Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxerickson | Hacker News Reader

Whether you choose to worry about it or not, California might be able to save an awful lot of money with interventions that avoid a $66,000 surgery.

View on HN

Also worth pointing out this is one cheaply preventable dangerous medical treatment.

If people start going to doctors before they get sick, we

a) save a huge amount of money

b) create an incentive to advance preventive, low-cost medicine

c) get a better understanding of how medical conditions evolve within the community

All three are worthy goals (and b may even spur a very profitable industry)

Or they might not. According to the article, the early treatment is "hundreds of dollars" - for simplicity I'll assume it's $660. If we apply early treatment to 100 people for every surgery prevented, we merely break even.

Early treatment and disease screening is not a panacea. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it's more harmful than doing nothing.

Sure, that's why I said might, the specifics matter a whole lot.

We also avoid a lot of misery for that one person who'd need surgery.

And if we are playing economics, while they experience that misery they also aren't earning money or paying taxes resulting in lost productivity. Their family is also likely sidelined for a while so that adds to reduced productivity, taxes and income to places they frequent.

On the other hand, all the people who are getting unnecessary screenings and medical treatments are also not working, resulting in lost productivity. And the medical professionals wasting time on screenings/treating people with non-symptomatic parasites could be helping people with emergent problems.

Quantitative cost/benefit analysis or GTFO.

Well, if we posit a world where people are regularly getting "unnecessary" screenings for this condition, we're probably also positing a world where people are seeing their doctors regularly and getting a whole host of "unnecessary" tests for all kinds of conditions whose initial symptoms are subtle and easy to blow off.

So this is probably part of a world where all KINDS of conditions are detected and corrected early. Take, I dunno, one day out of every quarter, get some blood drawn, a few scrapings taken, and have a zillion tests run on it. Then spend the next quarter feeling pretty secure that You Are In Good Health. Or that You Have Something Wrong But It Is Being Handled. Less stuff to worry about - better quality of life. Which, if you only look at things in terms of the ALMIGHTY DOLLAR and WORKER PRODUCTIVITY, also means happier workers who have one less thing distracting them.

As opposed to the current state of things in America, where any and all interactions with the medical world are to be feared because costs are insanely high, and insurance companies fight like crazy to avoid any and all payouts.

I hate to get political with this, but really, I think any attempt to think about the cost/benefit situation of something like this is going to pretty quickly lead into considering the overall state of health-care.

...we're probably also positing a world where people are seeing their doctors regularly and getting a whole host of "unnecessary" tests for all kinds of conditions whose initial symptoms are subtle and easy to blow off.

In that case, we are positing a world in which thousands of people are receiving false positives, suffering side effects from unnecessary treatments, and dying of infections they received while their non-cancerous mri blip was biopsied.

Even in a world where MRIs and HIV tests are free, full body scans and HIV tests for everyone would be a dumb idea.

A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall... we don't do one.

In this pig case the PERSON himself might not be willing to spend $XXX given the odds. Let's face it we make such decisions each day: we face a million types of diseases and a million ways to die. Not to mention that we smoke, drink, eat red meat, buttered popcorn, ice cream...

True.

Red meat isn't bad for you.

Red meat in a high glycemic index and/or calorifically high diet is bad for you.

There are probably leaner sources of protein you could go for, but the fats in quality red meat are the closest thing to a nutritional panacea for humans.

Admittedly, these boons mean little when all of your health problems are from eating too much or eating junk food (candy, soda, etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com