Comment

Comment by curiouscats

Certainly it seems likely treating it for those instances where a heart attack would result is cheaper.

But there is no evidence presented that say for every 1,000 of these test we correctly find 1 that wouldn't have been found (and we have zero false positives) or whatever. So then 1,000 * 100 = $100,000 and saves $50,000. Even in this case there are benefits beyond the expenditures (if you save someone from the $50,000 you probably give higher quality of life...).

Basically my issue is not with the idea that more testing and preventative action would improve our current system. I believe that.

But in order to make that argument in a specific case you need more complete data. Things get complicated so I understand why people don't want to do that for a simple story. But the problem is when you leave off all sorts of costs, issues (false positives, treatment options), etc. the statements you make are not very compelling to those that know a test that tells you something bad is more likely for this person is not nearly sufficient to claim why this test is good.

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts.

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton