The great ICT explosion of the past 25 years did not happen because of one invention or innovation. It was literally thousands of incremental improvements in circuit design, chip fabrication, software, batteries, fans, mobile technology, etc., etc., that have created this new world.
The same will be true in healthcare technology--if we let it. At the Kaiser Family Foundation website, we find this:How Changes in Medical Technology Affect Health Care Costs
"Heart disease and its consequence, heart attack, is the leading cause of death in the U.S. and a good example of how new technology has changed the treatment and prevention of a disease over time. In the 1970s, cardiac care units were introduced, lidocaine was used to manage irregular heartbeat, beta-blockers were used to lower blood pressure in the first 3 hours after a heart attack, “clot buster” drugs began to be widely used, and coronary artery bypass surgery became more prevalent. In the 1980s, blood-thinning agents were used after a heart attack to prevent reoccurrences, beta-blocker therapy evolved from short-term therapy immediately after a heart attack to maintenance therapy, and angioplasty (minimally invasive surgery) was used after heart attack patients were stable. In the 1990s, more effective drugs were introduced to inhibit clot formation, angioplasty was used for treatment and revascularization along with stents to keep blood vessels open, cardiac rehabilitation programs were implemented sooner, and implantable cardiac defibrillators were used in certain patients with irregular heartbeats. In the 2000s, better tests became available to diagnose heart attack, drug-eluting stents were used, and new drug strategies were developed (aspirin, ACE inhibitors, beta-blockers, statins) for long-term management of heart attack and potential heart attack patients. From 1980-2000, the overall mortality rate from heart attack fell by almost half, from 345.2 to 186.0 per 100,000 persons." It wasn't any one thing that made the dramatic change--it was everything.
If you followed the ICT revolution, you would normally feel very optimistic about a similar path to revolution in healthcare. There is a robust community of suppliers and inventors, there are ample rewards for the winners, there are pathways to success being charted out--we should expect to see a power-law logarythmic curve to technology making us immortal, or something like this (from Ray Kurzweil, of course):
And yet. Somehow, as governments get more involved with healthcare (usually at the express request of their citizens), something seems to get lost. The overall number of medical technology patents declined by 2% annually between 2001 and 2005--the same period that saw a 5% annual increase in patents for optics, of all things. What incentives are being changed?
And yet. Countries tend to specialise in specific areas. It shouldn't surprise anyone to discover that Singapore, Japan and South Korea specialise in semi-conductors, for example. But consider France, a respectable generator of patents and overall research. They do good things there. But they punch above their weight in patents for telecommunications, and punch under their weight for medical technology, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. What's up with that? The United States punches above its weight in all three, while countries with very active government involvement in healthcare are not really leading in healthcare innovation.
If we provide direction and incentives to cut administrative costs and reduce paperwork, that's where companies will focus their efforts. Intel has a medical division that is working on a large variety of hugely useful products and services, but their big headline winner to date is a joint venture with MCA to produce a tablet PC that helps doctors and nurses... communicate better, reduce information friction and lower the administrative burden of hospitals. It's... worthy. It's valuable. But Intel was born to change the world, not improve on the tablet PC, dammit.
So when I do my five year forecast on this sector, I will be more cautious than hopeful. And that's a mortal pity--I think I'm going to need a few medical inventions to get to my 100th birthday.
Comments