4 ms·

It's not just that the costs of getting healthy are taken care of. Here in austria free, yearly "health checkups" are offered to you by every doctor. Meaning,

by cel1ne 10y ago

It's not just that the costs of getting healthy are taken care of. Here in austria free, yearly "health checkups" are offered to you by every doctor. Meaning, when you go there because of a cold, he will tell you that you ought to do a checkup every year, which include blood tests, psychological screening for alcoholism and other individualized tests like prostate cancer for men. It's just convenient to use the system. I even had multiple MRIs and dozens of XRays after minor sport injuries just to be sure.

nothrabannosir 10y ago
It's just convenient to use the system. I even had multiple MRIs and dozens of XRays after minor sport injuries just to be sure. I'm not sure where to draw the line, though. How do you determine when "just in case" costs too much? Remember, all Austrians paid for your mris and X-rays. I don't doubt it was worth it this specific case, but aren't the incentives wrong?
- gotchange 10y ago
  What makes you think that he doesn't pay into the system already as part of all people who chipped in whether Austrians or not? Systems like these can be susceptible to abuse and this should be researched and prevented as much as possible but this attitude that any free health care receiver is to be treated with suspicion and distrust till proven innocent is not healthy, sorry for the pun.
  - tmptmp 10y ago
    >>Systems like these can be susceptible to abuse and this should be researched and prevented as much as possible This is good in theory but very difficult to implement effectively. The conservatives take an extreme condescending view of social welfare and demand extreme checks on it whereas any checks and balances for abuse is what is attacked by many liberals/leftists. That's where immigration is playing a destructive force. A lot of immigrants (if not all/most) can be seen abusing social welfare. Also slightly related is what is happening in Briton w.r.t brexit. Brexit was welcome by many Britons also for this reason.
    - stefs 10y ago
      i remember reading immigrants (in austria) on average pay more into the system than they get out, because most of them are relatively young and thus still healthy. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fderstandard.at%2F2000037209653%2FAuslaender-zahlen-mehr-ins-Sozialsystem-ein-als-sie-erhalten&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...
- sowbug 10y ago
  They're not necessarily wrong. They're just different. If the incentives make it easier for you to get preventative and diagnostic care, then you probably will. Presumably this leads to better outcomes overall than taking the risk that intensive care will otherwise be needed later on.
- peteretep 10y ago
  > How do you determine when > "just in case" costs too > much Generally you don't in systems like this. The referring physician in association with national guidelines on cost and treatment plans does.
- stefs 10y ago
  > How do you determine when "just in case" costs too much? the physicians usually try to take the safe route just in case - if they deem it worth it. i'm still in the low risk category (~~young~~ not old, passably athletic) so my doctor told me more than once that it's probably nothing and we don't need to do the (expensive) X, the (cheap) Y is enough (maybe Y reveals something that justifies X). it doesn't always work; as a personal anecdote - my uncle suffered a debilitating headache once and was told to take aspirin for several days until my aunt had enough and drove him to the hospital on her own. turned out to be cerebral bleeding. he barely survived and is now mentally disabled. this a) takes him out of the workforce, which looses the state money through reduced taxes and b) ensures him an invalidity pension, which costs the state money. was it worth it to save the money? on paper it's the additional cost of checking N people who're having headaches plus the cost of treating M people who're actually affected vs. the money he would have paid into the system plus the money he now costs the system over, say, 20 years. additionally he consumes less and his wife's business is struggling because he's not much help anymore. for us, personally, it's still a tragedy, but those cases happen. you have to draw the line somewhere. it's not just additional costs though, it's still a trade off.
- sspiff 10y ago
  At least in Belgium, this just in case behaviour is strongly discouraged by most younger general practitioners, who are made aware of the costs to society during training. Older doctors might still give you referals to specialists or radiographers upon request, and check every tickbox on a blood test sheet, but younger doctors are tought that every additional test puts strain on the solvency and labor capacity of the health care system, and will not have irrelevant or unnecessary tests performed. In Belgium, MRI and CAT scan capacity is limited, and you can't have an MRI on a whim - you need to be referred by a general practitioner to get one.
  - cel1ne 10y ago
    I got two MRIs and those had to be approved by a doctor working for the insurance.
- contras1970 10y ago
  I don't doubt it was worth it this specific case, but aren't the incentives wrong? No. If you see bad outcomes from wrong incentives, come forth.
germanguy4711 10y ago
> and dozens of XRays after minor sport injuries just to be sure Sorry, but this is hard to believe. The use of XRays for minor injuries is not standard anymore. Not only for cost reasons, but also for the still unclear situation about increased cancer risk due to xrays.
- DasIch 10y ago
  There is a difference between retrospectively determining that an injury is minor and doing so prospectively. It might not have looked all that minor when those tests were made.
- cel1ne 10y ago
  Granted "dozens" were a bit too much, it was 10-15 over the course of 5 years.
DanBC 10y ago
> and other individualized tests like prostate cancer for men. Mass screening of healthy men for prostate cancer is probably more harmful than helpful.

