Side Effects of Nationalizing Healthcare
The short Q&A titled Where Evidence is King shows us what not to do with the American economy. The title is a bit misleading for although evidence for a sought after goal is of critical importance, ignoring other evidence is required by government regulatory policies.
Stephen Chan, an expert whose advice can enable the employment of new healthcare technology, reveals that efforts to contain healthcare costs have generated a new regulatory approach. Up to now proving that a device is safe and effective has been a manufacturing goal. Sounds reasonable. If a product is safe and effective the company takes its chances in the marketplace. There are no guarantees of success but if healthcare professionals and patients find a product to their linking then the company stands to gain. If not, well that's the risk of business.
But the government has decided to enter the healthcare business and is determined to limit costs. So what's wrong with that? Plenty. The goal of healthcare is effective treatment of patients. Millions of dollars are awarded through tort claims every year because someone or a group of individuals were perceived as failing to render proper healthcare. Anything less than optimal treatment, when optimal treatment is available, can place those responsible at risk of being sued. The government now wishes to abrogate the presumption of optimal treatment if it deems that treatment too costly. That's a major shift in ethical values that is flying under the radar.
But the emphasis on costs can also be very short sighted. It can save pennies today while costing dollars tomorow. For example, one of the most promising sectors of healthcare technology is known as Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS).
MEMS hold out great promise for the future treatment of maladies currently beyond our capacity to deal with. The development of MEMS comes at a cost which some bureaucrats may deem too excessive to recover. Jet engines were costly too. It comes with the territory. Breakthrough technology tends to be costly. It also tends to yield great long term benefits. MEMS technology is an American stronghold. We dominate the markets at this time. MEMS create real long term jobs, income and an export balance in our favor. Other biotechnology developments provide similar promise.
We are currently witnessing the largest expansion of government in our history. New requirements divert resources to those able to decipher new regulatory provisions and take advantage of how they impact the economy. Money that should go to R&D will go to expert regulatory consultants instead. This flows from the law of unintended consequences. Most Americans do not understand the fine print. But they do understand rising unemployment.
Stephen Chan, an expert whose advice can enable the employment of new healthcare technology, reveals that efforts to contain healthcare costs have generated a new regulatory approach. Up to now proving that a device is safe and effective has been a manufacturing goal. Sounds reasonable. If a product is safe and effective the company takes its chances in the marketplace. There are no guarantees of success but if healthcare professionals and patients find a product to their linking then the company stands to gain. If not, well that's the risk of business.
But the government has decided to enter the healthcare business and is determined to limit costs. So what's wrong with that? Plenty. The goal of healthcare is effective treatment of patients. Millions of dollars are awarded through tort claims every year because someone or a group of individuals were perceived as failing to render proper healthcare. Anything less than optimal treatment, when optimal treatment is available, can place those responsible at risk of being sued. The government now wishes to abrogate the presumption of optimal treatment if it deems that treatment too costly. That's a major shift in ethical values that is flying under the radar.
But the emphasis on costs can also be very short sighted. It can save pennies today while costing dollars tomorow. For example, one of the most promising sectors of healthcare technology is known as Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS).
MEMS are able to integrate systems by using miniature devices and micron size parts. Examples provided by Ken Gilleo include separators, injectors and micron sized motors as well as miniature gears, propellers, turbines, pumps, radiation sensors and mirrors. The miniaturized technology enables the integration of data derived from physical phenomenon as diverse as light, sound, motion, biochemistry and radio waves. Computation is centered on a single chip. The idea being a mimicking of our senses- sight, hearing, smell and touch. The chip is the "brain center" able to regulate input and output, respond to signals, exercise control and organize data. MEMS offers the possibility of exceeding current human sensory capabilities as well as providing for correction of missing functions.
MEMS hold out great promise for the future treatment of maladies currently beyond our capacity to deal with. The development of MEMS comes at a cost which some bureaucrats may deem too excessive to recover. Jet engines were costly too. It comes with the territory. Breakthrough technology tends to be costly. It also tends to yield great long term benefits. MEMS technology is an American stronghold. We dominate the markets at this time. MEMS create real long term jobs, income and an export balance in our favor. Other biotechnology developments provide similar promise.
We are currently witnessing the largest expansion of government in our history. New requirements divert resources to those able to decipher new regulatory provisions and take advantage of how they impact the economy. Money that should go to R&D will go to expert regulatory consultants instead. This flows from the law of unintended consequences. Most Americans do not understand the fine print. But they do understand rising unemployment.
Labels: Government Policies, Medical Technology
posted by Paul Williamson at
2:45 PM
0 Comments
