Two Pounds of Prevention

Who is John Galt? ^ | 8/31/09 | "John Galt"

[cpurick]

One argument in favor of universal healthcare is that by guaranteeing basic health services, more costly emergent care can be averted. This theory holds, for example, that it would be cheaper to give everyone colonoscopies, removing their precancerous polyps, than it would be to provide costly surgery or end-of-life care for everyone whose polyps went on to become a cancer.

The problem with this argument is that it overestimates your odds of getting colon cancer. Yes, it is cheaper to get a screening than to treat cancer, but the odds were already in your favor against getting any specific cancer -- the screening is just a way to be sure.

Giving everyone a colonoscopy is more expensive than just treating the few who would actually get the disease. After all, you don't get colonoscopies because they're cheaper than cancer -- you get colonoscopies because it's a price well worth paying to catch cancer early. Big difference.

In fact, there's evidence that screening actually opens up the floodgates to a bunch of costly treatment for conditions that would never have manifested with actual symptoms.