I mean I clearly would agree that someone going to the doctor for a physical, finding they have severely high blood pressure, and having it treated with change of diet and medication won't save the cost of a having a severe heart attack.
Or that someone who goes to the doctor and is found with an isolated malignant tumor and it is treated offers no savings over that developing into stage 3 or 4 cancer.
So in other words, you can't respond to the fact that screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in certain instances, correct?
You can't respond to the information provided on the studies then, correct?
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
I mean I clearly would agree that someone going to the doctor for a physical, finding they have severely high blood pressure, and having it treated with change of diet and medication won't save the cost of a having a severe heart attack.
Or that someone who goes to the doctor and is found with an isolated malignant tumor and it is treated offers no savings over that developing into stage 3 or 4 cancer.
So in other words, you can't respond to the fact that screening costs will exceed the savings from avoided treatment in certain instances, correct?
You can't respond to the information provided on the studies then, correct?
Or that someone who goes to the doctor and is found with an isolated malignant tumor and it is treated offers no savings over that developing into stage 3 or 4 cancer.
From a pure cost standpoint, it the most cost savings would occur if the person never went to the doctor and merely keeled over dead from the tumor.
Your attempt at sarcasm didn't go well.
Anyway, you have no response to this:
Think preventive medicine will save money? Think again
Or that someone who goes to the doctor and is found with an isolated malignant tumor and it is treated offers no savings over that developing into stage 3 or 4 cancer.
From a pure cost standpoint, it the most cost savings would occur if the person never went to the doctor and merely keeled over dead from the tumor.
Your attempt at sarcasm didn't go well.
Anyway, you have no response to this:
Think preventive medicine will save money? Think again
Someone took issue with something I said, when called out on it, said someone responded by attacking things I've never said.
If you think "preventive care" saves health care dollars, you're wrong.
Period. End of discussion.
This is such backward thinking it is shocking.
You are drawing conclusions which are made off the back of the very thing you are arguing against.
How do you know what the figures would be IF preventative care did not exist?
How much money do you think was saved by people taking the polio vaccine? How about mumps or measles? How much money was saved by people taking preventative measures like that?
Unless you have an IDENTICAL sample to compare then you have no way of concluding cost savings or the lack of such.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
I'm not "arguing just to argue"
Someone took issue with something I said, when called out on it, said someone responded by attacking things I've never said.
If you think "preventive care" saves health care dollars, you're wrong.
Period. End of discussion.
This is such backward thinking it is shocking.
You are drawing conclusions which are made off the back of the very thing you are arguing against.
How do you know what the figures would be IF preventative care did not exist?
How much money do you think was saved by people taking the polio vaccine? How about mumps or measles? How much money was saved by people taking preventative measures like that?
Unless you have an IDENTICAL sample to compare then you have no way of concluding cost savings or the lack of such.
A study of chicken pox vaccine provides a good example. Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1994, the year the vaccine was approved, the paper stated that the vaccine “would save more than $5 for every dollar invested in vaccination.” That $5 included parents’ time, valued at their average wage rate, and children’s future earnings.
When only medical costs were considered – those of the vaccine and those of the treatment avoided because of the vaccine – the article showed that every dollar spent on the vaccine returned 90 cents in treatment savings. Not bad, but not cost-saving.
Is the vaccine worth it? Yes. It brings better health for a modest increase in medical spending. But it does not reduce medical spending.
It is a simple, or as complicated, as that.
I'd also see this interview:
In order to get the benefit of prevention, you have to treat lots of people, often for a long time, and the cost of that treatment adds up. The cost to treat one person may look small, but the cost for everyone is large. And prevention isn’t perfect. Some people will get the disease in spite of preventive care. Others would not get it even without preventive care. The upshot is many people incur costs for prevention, but only some experience savings.
TL: Can you still go further?
LR: For example, you may have to give prevention, say blood pressure medication, to 100 or 1000 people for years to prevent one death from stroke or heart disease. All of those people incur the costs of prevention, but savings accrue only for the one whose death is prevented. That’s why, most of the time, prevention does not produce savings.
A study of chicken pox vaccine provides a good example. Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1994, the year the vaccine was approved, the paper stated that the vaccine “would save more than $5 for every dollar invested in vaccination.” That $5 included parents’ time, valued at their average wage rate, and children’s future earnings.
