fbpx

Healthcare

A roadmap for the NHS: lessons from Germany

In both Germany and the United Kingdom, around 0.18 per cent of the total population has recently tested positive for coronavirus. While the spread of the pandemic is roughly equal in these countries, the fatality rate is 420 per cent higher for patients treated by the NHS compared with those treated in Germany. This is because Germany’s hospitals are better placed to be resilient in times of crisis, thanks to the private and competitive aspects of the country’s healthcare system.

Germany’s decentralised and private laboratory network had already tested over two per cent of its population when the UK’s figure still stood at a meagre 0.7%. Britain’s centralised testing system, and its failure to scale up Covid-19 tests, might explain part of this mortality gap. One could assume that only very severe cases are being tested by the NHS and, as such, the fatality rate of this more concentrated group is higher.

Even if you make very generous adjustments to the figures and assume that Britain’s fatality rate would remain unchanged even if the NHS tested as many people as the German system, the UK would still have a 49 per cent higher death rate.

Not only are the NHS’s testing facilities incapable of dealing with black swan events, the entire healthcare system simply doesn’t have sufficient resilience to minimise the harm caused to patients by a virus such as Covid-19.

Conversely, Germany’s mainly private and non-profit hospital system leads the way in Europe when it comes to successfully facing this wave of patients. In early March, hospitals had already freed up beds in intensive care by pushing back elective surgeries, and the total capacity of ICU beds was ramped up 40 per cent within a month. Germany’s hospitals now have a total of 40,000 ICU beds and 30,000 beds with respiration units.

And all of this was achieved while still ensuring the provision of critical services such as cancer care and screening, which is something that the NHS is struggling to do – a problem that may cause more harm than Covid-19.

Thanks to the recent increase, Germany has now 48 ICU beds per 100,000 inhabitants, which is more than seven times the capacity the UK currently has. This month, the NHS published the occupancy rate of critical care beds in February, which showed over 80 per cent of those were in use. And while Germany was deploying a new public database showing critical care capacity per hospital, which is updated at least once a day, the NHS paused the publication of many of its own statistics, and those that are released are at least a month old.

What’s more, Germany’s new online ICU capacity register was built overnight, a tool that provides patients and doctors with invaluable guidance. One map, for example, shows that in Bavaria, which is the state worst-hit by Covid-19, just 16.1 per cent of ICU beds are occupied by patients with coronavirus. It also shows the available number of empty ICU beds. Bavaria still has 37 per cent of all its ICU beds empty and can, therefore, comfortably treat three times more Covid-19 patients than now.

This successful approach has taken place within a system where the government owns less than 30 per cent of all hospitals. Germany’s universal healthcare system embraces competition and private ownership of hospitals and outpatient services. So while the social insurance system covers 90 per cent of the population, the provision of care is mainly carried out by private for-profit hospitals or charities. 

Simply put, private hospitals and competition lead to much more efficient structures, and Germany’s decentralised healthcare system, which allowed for a speedy mitigation strategy, is now showing its value by saving thousands of lives. Indeed, Germany is not only weathering this storm better than the NHS but it is even able to fly in and treat hundreds of patients from Italy, France and Spain.

British policymakers will need to show courage in the coming months and be honest about the failings of the UK’s healthcare system during this crisis. There are two crucial lessons that will need to be learned in order to prevent, or at least mitigate, another lacklustre response in the future.

The first is that introducing more market mechanisms in the NHS would not mean that patients were denied care – you can have universal healthcare in a social insurance model too. And the second is that having more private hospitals does not necessarily lead to fewer hospital beds, but a better allocation of skills and resources. Indeed, it allowed Germany to scale up its ICU capacity, as well as keeping services such as cancer treatments and screenings open in different locations.

The centralised nature of NHS does not allow for any part of the chain to fail. Unfortunately, failure is in our nature and less centralised systems are therefore necessary in order to achieve resilience and adaptability in times of urgent need.

We should make the UK fit for the next nasty virus by decentralising testing and allowing for more private sector involvement in our healthcare system. It’s high time we faced the facts about the NHS and stopped ignoring success stories from around the world.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

6 Amazing Medical Breakthroughs we should be thankful for

Thanks to continuous innovation in medical sciences and biotechnology we have seen amazing breakthroughs in medical technology and pharmaceuticals in the past two decades. These breakthroughs would not have been possible without incentives for inventors and investors. We can still only cure or treat 5% of all known diseases. Reducing incentives for innovation and intellectual property rights would risk finding cures for the remaining 95%.

This is a list of just six innovations of the last two decades that dramatically improve the lives of millions of people.

La nueva herramienta contra la lucha de los virus, la edición genética: en qué consiste y por qué deberíamos estar entusiasmados con esta nueva tecnología?

Actualmente, la humanidad está atravesando un gran desafío impuesto por el Coronavirus. Las fronteras están siendo cerradas, las aerolíneas suspendiendo sus operaciones y algunos negocios cerrando sus puertas.

Simultáneamente, científicos, investigadores y profesionales de la salud se encuentran arduamente trabajando en nuevos tratamientos que permitan encontrar pronto una solución a la pandemia producida por el COVID-19.

Probablemente, lidiar con el coronavirus y sus consecuencias debe ser uno de los retos más grandes que el mundo contemporáneo ha enfrentado en las ultimas décadas. Sin embargo, no será el ultimo virus que debamos enfrentar.

