Rationing Health Care

Lately we ' ve touched upon the absurd cost of medical services in the U.S. -- we spend twice as much as the next biggest spender and three or four times as much as others -- and we ' re less healthy for it. There are a few reasons for this, but here I ' m going to touch the third rail.In the United States, in contrast to other nations, if the FDA approves a treatment, insurance has to pay for it. The FDA does not consider cost, but only whether there is evident of clinical benefit that outweighs risks or (non-financial) harms. The definition of benefit and harm, and how to value them, is of course far from obvious, but we ' ll put that aside for now. What we absolutely are not allowed to do within the U.S. political discourse is ask whether a treatment is worth the money. To raise that question, even in principal, will get you accusations of moral depravity. The proposition that single payer health care will lead to " rationing " is enough to kill it.As a result, Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance companies pay for cancer treatments that cost more than $100,000, even $250,000, and give the typical patient a few extra months of not very healthy life. To anyone who objects, the rejoinder is that human life is " infinitely precious, " that you can ' t put a monetary price on life, that to turn out backs on people who could live because we don ' t want to cough up the money to keep the alive is monstrous. I bring this up today because the FDA has just approved a treatment ...
Source: Stayin' Alive - Category: American Health Source Type: blogs