Preventative Care Myth

[Hacp]

Your position seems to be entirely about saving money, which is fine. However, there is really no reason for us to invest any resources in trying to treat illnesses like cancer if our only concern is money. The cost for treating these illnesses is substantial as are the costs for research. Individuals who survive cancer will inevitably take more financial resources out of the system than they can put in. So the answer to your question is very simple: it's called progress.

See the problem I have here is people claim preventative care(in the way Obama presents it) saves money when it doesn't. I am not arguing for or against it. It has benefits outside of financial. But it doesn't save money! It costs more money!

Its kind of like the ethanol debate. People claimed it reduced carbon dioxide but in fact, it increased carbon dioxide after you factored in all the costs.

And I'm not saying all preventative services will cost more money. However, the body that is recommending preventative services isn't doing so on an economic basis. It is doing so on a health basis. So it may reccomend procedures that do help the individual in terms of health, but in fact increase costs.

 

[TruePaige]

See the problem I have here is people claim preventative care(in the way Obama presents it) saves money when it doesn't. I am not arguing for or against it. It has benefits outside of financial. But it doesn't save money! It costs more money!

Its kind of like the ethanol debate. People claimed it reduced carbon dioxide but in fact, it increased carbon dioxide after you factored in all the costs.

Already posted examples earlier where it does save money.

No one here excuses your hatred, Jackass.

 

[Carmen813]

See the problem I have here is people claim preventative care(in the way Obama presents it) saves money when it doesn't. I am not arguing for or against it. It has benefits outside of financial. But it doesn't save money! It costs more money!

Its kind of like the ethanol debate. People claimed it reduced carbon dioxide but in fact, it increased carbon dioxide after you factored in all the costs.

Frankly, I don't care what Obama says about preventative care. I'm not arguing his position, I'm arguing mine.

It's interesting to me that you just brought up ethanol because you are looking at preventative care in a very narrow way. From what I can tell, you are basically saying "preventative care costs the health care system money, therefore, it doesn't save money."

Have you considered that preventative care should lead to a healthier work force. A healthier work force is more productive, can work more hours, and can work longer. This should have significant (though unknown) economic benefits.

A longer healthier work force means we could raise the retirement age. This will lower the burden of social security and possibly Medicare.

Healthier workers earn more money over their lifetimes, meaning they have more discretionary income. This means they can spend more, and the economy benefits. It also means they ultimately pay more in taxes, which helps local/state/federal governments...and may indeed lead to LOWER tax rates.

A healthier worker is a happier worker. Aside from the productivity benefits, being happy reduces medical costs. All sorts of bad things happen to the immune system when depressed.

It's not black and white. Can I tell you the exact savings? Nope. I have no idea. I just think that overall, we save money. And this is completely ignoring the moral argument.

 

[Hacp]

Frankly, I don't care what Obama says about preventative care. I'm not arguing his position, I'm arguing mine.

It's interesting to me that you just brought up ethanol because you are looking at preventative care in a very narrow way. From what I can tell, you are basically saying "preventative care costs the health care system money, therefore, it doesn't save money."

Have you considered that preventative care should lead to a healthier work force. A healthier work force is more productive, can work more hours, and can work longer. This should have significant (though unknown) economic benefits.

A longer healthier work force means we could raise the retirement age. This will lower the burden of social security and possibly Medicare.

Healthier workers earn more money over their lifetimes, meaning they have more discretionary income. This means they can spend more, and the economy benefits. It also means they ultimately pay more in taxes, which helps local/state/federal governments...and may indeed lead to LOWER tax rates.

A healthier worker is a happier worker. Aside from the productivity benefits, being happy reduces medical costs. All sorts of bad things happen to the immune system when depressed.

It's not black and white. Can I tell you the exact savings? Nope. I have no idea. I just think that overall, we save money. And this is completely ignoring the moral argument.

Thats a good point. For everyone that earns more than they take in(who are not on welfare,food stamps,medicare or medicaid), preventative care makes sense. I'm sure theres a way to calculate how much you earn before preventative care becomes a net benefit. For anyone below the line, it will not make sense to offer it.

 

[Carmen813]

Thats a good point. For everyone that earns more than they take in(who are not on welfare,food stamps,medicare or medicaid), preventative care makes sense. I'm sure theres a way to calculate how much you earn before preventative care becomes a net benefit. For anyone below the line, it will not make sense to offer it.

It would be very difficult to calculate. Cost of living is different all over the country, medical costs vary, treatment times vary...there are just way to many variables.

