Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Yeah, this is deeply off-topic, but my reading of the evidence is that preventative or diagnostic care is typically not cost-effective or even outcome-enhancing, with a few specific exceptions like vaccinations.



I have heard this as well, but I think the point still stands. Things like annual physical's might not be a net positive, but you don't want to deter people from going to the doctor when they think something could be wrong.


Interesting. I'd love to see support for this view. Everything I've heard suggests the opposite. Especially if you consider worker productivity in addition to healthcare costs.


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0708558

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-preventive-economics-idUSB...

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2015012/article/14295-...

http://www.thehoopsnews.com/effectiveness-of-mammograms-vast...

It's a complex subject, and a few articles aren't the final word one way or the other. My opinion is based on various things I've read over the past couple of decades (most of which I can't summon up right now) and conversations with various medical professionals in my family and social circle, and my overall worldview (as anyone's must be).


Ok, this is interesting. Some of this fits my intuitions, and some was a surprise to me, so yes, this does modify my view, but only slightly.

It seems there are preventative measures that are cost effective, and there are others that are not. So really, this indicates a need to determine a threshold. Perhaps we determine that we can afford to pay up to $50,000 per QALY, and cover any care that falls within that limit. So, we'd have coverage based on its efficiency rather than whether it is considered preventative or treatment or maintenance. The idea being to get the maximum amount of healthy years of life out of whatever amount of money we as society are willing to put toward healthcare. This could also be extended to programs outside of direct care, like some of those articles suggest, which encourage and support healthy activity in a way that still falls within the $/QALY target.

Of course, I expect it would be a bear to fairly study every possible treatment and program to determine its efficiency, especially factoring in a changing environment which is bound to change the efficiency of any given treatment from year to year.

Still, at a minimum, we should be grabbing those low-hanging fruits, where we can gain healthy years for a very low cost.


It does not exactly answer your question but this study [1] had some relevant results.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Health_Insurance_Experime...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: