NHS
#151
Re: NHS
NHS among developed world's most efficient health systems, says study = Report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine finds health service second only to Ireland for cost-effectiveness
So a couple of years old....has it really changed that much in a little over a year?
So a couple of years old....has it really changed that much in a little over a year?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-...m-lack-of-care
#152
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 12,865
Re: NHS
Because that's worked out so well for healthcare in the US presumably.
#153
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,847
Re: NHS
Opening paragraph, and I quote...
“between 2005 and 2009, up to 1,200 patients died unnecessarily and many more were ‘failed by a system which ignored the warning signs and put corporate self-interest and cost control ahead of patients and their safety,’”
- 100,000 to 225,000 deaths per year due to going to the hospital or doctor in the USA - http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm
- 45,000 deaths per year due to not having insurance - http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/...58G6W520090917
And of course, the free market system simply won't develop the drugs / procedures needed by a group with a particular ailment/condition if that group is unable to pay and make it worth the while of the pharmas & others to develop it in the first place, whereas a system like the NHS has more spending power & strategic direction to make at least some of that happen some of the time...
I have to say the argument put forward in the New American is a big FAIL - again...
#154
Re: NHS
..... And of course, the free market system simply won't develop the drugs / procedures needed by a group with a particular ailment/condition if that group is unable to pay and make it worth the while of the pharmas & others to develop it in the first place, ......
#155
Re: NHS
There is a looming healthcare crisis coming - within a generation, antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria will be so prevalent that major surgery will no longer be feasible (eg hip replacement, heart surgery, transplants). People will once again be dying of infections like tonsillitis. Only a few pharma companies are researching the area. Because you only take antibiotics for a few days. The current business model wants to sell you drugs you take for the rest of your life.
It is left to the smaller, more niche companies and universities to pick up the scraps and try make a living from the drugs that are medically needed but not blockbusters. It is in this area that government funded healthcare systems can bring pressure to bear - with incentives and tax breaks etc.
#156
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,847
Re: NHS
If we assume that even one third of the US population has good, albeit expensive, medical insurance that will pay for more or less whatever their doctor prescribes (whether or not it is effective, but that's a whole other discussion), then that gives a population of 100 million to sell to. All the pharmaceutical companies need to do is get the FDA to approve a drug then advertise their new wonder drug on TV and turn their salesmen loose to push it on the medical profession. I don't see any basis for suggesting that the healthcare system in the US, deeply flawed though it is, isn't capable of generating new drugs to treat all manner of diseases, illnesses, and conditions.
... Would you stump up several $Bn on a bet, the outcome of which won't be known for a decade? Sure, you hedge your bets. But you can only do that so much...
Your argument works for the general case. Not necessarily (IMHO) for the specific case for a given medical condition that affects a small number (1million? 100,000?) of people, most of whom like the general population, are not loaded with cash... And perhaps a health insurance industry that ultimately doesn't want to pay for it...
#157
Re: NHS
....... Your argument works for the general case. Not necessarily (IMHO) for the specific case for a given medical condition that affects a small number (1million? 100,000?) of people, most of whom like the general population, are not loaded with cash... And perhaps a health insurance industry that ultimately doesn't want to pay for it...
The big pharma companies of today have for many years been swallowing small drug development companies with late-stage development drugs, which they can then get approved and take to market. This is a reasonably effective method of getting drugs developed; maybe a "benevolent dictator" model of centrally planned healthcare expenditure would work better, but generally government involvement in anything tends to lead to bureaucracy, inefficiency, poor oversight, and lack of accountability. For example: a development drug is not testing well, a for profit drug company will drop it and move on, or scale back to see if can still be developed successfully, but if the research team is publically funded they may be able to hold on for another year to keep their jobs.
#158
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,847
Re: NHS
Your argument appears to assume multiple points of failure, not all of which may be true, and I suggest none of which may be true.
The big pharma companies of today have for many years been swallowing small drug development companies with late-stage development drugs, which they can then get approved and take to market. This is a reasonably effective method of getting drugs developed; maybe a "benevolent dictator" model of centrally planned healthcare expenditure would work better, but generally government involvement in anything tends to lead to bureaucracy, inefficiency, poor oversight, and lack of accountability. For example: a development drug is not testing well, a for profit drug company will drop it and move on, or scale back to see if can still be developed successfully, but if the research team is publically funded they may be able to hold on for another year to keep their jobs.
The big pharma companies of today have for many years been swallowing small drug development companies with late-stage development drugs, which they can then get approved and take to market. This is a reasonably effective method of getting drugs developed; maybe a "benevolent dictator" model of centrally planned healthcare expenditure would work better, but generally government involvement in anything tends to lead to bureaucracy, inefficiency, poor oversight, and lack of accountability. For example: a development drug is not testing well, a for profit drug company will drop it and move on, or scale back to see if can still be developed successfully, but if the research team is publically funded they may be able to hold on for another year to keep their jobs.
My argument is that for a certain group of people with a certain medical condition, pharmas (medication) and hospitals (medical procedures) will not see a big enough, quick enough (i.e low enough risk) return on the presumably sizeable investment needed to develop an effective treatment - or at least one that people/providers will buy (not every pharma or treatment is effective - these companies are very competent at spinning their clinical research... Just look at how many times pharmas et al publish data that also includes significant data on failure/insufficient efficacy).
My view is that a combination of private investment, government investment & encouragement can give the best outcome for society as a whole.
Last edited by HarryTheSpider; Feb 13th 2013 at 1:11 pm.
#160
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 4,186
Re: NHS
Well, I was going to get cancer, but then I decided against it when I found out how expensive it was. Supply and demand, and all that.
#162
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 22,105
Re: NHS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20272912
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/he...tery-case.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ttle-life.html
#164
Bloody Yank
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 4,186
Re: NHS
My goal is to get several diseases at once, so that I can negotiate a volume discount. (Buy one pacemaker, get a free liver transplant and a set of steak knives.)