When only medical costs were considered – those of the vaccine and those of the treatment avoided because of the vaccine – the article showed that every dollar spent on the vaccine returned 90 cents in treatment savings. Not bad, but not cost-saving.
Is the vaccine worth it? Yes. It brings better health for a modest increase in medical spending. But it does not reduce medical spending.
It is a simple, or as complicated, as that.
I'd also see this interview:
In order to get the benefit of prevention, you have to treat lots of people, often for a long time, and the cost of that treatment adds up. The cost to treat one person may look small, but the cost for everyone is large. And prevention isn’t perfect. Some people will get the disease in spite of preventive care. Others would not get it even without preventive care. The upshot is many people incur costs for prevention, but only some experience savings.
TL: Can you still go further?
LR: For example, you may have to give prevention, say blood pressure medication, to 100 or 1000 people for years to prevent one death from stroke or heart disease. All of those people incur the costs of prevention, but savings accrue only for the one whose death is prevented. That’s why, most of the time, prevention does not produce savings.
From a pure cost standpoint, it the most cost savings would occur if the person never went to the doctor and merely keeled over dead from the tumor.
Actually, because most people survive first and sudden heart attacks, strokes, have expensive treatments for cancer, etc. and don't just kneel over and die (and EMTALA makes sure the treatments occur), your statement makes no sense.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
From a pure cost standpoint, it the most cost savings would occur if the person never went to the doctor and merely keeled over dead from the tumor.
Actually, because most people survive first and sudden heart attacks, strokes, have expensive treatments for cancer, etc. and don't just kneel over and die (and EMTALA makes sure the treatments occur), your statement makes no sense.
From your article (you should read it instead of just googling and cutting and pasting the article because it suggests exactly what we are saying...preventative care works for those most at risk).
The other promising approach is to target preventive care at those most likely to develop a chronic disease, not at low-risk people. Such "smart" prevention increases the chances of preventing expensive diseases and saving money.
Some disease-prevention programs do produce net savings. Childhood immunizations, and probably some adult immunizations (such as for pneumonia and the flu), are cost-saving, found a 2009 analysis for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The vaccines are cheap, and large swaths of the population are vulnerable to the diseases they prevent. The cost of providing them to everyone is less than that of treating the illnesses they prevent.
Counseling adults about using baby aspirin to prevent cardiovascular disease also produces net savings. The counseling is inexpensive, the aspirin even cheaper and the costs of heart disease, which strikes one in three U.S. adults, are enormous. Screening pregnant women for HIV produces net savings, too.
By comparison, only 50 people with heart disease must be treated with aspirin for one to avoid a heart attack or stroke, making this a good buy.
On that score, screening for hypertension and for some cancers (such as colorectal and breast) are good investments, he said, at less than $25,000 per year of healthy life. In contrast, such common treatments as angioplasty cost $100,000 or more per healthy year of life.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
Think preventive medicine will save money? Think again
From your article (you should read it instead of just googling and cutting and pasting the article because it suggests exactly what we are saying...preventative care works for those most at risk).
The other promising approach is to target preventive care at those most likely to develop a chronic disease, not at low-risk people. Such "smart" prevention increases the chances of preventing expensive diseases and saving money.
Some disease-prevention programs do produce net savings. Childhood immunizations, and probably some adult immunizations (such as for pneumonia and the flu), are cost-saving, found a 2009 analysis for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The vaccines are cheap, and large swaths of the population are vulnerable to the diseases they prevent. The cost of providing them to everyone is less than that of treating the illnesses they prevent.
Counseling adults about using baby aspirin to prevent cardiovascular disease also produces net savings. The counseling is inexpensive, the aspirin even cheaper and the costs of heart disease, which strikes one in three U.S. adults, are enormous. Screening pregnant women for HIV produces net savings, too.
By comparison, only 50 people with heart disease must be treated with aspirin for one to avoid a heart attack or stroke, making this a good buy.
On that score, screening for hypertension and for some cancers (such as colorectal and breast) are good investments, he said, at less than $25,000 per year of healthy life. In contrast, such common treatments as angioplasty cost $100,000 or more per healthy year of life.
