I agree that it's wasteful in the greater scheme, but I think that what attracts so much attention (and thus funding) to the organization in the first place is the very thing you're complaining about.

People like Make-A-Wish because it produces very tangible and emotionally impactful results. They see a video of a sick little boy getting to meet Spider-Man or whatever, and they're like, Jesus Christ, that's so powerful, their biological drive to care for children kicks in and they instantly relate to what's happening and appreciate where the organization's money is going.

On the other hand, how do you produce digestible, heart-tugging articles and videos about medical research, overdose prevention, or even food distribution? What's the gimmick there that's going to attract donations and sponsorships and celebrity tie-ins the same way "wish granting" does? I think it's a harder sell. It shouldn't be, but it is.

Also, isn't there sort of a relative-privation issue here? Like yeah, in a utilitarian sense it's an unquestionably poor use of money, but by the same token isn't it a poor use of money to spend millions of dollars fighting for same-sex marriage and trans bathroom access when there are hundreds of thousands of people dying of drought and famine in Africa? Humans can't always rank things like that, right?