Thursday, May 31, 2012

UK Doctors Going On Strike

Business Week reports, "U.K. Doctors Vote for Strike for First Time Since 1975".

 From the article:
U.K. doctors will stage a partial strike on June 21, the first such step since the mid-1970s, after voting for action to resist proposed changes to their pensions, the British Medical Association said.
Perhaps these ungrateful UK physicians didn't get the memo from Stanford health economist Victor Fuchs declaring that "freeing" doctors from the burdens of private practice and turning them into government employees would be like "the emancipation of slaves".

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

I'm Glad He's Not My Brother

Dr. Milton Wolf discusses how Obama's talk of being "our brother's keeper" is just a pretext for more government control over our lives.

 From his latest video editorial, "'O, brother': Obama thinks he's your keeper":

Fatal on Repealing ObamaCare

Nathan Fatal, President of the New England Objectivist Society and a student at University of Massachusetts Amherst, recently posted the following paper: "Defend Individual Rights, Repeal ObamaCare".

He wrote this for a public policy class, and I'm honored that he chose to cite some of our work in his paper.

I very much like the fact that he connected a "hot button" political issue to more fundamental issues of individual rights and the proper role of government, with an emphasis on how problems in one's basic theory would lead to bad outcomes in practice.

For example:
If healthcare were truly a right, members of the medical field would by default be rendered the servants of those who have the “need” to obtain, but not the expertise to create, health insurance. In the event that there were not enough insurance providers, somebody somewhere would have to be forced to enter the medical field in order to be able to satisfy the right of his fellow citizens to a service which requires effort on somebody’s part. Failure on the part of the mystically inexhaustible supply of health insurance providers would thereby constitute a violation of the rights of all uninsured people.
And given the combination of the impending shortage of physicians as well as the dangerous notion of a "right" to health care, the next step may be some form of government-compelled "mandatory service" of physicians.

I'm also encouraged that at least some students feel free to openly express political views that might diverge from the stereotypical liberal "conventional wisdom".

(Read the full text of "Defend Individual Rights, Repeal ObamaCare".)

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Scherz and Fogoros on USPSTF

Dr. Hal Scherz of Docs4PatientCare has a new OpEd in the 5/28/2012, "A Bunch of Doctors from the Government Here To Help You".

He discusses the latest set of clinical recommendations from the government's U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) covering prostate cancer screening.

The money quote:
This is just the latest attempt by the USPSTF to limit effective screening methods for cancer. In 2010, they made recommendations to significantly curtail screening mammography for breast cancer in women. Now they are recommendations, but soon, when Obamacare is fully implemented, these will be policy, not suggestions, and will have the full force of law behind it. Other screening programs will soon be on the chopping block, like colonoscopy for colon cancer screening.
The reason behind this is simple. It is about money, power and control. On the UTPSTF web site, it states that over 1000 PSA tests were necessary to save a single life from prostate cancer.
Someone in Washington has decided what the value of a human life is, and what would be the acceptable cost associated with saving it. This is called “comparative effectiveness” and is what happens in a socialized healthcare system, like in England, where resources need to be allocated prudently, and healthcare is rationed. This is the essence of Obamacare -- a system where medical decisions have been taken away from patients and their doctors and transferred to bureaucrats in Washington.
Dr. Scherz also notes that President Obama had this PSA test within the past year.  So his doctors considered it appropriate.  But Obama's panel of experts don't want you to have the same level of medical care.

(Read the full text of "A Bunch of Doctors from the Government Here To Help You".)

Dr. Richard Fogoros also covers this issue in his essay, "Preventing Preventive Medicine".

He discusses the underlying methodology of USPSTF recommendations and how it will lead to "herd medicine". If the individual must be sacrificed for the good of the herd, so be it. Is this the kind of national medical system we want?

Meth War Fail

Remember how cracking down on legitimate Sudafed users was going to win the "War On Meth"?. Nope, me neither.

David Whelan: "Losing The War On Meth And Sudafed At The Same Time" (Forbes, 5/23/2012)

Friday, May 25, 2012

Quick Links: Stossel, Wolf, Pharma Cronyism

John Stossel: "Keeping Business Honest". (, 5/23/2012).

Lots of good stuff, including "I used to believe that licensing doctors and lawyers protected consumers, but now I realize that licensing is always an expensive restraint of trade. It certainly hasn't barred quacks and shysters."

