Ellen and I have been friends for 15 years, and while we don't always agree on issues or candidates, but we agree on this--a cure is better than care. It's cheaper to beat than to treat.
As she writes: My friend and colleague, James (Jim) Pinkerton, has an idea (and a blog) called Serious Medicine. I have written about it in this column before. Basically, the idea is to cut down on the costs of health care by tackling the biggest diseases we confront, and to do a Manhattan project for the top five major diseases. Jim points out The March of Dimes and how it was instrumental in curing polio. He suggests a similar project for our top diseases of Alzheimer’s, heart disease and cancer.
If we could make a dent in those diseases, the costs of health care would greatly decrease.
What if we use Jim’s ideas concerning the brain? How much does violence cost? How much do wars cost? How much do affairs from marriages cost? Family breakups? How many people exist who can’t think of the consequences of their actions, such as corrupt politicians and
The Wrap's Lucas Show reports that Warner Brothers has purchased the movie rights to Stephan Zlotescu's "True Skin,"based on a four-minute video posted online just a week ago. The video, now to be a film, is set in a "Blade Runner"-ish not-too-distant future. That is a world of extremes--great power, but also great squalor.
In particular, it shows a world of manufactured body parts, coupled with the advances in medical technology and therapy to to make all those parts work properly on a human body. Yet at least some of that technology seems only to be available on the black market; hence the film, at least the four minutes we have seen, is set in Bangkok.
Thus we see a sign in front of what seems likely to be a strip joint, declaring, "Seriously, not hiring naturals." As in, only the bodily enhanced need apply.
And at the risk of reading too much into just a snippet, the large point seems to be this: Be part of the body revolution, or be left behind. As the central character, in need of a total physical remake, says, "This trend is here to stay. I mean, let's face it... no one wants to be entirely organic. No one wants to get sick and old and die. My only choice was to enhance."
And so that's what he does--that's him, below, taking his face apart and getting a new one:
The idea of remanufacturing the human body is hemmed in by taboos--taboos against the desecration of the dead, taboos against creating another Frankenstein's monster that could run amok, taboos of personal fear and repulsion--and rightfully so. Science cannot, and should not, flourish if it is seen as anathema to cherished human values.
Yet at the same time, remaking the human body is also what modern medicine is about. After all, what are prosthetic devices if not remanufactures of a kind? And devices such as pacemakers? Or, for that matter, false teeth? Or even eyeglasses? Or, to take a more ambitious view of bodily remaking, any kind of surgery, or even vitamins. All of these interventions are remakings of a kind--and we should all be thankful for them.
The advance of technology will not stop. And so blanket governmental efforts to control healthcare research-- in the name of either moral restrictions or monetary limitations--are often destined to fail. Why? Because of the basic life force that animates all of us. Being healthy is a powerful human goal. And so people will find ways--perhaps only in semi-outlaw places such as Bangkok, but in places nevertheless--to use technology to better themselves and their health.
Once again, the challenge is to enable medical progress while also preserving ethical standards. The debate over stem cell research is an example; there is much opposition to the use of embryonic stem cells, but little or no opposition to the use of umbilical and pluripotent stem cells. Interestingly, the 2012 Republican Party Platform strongly endorses research on those non-embryonic stem cells.
Still, looking ahead, if law or government policy--including such issues as regulation, litigation, price controls, or simple lack of interest--comes down against medical progress, then, over time, such research will go overseas--or it will go rogue.
And such going rogue is the essence of the "cyberpunk" genre of science fiction--and "True Skin" is obviously in that tradition. In the cyberpunk world, going all the way back to William Gibson's Neuromancer in 1984, the driving idea is that techno-forces--most notably, the internet and digital technology--are tearing the old society apart, for better and for worse. In the cyberpunk vision, it's often too late to preserve the old order. And that won't be easy; as Gibson, author of Neuromancer, once put it, "The future is already here: It's just not evenly distributed."
But good fiction is not the same thing as good governance. So the rest of us, as a civilization, are going to have to figure out how to maintain decency and order while still accommodating technological wonderment. Because as we have seen, such techno-wonders will emerge somewhere, even if not here. And it would be a shame if we woke up one day and discovered that some other country had mastered fantastic new medical technology. (We might further note that such advances would have military, as well as economic conditions.)
Also, we might note that the sudden attention paid to "True Skin" is an interesting development; after all, as a genre, science fiction is generally seen as somewhat out of fashion. Half a century ago, sci-fi writers such as Isaac Asimov, Ray Bradbury, Arthur C. Clarke, and Robert Heinlein all seemed to be well within the mainstream of fiction, and a TV show such as "Star Trek" could run on network TV. But in the subsequent decades, sci-fi has been marginalized; the Sci-Fi channel, for example, changed its name to the more omnidirectional "Syfy."
