There&#x27;s very little meat to support the subhead&#x27;s assertion.<p>In Robert Gordon&#x27;s <i>The Rise and Fall of American Growth</i>, a great deal of attention is focused profitably on the changes and progress in medicine and health outcomes from 1870 to present.  Most notably, Gordon divides the period at 1950, noting that life expectencies improves 2x more <i>before</i> 1950 than afterward (and from my own explorations, far more prior to 1920 than after).<p>There&#x27;s been exceedingly little progress in medicine since 1970, at which point major cancer, heart disease, and virtually all infectuous disease treatments existed.  We&#x27;ve seen many more <i>treatments</i> and more so <i>imaging and diagnostic</i> capabilities since ... but virtually no changes in outcomes.<p>Healthcare is a land of very, very, very rapidly diminishing returns, and for which <i>shoring up treatment and preventive care for the most under-served</i> pays <i>hugely</i> greater dividends than highly invasive or heroic treatments at the top end.  Much of the progress in health outcomes since 1970 appears to be in minority populations -- that is, the under-served.<p>Gordon&#x27;s book was published this year, its information is quite current.  I see little reason to suspect massive improvements in actual outcomes -- impacts rather than <i>change</i> -- in the nine months or so since it was put to bed.