Voice For Liberty

Tag: Health care

  • Ivermectin Shows That Not All Science Is Worth Following

    One-sentence summary: Despite widespread interest in ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, many studies supporting its use are riddled with methodological flaws, data inconsistencies, and outright fabrications, revealing deeper issues within the scientific publication process.

    Ivermectin, an antiparasitic drug that is highly effective in treating conditions like river blindness and scabies, gained attention during the COVID-19 pandemic as a potential treatment or preventative measure. While dozens of studies and a few meta-analyses suggested some efficacy, deeper scrutiny by a team of volunteer researchers engaged in “forensic peer review” revealed significant problems in many of the studies cited to support ivermectin’s benefits.

    This team, which independently analyzes scientific studies for statistical anomalies, inconsistencies, and data manipulation, reviewed about 30 influential ivermectin studies. At least five were found to be so flawed that they should be retracted-one already has been. For example, a study from Egypt counted deaths that occurred before it began, and another from Lebanon featured duplicated data. Despite these issues, such studies are rarely retracted or even formally investigated, as the peer review system was overwhelmed during the pandemic and lacks the rigor to detect fraud or errors in rushed publications.

    The most concerning aspect is that the studies with the most favorable outcomes for ivermectin often turned out to be the most unreliable, while more rigorously conducted trials tended to yield inconclusive or modest results. The pandemic created a publishing environment where even flawed studies could gain widespread attention quickly, bypassing normal scrutiny and being amplified by social media.

    Furthermore, systemic issues plague scientific publishing: journals are slow to respond to critiques, authors resist transparency, and studies with questionable data are often left unchallenged. This creates a body of literature that appears scientifically legitimate but is fundamentally flawed. While not necessarily indicative of a conspiracy, the situation reflects a larger failure in managing scientific integrity. The prevalence of poor research, especially in high-stakes scenarios like a pandemic, points to a need for greater institutional oversight and a cultural shift toward skepticism and accountability in evaluating scientific claims.

    The article argues that rather than following all science unquestioningly, it is essential to assess the quality of the research, especially during times of crisis. Many flawed studies are published in obscure or predatory journals and are designed to pad academic résumés rather than advance knowledge. However, in the pandemic era, even such marginal studies can gain traction and influence public discourse, leading to widespread misinformation.

    Ultimately, the author warns that without institutional support for rigorous review and accountability, it falls to a small group of volunteers to identify and expose problematic science-an untenable situation given the stakes involved.

    Heathers, James. “Ivermectin Shows That Not All Science Is Worth Following.” The Atlantic, 23 Oct. 2021, www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/10/ivermectin-research-problems/620473.

    Key takeaways:

    • Ivermectin gained popularity as a COVID-19 treatment based on a flawed body of research.
    • At least five out of 30 reviewed ivermectin studies had serious data problems or methodological flaws.
    • Studies with the most dramatic pro-ivermectin findings were often the most unreliable.
    • Peer review systems were overwhelmed during the pandemic, allowing flawed research to be published and amplified.
    • Volunteer “forensic peer reviewers” often uncover problems journals fail to catch or address.
    • Scientific publishing lacks institutional mechanisms to catch and correct flawed research effectively.
    • Poor research can influence public health discourse when it gains attention on social media.
    • The current system permits low-quality studies to be published with little accountability.

    Most important quotations:

    • “The problem is, not all science is worth following.”
    • “If five out of 30 were guaranteed to explode as soon as they entered a freeway on-ramp, you would prefer to take the bus.”
    • “Most problematic, the studies we are certain are unreliable happen to be the same ones that show ivermectin as most effective.”
    • “There is no net.”
    • “We have now reached a point where those doing systematic reviews must start by assuming that a study is fraudulent until they can have some evidence to the contrary.”
    • “An unbelievable, inaccurate study… may bubble over into the public consciousness as soon as it appears online.”
    • “It is a testament to how badly the scientific commons are managed that their products are fact-checked for the first time by a group of weary volunteers.”

    Word count of generated summary: 799
    Word count of supplied input: 2,774

  • Could drug price regulation produce good and not harm?

    Could drug price regulation produce good and not harm?

    A sampling of criticism of drug price controls.

    Trump’s Drug Price Control Orders Are Bound to Backfire

    At a White House gathering last Friday, President Trump announced four new executive orders intended to restrict the ways pharmaceutical companies set the price of prescription drugs. He signed and issued three that day and promised to issue a fourth if drug industry representatives don’t agree to massive price controls at a meeting tomorrow.

    Seemingly oblivious to the fact that just eight days earlier he staged a highly publicized press conference to explain how regulation often does more harm than good and portray himself as a slasher of federal red tape, Trump boasted Friday about adding to that burden. But, just as the president often warns, those new rules are likely to backfire. They may produce modestly lower prices for some patients in the short term, but everyone will bear the burden of higher prices and fewer treatment options in the long run.

    Continue reading at Competitive Enterprise Institute.

    Trump’s Drug Price Panic

    He adopts Biden-like controls that would harm U.S. innovation.

