I think it’s fresh when a government agency says not to spend too much money.
Last month, in an editorial titled “Alzheimer’s Treatment in Sandbagging” The wall The road Journal Editors have criticized Medicare and Medicaid service centers for refusing to pay for Biogen’s new Alzheimer’s drug, Aduhelm.
In their editorial, WSJ editors have rightly criticized various scientists who insisted on further testing before the drug was approved. As the readers of this blog know, I am in favor of getting as light a regulation as possible from the FDA. Let the drug companies try their drugs and let’s find out what works and what doesn’t.
But approving a drug is different from spending tax money on supplying drugs to a government agency. The Journal The editors make a major argument against paying taxpayers:
Them [the progressives] For the largest beef, it seems that Aduhelm costs a lot more (28 28,200 per year) and the cost of Medicare can be balloons.
They think it’s a bad argument but they don’t really say why.
For several years, d Journal Editors have a conflicting view on Medicare spending. They usually want to rein in entitlement costs but want to pay CMS for any medication for adults in Medicare if approved by the FDA. As far as I know, they never resolved this tension.
I think so JournalIts perspective comes from their late, and brilliant, healthcare editorial writer Joe Rago. When he went to Hoover a few years ago, I tried to get him to look into the problem. His argument was that now that the government has Medicare, Medicare people should be able to get drugs that can help them at no cost. My argument was that Medicare is not all or nothing. I want to see it over. This is highly unlikely, as the country’s most powerful voting group does not want to give up. But at the very least, we should applaud CMS for being a little more cautious about tax money.
A letter writer Journal, S. Paul Posner wrote this well in his April 20 (electronic version) letter. Addressing the progressives who pressured CMS not to say, Posner said that CMS:
Money should be spent where it will do best. This means cost-benefit analysis, which progressives do not know how to accept. Now they should not be criticized.