Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

How to Save a Trillion Dollars

Continued from page 1

By David Ewing Duncan

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

The endeavor would link up genetics with promising research on the impact of environmental factors affecting disease. The Entelos model is one example of how scientists are attempting to combine these different disciplines in order to provide personalized profiles of an individual's health future--not only risk factors for disease, but also alternative scenarios based on diet and lifestyle that can increase or decrease the likelihood of cancer, diabetes, or heart disease.

In my case, the heart-attack model provided me with three distinct scenarios over the next 20 years. First was a heart-stopping risk factor of 40 percent in 10 years that I will have a heart attack and a nearly 70 percent risk factor in 20 years. But this dire forecast only happens if I gain a modest amount of weight: about a pound a year, the average weight gain for a man over age 40. If my weight flatlines, the risk falls to only about 2 percent. If I take cholesterol-lowering statins, my risk falls to zero.

I took the Entelos test seriously enough that I dropped 10 pounds, having gained a pound a year since turning 40 (I'm now 51).

Whether my new leanness will actually save me from a heart attack has yet to be determined. Nor can I be sure that the Entelos model is accurate, because the company hasn't run the extensive clinical trials with the thousands of patients needed to validate the test.

Once funded, Entelos would like to offer its test for less than $1,000 as volume increases. This price tag might seem high, but not if it substantially delays or prevents the need for, say, a diagnostic cardiac catheterization that costs $25,322 or a heart bypass operation that runs $85,633. The cost also has to be weighed against the $448 billion spent last year in direct and indirect costs for heart disease among the 80 million Americans who suffer from this malady.

Would a $1,000 test given to, say, people over 50 with borderline high cholesterol put off or eliminate debilitating and costly treatments?

No one knows. Nor will we know for sure unless we provide the organized push needed to find out.

David Ewing Duncan is the author of Experimental Man: What one man's body reveals about his future, your health, and our toxic world.

Comments

  • Expensive
    A $1000 dollars to tell you that you are over weight and obviously have an increased risk of heart problems. Maybe health care insurance premiums should be directly related to excess weight. Does anyone know the % of people with heart disease that are over weight? If they all stopped eating so much we can cut health costs and help the planet. As stated above: "If my weight flatlines, the risk falls to only about 2 percent. If I take cholesterol-lowering statins, my risk falls to zero."
    Dr. House
    Rate this comment: 12345

    flyingmonste...
    05/06/2009
    Posts:6
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: Expensive
      Thanks for the comment -- in my case, I was not overweight, and gaining one pound a year for a man of fifty is not much. The Entelos test suggest that I'm particularly sensitive to weight -- a prognosis that was very different from what my internist told me, that I was healthy and had little risk of heart attack.

      I'm hardly trying to belittle the obesity epidemic in the U.S., and it's role in heart disease. But if even a few people take a $500-$1000 test and are convinced to take better care of themselves, we all might benefit. That's the point of the column -- that we need a comprehensive effort to find out if these tests improve health and cut costs, or not.

      For details about the test I took, I suggest you read my book, Experimental Man, or check out The Experimental Man Project website at http://www.experimentalman.com.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      davidewingdu...
      05/06/2009
      Posts:11
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      • Re: Expensive
        Dave, I think you overlooked something: in schemes to improve health care the ideological perspective often trumps science and medicine. Even if your idea of a Personalized Health Project evolved as you've outlined, the opposition to government involvement in that sort of thing is so entrenched the implementation of its benefits through government would face relentless opposition--just on principle. The Conservatives for Patient Rights organization already has ads condemning anything but pure free market approaches to current health care reform actions. Making your vision come to pass faces social/political obstacles as significant as the diseases that need to be overcome.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        david.collin
        05/06/2009
        Posts:4
        Avg Rating:
        5/5
  • Single Payer = Government Rationing
    I think this technology would save the government and therefore the population 'at large' a bunch of money by allowing the government to claim that procedures, programs, even 'prevention' is not 'medically necessary'.  This kind of technology will be used by the government to cut cost, not improve care.  The idea that our government can create a more efficient healthcare system than private medicine is ridiculous.  They can't even do a good job taking out the garbage efficiently.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    twizzo
    05/06/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: Single Payer = Government Rationing
      Our healthcare system, when compared to nationalized systems from Canada to Japan, lags in the two metrics that matter, infant mortality and longevity. Despite the fact that it costs more than any of them. That is ridiculous!

      As an aside, most towns around me have privatized garbage pick-up.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      z0rr0
      05/06/2009
      Posts:54
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      • Re: Single Payer = Government Rationing
        Any lag in longevity is likely related to the fact that Americans are on average more overweight than citizens in other countries.  That has nothing to do with the quality of care that they're provided and more to do with what Americans *choose* to eat and their other lifestyle choices like exercise.  So in this regard, I would say that metric is not relevant to the discussion.

        Infant mortality is also a function of social and cultural norms, so again, I would say that it is irrelevant in relation to the cost or quality of health care in the US.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        kstauff
        05/06/2009
        Posts:94
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        • Re: Single Payer = Government Rationing
          Great comments! Maybe I wasn't clear enough, but I'm not primarily talking about how health care is delivered (single payer vs. private), although a Personalized Health Project would certainly impact health care delivery, hopefully by making people healthier and saving money for whomever is paying for health care. I'm proposing a science/development project like the Human Genome Project, an effort that would test scientific discoveries to see what actually works in people. The government already pays for the vast majority of medical research through the NIH -- I'm suggesting that this R&D project be funded and managed in a similar way, with the active participation of appropriate private companies engaged in R&D. I hope this clarifies.
          Rate this comment: 12345

          davidewingdu...
          05/06/2009
          Posts:11
          Avg Rating:
          5/5
          • Personalized Health Project
            I understand where you're going with the Personalized Health Project. I agree that something like that is going to be needed just to make sense of all the bio-medical data that is piling up. I think some sort of massive standard model for the effects of genes, physiology, environmental variables and personal health-habits will be needed against which our personal data can be run. Without that neither the docs nor us citizens (I refuse to think of myself as a "patient" or "consumer") will be able to decipher and interpret the details of all the information about us (Kevin Kelly's "Quantified Self" seems relevant here).

            So I'm all for your idea. But one of the things that has surprised me most during my 35 years in public health is the degree to which the economics, politics, and culture of our so-called "health care system" has become a major obstacle to better population health. It's not enough just to fight cancer, for example; you've got to fight for equitable access to basic care.

            We're about to be treated to a circus of political maneuvering to manipulate the federal health care reform voters are looking for. Personally, I've got really low expectations for the outcome. You might want to view this attack on the idea of a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. ("Effectiveness research?! Oh, s**t! They might find out my billion-dollar cash-cow product is totally bogus!")

            While your Personalized Health Project is going on, I think we need to greatly amplify the nascent grassroots, patient-driven effort to bring personal experience with all aspects of health care out onto the net. I suspect government will be stymied, and I don't trust health professionals, care providers, pharma, or any market-driven entity to give us the truth with which to make good decisions. It's not in their interest.

            We're on our own to create transparency for citizens, and without it science and science-based medicine will be pretty much hogtied.
            Rate this comment: 12345

            david.collin
            05/07/2009
            Posts:4
            Avg Rating:
            5/5

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

The Marcellus Shale Gas Rush
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.