3 ms·

It's a combination of factors, of which Obesity is one of them. Part of routine healthcare is to tackle all these smaller issues at the same time before they ba

by athenot 10y ago

It's a combination of factors, of which Obesity is one of them. Part of routine healthcare is to tackle all these smaller issues at the same time before they balloon into larger problems. So it is conceivable that the lower rates of Obesity are a product of the healthcare practice in that country.

ghaff 10y ago
That's the theory. And it's certainly something that fits well with the idea that we're all better off with annual physicals and other types of preventative healthcare. From what I read, the evidence is pretty mixed. Sure, have your physical and do other preventative care, but the results are statistically at the margins from what I can tell. (which is, of course, relevant if you're at that margin.)
- coredog64 10y ago
  Other than some corner cases, the idea that there's a lot of spending on issues that could have been caught sooner is a non-starter. We're already doing most of it and it is reasonably cheap and not all that contentious: Vaccinations, pre-natal vitamins for pregnant mothers, etc. Most of the rest turns into the problem with false positives (and the treatment that entails) outweighing actual early detection.
  - athenot 10y ago
    > We're already doing most of it Population health data suggests otherwise. There are a lot of things that we (readers of HN) do take for granted, but we represent a very biased (dare I say privileged?) cross-section of the population. I live in Altanta but if I look at data in my state but outside of the city, a very different story is taking place. There is a strong correlation with lack of preventative health and certain comorbilities. Disclaimer: I used to work in population health.
- thisrod 10y ago
  A more plausible model is that doctors help sick people a lot, and are totally useless to healthy people. From that point of view, consider the American system of providing great health care to people with stable lives and good jobs, and sparing no expense on attempts to save people who are beyond help, while denying treatment to the unemployed and to people with "pre-existing", i.e. long term, medical conditions. It's almost like they're trying to exert the most possible effort for the least possible effect; like someone has memorised the triage chapter of a first-aid manual, then set out to do the exact opposite. Oh wait, they make lots of money that way, so it's all good.

by athenot 10y ago

ghaff 10y ago

That's the theory. And it's certainly something that fits well with the idea that we're all better off with annual physicals and other types of preventative healthcare. From what I read, the evidence is pretty mixed. Sure, have your physical and do other preventative care, but the results are statistically at the margins from what I can tell. (which is, of course, relevant if you're at that margin.)

coredog64 10y ago
Other than some corner cases, the idea that there's a lot of spending on issues that could have been caught sooner is a non-starter. We're already doing most of it and it is reasonably cheap and not all that contentious: Vaccinations, pre-natal vitamins for pregnant mothers, etc. Most of the rest turns into the problem with false positives (and the treatment that entails) outweighing actual early detection.
- athenot 10y ago
  > We're already doing most of it Population health data suggests otherwise. There are a lot of things that we (readers of HN) do take for granted, but we represent a very biased (dare I say privileged?) cross-section of the population. I live in Altanta but if I look at data in my state but outside of the city, a very different story is taking place. There is a strong correlation with lack of preventative health and certain comorbilities. Disclaimer: I used to work in population health.
thisrod 10y ago
A more plausible model is that doctors help sick people a lot, and are totally useless to healthy people. From that point of view, consider the American system of providing great health care to people with stable lives and good jobs, and sparing no expense on attempts to save people who are beyond help, while denying treatment to the unemployed and to people with "pre-existing", i.e. long term, medical conditions. It's almost like they're trying to exert the most possible effort for the least possible effect; like someone has memorised the triage chapter of a first-aid manual, then set out to do the exact opposite. Oh wait, they make lots of money that way, so it's all good.