" a high percentage of people who were very sick still got a cancer screening test that offered them virtually zero benefit, because detecting early signs of cancer isn’t beneficial for those who are going to die of something else in the next several years, whether it be old age or another illness."
So lots of expense. Lots of doctors either lying their sessa off or are oblivious. And no net benefit.
Sure glad someone within the community is finally getting it.
At what point is someone too old, too sick, or otherwise determined beyond the point of normal and customary testing for further medical problems? Who is responsible for determining those guidelines, or if such guidelines should even exist?
Common medical advice these days is to get tested early and often in order to catch a problem while it is treatable rather than wait until it is too late. Doctors are caught between a rock and a hard spot, and would rather err to the side of too much testing than too little in order to avoid a "well, why didn't you test me" lawsuit.
From you posted article "In other words, a high percentage of people who were very sick still got a cancer screening test that offered them virtually zero benefit, because detecting early signs of cancer isn’t beneficial for those who are going to die of something else in the next several years, whether it be old age or another illness"
Did you notice the term "people who were very sick" That is not your average 65yo person Mr. BS.
This whole article is not about the AVERAGE 65 year old. Yet you pat yourself on the back and say I told you so. Insurance co. tables will show you the life span of the average person who is 65 years old Mr. BS and you might be surprised to learn that a person that is 1 year old has a lower life span than does someone who has reached 65. Insurance co. do indeed figure in accidental death, and other forms of death than sickness.
You are 65 do you feel sick and dying or rather healthy? At some age the need for a colon cancer test would be foolish due to life span or the fact that you have a bad heart or a form of cancer your fighting.
Same would go for even PSA test or a breast screening for women. Each person and family history is different Mr. BS and their is a HUGE difference between a Sick 65 yo person and one who is healthy.
From the article and my post, : "a high percentage of people who were very sick still got a cancer screening test that offered them virtually zero benefit"
Here is the situation. In current medical conventional wisdom, all people are treated the same. As such, they all get testing and drugs and procedures regardless of their situation.
Major cost reductions can be enjoyed by staying away from screenings, drugs, and procedures, that offer no benefit.
This article is demonstrating how people within the system, are looking at the entire system, scratching their headds, and identifying opportunities to reduce non beneficial costs, screenings, drugs, and surgeries.
If someone is sick, and they can be helped, and the approach is cost effective, they should receive care.
If there is little or no potential benefit, maybe not so much.
One major component missing from medical conventional wisdom, is actually measuring the actual benefit of screenings, drugs, and surgical procedures.
They are getting better, but the lack of reliance on statistics is a major contributor to costs with no benefit.
If you want to know how to choose the best doctor, choose the one with the best grasp of statistics, instead of the one that best gets you to trust them.
Another stupid post by BS.
Old people get test they MAY not need.
His stupid reasoning is they are going to die anyway,
Well MR BS, everyone is going to die anyway so why have a medical profession at all?