3 ms·

All I had to do was take time out of my day to go to the pharmacy, copay with my insurance was $0. Which just makes sense from a financial point of view for the

by lutorm 9y ago

All I had to do was take time out of my day to go to the pharmacy, copay with my insurance was $0. Which just makes sense from a financial point of view for the insurance companies, too.

nonbel 9y ago
This gives an inaccurate assessment of the cost. Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance (either directly or via taxes or via taxes spent on that rather than some other government service you could take advantage of). My point is that you can't say something "is worth it" without considering both costs AND benefits (I have recently seen friends get so ill they almost got fired because doctors ignored the side effects of prescriptions). Also, costs aren't zero just because they were prepaid or deferred.
- smileysteve 9y ago
  > Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance Wrong calculation. The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalizations; therefore, customers getting the flu shot cost the insurer less. Even further for herd immunity (the pt), 1 insured getting the flu shot might reduce 4-8 others from getting the flu.
  - smileysteve 9y ago
    And in the case of workplace or family, are likely covered by the same insurer. There's probably some patient n with diminishing returns for the modern tech workplace, where, if they live alone, commute alone, visit no family, and have no onsites.
  - nonbel 9y ago
    >"The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalization" Interesting point (not sure how far down a rabbit hole this can go...), so you are claiming that the introduction of flu shots has reduced insurance costs? Is it even possible to assess this or are there just too many confounds?
    - smileysteve 9y ago
      Just did a quick google https://www.news-medical.net/news/20110614/Universal-influenza-vaccination-may-reduce-health-care-costs-in-the-US.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20110614/Universal-influen...
      - nonbel 9y ago
        That model is from 2011 and it looks like they made some predictions. How accurate did it turn out?
        smileysteve 9y ago
        As you indicate, it's a model and based on the predicate of 100% immunization. It can't "turn out" until everybody is immunized. Also, like I said, quick Google, perhaps you can find something more relevant for your questions and share it. But it does objectively suggest that immunization is economically cheaper for insurers, with and without 100% immunization rates.
        nonbel 9y ago
        Well, the reason I am somewhat incredulous is that health insurance rates have only risen as more and more people get vaccinated. Perhaps it is cheaper for the insurance companies but they are not passing this along? Obviously, there are many other factors in play as well but I don't think anything has been "objectively suggested" just because someone created a model that hasn't been (and probably will never be) tested.
        smileysteve 9y ago
        Health insurance rates have a number of factors to consider, the least of which is a flu vaccine given by your corner pharmacy by a Physician's Assistant. Getting the flu, or having a more severe case of the flu increases your chances of 1) going to see a real doctor instead of a P.A 2) being mis-prescribed antibiotics 3) emergency room care 4) Torts originating from severe disease while in a Doctor's care
- dgacmu 9y ago
  It's the opposite -- the insurance company saves money by having people get the flu shot: 1 flu shot reduces probability of flu to ~70% of what it was before. 0.7 * Cost to treat average flu case + Cost Flu shot < 1.0 * Cost to treat average flu case Insurance companies have pretty good stats underlying that sort of decision. At CMU this year, they were paying you to get a flu shot (in the form of a $5 gift card, with the flu shot being free).
  - nonbel 9y ago
    One strange thing about this thread is all the people equating the net cost to the insurance company with the cost to themselves. I don't normally come across that attitude, usually the insurance company is perceived as an adversary you need to fight to get the deserved coverage.
    - _jal 9y ago
      The world is more complex than that. Many (probably every) large organization/industry does both good and bad things. Insurance, ultimately, is a way of sharing risk. Even more abstractly, it is about aligning interests. I think this is one part of why people get so upset with insurance when there is dispute - it feels a little like a betrayal.
      - nonbel 9y ago
        I'm not really talking about health insurance in the abstract, but rather the current implementation (which seems very shady to many people). I doubt current insurance companies care whether you get the flu or not. They just care whether you go to the doctor for it, eg if enough people think "It must be a cold" and self-medicate that works for them.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

by lutorm 9y ago

All I had to do was take time out of my day to go to the pharmacy, copay with my insurance was $0. Which just makes sense from a financial point of view for the insurance companies, too.

