Earlier today I blogged on shortages of medicines. The issue was a medicine for cardiac arrhythmia.
Now I come across an article in The Atlantic that talks to even more shortages of pharmaceuticals and notes that this kind of thing could cause more deaths than the ongoing Fukushima nuclear problems.
Here is the Washington Post article referenced by the article in The Atlantic.
I have no readily available solutions, but this is something we should be thinking about. I wonder what our Legislature is thinking about.
I wonder if, when someone is first issued a medicine that is expected to be taken over a long period if they should get a 60 day supply and told to renew at 30 days, thus always having a 30 day buffer? That would almost show some prudence, some appreciation for the low risk, high consequence, kinds of things that happen in life. If that was some sort of a standard it would soon become normal. Yes, some would then wait 59 days to renew their prescriptions, but most people would comprehend the idea and go with it.
Hat tip to the Instapundit.
Regards — Cliff
1 comment:
The world is often short on common sense. "Marginal utility" is a fascinating concept not nearly well enough taught to or understood by most--the "diamond-water" paradox included. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value).
As with Fukushima, and mistaking the value/cost of nuclear power by failing to factor in the value/cost of death from radiation poisoning, we likewise mistake the value/cost of medications by failing to recognize the value/cost of interrupted supply.
"Just in time" is no way to run a dispensary, just as electric-powered pumps are no way to back up a nuclear power plant. (Didn't anyone think to build the reactor below sea level so the sea water could be just sluiced in during a crisis?) My plan continues to be good health, but you can bet I'm going to have a back-up.
Post a Comment