A month ago, I complained that people were dying because pharmacists were not allowed to prescribe Paxlovid:
In my case, I got the prescription after about a 15 second consultation with a person I’d never met over a telemedicine zoom meeting. Couldn’t a pharmacist do that? Apparently not:
Even if you qualify, someone will still have to prescribe the drug, which means the pharmacy you get tested at will need to have a clinic, like CVS’ MinuteClinic, where a professional can screen, diagnose and prescribe. Only 10% of CVS drugstores and even fewer Walgreens have clinicians on site.
I understand that pharmacists might make a few more errors in their 15 seconds of questioning than the telemedicine operator I spoke with. But 350 people are dying every day. Is the FDA looking at this on a cost/benefit basis?
Today, I read that the federal government has finally seen the light:
Pharmacists can prescribe the leading COVID-19 pill directly to patients under a new U.S. policy announced Wednesday that’s intended to expand use of Pfizer’s drug Paxlovid.
The Food and Drug Administration said pharmacists can begin screening patients to see if they are eligible for Paxlovid and then prescribe the medication, which has been shown to curb the worst effects of COVID-19. Previously only physicians could prescribe the antiviral drug.
The announcement comes as COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations and deaths are rising again, though they remain near their lowest levels since the coronavirus outbreak began in 2020.
Biden administration officials have expressed frustration that several hundred Americans continue to die of COVID-19 daily, despite the availability of vaccines and treatments.
It’s important that we don’t blindly rely on experts, and instead hold their feet to the fire when they are not taking costs and benefits into account in policymaking. Too often, bureaucrats follow rigid rules and do not pay sufficient attention to the broader welfare of society. The US is still losing more than 300 people a day to Covid, many of them needlessly.
When a free person makes a mistake, that person suffers. When a bureaucrat makes a mistake, millions of people may suffer.
READER COMMENTS
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jul 6 2022 at 3:57pm
And there is no reason not to believe that comments like yours pushed the approval process along.Kudos!
Jose Pablo
Jul 7 2022 at 1:51am
” When a bureaucrat makes a mistake, millions of people may suffer.”
This is the very reason why they are so careful about making mistakes. Incentives matter.
“Is the FDA looking at this on a cost/benefit basis?”
Sure it is. They are doing the only cost/benefit analysis that can be properly done: cost to themselves against benefits to themselves. When you start adding costs and benefits to a bunch of other people you don’t even know, the calculations get a lot messier.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jul 7 2022 at 10:02am
The point is to align the cost and benefits of the decision maker with those of the people affected by the decision.Public choice theory has highlighted the problem but not made much if any problem with developing policies/institutional reforms to mitigate it.
Mark Z
Jul 8 2022 at 10:41am
Sure it has: by suggesting the people affected by the decision be the ones allowed to make the decision, rather than a third party.
Scott Sumner
Jul 7 2022 at 1:50pm
Very good point.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jul 7 2022 at 7:52pm
Thanks
Scott Sumner
Jul 8 2022 at 12:22pm
I was replying to Jose.
Comments are closed.