To be sure, there was "science fiction," such as "Star Wars," but there was certainly no science in that movie. In truth, it was more of a fantasy film--a "Lord of the Rings" with lasers. It had plenty of imagination, to be sure, but it contained no speculations about the future. Indeed, it was set "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away"--so much for the future.
But while "True Skin" is fiction, the trendlines it points to are very real. And thus the question is how to advance them in an ethical manner. Science and its benefits--including medical benefits--ought to be the commonwealth of humanity.
Yet "True Skin" puts on notice: The future is coming, whether we are ready or not. So it's best to be ready. Because the dream of science-based physical and medical transcendence will never be denied, for as long as people are human--and probably after that, too.
Editor's note: Jeremy Shane is a veteran of the Bush 41 administration, where he worked at the Justice Department; since then, he has worked in the energy, healthcare, and education sectors.
“Cost” is a wonderful economic concept that supports making specific purchasing decisions. Should I buy “x” instead of “y”? What’s the most efficient use of scarce resources? Cost-comparisons work well in making well-defined choices about non-sensitive economic subjects.
However, cost is a difficult, even dubious, concept to base systemic judgments when matters of life and death are involved. That is, the “x” and the “y” of the mathematical equation now have names and faces, and souls. We can say with certainty that questions that involve life and death, flesh and blood, involve many more variables than just dollars and cents.
Yet for some reason, the reporters and commentators covering health issues seem to have reduced the politics of healthcare to the single variable of cost. That is, the quality of the healthcare system seems to be regarded as a constant, and so the variable to be debated, left against right, is cost. Debates over cost – whether about the desirability of greater bureaucratic management or greater use of market forces— do captivate health care experts and the reporters who cover them.
Yet at the same time, among ordinary Americans, the calculations are different. For the public as a whole, the perceived value of health care -- and good health -- is greater than the experts are willing to acknowledge. To ordinary folk, health is, well, a matter of life and death, and thus it should be substantially beyond the reach of bean-counters. So ordinary Americans rise up against cost-cutting efforts, public and private.
Meanwhile, the occasional public eruption aside, most experts still regard the health care system as a cost center. That is, as a monolith of money that needs to be pared down a little--or a lot. And so policy wonks focus on the problem of the “healthcare system” as one of cost, and proceed from there. Other measures of results are rarely part of the DC discussion.
How do we know this? We might consider, as a prime illustrative example, an October 4 Reuters article, headlined “Obama, Romney debate sheds little light on healthcare issues” critiquing the presidential candidates’ failure in the first debate to discuss health reform plans, specifically, how to save money. Here are some key lines from the piece:
Healthcare is a top issue in the Nov. 6 election. The U.S. healthcare system is the world's most expensive, with spiraling cost growth …
Let’s parse those words for a moment. A very broad, very complicated concept–health care–is a “top” issue. Yes, but “healthcare” means a lot of different things to people, depending on their situation. For many, health care may be mostly about the financial strain of increasing insurance costs. Yet for many others, the question of health care is foremost about getting well, if they are sick. Or dealing with pain and fear, if they are getting sicker.
For most Americans, health care is more existential than financial. There is health of aging parents; there is the health of newborns. There is treatment for lifelong disability; there is routine health care like an annual checkup. There is medical necessity in the face of life-threatening illness, a necessity that has a way of taking on greater import than cost considerations. After all, people don’t incur a $100,000 medical bill just because they can. They incur that cost in the hope that the expense will result in better health for themselves or a loved one. So there are a lot of different kinds of “health care” each implicating a different measure of concern over results, and many in which cost considerations hardly enter at all.
Not so for the Reuters reporter, and to many others writing about health care. For them, the measurement of the U.S. health system is cost, and cost alone. The issue of health outcomes is not mentioned in the article; indeed, one looks in vain for the word “cures,” or even “medicine.” It’s simply taken as a given that the health care system costs too much, with the only remaining question being how to make it cost less. The question of health care quality (whether people are cured or not) is subordinated to questions quantity (how much it costs). Subordinating health issues to cost issues might be fine with wonks, but it doesn’t sit well with ordinary people.
To illustrate this point, let’s consider how it would look if we applied the same approach to other issues of life and death, substituting other concerns for “health care.” For example, we could rewrite that same Reuters story, substituting “counter-terrorism” for health care, and it would look like this:
America’s terrorist tracking and killing system is a top issue in the Nov. 6th election. The U.S. terrorist tracking and killing system is the world’s most expensive, with spiraling cost growth …
its face, this would be an unacceptable argument to most people. Yes, America spends more on tracking and eliminating terrorists than any other nation, from spy satellites to software to special forces. And yet since there are relatively few terrorists in the world, from a strictly dollars-and-cents point of view, it would be easy to make the argument that we are spending too much. One could ask: what kind of a return on investment are we getting? The cost per terrorist tracked, never mind eliminated, must be millions of dollars, maybe more.
