The Federal Drug Administration (FDA) provides oversight into new products that enter the healthcare arena. This is a valuable service, but not one without its costs as demonstrated below.

During the decade of the 90′s the number of Premarket Approvals (PMA’s) were cut by over two thirds of the average for the decade before. By 1992, the first year of the Clinton administration, only ten products made it through the FDA process. For the remainder of the decade the average was one third less than the decade before, and only slightly improving thus far this decade.

What is missing in the numbers above the blue bars, are the number of products not approved and in the end, delayed.  Hidden also are products who’s financial risk of trying to bring to market have been crowded out by the time-valued risk of trying.  Some of these products are knowable, some are not.  Still there is a cost, as to how dear that cost, there is only speculation.

There is little time to reflect on the relative merits of this “crack down” or possible fear of investment due to the threat of nationalization (the blue bars reflect the first three years of the first Clinton administration), still there is a human element. It boils down to this. Our healthcare economy includes lots of researchers, innovators and manufacturers looking for ways to improve healthcare through technology. The question we have is do we want that innovation quickly or slowly. If we are to listen closely to those advocating national healthcare, the “enemy” to be controlled are pharmaceuticals and the vague argument that technology is causing the rise in healthcare costs.

A chest x-ray costs more than a close listen with a stethoscope, and Aspirin and a cane is cheaper than a knee replacement. Technology is not the problem for healthcare but rather a solution, and getting it more quickly is better than more slowly.

Wealth is largely dependent upon some other variables, one could be born into it, build it through hard work and education, and or be provided with special talents as in musicians or sports figures. Either way, not all of these characteristics are directly under the control of the individual, less one: education.

In today’s New York Times piece “Gap in Life Expectancy Widens for the Nation” I fear that few will read the complete, well written piece, and instead gleam from that which suits them best. So I thought I might point to the core of the article: education matters. Cited also in the article is a quote from Ellen R. Meara, a health economist at Harvard Medical School, who found that in the 1980s and 1990s, “virtually all gains in life expectancy occurred among highly educated groups.” Note also that that same group, tends to earns more.

If the health care labor sector is so robust, what is to be made of such a large gap in nursing? Ask any hospital administrator and right up there with indigent patient care is the constant lack of nurses willing to work in nursing.

It’s amazing to see this kind of evidence and not hear of the daily issues that must happen to those who continue to work in hospitals, and are forced to deal with on a daily basis.

There is plenty more behind this graph which I’ll be presenting over the following weeks and months. But first I need to hear from you. Is this a problem or is it not? What are the consequences and how are institutions trying to cope? What tactics or studies have you seen or done. Let us know.