Today, I read through several news magazines to see if I could find more interesting debate fodder among medical practitioners and scientists. I came across two particularly relevant stories. One, in the
Economist, focused on how a new possible cure for MS could upend the market for ultra-expensive MS drug treatments. The other, in
The Atlantic, focused on how the health of Latino immigrants tended to disintegrate within the first five years of assimilation into the United States.
- First, an article in the Economist highlighted how pharmaceutical companies milked exorbitant fees for difficult-to-replicate treatments. The new MS treatment, designed by Richard Burt, could completely obliterate the need for drugs costing $50,000-$60,000 a year that patients currently take for decades. Drug companiess such as Acorda Pharmaceuticals have justified these prices by claiming that the risk of researching and developing novel drugs required large rewards or investors. Otherwise, the story goes, diminished investment in medical research would slow the rate at which medical innovation occurs. On the other hand, these ridiculous prices often make life-saving treatments unaffordable for many and increase health insurance premiums for millions more.
- In the Economist's story, Dr. Burt is the hero who realizes that the loss of immune function in patients undergoing chemotherapy could be utilized to halt the progression of MS and other autoimmune disorders. Beyond just helping patients, he is the David who takes on the pharmaceutical Goliath, and prevents them from charging devastating fees for inferior products. When reading the article, I couldn't help but like him. He helps those is need and is doing it in a cost-effective manner.
- In contrast, it's hard to see the pharmaceuticals as anything besides antagonists. Yes, they promote R&D that ultimately provides the medications that help millions. But they do so in the name of corporate greed, and they often charge exorbitant sums along the way. You can't help but hate Acorda, who created a drug (Ampyra) which is more expensive and possibly less effective than the treatment Dr. Burt created. The name Ampyra brings to mind thousands of patients with MS who had a treatment available that they couldn't afford.
- Secondly, an article in The Atlantic claimed that Mexican immigrants' health decline during their first five years in the United states. Their obesity rates jump from 16% to 22%, their risk of diabetes rises by nearly 10%, and rates of high blood pressure spike. Some researchers, like Robert Hummer, believe this may be because the immigrants assimilate into American culture and develop unhealthy lifestyle habits. Other researchers, however, argue that this theory is unfounded and lacks evidence.
- The most sympathetic characters in this story are the Latino immigrants. While the academics argue about whether the negatives outcomes are due to American cultural influence or not, these immigrants bear the burden of increased healthcare costs in a new environment. The U.S. healthcare system is not easy to navigate, and it's hard not to feel sorry for someone having to go through that process within the first five years of arriving in a new country.
- I felt that the proponents of the 'acculturation hypothesis' were the least sympathetic characters in the post. Whether American society at large was to blame for Latino immigrants' health regression seemed like an argument disconnected with reality. We cannot really fix societal influence in a meaningful way quickly. Thus, to try and point the finger at such large establishments seems irrelevant. In the process of doing this, these academics seem to miss the main point: that there is an epidemic of declining health standards among new immigrants that needs to be addressed. The blame game doesn't solve this crisis.
No comments:
Post a Comment