Preventative Care Myth

[Hacp]

Color me crazy but I don't understand what all this preventative care stuff is all about. It seems logical that people will eventually die right? And in modern medicine, there is no "natural" death. There is always SOME procedure that can be done to try to save the person's life, and you betcha it will be expensive.

So what will preventative care do to lower costs? Doesn't it just push costs down the road? What is cheaper? Someone dying in their 40s of a heart attack or someone dying in their 90s after 30 years of nursing home, a few stent procedures and a few hip/joint replacements? Of course, I'm not saying that living longer isn't a bad thing, but I just don't understand the argument that preventative care helps save money.

 

[ShawnD1]

Getting prostate fisted by a doctor - $100
Tumor surgery and chemotherapy - $100,000

One of these is cheaper than the other.

 

[charrison]

Getting prostate fisted by a doctor - $100
Tumor surgery and chemotherapy - $100,000

One of these is cheaper than the other.

and most of the time men die with prostrate cancer rather than of prostrate cancer. So often the best course of action is doing nothing other than keeping an eye on it.

 

[Hacp]

Getting prostate fisted by a doctor - $100
Tumor surgery and chemotherapy - $100,000

One of these is cheaper than the other.

I mean if you can pay for it on your own, that's fine. I have no problem with that. But I'm just a tiny bit confused about why people spout that preventative care is cheaper. Will it make people live longer? Maybe. Is it cheaper? Well I don't really see how it is cheaper.

Also, won't you just push down that 100,000 dollars into the future? In the future, you're going to have heart problems, or alzhimers, or something that can be considered a chronic disease that will need medicine attention. Its gonna cost money no matter what.

 

[her209]

Why keep up the maintenance on your car? Certain parts of the car will need to be replaced anyways. Its not going to save you any money.

 

[ShawnD1]

and most of the time men die with prostrate cancer rather than of prostrate cancer. So often the best course of action is doing nothing other than keeping an eye on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer#Epidemiology

Prostate cancer develops primarily in men over fifty. It is the most common type of cancer in men in the United States, with 186,000 new cases in 2008 and 28,600 deaths.[122] It is the second leading cause of cancer death in U.S.

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/prostate_cancer/deaths.htm

Death rate extrapolations for USA for Prostate Cancer: 31,728 per year
.....
79.6% of people with prostate cancer survive after 5 years in the US 1983-90

 

[MovingTarget]

Seems like you can apply that same argument to those receiving emergency care for perfectly treatable conditions. (You know, because they couldn't get/afford preventative care) They will die eventually, so why not just let them do so sooner and die a 'natural death' as you call it? What is cheaper, letting somebody die of appendicitus at 40 or after a long protracted battle with cancer at 80?

The answer is that it is simply the wrong question. We as a society have decided that we are better than that and that we do not want people to die unnecessarily and unwillingly of medical issues, natural death or no.

As to why preventative care is better, it does indeed save $ and lives if you can catch something like cancer early. Less expensive treatment options can be used if something like that is in the early stages in addition to improving overall chances for survival.

 

[Slew Foot]

Pretty much every man over 70 will have some form of prostatic hypertrophy. Is it cheaper to die off at 75, have a prostatectomy at 70, or take 35 years of drugs once you hit 50? Thats for Obamacare to decide.

 

[MJinZ]

Color me crazy but I don't understand what all this preventative care stuff is all about. It seems logical that people will eventually die right? And in modern medicine, there is no "natural" death. There is always SOME procedure that can be done to try to save the person's life, and you betcha it will be expensive.

So what will preventative care do to lower costs? Doesn't it just push costs down the road? What is cheaper? Someone dying in their 40s of a heart attack or someone dying in their 90s after 30 years of nursing home, a few stent procedures and a few hip/joint replacements? Of course, I'm not saying that living longer isn't a bad thing, but I just don't understand the argument that preventative care helps save money.

Are you an idiot or did you think a person dying in their sleep via a heart that stops beating is unnatural?

