Cost Conscious

The University of Pennsylvania's Ezekiel Emanuel discusses the state of medical research funding in the US, with an ironic twist.

Full-text access for registered users only. Existing users login here.
New to GenomeWeb? Register here quickly for free access.

Just to set the record

Just to set the record straight.

The argument that NIH has not had a priority on cost-lowering, quality improving interventions is directly contradicted by the history of NIH support for the human genome project itself and all the subsequent spin-offs.

The AMAZING cost reductions for whole genome sequencing and the consequent impact on molecular diagnostics is huge. NIH involvement in these advances, which in many cases may ultimately reduce the cost of a proliferation of molecular tests to one single bill - ~$1,000 for a whole genome sequence, is clear and obvious. We would argue that these advances will do more to reduce health care costs and deliver great value to the general public than any other technological advances in non-NIH involved areas.

Emanuel is right on another thing though, we need champions across the board to advocate for the great value provided by medical research and to see that our health care system is able to refine the many incredible life-saving advances that have been developed over the last 20 years.

Emanuel is correct on both

Emanuel is correct on both fronts. The country is missing something that the NHS has had in place for years: NICE - National Institutes for Clinical Excellence.

I don't think that your argument regarding the human genome project is correct because the ROI has not yet been measured. Your argument is too qualitative. You need to explain in terms of QALY vs. investment dollars. For example, the human genome project and all this DNA sequencing, how has it increased QALY with respect to price of the diagnostics and all the investment up to that point.

Nevertheless, genome

Nevertheless, genome sequencing and the amazing cost reductions bear consideration in this argument - http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts/.

Emmanuel states "Focusing research on cost-lowering, quality-improving interventions has not been an NIH priority". My contention is that the huge advances in sequencing technologies contradicts Emmanuel's argument. The data shown above on genome.gov website fully supports my contention, regardless of whether ROI is considered. The NIH has clearly been involved in a huge and ongoing way in cost-lowering for a broadly clinically relevant technology. This is true. I think your objection is too dismissive despite your implicit acknowledgement of the underlying rationale for the sequencing argument.

ROI for this exercise will undoubtedly be generated at some point and I doubt the American public will consider the value of their investment in dollars only. Their view will certainly place a premium on years of life saved and other related metrics.

Somewhere I am agree with

Somewhere I am agree with what Emanuel said like if we need some advances in our healthcare system then we should have some champions of these fields because they might help us to refine incredible life saving things in our healthcare system.They can be good reviewer of the board to.

Money Site Lab Review