6 ms·

Harvard published a paper in the American Journal of Medicine in 2007 on the subject. It was also a big talking point by all US candidates and pundits that year

Harvard published a paper in the American Journal of Medicine in 2007 on the subject. It was also a big talking point by all US candidates and pundits that year. http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/...

yummyfajitas 16y ago
Go read the actual study rather than a press release about it. It's deeply flawed, both for methodology (it has no control group) and for basic definitions. Basic definitions: a bankruptcy with $1001 or more in medical spending in the previous 2 years is a "medical bankruptcy". By this criteria, Michael Vick's bankruptcy was medical, even though any sane person would realize there were other causes [1]. Also, "uncontrolled gambling", "drug abuse" and "adoption/birth" are medical causes of bankruptcy, by the definition of that study. If we adopted the criteria of that study, we would discover that nearly every bankruptcy has "major tax cause", for example. By the way, a slightly less misleading way to phrase the conclusions of that study would be "medical bankruptcies drop by 33%, even while medical costs increase." Luckily, the language of the study hid that from lazy reporters. See this explanation: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18826/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabet... Try again. [1] Getting arrested for dogfighting and losing his job in the NFL, for example. While he certainly spent a few grand on doctors, he also owed about $600k in back taxes. [edit: oops, linked to the debunking, forgot to link to the actual study. http://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/ http://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/ Thanks floor(e x 10^10).]
- anamax 16y ago
  > ... and losing his job is the biggest factor in "medical bankruptcies". If you can't work because you're sick, you're going to have financial problems because the "cost of life" bills (food, shelter, transportation, heat/cooling) still come in. Healthcare doesn't address this, so it's absurd to bring up "medical bankruptcies" as an argument wrt healthcare.
- 27182818284 16y ago
  I link to some website instead of the study >Go read the actual study rather than a press release about it. you link to another website instead of the study >http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18826/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabet... reminds me of the old Marx joke "I would never join any club that would accept me as a member"
- fluidcruft 16y ago
  > It's deeply flawed, both for methodology (it has no control group) Why do you require a control group for observational data?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    To answer the question of how many bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, you must compare a group of people with medical bills in excess of $1001 (or perhaps a gambling problem) to a similar group of people without medical bills/gambling problems/birth/adoption. If, (for instance), 50% of the first group and 49% of the second group goes bankrupt, then only 2% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. Without the control group, you have literally no idea.
    - fluidcruft 16y ago
      You don't need to find oaks that don't produce acorns in order to measure how many acorns an oak produces. And, yes, if you measure 1000 acorns on a tree, you actually do have an idea how many acorns are on that tree.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Go read the actual study rather than a press release about it. It's deeply flawed, both for methodology (it has no control group) and for basic definitions. Basic definitions: a bankruptcy with $1001 or more in medical spending in the previous 2 years is a "medical bankruptcy". By this criteria, Michael Vick's bankruptcy was medical, even though any sane person would realize there were other causes [1]. Also, "uncontrolled gambling", "drug abuse" and "adoption/birth" are medical causes of bankruptcy, by the definition of that study. If we adopted the criteria of that study, we would discover that nearly every bankruptcy has "major tax cause", for example. By the way, a slightly less misleading way to phrase the conclusions of that study would be "medical bankruptcies drop by 33%, even while medical costs increase." Luckily, the language of the study hid that from lazy reporters. See this explanation: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18826/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabet... Try again. [1] Getting arrested for dogfighting and losing his job in the NFL, for example. While he certainly spent a few grand on doctors, he also owed about $600k in back taxes. [edit: oops, linked to the debunking, forgot to link to the actual study. http://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/ http://pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_study/ Thanks floor(e x 10^10).]

anamax 16y ago
> ... and losing his job is the biggest factor in "medical bankruptcies". If you can't work because you're sick, you're going to have financial problems because the "cost of life" bills (food, shelter, transportation, heat/cooling) still come in. Healthcare doesn't address this, so it's absurd to bring up "medical bankruptcies" as an argument wrt healthcare.
27182818284 16y ago
I link to some website instead of the study >Go read the actual study rather than a press release about it. you link to another website instead of the study >http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabeth-warren-and-the-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-utterly-misleading-bankruptcy-study/18826/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/06/elizabet... reminds me of the old Marx joke "I would never join any club that would accept me as a member"
fluidcruft 16y ago
> It's deeply flawed, both for methodology (it has no control group) Why do you require a control group for observational data?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  To answer the question of how many bankruptcies are caused by medical bills, you must compare a group of people with medical bills in excess of $1001 (or perhaps a gambling problem) to a similar group of people without medical bills/gambling problems/birth/adoption. If, (for instance), 50% of the first group and 49% of the second group goes bankrupt, then only 2% of bankruptcies are caused by medical bills. Without the control group, you have literally no idea.
  - fluidcruft 16y ago
    You don't need to find oaks that don't produce acorns in order to measure how many acorns an oak produces. And, yes, if you measure 1000 acorns on a tree, you actually do have an idea how many acorns are on that tree.