 

[Modelworks]

Being diagnosed as a diabetic in the early stages someone can change their diet and lifestyle. Wait till they are older when it is full blown they could need care for loss of vision, limbs, transplants and more.

Same for heart conditions. If I know I have a heart problem then I can change my lifestyle before it gets worse or I can wait till I need surgery costing 1000x more.


Think of it like why bother changing the oil in a car ? Just run the same oil from the day you bought it, the motor would have quit eventually anyway , right ?

 

[charrison]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer#Epidemiology


http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/p/prostate_cancer/deaths.htm

My point still stands and medical data shows that more men die with prostrate cancer than of it. Prostrate cancer is slowing growing and if you have it you should keep an eye on it. There are about 5 different treatments for prostrate cancer ranging from wait and see to $50k surgery that drastically reduced incontinent and impotence problems. However they all have about the same success rate.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/08/business/economy/08leonhardt.html

“No therapy has been shown superior to another,” an analysis by the RAND Corporation found. Dr. Michael Rawlins, the chairman of a British medical research institute, told me, “We’re not sure how good any of these treatments are.” When I asked Dr. Daniella Perlroth of Stanford University, who has studied the data, what she would recommend to a family member, she paused. Then she said, “Watchful waiting.”

 

[charrison]

Being diagnosed as a diabetic in the early stages someone can change their diet and lifestyle. Wait till they are older when it is full blown they could need care for loss of vision, limbs, transplants and more.

Same for heart conditions. If I know I have a heart problem then I can change my lifestyle before it gets worse or I can wait till I need surgery costing 1000x more.


Think of it like why bother changing the oil in a car ? Just run the same oil from the day you bought it, the motor would have quit eventually anyway , right ?

And that is a valid comment, however the cost of screening the entire populaton has to be less than the cost of treatment for doing nothing. That math does not work well in many cases.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Why not just kill everyone on Earth and reduce health care costs to $0 ?

It's the natural (straw man) extension to the "having them die young is cheaper" strategy.

We could also switch to the Logan's Run strategy to fix Social Security. You pay in as you work, but then go to Carousel when you turn 30. Social Security will be in the black forever!

 

[blackangst1]

I understand the point of the question. I guess it can depend on the condition. Myself, for example, am a type 1 diabetic. I was RX'd at 10 months old, so almost 44 years ago. I am extremely well managed, zero complications, and typically have 2 visits/year. Now, I have a friend who died about 10 years ago from type 1. He was also a type 1, but did zero maintainence. No blood sugar testing, regularly drank sugared soda, etc. From the time he first started showing signs of advanced deterioration to the time of his death was just over 3 years. He was a magna cum laude in engineering at the University of Washington, focusing on robotics. So he wasnt stupid. Approx total cost in medical care in that 3 years? A tad over $3.5 million. His kidneys failed, he lost his vision, his left leg, his liver...and those are just the major issues. Basically his body just shut down. Age at death: 35

Now, I havent actually added up all the costs associated with my own diabetes from 10 months till now, but I can almost guarantee 44 years later I havent gone through $3.5 million in care. Now, theres more to preventative care than Dr visits, meds, etc. that no bill or insurance coverage will ever change: the persons willingness to actually put healthy lifestyle choices into practice. My friend is the example. He always had insurance. I think this is one of the myths about UHC also...that if people had it they would use it. Im not so sure. Sure, some will, but having UHC isnt going to suddently make people live healthier lifestyles.

 

[Patranus]

The fact of the matter is that when everyone was provided with preventative care in Massachusetts the use of an emergency rooms didn't decrease and the use of preventative care didn't increase.

One of the reasons people said was that it was too hard to schedule a doctors visit around their schedule......

 

[charrison]

The fact of the matter is that when everyone was provided with preventative care in Massachusetts the use of an emergency rooms didn't decrease and the use of preventative care didn't increase.

One of the reasons people said was that it was too hard to schedule a doctors visit around their schedule......

