And embedded below, watch the health care summit live from Washington (10AM to 4PM EST, Thursday, February 25):
These are promising inventions. I especially like the lung flute. It's an ingenious and inexpensive solution. Every year we see wonderful innovations like these. I don't know how much money they will save. I guess the market will decide that.
By the way, there's nothing "flawed" with our health care system. It's the best in the world in terms of innovations, life-saving and life-enhancing procedures, responsiveness, and patient outcomes (search for "Where U.S. Health Care Ranks Number One" to read a summary of the WHO report).
U.S. health care is also one of our strongest exports to the rest of the world. The only thing wrong with it is that costs are rising faster than inflation. That's largely the result of poor tax policy which favors using employer-sponsored health insurance which insulates consumers from the real costs of health care, and ham-fisted government regulations which prevent insurance companies from competing nationwide. Simply changing these two things would introduce more significant free market pressure (ie.; competition) which would naturally reduce health care costs, as well as increase access to health insurance for millions more Americans.
Also, the "bloat" you refer to in the system is a direct result of government regulations to protect consumers. I for one am not anxious for those regulations to be rescinded.
The major problems with the health care system in the U.S. (cost, access, and portability of health insurance) are not solvable by technology; they were created by the government and must be fixed by getting the government out of the way...except of course when it comes to consumer protection.
It's distressing to me that your looking at these technologies through such a political lens. I think your statement that the major problems within the US Healthcare system are particularly telling. You're right to an extent I think in that sadly, the debate and effort have gone into examining how care is delivered as opposed to developing technologies and cures - the science behind healthcare. As exciting as these new technologies are, seeing them and reading the above comment also make a tad sad. It's an indication of how far we in the US have gotten away from real innovation in the field of health.
The medical industry controls the prices on everything. The American Medical Association used to standardize fees for practicing physicians and raised the expectations so high that the practitioners now have no other choice but to follow their forefather's example. The practicing doctor has to account for his/her impossible debt accumulation somehow.
I do not believe in much these days and I certainly do not stand behind electronics that continually need upgrades and replacements to somehow lower any costs for health care. Why should we need a gadget that looks like a nintendo DS to do an in office ultrasound. Nine times out of ten the couple will want an in-depth reading with a picture at the end. Pointless!
One of the interesting comments above reference that health care costs would decrease if government gets out of the way
except for consumer protection.
Even that last part needs to be revisited. I work in a very regulated industry with tons of consumer protection. My experience is that every year we pass more and more laws to protect consumers without ever going back to see if these laws actually work to begin with or to correct them to adjust for the law of unintended consequences.
As a result after 50 years of regulations piled on top of each other with no wisdom or discernment my costs are way up and my efficiency is way down. In addition most of these regulations are poorly drafted with no real understanding of how things really work in the trenches. In addition there is no feedback process to review what regulations work or not or to modify them to make them more effective.
Lastly the destructive impact of our insane risk/liability environment is grossly underestimated and has become perverse.
So in my mind we can add these 2 items to the list of how to reduce our health care costs without diminishing its quality (despite what any trial lawyer would argue).
The advancement in health care has always been related to the technological advance. New discoveries will save a lot of money for health care in all fields but will also create more costly and advanced interventions for treating affections that are not curable today. But till then, we have to solve the problem of our health care system because it's eating away our money and nervous cells.
Jonah Clint | <a rel="follow" href="http://www.stopyouraddiction.com/">Drug addiction treatment</a> medic.
A question for you: If once we ration based on availability instead of income our survival rates for cancer and heart attacks drop to that of other systems like those in Europe and Canada (20% higher mortality for common cancers) will the deaths of those people constitute genocide? When we necessarily cut our medical research budget to secure every available dollar for handing out care will the thousands of medical innovations that aren't realized factor into the equation?
It's distressing to me that your looking at these technologies through such a political lens. I think your statement that the major problems within the US Healthcare system are particularly telling. You're right to an extent I think in that sadly, the debate and effort have gone into examining how care is delivered as opposed to developing technologies and cures - the science behind healthcare. http://www.checkcancersymptoms.com
EHR’s are the way of future, we just need to make sure that doctors follow the meaningful use guidelines. www.DrFirst.com has a lot of information on the meaningful use protocol.
It is technology and innovation like this, not government programs, that will lower the cost of health care and improve the lives of everybody.
Ben @ http://QuoteOnlineInsurance.com