Old_Mil

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Nov 19, 2004
2,091
576
50
Earth
Status
Attending Physician
The following represents planned expenditures on health care research by the National Institutute of Health broken down by disease for the year 2006.

1) AIDS. 18,017 deaths per year. 2.9 billion. Per patient: $3089

2) Cardiovascular Disease. 930,000 deaths per year. 2.4 billion. Per patient: $40

3) Diabetes. 73,965 deaths per year. 1.02 billion. Per patient: $48

4) Alzheimer's Disease. 63,343 deaths per year. 649 million. Per Patient: $144

5) Prostate Cancer. 29,578 deaths per year. 381 million. Per Patient: $136

6) Parkinson's Disease. 17,898 deaths per year. 232 million. Per Patient: $154

7) Hepatitis C. 12,000 deaths per year. 122 million. Per Patient: $25

8) Hepatitis B. 5,000 deaths per year. 33 million. Per Patient: $32

9) COPD. 126,128 deaths per year. 57 million. Per Patient: $5

The list goes on, but I think you see the point. There is absolutely no correlation between the number of people who suffer or die from a disease and how the NIH distributes research grants. I think we can safely say that based on the above, funding for AIDS research has gone well past adequate and reached the point of being absurd.

Meanwhile you, a friend, or close relative has a much higher chance of perishing from one of the other diseases on the list and the money is being diverted from its rightful place based on the activities of political lobbyists.

In a democratic republic such as ours, this is a travesty. It's high time that we cut money for AIDS research drastically and focused on mainstream conditions that affect far greater numbers of people.
 

Kevbot

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 13, 2004
236
0
36
NJ
Status
Did you ever stop to think that maybe the number of people afflicted by a disease is low when the amount spent is high because the research is.... WORKING???
 
R

Redneck

Dude, seriously, you can't just do a simple dollar per death break down. There are numerous variables with which to quantify priority of research dollars. Health care costs associated with each, or public opinion (these are tax dollars), or what kevbot exclaimed, or likelihood for significant results, then there are issues of types of research involved and what equipment is needed to get a lab prepped with each grant, then there are private charities contributing to certain research already. It's not that simple to equate a simple mathematical calculation and draw a summary and proclaim it as absolute truth. It's more complicated than that.
 

Runtita

Goddess on the Move
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Apr 28, 2003
608
0
48
Don't call me Mrs. Cheney
Status
Resident [Any Field]
It's lobbying, plain and simple. Big money associations draw attention to specific causes and decision makers in our government consciously or subconsciously respond by funding those causes.
 
OP
Old_Mil

Old_Mil

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Nov 19, 2004
2,091
576
50
Earth
Status
Attending Physician
Runtita said:
It's lobbying, plain and simple. Big money associations draw attention to specific causes and decision makers in our government consciously or subconsciously respond by funding those causes.
It is lobbying, plain and simple. And when the dollars per patient spent on researching a cure that has no genetic basis, affects a tiny percentage of the population, and is completely preventable by behavior modification is 30x that of what is spent on mainstream diseases with 10, 20 or 50 times as many deaths which result, that's just wrong.

As for not being able to make this sort of a comparison, why not?
 

misparas

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
Jun 4, 2005
571
0
Ohio
Status
I'm with you Old Mil. Those are misallocated funds! One may look at the different factors, but the money is still being spent on fewer people. The public opinion argument is the one that really gets to me. Whose opinion is it? I've never voted on where the money goes. It is the opinion of a vocal minority, and because lobbiest are out there fighting for it they get the funds over the real public opinion. If public opinion truly were consulted I'm sure people would want to focus on something that affects more of their friends and loved ones.

Please don't get me started on my AIDS opinion. I'll be tarred and feathered. Why spend that much money on a disease that is, for the most part, completely preventable by using a little self control? Spend the money on education and prevention. I realize that some people contract AIDS in a manner that is beyond their control; however, this is a vast minority. I also realize that AIDS in africa is a different issue, due to cultural circumstance.

I do realize that other diseases on the list are influenced by lifestyle choices. However, I know of no predispositioning genetic factors leading to AIDS, such as those that are present for cardiovascular disease and some others on the list. Enlighten me please.

Break out the tar and feathers.
 

FS-Pro

Guest
10+ Year Member
Nov 4, 2004
374
1
Status
Medical Student
misparas said:
I'm with you Old Mil. Those are misallocated funds! One may look at the different factors, but the money is still being spent on fewer people. The public opinion argument is the one that really gets to me. Whose opinion is it? I've never voted on where the money goes. It is the opinion of a vocal minority, and because lobbiest are out there fighting for it they get the funds over the real public opinion. If public opinion truly were consulted I'm sure people would want to focus on something that affects more of their friends and loved ones.

Please don't get me started on my AIDS opinion. I'll be tarred and feathered. Why spend that much money on a disease that is, for the most part, completely preventable by using a little self control? Spend the money on education and prevention. I realize that some people contract AIDS in a manner that is beyond their control; however, this is a vast minority. I also realize that AIDS in africa is a different issue, due to cultural circumstance.

I do realize that other diseases on the list are influenced by lifestyle choices. However, I know of no predispositioning genetic factors leading to AIDS, such as those that are present for cardiovascular disease and some others on the list. Enlighten me please.

Break out the tar and feathers.
Very, very good post!