Apparently the use of the ER has increased there due to lack of doc availability.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The fact of the matter is that when everyone was provided with preventative care in Massachusetts the use of an emergency rooms didn't decrease and the use of preventative care didn't increase.

One of the reasons people said was that it was too hard to schedule a doctors visit around their schedule......

Damn skippy. HC is a "right" so why shouldn't they come to my house for free under BHOCare? It's a RIGHT!!!!

 

[blackangst1]

The fact of the matter is that when everyone was provided with preventative care in Massachusetts the use of an emergency rooms didn't decrease and the use of preventative care didn't increase.

One of the reasons people said was that it was too hard to schedule a doctors visit around their schedule......

And you touch on two issues those focused on providing HC to all cant address. The first is the additional burden on the health care system. Theres nothing in this bill that will increase funding for education for new docs. Its a serious issue. And the second is the myth that if people have preventitive care available, they will use it. Sure some will, but if living a healthy lifestyle was the driving force behind the idea of UHC, we wouldnt have the obese cancer ridden population we have now. UHC isnt going to stop people from being too lazy and undisciplined to quit smoking, eating healthier, and excercising. Because those are things poeple without UHC can do, and for the most part, arent. (generalities, of course)

 

[Balt]

And that is a valid comment, however the cost of screening the entire populaton has to be less than the cost of treatment for doing nothing. That math does not work well in many cases.

I'm guessing you don't need to screen the entire population for something like diabetes, just people with symptoms.

 

[Jaskalas]

having UHC isnt going to suddently make people live healthier lifestyles.

We'll just make it illegal to live an unfavorable style. Government cost savings and all.

Preventative care with the force of law behind it!

 

[Fern]

-snip-
but I just don't understand the argument that preventative care helps save money.

It doesn't, studies have demonstrated that.

From the individual's perspective, preventative care is a benefit. Early diagnosis leads to higher cure rates, less sufering etc. From the individual's perspective it does save money.

However, from the perspective of our entire population it has been shown to be a more expensive. The increased costs of screeening a group outweighs the savings of the few who individually benefited from early, and therefore less expensive, treatment.

Fern

 

[Lemon law]

It really depends on how you evaluate things. Fail to do your preventive health care, and sometimes you can save money. Because, by the time symptoms appear, its too late to treat the problem. Or it can backfire, various extremely expensive treatments follow, and the patient dies anyway. Of medical conditions that would be cheap and easy to cure if Identified much earlier.

But if your are interested in quality of life issues, preventive medicine is a money saving no brainer. Especially in the case of certain cancers. Skin and Colin cancers are not especially life threatening by their own right, what is life threatening is their tendency to metastases to other organs of the body. Simple and cheap chemical tests will detect Colin cancer, skin cancer can be easily seen, and once a bread winner dies, the government often has to pick up the social security and other welfare costs of minor children.

And please don't tell me I don't know what I am talking about, because I just lost a family member from exactly those causes. In that case, the person had excellent medical insurance, and when he suffered a fall, and thereafter suffered dementia like symptoms, idiot doctors afraid to do a wide range of simple tests instead concentrated only on brain damage from the fall and found nothing after wasting a fortune on cat scans of the brain.
By the time some other simple tests were done, even a first year med student could see what had happened, colin cancer had spread to his liver, and it was the livers inability to detoxify that caused the dementia like symptoms. By then, too much liver had been ate up and no operation was possible. Death rapidly followed.

 

[Throckmorton]

There was a study that showed that preventative care is actually more expensive than treating the few people who get the diseases. Preventative care does reduce deaths.

So the question is, which do you value more, money or human life?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Are you an idiot or did you think a person dying in their sleep via a heart that stops beating is unnatural?

You should have known by the way the Op approached the subject and of course by the OP`s responses in other threads that he is an idiot......knock knock!!!

 

[Hacp]

I think everyone is misunderstanding. My point is what is the validity of people claiming that preventative care saves money. They can argue about the social benefits and individual benefits, but why are they arguing that it saves money when all it does it push the cost into the future?