3 ms·

> useless care which ultimately resulted in the patient death. Don't state it as if the hospital care caused the death, it was the cancer. This was a worst cas

by gnu8 14y ago

> useless care which ultimately resulted in the patient death. Don't state it as if the hospital care caused the death, it was the cancer. This was a worst case scenario. In many cases that care could have bought the patient months or years to live, which most would agree is worth $100k to $200k when facing death.

guylhem 14y ago
I remember about an Australian medical economics study from approx 2 years ago which specifically removed "easy" to treat cancer (skin cancer + some leukemias) then tried to compute the average cost and average survival compared to abstention for all remaining cancers. IIRC, it was about $1 million per person for at best 1 year saved on average. Is $1 million when facing death still worth it, for less than 1 more year? If it's your money and you've got plenty - or if it's someone else money, I am sure it is. I'm sorry I can't find it back - only some midly interesting investigations on the subject like http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/fraud/able.htm http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/fraud/able.htm If someone can find it back, I'd be really interested.
- DanBC 14y ago
  Are those AUD or USD dollars? Here's one about women with ovarian cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20973265 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20973265) Here's one about the cost effectiveness of skin cancer prevention (http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/73.full http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/73.full) Here's one about skin cancer prevention using sun screen for white populations in sunny locations (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22433757 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22433757) Here's one about the skin care costs of skin cancer caused by UV (http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/N2538.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/N2538.html) Some of these look interesting, but obviously I haven't had a thorough read yet.
  - guylhem 14y ago
    These are separate studies about specific cancers, and interesting. But the biggest point in the study I remember reading was that it mixed up all the "not easy to treat [1]" cancers together, pondering each cost and survival time with the cancer incidence. It gave a better picture of the "less known" cancers - which is addressing the real question with universal healthcare. I mean, if overall the expansive cancer or deadly cancers are rare they we can afford them - but they weren't, and overall outside specific case, even if one tried the best healthcare, it was not a very efficient outcome. I'll love to find it back - that or a study sharing the methodology. IIRC it was in USD. [1] : by easy to treat I mean cancer which is very unlikely to reoccur if properly treated, for which one or more therapies are known to be effective, with costs and morbidity well known - like skin cancer.
  - SyneRyder 14y ago
    The Australian Dollar is roughly at parity with the US at the moment (Currently $1 AUD = $1.03 USD) and has been for sometime... so if the observations from the study still hold today, the amount would be about equal in either currency.

by gnu8 14y ago

guylhem 14y ago

I remember about an Australian medical economics study from approx 2 years ago which specifically removed "easy" to treat cancer (skin cancer + some leukemias) then tried to compute the average cost and average survival compared to abstention for all remaining cancers. IIRC, it was about $1 million per person for at best 1 year saved on average. Is $1 million when facing death still worth it, for less than 1 more year? If it's your money and you've got plenty - or if it's someone else money, I am sure it is. I'm sorry I can't find it back - only some midly interesting investigations on the subject like http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/fraud/able.htm http://www.mnwelldir.org/docs/fraud/able.htm If someone can find it back, I'd be really interested.

DanBC 14y ago
Are those AUD or USD dollars? Here's one about women with ovarian cancer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20973265 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20973265) Here's one about the cost effectiveness of skin cancer prevention (http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/73.full http://heapro.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/1/73.full) Here's one about skin cancer prevention using sun screen for white populations in sunny locations (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22433757 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22433757) Here's one about the skin care costs of skin cancer caused by UV (http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/N2538.html http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/N2538.html) Some of these look interesting, but obviously I haven't had a thorough read yet.
- guylhem 14y ago
  These are separate studies about specific cancers, and interesting. But the biggest point in the study I remember reading was that it mixed up all the "not easy to treat [1]" cancers together, pondering each cost and survival time with the cancer incidence. It gave a better picture of the "less known" cancers - which is addressing the real question with universal healthcare. I mean, if overall the expansive cancer or deadly cancers are rare they we can afford them - but they weren't, and overall outside specific case, even if one tried the best healthcare, it was not a very efficient outcome. I'll love to find it back - that or a study sharing the methodology. IIRC it was in USD. [1] : by easy to treat I mean cancer which is very unlikely to reoccur if properly treated, for which one or more therapies are known to be effective, with costs and morbidity well known - like skin cancer.
- SyneRyder 14y ago
  The Australian Dollar is roughly at parity with the US at the moment (Currently $1 AUD = $1.03 USD) and has been for sometime... so if the observations from the study still hold today, the amount would be about equal in either currency.