Even so, for the vast majority of Americans, the real issue in counter-terrorism is not the cost, it’s the result. That is, are we making America safer? Ordinary people ask, “Has there been a terrorist attack?” Without going through any of the green-eyeshade calculations, Americans intuit that our “terrorist tracking and killing system” is worth it compared to the loss of life and wealth and security that a major terrorist strike could wreak.
There is waste in our terrorist tracking programs, and perhaps we are spending too much, but the key metric to most Americans is safety, not cost. Convince folks that they are safe from terror, and then they will listen to arguments about economizing.
When life and death matters, life and death matter more.
Okay, one might argue, anti-terrorism is a red herring. No one wants another 9/11. Fair enough. So let’s try another example, taking the excerpt of that Reuters story, this time substituting the word “food” for health care:
America’s food system is a top issue in the Nov. 6th election. The U.S. food system is the world’s most expensive, with spiraling cost growth …
We all have to eat, right? Food, too, is a matter of life and death, though admittedly food is less spectral than terrorism. On a per capita basis, the U.S. spends more on food and water than any other country. Yet, once again, cost is hardly the top factor in evaluating the efficacy of agribusiness and food distribution. The key questions are around availability of food, access to more nutritional options, ensuring that poor families do not go hungry.
To the extent cost enters the equation, it is as a reflection of the larger economic situation, that the cost of food--a necessity--is more fixed than variations in family income, so in hard economic times, families have to cut back in other areas to afford food, or cut back on the food they can eat. Cost matters on an individual or family basis, but systemic cost is an irrelevant abstraction.
Indeed, arguably the most ominous food variable for Americans today is not the cost of food at all, but rather, the caloric load of what they eat. For tens of millions of overweight and obese Americans, the issue is, paradoxically, abundance. In a way, it could be said that high-cal food is too cheap. But of course, the issue can’t be put in such numeric terms. For just about everyone, food is a passion, and so controversies over diet and nutrition and lifestyle implicate larger questions of personal taste and desire. Bean counters take a back seat.
And so to speak of a food system in terms of its costs is nonsensical. Our food system includes some trends that lower cost making food cheaper, safer, tastier, and more accessible, and bad (making sugary foods more addictive and encouraging overeating). To speak of “cost” in evaluating our food supply is intellectually sloppy and beside the point.
And so, we came back to that blobby bogeyman, the “healthcare system.” Even if we could say there is such a monolith, it would be silly to evaluate it by cost alone. For a 45-year old mom just leaving her radiologists office with devastating news, the legitimate cost of health care is infinity. For a healthy twenty-five year old going for a flu shot, there’s a much lower, commoditized price, for the services to be provided. Both are life-saving technologies, but both have widely different costs, at least for now.
Life and death issues defy cost, especially in complex systems. We would do ourselves, and future generations, a great service in declaring a moratorium for awhile on thinking about a complex life and death issue like health care in the context of “cost.” Instead, we should think of outcomes, including the outcomes that derive from better medicine--a possibility, as we saw, that was left out of the Reuters article. A cure for killer diseases would improve Americans’ quality of life and redirect resources from one kind of consumption (nursing care in the case of Alzheimer’s for example) to others.
Overall economic growth will do far more to define how much individuals spend on one kind of good or service than another, helping us afford more of what we want and need including effective counter-terrorism, healthy food, and, yes, better medicine leading to new cures. A central argument of Serious Medicine is that a cure is cheaper than care.
In health, the most fundamental metric of success will be quantifiable but still infinitely variable: How well do we extend and enrich life and minimize random or avoidable death? And, therefore, are our metrics of cost and benefit really measuring the right things?
If we get these questions right, the issue of cost will take care of itself.
Meanwhile, this billboard, below (above the "Boom") was seen in Times Square this weekend. So obviously there's a campaign on. Once again, it's wonderful to be eradicating diseases around the world, but why not apply the same logic to the US?
America is at its worst when our national debate stagnates over differences of degree, tactics and personalities. Most citizens would agree that we are currently in such a quagmire. But we are at our best when we focus on great purposes that transform society and transcend politics—uniting the nation and expanding settlement through the construction of a transcontinental railroad, defeating Nazism, and reaching new celestial heights through the Apollo program.
In a second term, President Obama should focus on a similar great purpose: championing cures for the destructive diseases—including dementia, cancer, diabetes and HIV/AIDS—that have tragically taken the lives of countless friends and neighbors.
