We're willing to spend god knows what shooting rounds that cost entire mortgages to save miltary lives and project a presence of power to deter acts of terror/war, but then are also totally fine having people way as much as 4 or 5 people, eating several days worth of sugar for breakfast, smoking tobacco, putting 3 cups of coffee in a can we drink 4 or five of in a day, do next to nothing to adress recidivism of all classes of criminal, drag our feet kicking and screaming in to a semblance of modernity in worker protections...
And yes, regarding smoking, the US has had one of the most effective preventive actions in the world. Compare actual numbers of smokers in the US vs, say, Spain, France or Turkey. So it's not anywhere near as clear cut as what you are trying to make it sound.
They make money on the procedure, not the office hours. And they write the standards of care.
That being said, my father delayed a screening, developed colon cancer, and now no longer has a colon. Would cheaper / higher compliance tests have caught it sooner? Hard to say.
I'm not sure if I understand what you're saying. Kaiser Permanente sends me a take-at-home colonoscopy test every year, and some light googling suggests the cost is $20-$89. I've never done an in-person colonoscopy, but the home version must be cheaper, right?
https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/colon-rectal-cancer/dete...
> The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires both private insurers and Medicare to cover the costs of all colorectal cancer screening tests that are recommended by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The law stipulates that there should be no out-of-pocket costs for patients, such as co-pays or deductibles, for these screening tests.
USA generally has higher CRC rates than other developed nations:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2796096/
the screenings may make sense, here
There actually has been a really big push against this in the US. I was shocked by the amount of smoking I saw on a recent trip through Northern Europe, whereas smoking in public is pretty rare to see in the US these days.
Now we just vape our nicotine directly, or smoke weed, depending on the state.
Cigars are still cool though, but those have always been the higher status tobacco due to the cost per stick. Also most people don't go through public spaces smoking a cigar, so it doesn't have the annoyance factor of vapes. Hookah still has a fun vibe too, probably because of the social factor.
Compare that to most places internationally, and the contrast is stark. The US has less than half the cigarette consumption per capita than the EU, with only the U.K., Norway, and Sweden having lower rates. China has a similar rate to the EU.
Just to drive that point home a little harder, the state with the highest number of smokers is West Virginia, sitting at 21% (the national average is 9.6%). That would be middle of the pack in Europe, similar to Italy.
Which reminds me: Also, the smoking area of every airport I’ve been to in the last 2 years has been thick with smokers.
I know it’s better than the 80s. I was there. But I don’t think it’s rare in the US at all.
In the 90s and earlier it was hard to be in a city and not be breathing cigarette smoke pretty much constantly. Offices had ashtrays in the elevator waiting areas for people who couldn't wait to get to their office, restaurants had half the seating reserved for smokers, there were ashtrays in the armrest of every single seat on an airplane.
Its kind of crazy how much norms have changed around smoking in public. It's not "rare" to see a smoker, its that it is much rarer than it was in the past.
NYC vs Hamburg, Amsterdam, or Brussels are night-and-day differences on this point.
I'm not sure Vegas is representative of much of anything, but last time I was there what I smelled was weed, not tobacco.
I only bring this up because I keeping seeing people say it's "rare" in the US, but is something rare if you run into multiple times every single day?
I guess we can keep arguing about the definition of rare, but about half the smoking rate of many European countries is pretty significant, and immediately noticeable walking around cities in both places. It's also a significant reduction in the US since the 90s, when every restaurant and workplace, and decent number of homes, smelled like cigarettes.
This may be partially due to the many all-or-nothing crusaders who would prefer to use force in their quest for full protection of the citizen. Many people overcorrect because they fear that even voluntary programs are steps in this direction. Trust is low.
We have a long and sordid history with extreme and failed prevention (prohibition, the Mann Act, war on drugs).
This is 101. If you don't like it that's fine, but not understanding it can be resolved with a simple google search.
The policies just follow that. This comes up in all sorts of areas such as prison as punishment vs rehabilitation.
Even with rehab versus punishment - it's the same story. The view isn't that punishment is inherently superior, but simply that rehabilitation is more of an ideal than a reality, and that typical appeals to places like Norway - a relatively homogenous and extremely wealthy microstate - don't necessarily translate well to large diverse societies, especially ones where there are substantial chunks of society that adopt cultures that glorify criminality.