Dr. Milton Wolf: "Our Time For Choosing" (DailyCaller video). And his related OpEd, "An all-American family feud".

Cronyism update: "GOP probe uncovers deal between Obama and drug cos" (Washington Examiner, 5/16/2012)

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Scherz and Armstrong: There Will Never Be Another Mayo Clinic

Dr. Hal Scherz and Dr. Richard Armstrong of Docs4PatientCare have a new piece in, "There Will Never Be Another Mayo Clinic".

New ObamaCare rules will essentially make it impossible for future doctors to create innovative organizations like the Mayo Clinic or Cleveland Clinic.

Here's an extended excerpt:
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) ends local-regional physician and patient control of medical decision making by shifting them to bureaucrats in Washington while fundamentally changing healthcare delivery models and reimbursement. Hospitals are the major beneficiaries of these changes- a requirement necessary for the American Hospital Association to support this law.
The law stipulates that physicians can no longer own hospitals. It also creates a new payment model for medical services which favors hospitals. The Accountable Care Organization (ACO), is an integrated healthcare delivery model devised to control costs by issuing a single payment for an episode of care for a patient. The ACO then divides the payment "fairly" among those involved in this episode. This payment model was unsuccessful in recent trials, but was so well supported by non-clinical health care planners who had the ear of the administration, that it was included in the law. Hospitals will typically be in charge of these ACO arrangements, because they already have the infrastructure required by the government for implementation.
In anticipation of this sea change, hospitals are engaged in a "feeding frenzy", buying up predominantly primary care practices, but specialty practices too. In many cities, hospitals compete for these practices, vying for control of as many patients as possible in a community. Once achieving "critical mass", with enough primary care practices, hospitals can approach a specialty group with a Mafia style "offer that they can't refuse". They make it clear to the specialty practice that the doctors who previously sent them patients are now controlled by them. They can either take the hospital’s offer for their practice or go out of business.
The end of private practice is imminent in an ACO world. Small practices will be unable to survive. What is not advertised is that in such a system, doctors become employees. Their allegiance is no longer to their patients, but to their boss, who is interested not in treating infections, or replacing hips, but in balance sheets, and return on investment.
(Read the full text of "There Will Never Be Another Mayo Clinic". )

President Obama has attempted to sell his health plan to voters on the grounds that it would provide Mayo Clinic health quality to all Americans.

However, the Mayo Clinic has opposed some major provisions of ObamaCare on the grounds it would impair their ability to provide good patient care.

Many doctors understand that the government cannot live up to its promises.  Let's hope enough voters will as well.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Catron: Catholic Institutions Revolt Against HHS

In the 5/23/2012 American Spectator, David Catron discusses how, "Catholic Institutions Revolt En Masse Against HHS Mandate".

He summarizes:
On Monday, 43 high-profile Catholic organizations, including the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. and the University of Notre Dame, filed suit against the Obama administration. In an open letter, the Archbishop of Washington summed up the collective position of the plaintiffs by explaining that the mandate "fundamentally redefines the nation's long-standing definition of religious ministry… HHS's conception of what constitutes the practice of religion is so narrow that even Mother Teresa would not have qualified."
As before, they are (properly) objecting to government mandates requiring them to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees.

I'm glad that the Catholic organizations are (belatedly) speaking up for their freedom.

However, David Harsanyi made the following related observation in his column, "Church of the Holy Contraception":
Perhaps the Catholic Church, which often seems to back economic "fairness" rather than market freedom, will be more sensitive to the intrusions of the state in economic choice. This episode exhibits how economic freedom is intricately tied to all other liberties. When the state creates virtual monopolies through regulatory regimes, it also gets to decide what is moral and necessary and compels everyone to act accordingly.
The Catholic organizations might not have had to file this recent lawsuit if they had previously taken a principled stance against ObamaCare before it became law.

Quick Links: Canada, Nanny State, MLR

Ontario government "slashes" fees paid to doctors, in order to save money.

(Because the government is the "single payer", the physicians basically have two choices: Like it or lump it.)

Nanny state update: "Utah High School Fined $15,000 for Selling Soda".

(But it's for the children, so it's ok.)

"Medical Loss Ratio" (MLR) mandates under ObamaCare are driving private insurance agents out of business.  (Via Brian Schwartz.)

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Hsieh PJM OpEd: Dr. Orwell Will See You Now

The 5/22/2012 edition of has published my latest OpEd, "Dr. Orwell Will See You Now".

