Re:Preventative care doesn't save money
by ComputerGuru on Saturday February 17, 2018 @10:26AM
(#16401064)
You missed this part, though:
Of all the interventions they looked at, only two were truly cost-saving: childhood immunizations (a no-brainer) and the counseling of adults on the use of low-dose aspirin. An additional 15 preventive services were cost-effective, meaning that they cost less than $50,000 to $100,000 per quality adjusted life-year gained.
They’re not against paying for things, just not paying uncapped amounts.
It does sound barbaric, but just take it to the extreme. Is, say, $4M of federal taxpayer money for one quality-adjusted year of life gained a good trade off? Someone has to make that call.
Re:Preventative care doesn't save money
by gumby on Saturday February 17, 2018 @10:54AM
(#16401179)
It's not barbaric, but what I find interesting is different regulatory agencies (e.g. Transportation vs Health vs Defense) assign different economic values to human life.
Of all the interventions they looked at, only two were truly cost-saving: childhood immunizations (a no-brainer) and the counseling of adults on the use of low-dose aspirin. An additional 15 preventive services were cost-effective, meaning that they cost less than $50,000 to $100,000 per quality adjusted life-year gained.
They’re not against paying for things, just not paying uncapped amounts.
It does sound barbaric, but just take it to the extreme. Is, say, $4M of federal taxpayer money for one quality-adjusted year of life gained a good trade off? Someone has to make that call.