OK, we all know most politicians are dicks...this is not about that.
I run in the early morning hours (I leave the house around 3:45am) when it's quiet...it's when I do my best thinking. This morning as I ran I had a troubling thought.
Lately, I've written several blogs about articles suggesting we're doing too much testing and providing too much treatment for prostate cancer and, yesterday, breast cancer. The argument is we are treating cancers that may not be fatal and risking side effects from what may be unnecessary treatments.
Thinking about what was driving all this discussion while running, I came to the conclusion we are being prepared for the new reality in healthcare insurance (read that...”set up for Obamacare”).
Testing and treatment are expensive, particularly the treatment which, of course, isn't required if one is not tested. Some diagnosed patients may die before treatment can begin, others, undiagnosed, may die of something else not involving expensive treatment (accident, heart attack, etc), still others may present such an aggressive cancer that palliative care is all that can be offered. But at least we won't have all these surgeries, radiation or chemo therapies adding to the huge cost of government healthcare.
What better way to reduce what is arguably going to be a budget busting program than eliminating treatment for all but those cases that progress to the point of presenting obvious symptoms? And, perhaps, beginning treatment at an advanced age (which I've noticed isn't so advanced as I age) will be discouraged. How long should we carry those old folks anyway...after all, that's when healthcare is really expensive and they've already had a full life.
Targeting such prevalent cancers as breast and prostate for reduced diagnosis and, thereby, treatment is an effective way to reduce the costs by assuring everyone they probably don't need regular testing and early treatment anyway. Helps thin the herd as well. But isn't that the premise of the entire insurance industry? It's unlikely for everyone, but devastating for the unlucky few. Of course, I'm sure the doctor who wrote the article suggesting regular PSA screening and mammograms are not required carries malpractice insurance in the unlikely event she makes a mistake.
Am I paranoid...nope, I'm a thinker, a thinker without a prostate and glad of it. Watch 'em folks, hip replacements and heart disease could be next.
Well, I've depressed myself on a Friday, and that ain't easy! Think I'll go for another run and try to think of something fun!
Indeed. I think you're describing the new health care reality very well indeed. Unfortunatley. Our doctors will no longer be in control of our health care decisions, or even their own businesses in which they've invested a huge amount of time, effort and money! As someone said, "Is that all there is?"
ReplyDelete