nonbel 9y ago

This gives an inaccurate assessment of the cost. Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance (either directly or via taxes or via taxes spent on that rather than some other government service you could take advantage of). My point is that you can't say something "is worth it" without considering both costs AND benefits (I have recently seen friends get so ill they almost got fired because doctors ignored the side effects of prescriptions). Also, costs aren't zero just because they were prepaid or deferred.

smileysteve 9y ago
> Obviously you are paying for the shot by paying more for insurance Wrong calculation. The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalizations; therefore, customers getting the flu shot cost the insurer less. Even further for herd immunity (the pt), 1 insured getting the flu shot might reduce 4-8 others from getting the flu.
- smileysteve 9y ago
  And in the case of workplace or family, are likely covered by the same insurer. There's probably some patient n with diminishing returns for the modern tech workplace, where, if they live alone, commute alone, visit no family, and have no onsites.
- nonbel 9y ago
  >"The insurance company is trying to SAVE expenditures of doctors and hospitalization" Interesting point (not sure how far down a rabbit hole this can go...), so you are claiming that the introduction of flu shots has reduced insurance costs? Is it even possible to assess this or are there just too many confounds?
  - smileysteve 9y ago
    Just did a quick google https://www.news-medical.net/news/20110614/Universal-influenza-vaccination-may-reduce-health-care-costs-in-the-US.aspx https://www.news-medical.net/news/20110614/Universal-influen...
    - nonbel 9y ago
      That model is from 2011 and it looks like they made some predictions. How accurate did it turn out?
      - smileysteve 9y ago
        As you indicate, it's a model and based on the predicate of 100% immunization. It can't "turn out" until everybody is immunized. Also, like I said, quick Google, perhaps you can find something more relevant for your questions and share it. But it does objectively suggest that immunization is economically cheaper for insurers, with and without 100% immunization rates.
        nonbel 9y ago
        Well, the reason I am somewhat incredulous is that health insurance rates have only risen as more and more people get vaccinated. Perhaps it is cheaper for the insurance companies but they are not passing this along? Obviously, there are many other factors in play as well but I don't think anything has been "objectively suggested" just because someone created a model that hasn't been (and probably will never be) tested.
        smileysteve 9y ago
        Health insurance rates have a number of factors to consider, the least of which is a flu vaccine given by your corner pharmacy by a Physician's Assistant. Getting the flu, or having a more severe case of the flu increases your chances of 1) going to see a real doctor instead of a P.A 2) being mis-prescribed antibiotics 3) emergency room care 4) Torts originating from severe disease while in a Doctor's care
dgacmu 9y ago
It's the opposite -- the insurance company saves money by having people get the flu shot: 1 flu shot reduces probability of flu to ~70% of what it was before. 0.7 * Cost to treat average flu case + Cost Flu shot < 1.0 * Cost to treat average flu case Insurance companies have pretty good stats underlying that sort of decision. At CMU this year, they were paying you to get a flu shot (in the form of a $5 gift card, with the flu shot being free).
- nonbel 9y ago
  One strange thing about this thread is all the people equating the net cost to the insurance company with the cost to themselves. I don't normally come across that attitude, usually the insurance company is perceived as an adversary you need to fight to get the deserved coverage.
  - _jal 9y ago
    The world is more complex than that. Many (probably every) large organization/industry does both good and bad things. Insurance, ultimately, is a way of sharing risk. Even more abstractly, it is about aligning interests. I think this is one part of why people get so upset with insurance when there is dispute - it feels a little like a betrayal.
    - nonbel 9y ago
      I'm not really talking about health insurance in the abstract, but rather the current implementation (which seems very shady to many people). I doubt current insurance companies care whether you get the flu or not. They just care whether you go to the doctor for it, eg if enough people think "It must be a cold" and self-medicate that works for them.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]