Por tal motivo, se vuelve importante abrazar a las biociencias y permitir una mayor apertura a la aplicación de métodos de alteración de genes.

Para comprender mejor las ventajas que brinda la biociencia y cómo esta puede mejorar considerablemente nuestra calidad de vida, revisaremos las cuatro alternativas más comunes para alterar los genes de una planta o animal:

X- Men (Dr Charles Xavier) – Mutaciones naturales/espontáneas

20th Century Fox
20th Century Fox

Las mutaciones per se suceden de manera regular en la naturaleza. Fue justamente de esta manera que unos aminoácidos terminaron siendo seres humanos luego de unos miles millones de años. La evolución biológica puede suceder justamente gracias a este tipo de mutaciones. Las mutaciones naturales suceden de manera aleatoria o son causadas por factores exógenos como la radiación (p. ej. el sol). Para los amantes de los cómics entre nosotros, las mutaciones que tienen lugar en “X-men” son un ejemplo de mutaciones naturales, debido a que (en muchos casos) ocurren de manera espontánea.

Hulk – Mutaciones por exposición (mutágenos)

Imagen de Alexander Gounder en Pixabay
Imagen de Alexander Gounder en Pixabay

Una de las formas más comunes de manipular semillas es a través de la exposición a la radiación y esperar a mutaciones positivas (p. ej. una resistencia mayor a plagas). Este método es muy común desde 1950 y es un método bastante preciso en la búsqueda de obtener plantaciones más resistentes o agradables para el consumo. Sin embargo, requiere de miles de intentos para obtener un resultado deseable. Este método es ampliamente utilizado y legal en gran parte de los países. En nuestro universo de cómics, Hulk seria un buen ejemplo de este tipo de mutaciones causadas por la radiación.

Spiderman- Organismos genéticamente modificados (transgénicos OGM)

Imagen de djedj en Pixabay
Imagen de djedj en Pixabay

El método utilizado para la creación de organismos genéticamente modificados (OGM) suele ser temido por muchos. El procedimiento se basa en insertar los genes de una especie en otra especie. En la mayor parte de los casos, las plantaciones de transgénicos OGM han sido inyectadas con la proteína de otra planta o bacteria que permite a la plantación o cosecha desarrollarse de manera más acelerada o resistente hacia ciertas plagas.

Otros ejemplos pueden palparse en el cruce del salmón con la tilapia que permite al salmón crecer de manera mucho más acelerada. Un ejemplo a nivel de los cómics para este caso es Spider-man, mejor conocido como el “hombre araña”. Luego de ser mordido por una araña, puede escalar rascacielos y desarrollar una agilidad sobrehumana gracias a su potenciado ADN aracno-humano (transgénico).

GATTACA / La Ira de Khan- Edición genética (las tijeras de la biociencia)

Screenshot de Star Trek: La ira de Kahn | https://www.espinof.com/criticas/especial-star-trek-star-trek-2-la-ira-de-khan-de-nicholas-meyer
Screenshot de Star Trek: La ira de Kahn | https://www.espinof.com/criticas/especial-star-trek-star-trek-2-la-ira-de-khan-de-nicholas-meyer

Super villanos libre de gluten: La edición genética no se trata de super humanos, sino de mantenernos y darnos una vida saludable

Este método puede llevarse a cabo en personas adultas que se encuentra vivas, lo cual significa una gran oportunidad sobre todo para aquellos que sufren trastornos genéticos. La edición genética permite “reparar” los genes en organismos vivos. Este método también es miles de veces más preciso que el método de bombardear con radiación. Algunos ejemplos son la desactivación del gen responsable de generar el gluten en el trigo: el resultado es trigo sin gluten para celiacos.

Existen varios métodos utilizados en la edición genética. Uno de los más populares estos días es aquel llamado CRISPR Cas-9. Estas “tijeras” son usualmente bacterias reprogramadas para transmitir un nuevo gen o desactivar genes no deseados.

Muchas novelas de ciencia ficción y películas nos muestran un futuro en el cual podemos desactivar defectos genéticos y curar a las personas de enfermedades catastróficas. Algunos ejemplos de historias de este tipo donde métodos similares al CRISPR han sido utilizados son GATTACA-La Ira de Khan, Start Trek o la serie Expanse donde la edición genética juega un rol crucial en desarrollar plantaciones para ser cultivados en el espacio.

Qué relación tiene todo esto con el Coronavirus?

Biólogos sintéticos han comenzado a utilizar CRISPR para recrear de manera artificial partes del coronavirus en un intento de producir una vacuna en contra de esta afección del sistema respiratorio para desarrollarla de manera masiva y rápida.

Gracias a la combinación de simulaciones computarizadas con inteligencia artificial, este proceso acelera la producción de una vacuna de años a cuestión de meses. De igual forma, en tiempos de crisis las instituciones encargadas de aprobar nuevas pruebas y procedimientos para este tipo de tecnología como la DEA en los EEUU han demostrado estar a la altura de las circunstancias.

El CRISPR permite también identificar genes específicos en un virus. Esto ha permitido a los investigadores construir de manera rápida y sencilla tests para ser utilizados en los pacientes con coronavirus.

En el largo plazo, la edición de genes nos permitiría ampliar la inmunidad que poseemos los seres humanos para alterar nuestros genes y convertirnos más resistentes a los virus y las bacterias.

