Cash or Test?

A recent study conducted by Times magazine has revealed that number of genetic tests performed on newborns have increased dramatically since the start of the decade. With a simple needle prick on the heel of the infant, doctors can now screen for a variety of diseases that are rare but severely debilitating. The ease of the procedures have sparked action throughout the nation; all fifty states now require tests for at least twenty-one diseases out of a recommended list of twenty-nine. Twenty-four states require all twenty-nine tests outright. The laws have come largely in response to a 2005 survey by the March of Dimes organization that found only 38% of the babies were being screened for the minimum twenty-one diseases. Nowadays, that percentage is closer to one hundred percent.

The new laws, while well intended, have placed additional responsibility and burden on the healthcare structure. The states have had to pay for the tests, which cost about $100, if the patient’s health plan does not cover it. This has created a drain of state funds that becomes increasingly difficult to fill. With the gloom of the bad economy looming over every financial decision, the question that comes to mind is whether these genetic tests are a responsible use of state funds.

The only justifiable answer to this question for society is yes. Despite the increased burden the law has on a state budget, it seems to me to be a crucial test for infants. Many of these diseases are treated and manageable if caught early; if diagnosis were to be delayed, it could cause irreparable damage. In the end, it comes down to the long-run; according to Dr. Jennifer Howse, president of the March of Dimes: “It’s much less expensive to treat these conditions than it is to manage the catastrophic illness that can occur if they are not detected.” So it makes both prudent and financial sense to make these screenings, despite the initial hit on the state’s wallets. One can only hope the states legislators understand this logic and continue the programs.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1880704,00.html