by cel1ne 10y ago

nothrabannosir 10y ago

It's just convenient to use the system. I even had multiple MRIs and dozens of XRays after minor sport injuries just to be sure. I'm not sure where to draw the line, though. How do you determine when "just in case" costs too much? Remember, all Austrians paid for your mris and X-rays. I don't doubt it was worth it this specific case, but aren't the incentives wrong?

gotchange 10y ago
What makes you think that he doesn't pay into the system already as part of all people who chipped in whether Austrians or not? Systems like these can be susceptible to abuse and this should be researched and prevented as much as possible but this attitude that any free health care receiver is to be treated with suspicion and distrust till proven innocent is not healthy, sorry for the pun.
- tmptmp 10y ago
  >>Systems like these can be susceptible to abuse and this should be researched and prevented as much as possible This is good in theory but very difficult to implement effectively. The conservatives take an extreme condescending view of social welfare and demand extreme checks on it whereas any checks and balances for abuse is what is attacked by many liberals/leftists. That's where immigration is playing a destructive force. A lot of immigrants (if not all/most) can be seen abusing social welfare. Also slightly related is what is happening in Briton w.r.t brexit. Brexit was welcome by many Britons also for this reason.
  - stefs 10y ago
    i remember reading immigrants (in austria) on average pay more into the system than they get out, because most of them are relatively young and thus still healthy. https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fderstandard.at%2F2000037209653%2FAuslaender-zahlen-mehr-ins-Sozialsystem-ein-als-sie-erhalten&edit-text= https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pr...
sowbug 10y ago
They're not necessarily wrong. They're just different. If the incentives make it easier for you to get preventative and diagnostic care, then you probably will. Presumably this leads to better outcomes overall than taking the risk that intensive care will otherwise be needed later on.
peteretep 10y ago
> How do you determine when > "just in case" costs too > much Generally you don't in systems like this. The referring physician in association with national guidelines on cost and treatment plans does.
stefs 10y ago
> How do you determine when "just in case" costs too much? the physicians usually try to take the safe route just in case - if they deem it worth it. i'm still in the low risk category (~~young~~ not old, passably athletic) so my doctor told me more than once that it's probably nothing and we don't need to do the (expensive) X, the (cheap) Y is enough (maybe Y reveals something that justifies X). it doesn't always work; as a personal anecdote - my uncle suffered a debilitating headache once and was told to take aspirin for several days until my aunt had enough and drove him to the hospital on her own. turned out to be cerebral bleeding. he barely survived and is now mentally disabled. this a) takes him out of the workforce, which looses the state money through reduced taxes and b) ensures him an invalidity pension, which costs the state money. was it worth it to save the money? on paper it's the additional cost of checking N people who're having headaches plus the cost of treating M people who're actually affected vs. the money he would have paid into the system plus the money he now costs the system over, say, 20 years. additionally he consumes less and his wife's business is struggling because he's not much help anymore. for us, personally, it's still a tragedy, but those cases happen. you have to draw the line somewhere. it's not just additional costs though, it's still a trade off.
sspiff 10y ago
At least in Belgium, this just in case behaviour is strongly discouraged by most younger general practitioners, who are made aware of the costs to society during training. Older doctors might still give you referals to specialists or radiographers upon request, and check every tickbox on a blood test sheet, but younger doctors are tought that every additional test puts strain on the solvency and labor capacity of the health care system, and will not have irrelevant or unnecessary tests performed. In Belgium, MRI and CAT scan capacity is limited, and you can't have an MRI on a whim - you need to be referred by a general practitioner to get one.
- cel1ne 10y ago
  I got two MRIs and those had to be approved by a doctor working for the insurance.
contras1970 10y ago
I don't doubt it was worth it this specific case, but aren't the incentives wrong? No. If you see bad outcomes from wrong incentives, come forth.

germanguy4711 10y ago

> and dozens of XRays after minor sport injuries just to be sure Sorry, but this is hard to believe. The use of XRays for minor injuries is not standard anymore. Not only for cost reasons, but also for the still unclear situation about increased cancer risk due to xrays.

DasIch 10y ago
There is a difference between retrospectively determining that an injury is minor and doing so prospectively. It might not have looked all that minor when those tests were made.
cel1ne 10y ago
Granted "dozens" were a bit too much, it was 10-15 over the course of 5 years.

DanBC 10y ago

> and other individualized tests like prostate cancer for men. Mass screening of healthy men for prostate cancer is probably more harmful than helpful.