Esta no será la última crisis

Mientras el coronavirus pone a prueba nuestra sociedad contemporánea, también necesitamos ser conscientes de que este no será el último patógeno que tendrá el potencial de matar millones de personas. Si no contamos con mucha suerte, el COVID-19 podría tener alguna mutación que lo haga mucho más difícil de combatir.

El próximo virus, hongo o bacteria letal podría estar a la vuelta de la esquina. Por este motivo, debemos adaptarnos y aceptar las nuevas innovaciones en biotecnología y evitar bloquear las investigaciones genéticas que están teniendo lugar y la aplicación de sus resultados.

En estos momentos, varias prohibiciones se encuentran en vigencia bloqueando la posibilidad de utilizar innovaciones como la del CRISPR en pacientes alrededor del mundo. Debemos repensar aquella hostilidad que existe hacia la ingeniería genética y aceptarla por lo que es, una alternativa prometedora para nuestra supervivencia. Para ser franco, siempre nos encontramos en aquella disyuntiva entre nuevas enfermedades que aparecen y la necesidad de implementar herramientas innovadoras como el CRISPR que podrían salvar millones de vidas.

by Julio Clavijo

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

What the NHS can learn from Germany’s Hospital System

Post-Coronavirus, the UK should not shy away from debate over the NHS, and how to achieve better patient outcomes, argues Fred Roeder

When contrasting how countries around the world are coping with COVID-19, over the past few weeks one country has stood out. Germany’s health system has received regular praise for its resilience in facing the COVID-19 pandemic, but what are they doing right?

Germany is one of the most affected countries in Europe but the mortality rates are significantly lower than in most other European countries dealing with the coronavirus. Germany’s capacity to test widely and early has definitely contributed to this but an often underappreciated factor is its very competitive, modern, and often private hospital system.

While the UK currently has fewer confirmed COVID-19 cases, this is probably due to the lack of testing capacities of the NHS, the more interesting and shocking number is that the death rate per 1 million people is four times higher in the United Kingdom compared to Germany. Germany’s mainly private and decentralized testing infrastructure happens mostly outside of hospitals, in private laboratories, and has enabled Germany to conduct as many as 150,000 tests per week. To put that in comparison, the UK has managed less than 10,000 a day so far.

Being the relative of an NHS patient, I had to assist her to go through its byzantine and centralized testing regime, even for simple blood samples. GPs send patients to hospitals just to get their blood taken and analysed. Scaling up such a centralized testing system allows no mistakes to be made. A decentralized and independent system however allows for some parts in the chain to fail and the other still to perform, and crucially allows room for innovation.

Merely 28% of the roughly 1,950 hospitals that participate in Germany’s universal health system are owned by the government. 37% are private for profit hospitals that treat patients covered by the public health insurances and receive the same amount of reimbursement per case as the public ones or the 34% that are operated by churches and other charities. Despite charging the same as government hospitals private for-profit hospitals have the highest investment per case (about 64% higher than public hospitals), which leads to more state-of-the-art treatment and newer medical equipment.

It is also very interesting to look at how private hospitals perform better compared to government hospitals in Germany. Within the first four years one can observe an increase in efficiency of between 3.2% and 5.4% above those hospitals that had not been privatised. Despite its mainly private character Germany has nearly three times as many beds per 100,000 people compared to the UK. It gets even worse when looking at intensive care beds per 100,000. Germany has over 4 times the intensive care capacity compared to the NHS. In recent weeks Germany added another 40% additional capacity to its already high intensive care beds. This number is not reflected in the comparison.

Given that we are currently facing a massive pandemic it is shocking to see how poorly prepared the centralized NHS was, from a lack of protective equipment for clinicians, to its failure to prepare for mass testing. While the hard work of individuals within the health service has done what seemed impossible only weeks ago, and has prepared the NHS to cope with coronavirus, structural issues remain.

A pluralistic hospital system that endorses competition and patient choice such as the German one seems to be in a much better position to cope with potentially tens of thousands of severe COVID-19 cases.

Yes, also in this comparatively better German hospital system patients die and doctors contract COVID-19. Healthcare workers in Germany are also overwhelmed with the amount of cases and patients. But overall it looks like Germany can endure and face this wave in a much more prepared and resilient fashion compared to the NHS which is still facing huge problems mastering this mammoth task.

After we are all through with this we should not shy away from a debate if it’s not time to open up bigger parts of the NHS hospital systems, allow competition and make the health of British patients a priority.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Testing – not lockdowns – may explain why some countries handle Covid-19 better

This is a post by a Guest Author
Disclaimer: The author’s views are entirely his or her own, and don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of the Consumer Choice Center.


There are ongoing debates about who has been better handling the Covid-19 pandemic: testing or lockdown?

With so many people confined to their homes, passions are running high, and there are ongoing debates about who has been better handling the Covid-19 pandemic. So much so that it feels like comparing and contrasting countries and their trajectories has become sort of a global pastime.

Nearly all developed countries (and others) have put their populations under severe lockdowns and emphasized social distancing as the silver bullet against the spread of the virus. Sweden, however, has recently been castigated for failing to put its population under a lockdown like every other country, especially other Nordic countries which it is compared and contrasted against. 

The problem is that it is quite hard to compare the performance of two randomly selected countries. For instance, on every level Norway seems to be doing much better than Sweden. That said, one can always find a bunch of other countries that are doing much worse despite having been under lockdown for some time.

