Your observations on the FDA are correct. Tufts published an analysis a few years back on the cost of bringing a new drug to market. Since approval of a new drug typically takes over a decade, much of the profitable “patent life” of a drug has already been consumed by regulatory burden. Worse, despite being tasked to assure that drugs are “safe and effective” the FDA assumes no liability over problems found with clinical experience.

In short, a hopeful drug manufacturer is faced with enormous development costs, formidable and time-consuming obstacles to market a drug, but no relief from liability despite the process.

This is far from competitive and favors large concerns who can carve profitable exceptions with money and influence, which they wield in abundance.

I’ve often argued that the FDA should be replaced with something like Underwriter’s Labs. The safety of drug or device could be investigated (more efficiently, I would argue) against the need to maintain product liability insurance.

The healthcare “crisis” will exist for 20 or 30 years max, either til the baby boomers pass or we innovate our way out of this…these government programs are near eternal.

I also found that I couldn’t get an answer to a very simple question: What level of spending on health care was optimal for innovation? Should we double spending? Triple it? Cut it by 10 percent? Simply give a larger portion of it to drug and device manufacturers? I’d be interested in a proposal meant to maximize medical innovation. I’ve not yet seen one.

Here is the simple answer to Klein’s simple question… If you believe that a number can be determined in advance that will answer your question, you’re too ignorant to be participating in the health care debate.

The incentives, disincentives, and other economic pressures that make innovation possible are so numerous and intricately tied together that they cannot be understood by central planners. Period.

By suggesting that an optimal number could be found to spur maximum innovation, Klein is so massively simplifying reality that his view on this particular issue is completely divorced from it. To Brad’s point, there is no we when it comes to the economy. There are thousands or millions of different actors with different wants, needs, and values who respond differently to incentives. If anyone on Earth thinks they can quantify and understand these well enough to answer Klein’s question, that person is simply delusional. Only the free market can answer Klein’s question precisely, and only after the fact.

Likewise, if government really put its mind to drastically advancing medical innovation, and threw out, say, $50B a year for drug research to stem the growth of most types of cancer, I’ll bet within two decades they might have results.”

Or not.