Preventative Care Myth

[actuarial]

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.

I went over that. But let's say I get cancer and am cured. Then I incur the costs of curing my cancer AND my end of life costs. What about then? That's why you formula is too simplified. You are confusing a lot of things, such as

a) Treating cancer caught early is preventative care. Testing for cancer is preventative care, not treating cancers caught early.

b) Anyone who gets a disease who hasn't done any preventative care will die. My dad did basically everything wrong in terms of prevention. He had a heart attach, but guess what, he didn't die. Now he has the cost of a heart attack AND end of life costs on his tab. How would have quitting smoking and jogging increased his lifetime health costs?

Also, you're still purely looking at things from an outlay perspective. What about the lost value to the economy of someone dieing early? How will that be replaced, even if costs aren't 'reduced'?

 

[Hacp]

I went over that. But let's say I get cancer and am cured. Then I incur the costs of curing my cancer AND my end of life costs. What about then? That's why you formula is too simplified. You are confusing a lot of things, such as

a) Treating cancer caught early is preventative care. Testing for cancer is preventative care, not treating cancers caught early.

b) Anyone who gets a disease who hasn't done any preventative care will die. My dad did basically everything wrong in terms of prevention. He had a heart attach, but guess what, he didn't die. Now he has the cost of a heart attack AND end of life costs on his tab. How would have quitting smoking and jogging increased his lifetime health costs?

Also, you're still purely looking at things from an outlay perspective. What about the lost value to the economy of someone dieing early? How will that be replaced, even if costs aren't 'reduced'?

As I said thats a good point. There must be some cuttoff. If a person is contributing X amount, preventative care is then good. If the person is leeching from the government and decreasing GDP, then preventative care is bad.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

As I said thats a good point. There must be some cuttoff. If a person is contributing X amount, preventative care is then good. If the person is leeching from the government and decreasing GDP, then preventative care is bad.

Have you come to the realization yet that different diseases have different prognoses and cost different amounts to treat for different people? That it's NOT AS SIMPLE AS AN EQUATION?

 

[actuarial]

As I said thats a good point. There must be some cuttoff. If a person is contributing X amount, preventative care is then good. If the person is leeching from the government and decreasing GDP, then preventative care is bad.

Since you seem to like black and white ridiculous examples:

Think of shin guards and hockey. Do you think the cost of wearing shin guards is greater or less than the hospital costs of the broken bones from people not wearing them?

You only seem to be able to see this issue from the perspective or diseases which can kill you, or at the very least have a very high chance of killing you. Modern medicine has allowed us to live with MANY of these diseases. That's not preventative care though. What about the cost of my Dad's heart attack (emergency room, surgery, recovery)? If preventative care can reduce the chance of NON fatal heart attacks (which are quite a lot of them) then how is it not a cost savings?

Another example:
Using condom is preventative care.
Treating HIV with a cocktail of drugs is NOT preventative care, it's just medical care. Does the cost of condoms outweigh the cost of these drugs for the 30-40 years of life they can give a person? Does someone who can live with HIV cost more or less to the system than the average person's end of life costs?

These are PURE cost arguments.

 

[Red Dawn]

Since you seem to like black and white ridiculous examples:

Think of shin guards and hockey. Do you think the cost of wearing shin guards is greater or less than the hospital costs of the broken bones from people not wearing them?

You only seem to be able to see this issue from the perspective or diseases which can kill you, or at the very least have a very high chance of killing you. Modern medicine has allowed us to live with MANY of these diseases. That's not preventative care though. What about the cost of my Dad's heart attack (emergency room, surgery, recovery)? If preventative care can reduce the chance of NON fatal heart attacks (which are quite a lot of them) then how is it not a cost savings?

Another example:
Using condom is preventative care.
Treating HIV with a cocktail of drugs is NOT preventative care, it's just medical care. Does the cost of condoms outweigh the cost of these drugs for the 30-40 years of life they can give a person? Does someone who can live with HIV cost more or less to the system than the average person's end of life costs?

These are PURE cost arguments.

Actually what he is really saying is that some people aren't worth any amount of money for preventative or medical care.

 

[JTsyo]

Because of the old saying:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

 

[Fern]

Because of the old saying:

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure

Yes, it would be.

Except the CBO and numerous respected medical authoritive bodies have said in this case it's more like two pounds of prevention (detection etc) to get one pound of cure.

It's in the CBO report I linked above.

Fern

 

[xenolith]

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.

I'm sorry, but this is a complete misunderstanding of correlation verses causation that needs to be corrected.

Before we can conclude a correlation can indeed show a direct cause, all external factors must be excluded. And the only way that can be done is with independent controlled clinical studies. It can not be done by speculative baseline calculations (like the media loves to do.)

Let's use this meat and colon cancer correlation as an example.

