Reading the title, I equated preventative medicine with public health work, but reading the article it seems that this isn't what they meant.
I'm not particularly surprised that the kind of treatments and screenings that they're talking about here are not cost-effective, they mostly seem to describe giving extra drugs to healthy middle class people for no particular reason.
The article says that it won't save billions, but will only save 0.2%... but 0.2% of the 2.7 trillion they mention is still almost 5 billion. Obviously a biased article.
In addition to what has been pointed out about money -
Shooting poor people like horses and dumping their bodies in ditches when they get sick would save a great deal of money (ammunition costs pennies), but it doesn't mean it's the right way.
3 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 17.7 ms ] threadI'm not particularly surprised that the kind of treatments and screenings that they're talking about here are not cost-effective, they mostly seem to describe giving extra drugs to healthy middle class people for no particular reason.
Shooting poor people like horses and dumping their bodies in ditches when they get sick would save a great deal of money (ammunition costs pennies), but it doesn't mean it's the right way.