A study of chicken pox vaccine provides a good example. Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1994, the year the vaccine was approved, the paper stated that the vaccine “would save more than $5 for every dollar invested in vaccination.” That $5 included parents’ time, valued at their average wage rate, and children’s future earnings.
When only medical costs were considered – those of the vaccine and those of the treatment avoided because of the vaccine – the article showed that every dollar spent on the vaccine returned 90 cents in treatment savings. Not bad, but not cost-saving.
Is the vaccine worth it? Yes. It brings better health for a modest increase in medical spending. But it does not reduce medical spending.
It is a simple, or as complicated, as that.
I'd also see this interview:
In order to get the benefit of prevention, you have to treat lots of people, often for a long time, and the cost of that treatment adds up. The cost to treat one person may look small, but the cost for everyone is large. And prevention isn’t perfect. Some people will get the disease in spite of preventive care. Others would not get it even without preventive care. The upshot is many people incur costs for prevention, but only some experience savings.
TL: Can you still go further?
LR: For example, you may have to give prevention, say blood pressure medication, to 100 or 1000 people for years to prevent one death from stroke or heart disease. All of those people incur the costs of prevention, but savings accrue only for the one whose death is prevented. That’s why, most of the time, prevention does not produce savings.
Some disease-prevention programs do produce net savings. Childhood immunizations, and probably some adult immunizations (such as for pneumonia and the flu), are cost-saving, found a 2009 analysis for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The vaccines are cheap, and large swaths of the population are vulnerable to the diseases they prevent. The cost of providing them to everyone is less than that of treating the illnesses they prevent.
They must be lying.
0
Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:
On the topic of vaccines:
A study of chicken pox vaccine provides a good example. Published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1994, the year the vaccine was approved, the paper stated that the vaccine “would save more than $5 for every dollar invested in vaccination.” That $5 included parents’ time, valued at their average wage rate, and children’s future earnings.
When only medical costs were considered – those of the vaccine and those of the treatment avoided because of the vaccine – the article showed that every dollar spent on the vaccine returned 90 cents in treatment savings. Not bad, but not cost-saving.
Is the vaccine worth it? Yes. It brings better health for a modest increase in medical spending. But it does not reduce medical spending.
It is a simple, or as complicated, as that.
I'd also see this interview:
In order to get the benefit of prevention, you have to treat lots of people, often for a long time, and the cost of that treatment adds up. The cost to treat one person may look small, but the cost for everyone is large. And prevention isn’t perfect. Some people will get the disease in spite of preventive care. Others would not get it even without preventive care. The upshot is many people incur costs for prevention, but only some experience savings.
TL: Can you still go further?
LR: For example, you may have to give prevention, say blood pressure medication, to 100 or 1000 people for years to prevent one death from stroke or heart disease. All of those people incur the costs of prevention, but savings accrue only for the one whose death is prevented. That’s why, most of the time, prevention does not produce savings.
Some disease-prevention programs do produce net savings. Childhood immunizations, and probably some adult immunizations (such as for pneumonia and the flu), are cost-saving, found a 2009 analysis for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The vaccines are cheap, and large swaths of the population are vulnerable to the diseases they prevent. The cost of providing them to everyone is less than that of treating the illnesses they prevent.
Actually, because most people survive first and sudden heart attacks, strokes, have expensive treatments for cancer, etc. and don't just kneel over and die (and EMTALA makes sure the treatments occur), your statement makes no sense.
Considering I was talking about a brain tumor, responding to your post about a brain tumor, it makes perfect sense.
Of course you're simply not capable of an honest discussion.
So thanks again for living up to type.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Actually, because most people survive first and sudden heart attacks, strokes, have expensive treatments for cancer, etc. and don't just kneel over and die (and EMTALA makes sure the treatments occur), your statement makes no sense.
Considering I was talking about a brain tumor, responding to your post about a brain tumor, it makes perfect sense.
Of course you're simply not capable of an honest discussion.
From your article (you should read it instead of just googling and cutting and pasting the article because it suggests exactly what we are saying...preventative care works for those most at risk).
Notice how laughable this is.
Some disease-prevention programs do produce net savings
Some is not all. And no study shows that preventive care saves health care dollars.
But it is funny to watch you pretend now you were talking about "the most at risk"
Hilarious.