I discuss the various forms of deceptive language ObamaCare advocates in and out of the government are now using to sugarcoat and obfuscate its true nature.

Terms like "affordable", "protection", "autonomy", "marketplace", and "coverage" all take on new meanings for ObamaCare supporters. They even have their own version of Orwell's famous "Slavery is Freedom".

Don't be fooled by their health care Newspeak!

See full text: "Dr. Orwell Will See You Now"

Monday, May 21, 2012

Quick Links: Privacy, Batteries, Innovation

Your medical privacy is not as secure as you might think.  (See the 5/11/2012 newsletter from Citizens' Council for Health Freedom has more details.)

Medical News Today reports, "Kids' ER Visits Due To Batteries Double".

As the OHPCenter notes, "Kudos to the Center for Injury Research and Policy for offering rational, rights-respecting recommendations to parents and electronics manufacturers regarding battery safety, and for *not* issuing a call for national safety regulation.

Grace-Marie Turner reports, "Innovation In The Health Care Sector Marches Forward".

Friday, May 18, 2012

Good News On Personal Genetic Testing

People can and do use their personal genetic data appropriately.

 From the 5/17/2012 NIH News, "NIH-led study finds genetic test results do not trigger increased use of health services":
People have increasing opportunities to participate in genetic testing that can indicate their range of risk for developing a disease. Receiving these results does not appreciably drive up or diminish test recipients' demand for potentially costly follow-up health services, according to a study performed by researchers at the National Institutes of Health and colleagues at other institutions.
(Read the full text.)

If people wish to pay to know their genomic data, they should be allowed to in order to help them manage their lives and their health better.

Related: "Should You Be Allowed to Know What’s in Your DNA?" (PJMedia, 7/15/2010)

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Reliability of Clinical Practice Guidelines?

I haven't read any more on this yet, but this abstract caught my eye: "A critical evaluation of oncology clinical practice guidelines", to be presented at the 2012 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO).

Summary: Researchers reviewed 168 clinical practice guidelines for treatment of 4 common cancers (breast, lung, colon, prostate).
None (i.e., 0) of them met IOM (Institute of Medicine) standards for reliability or trustworthiness.

 I'm just glad mandated use of practice guidelines isn't being imposed by ObamaCare. Oh, wait...

Wolf Unleashed

Dr. Milton Wolf begins a new video series at the Daily Caller.

Here's the first installment:

And feel free to check out his blog!

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Hsieh Forbes OpEd: Who Should Control Your Healthcare Spending?

The Forbes website has published my latest OpEd, "Just Who Should Control Your Healthcare Spending?" (5/15/2012)

The theme is that America needs market-based health reforms such as Health Savings Accounts which reduce costs while preserving quality medical care, not government-mandated "bundled payments" which will harm patients and literally set a price on human life.

Here is the opening:
What simple health care reform has reduced medical costs by up to 30%, while preserving quality of care? Hint: It's not government price controls or mandatory health insurance. Rather, it's letting patients decide how to spend their own health care dollars...
(Read the full text of "Just Who Should Control Your Healthcare Spending?")

I'm honored to appear on the Forbes website, and I'd like to thank readers who have shared this piece via Facebook, Twitter, blogging, e-mail, etc.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Quick Links: Scherz, Catron

A couple of good pieces that hit my news feeds today.

1) Hal Scherz, MD: "The War Against Doctors" (

Dr. Scherz notes:
At a time when it is trendy to invoke the term “war” against various groups, such as the contrived, GOP “war against women” or “war against seniors”, it may appear trite to say that there is a war against doctors; but there is. This has been going on for decades and cannot be blamed on President Obama or the Affordable Care Act (ACA), but sadly, both have facilitated an escalation of this war...
2) David Catron, "Obama's Contempt for the Voters" (American Spectator)

David Catron also pointed out something I missed from a few days ago.  Obama's latest campaign ad running in some swing states trumpets various "accomplishments" ("the resurgence of the U.S. auto industry, killing of Osama bin Laden, end of the Iraq War") but curiously does not mention ObamaCare.

This is all the more reason to keep health care on the front burner of public discussion, rather than distractions such as candidates' eating dogs or purported high school misbehaviour.

