, my blog-nephew, and far more successful than his Aunt Joy—suggests:

There's a research project in this for some enterprising investigator.

• Find out how many medical treatments and procedures have been declined by health insurance companies and health care providers over the past 5 years.

• Contrast that with the potential medicines, procedures and devices that have been rejected, delayed or buried in regulatory tape, and the likely treatments and procedures those would have provided.

I would speculate that you'll find the unintended consequences of FDA regulations have had a far larger impact than the cumulative declined treatments of the health care industry.

Well, yeah. But there is, as the original article points out, a mindset that can't quite make the leap of faith that might suggest we could make progress in biotech as rapidly as in computing and electronics. The only factor that can make inroads against the socialist-medicine mindset has to do with anti-aging technology that is "skin deep": because insurance isn't expected to cover cosmetic surgeries, these are more likely to be innovative than other types of medicine.

But even these often have to clear one major roadblock, and that is the FDA.

Vaguely related: I sometimes wonder how the history of health would have been different if it weren't for the Dalkon Shield. Did the pendulum swing too far in the other direction? Is that how we got into this fix?

(The longevity issue—and Henke's take thereon—got a 'Lanche yesterday.)

Posted by: Attila Girl at 01:53 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 276 words, total size 2 kb.