3 ms·
Yes, but this skepticism is problematic when it comes to healthcare. Particularly when it comes to high-deductible plans -- people are too skeptical, and will
by smichel17 6y ago
Yes, but this skepticism is problematic when it comes to healthcare. Particularly when it comes to high-deductible plans -- people are too skeptical, and will avoid seeking the care they need. Even when the cost of that early care is less than what they would otherwise be playing in premiums.
edit: retracted: (sometimes leading to more expensive measures needed down the road) — see replies
- coredog64 6y agoThe Oregon Medicaid expansion didn’t reach this conclusion. On balance people were happier because of lower stress, and people with diabetes were better served, but there wasn’t a huge macro effect of cost reduction via early intervention. We already know the thing about diabetes, to the point that even private insurance companies will throw money at compliance because it’s cheaper than care. Outside that, vaccinations, and maybe a few more specific cases, the conventional wisdom of early intervention saves money is false. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experiment https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_exper...
- smichel17 6y agoThanks for the link, I edited my comment
- ineedasername 6y agopatients also had a "higher self-reported mental and physical health" I think that's a heck of an important thing to mention here. Costs didn't change much, but health was improved.
- ineedasername 6y agoI wouldn't be so quick to retract: According to that wikipedia link, while costs may not have changed much, mental & physical health were improved. Essentially, the cost per-unit of overall patient wellbeing was decreased because costs remained the same while patient care increased.