Something of a shocker here. Someone at the New York Times actually understand economics as it relates to health care and the pharmaceuticals industry. ’Tis William Safire  which makes it a little less surprising but still, to find good sense on their Op-Ed pages is odd:

1. Shake up the F.D.A. Make it much tougher for new drugs to be
approved; require more and longer studies because side effects may not
show up for years. Risk: people in pain, angry at bureaucrats
frozen by potential criticism, will steal or buy the relief from
profiteers here and abroad. How many pain-induced depressions and
suicides may occur if tomorrow’s painkillers are withheld from the
public for years?

2. Remember the mantra "First do no harm."
Risk: fearful overreaction harms research that could do great good. The
Washington Post reports that "the spate of bad news about painkillers
has dealt a major blow to what had been a highly promising effort to
use the drugs to prevent a host of leading killers, including many
types of cancer, Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia."

3.  Prohibit all drug advertising, because it needlessly stimulates demand; the pious "ask your doctor" line is a shameful dodge.
True enough, but the huge investment in developing major medicines is
recouped by mass sales through advertising; if there was no profit in
discovery, research would wither, much human misery would be prolonged,
and the cost to the public of treating diseases that go uncured would
skyrocket. (And who’s for prohibiting the tort bar from advertising?)

4. Socialize
science; merge the F.D.A. with the National Institutes of Health to
finance and control all medical research and provide free prescription
drugs to all. Risk: under monolith medicine, too many taxpayers would die waiting.

Now, if we could only get Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman to similarly wake up and smell the roses.