3 ms·
That's just hand waving. If the duration increases it makes absolutely no sense not to attempt to get the cheapest way to manage the condition. People do it al
by notyourday 8y ago
That's just hand waving. If the duration increases it makes absolutely no sense not to attempt to get the cheapest way to manage the condition.
People do it all the time if they are on a hook for payments -- that's why we have drugs being grey important from Canada, Europe and India, especially if those drugs are not covered by the US insurance. Suddenly saving $200/mo per type of a pill becomes important. As soon as it is covered by insurance it becomes "Whatever, insurance pays"
- dredmorbius 8y agoNo, it is not. It's an argument for structural rather than individual change.
- notyourday 8y agoYes, the structural change is "make individuals be on a hook for overpayments"
- dredmorbius 8y agoActually, the best cost-containment strategy is to make the provider liable. That's the notion behind comprehensive HMO systems, with fixed capitated premiums, minimal copayments (a very low friction suffices against most frivolous use0, penalties for failed delivery (see also the Chinese doctor model: the patient pays when healthy), comprehensive monitoring and routinisation, a public health model, and som external oversight. Within the US, that model describes the Kaiser Permanente healthcare model. Or Medicare I'd add a Danish malpractice remedy to that (provision of care to correct or mitigate mis-delivery or errors), but it's remarkably effective. Pharmaceuticals remain outside the Kaiser and Medicare systems, a chief weakness. There's also the fact that virtually all improvements over pre-modern longevity come from public health rather than acute medical interventions. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uTWEATUzgxk/TXQoTibILtI/AAAAAAAAAAM/eyirotYDmXo/s1600/2004_01_healthstat.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-uTWEATUzgxk/TXQoTibILtI/AAAAAAAAAA...