It should be noted that Sweden has made some questionable decisions, regardless of social distancing. It failed to ramp up testing with increasing cases around March 20, and it only closed its nursing homes for visits in early April.

But aren’t lockdowns clearly working? 

Many people have still argued that lockdowns are clearly working because the epidemic has slowed shortly after their imposition. However, it is important that we are careful when inferring that lockdowns were responsible for the decline. There may be a correlation between the two, but as everyone should know, correlation does not necessarily mean causation, and there may be other intervening variables. It is vital that we not jump to conclusions too fast. While many people believe, and many epidemiological models assume, that unchecked epidemics just grow exponentially until more than half of the population gets infected, the evidence for Covid-19 increasingly suggests otherwise. 

Several research papers (e.g. here and here) argued that the dynamics of the Covid-19 pandemic are well-described by exponential functions only at the early stage, after which so-called power-law functions are a much better fit. A detailed study of the outbreak in the initially hit communes in Lombardy also suggests that in each commune, it started slowly, then briefly became exponential and then slowed, all that before any significant intervention.

To help you better understand what the mathematical jargon above means and why it is so important, consider two simple functions, y=2x and y=x2. The first function is exponential and the second function is a power-law one. You will better see the crucial difference between them if they are plotted together.

If these functions were describing an epidemic, then the x-axis would mean rounds of transmission. In the beginning there is one infected person in both cases. Then, until the fifth round the functions seem to grow in at an almost similar speed but afterwards, they diverge dramatically.

When researchers talk about an epidemic growing first exponentially and then in accordance with a power law, they mean that the growth of the epidemic looks like the hybrid function (first, y=2x and y=x2 after round 5) below. Its growth clearly slows a lot after the fifth round.

Why could an epidemic grow exponentially, first, and then slow down on its own? Here, it is important to remember that real societies are complex. Instead of interacting with random people every now and then, people tend to form groups (or clusters, in scientific terminology) and live in local areas within which interactions are much more intense than outside of them. With obvious implications for infection transmission.

What probably changes at the early stage of the epidemic is that so-called superspreader events are much likelier. Such events, where single infected people spread the virus to scores, hundreds or even thousands of people, have clearly played an enormous role in Covid-19. It is enough to mention the Shincheonji Church of Jesus in South Korea, the tragic gathering of French catholics in Mulhouse and the first coronavirus-hit hospitals in Lombardy. At these events, infected people have an opportunity to spread the virus way beyond their clusters of interactions.

After the initial stage, when everyone becomes aware that the epidemic is in the community and significant events are cancelled, the infection may get increasingly isolated within clusters, first, grow slower and then start falling off. The available data is increasingly hinting at this process in play. In Italy, cases appear to have peaked on the day the national lockdown was announced. In the US, they appear to have peaked on March 20.  

Lockdowns could even be counterproductive

A more speculative but still plausible idea is that lockdowns could, in fact, not merely coincide with the slowing-down of Covid-19 without causing it but actually create more damage than they prevent.

Many people believe that if some social distancing (like closing bars or canceling events) is desirable than extreme social distancing like lockdowns that keeps most people at home most of the time must be even more beneficial. However, this potentially ignores two important facts about Covid-19 and viral diseases in general.

First, it is abundantly clear that Covid-19 overwhelmingly spreads in closed, often poorly ventilated spaces and through close contacts. Secondly, as Robin Hanson convincingly argued, there is a wealth of evidence that the severity of viral disease depends on the viral dose received. This means that if families are forced to stay at home together all the time, this may create perfect conditions for the virus to spread and especially cause severe disease.

The data from Google about actual social distancing patterns in several countries hit by Covid-19 shows that Italy, Spain and France have had by far the most extreme social distancing, and the UK was starting to catch up with them after its lockdown. Yet, these four countries have some of the highest fatality rates in the world per population and detected cases.    

Could testing explain things better?

A better way to try to make sense of the causation is to try to identify a bunch of countries that have something important in common. The most important thing in any epidemic is to minimize deaths, and there is a group of countries that seem to have far fewer deaths by population size, and per identified infections, than others. These countries include Iceland, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, Austria, and Norway. You can see how low their case fatality rates are compared to other countries with a lot of cases here (see the “death rates” column).

What makes those countries succeed in driving down deaths? One would actually be surprised to learn that none of these countries is, or was, under total lockdown. South Korea hasn’t even closed bars and restaurants. This shows that extreme social distancing measures are not necessarily the best explanation.

The real answer may largely lie in how many tests those countries have been doing compared to others. Testing may reduce fatality rates by giving public health responders valuable information and helping to isolate and quarantine those that carry the virus before they spread it to vulnerable groups like the elderly.

Iceland is the absolute champion at testing. It has already conducted 28,992 tests, which is more than 8% of its entire population. It also has the world’s lowest case fatality rate from Covid-19 at 0.38%. Iceland isn’t an anomaly, and using Iceland as an example isn’t cherry picking. Researchers Sinha, Sengupta and Ghosal showed that country death rates from Covid-19 are significantly correlated with the intensity of testing. They did not, however, control for the potential impact of lockdowns and other stringent social distancing measures.

