- Joined
- Apr 19, 2007
- Messages
- 8,706
- Reaction score
- 7,171
- Points
- 393
- Location
- USA
- Printer Model
- Canon MB5120, Pencil
Prevention may be less expensive than treatment, but not always.Incidentally, the idea is that it is less costly to the National Health Service (wonderful facility as you get older), to feed us the pills, than to pick up the pieces.
The UK NHS and the American NIH governmental medical agencies look at "QALY's" which are Quality-Adjusted Life Years that contrast your life against costs of no treatment versus doing treatment of some kind. Bean counter heaven. It is a method of denying treatment.
Example, the accepted guidelines for breast cancer screening were upended a couple years ago when the USPSTF, a governmental organization, recommended that screening was generally not needed as often as the American Cancer Society, the OB-GYN society (ACOG) and others recommended. The USPSTF determined by meta-analysis that the costs of traditional yearly screening and the costs from false positives were significantly greater than the costs of fewer mammogram screenings overall in the general populations (though certain target populations would be recommended to have the traditional schedule of testing) despite missed cancers and resultant deaths and more expensive treatments required at later stages of disease.
Health care can be cheap, fast, good. But you can only have 2 of the 3 at any one time. Which two do you choose?
Old English saying: Penny wise, Pound foolish.
Newer American saying: You can pay me now or you can pay me later.
Last edited: