FDA Policy Worsens Homelessness by Limiting Access to Antipsychotics
Clozapine is the only drug approved for treatment-resistant schizophrenia. So why does the FDA make it so hard to prescribe?

Homelessness, sadly, is a pervasive problem that persists even in developed countries like the U.S. Two experts say a policy enforced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is making it worse.
Jeffrey Singer, a physician and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, and Josh Bloom, director of chemical and pharmaceutical science at the American Council on Science and Health, wrote an article this week about the Risk Evaluation and Management Strategies (REMS) program, which the FDA can enforce "for certain medications with serious safety concerns to help ensure the benefits of the medication outweigh its risks."
REMS, write Singer and Bloom, "has been largely responsible for the underprescription and underuse of clozapine, the only FDA-approved drug for treatment-resistant schizophrenia, the most severe form of the disorder." The FDA approved clozapine for use in 1989.
There are many reasons a person could find themselves homeless, but severe mental illness is a major contributor. Last month, Esquire ran a first-person account of Patrick Fealey, an award-winning journalist who found himself unable to hold a job after he was diagnosed with Bipolar I disorder in 1997; after struggling for years, he became homeless in October 2023. While admitting that his particular cocktail of drugs is not ideal and negatively affects other parts of his body, Fealey writes that it also "enables me to function and has kept me alive for twenty-seven years."
A 2019 meta analysis of 31 studies, encompassing nearly 52,000 homeless people in both developed and developing countries, found that more than 10 percent had schizophrenia or related disorders.
"While ensuring drug safety is essential," Singer and Bloom write, "the REMS program has unintentionally created barriers that disproportionately affect individuals with severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia, further compounding the significant challenges they already face, including unemployment, substance abuse, heightened suicide risk and homelessness."
Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by delusions and hallucinations. It is primarily treated with antipsychotic medications like haloperidol, fluphenazine, and chlorpromazine. But these "typical" antipsychotics also carry the risk of side effects, like tremors or involuntary muscle movements.
Clozapine, an "atypical" antipsychotic, "is sometimes prescribed when people do not respond adequately to other antipsychotic medications. However, it may cause additional side effects, such as kidney or bladder problems," according to New York University's Langone Health. "For this reason, the doctor conducts frequent blood testing to monitor health and prevent serious complications."
Singer and Bloom acknowledge that the FDA added clozapine to the REMS program in 2015 "because of a rare side effect (less than 3 percent frequency) called agranulocytosis, a reversible but life-threatening drop in the white blood cell count." But, they note, "the risk of agranulocytosis drops sharply within months of beginning treatment while the risk of untreated patients falling through the cracks, unable or unwilling to go for weekly REMS-mandated blood tests, is considerable. Furthermore, research shows that, within a year, the risk of blood abnormalities caused by clozapine is similar to that of other antipsychotic drugs for which no weekly blood tests are required."
And yet for those who take clozapine, REMS requires "weekly blood tests for the first 6 months" on the drug, testing "every 2 weeks for the next 6 months" if tests are normal, and "monthly after the first year" if results remain normal, for the rest of the patient's life or until they stop taking the drug.
"These requirements, burdensome even for healthy people, have discouraged doctors from prescribing, pharmacies from dispensing and patients from obtaining clozapine" write Singer and Bloom. "With an estimated 30 percent of schizophrenic patients not responding to first-line antipsychotic drugs, it is a travesty that clozapine is only prescribed to 4 percent of schizophrenic patients in the U.S."
Singer and Bloom say the REMS clozapine rules are not just unnecessary but redundant: "After the FDA approves a drug for marketing, it requires drug makers to monitor it for unforeseen long-term risks," they write. "Furthermore, when doctors prescribe medications that may have serious side effects, they, too, monitor their patients—it's malpractice not to do so."
They're not alone: "Advocates…argue that the REMS are harmful for patients whose lives could be saved if the FDA made the REMS requirements less demanding and more similar to the evidence-based clozapine monitoring policies of countries like the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, New Zealand, and Romania," according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, a nonprofit that advocates on behalf of those with severe mental illness.
There may be a bright spot: In November, President-elect Donald Trump announced his intention to nominate Marty Makary, a surgeon and Johns Hopkins University professor, to become the new FDA commissioner. Makary's pick drew a mixed response from health officials based on his prior advocacy against COVID-19 lockdowns and vaccine mandates. But in a June 2020 Soho Forum debate, Makary took the position that lockdowns had saved countless lives, before noting, in September 2022, the "mental health crisis" and "lifelong learning loss" that the lockdowns caused among school-aged children. Rather than an antiscience zealot, this suggests Makary is open to changing his mind when presented with countervailing information.
