Quote:
Originally Posted by Fugee
I can think of examples that might be what Less is talking about.
A while ago there was an article in the local paper about a controversial new treatment (can't remember what it was for) that cost about $160,000 and with the data they had so far (it was still in clinical trial phases) extended life an average of 4 months. If that made it to FDA approval, I'm not sure it would be the best use of insurance resources to pay that much money for an average of 4 months.
And there was a guy who was pretty much dying (if not already brain dead) whose wife wanted the hospital to do all kinds of treatment on so he could "recover."
It's all well and good to talk about costly medical intervention that has low probability of significant life extension and what a drain they are on the system. But at my selfish little heart, if I or one of my loved ones was the patient, I'd be all "heck yes, I want the $160,000 treatment for another 4 months."
|
A lot of times those cutting edge, highly expensive treatments are the laboratory for more broadly based, less expensive treatments that follow. Innovation ain't cheap.
If you look at dollar for dollar where the most lives are saved, the dirty little secret of the American health care industry is that it is in drug discovery more than medical care. Yet vastly more in the way of government resources goes toward improving care delivery.