There is, of course, more than one reason people hold the views they do, but I do believe things like rugged individualism & the Protestant work ethic definitely played a major role in why the majority of Americans hold the desires and fears about government they do - particularly in the aspect of these examples. Without those influences, I think what America has tried vs what it has feared would be a very different list today (which is not to say whether it'd've been more successful or not).
"Microstate" is a term generally reserved for tiny geographical locations that can't even support their own defense.
America is the wealthiest nation on Earth, but its people are mainly poor, and poor Americans are urged to hate themselves. To quote the American humorist Kin Hubbard, 'It ain’t no disgrace to be poor, but it might as well be.' It is in fact a crime for an American to be poor, even though America is a nation of poor. Every other nation has folk traditions of men who were poor but extremely wise and virtuous, and therefore more estimable than anyone with power and gold. No such tales are told by the American poor. They mock themselves and glorify their betters. The meanest eating or drinking establishment, owned by a man who is himself poor, is very likely to have a sign on its wall asking this cruel question: 'if you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?' There will also be an American flag no larger than a child’s hand – glued to a lollipop stick and flying from the cash register.
Americans, like human beings everywhere, believe many things that are obviously untrue. Their most destructive untruth is that it is very easy for any American to make money. They will not acknowledge how in fact hard money is to come by, and, therefore, those who have no money blame and blame and blame themselves. This inward blame has been a treasure for the rich and powerful, who have had to do less for their poor, publicly and privately, than any other ruling class since, say Napoleonic times. Many novelties have come from America. The most startling of these, a thing without precedent, is a mass of undignified poor. They do not love one another because they do not love themselves.Claiming the poor have more virtue, but only in their class status, is one way to do it.
Consider how many caste systems claim the farmer is the highest status, the wisest, the most virtuously hard working … but well still needs a good noble king to lead them.
People facing racial discrimination can and have overcome it, throughout our history.
People hold out willing non-white immigrants succeeding as proof there is no significant racial discrimination. But this ignores a large selection bias. People who voluntarily immigrate almost always have a great deal of drive and often some resources. Most of them would have been more successful then average if they had stayed in their home country.
And yes, don't underestimate how such maneuvers are very indirect means of white flight. African Americans could only (legally) own a home in much of the US for 50 years. At the very best, that is 2 generations of wealth to accrue, which puts that demographic a good century behind what potentially could have been economically.
They literally wanted to kill northerners for daring to make them equal to black people.
Still do.
Fixed that for you
It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation. At least when someone looks at someone who "looks like them" but is poorer, they see "potential" (there's a name for this effect, but I forget). But the end goal is getting theirs first and foremost.
At lower levels you have the “labor aristocracy” effect, which gives the more well-off workers a material stake in racism. And this division is useful to prevent organization.
> the end goal is getting theirs first and foremost
Seconded
> And easily achieved through energy drinks?
Yeah, once you start pushing 1000mg of caffeine, you are getting into areas where if you have heart problems, you could be putting yourself in danger.
> Most energy drinks
But not all. So why strongly doubt it?
There are plenty of energy drinks which are fairly popular with huge amounts of caffeine and there's little labeling requirements to let people know that. Bang energy drink is a good example of that. 300mg per can, meaning 3 cans is putting you in dangerous territories.
If you're just looking at caffeine intake you'd be better off switching from coffee to energy drinks. You could drink about 3 per day and be close to the 400mg/day guidance.
edit: white monster has no sugar in case anyone was about to bring that up
Java Monster Triple Shot Mocha comes in a can, and has 300mg of caffeine per can[1][2].
This seems to suggest that getting the equivalent of 3 cups of coffee in one can is, in fact, a thing that people can accomplish.
[0]: https://www.aboutcoffee.org/beans/decaf-coffee/ https://ific.org/resources/toolkits/caffeine/ https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h...
[1]: https://www.monsterenergy.com/en-ca/energy-drinks/java-monst...
[2]: And they're delicious
This is less true now than it used to be. I'm somewhat sensitive to caffeine and always look on the can to see how much is in it, and 150 is on the low side of most of the options available now-. 200 to 300 seems to be a lot more common among the brands that are newer than when monster and Rockstar first came out.
Forget the numbers you’re being given - what does caffeine crop that goes into a Coke or Pepsi product look like, compared to green tea caffeine?
