Envisioning 2.0

A new study published in the British Medical Journal indicates that many US physicians regularly prescribe sugar pills or other drugs that are ineffective.  The study authors surveyed 673 physicians and found that while very few gave patients placebos, other prescribed aspirin and other medications not designed to specifically treat the condition patients were suffering from.

When asked whether this behavior is ethical Farr Curlin of the University of Chicago told Health Day News: “It’s a gray zone. It is not ethical to actively deceive patients. But when doctors give something which they think will help but don’t think it helpful to explain the full reasoning about why it will help, that’s a gray zone.”

This study must anger some of those tasked with measuring clinical outcomes.  After all, how can one be certain patients are being managed appropriately when it is not clear they are being provided with effective medications?

Personally, this study confirmed what I have always believed: placebos are big business.  I’m just waiting for the “Placebo Manufacturers of America” to convene a conference.

Source: Pharmalot

Today, I went to Joe Paduda’s Managed Care Matter’s looking for the latest edition of the Health Wonk Review (here). However, I was greeted by an excellent and highly relevant analysis of “Joe the Plumber’s” tax and health costs under Senators John McCain and Barack Obama’s respective plans. I won’t comment on his analysis, but leave it up to you to decide whether it is accurate. And, if you find a competing analysis (one that shows how McCain’s health plan will benefit Joe the Plumber) please let me know.

For the past seven days, much of the world has been riveted by the unfolding economic crisis and the efforts of government institutions to staunch the bleeding.  The New York Times reported yesterday that the United States and Britain are currently working on a joint response to the crisis.  The upshot: the countries are considering partly nationalizing banks in order to (hopefully) stabilize them.

Ever since the great debate over the $700 billion rescue plan passed by Congress recently, we have witnessed the socialization of free market economies across the world.  Citizens are watching in fear and apprehension as their governments attempt to save their bank deposits and retirement accounts.  Although many are conflicted by these activities, most agree that something must be done.  Interestingly, for conservatives in the US, government has suddenly become a force for good rather than a source of evil.

Given this, I thought that an e-mail I recently received from the Cato Institute about Barack Obama’s health plan seemed especially jarring.  The think tank will soon publish a new Briefing Paper, “Does Barack Obama Support Socialized Medicine?” Cato’s Michael Cannon answers that question with a resounding “yes.”

For many years, opponents of massive government intervention in the US health system have used the term “socialized medicine” to convince people that this strategy is a bad idea.  However, many people also believed that our financial institutions needed fewer regulations rather than more.  Now, it is abundantly clear that this philosophy has led to many unintended consequences.  Now people are calling for increased government intervention and more stringent regulation.

Now, what does this mean for healthcare?  Currently, the economic crisis is causing increasing numbers of Americans to forgo much-needed medical care.  In addition, with unemployment steadily increasing, many more people are going to be without health insurance. Given these trends, the term “socialized medicine” becomes a lot less scary. People – especially those with young children – will want access to health care, even if it is subsidized and more heavily regulated by the government.

As a communicator, I make it my business to understand when a message is either ineffective or beginning to ring false.  Arguing against single-payer health care because it will be akin to socialized medicine no longer works in the current environment.  Free marketers need to come up with some new rhetoric.