Will Med Tech Innovations Benefit PWDs?

From AAPD (2.8.11):

From Websites to Biotechnology: Will Med Tech Innovations Benefit People with Disabilities?

By Daniel Dwyer, AAPD Policy Intern

To learn more about innovations in medical technology and how this might affect people with disabilities, AAPD attended a symposium entitled “Medical Innovation at a Crossroads: Choosing the Path Ahead,” hosted by the Council for American Medical Innovation (CAMI) in January, 2011, held in Washington, DC.  The symposium focused on three key components that drive medical innovation and that the organizers assert are essential to any effort to restore U.S. leadership: the federal government, the private sector and research/educational institutions.  While people with disabilities were not specifically mentioned, it is clear that what happens in this area will impact our lives both from the healthcare and employment perspectives. Speakers noted that the healthcare industry is the largest segment of the U.S. economy and how in one recent week, 34,000 new jobs were created in healthcare. 

The speakers included U.S. Chief Technology Officer Aneesh Chopra, and Fareed Zakaria, the Editor-at-Large of Time and host of CNN’s Fareed Zakaria GPS.  There were also panels which included former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (Co-Chair of CAMI), President and CEO of PhRMA John Castellani. Also speaking were USAgainstAlzheimers founder George Vrandenburg and Mike Leavitt, now a Co-Chair of CAMI and former governor of Utah as well as a former Secretary of Health and Human Services. 

Speakers noted that while many in Washington are sounding the alarm about the federal deficit and excessive spending, the participants believe that an infusion of funding from the government is essential to maintaining U.S. competitiveness in medical innovation.  Speakers also noted that while the United States is still the largest economy in the world, it no longer leads the world in medical innovation, as indicated by a shrinking percentage of overall patents filed by the U.S.  In fact, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, the U.S. ranked dead last in innovation progress over the last decade.  

Federal Role:  Aneesh Chopra explained that the Administration is acting as a “convener,” bringing industry, research institutions and the government together to undertake a collaborative effort to come up with new and innovative ways to administer healthcare and foster the development of medical advances.  One example is a personal health record (PHR) system for veterans via an online Department of Veterans Affairs website. This allows veterans to download their personal health file by clicking on a “blue button.”  Another example are innovation competitions: one run by the Department of Commerce focused on reducing the time it takes for medical and bioscience technologies to go from inception to commercial production. This resulted in a $1 million award to support biotechnology businesses in Akron, OH that will bring in manufacturing jobs to make low-cost medical devices.

Private Sector:  Speakers noted there are just not many businesses that focus on medical innovation.  They said that 75% of every healthcare dollar spent is for chronically ill patients, most of whom have preventable illnesses. They believe that business should help spur innovation to develop ways to prevent and treat these illnesses, freeing up funds to be spent in other areas.  They complained that there is insufficient funding for research and development (R&D) by the federal government and, according to participants of the symposium, the current R&D tax credit should be made permanent.  Speakers asserted that progress in the U.S. to improve healthcare while reducing overall costs can be done by information technology.  One example is a body patch which collects more data than a bulky monitor for a person’s heart rhythm.

Research/Educational Institutions: Speakers noted that research institutions and universities play a crucial role in medical innovation with scientists and researchers from around the world still coming to the U.S. to study and learn.  Increasingly, however, they are returning to their native countries to work professionally and not staying in the U.S. due to economic realities and cultural changes.  Speakers said the U.S. should encourage more American students to study science and try to retain more of the foreign students. One policy change might be to reform the H1B visa program which, they said, prevents talented students from staying here.  The program can also prevent companies from bringing their own foreign employees to the U.S. More funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was also suggested as a way to help the situation.

Conclusion:  This conference’s experts estimate that healthcare will be the primary contributor to rising federal deficits over the next 20 years, with the costs of programs like Medicare and Medicaid consuming funds that could be used for savings elsewhere.  Therefore, they believe investments that promote medical innovation in the public and private sectors are vital to reducing these healthcare costs and they support targeted investments in innovation as an essential part of any economic recovery for the nation.

Comment below:

1. Do you think there is enough medical technology innovation and if not, why do you think that’s so?
2. What sort of things can you see developing with medical and information technology that would benefit you?
3. Do you think the federal government should spend more on medical technology innovation?

 

 

Comments

[David Smithers]

this is very interesting to think about as we need more medtech that works well but it seems surprising they are asking for a handout from the government...