Testing and outcomes by region

In addition to national data, one can also look at regional data where it is available and see if the testing/fatality relationship still holds. Italy has been publishing detailed regional statistics on Covid-19 starting from February 24. If we plot tests per confirmed cases in each region with reported fatalities per million inhabitants, we get the following picture:

The chart surprisingly shows us that Italy’s worst hit region isn’t Lombardy, and that it is actually the little-known Aosta Valley. We also see that there is a clear negative relationship between the intensity of testing and fatality rates. In fact, the former seems to explain more than half of the variation in the latter, and the regression coefficient is statistically significant (the p-value is 0.0003).

To conclude, it will take a long time and careful research to sort out why some countries and regions have gone through the Covid-19 pandemic much less damaged than others. That said, one thing seems to be increasingly clear. When the dust settles it will be clear that testing will be a significant factor, and that the importance of social distancing will be diminished. 

Guest Author: Daniil Gorbatenko


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Il Sistema Lombardo Funziona

Nelle ultime settimane la gestione dell’emergenza in Lombardia è stata oggetto di grande dibattito. Le critiche maggiori sono state rivolte al sistema sanitario regionale. Gli aspetti problematici potrebbero, però, risiedere altrove e le cause di una gestione non ottimale andrebbero ricercate più a fondo.


PERCHÈ È IMPORTANTE?   Una polemica oramai quotidiana riguarda il ruolo della sanità privata, soprattutto in Lombardia, e di come il sistema di cooperazione tra strutture pubbliche e private avrebbe fallito. Proviamo a capire se veramente è il sistema sanitario lombardo a non aver funzionato oppure qualcosa d’altro.

LA RIFORMA   La sanità privata è figlia di una riforma voluta dall’allora maggioranza di centrodestra guidata dal Presidente Roberto Formigoni, che pose erogatori privati e pubblici sullo stesso piano, purché il sistema rimanesse universale (tutti i cittadini hanno accesso alle cure nello stesso modo) e solidale (le prestazioni sono pagate dalla fiscalità generale e non direttamente dal singolo paziente).

Per il paziente nulla cambia, ci si può rivolgere agli ospedali pubblici o privati senza distinzione. Al contrario, secondo i dati ANGES – Regione Lombardia del 2018, gli ospedali lombardi sono parimenti nei primi 10 ospedali italiani, come per esempio il San Raffaele di Milano, il San Matteo di Pavia, l’Istituto dei Tumori di Milano e il Papa Giovanni XXIII di Bergamo.

INVESTIMENTI E RICERCA   Inoltre andrebbe considerato che questa competizione tra pubblico e privato ha fatto sì che la spesa sanitaria privata e pubblica dedicata alla ricerca e alla cura della persona crescesse di quasi il 28% annuo (dati UniBocconi), creando centri di eccellenza riconosciuti in tutto il mondo, sia privati sia pubblici, come ad esempio gli Spedali Civili di Brescia, il Gruppo San Donato, Humanitas e tanti altri.

Questo è un tempo di emergenza, come dimostrano le parole di medici ed operatori sanitari che parlano di una vera e propria guerra, guerra nella quale combattono a nostra difesa sia operatori privati sia operatori pubblici.

Gli operatori privati si sono impegnati a mettere a disposizione il proprio personale sanitario nelle strutture pubbliche, nonché le loro stesse strutture. Regione Lombardia ha riorganizzato la rete ospedaliera creando hub specializzati divisi per patologia e prestazione sanitaria, al fine di liberare posti per pazienti COVID-19.

IL PRIVATO FUNZIONA?   Se tutto questo è stato possibile lo si deve anche alla capacità della sanità privata di riorganizzarsi in tempi brevissimi per poter ospitare il maggior numero di pazienti provenienti dalle strutture pubbliche sommerse dall’ondata di pazienti affetti da Coronavirus, spesso fatto senza attingere a risorse pubbliche, come dimostra il nuovo reparto di terapia intensiva realizzato con donazioni private al San Raffaele di Milano. Ovviamente, la sanità privata è in prima linea anche nella gestione diretta di pazienti COVID lombardi, con circa il 30% di quest’ultimi ospitato presso strutture private.

COME LA COREA DEL SUD   Se il sistema è andato in tilt non è per colpa della competizione pubblico privato, la quale ha fatto sì che i lombardi potessero ancora usufruire di cure ospedaliere di qualità, grazie alla maggiore flessibilità della quale l’erogatore privato è portatore. Ad ulteriore prova dell’assoluta bontà dell’apporto privato nella gestione della crisi dovuta al Coronavirus, andrebbe ricordato che il sistema sud-coreano, portato da molti come modello, è costituto per la grande parte da operatori sanitari privati, e dove la ripartizione della spesa sanitaria tra pubblico e privato è quasi paritetica.

Purtroppo, restano le migliaia di morti e quindi la necessità di porsi una domanda: perché la politica lombarda non ha attuato una strategia di contenimento e di prevenzione come quella veneta, fondata su un intervento di test preventivi, che è risultata più efficace? Se finora non lo si è attuato, perché, alla luce degli evidenti risultati, ora non si procede in questa direzione?


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

The ‘Bad Boys’ of the Private Sector turn into Corona-Angels

In light of the Corona virus, businesses that are usually on the top of politicians’ lists to be taxed, regulated, nationalized, or shut down are demonstrating how much value they produce for society.

