Featured Photos


Baseball Hall of Fame - 8/23/11

Featured Video


Avery's QuEST Project - It's Healthy!

House Construction


The Completed Home Renovation


Home Renovation - Complete!


Our House Construction Photoblog

RSS Feed


« | Main | »

A Quick Shot of Healthcare, Part 1 – When Progress Hurts

By Brian | August 10, 2009 | Share on Facebook

I’ve been watching the current healthcare debate with great interest, and have a lot of opinions on various aspects of the matter, but can’t seem to consolidate them all into a single blog post. Instead, I’m queuing up a list of “quick shots” – thoughts on particular aspects of the debate – which I hope will spur some discussion

Remember, when Barack Obama first took office, how he vastly expanded federal spending for stem cell research? As he did, he spoke inspirationally about the potential benefits from this kind of research – possible treatments or cures to everything from Alzheimer’s Disease to heart disease to neural/muscular disorders. There was even some talk about growing replacement organs in patients where the originals were failing.

Now that we’re talking about healthcare reform and ways to keep healthcare costs under control, it occurs to me – what happens if this stem cell research succeeds? To be sure, medical breakthroughs can sometimes reduce overall costs. I don’t know what the polio vaccine costs per patient, for instance, but I’m guessing it’s cheaper than the series of wheelchairs, braces, and physical therapy sessions that once guided a polio patient through many painful years until the disease overtook them.

But then there are diseases like cancer. Certain types of cancer used to be death sentences – if you contracted them, your life expectancy could be no more than a few months. Today, while there are still no cures, there are surgeries, preventative drugs and monitoring techniques that can remove the cancer, minimize the risk of recurrence, and catch it if it does come back early enough to effectively treat it again. Lacking the actual data, I can only imagine that the total cost of these treatments far outweighs the costs we used to pay for end-of-life care for these cancer patients.

So what of stem-cell research? Surely we’re all rooting for the kind of success that the President and others have boldly predicted. But what if the resulting therapies, drug treatments, or surgeries far outweigh the costs of treating these diseases today? And even if not, we should consider that people who don’t die from heart disease, ALS, or the like will live long enough to die of something else. So even if the cost of treatments were a wash, overall health care costs would still go up.

My point is this: the President’s recent claims that health care reform will be cost neutral seem like disturbingly short-term thinking. His own initiatives seem to be (rightly) shooting for new, innovative treatments that will likely increase the cost of healthcare, along with the benefits it provides.

It seems to me that our true goal isn’t cost control at all, but rather the reduction or elimination of inefficiency and fraud, so that we provide the highest possible benefit at the lowest possible cost. As the benefits increase (through technological advancement, for example) costs should go up, just not excessively.

I don’t hear anyone talking about this concept these days…

Topics: Political Rantings | 2 Comments »

2 Responses to “A Quick Shot of Healthcare, Part 1 – When Progress Hurts”

  1. Jeff Porten says at August 10th, 2009 at 10:56 pm :
    It seems to me that our true goal isn

  2. Brian says at August 11th, 2009 at 11:22 am :
    I’m fairly certain that there’s plenty of money in curing cancer, just as there’s plenty of money in treating it. Furthermore, I’m not sure the line is as bright as you’re implying that it is. Stem cell research, for instance, could just as easily provide treatment that keep a disease at bay rather than eliminate it…

    But my point is not what we spend the money on. My point is that, under certain circumstances, an increase in the cost of health care is a good thing, that is, when an increase in the benefits accompany it. Or, to use your words, “a society which promotes perfect health, long lifespans, and dropping dead quickly afterwards,” except that perfect health gets more perfect, and long lifespans get longer as time and technology marches on.

    What do you think will happen if such advances (in both care and costs) happen while the federal government is responsible for some percetage of the cost? Will we raise taxes? Increase deficits? Call the pharaceutical companies “greedy and incompetent” for making profits while the government is struggling to balance the budget? None of the above would be unprecedented with this administration…