The notion that the FDA should “err on the side of safety” sounds like a tautology but is an affront to patients with incurable or poorly treatable diseases: For them, there is no safety in the status quo, and we only damage them further with paternalistic public policy that prevents individuals from exercising their own judgment about risks and benefits. If the FDA must err, it should be on the side of patients’ freedom to choose.
For the full commentary, see:
HENRY I. MILLER. “Paternalism Costs Lives.” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., March 2, 2006): A14.
BRUSSELS — After French and Dutch voters killed the EU constitution last year, its framers fretted that Europe couldn’t function without their bloated document. That was always laughable. But driven by economic insecurity, those failed referendums, particularly in France, ended up calling into question the very foundation of the EU, a common and free market.
It didn’t take politicians long to take this message to heart. In recent weeks, the idea and reality of a single European market has come under threat. From France to Spain, from Luxembourg to Italy and even newcomer Poland, economic nationalism is gaining strength, evoking memories that the European project was created expressly to bury. Neelie Kroes, the EU’s competition commissioner, told me that these developments “risk taking Europe into a 1930s-style downward spiral of tit-for-tat protectionism.” This sensible Dutchwoman is not prone to hyperbole, and hardly alone in voicing the concern.
This winter, France made 11 sectors, from data security to (bizarrely) casinos, off limits to foreign buyers. And together with Luxembourg, Paris opposed a mooted merger between the world’s biggest steel companies, Mittal and Arcelor. (The protectionist furies so far haven’t managed to sink Mittal’s hostile bid.)
Prime Minister José Louis Rodríguez Zapatero also wants to keep the energy sector in Spanish hands. When Germany’s E.On moved to trump a rival Spanish bid from Gas Natural for the utility Endesa, Mr. Zapatero gave the regulator wider powers to block the takeover.
The most audacious national block was yet to come. Two weeks ago, France stepped in to stop Italy’s Enel from acquiring Suez by forcing through a shotgun wedding between the publicly owned Suez and state-owned Gaz de France. This tie-up epitomized Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin’s notion of “economic patriotism.” The Italians saw only economic protectionism, which the country’s central bank governor, Mario Draghi, said was “doomed to failure.” But Rome can’t easily claim the moral high ground, having shielded its banking sector for more than a decade.
The single market isn’t doing well on other fronts either. Last month, the European Parliament, with lawmakers following orders from their capitals, emasculated legislation that would have freed up the EU’s services market. A free market for services, by some estimates, would have added 0.7% to Europe’s GDP and created some 600,000 jobs.
For the full commentary, see:
DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL. “Common Market? Think Again!” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., March 13, 2006): A19.
VANCOUVER, British Columbia, Feb. 23 – The Cambie Surgery Center, Canada’s most prominent private hospital, may be considered a rogue enterprise.
Accepting money from patients for operations they would otherwise receive free of charge in a public hospital is technically prohibited in this country, even in cases where patients would wait months or even years before receiving treatment.
But no one is about to arrest Dr. Brian Day, who is president and medical director of the center, or any of the 120 doctors who work there. Public hospitals are sending him growing numbers of patients they are too busy to treat, and his center is advertising that patients do not have to wait to replace their aching knees.
The country’s publicly financed health insurance system — frequently described as the third rail of its political system and a core value of its national identity — is gradually breaking down. Private clinics are opening around the country by an estimated one a week, and private insurance companies are about to find a gold mine.
Dr. Day, for instance, is planning to open more private hospitals, first in Toronto and Ottawa, then in Montreal, Calgary and Edmonton. Ontario provincial officials are already threatening stiff fines. Dr. Day says he is eager to see them in court.
”We’ve taken the position that the law is illegal,” Dr. Day, 59, says. ”This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week and in which humans can wait two to three years.”
. . .
The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from 3.7 weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute, a conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks from 5.6 weeks over the same period.
Average wait times between referral by a family doctor and treatment range from 5.5 weeks for oncology to 40 weeks for orthopedic surgery, according to the study.
For the full article, see:
CLIFFORD KRAUSS. ” Canada’s Private Clinics Surge as Public System Falters.” The New York Times (Tuesday, February 28, 2006): A3.
Source of the graphic is page 1 of: MICHAEL O’CONNOR. “Library may help turn borrowers into buyers.” Omaha World-Herald (Saturday, March 4, 2006): 1 & 2.
If you live in Omaha, and want to check out a copy of Thomas Friedman’s pro-trade and globalization best-seller The World is Flat, it looks as though you’re going to have to wait awhile. While you’re waiting, you may want to read his earlier, and in some ways better, The Lexus and the Olive Tree. It is better in its discussion of the importance of Schumpeterian creative destruction, and better in terms of the coherence and flow of the argument.
Friedman, Thomas L. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. New York: Anchor Books, 2000. [ISBN # 0-385-49934-5]
Friedman, Thomas L. The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005.
(p. C1) With all the tools available to modern medicine — the blood tests and M.R.I.’s and endoscopes — you might think that misdiagnosis has become a rare thing. But you would be wrong. Studies of autopsies have shown that doctors seriously misdiagnose fatal illnesses about 20 percent of the time. So millions of patients are being treated for the wrong disease.
