Patients who take a close look at medical science in search of treatments are often appalled by what they discover. On the one hand, there's academic research, a self-contained and self-absorbed universe of its own where data may be internally consistent (on a good day) and robustly reproducible, yet often has little relevance to real-world clinical conditions.

AEI's Henry Wendt Scholar Nicholas Eberstadt wins the prestigious Bradley Prize

“Americans spend too much on health care.” “We have worse health outcomes than our European counterparts.” Talking points such as these helped drive President Obama’s controversial and sweeping health care reform into law two years ago. But are they accurate?

The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933 introduced many of the Farm Bill provisions that remain present today, including precursors to the current food and nutrition programs (FANPs). This policy served multiple purposes, including enhanced demand for farm products to alleviate low farm income and reduce agricultural surpluses, and enhanced food security and improved nutrition for the poor.

Perhaps it's the sweet California air, but the pervasive (though not universal) pessimism in biopharma these days is really bumming me out.  Consequently, I'd like to discuss three potential responses to difficult industry problems.

In an attempt to protect poor, uninsured and underinsured Americans from unsafe drugs, we are making sure that some go without drugs completely. It is time the law was changed.

Successfully translating scientific discoveries requires a sense of urgency, which some disease foundations seem to have, and many big pharmas appear to need. Patients waiting expectantly for medical research to produce important new cures are finding bad news almost everywhere they turn.

The fierce battle over reform was based on the perception that Americans did not get good value for their money. That perception is wrong.