Three elements essential for success are present. First, even with the scant resources we have devoted to cures, scientists have constructed some of the key building blocks for breakthroughs, such as the Harvard-Columbia work on the tau protein and its role in the development of Alzheimer's. Second, it is now very inexpensive to obtain vast amounts of working capital at historically low interest rates. Finally, public support for a "cures project" is exceptionally strong among people of all ideologies and backgrounds—independents, Democrats and Republicans.
The mechanics and specifics of how to raise, finance and allocate the funds for cures would need fleshing out. However, before we paralyze ourselves in disputes over the means, a re-elected President Obama should call us together to fulfill a compelling moral purpose, strengthen our lagging economy with a cascade of new industries, companies and jobs, and dramatically improve our fiscal position.
Mr. Andrews is a U.S. congressman from New Jersey.
Yet at the same time, a fuller awareness of the human experience could also inform policy, as well as the prose that spells it out. In his speech, Ryan spoke of a Congress in which the experts “take out the heavy books and the wall charts about Medicare.” And yet, Ryan continued, when he thinks of Medicare, “My thoughts go back to a house on Garfield Street in Janesville. My wonderful grandma, Janet, had Alzheimer’s and she moved in with mom and me. Though she felt lost at times, we did all the little things that made her feel loved.” It was a bittersweet snapshot of the same eldercare challenges experienced by millions of families across America. And since the rap on Ryan is that he is one of those who sees policy through numbers and charts, it was a helpful filling out of his own portrait.
Still, Ryan could have helped himself even more if he had gone further, describing how a Romney-Ryan administration might take bold action to actually combat Alzheimer’s, as opposed to simply finance its dreary ravages in a new way. This distinction is more than a debate over policy; it speaks to winning vision. A victorious presidential campaign must provide a genuine vision for the future--using its imagination. The issue of Alzheimer’s is an issue of imagination, just as the space race in the 60s was an issue of imagination. In our time, America is waiting for an effective plan for dealing with the fear that haunts every family in the country--the fear of a costly and painful decline stretched over decades.That is why Alzheimer’s is a winning issue, because it hits Americans where they live.
Of course, that doesn’t mean Medicare doesn’t need to be reformed. I am not at all unsympathetic to the concerns of deficit hawks in both political parties. As someone who worked for President Clinton and Vice President Gore on a project to shrink the government, I understand the importance of fiscal discipline. But cutting Medicare is a lot tougher than cutting midnight basketball programs from the juvenile delinquency section of the Justice Department.
So what is to be done? James Pinkerton, a veteran of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush’s administrations, has been thinking outside the box on health care for a few years now. His idea is to switch the paradigm: have the government focus on curing the diseases that cost so much to treat. Take Alzheimer’s, for example. “[I]f AD is handled the way we handle many other diseases—with an emphasis on paying for it, as opposed to curing it—then we face fiscal calamity, as well as medical calamity,” writes Pinkerton. His argument is compelling: imagine if, 70 years ago, the government had been obsessed with funding iron lungs for all the children expected to get polio, instead of funding the research on vaccinations that led Dr. Jonas Salk to find the cure.
Voters will support federal dollars to cure the diseases that cost us so much. What they will not support, after all this time, is a fundamental change to Medicare.
Seen on TV on Friday--a PSA for Alzheimers.gov. Nice to see some recognition by officialdom that Alzheimer's is important. Now it will be interesting to see if either party makes it a part of their platform this year, or if either national candidate takes it up on the campaign hustings.
Meanwhile, the Alzheimers.gov site seems rather unambitious, focusing on treatment, as opposed to cures. Nothing new there.
Just posted on FoxNews.com, including this discussion of healthcare in the context of the budget battles:
In addition, all attempts at projecting budget savings for programs such as health care suffer from a reversal of cause and effect.
If people are sick, such programs will be expensive, no matter what some Beltway bean-counter might decree. So therefore, self-declared budget experts would be better advised focusing on ways to cure sickness, because if people were healthier, budget savings would come automatically.
The Telegraphreports on the conclusion of Dr. Peter Piot, an early voice on AIDS, declaring that dementia stemming from Alzheimer's could be the "next global health time bomb." The 36 million sufferers in the world today will double by 2020.
This is not a finance issue. This is a science issue. Either we come up with an effective treatment for AD/dementia or we face a future of enormous costs and/or drastic measures to reduce those costs. And we do mean "drastic," in a way that could unhinge the idea of a safety net and a decent society.
The solution to AIDS was better treatment, which in many cases is the equivalent of a cure. That medical-science action has saved the US economy hundreds of billions, not to mention the compassionate benefits.