As shocking as that is, the more astonishing fact may be that the rate has not really changed since the 1930’s. “No improvement!” was how an article in the normally exclamation-free Journal of the American Medical Association summarized the situation.
. . .
But we still could be doing a lot better. Under the current medical system, doctors, nurses, lab technicians and hospital executives are not actually paid to come up with the right diagnosis. They are paid to perform tests and to do surgery and to dispense drugs.
There is no bonus for curing someone and no penalty for failing, except when the mistakes rise to the level of malpractice. So even though doctors can have the best intentions, they have little economic incentive to spend time double-checking their instincts, and hospitals have little incentive to give them the tools to do so.
. . .
(p. C4) Joseph Britto, a former intensive-care doctor, likes to compare medicine’s attitude toward mistakes with the airline industry’s. At the insistence of pilots, who have the ultimate incentive not to mess up, airlines have studied their errors and nearly eliminated crashes.
“Unlike pilots,” Dr. Britto said, “doctors don’t go down with their planes.”
For the full story, see:
DAVID LEONHARDT. “Why Doctors So Often Get It Wrong.” The New York Times (Weds., February 22, 2006): C1 & C4.
John Tierney. Source of image: online version of NYT article cited below.
The New York Times Op-Ed education columnist offers a provocative evaluation of how Milton Friedman’s educational voucher proposal is working in Milwuakee:
The Journal Sentinel, which endorsed John Kerry in 2004, has parted company with the Democratic Party on the voucher issue. It backed Republican efforts this year to expand the program, which has led to the creation of dozens of new private schools in Milwaukee.
“We’ve seen what school choice can do,” said Gregory Stanford, an editorial writer and a columnist at the paper. “It’s impressive to go around to the voucher schools and see kids learning. Their parents are much more satisfied with these schools. And the fears that the public schools would be hurt have turned out to be wrong.”
In fact, the students in public schools have benefited from the competition. Two studies by Harvard researchers, one by Caroline Hoxby and another by Rajashri Chakrabarti, have shown that as the voucher program expanded in Milwaukee, there was a marked improvement in test scores at the public schools most threatened by the program (the ones with large numbers of low-income students eligible for the vouchers).
The competition spurred the public system to shift power from the central administration to individual schools, allowing councils of parents and teachers to decide who should teach there, instead of forcing the schools to accept incompetent teachers just because they had seniority.
“Poor teachers used to shuffle from one school on to another in what we called the dance of the lemons,” says Ken Johnson, the head of the school board. “But we couldn’t let that continue once our students had the option to go somewhere else. We had to react to students’ needs. We had to start seeing them as customers, not just seat-fillers.”
Some of the new voucher schools have flopped — but the advantage of a voucher program is that a bad private school can be shut down a lot faster than a bad public school. And while critics complain that there still isn’t definitive evidence that voucher students are doing better over all in their new schools, the results so far in Milwaukee and other cities are more than enough to declare vouchers a success.
“All the good research, including the voucher opponents’ work, shows that kids who accept vouchers are doing at least as well as their public school peers,” says Joseph Viteritti of Hunter College. “That’s remarkable, considering how much less money is being spent on the voucher students.”
In Milwaukee, where the public system spends more than $10,000 per student, private schools get less than $6,400 for each voucher student. But when you see what can be done for that money, you realize what’s wrong with Democrats’ favorite solution for education: more money for the public-school monopoly.
. . .
The school principal, Denise Pitchford, worked in the public schools, but she took a pay cut in exchange for less red tape. “I wanted the flexibility to give immediate personal attention to every student,” she said. “To me, it represented less money but a better opportunity.” Just like the whole voucher program.
For the full story, see:
JOHN TIERNEY. “City Schools That Work.” The New York Times (Tues., March 7, 2006): A25.
Note: This article was reprinted under the title “Vouchers Offer Many Positives.” in: Omaha World-Herald (Weds., March 8, 2006): 7B.
Opposing government subsidies to one’s own group is a good way to make enemies. Few have the guts or principles to do so. So it is worth pausing to salute farmer Ed Wiederstein:
. . . Ed Wiederstein of Audubon, Iowa, said direct payments reduce motivation for farmers to be self-sufficient and often give money to people who don’t need it.
“Do I deserve money from the government to, supposedly, support me any more than the Ace Hardware man in downtown Audubon, or the feed store, the local newspaper, the local flower shop or the funeral home?” Wiederstein said. “Is what they do really any less important than what I do?
“There are a lot of farmers with a million-dollar net worth receiving thousands of dollars of support. Somehow, that picture just doesn’t look right.”
Rep. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., called Wiederstein an “outside thinker.”
Peterson told Wiederstein, “If you were up in western Minnesota, you might run into some trouble right now.”
A number of people said there should be less reliance on price guarantees and more on entrepreneurship and the creativity of American farm families.
For the full story, see:
“Farm subsidies, imports debated at Ag Committee meeting.” Omaha World-Herald (Monday, March 6, 2006): 8B.