|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Monday, July 21, 2003One question that isn’t asked very much is whether the drugs used by seniors actually increase their life expectancy. The statistic I heard a number of years ago was that at the turn of the century anyone who reached the age of 65 could expect 15 more years of life. Is this number much different now? If so, how much is contributed by drugs? And which drugs are the ones that contribute? My own uneducated guess would be that antibiotics are the primary drugs that would make such a contribution since they handle infection so well. In any case, as one who is 50 now, I think that this drug benefit is simply to enrich the drug companies. Average life expectancy still hovers around 75, so it's the rare person who lives beyond 80. Off hand, I'd say it's true that antibiotics have made the greatest contribution to extending mortality. However, there are some drugs that have made a difference for certain disease groups. The newer diabetic drugs and asthma/emphysema drugs have probably extended the mortality of diabetics and asthmatics and former smokers. But it's debatable whether or not expensive cholesterol medication improves mortality to any significant extent in the elderly, or whether expensive Alzheimer's medication improves the quality of life in the later years. In the short-term, senior drug benefits may benefit the drug companies the most, but as with any government-subsidized program there comes a point where the government suddenly realizes they're spending too much money. They don't cut the benefit, though. Instead, they cut the payments. So, in the long run, it will probably cost drug companies money. It won't be long before you hear them complaining about low reimbursements from Medicare - just like doctors. UPDATE: A reader sends the following correction about life expectancy rates: According to the year 2000 life tables, per 100,000 live births, the number expected to survive to at least age 80 is 51,037. That's higher than even I had supposed, and much higher than you suggest when you state "it's the rare person who lives beyond 80". On the contrary, it appears a bit better than even money that any random newborn will live to age 80, because, according to the tables, a bit more than half do so. BTW, the life expectancy at several more advanced ages is as follows: age 65 = 17.9 years, total expected lifetime therefore 82.9 years age 70 = 15.1 years, total expected lifetime therefore 85.1 years age 80 = 8.6 years, total expected lifetime therefore 88.6 years age 85 = 6.7 years, total expected lifetime therefore 91.7 years. The confusion springs, I think, from the common expression of "life expectancy" as the expectancy at birth. However, the expectancy of total lifetime continually changes as we age. And thank goodness for that! I admint to being surprised that the number of us that can expect to live to age 80 is so large. But I knew it wasn't "rare". I stand corrected. UPDATE II: The original reader sends this further observation: To take this one step further. The difference for life expectancy for people 65 years old is 2.9 years in a hundred years of medicine. Think about the difference in a hundred years to the access to clean water and food that has taken place. Think about the fact that there is social security which gives people more access to money. There are a lot of other more important factors than medicine that explain this extension in life expectancy. It drives me nuts that the discussion about the prescription drug benefits never deals with the question whether it is actually going to help anyone particularly. More medicine is not better medicine. posted by Sydney on 7/21/2003 07:32:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
