I'm not very well versed on Malthusian debates of population economics (that in general, richer populations have more children and less deaths which, given limited land resources and an increased labor supply, subsequently depresses wages to subsistence levels) nor retorts by Godwin or the empiric fact that since the 17th century, both population and wages have increased - it's fun in an academic economics sort of way - but it brings into view the general problems with overpopulation on medical care.
In an ironic twist, medical care simultaneously extends the lives of the overall population, but leaves them vulnerable to the ailments of geriatrics. For example, the long-term effects of diabetes, such as diabetic retinopathy (DR), have increased in incidence as we've kept people around longer with diabetes. We've been able to stave off deaths due to diabetes, but not eradicate the disease, hence, the larger societal prevalence of retinopathy.
(From Flickr user Dr. Martinelli)
Boyle et al, from the CDC and the Research Triangle Institute estimated in 2001 that there are about 11 million diabetics in the US now, but that the prevalence balloons to about 29 million people by 2050 using trends in population demographics and health patterns.
Current practice guidelines dictate that each newly diagnosed individual with type 2 diabetes (the vast majority of diabetic patients) have at least an annual dilated fundoscopy for evaluation of retinopathy. The availability of a highly efficacious and convenient therapy, scatter laser treatment, allows reversal of visual loss in these patients, and renders the screening to be quite worthwhile.
The problem, as with the Malthusian population argument with land, is the limited supply of ophthalmologists. Ophthalmology, like many other professional guilds, caps the number of participants to maintain a certain level of quality (and avoid the depression to subsistence level wages when demand equals supply). I can't find the total number of ophthalmologists in the US today (perhaps it's a secret of the guild), but I'll take the guess that it's not going to increase at the rate of DR...meaning that in 2050, there's going to be a whole lot of diabetics looking for an eye doc.
And therein comes the the Industrial Revolution answer equivalent - digital cameras. Namely, primary care physicians can adequately capture a fundal field for evaluation by the ophthalmologist using a retinal camera. A scattering of literature attests to the clinical effectiveness of non-ophthalmologists taking retinal pictures and the current guidelines even suggest that this may be a reasonable alternative to annual ophthalmology visits. So by 2050, even with the increased prevalence, it may be that the guild only sees those patients with disease while all the screening gets done at the primary care center, thereby allocating resources efficiently in the growing population - perhaps even using non-doctors for pretty serious stuff.
(of course, the nihilist would simply argue that reducing this problem will only increase the prevalence of whatever eye disease comes after diabetic retinopathy...but...)
Comments