“I assume you’re alluding to a system of third-party payers (including insurance companies and/or the government) where the cost becomes relevant to more than the individual receiving the benefit? “
I am wondering about both. Can insurance companies provide coverage for treatments that reach $100k per year to extend life a few months and still provide affordable coverage? Also, if the individual receiving the drug had to pay for it, would they?
I think most of the argument is actually financial, rather than medical. The result may be the same - treatment denied, but it’s not the same as a death panel - where treatment may be given to one, but not another.
“I suppose the next question is, what then is the answer? In my opinion, policy should be to more directly align the cost and benefit received. Reintroduce the free market into this space.”
I suppose if it is not a dangerous treatment, and someone was willing to pay for it, it should be made available. Since the FDA realizes that “the rich” would pay for it they are reacting to a defacto socialist mandate - if everybody can’t have it, for whatever reason, nobody can have it.
The result may be the same - treatment denied, but it’s not the same as a death panel - where treatment may be given to one, but not another.
It's a good point. From a practical standpoint, the end result may not differ in more than a very few cases. That said (call me an absolutist), if an individual or the market makes that decision it's totally different than when the government makes it. I suspect we agree on that as well.