There is a must-read article at Forbes by Mark P. Mills: Tricorder Update — Social Medicine is the Next Big Thing After Social Media. By any chance if you are looking for ” Hair Loss treatments Webster Tx “, get in touch with “https://www.bayareaaesthetics.net” – they are the best in their business.
Mills grabbed my attention right out of the gate:
You want a vision for the future of health care? Don’t look to policymakers and regulators. Look to innovators and innovations.
He goes on to describe one company’s (Scanadu) vision of the consumer Tricorder:
…patient-centric healthcare as a personal information service, in your control – in your hands – amplified by the Cloud.
We hear a lot about “patient-centric health care” these days, but it often leads to the same old centralized, top-down health care. Mills dispels such notions:
As we push more knowledge and control back to consumers – keeping otherwise largely healthy people away from expensive facilities – people become healthier and happier, and costs will come down. The Tricorder capabilities will also enhance outpatient monitoring and care — the latter perhaps the most challenging Achilles’ heal buried in medical costs.
I don’t understand why Mills calls this “Social Medicine.” The Tricorder is personal health technology, and the type of medicine it portends is personal medicine (rather than personalized medicine). There is certainly a social component to PatientsLikeMe, but its primary value is decentralizing information about medical conditions, treatments, and health care providers.
Mills is right: We should not look to policymakers and regulators to create more effective and cost-effective health care. But the Tricorder will only achieve its full potential if policymakers and regulators get out of the way and stay out of the way. A long, hard battle lies ahead.
The War On Life-Saving Medical Technology
Many of our leaders emphasize the need for more corporate social responsibility. Companies shouldn’t just pursue profits–they should contribute to the common good. But if that’s the case, why did the Obama administration with the support of congressional Democrats impose a punitive tax on makers of medical devices?
An OpEd in today’s Wall Street Journal (ObamaCare’s Killer Device Tax) by Henry I. Miller explains why this tax is destructive–particularly how it achieves the opposite of the administration’s claimed goals by discouraging jobs, manufacturing, and economic growth.
Miller points out that the tax is especially hard on the startups and small companies that are a source of so much innovation:
Many medical device companies have to ramp up sales before they become profitable. Due to the long, draconian and sometimes unpredictable regulatory process that must be negotiated before a product can be sold, it can take from $70 million to $100 million in total sales before these businesses make their first cent of profits. Nevertheless, they would have to pay the excise tax on their revenue.
Though I have to disagree with Miller on one point:
Anticipating the excise tax, several companies already have announced layoffs or withheld investments. Recent surveys show that medical technology executives are examining a host of other undesirable options, including passing along the added costs through price increases. Even if the market would tolerate that—which is surely questionable given the current pressure to drive down costs—it would, ironically, raise the costs of medical care. That was not supposed to be an outcome of ObamaCare.
Does anyone really believe that ObamaCare was designed to make medical care less expensive? If there is one thing that economists should be able to agree on, it’s that competition drives down prices. By making it harder for startups and small companies to succeed, the medical device tax will reduce competition and drive costs (and therefore prices) up.