What does the sugar look like, as a supply chain, vs sugars ingested from fruit?
Hint: it’s disgusting.
I don't think that much caffeine is good for you, especially 4-5 times a day. But with everything else we gulp down it probably isn't priority #1.
Tangential, but I suppose this is a good time to highlight how caffeine undisclosed can in fact kill some people:
Thanks for the link. Will have to read it later.
When the underlying economic model of CONSUMPTION = GOOD is viewed as a religion or universal law of nature, it's actually not surprising that people are irrational about this.
If something disproportionately affects black people negatively, it has a significant amount of support from certain voters. The whole origin of the anti-abortion movement in the 19th century was double-pronged to displace midwives (who were often minorities) and that too many white women were getting abortions, which was labelled "race suicide" [1].
Need more? Infant mortality skews heavily by a state being red or blue and by the racial makeup [2]. Iowa is a red dot in a sea of blue because it's particularly white. Compare the US to other developed nations [3].
So this particular issue is with heart disease. And guess what? Black people are disproportionately affected and have worse outcomes [4]. Shocking.
Many people have a shallow view that racism is using slurs. It is not. Racism is systemic. And it's not as direct and nefarious as people in a smoke-filled room getting together to try and create worse heart disease outcomes for black people. It's a series of steps taken such that this problem isn't solved. It's just not prioritized.
You see the same thing with medical misogyny and medical racism. Symptoms are downplayed and ignored. This has been thoroughly tested where doctors have been given a file genders changed and there are statistically different outcomes.
[1]: https://sociology.northwestern.edu/documents/faculty-docs/fa...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
[3]: https://www.americashealthrankings.org/publications/reports/...
uh? That's literally what causes terror and wars lmao
Every accusation is a confession, as they say. How can you say this with a straight face given the current situation in Iran lol? They keep pulling the same shit and NPCs keep licking the boots, it's insane...
Coronary calcium scans quantify calcified atherosclerotic plaque but cannot reliably distinguish stable plaques from rupture-prone plaques or detect noncalcified plaques, some of which may be particularly vulnerable.
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/JAHA.118.008564
https://www.jacc.org/doi/10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.03.005
https://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(1...
In the messy real world of medicine there are hardly any definitive screening tests or imaging studies. Everything will have some false positives and false negatives, or even if the output is physiologically accurate it may not be practically useful in improving patient outcomes. For screening tests we also have to weigh the costs versus benefits in terms of the number of procedures performed or dollars spent to save a life; if the numbers are too high then those scarce resources should be expended on other healthcare services.
For broad screening coverage by most health plans the key next step is an evaluation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. This process is already underway but it takes a while for them to evaluate all the evidence and make a decision. For Medicare coverage there is a separate coverage determination process.
In May, they told me on ultrasound that my dilated aortic root has grown by more than 2 mm in the last year and that if the progression does not stop, an operation will sooner or later be necessary.
I got a referral to magnetic resonance and had to wait for it until October. Was there last week, nervous. Today I got the result: compared to the MR from 2021, there is no progression at all. The same 44 mm as then. The ultrasound was just not as precisely done, or the doctor measured it slightly askew or what.
Ooof.
- ApoB - about 20% of people with normal cholesterol results will have abnormal ApoB, and be at risk of heart disease.
- Lp(a) - the strongest hereditary risk factor for heart disease.
- hs-CRP - inflammation roughly doubles your risk of heart disease
- HbA1c - insulin resistance is a risk factor for just about everything.
- eGFR - estimates the volume of liquid your kidneys can filter, and is an input to the latest heart disease risk models (PREVENT).
These are simple blood tests. You can get them for <$200 through my company or others:
https://empirical.health/product/comprehensive-health-panel
Imaging is great for detecting calcified plaque in your coronary arteries. But before you have calcified plaque, the above risk factors tell you about the buildup of soft plaque. And 4 out of 5 of them are modifiable through lifestyle, exercise, and medication.
- If you made a dietary change (e.g., more fiber and less saturated fat), the tests tell you whether it actually worked.
- Statins are dosed based on the LDL or ApoB reduction you need. The most powerful statins cut cholesterol by 50%, but at higher doses the risk of side effects does go up.