Covid-19 will help us identify which regulations are holding back productivity and innovation

At a time like this, those of us who believe in free markets and limited government face challenges in justifying adherence to those principles. It is hard to argue against governments doing “whatever it takes” to combat the spread of the disease and save lives and livelihoods. In fact, as my colleague Christopher Snowdon set out in the Daily Telegraph last week, there is no need to make such arguments. There no inconsistency insupporting individual freedoms in normal times and acceptingcoercive measures by the state in a public health emergency.

Similarly, the massive expansion of the state comprised in the chancellor’s rescue package is broadly welcome for giving people the assurance they need that their homes, incomes and businesses will have some protection in highly unusual circumstances. However, there are many areas where reductions in government intervention should be urgently pursued. 

The New York Times reported that a biotech lab had carried out tests and identified cases of Covid-19 in the Seattle area, well before it was known that the virus had taken hold in the United States. The lab did not have the correct accreditations for this activity from the FDA and was ordered to cease testing. The regulators in the US have since relaxed their position on this, but the question must surely be asked, what was the purpose of the restriction in the first place and how can it be right that it applied so strictly that it actively worked against important research at a vital time?

Europe is also suffering under the burden of pointless bureaucracy in healthcare: the Consumer Choice Center has highlighted that 20 countries in Europe don’t allow online ordering of prescription medicines and 18 require even non-prescription medicines like paracetamol to be sold in pharmacies only. Thankfully the UK is not in the guilty groupof countries in either case, but we still have many regulations that are holding people back from getting the support that they need.

Some steps in that direction are being taken here. The Coronavirus Bill, published yesterday, gives the government emergency powers, but it also suspends various regulations, like the ban on recently retired doctors from returning to work more than 16 hours per week. It reduces the administration tasks and paperwork that health and care workers have to carry out – surely welcome at any time and not something that should take a global crisis to enact.

The Department for Housing Communities and Local Government has announced that planning rules will be relaxed so that pubs and restaurants can operate as hot food takeaways. These are the kind of rules that inspired the hashtag #NeverNeeded, urging Twitter users to identify regulations that are holding back efforts to counter the virus and were surely never needed in the first place. 

Health Secretary Matt Hancock tweeted that people and organisations should not feel restricted from doing what they need to do to help people because of data protection laws. This is an example of a regulation (the GDPR) that has been shown to be so badly formulated and poorly understood that people are not able to make decisions with certainty as to what is permitted without an ad hoc intervention from the secretary of state.

In my recent paper for the IEA, Rules Britannia, I noted that regulations are often put in place based on quite dubious cost/benefit analysis, and then not reviewed to see if they actually achieved their objective. The way in which regulations have been relaxed as a matter of urgency by governments around the world, in some cases after they have caused serious barriers in battling the spread of the virus, has highlighted this in stark terms. This is also why calls to impose ‘emergency legislation to remove “morally unacceptable” conspiracy theories’ from social media platforms should be resisted. Misinformation at this is time is deeply damaging, but a perception that government is controlling the media to hide things from citizens could be even worse. Knee jerk responses that unnecessarily curtail freedoms run the risk of being counterproductive, and such measures have a history of being be retained long after their original purpose has been forgotten.

When this public health emergency is over, we will need all of the productive capacity and innovation that free markets can provide to ensure that the economy recovers and there are jobs for people to go back to. Wealth is the strongest predictor of health in a society and free economies grow the fastest. If dealing with Covid-19 allows us to identify regulations that are holding back productivity and innovation in healthcare and across the economy as a whole we must not waste the opportunity to re-examine whether they were in fact ever needed.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Apakah Perlindungan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual di Bidang Medis Menguntungkan Konsumen?

Penulis Haikal Kurniawan – Usia harapan hidup dunia kian naik dari tahun ke tahun. Pada tahun 2020, diprediksi ada lebih banyak penduduk dunia yang berusia di atas 64 tahun daripada anak-anak di bawah usia 5 tahun (Roeder, 2019). Hal ini tentu merupakan suatu capaian yang mengagumkan, dan sangat perlu untuk diapresiasi.

Salah satu hal yang memainkan peran besar atas hal tersebut adalah inovasi dan perkembangan sains dan teknologi di bidang medis. Berbagai kemajuan di bidang tersebut telah membantu umat manusia untuk memiliki usia jauh lebih panjang daripada leluhur mereka yang hidup di masa lalu.

Konsumen tentu merupakan pihak yang paling diuntungkan dari perkembangan tersebut. Melalui berbagai inovasi, konsumen diberikan berbagai macam pilihan untuk memilih obat-obatan medis yang lebih beragam dan ampuh untuk mengatasi berbagai penyakit.

Lantas, apakah perlindungan Hak Kekayaan Intelektual memiliki kaitan erat perkembangan sains dan teknologi tersebut?

*****

Hak Kekayaan Intelektual, atau HAKI, merupakan salah satu hak yang diakui secara global oleh dunia internasional. Deklarasi Universal Hak Asasi Manusia (DUHAM), Pasal 27 UDHR, menyatakan dengan eksplisit bahwa “Setiap manusia memiliki hak untuk mendapatkan perlindungan, baik secara moral, maupun kepentingan material, yang dihasilkan dari hasil karya saintifik, literatur, maupun seni yang dibuatnya.”

