A January 5 WorldNetDaily article by Gene Koprowski makes a rather desperate attempt to revive the debunked “death panels” smear, claiming that “Obama's political appointees” at the Food and Drug Administration “appear to have started making life or death choices for Americans in 2010 using the cost of a therapy, apparently, as a primary criterion for acceptance or rejection.” But Koprowski makes false and misleading assertions to support his claim.

Koprowski wrote that “new drug approvals declined dramatically last year” at the FDA from 25 in 2009 to 21 in 2010. But blogger and Grove City College psychology professor Warren Throckmorton contacted the FDA and obtained its drug-approval numbers over the past decade:

2010 – 21 (estimated)

2009 – 25

2008 – 24

2007 – 18

2006 – 22

2005 – 20

2004 – 36

2003 – 21

2002 – 17

2001 – 24

2000 – 27

Note that three of the past 10 years saw fewer approvals than 2010, placing it well within the range of established FDA procedures. It's not the “dramatic decline” Koprowski claims it is.

Koprowski also misleadingly claimed that the FDA revoked use of the drug Avastin for breast cancer because “the product didn't appear to help patients live longer at an affordable price.” In fact, affordability had nothing to do with it; as we've detailed, the FDA doesn't consider cost-effectiveness when reviewing drugs for approval. FDA advisory panels found that the drug did not extend patients' life spans compared to other treatments, and also increased the incidence of side effects and other complications.

Further, Throckmorton wrote that the FDA panel that voted 12-1 to restrict Avastin is made up of physicians and patient advocates; FDA spokesperson Erica Jefferson told him that “no political appointees were involved in the decision-making,” adding that “most of the reviewers have been with the agency close to 15 years.” Even the National Breast Cancer Coalition endorsed the FDA's action on Avastin.

Koprowski went on to falsely suggest that the FDA restricted use of the diabetes drug Avandia and withdrew painkillers Darvon and Darvocet from the market out of an effort to harm the profitability of their manufacturers. In fact, Avandia was restricted in the U.S., and suspended entirely in Europe, because it's believed that thousands of customers needlessly suffered a heart attack, stroke or heart failure, or died because of their use of the drug. As for Darvon and Darvocet, they were withdrawn because the drugs can cause potentially fatal heart arrythmia.

This is just the latest example of sloppy WND reporting on health care reform. Last week, a WND article falsely portrayed a since-withdrawn plan to compensate doctors through Medicare for end-of-life counseling of patients as “death panels.”