Heib: ObamaCare and the Road to Serfdom

Dr. Lee Heib of AAPS chats with John Stossel on "ObamaCare and the Road to Serfdom":

Monday, May 14, 2012

Roy: Will Buying Health Insurance Across State Lines Reduce Costs?

Avik Roy asks, "Will Buying Health Insurance Across State Lines Reduce Costs?"

Short answer: It should, but it may take time for a true national market to ramp up and costs to fall accordingly.

Hence, one should be careful about preliminary studies that purportedly show no decrease in costs when limited intrastate purchases are allowed.

Saturday, May 12, 2012

Objective Reporting from the LA Times

The Los Angeles Times lets you know that if you don't support ObamaCare, then you must want the US to be a backwards nation: "Global push to guarantee health coverage leaves U.S. behind".

Just a little objective reporting to help keep readers informed! (*cough* re-elect Obama *cough*)  

Update: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

Friday, May 11, 2012

LaFerrara: End Occupational Licensure

In the blog for The Objective Standard, Michael LaFerrara explains why, "It's Time to End Occupational Licensure".

From his post:
The statistics are astounding. According to Forbes’ Suzanne Hoppough, from 1960 to 2007 the percentage of U.S. workers belonging to a licensed profession rose from 4.5 percent to 28 percent. In all, writes Hoppough, occupations requiring a government license in at least one state—including dentists, plumbers, hairdressers, secretaries, librarians, wallpaper hangers, and florists—rose from 80 in 1980 to 1100 by 2008.
The economic cost is incalculable. Licensure restricts the supply of workers in the occupations affected, stifling innovation and entrepreneurship, suppressing competition, and driving up prices. And the violation of American’s rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are patent: We are forbidden to act or contract in accordance with our judgment, forbidden to pursue our happiness as we see fit, forbidden to earn a living in these areas unless we have permission, in the form of a license, from the state.
The professions being licensed often talk in terms of guaranteeing quality standards, but too often these are just thinly veiled pretexts to reduce competition.

The Institute for Justice has also just released a major policy paper on this topic, "License To Work" (downloadable PDF version).

They note: "[I]n the 1950s, only one in 20 U.S. workers needed government permission to pursue their chosen occupation. Today, it is closer to one in three."

Here's their associated video:

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Wolf: Desperately avoiding Obamanomics and Obamacare

Dr. Milton Wolf has a new OpEd in the 5/9/2012 Washington Times, "Desperately avoiding Obamanomics and Obamacare".

He notes that the Obama administration is working hard to distract voters from their economic failure and the pending failures of their health care plan:
So what’s a president to do when his stimulus has failed and his health care takeover is even worse? Avoid them at all costs. Talk about anything else. Student loans. Birth control. Hooded sweatshirts. Heck, even talk about eating dogs.Anything besides the two issues that define his presidency and threaten our republic.
It's Obamanomics and Obamacare, the intertwined strands of evil DNA, stupid.
I don't know whether the GOP and presumptive nominee Mitt Romney will wise up to these tactics.

But American voters can and should.

(Read the full text of "Desperately avoiding Obamanomics and Obamacare".)

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Scherz and Armstrong: Caution to Seniors About Obamacare

Dr. Hal Scherz and Dr. Richard Armstrong of Docs4PatientCare note, "Caution to Seniors About Obamacare -- Let The Buyer Beware".

In their 5/8/2012 piece, they warn that ObamaCare price controls will wreak a "medical tsunami" for older Americans.

There's a separate question (not addressed in their piece) as to whether the proper policy endpoint should be to "save" Medicare as Paul Ryan and many Republicans desire, or whether to move towards a fully-private system of health coverage for the elderly (which I favor). But the current Medicare system is unsustainable, and ObamaCare will make it more so.

(Read the full text of "Caution to Seniors About Obamacare -- Let The Buyer Beware".)

Quick Links: Georgia, FDA, Clogging MD Offices

The Georgia legislature has passed a bill ensuring that medical licensure "does not become contingent on participating in any government or private payer programs".  Go Georgia!

In contrast, see earlier blog post, "Linking Licensure to Mandatory Service". (Georgia link via Dr. Donald Palmisano.) 

Richard Ralston reminds us, "Your life not a priority for FDA" (Orange County Register, 5/4/2012)

Because new ObamaCare rules forbid patients with Flexible Savings Accounts for using that money on nonprescription drugs, many patients are clogging up doctors' offices asking for prescriptions for over-the-counter (OTC) medications:
The provision took effect in 2011, and physicians report that they now are being saddled with the task of writing otherwise unnecessary prescriptions for medications to fight the common cold, flu or allergies.
(Via @OHPCenter.)

