Regarding the questions posed for this week, it really depends on what technological advancement you're talking about -- and that's the problem. While new technology has indeed saved lives, some innovations may have simply introduced new costs without additional efficacy. (This doesn't even touch on the fact that certain technologies can reach the mainstream market before longitudinal studies can uncover hidden long-term effects).
All of this makes me wonder whether the US needs some sort of different research/testing paradigm for new medical advances; right now, it seems as though once something is proven to be merely as effective as its predecessor (and doesn't produce any immediate ill effects), it's adopted for mainstream use and coverage no matter the cost. Someone mentioned something in an earlier class period about how certain countries have centralized entities that research the outcomes of new medical treatments and technologies before they are put into widespread use, evaluating the effectiveness and the efficiency of adopting the innovation. Perhaps this is something the US needs to think about adopting, whether forming a new agency to do this or changing the FDA to look for more than just minimal safety and efficacy. However, this may not be very feasible without other changes to the way health care is provided in the US, so who knows.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Beth said it best when she titled her posting "It depends." It depends on what we consider new technology. It depends if we're waiting for the next treatment that we hope will save our lives. It depends if we're in a position looking out for the public good or to make a profit.
ReplyDeleteThere's always a risk involved with any decision to use, or not use, a new technology/treatment. I have always been a hesitant in conforming to new technology/information/treatment because of the the fear that the consequences will outweigh the benefits in the long-run. Maybe an advancement will improve long-term health outcomes just like the discovery of penicillin, but even penicillin has proven that it can be both a miracle and a detriment.
I don't deny that accepting new technologies can save millions of people just like penicillin but it seems that new technology is driven mostly by demand and profit. If what beth proposes takes place, a revamped, and perhaps centralized, research/testing paradigm may help ensure citizens the safety and efficacy of new technologies as the government will be less involved in profit-making and more in ensuring public safety.
I also liked this post on "it depends". We have not discussed the impact of new technology on the uninsured and the underserved. In my opinion, we may be able to improve outcomes if new technologies were provided to those who cant afford it. In the case of digital mammography, a new innovation through which a woman needs fewer biopies if she has an abnormal mammogram because the image can be enhanced. With analog mammography, a woman has to return for diagnostic work-up which takes time and is stressful. A woman who is poor uninsured, who may have transportation and other barriers (i.e. lack of childcare) this innovation can probably help her. Digital mammography machines have been costly and most facilities that work with the underserved have not been able to convert very fast. This means that underserved women for whom an innovation like this can make a huge difference in outcomes, are simply left out.
ReplyDelete