- Other medications like PCSK9 inhibitors and ezetimibe exist, and whether to use them depends on the other numbers. For example, PCSK9 inhibitors have a secondary benefit of lowering Lipoprotein(a), and statins and GLP-1s have a secondary benefit of lowering inflammation.
- If blood pressure, HbA1c, etc is high, then there's a slightly different set of diet advice and a very different set of medications. For example, lowering blood pressure through diet is mostly about reducing sodium and increasing potassium.
ApoA is completely out of your control and will not change with behavioral modification.
So, no, you're incorrect that these tests are superfluous and all you need to say is "diet and exercise". Besides, even if that was always the answer to these results, you should still have a baseline to see if behavioral modification is doing anything.
Do you think everyone with poor blood test indicators is aware of how unhealthy they are? How quickly they need to reverse course? Or do think there might be some possible validity to discussing your results with an actual doctor and understanding how acute your symptoms actually are? Do you think there are no side effects to statins and everyone should just be on one at all times, forever? Do you think there might be some value, for those patients, in discussing GLP-1s? Or nah, everyone can just like, go run 10 miles tomorrow because some 20 year old in SV said so?
I'm always deeply confused by people who think all medicine is "just repeat whatever ChatGPT said as if it's profound, like, duh - I'm smart and invincible and can't quite figure out that other people aren't me", in spite of them not knowing anything about medicine in the first place.
ApoB is very responsive to diet and medication--you can lower it by about 85%.
'Preventing a heart attack' means taking life long medication to reduce the absolute risk of heart attack by about 1%, which is worth doing, but complicates the maths a little bit. The scan doesn't magically eliminate heart attack risk
I don't like the title. I can't believe it is really $100. Even if the scan is $100 that doesn't fix things itself. There is the cost of whatever the treatment is etc. There are likely added expense from false positives (or similar idea), where it flags someone as needing more testing, new interventions when in fact they didn't...
I wish the article was more detailed on those costs (or at least not claim the cost is $100 when it is much more in reality, unless I am wrong about that and the fixes are free somehow). It feels like a biased promotion of this thing we like and/or have a financial interest in so lets make exaggerated claims that hopefully people won't notice.
The incentives align well -- people get healthcare for free and and healthcare service provider gets a nice, fat government check.
That's why we don't do preventive care -- our current sick care model is much more profitable.
https://www.healthcare.gov/preventive-care-adults/
https://www.medicare.gov/coverage/preventive-screening-servi...
Otherwise we would tax added sugar out to wazoo and use it to pay gym memberships.
Whether or not people actually follow through is another story. There weren't any cigarette smokers who didn't know how bad it was for them...
They'll use flawed research to claim diet and exercise don't work for obesity, then the general public uses that research and claims, "Diet doesn't work for fat people."
Soon, everyone is convinced every guy with a trivial amount of weight to lose needs to be on GLP-1s.
Who is "they"? Who is saying this?
To me this is just subconscious denial/defending of their food addiction.
Knowing that you should do something, doesn't necessarily mean can do it. There's still the question of exactly how.
E.g., diet is heavily influenced by hormones/hormonal cycles and access to quality food choices, which vary significantly between people. The glp1s available now are a big help with the hormonal part of this, but they are not within reach of a large proportion of people.
> To me this is just subconscious denial/defending of their food addiction.
If you have to make up unobservable phenomena to explain plainly visible facts, it's usually a sign to look for a different overall model.
Quitting isn't easy, but fooling yourself to avoid it is on you.
You have to actually kick your ass when you exercise. Most people don’t push that hard. Michael phelps ate what 6k calories a day or something crazy to maintain his prime form with the amount of caloric burn he was doing in training. If he continued to eat like he did in those crazy olypmpian training years, he’d be morbidly obese. If he ate like he does now in those years, he’d starve.
For the average person it's much harder to exercise out of a bad diet than just change the diet. I think it's an easier "sell" for most people to start off trying to eat less than to keep eating the same way and jump right into "kick your ass"-level exercise.
Arguably this is a limitation on how the studies were done, as nobody is going to pay for extensive studies since you can't patent exercise.
This truism, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure", is so true...that like so many truism, it has become a minor, persistent annoyance of thought. It can be safely filed away with the Austrian school of economics.
Home insurance can benefit from this too. I just got a quote on a property i looked at with a $20k/yr premium, partly because of being in CA with a slope and age of the property.
