Quote:
Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy
You're the healthcare expert, and I'll defer to that knowledge. That said, isn't prevention generally cheaper than emergency care? Example: Isn't catching a potential cardio vascular problem in the early stages and correcting for it through a diet and exercise regimen is most likely more cost effective than waiting until open heart surgery is required?
|
Generally it is, yes. Per your example, you're much worse off financially by never seeing a doctor then having a massive coronary and going in for open heart surgery than you are by seeing a doctor on a routine basis, monitoring your cholesterol, getting the occasional EKG, and having a minor interventional procedure. Regular colonoscopies, prostate screenings, and mammograms are also much more cost effective in the long run for the same reasons.
All these preventative treatments are part of health plans and are covered. Medicaid and Medicare cover them as well. And of course all emergency services are covered. These should be covered, I'm glad they are, and under any plan they should continue to be covered.
However, when people say "quality care", in the minds of many it invokes the use of the most advanced pharmaceuticals and procedures in the name of preventative medicine. Well often times there is no evidence to suggest that these new methods are any better than the old tried and true methods that older physicians like to employ. This is where the evidence-based piece needs to lend common sense to the system. There needs to be evidence that a very costly procedure offers significantly better results than a less expensive procedure, or it should not be covered. Currently Medicare and Medicaid cover these treatments, and they absolutely should not.
Further, "quality care" in the minds of many means getting treatment for friggin pimples or something and having that covered. My overall feeling is:
1) If it's life threatening (ie emergent), it should be covered.
2) If it's proven to reduce cost of treatment in the long run while at the same time proven to prevent premature death or disability, it should be covered.
3) Otherwise, you're on your own.
This means in my model, say goodbye to pain management, say goodbye to any drug or procedure not proven to be better than a routine checkup by Dr. McGillicutty, say goodbye to treatment for superficial health concerns like skin irritations and other non-health threatening things, and say goodbye to antibiotics for the sake of treating sinus infections because they go away on their own. No more coverage for drug rehab programs, because if you were dumb enough to get addicted in the first place then you're on your own. No more coverage for psychiatric visits due to "stress and fatigue" - it's called stop effing whining about your life. If you want those things, you should pay extra on an a la carte basis.
So as you can see by the above post, a whole hell of a lot goes into defining what "quality healthcare" means. Does it mean covering every little thing so I don't have to worry about anything? Or does it mean covering what I need to live as long and healthy a life as can reasonably be expected?