Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by CydeWeys 2744 days ago
This hack isn't necessary in the US because the hospitals can afford (and already have) the proper bubble CPAP devices, which are more effective than hacked-together shampoo bottles anyway.

It's a good thing there's regulations in place here preventing the use of less effective hacks when better devices exist. And yeah, it's not just regulation but also legal liability that comes into play here; in the long run it's more expensive to use cheap hacks and risk many-million-dollar lawsuits if they kill someone than to pony up the thousands of dollars for the correct equipment.
1 comments
friedman23 2744 days ago
>This hack isn't necessary in the US because the hospitals can afford (and already have) the proper bubble CPAP devices, which are more effective than hacked-together shampoo bottles anyway.

They can only afford it because we spend such an absurd amount of money on healthcare.

link
chrismeller 2744 days ago
In this case it’s arguably one of those “well, it’s worth it” scenarios because there is evidence that the expensive version is better than the cheap version (though arguably perhaps not better enough to justify the cost).

The situation gets turned on it’s head when it’s an experimental procedure, though. “Insurance wouldn’t pay for x because it was experimental!” is an all too frequent complaint (it’s even the entire catalyst for the show Leverage).

Well, why do you think they don’t pay for it? Not only is it always insanely expensive, but it’s also got a 40% chance of success according to the doctor who wants to perform it (who is incentivized to keep his stats up) and it’s not endorsed by anyone... and that is a huge liability.

So I suppose my point here is that, for the armchair physicians online, every chance there is to save $1k there’s a chance to spend $100k. If you remove regulation you’re not just accomplishing savings on one thing, you’re opening up a pandora’s box of expense on another.

link
CydeWeys 2744 days ago
No, it can be afforded because a multi-use $6k device is well worth it if it can help save infants' lives.

I don't understand your argument at all. Of course it's worth it that this device exists. It works. And it only exists because we've spent money on development and acquisition. This is exactly when higher spending on healthcare is beneficial. Contrast with Bangladesh, where they can't afford these devices and as a consequence many more infants die (or they have to hack together inferior replacements from shampoo bottles that don't work as well).

link
friedman23 2744 days ago
My argument is that if this device could be produced and work using a shampoo bottle then it can be produced for less than $6000 and still be as effective. The problem of course is all of the hoops that need to be jumped over to get approval for even the simplest devices.
link