5 ms·

Good point, and a reasonable objection to my suggestion (not very deeply thought out, I must admit). I would need to look at some numbers, but I do seem to reca

by mjn 14y ago

Good point, and a reasonable objection to my suggestion (not very deeply thought out, I must admit). I would need to look at some numbers, but I do seem to recall that "major" care, comprising stuff like hospital visits, surgeries, chronic conditions, and end-of-life care, takes such a large percentage of the total healthcare spending that scrimping on regular doctors' visits, which are quite cheap in comparison, may be counterproductive.

eli_gottlieb 14y ago
Yeah, that's the same data I've seen. Life-saving and end-of-life care is usually the most expensive, so the long-term rational way to save money (private and public) ends up being to prevent major health problems from occurring at all.
- Vivtek 14y ago
  Which starves the medical "industry" - an economic catastrophe, in American terms!
- mjn 14y ago
  I can sort of buy that, but I think it might be complex to determine what is cheapest overall, if that is really the main goal to minimize. For example, someone dying of a heart attack in their home is much cheaper than someone dying of cancer after a prolonged 2-year battle. So it would actually cost more money if you successfully prevented the heart attack only for the same person to die of cancer 10 years later: preventative medicine can't keep someone from dying entirely, so it doesn't always necessarily save money, if it pushes back the death to one that turns out to be more expensive than the earlier death would've been. What you want cost-wise is for all ends to be quick and with minimal intervention, whether they're earlier or later ends (actually that's what some might want as the person in question too, but that's a much bigger debate).
  - eli_gottlieb 14y ago
    That assumes the heart-attack kills you. Worst-case scenario: you have a heart attack, but someone calls 911 (or 100, or whatever the ambulance number is near you). You get to the hospital, and are treated very expensively to stabilize you and save your life. You now probably have to take heart medicine for the rest of your life, also an expense. Then cancer kills you over a protracted two-year battle, 15 years later.

by mjn 14y ago

eli_gottlieb 14y ago

Yeah, that's the same data I've seen. Life-saving and end-of-life care is usually the most expensive, so the long-term rational way to save money (private and public) ends up being to prevent major health problems from occurring at all.

Vivtek 14y ago
Which starves the medical "industry" - an economic catastrophe, in American terms!
mjn 14y ago
I can sort of buy that, but I think it might be complex to determine what is cheapest overall, if that is really the main goal to minimize. For example, someone dying of a heart attack in their home is much cheaper than someone dying of cancer after a prolonged 2-year battle. So it would actually cost more money if you successfully prevented the heart attack only for the same person to die of cancer 10 years later: preventative medicine can't keep someone from dying entirely, so it doesn't always necessarily save money, if it pushes back the death to one that turns out to be more expensive than the earlier death would've been. What you want cost-wise is for all ends to be quick and with minimal intervention, whether they're earlier or later ends (actually that's what some might want as the person in question too, but that's a much bigger debate).
- eli_gottlieb 14y ago
  That assumes the heart-attack kills you. Worst-case scenario: you have a heart attack, but someone calls 911 (or 100, or whatever the ambulance number is near you). You get to the hospital, and are treated very expensively to stabilize you and save your life. You now probably have to take heart medicine for the rest of your life, also an expense. Then cancer kills you over a protracted two-year battle, 15 years later.