Study Raises Questions About Cost Savings From Preventive Care
Reform’s Backers Say Such Measures Will Help Pay for Overhaul of Health System
By Lori Montgomery
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Preventive services for the chronically ill may reduce health-care costs, but they are unlikely to generate the kind of fantastic savings that President Obama and other Democrats have said could help pay for an overhaul of the nation’s health system, according to a study being published Tuesday.
. . . The study comes a week before lawmakers are due back in Washington to continue the debate over Obama’s signature domestic initiative, a debate that has come to focus heavily on cost.
. . . The study was funded in part by the National Changing Diabetes Program, which is primarily funded by Novo Nordisk, a maker of diabetes medicines.
There’s a couple of things, interesting to me, going on here. The first, is a willingness to authenticate by comparison, the cost-benefit ratio of national health.
Certainly that might be important to a mother with a child suffering from early-onset LCA.
(Wikipedia) Leber Congenital Amaurosis damages the light receptors in the retina and usually begins affecting sight in early childhood, with worsening vision until complete blindness around the age of 30.
The study used a common cold virus to deliver a normal version of the gene called RPE65 directly into the eyes of affected patients. Remarkably all 3 patients aged 19, 22 and 25 responded well to the treatment and reported improved vision following the procedure. Due to the age of the patients and the degenerative nature of LCA the improvement of vision in gene therapy patients is encouraging for researchers. It is hoped that gene therapy may be even more effective in younger LCA patients who have experienced limited vision loss as well as in other blind or partially blind individuals.
- protecting those without an empowered advocacy
- catching up to the more enlightened single-payer systems that have left us behind, with a #1 cost and #37 effectiveness rating
- containing runaway costs that threaten our ability to provide other needed public services
- making sure children have a fair run at adult health, and
- taking bribery of our elected officials out of the equation
It’s just like being at the dog-track. The rabbit we are chasing is not real.