It’s taken for granted among some that preventative care is one of the keys to reducing medical costs. The problem is that the evidence for it is suspect. That’s not to say that preventative care is a bad idea as an ounce of prevention can be a pound of cure in the health sense. In the financial sense, it often just means a lot of money spent on prevention and when prevention in achieved you live to need more health care another day. Further, discovering something beyond the point of being able to do anything about it means that no money is spent trying to do something about it. Lastly, we talk about preventative care as though it is something that is up to hospitals and doctors and insurance companies, but some of the most effective preventative care out there is how well you take care of yourself.
The average (British?) woman dates 24 men and spends over $3000 finding Mr. Right. You know, the more of these statistics I read, the less awkward I feel about my romantic past. I didn’t date 24 women, but I don’t think I spent remotely near $3000.
Why women apologize more than men.
Things you didn’t know about sports.
Inside Canada’s black market tobacco industry.
The net worths of US Presidents. With some major outliers (Lincoln, perhaps Harry Truman), it seems that most successful presidents were successful at being wealthy, too.
Is college worth the investment? Some interesting charts. I’m not surprised that BYU ranks so high as it is very affordable for Mormons and you can’t match the networking opportunities short of the Ivy League. I am a bit surprised that so few colleges have no rate of return (when student loans are factored in).
About the Author
5 Responses to Linkluster XXVII
Leave a Reply
please enter your email address on this page.
The myth of preventive medicine is simple. If I spend $28 on a flu shot, whereas it costs much more if I’m hospitalized with the flu, then yes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Where the logic breaks down is that most people won’t get the flu regardless of whether they get a shot. So for those people, the money is “wasted.” On a case-by-case basis, sure, prevention makes sense. But paying for everyone’s flu shots when most don’t get the flu…
Well, contagions can something of a different matter because the preventative care protects others from becoming infected and needing treatment. On an individual level, it’s often going to be a money-saver to go without. And if we only vaccinated half (or a third or two thirds) of the population, it might save some money because that will be enough to keep it from spreading. It depends on how contagious something is and how pernicious the effects. I don’t really have any idea on the flu specifically. It may be one that is a money-loser.
There are other areas where an ounce of prevention is a pound of cure in the overall. There seems to be some indication that anti-cholesterol meds fall into this category, though I don’t know enough to say for sure. But things like cancer screenings and blood tests may be good for the patient and worthwhile policy, but they’re often money-losers.
Further, discovering something beyond the point of being able to do anything about it means that no money is spent trying to do something about it.
Not in this country. Discovering that a person’s condition is hopeless means that vast amounts of money will be spent on heroic treatments even when it is absolutely certain they will fail.
So long as there is a slim chance of success, perhaps. But when there is none, you enter palliative care mode. Making the end comfortable.
Flu was probably a bad example. Colon cancer would be better. Colonoscopies are not cheap, but the vast majority of people who get them will not get colon cancer.