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

New Massachusetts Price Controls and Bundled Payments

Avik Roy discusses Massachusetts' latest proposed health care price controls in his 5/6/2012 Forbes piece, "Massachusetts Moves Toward Health-Care Price Controls. Is America Next?"

The proposed measures include:
* Moving away from "fee for service" towards a system of "bundled payments", where hospitals and doctors receive a fixed fee for caring for a patient's medical problems
* Overt price controls, where the government can punish a hospital if it charges more than what the state considers "reasonable"
* A global cap on state medical spending, linked to the Gross State Product (state equivalent of GDP)
The "bundled payments" in particular will produce perverse incentives for doctors and hospitals.

If you're healthy young 25-year old who catches pneumonia, hospitals will love to treat you because the expected cost will be less than the "bundle" they receive, so they get to keep the difference.

On the other hand, if you are 60-year old with other conditions (e.g., diabetes or kidney trouble), some hospitals will do their best to avoid being stuck treating you. They may seek any semi-plausible excuse to transfer you to another facility. You'll become the undesirable "hot potato" patient that nobody wants.

Bundled payments thus create perverse incentives for doctors to not practice medicine and not take care of the sickest patients.

If the "bundle" for a life-saving heart surgery is, say, $40,000 then some hospitals or doctors may be reluctant to take you on as a patient if they think you'll cost them more than that. Socialized medicine advocates typically argue for government-run health care on the grounds that it "you can't put a price on human life". But bundled payments literally do put a price on what your life is worth.

(Read the full text of "Massachusetts Moves Toward Health-Care Price Controls. Is America Next?.)

Monday, May 7, 2012

Catron: White House Again Threatens SCOTUS on Obamacare

In the 5/7/2012 American Spectator, David Catron describes how the "White House Again Threatens SCOTUS on Obamacare".

Basically, Obama and his surrogates are hinting that Medicare checks might not go out if ObamaCare is overturned.

Catron notes:
By reiterating the preposterous claim that Medicare payments might be delayed if Obamacare is struck down, Berwick is participating in a predictable election year strategy that goes beyond meddling with the Court. The threat is also meant to frighten seniors.
Like the perennial Democrat claim that the GOP is secretly planning to destroy Social Security, this strategy seeks to exploit the insecurities of the elderly. Obama and his creatures want the nation's seniors to be so afraid of losing their retirement benefits and medical coverage that they will go to the polls and vote Democrat notwithstanding the President's pathetic record and the failure of his party's congressional leaders to produce a single piece of useful legislation since they returned to power in 2007.
But as Catron notes, "Ironically, it is the prospect that the Court might preserve Obamacare that should frighten seniors."

New cost-cutting bureaucracies established under ObamaCare such as the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) would establish de facto rationing.  Seniors should be more alarmed at ObamaCare being upheld, rather than it being struck down.

Let's hope Americans see through this latest ploy from the Obama administration.

(Read the full text of "White House Again Threatens SCOTUS on Obamacare".)

Quick Links: Atlas, Herzlinger, Fisher & Gross

Dr. Scott Atlas explains how, "Obamacare imperils America's women" by depriving them of choice.

Harvard health economist Regina Herzlinger, "Predicts ACOs, PCMHs Will Fail".

On the positive side, Dr. Kenneth Fisher and Dr. Lee Gross of D4PC explain the benefits of Health Savings Accounts and patient control of their own health spending in, "Prudence of a patient-centered approach" (Washington Times, 5/3/2012.)

(Note: Eventually, HSA's should be fully privatized without taxpayer support.  Any public funding should be only a transitional step towards a fully private system.)

Friday, May 4, 2012

Hsieh PJM OpEd: Government-Funded Medical Research Is Hazardous to Your Health

PJMedia has just posted my latest OpEd: "Government-Funded Medical Research Is Hazardous to Your Health".

My theme is that growing problems of sloppy science and ethical misconduct in medical research could be dangerous to American patients.

Furthermore, the combination of government-funded research and government-mandated practice guidelines based on that research will increasingly foist bad medical treatments onto unsuspecting patients.

For details, read the full text of "Government-Funded Medical Research Is Hazardous to Your Health".

