3 ms·
What is more broken: a system where everyone has to wait some weeks and get attended, or one where some can be atended in a day, and others will never be attend
by TuringTest 9y ago
What is more broken: a system where everyone has to wait some weeks and get attended, or one where some can be atended in a day, and others will never be attended?
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoBy what metric are we measuring? Total healthcare delivered in a timely fashion? Then the system that delivers at least some timely care wins again.
- TuringTest 9y agoNot if all urgent healthcare is delivered to all in a timely manner, and it's only non-urgent healthcare which gets delays. In this case, the system which can get urgent attendance to all users wins over the one which does it only for a subset, even in terms of timeliness.
- JoeAltmaier 9y agoUrgent care is a fair metric. A system than turns non-urgent care (a cold or the flu) into urgent care (pneumonia) is going to 'stuff the ballot box' in its favor however.
- TuringTest 9y agoIf you were to live the rest of your life with a new healthcare system, which of the following would you prefer? - a) one where you would be randomly assigned to one of two groups: one which gets timely attendance for urgent and non-urgent needs; and the other one which gets no attendance at all, of any kind. - b) one where all users get attended with an equal 3 weeks delay for non-urgent needs, and 0 delay for urgent needs.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- killmeslowlyjnj 9y ago> What is more broken: a system where everyone has to wait some weeks and get attended, or one where some can be atended in a day, and others will never be attended? The latter.