    President Trump’s decline in the polls is getting more expensive by the day. The next virus spending bill will cost trillions, and late Friday the President made a pitch for seniors with haphazard executive orders to lower drug prices. His prescription is akin to what Democrats are offering: more government control.

    “I’m unrigging the system that is many decades old. We’re doing something that should have been done a long time ago,” the President said at a press conference. “Previous administrations did nothing—absolutely nothing—as drug lobbyists, special interests, and foreign countries freely ripped off our citizens.” Did Bernie Sanders ghost write his remarks? …

    Mr. Trump’s drug-pricing orders are a me-too Democratic plan.

    Continue reading at Wall Street Journal.

    Here’s How Trump Should Address the High Cost of Prescription Drugs

    … If President Trump wants to bring down drug prices, he should avoid new layers of regulations and controls that will only make matters worse, and focus on bringing consumer-driven market forces and competition to this broken system. … Here’s a solution: stop focusing on trying to control drug prices, and start paying attention to who’s paying them. Tax and regulatory policy, such as the exemption for employer?provided insurance or mandated?benefits laws, have led to a third party—often the government—paying the vast majority of medical bills. With the consumer out of the loop, costs to the third party — and consequently premiums — continue to rise.

    Continue reading at Cato Institute.

    Sally Pipes: Trump’s drug pricing executive orders harmful to patients — will hinder development of new drugs

    The coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated we need more medical innovation

    The International Pricing Index is the worst offender in the three executive orders. The index links the prices the U.S. government pays for prescription drugs to the lower prices Britain, France, Canada and other developed nations pay for the same drugs.

    Governments in these countries forcibly cap drug prices. By tying U.S. drug prices to those overseas, President Trump is effectively importing other countries’ price controls. Those price controls will deprive pharmaceutical researchers of the revenue needed to fund cutting-edge development of new drugs that could improve and in some cases save the lives of millions of patients. …

    For drug companies and their backers to continue funding research and development, they need some level of assurance that their high-risk investments could pay off.

    President Trump’s executive orders render such assurance impossible. Price controls could reduce drug companies’ revenue by as much as $1 trillion over a decade. As a result, up to 15 fewer new drugs could make it to market over that period, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.

    Continue reading at Fox News.

    Photo by freestocks on Unsplash

    Photo by freestocks on Unsplash
  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Kansas State of the State for 2018

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Kansas State of the State for 2018

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Vice president and policy director of Kansas Policy Institute James Franko joins Karl Peterjohn to discuss Governor Brownback’s State of the State Address for 2018. Topics include schools and Medicaid expansion. Bob Weeks hopes to be back next week. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 179, broadcast January 13, 2018.

    Shownotes

  • Medicaid expansion survey in Kansas

    Medicaid expansion survey in Kansas

    Should Kansans accept the results of a public opinion poll when little is known about it?

    Recently American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network released results of a poll regarding Medicaid expansion in Kansas. What ACS CAN wants us to know is that 82 percent of Kansans favor expansion.

    But before we accept these results, we need to know that ACS CAN will not release the full results of the survey, as other organizations have done.

    In particular, last year Kansas Hospital Association conducted a poll on the topic of Medicaid expansion, and it released the complete poll and results.1

    This year Kansas Center for Economic Growth conducted a poll. It released the full results.2 From this release, we learned that one of the questions was so vague as to be open to many different interpretations.3

    Kansas Policy Institute conducts many polls and releases the full results.4

    Sample results from the poll. Click for the full chart.
    ACS CAN produced a short press release.5 Upon request, I received the text of one question and a chart of results.6

    But ACS CAN, despite multiple requests to several contacts, will not release the full results of the poll, as other public policy advocacy groups have done.

    It would be unfair to conclude that ACS CAN has something to hide, or that the poll was constructed in a way to be misleading. Conversely, it is not wise to give much weight to this poll when we know so little about it.

    —
    Notes

    1. Kansas Hospital Association. Public Opinion Poll: Medicaid Expansion and Access to Health Care in Kansas. Available at http://www.kha-net.org/communications/mediareleases/public-opinion-poll-medicaid-expansion-and-access-to-health-care-in-kansas_102768.aspx. ↩
    2. Kansas Center for Economic Growth. Results of Kansas statewide poll. Available at http://realprosperityks.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TSPolling_KCEG_KansasStatewide_PublicReleasePacket_2017.03.30-final-1.pdf. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. Kansans are concerned about the level of state spending on schools. A public opinion poll asks whether Kansans are concerned about school spending, but leaves us wondering why they are concerned. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansans-concerned-level-state-spending-schools/. ↩
    4. See, for example Kansans say no to more taxes at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansans-say-no-taxes/, Poll: Wichitans don’t want sales tax increase at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/poll-wichitans-dont-want-sales-tax-increase/, and New survey: Kansans remain misinformed regarding k-12 finance at https://kansaspolicy.org/new-survey-kansans-remain-misinformed-regarding-k-12-finance/. ↩
    5. American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. Poll: Kansas Voters Overwhelmingly Support Medicaid Expansion. Available at https://www.acscan.org/releases/poll-kansas-voters-overwhelmingly-support-medicaid-expansion. ↩
    6. “Uninsured Kansans earning less than sixteen thousand dollars a year do not have access to any affordable healthcare coverage options. Kansas lawmakers are considering taking action that would provide these low-income residents access to coverage that would include primary care, preventive screenings, diagnostic testing, and cancer treatment services through the state’s KanCare program. The federal government would cover most of the cost to cover these state residents. Do you favor or oppose Kansas accepting the federal funds to increase access to healthcare coverage for thousands of hardworking Kansans through the state’s KanCare program?” Results at https://wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/ACS-Kansas-Medicaid-poll-2017-exp-poll.pdf. ↩
  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Health care in Kansas and taxes in Sedgwick County

