Obama, paying tribute to Biden and bipartisanship, signs 21st Century Cures Act Tuesday
This article is about President Obama who recently signed a bill into that aims to increase funding for medical research, speed the development and approval of experimental treatments, and overhaul federal policy on mental health care. This legislation passed with wide bipartisan support, and it highlights that politicians can still come together and make policies that help the American people. However, critics of this bill claim that the expedited pathway for approving new drugs could harm patients. If the new drugs are not proven to work and are potentially unsafe but have passed the regulations, there could be many negative consequences on patients.
Do you agree with these critics? Should the regulations on new drugs be stricter even if it means that they will come out more slowly? The previous version of this bill stalled in the Senate for more than a year, what do you think was different this time?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
With every large stride forward, there is always some type of risk. Maybe here, if we are going to try to help a lot of people, we're going to have to risk things going wrong. That's not a great way to look at it, but is there one? Should we really continue to stall the improvement of medications that could be helping people because we are scared of the potential failure? And what if they do fail? How easy would recalls be? Compensation? I don't knwo which side I'm on, but I think I sit more towards the end of supporting this bill in the hopes that it helps, rather than hurts.
ReplyDeleteAlso, it might(?) be a good idea to try to further medical research while we can, because none of us really know what's going to happen under the new administration. I personally do not know Trump's views on medication, but if the harshess of his opinions of medical progress are anything like his opinions on how women are lesser and climate change isn't real, then would we really be able to pass anything like this with him as president? Or would we be stuck without progression for a few years? So, for that, maybe this bill is a good idea just in that it will allow some progress. I don't know.
I am glad that the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law. The U.S. has been a leader in medical innovation throughout the 20th century and needs to continue doing so in the coming years. Mental health in this country is in need of improvement and the opioid epidemic needs to be addressed, so I support the increased funding for these efforts. I only agree with the critics in certain respects. I don't have a problem with experimental drugs on the market as long as they are going to be used be used by people who are in desperate need of them. If you have a life-threatening illness and you are suffering, an experimental drug that might save you or might kill you is better than no drug at all. However, I think doctors should be careful not to prescribe these drugs to people who do not need them desperately. I do agree with the critics in that I think experimental antibiotics should be regulated more carefully due to the possibility of superbugs being created through the over prescription of them. I'm not sure why the Senate finally decided to pass it, but I'm glad they finally did something productive.
ReplyDeleteMental health is a serious issue and I'm glad it's getting the attention it deserves, but I'm always an advocate for more drug testing. When I was a kid my grandfather took experimental drugs to deal with his rheumatoid arthritis that ended up not helping him, but giving him some strange side effects like becoming severely allergic to wheat (something he'd never shown signs of before, and what almost took his life on one occasion). So I'd say more drug testing should be conducted before the drug is administered to the public.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a good thing that the 21st Century Cures Act was signed into law, but I can see why critics could be against it. From seeing varoius prescription drug commercials on TV, most people already know of the crazy amount of side effects that can happen from certain drugs. Having them out on the market without knowing the full side effects can be dangerous, so as Josh said, they should only be used in dire cases. If used in this way, I think the passing was a huge step forward, as if not passed, the bill might live in the senate forever.
ReplyDeleteThere are pros and cons with this. When it comes to experimenting with medicine, I’m very certain many of those suffering from horrific diseases will consider this bill a pro as a whole. From my binging of House and Grey’s Anatomy, it’s easy to conclude that people who want a cure will go great lengths and will take great risks to achieve that. And in terms of medical development, the United States is many steps behind other nations. For example, doctors in Israel are deep into finding a cure for MS because of their extensive stem cell research, but the US simply cannot compare with what those doctors have done so far due to a lack of funding and restrictions. At this moment in time I think this Act is a great thing. We need to have at least a little progress in our society.
ReplyDeleteI'm conflicted. This bill means that people would have access to drugs that could potentially save their lives, but could also kill them if they aren't tested probably. However, the excerpt from Grubbs' speech and Joe Biden's comments made me remember how essential this research is. I am not a parent. I have never seen anyone die. I do not know what it is like to go through this. However, earlier this year my mother had a stent put into her heart because she had a 95% blockage. I know that without the advanced medical technology we have that it is likely she would have died or that it could have gone undetected. I try to separate my own personal experiences from right and wrong and policy questions all of the time. As someone who wants to be a lawyer someday or even a Supreme Court Justice, I know that it is crucial that I attempt to see other people's sides. However, as we have seen with this act, sometimes issues cut across party lines. This act sews the void together and attempts to join forces to fight for a common cause. There is something extraordinarily beautiful about this. In cases like Grubbs' daughter or Biden's son, it is impossible not to feel something or fight for more time spent going over or stalling medical bills. So, as much as I am conflicted i think that I agree with Obama's decision to sign.
