It’s a money saver, so it’s profit model is all wonky.
A hospital, as a business, will make more money treating cancer than it will doing a mammogram and having a computer identify issues for preventative treatment.
A hospital, as a place that helps people, will still want to use these scans widely because “ignoring preventative care to profit off long term treatment” is a bit too “mask off” even for the US healthcare system and doctors would quit.
Insurance companies, however, would pay just shy of the cost of treatment to avoid paying for treatment.
So the cost will rise to be the cost of treatment times the incidence rate, scaled to the likelihood the scan catches something, plus system costs and staff costs.
In a sane system, we’d pass a law saying capable facilities must provide preventative screenings at cost where there’s a reasonable chance the scan would provide meaningful information and have the government pay the bill. Everyone’s happy except people who view healthcare as an investment opportunity.
A hospital, as a business, will make more money treating cancer than it will doing a mammogram and having a computer identify issues for preventative treatment.
I believe this idea was generally debunked a little while ago; to wit, the profit margin on cancer care just isn’t as big (you have to pay a lot of doctors) as the profit margin on mammograms. Moreover, you’re less likely to actually get paid the later you identify it (because end-of-life care costs for the deceased tend to get settled rather than being paid).
I’ll come back and drop the article link here, if I can find it.
Oh interesting, I’d be happy to be wrong on that. :)
I figured they’d factor the staffing costs into what they charge the insurance, so it’d be more profit due to a higher fixed costs, longer treatment and some fixed percentage profit margin.
The estate costs thing is unfortunately an avenue I hadn’t considered. :/
I still think it would be better if we removed the profit incentive entirely, but I’m pleased if the two interests are aligned if we have to have both.
Oh, absolutely. Absent a profit motive that pushes them toward what basically amounts to a protection scam, they’re left with good old fashioned price gouging. Even if interests are aligned, it’s still way more expensive than it should be. So yes, I agree that we should remove the profit incentive for healthcare.
Sadly, I can’t find the article. I’ll keep an eye out for it, though. I’m pretty sure I linked to it somewhere but I’m too terminally online to figure out where.
It sure is. But this is basically just making something that already exists more reliable, not creating something new. Still important, but not as earth-shaking.
A cure for cancer, if it can be literally nipped in the bud, seems like a possible money-maker to me.
It’s a money saver, so it’s profit model is all wonky.
A hospital, as a business, will make more money treating cancer than it will doing a mammogram and having a computer identify issues for preventative treatment.
A hospital, as a place that helps people, will still want to use these scans widely because “ignoring preventative care to profit off long term treatment” is a bit too “mask off” even for the US healthcare system and doctors would quit.
Insurance companies, however, would pay just shy of the cost of treatment to avoid paying for treatment.
So the cost will rise to be the cost of treatment times the incidence rate, scaled to the likelihood the scan catches something, plus system costs and staff costs.
In a sane system, we’d pass a law saying capable facilities must provide preventative screenings at cost where there’s a reasonable chance the scan would provide meaningful information and have the government pay the bill. Everyone’s happy except people who view healthcare as an investment opportunity.
I believe this idea was generally debunked a little while ago; to wit, the profit margin on cancer care just isn’t as big (you have to pay a lot of doctors) as the profit margin on mammograms. Moreover, you’re less likely to actually get paid the later you identify it (because end-of-life care costs for the deceased tend to get settled rather than being paid).
I’ll come back and drop the article link here, if I can find it.
Oh interesting, I’d be happy to be wrong on that. :)
I figured they’d factor the staffing costs into what they charge the insurance, so it’d be more profit due to a higher fixed costs, longer treatment and some fixed percentage profit margin.
The estate costs thing is unfortunately an avenue I hadn’t considered. :/
I still think it would be better if we removed the profit incentive entirely, but I’m pleased if the two interests are aligned if we have to have both.
Oh, absolutely. Absent a profit motive that pushes them toward what basically amounts to a protection scam, they’re left with good old fashioned price gouging. Even if interests are aligned, it’s still way more expensive than it should be. So yes, I agree that we should remove the profit incentive for healthcare.
Sadly, I can’t find the article. I’ll keep an eye out for it, though. I’m pretty sure I linked to it somewhere but I’m too terminally online to figure out where.
That’s not what this is, though. This is early detection, which is awesome and super helpful, but way less game-changing than an actual cure.
It’s not a cure in itself, but isn’t early detection a good way to catch it early and in many cases kill it before it spreads?
It sure is. But this is basically just making something that already exists more reliable, not creating something new. Still important, but not as earth-shaking.