To save you some time reading the report, this is because the quality-of-life results that they normally use to measure effectiveness weren't published in time. Their rating of the evidence is "promising but inconclusive".
2. What non-FDA approved treatments are typically covered?
2. Tonsillectomy, physiotherapy... are you really unable to come up with some examples of surgical procedures and other physical and mental therapies not based on drugs?
To be clear I am not blaming the school. If there are kids with deadly allergies towards everyday foods, yes, there will need to be strong precautionary measures, but it's insane that we consider this high prevalence of allergies as normal here in the US, despite strong evidence from other countries that this doesn't need to be the case.
With our son (born and raised in the US), we basically exposed him to common allergens from Day 1. We'd rub them against his lips or place a very small amount on his tongue, and so on. Occasionally put a small bit of peanut paste in his formula, a bit of shrimp once he was a bit older, and so on.
He's 7 now, and has so far exhibited no common allargies.
I’m sure early exposure to allergens help (and is AFAIK recommended practice now) but other things play a part - I’m sure I saw some research recently suggesting that one reason developed countries have higher allergy rates is due to lower prevalence of parasitic worm infections.
The natural world is complicated.
If you look at a list of current blockbuster drugs, you'll find that they are not primarily lifetime scripts. For instance, the second best-selling drug of 2015, Gilead's Harvoni, cures Hep C in a couple months. Most anti-cancer agents, which dominate the blockbuster lists, are not taken permanently.
Humira, AbbVie's arthritis med, has topped the charts for years, and is taken long-term, but it seems unlikely to me that if AbbVie or some other pharma found a way to permanently cure arthritis that they wouldn't sell the hell out of that product.
To counter your point the existence of short term (& high cost) drugs doesn’t contradict that research prioritizes medications that maximize profit not patient lifestyle.
But it's also not responsive to the original argument, which is that MBAs have directed researchers to discover only mitigations and not cures to disease --- that the industry is actively avoidant of curative discoveries. That's an extraordinary claim.
This is not "popular narrative", it's established economic reality for any good that can be either rented or sold.
Compare selling vs renting a software package. Once a market is saturated no more sales can be made and the seller's company will likely collapse. In contrast, a renter collects each year until the software is superceded (but can add improvements each year to postpone that) or no longer useful.
I once worked for a company that sold a software package for a one-time (large) purchase fee plus a trivial annual maintenance fee. The employees walked the halls puzzling "What happens when we sell our last package?". Answer: company saw the light and tried to change from a purchase model to a rental model. All customers revolted and some threatened to sue (for software support ad infinitum). The company collapsed. Luckily I was gone by then.
And yes, the MBAs are responsible largely: they do good b/c they can tell you what business model to use to achieve your goals. Few industries are more concerned about how to make money than the pharmaceutical industry:
But we also need corporations that are willing to develop true cures instead of "managements". Most MBA's aren't interested in that; maybe government can help by providing better incentives.
Of course someone could prioritize "management". That's not interesting. Interesting is the question whether they actually do, and you cannot argue that from first principles, philosophy-style. You need observations, news reportings, whatever. But facts, not "I could imagine...".
I don't think I have ever, not once, seen a media piece on allergies point out that eating isn't always required. That seems like a major failing in the reporting of allergies over the years.
The article and mention of handshake leave me with an entirely different impression of how careful I might need to be if I started in food preparation etc.
Funny story, 32 years later I'm still allergic to lots of stuff (food, plastics, heat), a couple of years ago I was so sick of it I forced my GP to have me tested. (It was forced because he was of the opinion that we knew I had allergies, so testing for a known outcome wouldn't tell us anything.)
He called me back asking why I was still alive... According to the results they found traces of a raging nut and peanut allergy (and other stuff some of which they didn't bother specifying further). So why am I still alive? I can't stand the smell nor taste of them, and they 'only' give me rashes and during accidental ingestion swollen lips/tongue...
From what I know it is common to not stand the smell and taste of what you are allergic to. When a child really refuse to eat something it can be an idea to get it tested for allergy, since it unconscious can be because of how their body react to it.
...but no, not in the common sense. :-)