90.2K

Verified Solution

Link Copied!

argue whether you feel the United States Governmental policies affecting suppliers (e.g. drug companies, medical devices, and medical IT, and Research Funding) has been wise? You can take either side or something in between. Consider questions like the following: (1500-2000 words)

• Is the government regulation of this industry too much, not enough or just right?
• Has it guaranteed high quality products available to the public?
• Has it given us the most advanced medical offerings in the world?
• Has the price paid for it all been fair and right?
• Have we let drug companies make money foolishly on taxpayer-funded NIH grants?
• Has US policy toward suppliers raised over-all medical costs beyond what was necessary?
• Are we monitoring new technologies closely enough before they come to market?
• Are needed products coming on the market in a timely fashion?
• Have these manufacturers been overly influential in Washington because of their excessive return on investments, received in part from us?
• Is Uncle Sam protecting the public enough from unsafe products in 2022?
• What about the advertising for all these good and services? Is this money well spent? Has it done a good job of informing the public? Should we change this policy?
• Should the government have dictated one electronic health record system for the entire country?
• If so, who should have overseen it?
• Would it have created an unwieldy monopoly?
• Was the governmental funding and tax breaks to encourage adoption of EHSs wise?
• Is the US guaranteeing fair and open competition for new innovators entering the market?
• Who should be guiding policy-making in this area?

Answer & Explanation Solved by verified expert

See Answer