This should be relevant (albeit tangentially) to thinking about genetic techniques in medicine and thus considerations for health care reform. For example, you might argue that we should spend less on health care and more on basic research -- a macroallocation decision.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Current Events (April/May)
Double the N.I.H. Budget - NYTimes.com
This should be relevant (albeit tangentially) to thinking about genetic techniques in medicine and thus considerations for health care reform. For example, you might argue that we should spend less on health care and more on basic research -- a macroallocation decision.
This should be relevant (albeit tangentially) to thinking about genetic techniques in medicine and thus considerations for health care reform. For example, you might argue that we should spend less on health care and more on basic research -- a macroallocation decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As a country we spend a enormous amount of money each year on medical research. What I found particularly interesting about the article was just how high that number or dollar amount is. 1 trillion dollars is being spent on medical programs like medicare and medicaide. This large amount of money is being spent on research to cure disease not just treat the disease. These programs despite the amount of money spent on them services million of Americans each year. Furthermore, if these programs have a cut in funding all of the members who reap benefits would suffer. I also found it alarming that most of the funding for new medical research or continued medical research comes from the government via grants. The decision to spend what amount of money on what research is process that at least in some part deals with bipartisan politics. Some conservatives are in opposition to helping low income and impoverished communities thrive, while the liberal side of things, at times may offer too much assistance. What the correct or right thing to do is a difficult decision that Im sure will be debated for years to come. I personally think that provisions should be put in place to ensure that the money being spent is going towards productive things eg. housing, medical expenses, furthering education. Recently changes have been made to determine who is elegible for these benefits, but I think further reform is still necessary.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I understand, from 1997-2003 the NIH budget was roughly doubled. This lead to increased research advancement as well as the building of new facilities, lab, etc. However, funding then dried up and these rapid advancements stagnated. I could easily see this happening again if the NIH budget is doubled. The important thing is to continue funding increases slightly each year after the budgeted is double. If this does not occur it becomes "feast and famine." They will thrive a few years after the "double" and then gradually that budget won't be enough to sustain the new research and facilities. Thus, gradual increases in budget must follow.
ReplyDeleteI think research (along with education) is crucial and should not be an area that continually sees budget cuts.
I feel as if the decision to double the budget would seem somewhat intuitive assuming you are one that values preventative medicine and medical advancement however if that is not true then this would seem wasteful. The one thing that I would say which I read in a separate article recently is how inefficient our research is. Meaning currently for given "x" disease there are "x" amount of research agencies all trying to solve the same problem. One proposed idea is to conjoin all major research agencies that research the same general topic and endorse that. The advantage if regulated well would be less overhead across the board because it would allow for a more streamlined research agency to combat the issues in which we face.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Newt Gingrich, that NIH funding needs to be increased. I believe that this is an issue that members of both parties should be able to get behind. There is no doubt that we need to see an increase, not decrease, in funding for research. When he discussed the fact that taxpayers are paying more than one trillion dollars annually for Medicare and Medicaid alone, the reality is that much of that money is going towards long-term management of diseases or treatment of diseases that, with more research funding, we could potentially find a cure for. Research funding needs to be viewed like an investment. If we pay more upfront for research, we can find more cures or more efficient, cost-effective treatments. When this happens, costs go down as we are no longer spending money year after year on long-term management of disease.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Alex's comment, I agree with you, but think that there may a better way to do it. The problem is if we pull all our resources for, lets say as an example finding a cure for HIV, into one place, I think there is a danger that we could end up hindering discovery. I agree that the way it is set up now is inefficient, and that more oversight is needed, but I think we would benefit from pulling resources into a very small handful of research facilities for finding a cure for HIV. Instead of one lab working on it, we would have maybe four labs. This will allow for competition and collaboration of different ideas, spurring creativity. If we look back through history, many of the great scientific achievements, like the discovery of DNA, were motivated by competition between a few select labs. We have to be careful about pulling all our resources for one cure into one place, but perhaps we could narrow it down to only a select few labs, helping to ensure funding is being used efficiently.
I agree with Paul, the amount of money we spend on medical research a year is enormous. I also agree that the research is being used for is not looking for a cure but just to treat them. I believe that if there was a cut in the programs like medicare and medicaide, there would be a huge issue because those that might have been assisted for a little while could be cut and not given the help they need. This would cause a huge uproar in the country. The budget being doubled immensely helped research by allowing them to advance in the research. Like Austin said the money used for the research then dried up and the advancements slowed. I on the other hand think another doubling in the funding could be a good thing, maybe they will be able to finish and find a cure for the diseases they started.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paul, the amount of money we spend on medical research a year is enormous. I also agree that the research is being used for is not looking for a cure but just to treat them. I believe that if there was a cut in the programs like medicare and medicaide, there would be a huge issue because those that might have been assisted for a little while could be cut and not given the help they need. This would cause a huge uproar in the country. The budget being doubled immensely helped research by allowing them to advance in the research. Like Austin said the money used for the research then dried up and the advancements slowed. I on the other hand think another doubling in the funding could be a good thing, maybe they will be able to finish and find a cure for the diseases they started.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paul, the amount of money we spend on medical research a year is enormous. I also agree that the research is being used for is not looking for a cure but just to treat them. I believe that if there was a cut in the programs like medicare and medicaide, there would be a huge issue because those that might have been assisted for a little while could be cut and not given the help they need. This would cause a huge uproar in the country. The budget being doubled immensely helped research by allowing them to advance in the research. Like Austin said the money used for the research then dried up and the advancements slowed. I on the other hand think another doubling in the funding could be a good thing, maybe they will be able to finish and find a cure for the diseases they started.
ReplyDelete