Honestly, you want healthier people in the lower income brackets too. Many of them do work, and many of those jobs are ones you and I don't want to do. If they are healthier, the burden on medicaid/medicare and providers is lessened. I'm basically talking about a yearly physical and blood test as "preventative" care. Obesity is a major problem in the lower income brackets, and that is because it's cheaper to eat at MickeyD's than it is to make a salad. Learning about proper nutrition is important.

Even cancer isn't really that expensive when you consider a persons lifetime potential economic impact. My treatment was around $500,000, my wife's around $1 million. We can both easily put more in total economic output during the next 35-40 years than those totals. Note that I look at this in terms of absolute values, not specifically health care costs (of which, we will take out more than we put in).

 

[ModerateRepZero]

Color me crazy but I don't understand what all this preventative care stuff is all about. It seems logical that people will eventually die right? And in modern medicine, there is no "natural" death. There is always SOME procedure that can be done to try to save the person's life, and you betcha it will be expensive.

So what will preventative care do to lower costs? Doesn't it just push costs down the road? What is cheaper? Someone dying in their 40s of a heart attack or someone dying in their 90s after 30 years of nursing home, a few stent procedures and a few hip/joint replacements? Of course, I'm not saying that living longer isn't a bad thing, but I just don't understand the argument that preventative care helps save money.

- As people have already pointed out, stents are MUCH cheaper than heart surgery. Many cancers are treatable if detected early, etc.

- You have a different definition of preventive care than the average/reasonable person. Preventive care is about keeping people as reasonably healthy and productive as possible. A person who's obese has an increased risk of heart-related problems and also diabetes, and if they are in the hospital for any significant period of time, there's lost work productivity.

Besides the common-sense notion that health problems are inexpensive if caught & treated early, one should also take into account people being able to lead healthy and reasonably productive lives. If the obese person who was suffering from heart trouble underwent gastric surgery, assuming there were no complications then the person would eat less food, be less likely to suffer heart-related trouble, and would presumably be a more productive individual just because he/she wouldn't be in the hospital for heart troubles.

Of course we humans all die eventually. But there's nothing wrong with attempting to treat medical conditions that are easily treatable. As the saying goes, "penny wise, pound foolish".

Lets say you got cancer and died. You just saved the health care system millions in end of life costs. Nursing, medicine, stents, surgery, all of that is not needed anymore. So in that case, preventative medicine cost more money.

If Albert Einstein had some easily treatable form of cancer and died when he was a child, then by your logic his scientific achievements would've been a small price to pay for his end of life costs. I would argue that for some categories such as children, ensuring that they have a chance to be healthy and productive citizens is how a society benefits, even if in the short term one looks myopically at the fiscal benefits and also assumes that not every child will become a healthy and productive citizen.

 

[Zorkorist]

HACP is pretty right.

It's cheaper to ignore health problems, and die quickly.

There is nothing to be gained by preventitive medicine.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

What he's not saying, is how hospitals need to tell poor people, NO!

No! I will not treat your ulcer.

-John

 

[Hacp]

HACP is pretty right.

It's cheaper to ignore health problems, and die quickly.

There is nothing to be gained by preventitive medicine.

-John

I'm not saying that there is nothing to be gained, I'm just saying there is nothing to be gained financially.

 

[Zorkorist]

Right.

-John

 

[mav451]

HACP is pretty right.

It's cheaper to ignore health problems, and die quickly.

There is nothing to be gained by preventitive medicine.

-John

Yeah it's more "efficient" that way, but then there's that little thing called humanity getting in the way. I guess it's not personal until a family member develops something that early detection could have mitigated.

This is like people not giving a shit about a disease research foundation until they actually have the disease themselves. It's selfish, yes, but it's human nature unfortunately.

 

[Zorkorist]

Not unfortunately, but it is Human Nature.

It's what moves us forward, and not backward.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

Medical companies, that might cure or give my loved one another year, don't deserve 20% of my income.

-John

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

So chemotherapy and radiotherapy is much cheaper than end of life care, that proves my point that preventative care will have a net increase in health costs. As population gets older, medical costs will rise.

Sorry, I meant the cancer therapy is more expensive than end-of-life care. My argument doesn't work otherwise. Charitability, and all that.

Prevent you from getting cancer in the first place? You can't prevent anyone from getting cancer.

Yes you can. For example, there is a high correlation between daily consumption of meat and colon cancer incidence (in women at least). Same with lung cancer and smoking.

