Column: The Profit Motive Itself Makes the Best Case Against the FDA

One of President Trump's campaign pledges was to allow Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. to "go wild" as head of Health and Human Services. Some welcomed the idea, scarred by memories such as covid lockdowns and government mask mandates that lasted well beyond the arrival of the vaccines. Others, well aware of Kennedy's conspiracism and anti-vaccine views, dreaded the news. Agencies under Kennedy, like the FDA, are charged with maintaining standards of medical safety and effectiveness. Does "go wild" mean freeing Americans to make our own health decisions -- or ramming bad advice down our throats?

As if to address the concerns of both groups, Kennedy's FDA announced in May that it approves covid boosters only for those over 65 or in other high-risk groups. The vaccine remains available to everyone, but insurers are no longer forced to cover the full cost (about $150). If you want to get the covid jab with your flu shot, you'll need to decide if a few extra days of health are worth the price. Leftists wailing about "access" notwithstanding, Kennedy hasn't "taken away" this vaccine.

The measure seems reasonable until one hears the rationale: Officials described the old guidance as "one-size-fits-all" and based on the assumption that Americans "are not sophisticated enough to understand age- and risk-based recommendations." First, millions were forgoing the shots. Second, the main impact is on insurance companies, whose job it is to know whether covering shots or treatments is profitable for any given group...

To continue reading my latest column, please proceed to RealClear Markets

I would like to thank my wife and Steve D. for their comments on earlier versions of this piece.

-- CAV