4 ms·

They may also feel that it's not actually lower-cost for them. For example: say your doctor uses a somewhat lower-tech, kitbashed uterine balloon on your wife

They may also feel that it's not actually lower-cost for them. For example: say your doctor uses a somewhat lower-tech, kitbashed uterine balloon on your wife during postpartum bleeding. And say she dies anyway (as someone surely will). There is going to be a real temptation to sue the pants off the hospital and say, "Look, they used some jury-rigged contraption instead of the gold-plated device that would have cost 10x." And, I mean, that's a bad look for the hospital in front of a jury, "Yes, well, this might be a little worse, but it might not, and it cost less money!" Everyone wants healthcare to cost less until it starts to look like hospitals or doctors are prioritizing "profits" versus people's lives.

WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
This is why we pay the most of any other country... we try for best outcomes. If something cheap is used in the UK with a 97% good outcomes, we will spend 3 million to ensure we get closer to 98% outcome.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Depending on the amount of patients, even a 1 percent point increase for $3M could be a baragin. If, e.g., everyone undergoes such procedure once in their lifetime, 1% times the population of UK is 660K people that could be saved for $3M, roughly $4.5 per life saved, which is a no-brainer.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
    Yes, but we spend on better outcomes for things that aren't remotely critical. Women in the US have a C-Section rate of 26% compared to the 10 to 15% average just because doctors want better outcomes.
nicoburns 8y ago
It seems like the real problem here is suing culture. I'm pretty sure the hospital would win that case here in the UK. As they should, because money saved in one person's treatment, means money that can be spent on someone else's (and the more cost-efficient the treatments, the better the overall level of care).
specialist 8y ago
I've long argued that we need a separate court system for medical & healthcare cases. Our current civil courts aren't set up (conceptually) to consider best available science and standards of care at the time of treatment. So we get pathological outcomes like overuse of cesarean delivery because one jury one time bought the argument that vaginal births caused cerebral palsy. And there's really no formal way to undo these bad legal precedents.

WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago

This is why we pay the most of any other country... we try for best outcomes. If something cheap is used in the UK with a 97% good outcomes, we will spend 3 million to ensure we get closer to 98% outcome.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Depending on the amount of patients, even a 1 percent point increase for $3M could be a baragin. If, e.g., everyone undergoes such procedure once in their lifetime, 1% times the population of UK is 660K people that could be saved for $3M, roughly $4.5 per life saved, which is a no-brainer.
- WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
  Yes, but we spend on better outcomes for things that aren't remotely critical. Women in the US have a C-Section rate of 26% compared to the 10 to 15% average just because doctors want better outcomes.

nicoburns 8y ago

It seems like the real problem here is suing culture. I'm pretty sure the hospital would win that case here in the UK. As they should, because money saved in one person's treatment, means money that can be spent on someone else's (and the more cost-efficient the treatments, the better the overall level of care).

specialist 8y ago

I've long argued that we need a separate court system for medical & healthcare cases. Our current civil courts aren't set up (conceptually) to consider best available science and standards of care at the time of treatment. So we get pathological outcomes like overuse of cesarean delivery because one jury one time bought the argument that vaginal births caused cerebral palsy. And there's really no formal way to undo these bad legal precedents.