> Why shouldn't someone be allowed to take it if they want to?
It's not entirely an issue of freedom. It's also about whether or not taxpayers have to pay Medicare to provide it.
By some estimates, 1 in 9 people over the age of 65 have some degree of Alzheimer's. The cost of the drug is estimated at $56K per year.
If we, the taxpayers, are now on the hook to pay $56K/year for up to 1 in 9 elderly people in the country for a drug that may not actually work and has some serious side effects, that's not good at all. Given the data we have, there's a significant probability that we'd be paying $56K/year to make these patients worse on average given the risk of serious side effects of the drug with negligible appreciable upside. That's a major problem.
It might be possible for Medicare to deny this drug due to lack of efficacy, but that sounds like a political nightmare.
It's not entirely an issue of freedom. It's also about whether or not taxpayers have to pay Medicare to provide it.
By some estimates, 1 in 9 people over the age of 65 have some degree of Alzheimer's. The cost of the drug is estimated at $56K per year.
If we, the taxpayers, are now on the hook to pay $56K/year for up to 1 in 9 elderly people in the country for a drug that may not actually work and has some serious side effects, that's not good at all. Given the data we have, there's a significant probability that we'd be paying $56K/year to make these patients worse on average given the risk of serious side effects of the drug with negligible appreciable upside. That's a major problem.
It might be possible for Medicare to deny this drug due to lack of efficacy, but that sounds like a political nightmare.