In a study published in October's Experimental Neurology, Dr Paul Kingham and his team at the UK Centre for Tissue Regeneration (UKCTR) isolated the stem cells from the fat tissue of adult animals and differentiated them into nerve cells to be used for repair and regeneration of injured nerves. They are now about to start a trial extracting stem cells from fat tissue of volunteer adult patients, in order to compare in the laboratory human and animal stem cells.

Following that, they will develop an artificial nerve constructed from a biodegradable polymer to transplant the differentiated stem cells. The biomaterial will be rolled up into a tube-like structure and inserted between the two ends of the cut nerve so that the regrowing nerve fibre can go through it from one end to the other.

This 'bionic' nerve could also be used in people who have suffered trauma injuries to their limbs or organs, cancer patients whose tumour surgery has affected a nearby nerve trunk and people who have had organ transplants.

With a clinical trial on the biomaterial about to be completed, the researchers hope the treatment could be ready for use in four or five years.

Dr Kingham said: "The differentiated stem cells have great potential for future clinical use, initially for treatment of patients with traumatic injuries of nerves in the arms and legs.

"This work will also help to develop a similar surgical approach for organ transplant, to give full functional recuperation to the transplanted tissue.

The Committee for Economic Development proposes replacing the current system with one that would provide universal coverage and remake the way health insurance is bought and sold.

"What we need is not to tinker at the edges," said Robert Chess, co-chair of the group's subcommittee on health care and chairman of Nektar Therapeutics, a drug-delivery company based in San Carlos, Calif. "We need to look at a fundamentally different solution."

• Establish a system of mandatory coverage in which people would receive a fixed-dollar credit from the government to buy health insurance from a menu of approved health plans. People could buy a more expensive plan by paying the extra cost.

• Prohibit insurance companies from setting rates based on age or pre-existing medical conditions. The "fine print" in the plans also would be standardized to protect consumers.

• Finance the new system through payroll taxes or other taxes.

There also are significant differences in the proposals.

Healthy Wisconsin included an option in which the state would set up a plan similar to Medicare.

The Committee for Economic Development, in contrast, contends that a single-payer, or "Medicare for all," plan run by the government would not work.

....

The Committee for Economic Development came to the same conclusion. But the group also said that merely expanding coverage under the current system would not solve the core problem: the unsustainable rise in health care costs.

At the same time, the report was critical of the contention that high-deductible health plans combined with health savings accounts - commonly called consumer-driven health care - will solve the problems facing the health care system.

....

Giving people incentives to choose less-expensive health plans could prod health plans to contract with hospitals and doctors that offer the best combination of price and quality.

"We are not letting market forces do their job now in the way they do in every other industry," said Chess, the co-chair of the group's subcommittee on health care.

The group's report notes that the health care market doesn't work to close the large gaps between the most efficient providers of health care and the inefficient ones, something that takes place in the rest of the economy.

Bush, who wanted a $5 billion increase, told Lancaster-area business leaders that he would offer more money if Congress agrees to focus the program strictly on low-income children.

"Poor kids first," Bush said. "I believe in private medicine, not the federal government running the health care system."

In a message to Congress, Bush wrote that the government's role should be to promote private coverage, "not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage."

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers from both parties bemoaned Bush's veto and vowed to work together to bypass him. "If we're truly compassionate, it seems to me we will want to endorse this program," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, accused the White House of not working with Congress. "Every effort was made to bring them in," he said. "I think they decided to veto the bill before it was written."