4 ms·

The groups driving "improving health outcomes" are not (just or even mostly) insurance companies but rather physician societies and government agencies like the

The groups driving "improving health outcomes" are not (just or even mostly) insurance companies but rather physician societies and government agencies like the USPSTF. We can also look to other national agencies from countries with publicly funded systems (Canada, UK, France, Australia) which share the same mission statement of "improving health outcomes" and have very similar screening recommendations as the US does. The statement is a bit of PR speak, but it's not made to sell more products. People working in healthcare generally do care about improving health outcomes.

whitemary 3y ago
> People working in healthcare generally do care about improving health outcomes. If you knew the first thing about capitalism, you would know that what one "cares about" has only the most contingent relation to the end product of their labor. In other words, what the workers care about is effectively meaningless because the workers are not in charge; the profit is.
- haldujai 3y ago
  What profit in public systems and with non-profit insurers is driving increased screening? Nihilism aside you seem to have a deep misunderstanding of evidence based medicine. While cost is a consideration in population-level screening programmes you seem to be ignoring that it is balanced with benefit and is not decided by insurers but rather the USPSTF. > what the workers care about is effectively meaningless because the workers are not in charge The agency in charge of screening (USPSTF) takes the work-product of physicians and other health professionals (workers) researching and building evidence on health outcomes (what they care about) which establishes the standard of care that is then forced down by the government onto insurers. On an individual level I can also advocate as a physician by recommend screening regimens to patients who's care I am involved in and force the insurer to pay, which is what we did for breast screening before the USPSTF caught up. Sure if you want to take a reductionist view I am using profit (specifically the fear of liability) as a tool to force the insurer but that does not mean what I care about (reducing breast cancer deaths) is effectively meaningless.
- quietbritishjim 3y ago
  > If you knew the first thing about capitalism There's no need for this tone (and similarly in your previous comment). From HN guidelines: > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

whitemary 3y ago

> People working in healthcare generally do care about improving health outcomes. If you knew the first thing about capitalism, you would know that what one "cares about" has only the most contingent relation to the end product of their labor. In other words, what the workers care about is effectively meaningless because the workers are not in charge; the profit is.

haldujai 3y ago
What profit in public systems and with non-profit insurers is driving increased screening? Nihilism aside you seem to have a deep misunderstanding of evidence based medicine. While cost is a consideration in population-level screening programmes you seem to be ignoring that it is balanced with benefit and is not decided by insurers but rather the USPSTF. > what the workers care about is effectively meaningless because the workers are not in charge The agency in charge of screening (USPSTF) takes the work-product of physicians and other health professionals (workers) researching and building evidence on health outcomes (what they care about) which establishes the standard of care that is then forced down by the government onto insurers. On an individual level I can also advocate as a physician by recommend screening regimens to patients who's care I am involved in and force the insurer to pay, which is what we did for breast screening before the USPSTF caught up. Sure if you want to take a reductionist view I am using profit (specifically the fear of liability) as a tool to force the insurer but that does not mean what I care about (reducing breast cancer deaths) is effectively meaningless.
quietbritishjim 3y ago
> If you knew the first thing about capitalism There's no need for this tone (and similarly in your previous comment). From HN guidelines: > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html