4 ms·

The problem with a policy like this is that in practice rich people will get antibiotics whenever they (we? hn is well off enough to cont as rich for this perk)

by Spivak 2y ago

The problem with a policy like this is that in practice rich people will get antibiotics whenever they (we? hn is well off enough to cont as rich for this perk) want and everyone else suffers. It will for sure also summon the racist underbelly of the US where doctors will believe white sympathetic patients when they say how long they've been sick and question everyone else. This will deal double damage if you try to enforce any kind of quota. I can afford to go to a nice doctor who will prioritize my comfort and who will literally tell me what to say to meet the criteria but anyone with less choice will have to fight.

whatshisface 2y ago
Judging the need for antibiotics is not some kind of personality quiz, bacteria can be cultured. (I'm not sure why they don't usually do it.)
- trallnag 2y ago
  Takes time and costs money. Problematic for an already strained health care system. And as a patient I prefer to get treated immediately for my painful skin infection instead of waiting a day or so for results to arrive
queuep 2y ago
Sure, but on a global scale the rich are a small percentage of the world population. Some countries are very restrictive on prescribing antibiotics (almost too strict) and it feels like it falls flat as you can get it over the counter in a lot of places.
- _zoltan_ 2y ago
  In Switzerland it's tough to get antibiotics unless you absolutely need them. Even when I had a lung issue for 2 weeks I had to beg to get antibiotics. Weird. And they are not available over the counter. In Hungary, on the other hand, they hand them out like candies. So yes, the solution was to import them from Hungary. :-)
  - epcoa 2y ago
    > get antibiotics unless you absolutely need them. Yes that’s exactly how it should be. They are not at all benign misprescribed. > Even when I had a lung issue for 2 weeks I had to beg to get antibiotics. Was there any evidence of a bacterial infection or did they just give in? 2 weeks is not a long time for a viral respiratory illness either.
    - _zoltan_ 2y ago
      they didn't give in, but I actually checked hospital internal guidelines for doctors, and it states 3 weeks. They could have done some more tests or whatever, as it was maybe the worst lung issue I've had and I was really miserable. I knew that antibiotics would help, and they did. I sourced them myself. You could say lucky guess, but after I complained to my health insurer about the bad doctor's visit, they covered the cost fully without any dispute, so they must have agreed with me with at least about maybe running some more tests...
      - gus_massa 2y ago
        If it was "only" [1] a viral disease, it should dissapear even without antibiotics after a week or two. So perhaps your body solved the problem alone, while you took antibiotics that had no effect. This is a real posibility and is a real problem to test how useful the medicines are. So all serious studies use a control group [2] to compare the rate of spontanous healing with the rate of healing with the antibiotic. [1] Some virus are very nasty and can kill you. People confuse the common cold andd the flu, but usualy the flu is much worse. [2] Preferabely a preregistered double blind randomized control group, becuse there are a lot of other problem that can cause a false result.
    - dillydogg 2y ago
      I find this is so frustrating to describe to patients. There really is a limited scope of appropriate outpatient antibiotic use.
    - trallnag 2y ago
      What kind of evidence are you expecting? Many diseases are treated with antibiotics without definitive evidence via some kind of test. Often, evaluating symptoms is deemed sufficient. For example, in the case of Erysipelas, an infection of the skin
epcoa 2y ago
> I can afford to go to a nice doctor If your doctor is giving you antibiotics for clearly viral illnesses they are doing a disservice to you, it isn’t actually nice. It’s not like I’ve ever seen some systemic withholding of antibiotics when they are clearly indicated - quite the opposite, some of the worst areas for resistance are the poorest. They aren’t without other side effects, resistance being only one. Also you have it backwards, the racist thing to do is to just prescribe the antibiotics, since they are dirt cheap, cost me (the provider) nothing, and makes the person whose skin color I possibly don’t like get out of my office faster (if not racism, pragmatism to see too many patients). Racism alone is not necessarily the only explanation, but antibiotic over prescription/use tends to be associated with poverty. Well run antibiotic stewardship is a conceit of the most affluent health systems.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
PessimalDecimal 2y ago
> It will for sure also summon the racist underbelly of the US where doctors will believe white sympathetic patients when they say how long they've been sick and question everyone else. You're trying to shoehorn an unfounded accusation of racism into a discussion about antibiotics. This sh*t is tiresome.
- Spivak 2y ago
  We're not talking about antibiotics, we're talking about policy. And any discussion of policy requires systems level thinking. I'm not accusing anyone of racism, I'm white and reasonably affluent idgaf, I genuinely believe the policy being proposed would be selfishly better for me personally. This is the reality of medical care right now in the US what are you talking about? https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/2021/06/physicians-more-likely-to-doubt-black-patients https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/2021/06/physic... The existing bias in the medical system along with policy that asks doctors to doubt more patients has a pretty damn predictable outcome.
- HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
  That isn't true at all.
chmod775 2y ago
> I can afford to go to a nice doctor who will prioritize my comfort If they actually do, they'll probably not give you antibiotics, which are associated with many undesirable short and long-term health outcomes. Taking antibiotics for mere "comfort" in the hopes they do anything is not a good idea. Even if you were absolutely sure they will help it may still not be worth it.