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Linking Licensure to Mandatory Service

The 5/1/2012 New York Times reports that new lawyers in New York state must work 50 hours for free, on terms specified by the government in order to get their licenses to practice.

From the article:
Starting next year, New York will become the first state to require lawyers to perform unpaid work before being licensed to practice, the state’s chief judge announced on Tuesday, describing the rule as a way to help the growing number of people who cannot afford legal services.
The approximately 10,000 lawyers who apply to the New York State Bar each year will have to demonstrate that they have performed 50 hours of pro bono work to be admitted, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman said. He said the move was intended to provide about a half-million hours of badly needed legal services to those with urgent problems, like foreclosure and domestic violence.
The Freakonomics Blog asks a very natural question: "What would happen if newly minted doctors were similarly seconded into pro-bono work?"

Given the anticipated upcoming physician shortage, I would not be surprised to see similar proposals mandating physician service as a requirement of medical licensure.

It might take the form of mandatory pro bono work or mandatory acceptance of Medicare/Medicaid patients. Both Canada and the state of Massachusetts have proposed variations in the past, although they were never enacted into law.

Or to paraphrase the old saying: "First they came for the lawyers. But I wasn't a lawyer so I didn't speak out..."

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Quick Links: Employer Dumping, HSAs, Scherz

NCPA notes, "Job-Based Health Coverage to Become Even More Expensive under Affordable Care Act".

Basically, under ObamaCare there will be enormous incentives for employers to dump their workers onto government-run "exchanges" to purchase insurance.

John Goodman discusses HSAs in this 5/1/2012 Daily Caller piece, "Power To The Patient".  He discusses the RAND Corporation study showing how patients with HSAs save as much as 30% on their medical expenses without compromising quality of care or outcomes.

Dr. Hal Scherz of D4PC asks, "Is Medical Care A Right?" (, 5/1/2012) He notes that the proper role of the government is to get out of the way and allow patients to seek (and physicians to provide) medical care in a free market according to their best individual judgment and individual conscience. 

(Dr. Scherz frames it in terms of "responsibility", but I typically prefer to frame it in terms of freedom.)

Future Doctors in Canada and the US

The Canadian newspaper Globe and Mail warns that, "The professional-class bubble is bursting".

With respect to physicians in Canada they note:
But young doctors face the same squeeze as young lawyers. Like law school, medical school is so competitive that today’s students need advanced training and graduate degrees in order to get in. By the time they qualify as doctors, they’re well into their 30s, with $180,000 in debt.
And the expectations of medical students are also disconnected from reality. The trouble is that doctors have just one big client – government – whose ability and willingness to pay is shrinking fast. The booming consumer demand for medicine doesn’t necessarily translate into jobs. Even though hospitals need extra surgeons, they aren’t hiring them because they can’t afford to expand operating-room time.
Of all the general surgeons who finished medical school at the University of Toronto in the past two years, only 15 per cent have found work. The rest are pursuing further training, in hopes that something will eventually open up.
Things aren't quite this bad in the US. But as government directly or indirectly imposes further restrictions on how doctors can practice and what they can get paid, we'll see more bright young people decide not to become physicians.

As a current benchmark, Huffington Post reports that already, "Nearly Half Of Doctors Regret Going Into Medicine: Survey".

And if we keep discouraging the best young minds from becoming doctors, who will take care of you when you get sick in 10 years?

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Quick Links: Preparing, Death Panels, Moore's Law

Some useful references: "Preparing For Socialized Health Care". (Via @OHPCenter.)

Walter Russell Mead: "Are Death Panels Making A Comeback?"

Why is that, "Moore's Law Doesn't Apply to Health Care Technology"?

Three critical differences between the tech and health care sectors highlighted by Dr. J. Deane Waldman, Professor of Pediatrics, Pathology & Decision Science at the University of New Mexico.:
1) Regulatory oversight that is completely focussed on compliance. "It discourages risk-taking and innovation," Deane said.
2) Health care doesn't have the same financial reward system. Facebook isn't about to pay $1 billion for the latest hot-ticket item in imaging and informatics.
3) And, finally, Deane said, "Security always trumps information sharing, and so better, faster linkages are constrained because of security concerns, most of which are bogus."
Curious how that the increased government interference in the health care market reduces the degree of innovation.

(Related thoughts on Moore's Law in health care: "The Deadly Tax on Medical Innovation", PJMedia, 4/11/2010)