At $20k/yr, there should be some economic way of an insurance company essentially saying "instead of $20k a year in premiums, here is a $300,000 30 year loan to do preventive measures on the property, and if you do them, your policy will drop to a more normal $3k/yr" or something along those lines.
That isn't to say this might not be the best solution for many people but I still wonder.
It isn’t just playing our systems, but hacking them and giving them inputs they would never usually see for far stronger effects than would be possible.
Safety regulations are written in blood. They exist because people died because the industries could not and cannot be trusted to regulate themselves.
The most generous interpretation is that people conflate regulation with rent-seeking. These are two entirely different things.
This sort of absolutist rhetoric is why people waste so much time arguing against maximal regulation and zero regulation in the abstract, neither of which is actually popular or sane.
Many regulations are good, necessary, and effective. Many of them are short sighted, over-specified, or written by lobbyists against citizens' interests (shouting that rent-seeking and safety regs are mutually exclusive doesn't make it so).
Our healthcare system has co-evolved with insurance in a sort of partial free-market, partial heavily regulated environment. Arguably we get the worse parts of both: Kafka-esque beaurocratic mazes and shareholder value optimization for private firms.
There's a paradigm shift needed in how health insurance works: optimize for total cost of care.
Can the invisible hand do this when providers are offering mainly treatments with token preventative care visits thrown in?
You're criticizing health insurance but payers are far more incentive-aligned with patients on lowering total cost of care than the providers. They carry the risk and have to pay out claims. Providers, on the other hand, have an incentive to provide lots of expensive reactive care that's bound to expensive labor.
I agree with the sentiment of your "only for emergencies" point and wish direct care was more affordable. The problem is providers charge insanely high rates for services because a) they can get payers to cover it, and b) they're covering the cost of labor that's getting increasingly expensive with no commensurate increase in productivity [0].
For prices to come down substantially in the US, we'd need a much greater supply of doctors or more automated care. The former is against the financial interests of current doctors and the latter is an uphill battle against FDA regs, state medical boards, and billing codes from CMS to make it reimbursable.
Value-based care, e.g. Medicare Advantage.
The idea is that the government gives you $X for the care of a patient, with multipliers on risk factors. The government's goal is for that to be basically exactly what care costs. The provider is incentivized to treat you for less. Which sounds perverse, but if they, for instance, deny all care, a patient will end up in the hospital and cost exponentially more than they would have through proper preventive care. It is not perfect, and it should be broader, but it is a strong optimizer for providing the right care to keep a patient healthy, without providing hundreds of unnecessary tests (and especially imaging) that are medically unnecessary.
It is absolutely a system that should be rolling out to more and more patients.
Health care is actually sick care.
I obviously have a genetic condition because it runs through my mothers side of my family, but they refuse to look at my genetics. So, did. I found things. I begged a researcher to test me for a special sort of immune deficiency (ADA Deficiency) . The tests shows I have a partial immune deficiency. I showed it to my doctor and nothing.
When my condition flares up (Too mush ATP and GTP) it effects my brain and nervous sytem and I have to be institutionalized. Five times now. I keep telling them my mood problem is caused by an immune deficiency but now one cares.
Sorry, end of rant.
(aka Proactive Vs. Reactive)
((aka Present Responsibility Vs. Future Response))
"An ounce of Prevention is worth a pound of Cure" (as the old expression goes...)
Observation: Most health insurance policies today, whether they are government or private corporation, national or regional, are based on the idea of paying for medical/health problems AFTER the onset of the health problem...
Prevention, preventative health, preventative medicine, and preventative programs -- would not only do a lot to preempt future health problems, but it would also save a ton of money (a ton of taxpayer money if the health insurance is a government sponsored one), as the above article so eloquently makes clear!
Observation: Some insurance policies do include some preventative health aspects -- but as medicine is complex and there are always new discoveries, there is always another step up, another higher level in what could be delivered...
In other words, these could always be improved...
"An ounce of Prevention is worth a pound of Cure" (as the article implicitly suggests...)
Anyway, great article!
Recently there was an old lady in the family that had an appendicitis, an ambulance rejected her, and the next day it got worse, and at that point she was accepted, but it was a bit too late.
One hypothesis is that triaging is hard and there's a lot of demand so things only go in when it's bad enough (considering there was medical insurance, they aren't charging per patient, so there's no incentive to take on more patients). But if that were the case, then preventive measures would actually reduce the total burden on their system.
