I already cited one new engineering development with the potential to save costs in my first blog entry. I was asked to identify a news article about biomedical engineering and mention it in my blog. I chose an article about a cheap medical imaging technology that can save costs in developing countries. To quote myself, "I was particularly interested in the research article I found on the UC Berkeley site, however, because it seems particularly relevant at the moment. While politicians in Washington argue over why health care costs are so high and how to solve the problem, researchers have once again shown that sufficiently advanced technology can make anything affordable." I did not cite myself here because I certainly will not press charges against myself for stealing my own ideas.
Let's take another look at this article. This summer, using fluorescent imaging technology, researches at UC Berkeley developed a cell phone microscope that can be used for medical imaging in developing countries [1]. The only problem with this article is, if you read closer, the technology can be used for the imaging part of the process but the images may then have to be sent to experts for analysis [1]. Basically, this technology is not seriously reducing costs, it is just shifting the heavy work to the experts to enable people in developing countries or other places with limited medical care to feel the benefits of technologies they would otherwise not have access to.
Nevertheless, this is one example of a step in the right direction for engineering. Unfortunately, the field of biomedical engineering is currently dominated not by such practical, cost-cutting measures, but by a drive for better quality technologies. The tremendous effort being put forth in an attempt to conquer all remaining health problems is admirable but highly impractical. We can barely afford the quality of health care we have now. Before increasing the quality of that care and simultaneously contributing to the rising costs of health care, we should find ways to make the care we already have less expensive and find ways to incorporate new technologies into our healthcare system without an unbearable cost to the economy. Of course, many people would argue that the kind of health care spending occuring in the United States is necessary in order to fund our great medical research. In truth, however, researchers can profit financially by making healthcare more affordable. Pharmaceutical companies with the cheapest products would ideally attract more customers, generating more revenue, and thus having more cash available to fund their expensive research. This general principle should extend not just to pharmaceutical companies but to all forms of biomedical and health-related research.
My opinions above, of course, would merely be worthless speculation unless they were put in perspective. This January, a Scientific American blog analyzed Barack Obama's claim that techonology was the solution to health care costs [2]. The blog cited a 2003 study by Stanford professor Lawrence Baker which argued that more technology could cause healthcare costs to rise [2]. When questioned, Baker agreed that, "'there are huge technology opportunities out there,'" and clarified that "'The most health care isn't always the best health care. Decisions about value is [sic] probably key'" [2]. This was paraphrased in the blog as "finding and using the technology that makes the most sense" [2].
Researchers around the world are pouring money into several different approaches to the battles against AIDS, cancer, obesity, malnutrition and other major health problems. All of this research is beneficial and necessary if we are to improve our health care. It is important, however, that we introduce cost cutting measures into all forms of research and spend significant time and money researching the art of cost cutting itself.
There are many exciting technological possibilities that could help in this process. One possibility is introducing cheap methods like the cell phone imaging technology not just into developing countries but into the most advanced research laboratories, so we can do great research without spending great amounts of money. Another possibility is that the concept of individualized medicine could help us cut costs. I read in the greatest engineering challenges that clinical trials are the gold standard of the current method of health research, but would not be applicable to individualized treatments. If we can develop a system of research that relies not on statistics and costly clinical trials but on empirical knowledge of exactly how genes and proteins function, perhaps we could develop drugs and treatments knowing exactly what they would do without a costly process of trial and error. I don't know if this is just wishful thinking, but I plan to find out.
Works Referenced
[1] Yang, Sarah. UC Berkely Researchers Bring Fluorescent Imaging to Mobile Phones for Low-cost Screeining in the Field. UC Berkely News. 21 July 2009. Available: http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2009/07/21_cellscope.shtml.
[2] Harmon, Katherine. Is Obama Right That Technology Can Lower Health Care Costs? Scientific American: 60-Second Science. 20 January 2009. Available: http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=is-obama-right-that-technology-can-2009-01-20.
No comments:
Post a Comment