The British Medical Journal, in a fit of holiday beneficence unto the poor and unschooled, has made it's current issue free to all. It's partly whimsical, partly frivolous, and partly serious. It may amuse and/or enlighten to various degrees.
I'd just like to single out Joseph Stiglitz's contribution. As you are bored of reading about here, the system whereby drug companies get exclusive marketing rights to compounds they develop as a reward for their investment in research doesn't work very well. Without reciting once again all of the inefficiencies, distortions, and anti-social consequences, I'll just say that one consequence which is particularly offensive to Stiglitz is that the drug companies have no interest in diseases which principally affect poor people in poor countries, who can't pay big bucks for their products. Stiglitz proposes a prize fund for new remedies for these diseases. The winner would scoop up the prize, but the product would then be available for generic manufacture and inexpensive sale to the people who need it.
Sounds good to me. But of course, that would require use of tax moneys and action by government, which according to the Republican Party is immoral, at least when it benefits poor people. So we'll have to think of something else.
Discussion of public health and health care policy, from a public health perspective. The U.S. spends more on medical services than any other country, but we get less for it. Major reasons include lack of universal access, unequal treatment, and underinvestment in public health and social welfare. We will critically examine the economics, politics and sociology of health and illness in the U.S. and the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated. You will have to wait for your comment to appear.