The more cynical hypothesis that I'm holidng is that that health system is maximizing for work, if there's 10 appendicitis per month, and they are all handled in time, that's maybe like 5 hours of billable hours per patient? But if the appendicitis becomes bad enough and there's a puncture, then you have infections, complications, the patients have to stay for weeks and often come back for checkups, we are looking at maybe 100 billable hours? So the financial incentive is there.
In that sense what I want to add is that the title would be completely wrong, the solution is not for the hospital to pay 100$ for prevention, but for prevention to be more accurately priced, we should be paying 50k, and maybe even 100k for prevention, because we value it more than emergency action.
In a broader economic sense, there's a lot of cases where there's a huge difference between the cost and the value, Shkreli got a lot of heat for surging up medicine prices, but I don't think it's immediately obvious that something should be valued in proportion to what it costs. Maybe if we price heart prevention at 100K, there would be more incentive for everyone involved to just get a fucking pill to those in need, imagine how many people would jump at that opportunity to make it happen, call centers, bureocrats, NOC support, legal teams, all dedicated to making sure a pill gets to the patient before a heart attack does.
There are some pockets of “per capita” payment, where the provider gets a fixed amount per person and is thus encouraged to reduce treatment costs, which indirectly should encourage preventative care, but also encourages just refusing to treat people.
We could remove these weird constraints by making health care a government service rather than a highly contorted pseudo-market, but that would not be the American way. It has to at least look like a market, even if it’s an ineffective, inefficient, opaque, corrupt one.
> "per capita"
I don't quite get the difference, patients pay a fixed amount for insurance, hospitals charge "fee for service" to the insurance. Both systems coexist, it's not one or the other.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting changing the whole system, I think that's infantile sorry to be blunt, I'm proposing a more down to earth (and commercially appealing approach) of increasing the price (and thus financial incentives) of medical goods that have low cost but high health values.
My economic theory clearly isn't as strong, because how much should a CT scan and a pill be priced at relative to a heart attack response with a 1 week hospitalization and a bunch of work. Because the cost of a CT scan and a pill is low (100$), the value of it is high (50K$ lower bound), and the cost of treating a heart attack is clearly around 50K$, but the value of it is clearly lower than the preventive treatment (perhaps stochastically adjusted).
So should we be pricing by cost or pricing by value? The naïve approach is pricing by cost, so that everything is cheap, the first issue with this approach is that it disincentivizes research, which is why legal systems widely recognize patents, copyright and intellectual property.
I looked into Shkreli's case a bit deeper, and he was a stupid kid of course, but it's what comes to mind when thinking of 'raising prices' of medicine, there's not many faces to that idea.
That said, I'm not saying that prices SHOULD be hiked, just that I'm not convinced that medicine pricing should be cost based, or that it should be value based, or that some supply-and-demand principle would magically find a value in the middle. I'm just saying that it can be either way, and I just don't know which way it ought to be.
And ultimately, it's a decision that every actor in the industry can make, what they price their products and time at. And to reiterate my thesis, pricing your product as cheaply as possible might counterintuitively reduce it's impact, since there is no incentive for intermediaries (or even yourself) to work on it. So I'm not saying that prices should be maximalized either, just that the relationship between price and value contributed to society is not linear, if you price your medicine at 0, you go bankrupt, that's not helpful obviously, and evidently pricing a CT scan and a heart attack pill at 100$ is not cutting it either, hike that up.
It is still a market (and a single-payer one, ultimately) in these places, but it is not a government service. It is the best solution: the government funds the appropriate cost of care, the provider group is financially responsible for meeting it, and they are incentivized directly to get it right.
The left needs to stop shrieking about Medicare-for-all and the right needs to stop pretending like it can even spell healthcare. There are good solutions.
> but also encourages just refusing to treat people.
It categorically does not. It would be foolish to do so.
Foolish hardly implies categorically false. It's a well-documented incentive for other risk-bearing entities (see insurance claim denials). Why are providers under capitated contracts categorically immune to refusing treatment to protect margins?
Seems obviously right in terms of total cost to the median patient (less obvious for individuals in higher tax brackets), so I'm not disputing that. More curious about incentives to improve care delivery for better long-term outcomes.