Veterinary Drug Approval Process
Does anyone have data on costs related to the FDA approval process for veterinary drugs? I am interested to see how these would compare to commonly cited information on the burdens associated with the human drug approval process (time required to obtain approval, supporting documentation required, expense, etc). Does anyone know of existing research in this area? It seems like if the data exists it might make for a natural comparison, especially since some veterinary drugs are unique to animal use, while others were originally designed for humans (which could be useful for addressing the possibility of an effect shortening the length to approval in human to animal drugs because of previous FDA approval for human use). If the process for animals ultimately consumes fewer resources (as I suspect), I wonder if anyone has compared side effect prevelance? Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Re: paying for blood donations
Although probably not marketable, why not use high incentives and some arbitrary standard that is strongly negatively correlated with being a high risk donor? Education, income or land ownership for instance? Bring a transcript showing at least two years of college, a W-2 showing 15k of wages, or a deed for any real property worth more than X, and get put on a unlikely bum list? Daniel - Original Message - From: Hentrich, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:06 am Subject: paying for blood donations Dear armchairs, charitable organisations claim that paying for blood donations could worsen the situation because it mostly attracts people from high risk groups (junkies etc.)and those who donate blood are people with a low risk of poor blood quality. But otherwise there is a lack of supply of blood because a lot of people have not enough incentives to donate blood because of high opportunity costs of time and maybe fear of pain and health problems. Do you imagine solutions to attract more donors without select people with low blood quality? My take: Maybe suppliers of blood products could pay firms for attracting workers or health insurance companies to give insurants incentives to donate blood? At present german red cross germany has a campaign to attract donors with a whopper menu. I dont belief that it is enough to attract donors with a ordinary wage rate. And maybe this attracts risky people more than healthy donors. What is the situation in the USA? Are there better solutions? Greetings from Germany Steffen
Re: paying for blood donations
Interesting point. I'd be interested to know how blood is currently allocated among hospitals and other end users. Market process or rationing? If the former, it seems like there would be price differences in value dependent on the relative incidence of blood types in the population. I suspect that most lay people would be offended and confused if the same amount of blood resulted in a different tax deduction. A flat value tax deduction could be agreed upon, though how much this would reflect the market value of the blood is up in the air. It seems like this would put the ball in the court of the IRS and/or congress, rather than the market to determine the deduction value for blood. If this is poorly designed (it might be made refundable on the grounds of giving those who don't have to pay taxes a reason to donate, etc, who's going to go on the record saying that their poorer constitutents are riskier donors) In Vitro Fertilization is a highly selective process, yet there don't seem to be any shortages in the market for sperm. According to Fairfax Cyrobank, only about 3% of donors are accepted, and are paid a few thousand dollars after set commitment target of donations is met. Education, atheleticism, etc are all explored with potential donors, and there are enough who answer these questions voluntarily to supply the national market. This seems to be an instance where the high selectivity-high incentive model works well. Of course, there may be differences between blood and semen. Finally, blood donors already endure privacy invasions, willingly, and while paying to give blood b/c of oppurtunity costs. Sexual history, medication usage, travel patterns, birth control, etc. are all investigated. Would one additional piece of data really make people that much more uncomfortable? Also, the IRS having a record of blood donors looks like a dangerous step in the wrong direction in the current medical privacy environment. Daniel - Original Message - From: Dan Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 8:09 pm Subject: Re: paying for blood donations While that may add a barrier to donating -- many people won't want to do a good deed if it requires such an invasion of privacy -- why not treat giving blood as any other donation, and make it a tax deduction worth $X? That'd keep out those looking to make a quick buck, but still giveincentive to those looking for some sort of pecuniary reward for their donations. At 07:16 PM 2/23/2004 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Although probably not marketable, why not use high incentives and somearbitrary standard that is strongly negatively correlated with being a high risk donor? Education, income or land ownership for instance? Bring a transcript showing at least two years of college, a W-2 showing 15k of wages, or a deed for any real property worth more than X, and get put on a unlikely bum list? Daniel - Original Message - From: Hentrich, Steffen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:06 am Subject: paying for blood donations Dear armchairs, charitable organisations claim that paying for blood donations could worsen the situation because it mostly attracts people from high risk groups (junkies etc.)and those who donate blood are people with a low risk of poor blood quality. But otherwise there is a lack of supply of blood because a lot of people have not enough incentives to donate blood because of high opportunity costs of time and maybe fear of pain and health problems. Do you imagine solutions to attract more donors without select people with low blood quality? My take: Maybe suppliers of blood products could pay firms for attracting workers or health insurance companies to give insurants incentives to donate blood? At present german red cross germany has a campaign to attract donors with a whopper menu. I dont belief that it is enough to attract donors with a ordinary wage rate. And maybe this attracts risky people more than healthy donors. What is the situation in the USA? Are there better solutions? Greetings from Germany Steffen
