Socialized Medicine: A Sneak Preview

A standard feature of government-run health care is the dilatory adoption of new medicines and technologies. In Great Britain, for example, patients often have to go outside the NHS to access cutting edge treatments.

Sadly, as the NYT reports, the segment of American health care controlled by Washington suffers from the same bureaucratic inertia. The procedure discussed in the article is “catheter-based ablation,” which is used to treat atrial fibrillation.

Advocates of the procedure say it is less invasive than open-heart surgery — the only proven method for curing many patients — and in the long run more cost-effective than drugs, which generally offer temporary relief.

But many retired Americans are unable to benefit from this procedure because Medicare won’t pay for it. Why?

Federal regulators … have not approved as safe and effective any of the devices used. So hospitals and doctors are finding it difficult to be fully reimbursed for the procedure’s cost.

So, what’s the problem? Is this some dangerous experimental procedure? Nope. It’s just that the bureaucrats are behind the curve:

This is one of those areas where the practice of medicine has moved faster than the approval process,” said Daniel G. Schultz, head of the Center for Devices and Radiological Health at the Food and Drug Administration.

And who is hurt by the government’s glacial approval process? The patient. While the apparatchiks try to catch up, people will very likely die.

Government-run health care—coming to a hospital near you.

Comments 4

  1. Matt wrote:

    So are you for or against the government funding more healthcare? On the one hand, you say you don’t want it, on the other you say it’s bad that our system in the US doesn’t fund this procedure.

    If people have to go outside the NHS to get more cutting edge technology, why is that inherently bad?

    Posted 08 Jul 2007 at 1:05 am
  2. Catron wrote:

    You missed the point. Here’s what I’m saying:

    The government insists on taking control of the process and then proceeds to render it absurdly cumbersome and inefficient.

    The issue isn’t the funding. It’s the meddling.

    Posted 08 Jul 2007 at 8:17 am
  3. Matt wrote:

    So how do you want it to work?

    Posted 08 Jul 2007 at 12:41 pm
  4. Catron wrote:

    Same answer as I provided here.

    Posted 10 Jul 2007 at 9:02 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *