NYT is looking out for you.

"Experts say that most drugs, whatever the disease, work for only about half the people who take them. Not only is much of the nation's approximately $300 billion annual drug spending wasted, but countless patients are being exposed to unnecessary side effects."

How intriguing! A surprising quote from the NYT. They can't possibly be dissing the pharmaceutical industry, or leaning toward homeopathic/holistic care could they? ... Of course not.

Headline: Patient's DNA May Be Signal to Tailor Medication.

Oh, I get it. Sensationalist.

The first paragraph describes a woman who has been taking a drug for two years to prevent a recurrence of breast cancer. "Then a new test suggested that because of her genetic makeup, the drug was not doing her any good." She was "devastated" and stopped taking the drug while looking for alternative treatments. She is now in a "predicament" because newer alternatives are only available for post-menopausal women, and she is not one.

Woah. Okay, as you may have picked up from the opening of this post, I believe society is overmedicated. That said, this is craziness. This is a new (read: not that much reliable data) test, and it only suggested (read: could be right, could be wrong) that because of her "genetic makeup" (read: lots of societal and scientific misconceptions about what this really means) the drug wasn't doing her any good (read: not even psychosomatically, if you want to go there).

How did this woman get to this new test anyway? This information "devastated" her! It wasn't a necessary test, per se. Maybe some psychological screening, doc? She has survived breast cancer and was taking this drug. She didn't see signs of remission while taking it, but decided (on her own? help of her doc? help of her new doc with his new tests?) to stop taking the drug--she's not taking anything now since "newer" alternatives aren't available to her. (Did she look in to older alternatives?).

At this point you may be saying "wow, what a heartless bitch--criticizing a cancer survivor and her doctors!" I am not trying to do that. And I will admit that I do not have all the information (though I doubt the NYT does either). I'm not this woman's doctor and I didn't create this genetic test. Maybe it is a fantastic new tool, and maybe ceasing medication is the best course for this woman.

I was struck by (1) that NYT has written this article at all, and (2) the way it was written. .....

So the article goes on, discussing how inefficient "one-size-fits-all" medicine is, and how genetic testing paves the way for "personalized medicine," the wave of the future--20-30 years down the line. (And how different is the world going to be then?).

NYT tells us the villains of the story are pharmaceuticals, who don't want to see their drugs limited in use, and insurance companies who don't want to pay for these tests (read: this amazing new technology that will save your life!).

NYT then tells us about a "cautionary tale" of Herceptin, the "archetype of personalized medicine." Ten years after coming to market scientists are realizing "tests...could be inaccurate."
Oh.

However, this drug, and this woman's situation must be different:

If only women with [a certain gene] had been assessed, tamoxifen might have
worked as well or better than the newer drugs, according to researchers at the
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston.

Yep. The researchers further point out:

that 32 percent of the women with inactive 2D6 enzyme had relapsed or died
within two years.

Interesting--our patient that stopped taking the drug, presumably she does not have the active form of the gene that interacts with this drug.. Therefore, the drug wasn't working. The drug she was taking for 2 years without relapse.

The Times further admits there have been contradictory results in this type of test, and that there are variants of the gene, leading to even more complications.

Yes NYT, this untested, sensationalized, decades-down-the-line solution will solve the health care crisis and we will all live forever. Thanks for looking out for us.

Glaxo to stop political contributions

WSJ reports that Glaxo (a UK company) is to stop political contributions in an effort to achieve transparency and trustworthiness. In another article, CEO Andrew Whitty explains:

"We continue to believe that it is important for GSK to be engaged in policy debates and the political process," Witty said. "However, we need to ensure that there is no implication whatsoever that corporate political contributions provide us with any special privilege. We do not believe they have, and in the few countries we have given contributions we have done so in full compliance of the law."

Glaxo spent almost $600,000 in contributions this past year. The company stopped making political donations in the UK in 2001. Note that the voluntary employee-run PAC will still be functional. And of course individuals may still make donations. And lobbying efforts are still a go ($8.4M spent in 2007).

Glaxo has been on a buying spree in emerging markets.

The cynic in me asks: what's going on?

Romney in 2007 on Mass Health Care. Good glimpse at the free market mindset behind the "universal" plan in Mass.

Also, a nice Ah-Ha! moment--

Medicaid is a lousy insurance product. It's a product designed for the poor.

And this is why people are opposed to expanding medicare to universal coverage. Because what happens if we do? We get what the poor gets.

(And forget about those countries that have a mix of universal care and free market options--as far as we know that doesn't exist. How could it possibly?)

So we put in place free market products and help people buy 'em.

There you go.

Intelligence Squared....

NPR's Intelligence Squared debate asks "Should the Government be Responsible for Universal Care?"

Midway through listening right now... gra!

One excerpt: "The government can't even count votes!"
...wtf?
You're arguing for the free market using an example of what happens when government functions are privatized. And people laugh. This does not make sense.

Also, this debate is a good illustration of a problem with the health care debate: It's pitted as Socialized vs Free Market. It's a false dichotemy that keeps any real solution from occuring. Secondly, even the one guy that mentions the money lost due to administration and insurance companies doesn't say--hey, let's get rid of the insurance companies.