Doctors are biased toward old, conventional ways of doing things because you can't get sued for doing what there's a strong precedent for.
Insurance companies are biased toward old, conventional ways of doing things because it's harder for them to argue against paying for what there's a strong precedent for.
The FDA-approval trials that get funded tend to be those where that funding provides good return on investment, so it'll be for the expensive drugs instead of cheaper treatments that may be available to more people.
The pharmaceutical companies heavily market their more profitable products to doctors, who will then end up more likely to have their awareness biased toward the expensive drugs instead of cheaper treatments that may be available to more people.
Preventative care is less worth an insurance company investing in because it'll plausibly be a different insurance company that benefits.
IMLE more worthwhile treatments are available in Europe before they are available here.
Yes, that's true, they're marketing to both doctors and patients. As if your doctor or insurer wants their time wasted by you asking them all this rubbish.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-03 03:12 pm (UTC)IMLE more worthwhile treatments are available in Europe before they are available here.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-03 11:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-23 03:39 pm (UTC)