This is false.
Our outpatient/clinic care is more than twice as expensive as Sweden's, which has the second-most expensive in the world. Letting the entire population rack up whatever amount of this they need to "prevent" illness is not a cost-saver.
Preventive care is cost-saving only with respect to a certain few conditions which are relatively cheap to screen AND much cheaper to fix if caught early. But because they're so cheap, people should largely be able to pay for them out of pocket. Example, a colonoscopy every so often past the age of 50 should not be a bank-breaker, and is an effective preventive measure because they can snip out those pesky polyps.
Recap: the reason that preventive care is not cost-effective here is because outpatient care is already astronomically more expensive here than anywhere else on Earth, so opening the floodgates of access just means we're spending oodles more per capita on our country's health care.
That doesn't mean preventive care is the cause of either.Countries with better preventative care consistently trounce us both on quality and costs.
Last edited by Neomalthusian; 06-29-12 at 09:25 PM.
Look at what we NOW spend on medicare, per person annually (by state), and how we want to add many more to that program, as part of ObamaCare: What is the cost per person annually for medicaid
Only a moron could call that wise use of tax money. ;-)
Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-29-12 at 09:28 PM.
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman
I have an answer for everything...you may not like the answer or it may not satisfy your curiosity..but it will still be an answer. ~ Kal'Stang
My mind and my heart are saying I'm in my twenties. My body is pointing at my mind and heart and laughing its ass off. ~ Kal'Stang
Youre kidding. No I mean really, you have to be joking with that stance.Tort reform - A minor issue. In any case, this *was* offered as a bargaining chip to get Republicans on board. Obama said many times that he was willing to play ball on tort reform. No dice.
The costs of defensive medicine
http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2012/02/d...edic-medicine/In recent studies, more than 90 percent of physicians reported practicing positive defensive medicine in the past 12 months; unnecessary imaging tests accounted for 43 percent of these actions. More than 92 percent of surgeons reported ordering unnecessary tests to protect themselves.
Another study found a direct relationship between higher malpractice awards and malpractice premiums and Medicare spending, especially with imaging services. The increased spending, however, had no measurable effects on mortality.
In a recent Gallup survey, physicians attributed 34 percent of overall healthcare costs to defensive medicine and 21 percent of their practice to be defensive in nature. Specifically, they estimated that 35 percent of diagnostic tests, 29 percent of lab tests, 19 percent of hospitalizations, 14 percent of prescriptions, and 8 percent of surgeries were performed to avoid lawsuits.
Liability reform has been estimated to result in anywhere from a 5 percent to a 34 percent reduction in medical expenditures by reducing defensive medicine practices, with estimates of savings from $54 billion to $650 billion.
Defensive medicine adds billions to healthcare costs | Healthcare Finance NewsVanderbilt University Medical Center researchers estimate that U.S. orthopaedic surgeons create approximately $2 billion per year in unnecessary health care costs associated with orthopaedic care due to the practice of defensive medicine.
UConn Advance - February 23, 2009 - Study shows defensive medicine widespreadATLANTA -- Physicians estimate the cost of defensive medicine to be between 26 and 34 percent of total annual healthcare costs, according to a recent report by Jackson Healthcare. At an estimated $2.5 trillion in annual spending, this means $650-850 billion is spent each year on medical orders intended to avoid lawsuits rather than treat patients.
The cost of ‘defensive’ medicine – tests, procedures, referrals, hospitalizations, or prescriptions ordered by physicians fearful of lawsuits – is huge and widespread, according to a study by the Massachusetts Medical Society and UConn Health Center researcher Robert Aseltine Jr.
The study is based on a survey – believed to be the first of its kind – that was completed by more than 900 physicians in Massachusetts. It asked about their use of seven tests and procedures: plain film X-rays, CT scans, magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasounds, laboratory testing, specialty referrals and consultations, and hospital admissions.
About 83 percent reported practicing defensive medicine, with an average of between 18 percent and 28 percent of tests, procedures, referrals, and consultations and 13 percent of hospitalizations ordered for defensive reasons.
Such practices were estimated to cost a minimum of $1.4 billion per year in Massachusetts.
Sounds like the Gang that Couldn't Shoot Straight to me.