Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know a lot of folks would find this surprising, but the CBO claims that analysis shows preventive care has greater overall cost than savings (public document, not subject to copyright). Again, this goes back to the issue of how you pay for this expensive program, obviously preventive care won't be part of the equation:
Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness. An article published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine provides a good summary of the available evidence on how preventive care affects costs.3 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.
Providing a specific example of the benefits and costs of preventive care, another recent study conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society estimated the effects of achieving widespread use of several highly recommended preventive measures aimed at cardiovascular disease—such as monitoring blood pressure levels for diabetics and cholesterol levels for individuals at high risk of heart disease and using medications to reduce those levels.4 The researchers found that those steps would substantially reduce the projected number of heart attacks and strokes that occurred but would also increase total spending on medical care because the ultimate savings would offset only about 10 percent of the costs of the preventive
services, on average...
A further consideration affecting the budgetary impact of proposals is that some types of preventive care may increase longevity. Of course, that effect reinforces the desirability of such care, but it also could add to federal spending in the long run: Social Security outlays rise when people live longer, and Medicare outlays may rise because, even if a preventive service lowers a beneficiary’s risk of one illness, a longer lifespan allows for more time to incur other health care expenses associated with age.
I know a lot of folks would find this surprising, but the CBO claims that analysis shows preventive care has greater overall cost than savings (public document, not subject to copyright). Again, this goes back to the issue of how you pay for this expensive program, obviously preventive care won't be part of the equation:
Researchers who have examined the effects of preventive care generally find that the added costs of widespread use of preventive services tend to exceed the savings from averted illness. An article published last year in the New England Journal of Medicine provides a good summary of the available evidence on how preventive care affects costs.3 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.
Providing a specific example of the benefits and costs of preventive care, another recent study conducted by researchers from the American Diabetes Association, the American Heart Association, and the American Cancer Society estimated the effects of achieving widespread use of several highly recommended preventive measures aimed at cardiovascular disease—such as monitoring blood pressure levels for diabetics and cholesterol levels for individuals at high risk of heart disease and using medications to reduce those levels.4 The researchers found that those steps would substantially reduce the projected number of heart attacks and strokes that occurred but would also increase total spending on medical care because the ultimate savings would offset only about 10 percent of the costs of the preventive
services, on average...
A further consideration affecting the budgetary impact of proposals is that some types of preventive care may increase longevity. Of course, that effect reinforces the desirability of such care, but it also could add to federal spending in the long run: Social Security outlays rise when people live longer, and Medicare outlays may rise because, even if a preventive service lowers a beneficiary’s risk of one illness, a longer lifespan allows for more time to incur other health care expenses associated with age.
"Of course, that effect reinforces the desirability of such care, but it also could add to federal spending in the long run: Social Security outlays rise when people live longer, and Medicare outlays may rise because, even if a preventive service lowers a beneficiary’s risk of one illness, a longer lifespan allows for more time to incur other health care expenses associated with age".
Give me a frickin' break.
I can see the righties pushin' hard on the CBO's assessment as to some kind of contrived, albeit warped, justification for a "death panel".
I know a lot of folks would find this surprising, but the CBO claims that analysis shows preventive care has greater overall cost than savings (public document, not subject to copyright). Again, this goes back to the issue of how you pay for this expensive program, obviously preventive care won't be part of the equation:
That's too bad, since so much illness, stays in hospitals, early deaths are the result of poor health management; dealing with the end results of irresponsible health choices is a huge part of the health care costs and health insurance costs we have now.
Surely a less expensive version will make it in to the final bill: preventive care keeps people out of the hospital!
"Of course, that effect reinforces the desirability of such care, but it also could add to federal spending in the long run: Social Security outlays rise when people live longer, and Medicare outlays may rise because, even if a preventive service lowers a beneficiary’s risk of one illness, a longer lifespan allows for more time to incur other health care expenses associated with age".
Give me a frickin' break.
I can see the righties pushin' hard on the CBO's assessment as to some kind of contrived, albeit warped, justification for a "death panel".
But they dont want preventive care either. Oh dear.
"Of course, that effect reinforces the desirability of such care, but it also could add to federal spending in the long run: Social Security outlays rise when people live longer, and Medicare outlays may rise because, even if a preventive service lowers a beneficiary’s risk of one illness, a longer lifespan allows for more time to incur other health care expenses associated with age".
Give me a frickin' break.
I can see the righties pushin' hard on the CBO's assessment as to some kind of contrived, albeit warped, justification for a "death panel".
If preventive care is going to cost more than it provides a financial benefit, something has to give. No matter the issue, you are facing some type of health care rationing process that is more pervasive than anything that exist in organized programs today.
The only way around it is substantial "revenue enhancements", or tax increases.
He does not listen to anyone who shows him he is wrong.
Lets just give all the sick, old and non insured a pain pill like Obama wants to do so we wont have to deal with them anymore.
Better yet, lets find those doctors who Obama said wants to cut off peoples feet for cash and ask them.
Hey Barry Obama, name one single doctor so we can ask them if this is true?You do have that information right? or you would have NEVER said that right?
And yet Obama wants to kill off people so save cash yet blames doctors for caring for their patients.
That's too bad, since so much illness, stays in hospitals, early deaths are the result of poor health management; dealing with the end results of irresponsible health choices is a huge part of the health care costs and health insurance costs we have now.
Surely a less expensive version will make it in to the final bill: preventive care keeps people out of the hospital!
Does it really keep them out of the hospital, or just delay the inevitable? As mentioned in the report, do you really avoid the expense, or just delay it a bit (and drive up other entitlement program cost, such as social security)?
This is the CBO report, the scorekeeper for the Congress, so any claims of GOP influence would really be pretty silly.
Like everyone else, I want to have a process that is going to provide a measurable benefit at minimal cost.
Looking at issues such as this though, I still think Palin has a legitimate concern about how life care decisions may ultimately be made.
If preventive care is going to cost more than it provides a financial benefit, something has to give. No matter the issue, you are facing some type of health care rationing process that is more pervasive than anything that exist in organized programs today.
The only way around it is substantial "revenue enhancements", or tax increases.
But which is less expensive in the long run, living healthier for a longer time, thus staying out of the hospital longer, or coronary care and maintenance and quadruple bypass surgery and maintenance from eating fat and sugar for 40 years? And diabetes care, that's a $170B business annually.
I suppose the CBO knows what it's saying, but what, people SHOULD be unhealthy and die early? Disagree.
Not to mention a healthier country is a happier country.
One of the points made by that cbo .pdf is that costs rise as life expectancy increases (a result of preventative care).
That applies to multiple entitlement programs, and not all cost scored in the report. Stuff like this makes you really think about how the cost of the program is going to be covered.
Something has to give.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
