> SImply put, the weakest area of the American health system is > preventative care. Poorer people with chronic conditions can end up > with repeated emergency hospital treatment for conditions which are > manageable with drugs which, while not cheap, are far cheaper than > repeated hospital admitance.
OK, let's try to do an experimental test on this. Drug coverage was just added to Medicare. To the extent that your hypothesis is true, we would see a drop in hospital costs that correspond to the increase in prescription payments. I looked it up, and there is a small effect on the rise in hospital costs, but it's only a fraction of the increase in cost. This doesn't prove that the same thing will happen if we do this for other age groups, but it is data. I realize that I don't tend to calculate synergy benefits. I've seen scores of these calculations from various sources, and they are usually pipe dreams. The subset that is not tends to be characterized by tangible quantitative arguments...not general ones. Having said that, I'll agree that there will be some benefit, so maybe it's just 25% of GDP in 10 years if we do nothing but add universal health care. Since I have said I support universal health care, the obvious conclusions from the above statement is that we need a radical retooling. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
