Allies Voice: Britney, the subprime fallout and diabetes
ABC News NOW has asked what is the most important issue for our next presidential candidate? As a member of the "Allies Voice" community you may be interested in diabetes. Me, too. To attract the interests of everybody, with diabetes and without, I generalized my pitch in a form for all to relate. How does our next president plan to repair our "hurting economy"?
The economy is a reflection of millions of people trying to make rational decisions in an irrational world. This statement is bold but true. The business of diabetes is growing out of control. More drugs giving rise to more complications, giving rise to more drugs. I think you see the pattern here. How can we reverse the trend of something that is a vital player in the role of our economy? The government loves the taxes they collect from pharmaceutical companies. However they cry Uncle for the rising costs of subsidized healthcare. Catch 22, no?
An economic theory coined "neuroeconomics" says many of us are hardwired for a hedonic (pleasure) outcome without consideration for our best interests in the long-term. Think Britney Spears, the subprime fallout, and the energy crisis. They all beat on the same drum with resounding familiarity on the principle of neuroeconomics.
In terms of diabetes treatments - in many cases, drugs are no better than former drugs, and in many cases only differ in cost. Yes, newer drugs are more expensive. The total estimated cost of diabetes in 2007 is $174 billion, Hospital inpatient care was 50% of total costs. Diabetes medication and supplies accounted for 12%, retail prescriptions to treat complications of diabetes were 11%, and physician office visits were 9%. The piece of that pie for designer label drugs is 23% of $174 billion or over $40 billion.
So returning to my original thought for this blog - what is the the most important issue for our next president? Yeah, let's get the runaway train we call "the economy" back on track. We can start by curtailing the absurd costs of diabetes drugs. Generic pharmaceuticals could cut costs for millions (and Uncle Sam!) At the end of the day - I think the savings in Uncle Sams pocket from Medicare and Medicaid alone will far outweigh the loss in tax-dollars collected from pharmaceutical companies. What is the corporate tax rate on over $40 billion anyway? Yeah, a lot!
Here is more earlier information about the growth of diabetes and the cost of diabetes.
http://www.healthpolitics.org/media/diabetes/slides_diabetes.pdf
Reply to this
I also think it is quite useful to think of a potential cure for diabetes as if it were a major political campaign proposal. When the War on Drugs was at its peak in the U.S., I wrote to the Drug Tsar to point out that the largest 'addiction' to a profoundly and often dangerously mind-altering drug (i.e., during hypoglycemia) was the need for a million diabetics to inject insulin every day. If the Drug War had thought about why it was worth fighting consciousness-altering drugs, it might well have seen curing diabetes as being an equal priority to the massively funded War on Drugs.
Similarly, if more than a million Americans were held captive on U.S. soil by a large army of terrorists, who were force-feeding their captives some toxic substance which caused blindness, amputation, renal failure, and neuropathy, the U.S. government would spend hundreds of billions of dollars to rescue those citizens. But because we are not captive of terrorists or a foreign military power, the government spends almost nothing to rescue us.
The whole thing makes no sense, but simply derives from the historical fact that there is a long government tradition of policing intoxicating substances and fighting foreign enemies, but very little tradition of fighting equally severe losses to citizens from disease.
Reply to this
Perhaps what the next president should try to do is to worry about the pharmaceutical companies actually pushing the public to be not so worried about getting diabetes (among other diseases) because lo and behold, look at all of the things that they have to offer you to make it such a pleasure to have diabetes. They show people that have it as being almost happy that they have the disease because they can then take their drugs to MANAGE it. I almost think that they're setting us all up to be managed. The people in these commercials almost look happy to have whatever disease that the commercial is for.
Reply to this
The thing of it is though, WE'RE responsible for abdicating our personal responsibility to the medical industry believing in technology, the quick fix and the mentality that "the doctor and technology will save us" without proof that Western medicine is superior. Other cultures are guided by a belief in nature and the power of the body to heal. Birth in the U.S. is a good example. At the university hospital near me, the C-section rate last year was 43%. 43%!!! The U.S. is ranked 27th in the world in infant mortality - 63% more of our babies die than in the country ranked #1. We're ranked right after Cuba - a country that rations soap out to its citizens every month. The reason? In the U.S., doctors "deliver" your baby - in the other countries, women do, with midwife support.
My point is - doctors in the U.S. CAN'T resist interfering with nature to "improve" it, and "control" it. Doctors CAN'T sit on their hands and wait like a midwife - it's not how they're trained and it's not our culture. Same with handling hyperglycemia and virtually all other health problems in the U.S. Doctors simply CAN'T take a wait and see approach, or try to figure out what's happening to work with it. It's so much faster and more profitable to process patients on a bulk, cookie-cutter basis. The mentality is - don't think, ACT! We've got to DO something!! Other countries don't do this. People don't demand technology's bells and whistles, drugs and the quick fix unless they've adopted Western culture. It's the illusion of care we're after, not the reality of it. Other primarily non-Western cultures respect and work with nature to help the body heal and maximize health - via Ayurvedics, accupuncture, Chinese herbs, meditation, etc. If I'm in a horrible car wreck and I've cracked my head open, give me Western medicine. Great. Glad it was there. For any kind of chronic problem that requires actual healing, give me anything BUT Western medicine.
Our system isn't going to change until we get educated and take responsibility for what care we'll accept and DEMAND change - for example, having insurance cover naturopathic and Chinese medicine providers; having insurance cover porcine insulin. The AMA's #1 FOUNDING MISSION is to abolish alternative care providers and protect their turf. It's not based on safety or healing or quality. Until consumers unite and fight against the AMA and medical industry, we're going to get the same thing. No one's going to do it for us; the status quo is too profitable. We're either victims or activists. Take your pick. If millions of women educated themselves and then refused hospital birth, drugs and c-sections and put initiatives on ballots across the country to demand access to safer home and birth center births with midwifery care, increased access to midwives would follow, as would less infant death. Same with diabetes care. If millions of diabetics joined forces to demand change, it'd happen.
Kelly
Reply to this
Hey Allie-
I hate to ask you this in the comments, but you don't have any contact info on your blog.
I'd like to talk to you about writing a guest post on my blog DiseaseProof.com.
Please email me at diseaseproof@gmail.com.
Thanks.
Peace.
-Gerry
Reply to this
I agree with Marc. Pharmaceutical Companies just want to take your money. You should see "Sicko" by Michael Moore, it's amazing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BJyyyRYbSk&feature=channel
Reply to this
hey allie,you might have to spread the idea to health insurance company's that if this disease is cured they would save billions of dollars over the years.why dont they support the research??? it is such common sense for them to get involved.
Reply to this
Kevin--
I posed this question to my health insurer years ago--referencing specifically the high cost of diabetes adjuncts (monitors, strips, etc.). I wasn't even harping on cure research support--merely advocating for reintroducing natural animal insulins. (Unlike synthetic insulins, natural insulins allow the patient to "feel" impending hypoglycemia. My contention at the time was that providing access to natural insulins would reduce the use of monitoring strips.) The answer I received (paraphrased) was this: The insurer was NOT interested in reducing costs. As cost climb (for covered diabetics), the insurer can justify premium increases across their entire base. . . not just to diabetics accessing coverage. Hoping insurance companies would advocate for cures is 'pie in the sky.' They are merely another arm of Big Corporations who feed on the public.
Reply to this
It beats the wild feathers off me why they don’t realize the SAVINGS – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – we’d ALL save if diabetes was cured!
Thanks for your feedback!! Keep it coming
Reply to this