Re:Did Insurance Fire Brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
by pas on Monday December 19, 2022 @06:14PM
(#34059215)
sincere question about medical costs of that cancer survival: it seems like a standard thing to compare. if we just look at the non-experimential stuff, is there something interesting? are US treatments better? even if adjusted for costs? can we even compare them somehow? purchasing power parity, sure, and cost breakdown of states/regions, differences in coding, market sizes and thus market efficiency, regulatory compliance costs, cancer base rate (age, obesity, socioeconomic status, air quality, other factors) ... ?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Did Insurance Fire Brigades let uninsured buildings burn?
by jandrewrogers on Monday December 19, 2022 @07:27PM
(#34059875)
Poor people in the US don't pay for their cancer treatments, the government does. They broadly use the same medical facilities as everyone else wherever they live, which do vary with locale. Some rural backwaters may not have the most advanced tech, you have to go to a city for that.
The segment of the US with most challenging cost problems are the lower-middle class. Not poor enough for the government to pay for everything while also being at risk of having little or no insurance. For people comfortably in the middle-class and up, this is much less likely to be the case.
The overall story is complicated. Demographics and health matter (not great in the US). The US medical system is profligate about speculative and preventative diagnostic tests which catch more cancers earlier (at great cost). But also early access to rapidly improving cancer treatments. It all blends together into the top-line numbers.