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Health care in Kansas and taxes in Sedgwick County

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Bob Weeks and Karl Peterjohn discuss health care in Kansas and taxes in Sedgwick County. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 146, broadcast April 9, 2017.

    Shownotes

  • Kansas House voting on Medicaid expansion

    Kansas House voting on Medicaid expansion

    Here’s a table of the three votes taken in the Kansas House of Representatives in February and April on HB 2044, titled “Establishing the KanCare bridge to a healthy Kansas program and providing medicaid reimbursement for clubhouse rehabilitation services.” Medicaid expansion, in other words. This expansion is a key part of Obamacare, but not all states have not adopted the plan.

    Vote 3 on April 3 was to override the governor’s veto. 84 votes are required for a successful override.

    If you’re interested in contacting your legislators on this issue, click on House Roster and Senate Roster.

    To find the district numbers you live in, use Locate Your Polling Place, which is part of Vote Kansas.

  • Kansas House voting on Medicaid expansion

    There has been another vote on this bill, and the table has been updated. Click here.

    Here’s a table of the two votes taken in the Kansas House of Representatives in February on HB 2044, titled “Establishing the KanCare bridge to a healthy Kansas program and providing medicaid reimbursement for clubhouse rehabilitation services.” Medicaid expansion, in other words. This expansion is a key part of Obamacare, but not all states have not adopted the plan.

    If you’re interested in contacting your legislators on this issue, click on House Roster and Senate Roster.

    To find the district numbers you live in, use Locate Your Polling Place, which is part of Vote Kansas.

  • Kansas Senate voting on Medicaid expansion

    Here’s a table of the two votes taken in the Kansas Senate this week on HB 2044, titled “Establishing the KanCare bridge to a healthy Kansas program and providing medicaid reimbursement for clubhouse rehabilitation services.” Medicaid expansion, in other words. This expansion is a key part of Obamacare, but not all states have not adopted the plan.

    Reporting on this issue from The Sentinel is at Senate Advances Medicaid Expansion Proposal.

    If you’re interested in contacting your legislators on this issue, click on House Roster and Senate Roster.

    To find the district numbers you live in, use Locate Your Polling Place, which is part of Vote Kansas.

  • Expanding Medicaid in Kansas

    Expanding Medicaid in Kansas would be costly, undoubtedly more costly than estimated, has an uncertain future, and doesn’t provide very good results for those it covers.

    Providing testimony to the Kansas House Committee on Health and Social Services, Michael Tanner advised legislators, “Medicaid expansion, however, is a risky gamble, that is almost certain to cost more than you are currently budgeting, while providing surprisingly little to the poor in terms of improved access to health care.”

    Tanner is Senior Fellow at Cato Institute. The bill in question is HB 2064, titled “Establishing the KanCare bridge to a healthy Kansas program.” It would expand Medicaid eligibility to more people in Kansas. These quoted remarks are from Tanner’s written testimony, which may be read at Should Kansas Expand Its Medicaid Coverage.

    As to the cost of Medicaid expansion, Tanner wrote: “Second, while such estimates are concerning enough in themselves, and would almost certainly require a substantial tax hike to finance, there is ample reason to believe that they understate the actual cost. For example, actual enrollments following expansion have exceeded estimates in every state that has expanded Medicaid under the ACA, in most cases by double digits and in some cases by more than 100 percent. In neighboring Colorado, the maximum projected enrollment was 187,000 and as of October of last year enrollment had exceeded 446,000. … In addition, the per enrollee cost has risen faster than predicted.”

    Then, there’s the woodwork effect, which costs are covered only at the regular Medicaid reimbursement rate, not the 94 percent citizens might be tempted to believe: “Third, while it may be tempting to focus on the 94 percent FMAP [Federal Medical Assistance Percentage] for newly eligible adults, you should keep in mind that many of those who enroll under expansion will not fall into this category. Rather, they will be previously eligible individuals or families that are lured into the system through the publicity and outreach efforts surrounding expansion. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute have dubbed this the ‘woodwork effect.’ Woodwork enrollees are not eligible for the enhanced FMAP. Instead, Kansas will have to pay 43.79 percent. In states that have expanded Medicaid under ACA, as much as half or more of those who signed up have fallen into this woodwork category.”

    Tanner also noted the uncertainty over the future of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, under the Trump Administration, warning legislators, “You may well be locking yourselves into future spending based on hopes for federal dollars that may never materialize.”

    He also noted the studies that have found that being on Medicaid does not result in very good health outcomes, most notable in the Oregon study.