Correct. Technically, yes, not preventative. But if we are speaking from a cost-saving perspective, which is the underlying philosophy of the 100% bc coverage, the pregnancy or abortion that BCP is preventing is considerably less expensive than complications from diabetes (hospitalizations, organ failures, amputations, dialysis, transplants...). So I'm baffled by the financial priorities the ACA sets.
My niece has had type 1 since she was two, and I'd be happy to get specific OOP costs if you'd like. While the ACA is very good for her on one hand (no pre-existing exclusions, no lifetime caps) I'm not aware that it will actually bring costs down for them, and my BIL will continue to work 2 jobs, 7 days a week to afford her life-sustaining medical care.
Yes, this is exactly what I'm getting at. I've not heard anyone focus on the preventive medicine aspect and have heard everyone and their mother singing me sob stories about how women have to sell crack in back alleys to afford birth control and that bc is cheaper than a baby.
Well, test strips and managed diabetes is cheaper than hospital trips and an emergency inhaler and maintenance meds are less expensive than ER visits, breathing treatments and predisone.
Not even tricare covers a significant cost of diabetes supplies.
I think if people want to overpay for insurance that covers preventative care, they should be able to, and if people want to pay that stuff out of pocket, that should be their prerogative. When something is free, or feels free, people consume more of it. And not necessarily in a way that leads to better health outcomes.
Not trying to be an ass, but isn't the desired outcome that people consume MORE preventative care? So that down the road, they aren't utilizing more expensive options like the ER for something that could have been detected in an annual physical, or have an illness already progressed to expanded stages and need costly, extended care?
It is not correct that more preventative care will always lead to top line cost savings. Something like one annual checkup with a PCP probably does--but that's why most insurance covers that with a low copay--it's to their advantage to do so.
But imagine a hypothetical $100 test, that catches a condition that happens to one in 5000 people and costs $100K to treat if not caught. That preventative care isn't cost effective. You spend $500K to test 5000 people, in the hope of saving $100K. That's not a fun pill to swallow if you're the 1 person who gets the condition, but as far as costs for the overall system, it's not efficient.
Birth control is like this too, because of my first point in the long thread--we already had a pretty efficient system. By and large, people were getting their birth control needs met. I can't find data to support the idea that significant numbers of women were getting pregnant for no other reason than they were unable to find effective and affordable birth control. So we'll spend a bunch of money making insurance companies cover this, and end up with the same people on birth control, just now they pay a higher insurance premium instead of a copay for it. What have we accomplished?
I am thanking baby Jesus right now for our 100%employer paid insurance for family, and the fact that DH and I both have it, so we're double covered causing to not have paid a dime for healthcare in over 5 years.
Not trying to be an ass, but isn't the desired outcome that people consume MORE preventative care? So that down the road, they aren't utilizing more expensive options like the ER for something that could have been detected in an annual physical, or have an illness already progressed to expanded stages and need costly, extended care?
It is not correct that more preventative care will always lead to top line cost savings. Something like one annual checkup with a PCP probably does--but that's why most insurance covers that with a low copay--it's to their advantage to do so.
But imagine a hypothetical $100 test, that catches a condition that happens to one in 5000 people and costs $100K to treat if not caught. That preventative care isn't cost effective. You spend $500K to test 5000 people, in the hope of saving $100K. That's not a fun pill to swallow if you're the 1 person who gets the condition, but as far as costs for the overall system, it's not efficient.
I think this is where fundamental differences in opinions on health care and insurance come into play. I'm not testing 5000 in the hope of just saving $100k. I'm testing 5,000 people in the hope of saving 1 life or 1 prolonged illness.
It is not correct that more preventative care will always lead to top line cost savings. Something like one annual checkup with a PCP probably does--but that's why most insurance covers that with a low copay--it's to their advantage to do so.
But imagine a hypothetical $100 test, that catches a condition that happens to one in 5000 people and costs $100K to treat if not caught. That preventative care isn't cost effective. You spend $500K to test 5000 people, in the hope of saving $100K. That's not a fun pill to swallow if you're the 1 person who gets the condition, but as far as costs for the overall system, it's not efficient.
I think this is where fundamental differences in opinions on health care and insurance come into play. I'm not testing 5000 in the hope of just saving $100k. I'm testing 5,000 people in the hope of saving 1 life or 1 prolonged illness.
And this is where you get into the generally unpleasant conversation about the fact that we as a nation simply can't afford to do this, at least not in the long run.
I think this is where fundamental differences in opinions on health care and insurance come into play. I'm not testing 5000 in the hope of just saving $100k. I'm testing 5,000 people in the hope of saving 1 life or 1 prolonged illness.
And this is where you get into the generally unpleasant conversation about the fact that we as a nation simply can't afford to do this, at least not in the long run.
Plus our system is not set up to care about actual lives, only profits.
I think this is where fundamental differences in opinions on health care and insurance come into play. I'm not testing 5000 in the hope of just saving $100k. I'm testing 5,000 people in the hope of saving 1 life or 1 prolonged illness.
And this is where you get into the generally unpleasant conversation about the fact that we as a nation simply can't afford to do this, at least not in the long run.
Even if you only look at the financial aspects, the cost of a death or prolonged illness is more than just the health care costs... lost wages, lost productivity... even impact on children's education and therefore economic life.
...and all that is only considering the financial toll, not the human one.
I think this is where fundamental differences in opinions on health care and insurance come into play. I'm not testing 5000 in the hope of just saving $100k. I'm testing 5,000 people in the hope of saving 1 life or 1 prolonged illness.
And this is where you get into the generally unpleasant conversation about the fact that we as a nation simply can't afford to do this, at least not in the long run.
I don't know what the answer is. Other countries do this though. How do they afford it?
And this is where you get into the generally unpleasant conversation about the fact that we as a nation simply can't afford to do this, at least not in the long run.
I don't know what the answer is. Other countries do this though. How do they afford it?
Death panels.
ETA - I know that sounds tongue in cheek, but seriously, that's how they do it. Cutting off treatments for certain conditions above a certain age, or if your prognosis isn't good enough long term, or requiring that a condition be severe before allowing treatment, etc.
And this is where you get into the generally unpleasant conversation about the fact that we as a nation simply can't afford to do this, at least not in the long run.
I don't know what the answer is. Other countries do this though. How do they afford it?
They don't afford it. Google NHS and some of the other national programs. Europe is in deep shit right now due to entitlement spending, healthcare being a very large part of it. They are trying to figure out a financial solution in terms of more cost containment, so they are ahead of us in that area.