There are two competing philosophies in the healthcare and pharma industries. One is to spend enough resources on both cure and prevention and the latter is to concentrate mainly on the prevention part as it yields long term benefits. However, in my opinion, while I agree that prevention is a better long-term strategy, there must be sufficient expenditure on the healing aspect as well. Also, it would be cost effective as well.
Firstly, there are millions of people who are already suffering from existing ailments, some of which are fatal. If most of the resources are spent on preventive measures for which there could be cheaper alternatives (for example Condoms for HIV), then millions of patients who are already suffering will meet a certain death.
Secondly, preventive medicine also needs a backup of treatment. For example there were instances of failure on the preventive medicine part. Considering this, to eliminate a disease, wherever possible, a strategy with a combination of prevention and cure should be deployed.
Thirdly, it is not cost effective to deploy all the eggs in one basket as well. Invested by organizations or not, the public expenditure would grow exponentially if a cure is not found in time. In addition to this, valuable productive hours of the working class would be lost. Compared to this, the research spending would be much lesser.
To conclude, while preventive medicine is a better way of dealing with a disease in the long run, investing in a cure for it augments the welfare of patients and it will be cheaper as well.
There are two competing philosophies in the healthcare and pharma industries. One is to spend
enough
resources on both
cure
and
prevention
and the latter is to concentrate
mainly
on the
prevention
part as it yields long term benefits.
However
, in my opinion, while I
agree
that
prevention
is a better long-term strategy, there
must
be sufficient expenditure on the healing aspect
as well
.
Also
, it would
be cost
effective
as well
.
Firstly
, there are millions of
people
who are already suffering from existing ailments,
some
of which are fatal. If most of the resources
are spent
on preventive measures for which there could be cheaper alternatives (
for example
Condoms for HIV), then millions of patients who are already suffering will
meet
a certain death.
Secondly
, preventive medicine
also
needs a backup of treatment.
For example
there were instances of failure on the preventive medicine part. Considering this, to eliminate a disease, wherever possible, a strategy with a combination of
prevention
and
cure
should
be deployed
.
Thirdly
, it is not cost effective to deploy all the eggs in one basket
as well
. Invested by organizations or not, the public expenditure would grow
exponentially
if a
cure
is not found in time.
In addition
to this, valuable productive hours of the working
class
would
be lost
. Compared to this, the research spending would be much lesser.
To conclude
, while preventive medicine is a better way of dealing with a disease in the long run, investing in a
cure
for it augments the welfare of patients and it will be cheaper
as
well.