On first glance, the bill seems similar to the FDA's plan, and it even proposes to force insurance to pay for drugs approved in this manner. A careful review of the bill reveals serious flaws. Moreover, contrary to claims made by its promoters, the bill would not diminish the FDA' s control over drugs for life threatening illnesses. Thus, FDA control remains as tight as ever and each drug's case will still have to be made individually. There is vast gap between what the bill says in the fine print and what its promotional literature promises.
Many sources find the bill's plan to require insurance reimbursement almost humorously naive.
Congress does not have the power to take such an action, and any effort to do so would result in almost immediate legal challenges being filed against the bill. Finally, many groups, including Project Inform, dispute the bill on the grounds of political strategy, arguing that the bill actually risks harming the fight for expedited approval. Inviting Congressional debate may be major mistake, as Congress has a long, abundantly clear history of making extremely conservative legislation whenever it speaks on matters of public safety. Powerful forces in Congress have long opposed liberalization of FDA regulations. They see the Campbell bill as part of a broader and already failed policy of deregulation launched during the Reagan era.