by Spivak 2y ago

whatshisface 2y ago

Judging the need for antibiotics is not some kind of personality quiz, bacteria can be cultured. (I'm not sure why they don't usually do it.)

trallnag 2y ago
Takes time and costs money. Problematic for an already strained health care system. And as a patient I prefer to get treated immediately for my painful skin infection instead of waiting a day or so for results to arrive

queuep 2y ago

Sure, but on a global scale the rich are a small percentage of the world population. Some countries are very restrictive on prescribing antibiotics (almost too strict) and it feels like it falls flat as you can get it over the counter in a lot of places.

_zoltan_ 2y ago
In Switzerland it's tough to get antibiotics unless you absolutely need them. Even when I had a lung issue for 2 weeks I had to beg to get antibiotics. Weird. And they are not available over the counter. In Hungary, on the other hand, they hand them out like candies. So yes, the solution was to import them from Hungary. :-)
- epcoa 2y ago
  > get antibiotics unless you absolutely need them. Yes that’s exactly how it should be. They are not at all benign misprescribed. > Even when I had a lung issue for 2 weeks I had to beg to get antibiotics. Was there any evidence of a bacterial infection or did they just give in? 2 weeks is not a long time for a viral respiratory illness either.
  - _zoltan_ 2y ago
    they didn't give in, but I actually checked hospital internal guidelines for doctors, and it states 3 weeks. They could have done some more tests or whatever, as it was maybe the worst lung issue I've had and I was really miserable. I knew that antibiotics would help, and they did. I sourced them myself. You could say lucky guess, but after I complained to my health insurer about the bad doctor's visit, they covered the cost fully without any dispute, so they must have agreed with me with at least about maybe running some more tests...
    - gus_massa 2y ago
      If it was "only" [1] a viral disease, it should dissapear even without antibiotics after a week or two. So perhaps your body solved the problem alone, while you took antibiotics that had no effect. This is a real posibility and is a real problem to test how useful the medicines are. So all serious studies use a control group [2] to compare the rate of spontanous healing with the rate of healing with the antibiotic. [1] Some virus are very nasty and can kill you. People confuse the common cold andd the flu, but usualy the flu is much worse. [2] Preferabely a preregistered double blind randomized control group, becuse there are a lot of other problem that can cause a false result.
  - dillydogg 2y ago
    I find this is so frustrating to describe to patients. There really is a limited scope of appropriate outpatient antibiotic use.
  - trallnag 2y ago
    What kind of evidence are you expecting? Many diseases are treated with antibiotics without definitive evidence via some kind of test. Often, evaluating symptoms is deemed sufficient. For example, in the case of Erysipelas, an infection of the skin

epcoa 2y ago

> I can afford to go to a nice doctor If your doctor is giving you antibiotics for clearly viral illnesses they are doing a disservice to you, it isn’t actually nice. It’s not like I’ve ever seen some systemic withholding of antibiotics when they are clearly indicated - quite the opposite, some of the worst areas for resistance are the poorest. They aren’t without other side effects, resistance being only one. Also you have it backwards, the racist thing to do is to just prescribe the antibiotics, since they are dirt cheap, cost me (the provider) nothing, and makes the person whose skin color I possibly don’t like get out of my office faster (if not racism, pragmatism to see too many patients). Racism alone is not necessarily the only explanation, but antibiotic over prescription/use tends to be associated with poverty. Well run antibiotic stewardship is a conceit of the most affluent health systems.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

PessimalDecimal 2y ago

> It will for sure also summon the racist underbelly of the US where doctors will believe white sympathetic patients when they say how long they've been sick and question everyone else. You're trying to shoehorn an unfounded accusation of racism into a discussion about antibiotics. This sh*t is tiresome.

Spivak 2y ago
We're not talking about antibiotics, we're talking about policy. And any discussion of policy requires systems level thinking. I'm not accusing anyone of racism, I'm white and reasonably affluent idgaf, I genuinely believe the policy being proposed would be selfishly better for me personally. This is the reality of medical care right now in the US what are you talking about? https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/2021/06/physicians-more-likely-to-doubt-black-patients https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/articles/2021/06/physic... The existing bias in the medical system along with policy that asks doctors to doubt more patients has a pretty damn predictable outcome.
HeatrayEnjoyer 2y ago
That isn't true at all.

chmod775 2y ago

> I can afford to go to a nice doctor who will prioritize my comfort If they actually do, they'll probably not give you antibiotics, which are associated with many undesirable short and long-term health outcomes. Taking antibiotics for mere "comfort" in the hopes they do anything is not a good idea. Even if you were absolutely sure they will help it may still not be worth it.