Socialized medicine: Do a law professors arguments make sense? No ! We’re already there

Home » DTC » Socialized medicine: Do a law professors arguments make sense? No ! We’re already there

Monday, July 13th, 2009

About the Author

Richard Meyer is a passionate Internet DTC marketer with over 15 years of progressive experience in consumer marketing who`s worked on top pharmaceutical brands like Cialis, Prozac and Sarafem, as well as two years with Medtronic Diabetes. He is currently consulting for his own company, Online Strategic Solutions, and writes a DTC column for PM 360 magazine and blogs for Eye for Pharma in addition to his own blog, World of DTC Marketing.

Blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds writing in the Washington Examiner:

The normal critique of socialized medicine is to point out that people have to wait a long time for . . . treatments in places like Britain. And that’s certainly a valid critique . .The key point, though, is that these treatments didn’t just come out of the blue. They were developed by drug companies and device makers who thought they had a good market for things that would make people feel better.

But under a national healthcare plan, the “market” will consist of whatever the bureaucrats are willing to buy. That means treatment for politically stylish diseases will get some money, but otherwise the main concern will be cost-control. More treatments, to bureaucrats, mean more costs . . . .

It’s ironic that the same Democrats who were pushing the medical prospects for stem-cell research during the last election are now pushing a program that will make such progress far less likely.

Excuse me Mr Reynolds but we are already there !

Let’s look at Mr Reynolds argument one at a time:

Claim: But under a national healthcare plan, the “market” will consist of whatever the bureaucrats are willing to buy.

Reality: Insurers today are the one who determines what the market will buy. The pressure is on to reduce costs and as thus less and less treatment options are being approved by insurers.

Claim: The key point, though, is that these treatments didn’t just come out of the blue. They were developed by drug companies and device makers who thought they had a good market for things that would make people feel better.

Reality: Products that drug companies feel have a good market (ROI) will continue to be developed while other products cannot be developed because the cost to bring drugs to market is increasing rapidly at a time when the drug industry has less money to invest in R&D.

Claim: That means treatment for politically stylish diseases will get some money, but otherwise the main concern will be cost-control. More treatments, to bureaucrats, mean more costs . . . .

Reality: We are already there Mr Reynolds ! Drug companies cannot afford to bring new drugs to the market that have little ROI or patient populations. How many statins are needed to treat cholesterol? How many acid reducers are needed to treat heartburn? What they are trying to control via costs are patient outcomes of branded products vs. generics and they are doing this by asking drug companies to prove that new products provide better outcomes than cheaper alternatives. Amgen is going to have a blockbuster with their osteoporosis treatment because they are doing head to head studies against other drugs. It’s not more treatments = more costs it’s prove to us that more treatments provide better health outcomes.