

Is prevention is more expensive than treating the disease? - cwan
http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=345

======
timcederman
Wasn't there an article in Time or the New Yorker recently that showed that
prevention is cheaper? I believe there was a small town in Texas that compared
to similar towns, had the highest cost of insurance per person. When
investigating why, the reporter found that there was little preventative
medicine taking place, meaning more serious surgeries, etc.

That said, it was also found that there was an overuse of MRIs, scans, etc,
which were also contributing to the ballooning. I think the take-away is that
preventative healthcare is probably cheaper, in moderation.

edit: take my hazy recollection with a grain of salt, and instead here's a
link to the article.
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande)

~~~
cwan
My takeaway from the article was that a lot of procedures were unnecessary
rather than preventable.

------
catone
Should this really be solely a question of economics? That seems like a rather
inhuman way to approach the issue.

I know I'd personally rather spend more and not get cancer (as long as the
tests aren't so invasive and unpleasant that they drastically lower the
quality of my life), for example, than wait and treat the cancer later simply
because that's the cheaper route.

~~~
jerf
It's important to remember the context of this statement. Health care
reformers have been claiming that preventative care will save money, lots of
money. The net of this missive is that it won't, for the mentioned reasons.

This statement doesn't say that it's a bad idea, or that it shouldn't be done,
or anything like that. What the statement _does_ explicitly say is:

"Of course, just because a preventive service adds to total spending does not
mean that it is a bad investment. Experts have concluded that a large fraction
of preventive care adds to spending but should be deemed “cost-effective,”
meaning that it provides clinical benefits that justify those added costs."

So, not necessarily a "bad thing". Just not something that can be honestly
scored as saving money. Further conclusions are still up to you.

Please note that I am not commenting on the truthfulness or accuracy of this
statement at this time, just clarifying the original message, to the best of
my ability in my capacity as "someone who did not write it". Understanding
what people are actually saying without politicized distortion (for whatever
reason) is a necessary, but not sufficient, step to understanding the relevant
issues.

