In a lengthy piece for the New York Times, Alex Berenson and Reed Abelson detail a fundamental flaw of the US health-care system - our misconception that newer is better and more is safer. A hundred years ago, the health field proved much more adept at preventing than treating. For example, researchers produced vaccines before finding antibiotics for infectious diseases. But over the past century, the exponential growth in technology led to profound and marvelous improvements in diagnosing and treating health problems
Especially, here in the US, the nexus of industry, public research, and the capitalist system produced unbelievable advances in our delivery of health care. We can see inside the body with high-tech imaging (CTs, MRIs, PET scans, etc.), treat complex diseases with simple pills (HIV, some cancers like CML, etc.), and perform deep surgeries with minimal invasion (laparoscopic and endovascular procedures).
But in adopting these advances, we've become prey to the fallacies of technology. As many who've used Windows Vista will attest - not everything newer works, or improves the former edition. This applies to medicine also. It's not necessarily true that every new technology improves on the former. Some of these new tools have no utility; others, in fact, may end up doing more harm than good.
Which all leads to the Berenson-Abelson piece on the ubiquitous use of the CT angiogram, a non-invasive way to look into a person's coronary arteries - the arteries which, when blocked, directly lead to heart attacks. Read the whole thing. It's remarkable for it's aggressive criticism on an industry favorite which has little literature supporting it's utility or expense, the fecklessness of the Medicare authorities in imposing quality controls or cost discipline, for opponents decrying the obvious abuse of trust in the medical field and, unsurprisingly, the staunch defense by proponents. Now, there are probably some proponents who really do believe in this technology, feel they are vanguards of a new paradigm, and so forth.
But, in the end, it's quite obvious to me that proponents are simply shills for themselves and for the manufacturers...not their patients.
Comments