"The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA)," the agency notes, "established FDA's authority to require Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) for prescription drug and biological products when it determines that such a strategy is necessary to ensure that the benefits of a drug outweigh the risks." Under a new commissioner, then, the agency should have the authority to relax the rules on clozapine and expand access to those on the margins of society who could benefit from it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Funny, I was told homelessness was because housing was expensive.
I thought it was climate change.
No. Tariffs on Canada are driving up housing costs. The sole reason for any cost increase is tariffs. We have zero trees in the US.
TAAAARRRRIIIIFFFFSSSS!!!
See. DLAM gets it.
But I will correct one thing. Jones act can also raise prices.
So tariffs and Jones act.
I thought it was because of Trump's tax cuts.
Why would a social phenomenon not have multiple contributing causes?
That plays a role.
The New York City Council just voted for a massive relaxation of zoning laws. That will increase the supply of housing.
Well this explains jeffsarcs latest turn to tantrum throwing.
Also, sometimes mentally ill people will refuse to take their meds. How crazy is that!?
Can't we just put them in mosquitos to try to force the drugs on everyone?
Not crazy at all. Even if doing so makes them seem more crazy.
"antiscience zealot"
If I had access to the archives, I'd be curious to search and find the first use of this term in the magazine and website. Same for just "antiscience" or "anti-science".
https://reason.com/1973/06/01/in-vivo/
This is the only article with zealot attached from the search.
Thank you.
"zealot" doesn't appear in the book review but the author's bio references an earlier article: "The NEW AntiScience Movement,"
Found it
https://reason.com/1973/01/01/the-new-anti-science-movement/
This is quite an entertaining read. The author cites Rand like a Bible verse, laments reduced government funding for science, extolls the virtues of air pollution and condemns secondhand smoke as "the real poison". Whines a bit about early-1970s crunchy libertarians too.
I just skimmed it. It always galls me when people tout "basic research" as the source of all progress. It's bullshit. Basic research takes a long long time to even affect applied science, and engineering is even farther down the road. People investigate and research what the need, and all that fundamental research will get done anyway, but when needed, not just for the enjoyment of a few eggheads arguing over string theory and gravity waves.
And space science? Elon Musk has advanced access to microgravity and trips to orbit, the moon, and Mars more than NASA ever will, and rural internet access more then the FCC's wildest wet dreams. Bezos is adding his bit. They could have done so much sooner had NASA not wheedled a monopoly out of Congress.
I meant this article, not the one linked. Couldn't find any with "antiscience zealot."
Rather than an antiscience zealot, this suggests Makary is open to changing his mind when presented with countervailing information.
Only leftists change their minds when given new information, especially if it's science based. That suggests that he's a leftist. Not good. Not good at all.
Lol. Still coping with how you were wrong every step of the fucking way on covid and those you hate the most were correct.
There was never new information. You were given the factual information and had it slowly and simply explained to you why the new science modeling was wrong. But your Trump hate made you fall for the lies and narratives.
We were giving you fucking scientific articles decades old for fucks sake.
You were wrong. Deal with it. You should be used to it by now.
The only things I've been "wrong" about are the things the voices in your head tell you that I think and believe. You spend all day and night arguing with those hallucinations, and call me a liar when I tell you they're wrong. Shit, in today's mourning lynx you argued against hallucinations of me at least a half a dozen times. If anyone needs to be on antipsychotics, it's you. Get help.
in today's mourning lynx
Interesting that you mention what's going on in that thread. You have no posts there as yet, but there are several defending you, by a guy named SQRSLY...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Poor sarc. Perpetual victim.
You've been wrong on literally every libertarian issue since 2016. Then again could be longer. Didn't pay attention to you much before your turn to being a Democrat due to Trump.
Censorship
Covid
Economics
Morality
Political lawfare
1.5B civil suits for libel/defamation
Rittenhouse
J6
BLM
Life in general
You're literally a statist at this point.
Your narrative is based upon hallucinations. Every day you argue against them, and when I tell you that’s not what I think or believe you call me a liar. I used to think you were just a mendacious troll. Now I see that you really believe what you say. Believing I’m a liar because I disagree with what the voices in your head tell you is clinical psychosis. Get help. Get on some meds. You’re fucking crazy.
