How does the US maintain its leadership in Medical Advancement?

Yes, so good that Kobe went to Germany to have his knees fixed and Magic Johnson went to France to have his HIV treated...because if medicine isn't run for-profit as it is ****ing nowhere else in the First World maybe US life expectancy can expect to move up from tied-for-34th with Qatar and Costa Rica.

 

Emergency care? Absolutely. If you have a heart attack, stroke, get shot, stabbed, beaten, or get in a car accident, you're better off in the US. Some people confuse "more" health care with better health care. You can do to the doctor more in some other countries, you have better medical technology and better doctors in the US.

 

The reason for that is that in those countries experimental medicine doesn't have to face all of the regulatory hurdles it does in this country. Due to that you get more access to experimental medicine that might cure you, kill you, or have no effect whatsoever.

 

I'd say it's better healthcare if you don't have to have a heart attack to be treated. I mean that's just COMMON SENSE.

 

SMH yet another false dilemma.

 

Americans talking about how they have the most advanced medical care in the world rings about nearly as absurdly as North Koreans talking about their spotless record on human rights or the Saudi government patting themselves on the back for their devotion to religious liberty.

Most of the world's med-tech comes from either the US or Europe, and it's split roughly down the middle:

41% of all medical technology patents in the world were from the EU+ NO + CH (As opposed to 39% in the US). Europe has > 25,000 medical technology companies, most of which are small to medium companies...not too-big-to-fail behemoths with massive lobbies and television advertising budgets. [source]

If the US modernized their medical system to 20th century First-World standards, and dismantled existing monopolies, they might actually be more competitive with the rest of the world.

 

It's like anything else. Can you get something cheap, fast, and good? It's usually damn hard to get it right.

Yes, the US government is subsidizing medical advancement for the rest of the world. Unquestionably. The most obvious example is big pharma but also in many areas of medical technology.

Practical clinical technology is driven by for-profit enterprise. Basic science is driven by NIH/government funding.

As a doctor, my personal opinion is no you wouldn't see the same level of medical advancement under a highly socialized medical system. There is a certain amount of healthcare dollars and they are currently distributed in general by income/wealth. Redistribute that to per capita and have less overall siphoned off to profit and I think innovation drops. The more pressing question is what is the acceptable balance point?

 

# of patents is not some measure of how much medical technology is available to the patient in the hospital.

"most advanced medical care in the world" also does not equal best outcomes obviously.

 

What are we talking about here, Are we talking about the best in medical research and technologies or about the best medical care the people have access to.

 

I don't know much about the subject, but I'm going to say you just made that up

I don't believe that advances advanced medical research is hindered in the States or that the Europeans are better at this because of safety regulations only.

 

I am currently taking NZT and will be spending the next 3 minutes shorting the Fantasy industry, but once free I then will have your answer.

 

... Mars. We must go to Mars in order to discover enhanced Medical Technology and remain number 1. There you go.

 

No, I didn't make it up. In the States it takes a LOT longer to get through the red tape and the regulations and some things that don't pass the standard for the US are offered elsewhere. People who are desperate will go for experimental procedures that won't be legal here but are offered elsewhere.

 

there is a room always for improvements but nothing drastic , features of the health sector / industry rely on many historical accumulations and certain circumstances in which it is difficult for any politician to affect them profoundly within a limited mandate

government play a small portions typically as a bottleneck but can provide : tax credit , grants , but the success mainly driven by capitalism and the means of making profits , the FDA suffer from bureaucracy and slow decision-making, which has impacted negatively on this industry

global companies relocate to the USA to take advantage of dealing directly with the FDA , which is unofficial global standard authority .

now here is an example of the main challenge when it comes to innovation Prospective only :

-a company xᵭᶌx spent 7-10 years seeking an approval for their product.(Stage I,II,III)
-an average spent by small companies is around 350 million $ for research and development alone.

-the odd is 1:10 companies receive a stage I approval .

-once the company beat the odds , they got the challenge of marketing their product which is not an easy task considering the complexity of health care system in the USA.

-company xᵭᶌx need to apply for approval globally in which each territory is a new challenging task .

-before the company xᵭᶌx start to sell it first unit , a company typically in Israel or India start selling their own generic brand ! (by FDA regulation company disclose their formula and scientific finding in details )

-company xᵭᶌx need to file cases against their global competitors which may take years to settle , often end with pathetic resolution across multiple jurisdictions subject to different laws internationally which add massive financial burdens

company xᵭᶌx : pay for their employees , administration ,legal ,taxes ,marketing , paying larger firms a massive share of profits and cash in advance .(years without actual income and massive bank loans )


company xᵭᶌx reach the typical stage in which it look for another larger company to take over ( which mega companies like pfizers basicly makes a living doing this acqustions ) ,or in some-cases declare bankruptcy, NFLD a Houston company i recall made a huge break through and just dissolved

 

That still doesn't answer the question. If people cannot afford the high-end medical technology, how then do they benefit? In 1960, life expectancy it was 70 years, and now in 2015 it is 79 years*. I don't know whether recent medical advancements are the sole contributor to the 9 year increase in life expectancy. Also, there has to be some kind of diminishing returns with respect to medical spending and life expectancy.

*google search

 

a lot of med tech & research that originate from other countries. the US will always be attractive because of population size/end market therefore more cash when looking for investors, ie from mom & pop to corporate.

 

Sources?