Perlindungan HAKI merupakan salah satu instrumen yang dibuat untuk melindungi para inovator dan seniman atas hasil jerih payah mereka. Tanpa adanya perlindungan terhadap HAKI, tentu mustahil para inovator dan seniman yang sudah bekerja keras membuat karya tertentu untuk menikmati hasil kreatifitas yang mereka buat. Orang-orang lain, yang tidak melakukan apa-apa, akan dengan mudah mengkopi dan membajak hasil karya tersebut untuk keuntungan mereka sendiri.

Hal yang sama juga berlaku untuk inovasi di bidang teknologi kedokteran, pangan, dan kesehatan. Satu hal yang memiliki peran sangat besar untuk mendorong perkembangan tersebut adalah para investor yang menginvestasikan dana mereka untuk riset dan penelitian.

Jumlah dana yang diinvestasikan tersebut tidaklah kecil. Profesor dari Fakultas Kesehatan Universitas Tufts, Joseph Dimasi, dalam jurnalnya yang berjudul “Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: New estimates of R&D costs” memberi estimasi, agar sebuah obat bisa dipakai oleh pasien dari nol, dibutuhkan waktu riset selama 12,5 tahun dan dana sebesar 2,8 milyar Dollar Amerika, atau lebih dari 35 triliun rupiah (DiMasi, 2016).

Dana tersebut tentu bukan jumlah yang sedikit. Tanpa adanya perlindungan terhadap HAKI, tentu insentif para investor untuk menginvestasikan uang yang mereka miliki menjadi berkurang, dan bahkan hilang. Hal tersebut tentu akan sangat merugikan banyak pihak, terutama konsumen yang membutuhkan obat-obatan medis terbaru, karena riset dan penelitian menjadi terhambat.

Akan tetapi, bukankah HAKI di bidang medis akan mendorong perilaku rakus yang dilakukan oleh berbagai perusahaan farmasi demi keuntungan sebesar-besarnya?

Memang, kerakusan perusahaan farmasi demi meraih keuntungan sebesar-besarnya merupakan karikatur yang kerap digambarkan oleh para aktivis dan para politisi yang memiliki haluan kiri.

Namun, kenyataannya tidaklah demikian. Perusahaan farmasi asal Britania Raya GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) misalnya, memberlakukan kebijakan pemotongan harga obat yang mereka jual di negara-negara berkembang sebesar 25% dari dengan harga di negara-negara maju. Selain itu, perusahaan farmasi asal Swiss, Novartis, sejak tahun 2011, telah mendistribusikan lebih dari 850 juta obat anti malaria ke lebih dari 60 negara dengan jumlah penderita malaria tertinggi, tanpa mengambil profit sama sekali (Medicine for Malaria Venture, 2019).

Lantas, bila demikian, bagaimana kita dapat mengatasi biaya obat-obatan medis yang tinggi?

Cara untuk mengatasi hal tersebut bukanlah dengan menghapus HAKI, karena hal tersebut akan menghilangkan insentif yang sangat dibutuhkan untuk mendorong kemajuan di bidang medis. Solusi yang paling efisien untuk menurunkan harga obat-obatan agar terjangkau adalah menghapuskan berbagai kebijakan pemerintah yang mendorong kenaikan harga tersebut, diantaranya adalah tarif impor dan izin birokrasi yang rumit.

Tarif impor untuk produk obat-obatan medis tentu akan mendorong kenaikan harga barang tersebut di pasar, dimana yang paling dirugikan adalah masyarakat kelas menengah ke bawah. Nepal misalnya, memberlakukan kebijakan tarif impor untuk produk medis sebesar 14,7%. Tarif impor untuk obat-obatan medis di Indonesia sendiri adalah 4,3% (IDN Times, 2019).

Izin yang rumit dan berbelit juga merupakan hal yang tentu sangat menghambat perkembangan dan membuat biaya obat menjadi meningkat. Berdasarkan laporan Tempo misalnya, Menteri Kesehatan, Terawan Agus Purwanto, menyatakan bahwa izin peredaran obat baru di Indonesia bisa memakan waktu hingga berbulan-bulan, ia berjanji akan mengatasi persoalan tersebut (Tempo, 2020).

HAKI di bidang medis merupakan hal yang patut untuk dijaga demi mendorong perkembangan sains dan teknologi di bidang medis, yang tentunya akan membawa manfaat besar bagi umat manusia. Pemerintah dalam hal ini seharusnya menjadi pihak yang menjaga hak tersebut, bukan menjadi aktor yang mempersulit inovasi melalui berbagai regulasi ketat yang nantinya akan merugikan masyarakat.

Originally published here.


The Consumer Choice Center is the consumer advocacy group supporting lifestyle freedom, innovation, privacy, science, and consumer choice. The main policy areas we focus on are digital, mobility, lifestyle & consumer goods, and health & science.

The CCC represents consumers in over 100 countries across the globe. We closely monitor regulatory trends in Ottawa, Washington, Brussels, Geneva and other hotspots of regulation and inform and activate consumers to fight for #ConsumerChoice. Learn more at consumerchoicecenter.org

Побороти коронавірус з допомогою редагування генів: що це таке і як працює

Кордони закриваються, літаки скасовують рейси, а заводи призупиняють діяльність. Вчені та лікарі працюють над тестами, методами лікування та вакцинами, щоб незабаром надати медичну відповідь. Коронавірус може бути одним з найбільших випробувань, з якими людство стикалися за останні десятиліття, але він не буде останньою загрозою яку нам потрібно перемогти. Саме тому настав час звернути увагу на напрацювання біонауки та дозволити застосування методів генетичної зміни.