You can detect cancer early, then use Chemotherapy and surgery (which costs money by the way) to irradiate the cancer, then monitor the site of the cancer with more tests(expensive). Thats as far as we can go with modern medicine.

You forgot surgery. Surgery is ineffectual for Stage IV cancers because of the metastasis. But since Stage 0, I, and to some extent II and III cancers are all localized, surgery is very much an option.

But what if you discovered the cancer in later stages that are fatal? Then you go through the rounds of Chemotherapy etc and eventually die. Purely looking at it from a financial standpoint, you just saved the system money by not incurring end of life care. No more joint/hip replacement. No stents. No annual prostate exams/mamograms. No monthly checkups. No expensive drugs.

We have what is called palliative care. Instead of actually treating people, the healthcare system instead tries to make you as comfortable and dignified as possible during your last days.

Also, there is a continuum of prognosis. It's not like everyone is either easy or impossible to treat. There are people along the continuum who are possible to treat, but who are very expensive to treat.

So you do get what I'm saying. Saving lives can increase the net cost of the health care system. So you can't make the argument that it will reduce the costs. It will actually increase costs.

So why do we have a healthcare system at all?

See the problem I have here is people claim preventative care(in the way Obama presents it) saves money when it doesn't. I am not arguing for or against it. It has benefits outside of financial. But it doesn't save money! It costs more money!

It does save money. Just face the fact. It saves money because it doesn't mean what you think it means.

What he's not saying, is how hospitals need to tell poor people, NO!

No! I will not treat your ulcer.

-John

Treatment for chronic conditions can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you define "poor" as "can't afford healthcare for themselves and their dependents" then suddenly the number of poor people jumps from about 20-30% to encompass about 99.9% of the population.

 

[Hacp]

Sorry, I meant the cancer therapy is more expensive than end-of-life care. My argument doesn't work otherwise. Charitability, and all that.


Yes you can. For example, there is a high correlation between daily consumption of meat and colon cancer incidence (in women at least). Same with lung cancer and smoking.

Correlation=/= causation.

You forgot surgery. Surgery is ineffectual for Stage IV cancers because of the metastasis. But since Stage 0, I, and to some extent II and III cancers are all localized, surgery is very much an option.

Everyone will get surgery if it is an option.

We have what is called palliative care. Instead of actually treating people, the healthcare system instead tries to make you as comfortable and dignified as possible during your last days.

So why do we have a healthcare system at all?

People want health care. They pay money to get health insurance. Health care providers provide services to the people who pay for the services.

It does save money. Just face the fact. It saves money because it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Numerous studies that it doesn't save money

Treatment for chronic conditions can easily run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. If you define "poor" as "can't afford healthcare for themselves and their dependents" then suddenly the number of poor people jumps from about 20-30% to encompass about 99.9% of the population.

Thats why there is health insurance. You pay for health insurance, the insurance company takes a cut, and you can then afford the health care.

 

[Ozoned]

All this talk of preventive care and yet ObamaCare provides exactly $0 for gym memberships.

Think about it. We will be required to buy health insurance whether we want it or not but we don't have to take care of ourselves. Why is it ok to force one action and not another? Obama... pay for my gym membership! (and make the fatties go too)

Who needs the government?

Maybe you just need a better employer that makes an investment in your health. I can't link to it, but I'll post this article;

Wellness Program
Exercise: UP Helps You Work It Out
April 9, 2010 | 07:54 a.m. CDT

Exercise can unlock a multitude of benefits, including loss of weight, more energy, better sleep, lower blood pressure, improved cholesterol and the prevention of chronic disease.

Union Pacific's Wellness Program is dedicated to providing employees of all physical fitness levels with the means and motivation to start and continue exercise routines.

Through its System Health Facility Program, the railroad contracts with city government and independently owned facilities, along with some of the more well-known commercial health clubs, to provide employees access to exercise facilities throughout its 23-state area. SHF's more than 600 fitness centers are located in close proximity to work locations where they can serve the greatest number of employees. The company's SHF program stands among the largest company-sponsored fitness programs nationwide.

Another employee resource for exercise information is UP's Occupational Health Nurse Network. The network connects employees in the field with OHNs who can provide information, strategies and support to individuals seeking to start, modify or maintain an exercise regimen.

 

[ShawnD1]

Saving lives can increase the net cost of the health care system.

Yes healthcare costs money. Any other questions?

 

[Hacp]

Yes healthcare costs money. Any other questions?

You finally understand! Health care costs money.