There are very fundamental external factors that HAVE shown a correlation with colon cancer with the quality of meat consumed. The vast majority of meat (especially beef and pork) consumed in westernized cultures are produced on "factory-farms" which use very high amounts of bovine growth hormones and antibiotics. Also, due to soybean dominate feed, factory-farm meat profiles disproportionately contain high amounts of unfavorable oxidized (think the opposite of anti-oxidant) n6 PUFA's as apposed to the favorable DHA/EPA(n3) and CLA fatty acids.

The numerous human health benefits from a diet rich in DHA/EPA(n3) and CLA are very well established in many clinical scientific studies. Where are these favorable fatty acids found? We all know about wild caught fish, but high amounts can also be found in free-range, organic, humanely raised red meat. Ironically, meta-analysis has shown n3 rich meat actually may lower the risk of colon cancer.

AFAIK, there is not one published peer reviewed study that has excluded said unfavorable external factors that are so ubiquitous in factory-farm meat sources.

 

[JSt0rm]

if you guys really want to save money pull all medical teams away from the warzones.

 

[Carmen813]

Yes, it would be.

Except the CBO and numerous respected medical authoritive bodies have said in this case it's more like two pounds of prevention (detection etc) to get one pound of cure.

It's in the CBO report I linked above.

Fern

The CBO must only provide and use numbers that are verifiable. As many have said, when it comes to preventative care, many of the numbers are not certain. Therefore the CBO has to toss them out.

It's the same reason the CBO shows tort reform providing relatively modest savings.

 

[shira]

Since you seem to like black and white ridiculous examples:

Think of shin guards and hockey. Do you think the cost of wearing shin guards is greater or less than the hospital costs of the broken bones from people not wearing them?

You only seem to be able to see this issue from the perspective or diseases which can kill you, or at the very least have a very high chance of killing you. Modern medicine has allowed us to live with MANY of these diseases. That's not preventative care though. What about the cost of my Dad's heart attack (emergency room, surgery, recovery)? If preventative care can reduce the chance of NON fatal heart attacks (which are quite a lot of them) then how is it not a cost savings?

Another example:
Using condom is preventative care.
Treating HIV with a cocktail of drugs is NOT preventative care, it's just medical care. Does the cost of condoms outweigh the cost of these drugs for the 30-40 years of life they can give a person? Does someone who can live with HIV cost more or less to the system than the average person's end of life costs?

These are PURE cost arguments.

Ah, but conservatives will insist that distributing free condoms is bad, since it "gives the wrong message." So it's not a "pure" cost argument. Conservatives make cost-saving arguments until they bump up against morality arguments, in which case "morality" beats cost savings.

 

[Hacp]

Ah, but conservatives will insist that distributing free condoms is bad, since it "gives the wrong message." So it's not a "pure" cost argument. Conservatives make cost-saving arguments until they bump up against morality arguments, in which case "morality" beats cost savings.

There's nothing wrong with free condoms. Just not on the government dime. Community groups are free to donate their own money to hand out the said free condoms.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I'm sorry, but this is a complete misunderstanding of correlation verses causation that needs to be corrected.

Before we can conclude a correlation can indeed show a direct cause, all external factors must be excluded. And the only way that can be done is with independent controlled clinical studies. It can not be done by speculative baseline calculations (like the media loves to do.)

Let's use this meat and colon cancer correlation as an example.

There are very fundamental external factors that HAVE shown a correlation with colon cancer with the quality of meat consumed. The vast majority of meat (especially beef and pork) consumed in westernized cultures are produced on "factory-farms" which use very high amounts of bovine growth hormones and antibiotics. Also, due to soybean dominate feed, factory-farm meat profiles disproportionately contain high amounts of unfavorable oxidized (think the opposite of anti-oxidant) n6 PUFA's as apposed to the favorable DHA/EPA(n3) and CLA fatty acids.

The numerous human health benefits from a diet rich in DHA/EPA(n3) and CLA are very well established in many clinical scientific studies. Where are these favorable fatty acids found? We all know about wild caught fish, but high amounts can also be found in free-range, organic, humanely raised red meat. Ironically, meta-analysis has shown n3 rich meat actually may lower the risk of colon cancer.

AFAIK, there is not one published peer reviewed study that has excluded said unfavorable external factors that are so ubiquitous in factory-farm meat sources.

Yes, that is true. However, You are still proving my point, which is that diet has a very real effect on the incidence of cancer. Also, I thought it was assumed that by "meat" people would take that as "red meat". So sorry for not clarifying. By "meat" I mean things like pork and beef and excluding things like chicken and fish.

Also. You acknowledge that the vast majority of meat consumed in western society is low-quality meat. Key phrase being "vast majority". Logically, then, unless you are very specific about the quality of your meat, and especially since lower quality goods are usually cheaper than higher quality equivalents, the "vast majority" of meat consumed will be of low quality. So not to detract from what you posted, but you still did not contradict what I posted before, since your meta-analysis evidence about quality in meat and its correlation with colon cancer is only relevant in specific cases. It is not relevant for, say, the purposes of creating nutrition guidelines for a whole country.