Who could be against screening babies for rare diseases?
I am. Sometimes. And this proposal has all the hallmarks of money ill-spent. Even the people lobbying for the tests acknowledge they are "extremely rare." Spending lots of money testing for "extremely rare" conditions is often, if not always, a fools errand.
Everyone wants to avoid these rare, horrible conditions. But it's likely that the money would be better spent on ensuring adequate care for lower income women and children, rather than extra-special care for already well-cared for children.
Posted by robe0419 at February 21, 2005 12:18 PM | TrackBackTests for rare diseases (not just for babies) are one of the principal drivers of healthcare cost inflation. Though I hate to admit it, I agree with W that "defensive medicine" causes costs to skyrocket (though W implies that 'frivolous' lawsuits force medical practitioners out of business - I'd contend instead that liability fears force practitioners to perform many useless procedures at great expense). A relative of mine is a nurse in a hospital oncology unit. She is quite disgusted at the number of "tests" and other futile procedures that are imposed on people who are terminally ill. I have a greater conspiracy theory regarding the intersection of religious zealotry with medicine in that patients are often led to believe in "miracles" rather than the odds - resulting in greater profit margins for all aspects of the medical industry. The insurance companies, who one might expect to be motivated to control costs, instead finds it easier to raise premiums than to refuse to pay for certain procedures in certain situations.
Posted by: Jim at February 21, 2005 01:44 PM