Again, you're not capable of honest discussion.
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
From your article (you should read it instead of just googling and cutting and pasting the article because it suggests exactly what we are saying...preventative care works for those most at risk).
Notice how laughable this is.
Some disease-prevention programs do produce net savings
Some is not all. And no study shows that preventive care saves health care dollars.
But it is funny to watch you pretend now you were talking about "the most at risk"
From your article (you should read it instead of just googling and cutting and pasting the article because it suggests exactly what we are saying...preventative care works for those most at risk).
Except "we" never said that at all.
Anywhere.
Ever.
For example:
"People also cannot afford preventative care so they go without. Then, when they suffer a heart attack, "
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
From your article (you should read it instead of just googling and cutting and pasting the article because it suggests exactly what we are saying...preventative care works for those most at risk).
Except "we" never said that at all.
Anywhere.
Ever.
For example:
"People also cannot afford preventative care so they go without. Then, when they suffer a heart attack, "
In an article published Tuesday by Reuters, health and science reporter Sharon Begleydoes a great job of debunking the widely held belief that providing more preventive medicine will significantly cut health-care costs.
In fact, notes Begley, a 2010 study [PDF] in the journal Health Affairs “calculated that if 90 percent of the U.S. population used proven preventive services, more than do now, it would save only 0.2 percent of healthcare spending.”
That’s not to say that some preventive services don’t reap savings. Childhood immunizations are one great example. But, as Begley points out, the disease-prevention programs that actually save money are the exceptions. Most don’t.
It was playing up to the part for you to both excerpt a portion of the article that I posted as if I'm denying some care saves costs and for you to pretend that is what you were saying all along.
The numbers of people who need to be treated for one to benefit are so high because so few will get the disease the preventive is meant to avert. It's like treating every house for termites, said Neumann, co-author of the Robert Wood Johnson report: The vast majority would never have gotten infested in the first place, so the thousands spent to avoid the infestation is money for nothing.
0
In an article published Tuesday by Reuters, health and science reporter Sharon Begleydoes a great job of debunking the widely held belief that providing more preventive medicine will significantly cut health-care costs.
In fact, notes Begley, a 2010 study [PDF] in the journal Health Affairs “calculated that if 90 percent of the U.S. population used proven preventive services, more than do now, it would save only 0.2 percent of healthcare spending.”
That’s not to say that some preventive services don’t reap savings. Childhood immunizations are one great example. But, as Begley points out, the disease-prevention programs that actually save money are the exceptions. Most don’t.
It was playing up to the part for you to both excerpt a portion of the article that I posted as if I'm denying some care saves costs and for you to pretend that is what you were saying all along.
The numbers of people who need to be treated for one to benefit are so high because so few will get the disease the preventive is meant to avert. It's like treating every house for termites, said Neumann, co-author of the Robert Wood Johnson report: The vast majority would never have gotten infested in the first place, so the thousands spent to avoid the infestation is money for nothing.
No, you're merely moving the goalposts and yet again pretending that you refuted something I actually said.
Anyway, this was fun:
Key findings include: although many preventive services are a good value (defined as costing less than $50,000 to $100,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year), only a few, such as childhood immunizations and counseling adults on the use of low-dose aspirin are widely regarded as cost-saving.
...
Given that so few preventive services save money and that these services are already in wide use, it is unlikely that prevention can reduce health care spending
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22052182
If only these silly doctors would quit doing studies which are inconvenient to djbrow's political beliefs, dammit!
0
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
They must be lying.
No, you're merely moving the goalposts and yet again pretending that you refuted something I actually said.
Anyway, this was fun:
Key findings include: although many preventive services are a good value (defined as costing less than $50,000 to $100,000 per Quality Adjusted Life Year), only a few, such as childhood immunizations and counseling adults on the use of low-dose aspirin are widely regarded as cost-saving.
...
Given that so few preventive services save money and that these services are already in wide use, it is unlikely that prevention can reduce health care spending
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22052182
If only these silly doctors would quit doing studies which are inconvenient to djbrow's political beliefs, dammit!
I'm tough because I know more about this than you? I'm proud because I have common sense and dont talk out of my a ss like some people....
