The blog editorial that I chose to critique is a post at Daily Kos by Barry C. This editorial focuses on an analysis of a Dateline report that Chris Hansen did of a DEA raid of Mexican marijuana grow operations on American soil. The post points out, however, that only speculation had connected the grow-op that Hansen was reporting to the Mexican cartels.
This editorial caught my eye because it's a cause that I am personally convicted about, and I think this editorial draws on some good arguments to end the War on Drugs, at least with respect to marijuana. These include the methods by which it's currently being undertaken as well as benefits to society that allowing legal consumption of marijuana provides.
The intended audience of this editorial is Chris Hansen himself. The majority of the post is formatted as a personal letter to Hansen to make known that while Barry C. respects his work, he feels that this particular report contributes to the country's glorified perception of the War on Drugs, and is thus damaging. In reality, however, I feel that this editorial is meant to push readers that are on the fence about the War on Drugs toward the side of ending it.
While he doesn't advertise any credibility as a journalist or a scholar, Barry C. does draw on personal experience to formulate the arguments in his article. I think that his foray into the history of prohibition is a little bit out of his depth. I don't imagine it's historically fair to state that one photograph of some dead mobsters was responsible for ending prohibition. I don't think that argument is dishonest, but it's certainly hyperbolic. Regardless, it accomplishes the task of pointing out that where the government forbids a product that consumers want, criminals will provide the product.
This editorial has two main arguments. First is that the War on Drugs has turned the DEA into a paramilitary organization operating with military tactics to tackle a law enforcement issue. He argues that this is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which is a Restoration-era law that forbids local or national government from using federal personnel to solve law enforcement problems. The reasoning of the argument goes that by recruiting ex-soldiers and providing them with military surveillance technology, the government is in effect violating the Posse Comitatus Act.
The second argument is that the War on Drugs has prevented people, such as Barry C., from using marijuana in a medical context, such as chronic pain relief. Barry C. provides the example that his body has become desensitized to the legal opiate painkillers he's been prescribed and that marijuana is the only thing that helps with the pain associated with his Post-Polio Syndrome.
Overall, I think this is a very well reasoned editorial. I think that it's true that marijuana law enforcement is not the responsibility of military personnel and that the DEA operating in this way represents a potentially great threat to our civil liberties. I have a bit of an issue with him using the term War on Drugs to refer specifically to marijuana. There are some important considerations to take with other, more harmful drugs.
I think that the case that he makes about current policy preventing Americans with the medical care they need is very compelling. Ethical issues about drug use aside, if someone has pain associated with a medical condition and a natural product can alleviate that pain, that's a no brainer. There are no side effects, no synthetic compounds, and no reason that someone in a situation like Barry C. shouldn't have access to marijuana if it helps him. The only thing standing in his way is reactionary politics and rhetoric.
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Cutting Health Care Costs- The Pay-for-Response Model
A March 6th piece in the New York Times by op-ed contributor Samuel Waksal proposes a very interesting way to eliminate waste in the health care industry and medical costs in this country.
Waksal says that while the United States spends $2.6 trillion per year on health care, the most in the world, we see no better medical outcomes than any other country. According to the Waksal, this has a lot to do with the fact in addition to paying high prices for effective treatments, individuals and insurers are also paying for drugs that aren't working. This is especially prevalent among cancer drugs, which have different effects on different people because every cancer is unique to the patient. For one patient, a treatment with a certain drug, even targeted for a very specific cancer might greatly reduce morbidity, while the same drug is utterly ineffective on another patient. But, both patients pay the same amount.
Under Waksal's pay-for-response model, the drug companies would only get paid if the drug was shown to be effective. The criteria for "effective" would have to be ironed out by the FDA, but the principle is that patients shouldn't be paying for drugs that might work, they should be paying for results. Waksal says that this would encourage drug companies to figure out the reasons why a certain drugs works on some people, but not others. As it stands now, drug companies expend a minimum effort but charge the maximum competitive price.
I personally think that this is a great idea. High drug prices are a major contributor to outrageous healthcare costs in this country, and the idea that a drug company would charge as much as they do for "cutting edge treatment" with an ambivalent guarantee that it works sometimes. If drug companies can show that a drug works in some proportion of patients and has limited adverse side-effects, they take it to market. This model would require drug companies to be more meticulous because if they recommend it to a patient and it doesn't work, that's money they've lost. Waksal is the founder and CEO of a Kadmon Corporation, a biotech company. As a business insider, I trust his assessment that this could benefit patients as well as drug developers.
As much as this is intended for a national audience, I think that this is also a piece intended for legislators. We're looking for a solution for the healthcare crisis. Many people, especially young people like me, are uninsured, and insurance premiums remain high because healthcare costs remain high. I think that this is the kind of thinking that's going to bring solutions.
Of course, the only way to put a model like this into place would involve government intervention into the marketplace, which will outrage free market loyalists. Plus, I don't imagine that drug companies will volunteer for this model because it cuts into their profit margins in the short term. However, I think in this case, government intervention to establish a mutually beneficial model, like the one Waksal, suggests might be well justified if it produces results.
Waksal says that while the United States spends $2.6 trillion per year on health care, the most in the world, we see no better medical outcomes than any other country. According to the Waksal, this has a lot to do with the fact in addition to paying high prices for effective treatments, individuals and insurers are also paying for drugs that aren't working. This is especially prevalent among cancer drugs, which have different effects on different people because every cancer is unique to the patient. For one patient, a treatment with a certain drug, even targeted for a very specific cancer might greatly reduce morbidity, while the same drug is utterly ineffective on another patient. But, both patients pay the same amount.
Under Waksal's pay-for-response model, the drug companies would only get paid if the drug was shown to be effective. The criteria for "effective" would have to be ironed out by the FDA, but the principle is that patients shouldn't be paying for drugs that might work, they should be paying for results. Waksal says that this would encourage drug companies to figure out the reasons why a certain drugs works on some people, but not others. As it stands now, drug companies expend a minimum effort but charge the maximum competitive price.
I personally think that this is a great idea. High drug prices are a major contributor to outrageous healthcare costs in this country, and the idea that a drug company would charge as much as they do for "cutting edge treatment" with an ambivalent guarantee that it works sometimes. If drug companies can show that a drug works in some proportion of patients and has limited adverse side-effects, they take it to market. This model would require drug companies to be more meticulous because if they recommend it to a patient and it doesn't work, that's money they've lost. Waksal is the founder and CEO of a Kadmon Corporation, a biotech company. As a business insider, I trust his assessment that this could benefit patients as well as drug developers.
As much as this is intended for a national audience, I think that this is also a piece intended for legislators. We're looking for a solution for the healthcare crisis. Many people, especially young people like me, are uninsured, and insurance premiums remain high because healthcare costs remain high. I think that this is the kind of thinking that's going to bring solutions.
Of course, the only way to put a model like this into place would involve government intervention into the marketplace, which will outrage free market loyalists. Plus, I don't imagine that drug companies will volunteer for this model because it cuts into their profit margins in the short term. However, I think in this case, government intervention to establish a mutually beneficial model, like the one Waksal, suggests might be well justified if it produces results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)