Sachs Support Occupy Wall Street Movement; Goldman Pissed

[Aeson]

Then why didn't you say:

That rule never made sense to me

. Agreed.

[Felch]

Because I actually had a period at the end of my sentence. But the name "Drake" doesn't have a period. The quotation marks should surround whatever is being quoted, not whatever is being quoted plus whatever punctuation comes afterwards.

[Tupac Shakur]

Because I actually had a period at the end of my sentence. But the name "Drake" doesn't have a period. The quotation marks should surround whatever is being quoted, not whatever is being quoted plus whatever punctuation comes afterwards.

Agreed.

[Aeson]

And you say I have no sense of humor

[notyoueither]

The data do not support you on this. Widespread preventative care generally costs more than the care it, well, prevents. This is because you need to treat a lot of healthy individuals to catch a few sick ones.

Do you have a source for this?

[Kuciwalker]

first google hit for "preventive care does not save money":

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/08/congressional-budget-expert-says-preventive-care-will-raise-not-cut-costs/

[notyoueither]

I see. You specified 'widespread.'

It seems you are right. Colon cancer screening for pre-schoolers is out.

It should be possible to intelligently direct resources though.

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

These results are consistent with earlier reviews but cover a larger sample of studies and quantify benefits in terms of QALYs. Some preventive measures save money, while others do not, although they may still be worthwhile because they confer substantial health benefits relative to their cost. In contrast, some preventive measures are expensive given the health benefits they confer. In general, whether a particular preventive measure represents good value or poor value depends on factors such as the population targeted, with measures targeting higher-risk populations typically being the most efficient. In the case of screening, efficiency also depends on frequency (more frequent screening confers greater benefits but is less efficient). Third, as is the case for preventive measures, treatments can be relatively efficient or inefficient.

Of course, our review reflects a selected sample of studies in the peer-reviewed literature and does not cover all possible opportunities to spend resources to improve health. In addition, there may be inconsistency among the studies in terms of the methods used. Still, our analysis is based on a large and diverse set of studies that used recommended metrics for cost-effectiveness analysis, and we believe that it offers important lessons.

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not. Careful analysis of the costs and benefits of specific interventions, rather than broad generalizations, is critical. Such analysis could identify not only cost-saving preventive measures but also preventive measures that deliver substantial health benefits relative to their net costs; this analysis could also identify treatments that are cost-saving or highly efficient (i.e., cost-effective).

In addition to determining which preventive measures and treatments are most efficient, it will be necessary to identify those that are not yet fully deployed and those that could serve a large population and bring about substantial aggregate improvements in health at an acceptable cost. Findings that some cost-saving or highly efficient measures are underused would indicate that current practice is inconsistent with the efficient delivery of health care. Other services might be identified as overused, and such findings would underscore the importance of fashioning policies that provide incentives to shift practice toward more cost-effective delivery of health care. In the face of increasingly constrained resources, there is a realistic way of achieving better health results: conduct careful analysis to identify evidence-based opportunities for more efficient delivery of health care — whether prevention or treatment — and then restructure the system to create incentives that encourage the appropriate delivery of efficient interventions.

[notyoueither]

And then there is the factor of preventing death or disability in otherwise productive citizens.

[Aeson]

"After reviewing hundreds of previous studies of preventive care, the authors report that slightly fewer than 20 percent of the services that were examined save money, while the rest add to costs."

Seems to be a case for preventive care being offered to some extent.

[notyoueither]

There is also the American disease of running needless tests just to cover bases and avoid litigation. Could that have an effect on the numbers that are found to not save money?

In Soviet Canuckistan doctors and healthcare workers are trained to look for the people who will benefit from early screening.

[Kuciwalker]

re: NYE #67: that entire quoted piece supports my claim. It particularly identified that the "more preventive care will save money!" meme popular among the left is generally false, which is what I said in #57.

And then there is the factor of preventing death or disability in otherwise productive citizens.

Yes, I explicitly noted that while preventive care may not reduce costs, it may provide health benefits that are worth the additional cost. You can certainly argue for them on those grounds. However, to do so you have to acknowledge that this policy isn't going to solve the "problem" of growing healthcare costs.

[notyoueither]

I thought they were cautioning against sweeping generalisations.

Some preventive care could save a great deal of money. Other preventive care could lead to greater overall expenses.

The point should be to get on to the ones that save money, and reduce costs by being judicious with the others.

[notyoueither]

Also, part of preventive care is encouraging healthy lifestyle and helping people out of unhealthy practices.

My doctors regularly quiz me about diet, fitness, and vices (smoking and alchohol).

You need access to regular medical care to get these benefits. A yearly doctors appointment. When is the last time Sloww saw a doctor, in your opinion?

[Kuciwalker]

I thought they were cautioning against sweeping generalisations.

Oh?

Our findings suggest that the broad generalizations made by many presidential candidates can be misleading. These statements convey the message that substantial resources can be saved through prevention. Although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not.

[Kuciwalker]

Also, part of preventive care is encouraging healthy lifestyle and helping people out of unhealthy practices.

Healthy lifestyles do not necessarily reduce healthcare expenditures; everyone dies sometime. Smoking famously reduces healthcare expenditures because smokers die before they can consume as much care.

Yes, clearly there is a benefit to people living longer, happier lives - a very large benefit. That benefit is not, however, reduced healthcare consumption.