Comment by Henchman21 2 days ago
What our "system" seems to actually incentivize is keeping people chronically ill so that they're forced to continually pay for their non-treatment.
It's hard not to be incredibly cynical in the face of things like this. Way more than once have I thought "this is a cruel and unusual punishment" -- wait aren't those prohibited?? Oh right we get around that by making cruelty usual.
I think we agree on this point almost entirely. But let’s not pretend the doctors, nurses, and researchers are running the show. This attitude of mine persists because of the way the insurance companies run the system: profits first, patients last.
Sorry to annoy you.
A chronically ill person is a risk to an insurance company. They could turn into a huge hospital bill for an extended stay any day now. Or, worse, become a permanent disability recipient.
A healthy person is a huge asset to an insurance company. Collect premiums for decades before they need much of any disbursal! They're still likely to be expensive at end-of-life, but you've profited WAY more from their initial healthy years.
(This, of course, is why insurance companies want to consider health in setting premiums, and why it's SO IMPORTANT that the government not allow that and keep things group-based. Because then you have the incentive to help the unhealthy people instead of just "milking the unhealthy people.* I pay the same as my coworker for my insurance. The insurance does NOT want my chronic condition to make me much more expensive to them than my coworker. They'd much rather it go away. Sadly, nobody can do that today.)
What the insurance companies don't* have is the incentive to actually push doctors and facilities to spend more time and money on looking for rare issues for unhealthy people. Because the searching is expensive, and there's a high risk it won't actually find a magic bullet.
So they'd rather have the median patient go from unhealthy to healthy, but if we want them to invest more in the long tail, it's gonna have to come from regulation.
And targeted investment in better detection*. But better detection is harder to sell than "expensive treatment drug" so again. Might need to get the state involved.
There are a lot of doctors and researchers running research arms of large, well funded institutions. Sloan Kettering for example.
I'll grant you that that is a low percentage of the total US medical research spend. But also, most of the world does not have the same profit motive; in most Western countries, a cure is categorically cheaper for everyone than a chronic illness, because healthcare is paid for by taxpayers. And countries besides the US do plenty of medical research.
If the hypothesis were true that there exist cures to many diseases that simply haven't been explored due to profit motive, then I would expect countries without that profit motive to have a higher proportion of cures among their medical.discoveries than the US. I don't believe that is true though.
Basically my point is that the effect you mention likely has little actual impact on the larger medical field.
There's pretty universally much more demand for doctors than supply. And insurance companies, the other major power that's, to an upsetting degree, "running the show" would love for everyone to be perfectly healthy so they can collect premiums and never pay out.
> so they can collect premiums and never pay out
That's not actually a thing. A very high portion of premiums always has to be paid out. Not just because the regulators said so (IIRC the requirement is a 90% or 95% loss ratio?), but because they'd be undercut by a competitor long before they got in regulatory trouble.
Taking the strongest plausible interpretation of the comment you're replying to, systems are not the people who work in them. It's perfectly possible for a system to be tuned to something other than pure patient benefit, while the people who work inside that system are trying to bend it towards that.
This is totally untrue. Slow rolling early care to raise total dialysis likelihood was sufficiently widespread. Not the majority of docs but sufficiently large numbers. It is defensible medically to do that because you don’t need to treat something that hasn’t happened yet.
How widespread is "sufficiently"? Especially since you also mention it's a minority? I've not heard of the specific example you mention, do.you have more details?
Nonsense. The clinicians working in the healthcare system have zero incentive to keep patients chronically ill. This isn't a matter of keeping patients coming back: most doctors already have more workload than they can even handle.
Most chronic diseases are primarily caused by lifestyle choices. This is largely outside the scope of medical practice. A doctor can prescribe metformin to treat type-2 diabetes and a statin to reduce cholesterol but they can't force you to clean up your diet and get some exercise.
I see this view sometimes and it really annoys me.
The number of doctors and nurses that attempt to keep people chronically ill rather than curing them if possible, is essentially zero. People get into that field frequently because they actually care, and people that actually care are the most likely to not follow a vague profit incentive that actively hurts people.
Similarly, most medical researchers would love to cure diseases, and actively seek out jobs where they do so and will object if asked to suppress curative research.
To the extent that what you describe exists, it is limited to MBA people at insurance companies and big pharma determining what gets funded for research. While exceptions always exist, the incidence of that attitude among the people actually doing the work is very close to nil.