This isn't that surprising. Healthcare economists have known for a very long time that medical spending, on the margin, has precious little impact on actual hea

This isn't that surprising. Healthcare economists have known for a very long time that medical spending, on the margin, has precious little impact on actual health outcomes.[1] Basically there's a "core" set of medicine that constitutes basic care and is essential to health. But even during deep budget cuts or quarantine, very few people are avoiding vaccines, not setting broken legs, and letting appendices explode. In contrast an enormous amount of healthcare is very expensive and of dubious effectiveness at best. For example it's not uncommon for courses of certain chemotherapy to cost $400,000 and have no statistical effectiveness.[2] Overall nearly half of medical procedures are unsupported by evidence[3]. Even procedures we take for granted, like routine mammograms[4], have no actual impact at reducing mortality at the population level. This is what economists call "on the margin". These are the treatments that get cut first during rationing. [1] https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/09/10/robin-hanson/cut-medicine-half https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/09/10/robin-hanson/cut-med... [2] https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/22/the-unsustainable-economics-of-cancer-drugs/ https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/22/the-unsustainable-econom... [3] https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/28/16823266/medical-treatments-evidence-based-expensive-cost-stents https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/28/16823266/medical... [4] https://theconversation.com/routine-mammograms-do-not-save-lives-the-research-is-clear-84110 https://theconversation.com/routine-mammograms-do-not-save-l...