A lot of the word “you “ in that post .
It's amusing that you keep trying this argument despite multiple examples of you lying about something you've said in the very same comment thread you've said it. It is why I and others started bookmarking.
Either you're too dumb to make an intelligent and cogent argument or you're a pathological liar. There is no other argument. Except maybe both.
You seem to think if you just deny reality often enough, you can change reality.
Again. Simply put. You've been on the wrong side of every libertarian position for a decade now. You've supported gross state abuses against your enemies. You claim facts change when you're shown to be wrong. You call those not fooled by state narratives conspiracy theorists for being right. You use emotional arguments over logic calling people Hitler, racist, xenophobic, and other slurs instead of making an argument. You're a leftist through and through.
You're a pathological lying idiotic shit weasel. Lol.
You'd get less grief if you just admitted you were wrong instead of continuing to double down, mocking j6 protestors and others abused by state, not supporting false leftist narrative, etc etc.
But you have this weird pride most alcoholics have where they refuse to admit they are ever wrong and of they are they are victims from people pointing it out.
“You're a pathological lying idiotic shit weasel.”
Because I disagree with what the voices in your head tell you I believe. You have thousands of cherry picked comments of mine that are all explained by long stories told by the voices in your head. Every day you make posts where you argue against those voices claiming it is me. And you attack me when I contradict them. That’s psychosis. You believe your imagination is real. That is not normal There is something wrong with you. You’re mentally ill. You need medication. Get help.
Mute his ass, sarc! That'll teach him.
He will never. He fantasizes about me being a tall well groomed government paid cop.
No. Because you're a pathologicalying leftist shit weasel. You literally lie about everything you've said. Even when given direct quotes from you you will lie. You will lie in the same thread for fucks sake lol.
Once again, no mention of how many homeless are simply too damned lazy to work for a living. I lived for several years across from a do-gooder church feeding the homeless, and I bet half or 2/3 at least were simply enjoying life on the taxpayer teat, fully conscious and capable of working, but they just didn't want to work for it and didn't have to.
I have no problem with people who don't want a car, fine suits, nice stereo and TV, all that expensive stuff. I do have a problem with government making that lifestyle impossible, what with all the requirements for allowable housing. Used to be rooming houses / flophouses for cheapskates who could at least earn enough to pay for it without needing a college degree. Now the living quarters themselves are illegal and so are the low-paying jobs which could afford them.
Government. It's always government. Stop pretending government can fix anything. The last thing any government bureaucrat wants is to fix problems and put themselves out of work.
Would you hire one of the mentally ill homeless? Most are unemployable.
The US faces serious issues regarding the homeless and the mentally ill.
I recommend HUD build housing for the mentally ill in Martha's Vineyard, San Francisco, Beverly Hills, the Hamptons and Malibu.
I'm sure all the denizens there would welcome these less fortunate people with open arms, an open mind as well as an open wallet since they're all so tolerant, accepting and understanding.
We have them in NYC. They work. But they are expensive. They require tax money.
Homelessness, sadly, is a pervasive problem that persists even in developed countries like the U.S.
Even in developed countries? EVEN? Even in glittering cities like New York, Seattle and San Francisco, will you find the occasional homeless person!
No matter how much they pay them to "make their lives better" there are never fewer of them.
I travel a lot. Fewer homeless people living on the streets in NYC than in any other US city I hsve visited in the past decade.
However, fewer still in Mexico City.
What about a libertarian zealot who immediately rubber-stamped everything safe and effective? Even if everyone knew s/he was lying, who would have standing to sue to make policy more restrictive? After all, who could be said to have suffered material damages by being allowed to do what they wanted?
"when doctors prescribe medications that may have serious side effects, they, too, monitor their patients—it's malpractice not to do so"
It isn't malpractice when the patient doesn't come back for an appointment. And clinics in much of the US are so overbooked that it takes months to get an appointment. That doesn't work when you need more frequent monitoring
Doctors do not control their schedules.
I go with them as you miss the main problems"
https://rlo.acton.org/archives/125793-why-i-slept-on-the-streets-for-a-year.html
IT isn't a drug vs no-drug case. And thought FDA and friends are very suspect I don't think Reason is at all impartial on this issue. I remember the Libertarian push in the late 60's to put this folks out on the streets in the first place. That did it for me.