Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Ezra (Moment of the Mind) Klein:
That said, many are hoping that the State of the Union was the start, not the end, of Obama's renewed sales pitch. As I write, the president is in Tampa, making many of the same arguments, in much the same way, as he did last night. He sounds like he did on the campaign. He has more events scheduled in the next few weeks. It was a good beginning, say some on the Hill, but that's not enough.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/what_obama_did_and_didnt_say_o.html
Jonathan Cohn (giving it the " we just need to explain it more and better excuse")
Fortunately, Obama seems to grasp this too. He acknowledged, explicitly and with a sense of humor, his administration's failure to explain the plan--and noted that few people understand exactly what it would do. He also reminded people, in simple terms, of the reasons he took up the challenge. He talked about people suffering because they had no insurance or their insurance was inadequate--and he talked about the economic importance of controlling health care costs.
http://www.tnr.com/blogs/the-treatment
And my favorite from Senator Baucus
“We’re not going to put it down,” Baucus said. “We’re moving expeditiously. And expeditiously means quickly, solidly, thoughtfully.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/32191
Rosner's Domain: The why-Haiti-but-not-Gaza nonsense
While Israel is making an effort to save life in Haiti, the never-happy-with-Israel crowd is trying this new line of over-sophisticated counter-intuitive argument: Haiti is easy, but what about Gaza.
Here's Derfner saying: "the Haiti side of Israel that makes the Gaza side so inexpressibly tragic. And more and more, the Haiti part of the national character has been dwarfed by the Gaza part". Here's the Electronic Intifada criticizing the media for its positive spin of this humanitarian effort: "A few media outlets have pointed out the discrepancies in Zionist self-congratulation". And the estimable NYT showing very little understanding of Israel's true feelings by claiming that "Israelis have been watching with a range of emotions, as if the Haitian relief effort were a Rorschach test through which the nation examines itself. The left has complained that there is no reason to travel thousands of miles to help those in need - Gaza is an hour away".
"Range of emotions" meaning what? that 99% support the effort and 1% complaining about Gaza? That 99% feel proud about this humanitarian effort and 1% feel the need to politicize even the simplest act of compassion and demonstrate, yet again, that they've lost their collective minds?
Anyway. Since this the why-Haiti-but-not-Gaza nonsense is gaining traction, maybe some reminders are necessary. Here we go:
1. Because Haitians never bombed Israeli towns.
2. Because the government of Haiti never declared that it wanted Israel to be eliminated.
3. Because no Haitian suicide bomber was caught trying to reach an Israel bus stop of cafe.
4. Because while Gazans' suffering should not be belittled, I don't remember any report claiming that 100,000 Gazans are dead because of Israeli blockade. Not even the Goldstone report.
5. Because it's easier sending rescue workers and doctors in uniform into a place in which Israelis in uniform are well received.
6. Because no Israeli soldier is being kept hostage in Haiti, and there's no standing Haitian demand for the release of hundreds of terrorists from Israeli jails.
7. Because Haiti had no way of stopping the earth-quake and the government of Gaza can easily make life better for its people by changing course.
If you're smarter than a fifth grader, I'm sure you can add many more such points. If you're smarter than a fifth grader you know that sometimes being too-smart is being stupid.Christina Romer, a senior economic adviser to the president, predicted in October that the tax would encourage "both employers and employees to be more watchful health care consumers." But research released last week by Mercer, an employee benefits consulting firm, showed that in addition to considering lower-cost plans, two-thirds of companies polled said they would also raise health care costs for workers through higher co-pays and deductibles, regardless of whether the employee is a CEO or a line worker at a factory.
"America did too much of this and that's why their medical costs have grown," said Masaharu Nakajima, a surgeon and former director of the Health Bureau at the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare.
Since Japan enacted universal health insurance in the early 1960s, the emphasis has been on a minimum standard of care for all. People must pay a monthly health-insurance fee, and large companies pay also. Coverage decisions, doctors' pay, and other rules are set by the central government.
Japanese doctors complain that they have no time to spend with patients. The experience of seeing a doctor is summarized as "a three-hour wait for a three-minute visit."
"Healthcare is a great driver for the economy. It's the biggest employer, and medicine--not "health insurance"--is a product that people want to consume, sometimes desperately, ravenously. And not just Americans, but people around the world. So if that's not an economic engine, what is? Isn't that what we want?
But the argument has to be made. And alas, since, 98 percent of the discussion over healthcare has been over controlling costs--that is, shrinking the healthcare sector, perhaps provoking a recession in one of the few vibrant sectors of the economy--then it's little wonder that the country doesn't think of healthcare and medicine as an economic driver.
Serious Medicine Strategy has always been an economic strategy--now is the time to make that case."
seriousmedicinestrategy.blogspot.com/2010/01/democrats-slam-brakes-on-health-care.html
First, it is a movie that parents and kids (13 and up in my opinion) can and should see together. It demonstrates the power of love and the determination parents have, even under the most dire circumstances, to provide children with hope and happiness each moment of their life. It shows that you can go up against and use the system to make a difference and that the "system" will invest in that risk and reward it. However the movie shows that making a miracle involves going against the grain, which is why meaningful change or advances take time. And the movie does the best job of explaining the interesection of capital, science, passion and faith the constitutes the process of biomedical innovation. A thoughtful, impactful movie about biotech and drug development? Extraordinary Measures is that and more because it ties the process of innovation to the ultimate purpose and people who benefit.
Second, the movie itself is the culmination of a process that has created a family of relatives, friends, supporters around the Crowleys. I was fortunate to have attended a post-movie reception that Geeta Anand, the gifted and gracious author of The Cure held in NYC yesterday. The group that gathered (including the Crowleys) -- including people involved in the movie, Geeta's literary agent (and mine) Joelle Delbourgo, former associates, etc. shared not only in the success of her book but in the spirit the book, the movie and the release of both have created: A sense that while anything may not be possible, nothing great happens without passionate intensity, friendship and cooperation and support of those you love. Such is the recurring source of hope.
Seeing the movie and reading The Cure will allow you to share in that experience. Few movies have been made to convey such a message. You read more about Extraodinary Measures and The Cure at the link below.
http://www.thecurebook.com/
Prospective Health Consortium: Development and Assessment of Predictive Tools in Disease Prevention and Wellness Promotion
We are proud to support the launch of a consortium that would develop and evaluate a tool for health risk assessment and treatment selection based on predictive information relatively unique to that individual that can be used to reduce disease and promote wellness in medically underserved communities.
The idea of a consortium is based on discussions held in May at Brookings Institution at a meeting entitled “A Critical Path for Personalized Medicine”. That meeting -- chaired by Dr. Mark McClellan and Sir Michael Rawlins -- discussed ways to demonstrate how predictive or personalized medicine could be used to improve the quality of care and health outcomes. In particular, Ralph Snyderman MD, Chancellor Emeritus of Duke University Medical Center and CEO of Proventys, called for an evaluation of an tools bringing together the latest technologies to predict events and enable intervention before damage occurs. Combining personalized risk prediction and strategic health-care planning will facilitate what Snyderman calls ‘prospective health care’.
"Conservatives blame the sick for being sick, and they fault the poor for being poor. Health care reform must be compassionate, and it must be equitable."
Read more here.
Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.