Для звичайної людини весь хайп навколо технологічного прогресу, мутагенезу та генної інженерії важко осмислити. Мені особисто знадобилось багато читати, щоб почати розуміти, які існують різні методи, і як вони можуть масово покращити нашу якість життя.

Давайте спочатку розглянемо чотири найпоширеніші способи зміни генів рослин чи тварин:

Доктор Ікс – Мутації самі по собі просто трапляються регулярно в природі. Саме таким чином деякі амінокислоти призвели до виникнення людини мільярд років пізніше. Біологічна еволюція може відбутися лише завдяки мутаціям. Мутації в природі відбуваються випадковим чином або викликані екзогенними факторами, такими як радіація (наприклад, сонце). Для читачів коміксів, люди-X мають мутації які у більшості випадків сталися випадково.

Халк – Мутація через опромінення (мутагени): Один з найпоширеніших способів маніпулювання насінням – це піддавати їх радіації та сподіватися на виникнення позитивних мутацій (наприклад, більшу стійкість до шкідників). Цей метод є дуже поширеним з 50-х років минулого століття, однак є дуже неточним підходом, який має на меті зробити посіви більш стійкими або приємними. Позитивний результат вимагає тисяч спроб. Цей метод широко застосовується та законний майже в кожній країні. У світі коміксів Халк – хороший приклад мутацій, викликаних радіацією.

Людина-павук – генетично модифіковані організми (трансгенні ГМО): процедура створення ГМО заснована на вставленні генів одного виду в гени іншого. У більшості випадків посіви ГМО ін’єктуються білком іншої рослини або бактеріями, що змушує урожай швидше рости або бути більш стійким до певних захворювань. Інші приклади можна побачити при схрещуванні лосося з рибою тилапії, завдяки чому лосось росте вдвічі швидше. Людина-павук укушена павуком раптом яка змогла піднятися на хмарочоси завдяки своїй посиленій павуко-людській ДНК (трансгенній) – приклад з коміксу.

GATTACA / Гнів Хана – редагування генів (ножиці): останній і найточніший спосіб зміни генів організму – так зване редагування генів. На відміну від традиційних ГМО, гени не імплантуються з іншого організму, а змінюються всередині організму завдяки точному методу або дезактивації певних генів, або їх додаванню.

Це можна зробити навіть у дорослих людей, які живуть, що є благом для всіх, хто страждає генетичними порушеннями. Ми здатні «відновити» гени в живих організмах. Редагування генів також в тисячі разів точніше, ніж просто бомбардування насіння радіацією. Деякі застосовані приклади дезактивації гена, відповідального за вироблення глютену в пшениці: Результат – пшениця без глютену. Існує кілька методів, які цього досягають. 

Однією з найпопулярніших в наші дні є так званий CRISPR Cas-9. Ці “ножниці” є зазвичай перепрограмованими бактеріями, які передають нову інформацію про ген або деактивують неіснуючі або небажані гени. Багато науково-фантастичних романів і фільмів показують майбутнє, в якому ми можемо деактивувати генетичні дефекти і вилікувати людину від страшних захворювань. Деякі приклади історій, в яких використовувались подібні до CRISPR методи, – це фільми, такі як GATTACA, Зоряний шлях: Гнів Хана, або серіал Expanse, в якому редагування генів відіграє вирішальну роль у вирощуванні сільськогосподарських культур у космосі.

Яке відношення це має до коронавірусу?

Біологи-синтетики почали використовувати CRISPR для синтетичного створення частин коронавірусу, намагаючись запустити вакцину проти цього захворювання легенів і зможуть дуже швидко його масово виробляти. У поєднанні з комп’ютерним моделюванням та штучним інтелектом найкраща конструкція такої вакцини розраховується на комп’ютері та потім синтетично створюється. Це прискорює розробку вакцини і скорочує її з роками до лише місяців. Регуляторні органи показали, що в кризові періоди вони також можуть швидко затвердити нові процедури тестування та вакцинації, які зазвичай потребують років назад та назад з такими агенціями, як Міністерство Охорони Здоров’я?

Серед іншого, CRISPR дозволяє “шукати” конкретні гени, також гени вірусу. Завдяки чому стало можливим створення створити швидких та простих процедур тестування пацієнтів на коронавірус.

Зрештою, редагування генів може дати нам можливість підвищити імунітет людства, змінивши наші гени та зробивши нас більш стійкими до вірусів та бактерій.

Коронaвірус – це не остання криза

Хоча коронавірус є своєрідним екзаменом для сучасного суспільства, ми також повинні усвідомлювати, що він не буде останнім збудником, який може вбити мільйони. Якщо нам не пощастить, корона може швидко мутувати і з ним стане важче боротися. Наступні небезпечні віруси, грибки чи бактерії, ймовірно, не за горами. Отже, нам потрібно підтримувати новітні винаходи біотехнології, а не блокувати генетичні дослідження та доступ до їх результатів.

Наразі чимало тяганини і навіть прямо заборони стоять між інноваціями з величезним потенціалом, такими як CRISPR та пацієнтами по всьому світу. Нам потрібно переосмислити нашу неприязнь до генної інженерії та прийняти її. Постійна боротьбa з новоявними хворобами потребує сучасних відповідей.

Originally published here.


Scroll to top
en_USEN