Its like going to the store and buying monster cables at 50% off, then walking home satisfied that you "saved" money.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Correlation=/= causation.

True. So there are a few possible explanations:

1) Colon cancer causes the rise in meat consumption
2) Meat consumption causes the rise in colon cancer
3) The two are completely unrelated, and it's only chance that there's such a correlation.

The graph isn't on computer, so i can't show it to you, but personally, given the strength of the correlation, (3) is unlikely. And for obvious reasons (1) is unlikely either.

Also, there are certain foods like fruit and vegetables, tea, chocolate, etc. that have been biochemically proven to prevent the advance or prevent the creation of cancers. We know the paths that a cell is required to go down if it is to become cancerous, and we know how these foods inhibit these pathways.

Everyone will get surgery if it is an option.

That is not true. Everyone would get surgery if it was their best option. For some cancers it is very easy to remove the tumour. However, for others the organ in question is in a technically difficult location, there are other complications unrelated to cancer that mean the patient has a high chance of not making it out of the operating room, or other treatments are simply cheaper and have the same or greater likelihood of working. And also for the very simple reason that there aren't enough surgeons to go around.

People want health care. They pay money to get health insurance. Health care providers provide services to the people who pay for the services.

Given what's been on the media, I'm sure a reasonably large proportion of Americans would choose tax cuts over comprehensive healthcare.

Numerous studies that it doesn't save money

And these studies are...?

Thats why there is health insurance. You pay for health insurance, the insurance company takes a cut, and you can then afford the health care.

But from what I understood of your healthcare system, up until a couple of weeks ago if you got a chronic illness, you know, the expensive ones, the insurance company would do their absolute best to try and stop coverage for you so they wouldn't have to pay out for your condition. So really, it sounds more like this:

You pay for health insurance. The insurance company takes your money. And then you are still left out in the cold.

 

[ModerateRepZero]

You finally understand! Health care costs money.

Its like going to the store and buying monster cables at 50% off, then walking home satisfied that you "saved" money.

Of course health care costs money. Everything has a "cost" even breathing oxygen; it's just that the carbon dioxide expelled can be picked up by plants and by itself in small doses is a harmless gas. The question isn't whether health care costs money, it's whether preventive care promotes and also succeeds in saving money (reducing costs / operations that would otherwise be done) and also improves people's productivity (reducing time spent hospitalized / incapacitated from illness or injury).

A simple google search showed this article which concluded that some preventive care is indeed cost-effective, but others are not, so the overall verdict is mixed.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/7/661

If preventive care is such a money loser as you say, how does that square with companies reporting that thru wellness programs, employees have become more productive and that they have lower health costs as a result?

one example:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/01/hcif.healthy.living/

And in your example, you did "save" money only if you assume that you were going to buy the monster cable to begin with, and that the product works properly and won't end up costing in the long run more than what you paid for. Obviously if you weren't going to buy the cables anyway and/or the opportunity cost in the long run ends up negating the cable purchase, than it's a loser.

Correlation=/= causation.

He didn't say that eating meat causes colon cancer, only that there's been an observation and studies done that show some sort of connection. Similarly it's fair to say that a smoker is more likely than a non-smoker to get lung cancer (although Dana Reeves got it as a non-smoker).

 

[ElFenix]

but having UHC isnt going to suddently make people live healthier lifestyles.

due to moral hazard there would be a tendency for UHC to cause less healthy lifestyles. though that's probably a very minor trend when the whole situation is concerned.

 

[StageLeft]

And in modern medicine, there is no "natural" death. There is always SOME procedure that can be done to try to save the person's life, and you betcha it will be expensive.

Really? So rich people never die anymore? Awesome!

 

[Fern]

Here's the CBP report requested by Congress.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10492/08-07-Prevention.pdf

It explains what "preventive medical care ".

The report says preventative medicare care increases costs, it also cites other studies done by the likes of the New england Journal Medice that support that finding.

Fern

 

[vi edit]

If you want real preventative healthcare you force people to excercise (and I mean *real* excercise) 3 times a week and babysit them when it comes to eating healthy before they can join up to your insurance plan.

Real prevention for most people comes before they even set foot in a health care facility.

 

[Hacp]

Really? So rich people never die anymore? Awesome!

As I said there is always SOME procedure that people will try to save the person's life. That procedure doesn't necessarily have to work. So no it is not as simple as you think it is. You tell someone they can die or they can try a procedure that will give them a 1% chance at living. That person most likely will go through with the procedure and take his chances.