« More doctors refusing treatment...still money-driven at its heart | Main | You may not have noticed... »


Thanks Elisa.

I'd only add that my original post had stated.

"I fail to see how an economic debate can serve any useful purpose if it does not consider what individuals or societies get for their expenditure. Think back over the last many years, and all the arguments you have heard and/or participated in, all the columns and studies and analyses and debates. Has anyone ever said, “well, we need to spend $X because it will increase the population's productivity/functionality/quality by Y%, and that is a better return on investment than my opponent’s recommendation."

I've also written extensively on this in "Business Insurance" and other publications, and am working on a promising potential study involving a large group model HMO and a few of their larger clients.

If we can link health care expenditures and processes to the functionality of the patient and impact on productivity, then we can better discuss what works and what doesn't and what it should cost. Yes, that's pretty capitalistic, but employers are the main payers for most citizens and this will resonate with them.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)