- 2,908
Even without regard to the longevity issue there is no evidence that preventive medicine saves money in the aggregate. I dont say that to speak against it because it is a good thing for individuals who have access to it. But if public policy is planned around the idea that there are tremendous savings to be had, the data is not there.
First of all, preventive medicine has a tremendous cost by itself so unless you really find savings to offset then it is costly. In theory you intercept all these illnesses that would be more costly down the road. In practice, some of the preventive screenings are not really all that effective which is why recommendations for mammagrams and psa's etc bounce around all the time. In addition getting everyone on preventive care uncovers lots of illnesses to be treated. Again, I am not saying it is not a good thing. Just that I would not plan any savings around it and you would be lucky that it does not drive costs much, much higher.
If you google, around on the question "does preventive medicine reduce costs" or "save money" etc. you will see quite a few studies to this effect.
First of all, preventive medicine has a tremendous cost by itself so unless you really find savings to offset then it is costly. In theory you intercept all these illnesses that would be more costly down the road. In practice, some of the preventive screenings are not really all that effective which is why recommendations for mammagrams and psa's etc bounce around all the time. In addition getting everyone on preventive care uncovers lots of illnesses to be treated. Again, I am not saying it is not a good thing. Just that I would not plan any savings around it and you would be lucky that it does not drive costs much, much higher.
If you google, around on the question "does preventive medicine reduce costs" or "save money" etc. you will see quite a few studies to this effect.
Last edited: