4 ms·

Essentially everyone is facing large healthcare costs. Spreading risk is useful for things like house fires where the odds are low and the costs are high, it f

• ethagnawl 2y ago
  > ... it fundamentally doesn’t work for annual doctors visits. I don't think this is _overtly_ what's making premiums rise. However, if more people did this, the shared odds would be lower of people needing major, catastrophically expensive interventions later. I understand why they (myself included) don't and these things are all intertwined: they can't get time off of work, don't have anyone to watch their children, are afraid of something being found and needing to see a specialist, etc. and having costs balloon. Without having read the paywalled article yet, I suspect that said interventions are only a small part of the equation, though, and the primary driver of costs are greed-flation, middlemen (e.g. billing), etc.
  • Retric 2y ago
    The point was illustrative, adding layers of bureaucracy isn’t free. Spreading costs for catastrophic issues is a valid use of insurance but the’ve inserted themselves into routine care thus raising costs. Getting a few stitches after a moderate injury is a fairly minor medical procedure, but get medical billing involved and the manpower for billing can dwarf the cost of medical care. PS: Several studies have shown preventive screening in aggregate doesn’t significantly reduce total healthcare costs. It tends to uncover enough additional issues to offset the savings from treating things early.