It's ridiculously expensive to treat someone in the ER for an infection rather than them having regular doctor visits.
No, it's billed at ridiculously high rates. That's not the same thing.
ER docs are not paid that much more than primary care docs. The cost of treating an infection in the ER is 1 hour of a doctor's time + drugs. The cost of a regular doctor visit is also 1 hour of the doctor's time + drugs. The hospital might bill at some ridiculous rate, but that doesn't mean it costs a lot.
Breast exams are actually well known not to be cost effective (or even beneficial) for women under 50 (though oddly, congress demands they be provided).
The idea that early action is always better is silly.
You are probably right about the direct labour costs of treating an infection in ER. However, to use the language of computing, the difference between a GP and ER comes down to latency. An ER should be able to react fast, clogging it up with ailments that could be resolved at a leisurely pace earlier, doesn't strike me as a good idea.
An ER should be able to react fast, clogging it up with ailments that could be resolved at a leisurely pace earlier, doesn't strike me as a good idea.
Fortunately this is a solved problem - the solution is called "triage". No matter how many coughing people are ahead of you in the queue, spurting blood gets immediate treatment.
When you go into an ER for an infection you know it's going to be expensive so you wait until the infection has advanced pretty far. Now it's far from 1 hour and may require many days of 24 hour monitoring. While the hospital might be expensive what are you paying for? 24 hour availability, rapid response, and knowledgable staff. Something that most GPs don't provide.
Breast exams are actually well known not to be cost effective
Please provide a citation.
The idea that early action is always better is silly.
So dying from easily treatable diseases (when they are caught) is so much better.
Your link doesn't say that the screenings aren't cost-effective. It says that if you are in a certain age group these are the recommended amount you should do <40: 2-3 years, 40-49: 2 years, 50-74:1 1 year, 75+: none.
Annual screenings were too aggressive, not ineffective.
"In conclusion, the USPSTF reasoned that the additional benefit gained by starting screening at age 40 years rather than at age 50 years is small, and that moderate harms from screening remain at any age...The USPSTF notes that a "C" grade is a recommendation against routine screening of women aged 40 to 49 years."
Note that this recommendation is solely on medical grounds - that is, the medical cost/benefit ratio suggests routine screenings for women < 49 is pointless. They don't even take into account the financial cost.
No, it's billed at ridiculously high rates. That's not the same thing.
ER docs are not paid that much more than primary care docs. The cost of treating an infection in the ER is 1 hour of a doctor's time + drugs. The cost of a regular doctor visit is also 1 hour of the doctor's time + drugs. The hospital might bill at some ridiculous rate, but that doesn't mean it costs a lot.
Breast exams are actually well known not to be cost effective (or even beneficial) for women under 50 (though oddly, congress demands they be provided).
The idea that early action is always better is silly.