4 ms·
When you go into an ER for an infection you know it's going to be expensive so you wait until the infection has advanced pretty far. Now it's far from 1 hour an
by yardie 14y ago
When you go into an ER for an infection you know it's going to be expensive so you wait until the infection has advanced pretty far. Now it's far from 1 hour and may require many days of 24 hour monitoring. While the hospital might be expensive what are you paying for? 24 hour availability, rapid response, and knowledgable staff. Something that most GPs don't provide.
Breast exams are actually well known not to be cost effective
Please provide a citation.
The idea that early action is always better is silly.
So dying from easily treatable diseases (when they are caught) is so much better.
- yummyfajitas 14y agoPlease provide a citation. http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsbrca... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-31/in-mammogram-debate-politics-trounces-science.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-31/in-mammogram-debate...
- yardie 14y agoYour link doesn't say that the screenings aren't cost-effective. It says that if you are in a certain age group these are the recommended amount you should do <40: 2-3 years, 40-49: 2 years, 50-74:1 1 year, 75+: none. Annual screenings were too aggressive, not ineffective.
- yummyfajitas 14y ago"In conclusion, the USPSTF reasoned that the additional benefit gained by starting screening at age 40 years rather than at age 50 years is small, and that moderate harms from screening remain at any age...The USPSTF notes that a "C" grade is a recommendation against routine screening of women aged 40 to 49 years." Note that this recommendation is solely on medical grounds - that is, the medical cost/benefit ratio suggests routine screenings for women < 49 is pointless. They don't even take into account the financial cost.