In a NY Times op-ed piece called A Gift for Drug Makers, Bob Herbert writes that:

Tucked like a gleaming diamond in proposed legislation to curb malpractice lawsuits is a provision that would give an unconscionable degree of protection to firms responsible for drugs or medical devices that turn out to be harmful. The provision would go beyond caps on certain damages. It would actually prohibit punitive damages in cases in which the drug or medical device had received Food and Drug Administration approval. We know the F.D.A. has failed time and again to ensure that unsafe drugs are kept off the market. To provide blanket legal protection against punitive damages in such cases is both unwarranted and dangerous.

In fact the former head legal counsel at FDA Daniel Troy already pushed this policy–changing years of precedent at the FDA–by making it take the drug-makers side in legal cases. As California Health line reported when he finally quit late last year:

During his tenure, Troy worked in support of Bush administration efforts to block liability lawsuits against medical device manufacturers and drug makers. Troy argued in legal briefs that only FDA has the authority to determine when and how pharmaceutical companies should issue product warnings and that state court decisions could undermine the agency’s authority over product labels. FDA claimed in briefs that suits against FDA-approved products would "sabotage the agency’s authority"; critics called the agency’s position a "back-door approach to tort reform."

While no one who’s been awake in the last 4 years can pretend to be surprised about how much the Bush administration is determined to gift the pharma industry, one suspects that someone in the corridors of power up and down the New Jersey turnpike must be having some doubts. As one of the few "moderates" clinging to the lonely position that pharma is indeed responsible for most of the good innovations in the health care system, and that a rational, reasonable and profitable pharma business is possible without the need to push for the current excesses on pricing and marketing misbehavior, I’ve been suggesting that in its own longer term interests pharma should look to compromise. If instead big pharma believes that it can make itself completely immune to the American legal system by simply getting what looks increasingly like a bought-and-paid-for FDA to sign off on its behavior, then the backlash that will be coming big pharma’s way when its protectors at either end of Pennsylvania avenue get booted out will not be pretty. And at some point they will be booted out.Even Wall Street is generally comfortable that one of the risks of investing in pharmas is that damages will have to be paid out if bad things happen. Investors in Merck know that there’s a payment coming down the line for Vioxx and the stock reflects that. It’s stretching credulity to believe that pharma really needs this protection when no one else in America gets it, and it may well be time for wiser heads in New Jersey to suggest to their brethren that they take their snouts out of the trough less they miss the farmer coming up behind them with the butcher’s knife.