Preventative Care Actually More Expensive

[BigRob]

Kind of an older story, but I have not seen it talked about on this board.

We keep hearing about how preventative care will save us all money in the long run, but it appears that the CBO thinks otherwise.

In a letter, the Director states:

Although different types of preventive care have different effects on spending, the evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall.

See the letter here.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Yeah, things are much-more easily-managed at the pandemic-level.

​

 

[BigRob]

Yeah, things are much-more easily-managed at the pandemic-level.

​

Cases can be made that it is a good thing, but all we hear about is how it will drive down costs... apparently the CBO disagrees.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Yeah, things are much-more easily-managed at the pandemic-level.​

​

This has nothing to do with a pandemic. When you make a statement like that it just shows you are posting for effect instead of an educated discussion. In the New England Journal of Medicine, there was two research studies quoted that clearly showed that the preventative elements around heart disease and diabetes (two of the largest issues) cost more than the break-fix strategy.

Emotionally I think this is crazy, but the statistics prove it out. It is my belief that what our political leaders are suggesting as "preventative" is part of the problem. I have posted several times that there are some very clear and straightforward ways of reducing costs that aren't being addressed. More importantly, the idea of early diagnostic baselines and DNA/RNA modeling would make huge inroads to early diagnosis and in turn more lives saved and lower the cost of treatment, but no one is willing to fund or even talk about it.

 

[PLC1]

Did they take into account the funeral costs for people who die of diseases that could have been prevented by a simple vaccine? Just wondering.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Did they take into account the funeral costs for people who die of diseases that could have been prevented by a simple vaccine? Just wondering.

You make a good point. I would doubt that they counted any of the costs in places like Colombia when they ranked very high on the WHO list.

The number of people who die of things that we would think of as unimaginable is staggering. The weird thing is that none of the current bills define preventative medicine as inoculations which prevent many tragic deaths.

That is why I can't understand why the politicians and the AMA can't get over themselves and start defining preventative medicine in a way that would reduce healthcare costs and help care for more people.

 

[BigRob]

Did they take into account the funeral costs for people who die of diseases that could have been prevented by a simple vaccine? Just wondering.

If we are going to get into that, maybe we ought to account for food, gas, clothing, and the salary someone who lives will have. All of these things cost money.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[PLC1]

If we are going to get into that, maybe we ought to account for food, gas, clothing, and the salary someone who lives will have. All of these things cost money.

The line has to be drawn somewhere.

Yes, if you take that into account, then we shouldn't vaccinate anyone, nor do annual physicals, or any other preventative care. Just think of all of the food, gas, clothing, etc. we will save when the life expectancy plummets and the population begins to go down. We should, then, pay for abortions, as each one will save a whole lifetime's worth of food, gas, etc.

Right?

 

[BigRob]

Yes, if you take that into account, then we shouldn't vaccinate anyone, nor do annual physicals, or any other preventative care. Just think of all of the food, gas, clothing, etc. we will save when the life expectancy plummets and the population begins to go down. We should, then, pay for abortions, as each one will save a whole lifetime's worth of food, gas, etc.

Right?

No, because that would cost to much.

I am just saying I am sure the CBO drew the line somewhere when factoring out costs and whatnot.

 

[PLC1]

No, because that would cost to much.

I am just saying I am sure the CBO drew the line somewhere when factoring out costs and whatnot.

Yes, I'm sure that they did. They must have drawn several imaginary lines to have come up with the conclusion that they did.

 

[BigRob]

Yes, I'm sure that they did. They must have drawn several imaginary lines to have come up with the conclusion that they did.

How do you propose to measure the cost of preventative care then? Reminds me of the concept of "saving" jobs.

All the letter says is that the cost of doing prevention on everyone almost always outweighs the savings from catching something early. Therefore, how can the President claim that we will save money by doing this to help pay for his plan? In reality it sounds like it will cost more than we are anticipating.

 

[PLC1]

How do you propose to measure the cost of preventative care then? Reminds me of the concept of "saving" jobs.

All the letter says is that the cost of doing prevention on everyone almost always outweighs the savings from catching something early. Therefore, how can the President claim that we will save money by doing this to help pay for his plan? In reality it sounds like it will cost more than we are anticipating.

My guess is that they're comparing the cost of doing preventative care on everyone, vs the cost to government of giving those in need of health care due to not getting preventative care the choice of mortgaging their future or doing without.

But, of course, that's just a guess. It's hard to see how giving a thousand vaccinations could be less costly than the overall cost treating ten cases of acute influenza in emergency rooms and hospitals and one case of keeping a victim in intensive care and then doing rehab, especially when the time lost from work is factored in.

But, then, maybe it is.

 

[TheFranklinParty]

Yes, if you take that into account, then we shouldn't vaccinate anyone, nor do annual physicals, or any other preventative care. Just think of all of the food, gas, clothing, etc. we will save when the life expectancy plummets and the population begins to go down. We should, then, pay for abortions, as each one will save a whole lifetime's worth of food, gas, etc.

Right?

Again, be careful bringing vaccinations into the discussion. Preventative medicine, as defined by the bills, has nothing to do with vaccinations.

Regarding yearly physicals, if you talk to anyone besides the AMA you will find that standard physicals create a lot of false positives and are a very poor early diagnostic process. This is my point exactly. We need to change the diagnostic methodology not the payment system to provide lower cost healthcare to more people.

 

[PLC1]

Again, be careful bringing vaccinations into the discussion. Preventative medicine, as defined by the bills, has nothing to do with vaccinations.

Regarding yearly physicals, if you talk to anyone besides the AMA you will find that standard physicals create a lot of false positives and are a very poor early diagnostic process. This is my point exactly. We need to change the diagnostic methodology not the payment system to provide lower cost healthcare to more people.

From the OP:

Preventive Medical Care
Preventive medical care includes services such as cancer screening, cholesterol management, and vaccines.

That sounds pretty clear to me. As for physicals and false positives, that can be a problem. Which is better, being alerted to a possible problem that turns out to be a false alarm, or not knowing about a problem before it becomes un fixable?

 

[top gun]

Kind of an older story, but I have not seen it talked about on this board.

We keep hearing about how preventative care will save us all money in the long run, but it appears that the CBO thinks otherwise.

In a letter, the Director states:



See the letter here.

What they're saying is that sure if you bring in 46 million new people to the system providing high quality routine and preventive care for all those people it will be as costly or possibly even more costly than just treating some of the uninsured in the emergency room.

The difference being the first scenario has an excellent quality of life and the later is some coming in for emergency room treatment... some not and just spreading disease... some just dieing without adequate treatment.

The real point is that some of the cost would be offset by the money we insured people are paying in premiums to cover those without insurance getting indigent care at emergency rooms... while still not getting proper preventive or long term care.

For every insured person on this board be aware that the first $1000 per year you pay in as your premiums is the average mark up your insurance company has raised your premiums to cover emergency room indigent care for the UNINSURED already.