ReplyDeleteHow lovely. It seems like such a long time since I've heard about bipartisan support for something. I am pleased to learn that more money will go to cancer research and mental health. The BRAIN initiative sounds very intriguing as well. Unfortunately, they had to throw a wrench in things with the part about speeding up the release of new medications. As long as doctors reveal everything to their patients who could be possible users of one of the newer medications and let the patients weigh the pros and cons it can't be that bad. Right?
ReplyDeleteOverall, I believe that this bill is a good step forward. An expansion of medical funding was necessary, and the mental health and opioid problem in this country needed more attention. I agree with Josh in the sentiment that experimental drugs are fine to have on the market if they are given to people in desperate need of treatment. They should not be prescribed loosely, but in a rather restricted manner, with health experts on hand to record the results of each dosage. It is imperative that we have a quick, efficient healthcare system with sufficient funding, and I believe that this bill aids these pursuits.
ReplyDeleteThe mental health and drug industry in this country has been corrupt for several years now. In America it takes about ten minutes to walk into a gun shop and buy a a Glock G29 but it could take years to save enough money to get access to proper mental health.
ReplyDeleteThat is why I think that this bill is a very good thing for the good of America. It is important that while new drugs are being funded and medication comes out that the market for these drugs is being regulated as well - it shouldn't be left up to the drug manufactures to set prices (America is the only democracy in the world where this happens). That being said the expedited process to approve drugs should lower the cost, because the FDA won't need to spend as much money on testing. It is important that transparency in information about the drugs is maintained, and that users understand the risks of taking any specified drug.
I think that healthcare in the U.S. far too inefficient. Despite paying very high prices for medication, it can be difficult to access quality healthcare. This is why I think this bill is a good step forward. By increasing the output of new medications, we could theoretically increase competition in the market and drive down prices. All the while, we can spur innovation as it would be easier to get a new innovation off the ground. Of course, the largest benefit is that people could gain access to drugs that save their life much sooner now than before. Although medical funding may be a further increase of our spending, it's a very crucial long-term investment that we need in face of all the hardship that people are facing. There is a downside though, by expediting this process, it would become easier for companies to manufacture ineffective or lower-quality drugs. With every plan however, there tend to be downsides such as this one. I think that the bipartisan framing of this bill, along with the support from the popular VP pressured Senators to put aside their personal views, making it easier for this bill to pass.
ReplyDeleteI like this bill because it gives the consumers the option to try certain things, but it doesn't force them. As Jay said, this would probably make the cost lower by expediting the testing process. I think that as long as the ingredients are clear and the information is given to the consumer, it's not bad at all. It should be the consumer's choice of whether they want to take a drug, this bill makes the medications (more) affordable and also available faster. Those who want more testing can wait and ask for more information, and those who need it quickly can view the information and then decide whether or not to take it.
ReplyDeleteWith experimental treatment there is always a risk. However, I believe that the 21st Century Cures Act is a great step forward in medicine as well as bipartisan agreement. Because of this act, there will be more medicine and treatments available to patients. With more terminal illnesses, sometimes experimental treatments are the only option, and these patients should have the right to different treatments. The critics do offer a valid argument as to how this could be potentially dangerous, but the reward is greater than the risk in this case. American healthcare needs a boost, and this is certainly a step forward to improving that.
ReplyDeleteThe 21st Century Cures Act will be the start of innovation on the side of the US in medical science. Right now the FDA is so strict that any new advances in medical drugs and treatments take many years to get through. This bill allows the US to take a much stronger stance against cancer. While there are risks involved, I believe that benefits will far outweigh them.
ReplyDeleteIt's always rewarding to see bipartisan support for bill's that address human conditions like healthcare and the environment (versus more economic ones that aren't as vital to peoples' abilities to live healthy lives). With that being said, however, I don't believe a drug should be released without being fully tested first. This leads to a red-tape based, less efficient system, but it's necessary to keep people healthy and quell workarounds from medical companies who'd rather be efficient than careful. The article refers to the potential dangers of testing new drugs in small populations without data that's fully explored the repercussions, but I'm assuming (though don't know for sure) that these drugs have already had some level of testing done and that patients are made aware of the risks. For what regulations have been relaxed, it seems like the benefits could outweigh the costs given how this could help with people addicted to opioids and suffering mental health issues.
ReplyDeleteWhile I am thrilled to see bipartisan support for anything these days, I have to say I am a little cautious about this act. While I (as I'm sure almost everyone has) have seen the effects of cancer on a person and their family, hastily passing drugs into the public with limited testing is not exactly the best way to control the problem. I love the fact that new testing is getting the funding it deserves, but I do not think that the testing should be rushed. However, I am hopeful that the act will do good things instead of cause problems, and I really do believe that it has the potential to help a lot of people if we remain cautious with the amount of testing we do on our drugs.
ReplyDelete