Re: New Borjas Bombshell: Immigration Now Impacting College Grads' Incomes
Indeed, Hoppe is from Germany, even if he wishes he wasn't. - Original Message - From: Anton Sherwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, September 1, 2003 3:16 pm Subject: Re: New Borjas Bombshell: Immigration Now Impacting College Grads' Incomes alypius skinner wrote: (Ironically, this article was written by an immigrant.) Other prominent immigrant-bashers include HH Hoppe (from Germany?) and Ilana Mercer (from Israel). -- Anton Sherwood, http://www.ogre.nu/
Re: Health insurance for kids
Otherwise, perhaps people feel a social obligation to help support children in the society. This behavior might also be for PR purposes. If some textile worker is laid off b/c their labor is more expensive than foreign they might not be as likely to play the part of Marxian victim of industry to the media with all the [rationally] irational remarks that come with that if their kids were relatively cheap to provide medical insurance for. That of course assumes that employers of unskilled laborers behave similarly to the employers of skilled labor. I'd speculate that this is the caseunskilled laborers have a versatile set of skills, and a wide universe of prospective employers if they lose a job, thus the costs of groaning after losing it are low. On the other hand, an immature response if one was fired from a proffesional position might have more dire consequences, and thus possibly a lower chance of say, a fired law partner complaining to the media. Daniel L. Lurker - Original Message - From: Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:05 pm Subject: Re: Health insurance for kids At 02:52 PM 6/17/2003 -0500, Jeffrey Rous wrote: When I was in grad school, my wife's health insurance policy through work allowed an employee to add a spouse for $1000 per year (I cannot remember the exact numbers, but these are close) or add a spouse and children for $2000 per year. And it didn't matter whether you had 1 child or 10. Are employees with more kids more attractive as employees? If so, this this could be a compensating wage. Otherwise, perhaps people feel a social obligation to help support children in the society. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Assistant Professor of Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
RE: [Forum] Quoth who?
I remember seeing the quote recently, just don't remember where. I'm tempted to think H.L. Mencken for some reason, though. Also just reread Crisis and Leviathan and suspect it might be from there if it's not Mencken. Daniel L. Lurker Actual happiness always looks pretty squalid in comparison with the over-compensations for misery. And, of course, stability isn't nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand. World Controller Mustapha, Brave New World -Aldous Huxley - Original Message - From: Grey Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, May 29, 2003 10:06 am Subject: RE: [Forum] Quoth who? Whenever a government creates a body to regulate a trade for the benefit of the people, the trade gains control of the body for the benefit of the trade at the expense of the people. Sorry for no help in the particular, but I remember a paper I wrote 20 years ago making this point, and almost using those words. Let me here describe the individual mechanism (as I recall): The new gov't body has a head regulator. He's new, he's important in DC. Maybe he gets wined and dined by the politicians, he certainly gets noticed by the politicians, and the news folk. For about a week. Then the news is covering something else, the politicians have other crusades. The few, low paid pro-consumer lobbyists are glad HE's responsible, and trust him to do a good job. Which he's trying to do. Of course, he HAS to talk with representatives of the regulated industry, to get basic info. He makes a lunch appointment with the enemy. But they're SO NICE!!! They buy him lunch, they are polite, they are RESPECTFUL. They care what he says, and agree he has good points. Plus, if he's not sure of some basic data, they usually have the data, and provide it. They mostly agree with all his principles, but on just this one detail, they want the regulatory phrasing to be just a little different, since it gets virtually all the benefits at less cost, saving jobs, etc. And nobody else knows or really cares about THAT detail, certainly not at the detailed level of the highly specialized experts, in the trade industry the regulatory body. And of course, the top politically appointed regulator prolly won't be a regulator FOR EVER, but his detailed, expert knowledge of the industry, and its regulations, will SURELY make him very valuable to a future employee. ... The point is not so much that the trade gains control of the body, (true), but that the body is seduced by the only serious suitor -- the trade. How could it be otherwise? (I believed it true then, have been libertarian since; and believe it now, too.) Tom Grey
