>> It would force the governments to develop better and cheaper systems themselves to make sure that they can test for cheap.

>I doubt they could do that.

While I disagree with the OP's point in general, this is probably true in a way the OP didn't intend. When testing, each unit of thoroughness you add costs the same amount but catches fewer and fewer mistakes. You generally want to stop adding more tests when the cost of new tests (in drugs that are too expensive to develop) exceeds the cost of letting bad drugs through. The research I've seen shows that not only is the FDA well into the point of diminishing returns, its also probably into the realm of negative net returns on drug testing. Probably because there's a huge public outcry when a drug they approve ends up killing people, but no outcry when I drug that could save lives isn't developed due to too much testing. If anybody has more research on the topic, however, I'd be happy to see it.

I would stop brute force testing simply by putting a limit on it.

As far as I know there are some pretty standard procedures you have to go through. Surely it must be possible to somehow validate and verify whether someone is trying to take advantage.

You can't hinder some taking advantage of it, but you don't have to IMO.

>I doute they cool do that.

Of course they can, just like then can improve many other areas in public service.

>I agree its not very good right know but I don't know how to change it.

Well I for one think its more fair to accept some fraud to make it cheaper for everyone else if possible of course.