Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe 21st Century Cures Act: Still alive, and still poised to endanger patients
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2016/05/20/the-21st-century-cures-act-still-alive-and-still-poised-to-endanger-patients/"it was less than a year ago that I described a bill wending its way through Congress called the 21st Century Cures Act old vinegary wine in a new bottle. The reason I characterized the bill that way was because it really was nothing new and it rested on a very old fallacy, namely that the only way to speed up medical innovation is to weaken the FDA and its standards for drug and medical device approval, which is exactly what the 21st Century Cures Act would do if passed into law. Its basically the American cousin to the British Saatchi Bill, which in essence proposed to do very similar things, but even more so, so much so that Andy Lewis referred to it as the quacks charter. Fortunately for the British, the version of the bill that ultimately passed bears little resemblance to the original Saatchi bill and lacked the most onerous removals of patient protections. Im not so optimistic that the American Saatchi bill will be so watered down.
...
When I wrote about this misbegotten bill, I pointed out just this aspect of it. What I perhaps didnt emphasize enough, is that the bill is in essence a grand bargain, as Silverman puts it. The bargain is this: Congress will step up funding for the NIH in return for a loosening of regulatory standards at the FDA. Not surprisingly, Silverman thinks that this is a bargain the American people should turn down. Even less surprisingly, I agree even more strongly.
...
Unfortunately, as I discussed last year, the NIH and by extension the American public dont get very much for giving up a lot, as this is a bad deal. Thats not to say that there arent some good things. For example, the 21st Century Cures Act doesnt add that much to the NIH budget, a 3% increase per year for three years plus $1.86 billion a year innovation fund to support precision medicine initiatives and young scientists. Given that the current budget of the NIH is approximately $32 billion, 3% per year is less than $1 billion a year, which means that nearly two thirds of the increase is spoken for, much of it for precision medicine. Having been around, Im also cynical enough to doubt that the part of the funds allocated to young investigators will actually benefit young investigators as much as Mr. Alexander thinks it will. If Mr. Alexander is willing to pump $2.86 billion a year for three years into the NIH, it would do a lot more good if there were no strings attached to the budget increase.
...
The 21st Century Cures Act is cynical politics played to increase pharmaceutical company profits. It is not, nor has it ever been, about protecting patients. Although its advocates genuinely believe that its purpose is to bring cures faster to patients who need them, the 21st Century Cures Act will do no such thing, and tying changes in the FDA regulatory framework to increasing NIH funding is the ultimate cynical political ploy to gut the FDA and turn back the clock on drug development at least 50 years."
---------------------------------
Not good, and I can only imagine how much worse it could get under a President Trump.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 428 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post