Government is the
worst choice for doing drug testing. When people want something done – and they
certainly want their drugs tested, at least for safety – there’s an opportunity
for entrepreneurs. Each testing company would value its work by expanding its
revenues and limiting its costs, resulting in profits. If one testing company
performs poorly, the drug company that hired it would turn to a competitor.
Government officials
make no profits and have no competition. They value their work by limiting what
they can be blamed for, how much power they have over the public, how large
their staff, and how big their budget. The bigger the better.
Let’s say that drug
testing is privatized, with an array of companies available to do the work,
including drug companies themselves. Some testers would do the most thorough
job, charging high prices (but lower than government costs). Others would offer
mid-level testing, with modest prices. Still others would do minimal testing,
at minimal cost. For each drug, the pharmaceutical company could choose the
level of testing it prefers, recognizing that the greater the risks, the higher
the drug company’s insurance premiums.
The consumers of
drugs and their doctors, working through the courts, would determine whether
drugs are safe. After privatization, the pressure to cut costs would probably
reduce the people’s desire for ideal testing. The new standard would be
reasonableness, which applies to the testing of most other products.
No one has counted
how many lives have been lost too soon because the government, to make sure it
can’t be blamed, keeps effective drugs off the market for years and years. Many
more lives have been lost because of those delays than have been saved by the
government making certain that drugs are safe and effective.
To perform any
service, government is the worst choice.
Published by the Concord Monitor around
July 10, 2017.