FYI: Your response showed weakness and pretty much admitted you cant back up what you say. Thats cool. Keep being the best linesman covers has......
Tough guy because you were looking to pick a fight, your answer didnt make you look smart at all..it looked like you were interjecting to try and pick a fight. The reply you just made completely proves the point.
0
Quote Originally Posted by TRAIN69:
I'm tough because I know more about this than you? I'm proud because I have common sense and dont talk out of my a ss like some people....
FYI: Your response showed weakness and pretty much admitted you cant back up what you say. Thats cool. Keep being the best linesman covers has......
Tough guy because you were looking to pick a fight, your answer didnt make you look smart at all..it looked like you were interjecting to try and pick a fight. The reply you just made completely proves the point.
Nearly 4 million young people will be much better off financially if they refuse to buy an ObamaCare insurance policy and instead pay the fine for going without coverage next year, according to a study released Thursday by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The study found that 3.7 million childless single people age 18-34 would save at least $500 if they didn't buy insurance and instead paid the tax penalty next year. Of those, more than 3 million would save at least $1,000.
That's despite the heavy taxpayer subsidies many of these young people would be eligible to get.
Could the estimate of 30 million uninsured under ObamaCare be too low?
0
Uh oh:
Nearly 4 million young people will be much better off financially if they refuse to buy an ObamaCare insurance policy and instead pay the fine for going without coverage next year, according to a study released Thursday by the National Center for Public Policy Research.
The study found that 3.7 million childless single people age 18-34 would save at least $500 if they didn't buy insurance and instead paid the tax penalty next year. Of those, more than 3 million would save at least $1,000.
That's despite the heavy taxpayer subsidies many of these young people would be eligible to get.
Of course YOUNG people would be better off risking it, that is part of life..but ask those "young" people if when they get "old" if they want their health insurance to be double what it would be if the "young" part of the population were out of the basket?
Same goes for things they benefit from being young..what if young people had to pay a lump sum into infrastructure in order to use it..so that the OLD people would not?
So in order to use cell technology (which obviously young demographic use more bandwidth vs old) then young had to pay 20,000 to cover past capital outlays that corporations pay off with their monthly income streams? Or in order to get a drivers license someone 21 had to pay 50,000 dollars to cover road systems that municipalities/states/feds pay off with the mountain of long dated debt we finance capital improvements with?
I am noticing that the young generation seems to b!tch selfishly much more than when I was a few yrs younger..the same way that the young b!tch about the older generation being takers..
If the young opt out of the HC pool then there should be a massive opt out tax that will be set aside to offset their future cost increases when their needs shift and then they want HC coverage.
0
14,
Of course..notice word number FOUR in the reply.
Of course YOUNG people would be better off risking it, that is part of life..but ask those "young" people if when they get "old" if they want their health insurance to be double what it would be if the "young" part of the population were out of the basket?
Same goes for things they benefit from being young..what if young people had to pay a lump sum into infrastructure in order to use it..so that the OLD people would not?
So in order to use cell technology (which obviously young demographic use more bandwidth vs old) then young had to pay 20,000 to cover past capital outlays that corporations pay off with their monthly income streams? Or in order to get a drivers license someone 21 had to pay 50,000 dollars to cover road systems that municipalities/states/feds pay off with the mountain of long dated debt we finance capital improvements with?
I am noticing that the young generation seems to b!tch selfishly much more than when I was a few yrs younger..the same way that the young b!tch about the older generation being takers..
If the young opt out of the HC pool then there should be a massive opt out tax that will be set aside to offset their future cost increases when their needs shift and then they want HC coverage.
Tough guy because you were looking to pick a fight, your answer didnt make you look smart at all..it looked like you were interjecting to try and pick a fight. The reply you just made completely proves the point.
I wasnt trying to pick a fight, I was stating my opinion, which happens to be fact as well.
I simply know more about this subject than you, who is picking a fight with 14....
Sorry I disagreed with you.
0
Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:
Tough guy because you were looking to pick a fight, your answer didnt make you look smart at all..it looked like you were interjecting to try and pick a fight. The reply you just made completely proves the point.
I wasnt trying to pick a fight, I was stating my opinion, which happens to be fact as well.
I simply know more about this subject than you, who is picking a fight with 14....
Hot Forum Topics
