Govt pays for deadly, unapproved drugs (Update)

Enlarge

Graphic shows some deadly drugs banned by the FDA.

(AP) -- Dozens of deaths have been linked to medications that have never been reviewed by the government for safety and effectiveness but are still covered under Medicaid, an Associated Press analysis of federal data has found.

Similar stories from PHYSorg:

Study: Cell-phone bans while driving have more impact in dense, urban areas

18 hours ago | not rated yet | 1

Even if you're careful, drugs can end up in water

Feb 08, 2010 | 4 / 5 (1) | 1

Is the US swine flu epidemic over?

Feb 05, 2010 | 1.5 / 5 (2) | 1

Report: Feds to pay more than half of health costs

Feb 04, 2010 | 5 / 5 (1) | 4

Google complaint highlights China-based hacking

Feb 03, 2010 | 3.7 / 5 (3) | 1

   

• DavidRochlin - Nov 24, 2008
  • Rank: 4.7 / 5 (3)
  Does the Author then advocate a ban of asprin?
  This story lacks perspective. There are many drugs that predate any FDA approval process or FDA for that matter. Just as some herbal medicines used for thousands of years, may have real theraputic value, so do some of these unapproved drugs. Unapproved does not mean obsolete or bad. Furthermore, valuable patents are the only incentive for a drug manufacturer to spend hundreds of millions or billions on a drug approval process. Requiring one simply amounts to banning the drug. Who would pay $2 billion to try to get some niche drug, used by a few thousand eighty year olds, for 60 years, approved by the FDA?
  Should we be deprived of our own Western heritage of folk medicines?
  The fact is that the FDA drug approval process, sometimes better and sometimes worse, over the decades, is now more or less broken. Getting a drug approved is now prohibitively expensive, even for Pharm giants with expectations of lucrative patents. Little drugs like these, in the public domain, don't have a prayer of approval, regardless of efficacy.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• bmcghie - Nov 24, 2008
  • Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
  "Dozens of deaths have been linked to them. " So why should we care? I'm pretty sure you could save more lives spending this money elsewhere.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• fleem - Nov 24, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet
  The masses will see this in a headline and gasp, "Oh how horrible! There oughta be a law!".
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• Velanarris - Nov 24, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet
  As is typical, the haves test their new and "dangerous" drugs on the have nots.
  
  Welcome to the world. Human trials start with the poorest, not the most affluent. When the drug is proven to work well and is valuable, the haves can afford the "safer" version, while the have-nots cannot afford it whatsoever.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
• richgibula - Nov 24, 2008
  • Rank: not rated yet
  Some of these drugs have been in use for a long time, probably longer than aspirin. Some do need to go, but some do not have a ready alternative, such as quinine. There are many people that have tried alternatives, but can't sleep due to their leg cramps.
  • report abuse
  • • Current rank
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5