Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » US Hates NICE (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: US Hates NICE
The Drake
Member
Member # 2128

 - posted      Profile for The Drake   Email The Drake   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder what an emphasis on societal efficiency would do to expensive Surgical procedures? Would you deny a surgical technique when it has a low probability of success, and only modestly better outcomes?
Posts: 7707 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Drake,

quote:
Would you deny a surgical technique when it has a low probability of success, and only modestly better outcomes?
Don't surgeons and hospitals already do this to 'keep their numbers up'?

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ivan
Member
Member # 1467

 - posted      Profile for Ivan   Email Ivan   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Drake-

At some point, yes, you deny treatment that could posisbly help people, either saving or improving their life, based on cost. You have to; it's imperative. Consider the alternative. The way healthcare costs (and the size of our nation's elderly population!) are growing, we will eventually be forced to spend 100% of GDP on healthcare if we want to provide everyone with every medical option available to them. As technology advances, we are able to keep people alive longer and longer, but only at enourmous cost. We have to draw the line somewhere. At this point, we use how much money you have to draw the line; if you can afford the absurdly expensive, low-probability treatment, you can have it, but if you can't afford the high-probability, vastly-life-improving treatment, nope, sorry, can't do that.

What I'm saying we should do is ration healthcare through utilitarian methods. We decide (through surveys of Americans) how much we're willing to spend (on average, or through some method) on one "Quality-Adjusted Life Year" and based on that, use public funds to pay for everything that meets that criteria and deny public funds the the rest, leaving it up to individuals to decide if they are willing to pay for those other treatments (or purchase insurance against the chance of them needing those treatments, etc.).

This would effect everything from medication and surgical proceedures to immunizations and early-screening programs designed to catch cancer and such. Heck, it might even effect dental care if we decide that having good teeth is worth sufficient quality of life. [Smile]

Anyhow, we will be able to make the program as large or as small as we want it. Heck, we could limit nationally-funded proceedures to those which cost a net of $0 or less, meaning we only fund those proceedures which save money over the long run. Most countries, as I said earlier, generally fund stuff which costs between $40-20,000 or less, and will occasionally fund more expensive things as well.

Posts: 1710 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Cytania
Member
Member # 2598

 - posted      Profile for Cytania     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I wonder what an emphasis on societal efficiency would do to expensive Surgical procedures? Would you deny a surgical technique when it has a low probability of success, and only modestly better outcomes?"

The simple answer is yes Drake. Every operation that involves anaesthetic and incision involves risks of infection, choking etc. These have to be balanced out by the benefits of the procedure.

NICE does also assess operations and has recently highlighted British hospitals as doing too many hysterectomies and tonsilectomies. Surgeons would like to do fewer but often encounter a public attitude of 'can't you take them out Doc'.

It reminds me of the circumcision debate we had a while ago. An operation with minimal benefits that the US pays for with taxpayers money. Why lopping foreskins get the public health vote when little else in US medicine does bemuses me.

Posts: 743 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Turtle necks are just SO 70's.
Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1